THIRTY-NINTH NIGHT.

HC Deb 17 July 1893 vol 14 cc1714-89

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Judges and Civil Servants.

Clause 27 (As to existing Judges and other persons having salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund.)

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

I beg to move the omission from page 15, line 21, of this clause of the words "and Land Commissioners in Ireland." I doubt, Sir, whether the effect of the insertion of these words has been entirely realised. I may, perhaps, explain, with regard to the Land Commissioners, that they are the most important administrative functionaries in Ireland; that, up to the passing of the Land Purchase Act of 1891, the Land Commissioners—some of whom have been fixing fair rents for many years previous, and others were connected with purchase transactions since 1885—were paid salaries placed upon the Votes of Parliament, and held their offices under Statutory Authority for a very short term of years. But when the Land Purchase Act of 1891 came to be passed, the right hon. Gentleman, now the Leader of the Opposition, inserted in the Bill, against the wish of the Irish Party and of the Liberal Opposition, a provision which placed the salaries of these Commissioners upon the Imperial Consolidated Fund, and gave them judicial term of office, under which, as the Committee is aware, they can only be removed from office on an Address from both Houses of Parliament. That step was taken, of course, upon the assumption that the Imperial Administration of Irish affairs was to continue. But the assumption in regard to the present Bill is of a different character. This Bill proposes to confide the legislation and administration of Irish affairs to a domestic Legislature and Executive, and, therefore, the policy upon which these provisions were inserted in the Land Purchase Act of 1891 cannot be regarded as an operative policy in regard to the present Bill. If these words are taken out the effect, as I judge it, would be that the status of the Commissioners under the Purchase Act of 1891 in regard to their salaries and tenure of office would remain unaltered unless it was altered by an Irish Act. But if the words are allowed to remain, what will be the effect? The Committee will observe that the proposal is that the Land Commissioners in Ireland, after the passage of the Home Rule Bill, should only be removable upon an Address of the two Imperial Houses of Parliament; that they should receive the same salaries and pensions as heretofore; that their duties should be defined by Her Majesty, that is to say by the Imperial Government; so that, as I understand it, the Irish Government would have no power to modify their functions in any respect, to relieve them of any existing duty or to impose any new duty. And, finally, the Imperial Government might give to any of these Committees the day after the Home Rule Act is passed the same pension as if they had served out a full term of service. Might I for a moment call the attention of the Committee to the duty which the Land Commissioners have to perform in Ireland. In the first place they control the direct registration of title in the case of transfer of land, and the Irish Government would, as responsible to the country, have the right to see that these duties are efficiently and diligently discharged. But how, I ask, can the Irish Government secure efficiency or diligence in the discharge of these duties if the officers who discharge them are responsible not to the Irish Government, but to the Imperial Government? In the second place, these Commissioners manage the property of the late Disestablished Church in Ireland. By Clause 15 of the Bill you propose that, subject to any existing charges thereon, the existing property shall belong to the Irish Government, and shall be managed and administered by them. But how can they manage and dispose of it if the officers in charge of it are responsible not to (hem but to the Imperial Government. It is evident they could not manage or dispose of it by the hands of the present Commissioners, and the result would be that they might have to appoint a second administration with regard to Church property, an inconvenient and costly course. But the two main functions of the Commissions are the fixing of fair rents and the management of transactions of sale and purchase of land. It is provided by the Bill that after three years the Irish Legislature might pass an Act relating to the relations between landlord and tenant and in relation to the sale and purchase of land. But as I understand these words, after the three years have passed away, and after the Irish Legislature had passed an Act relating to landlord and tenant or the sale and purchase of land, the Commissioners who would have to fix the fair rents and approve of transactions of purchase would continue to be subject to the Imperial Parliament. I should be glad to know that I have correctly stated the effect and force of the words, because it appears to me under these words the five existing Commissioners would continue in despite of the will of the Irish Legislature and the Irish Government, to hold office as long as they pleased, that is for 20 or 30 years to come, as some of them are very young men, and they could continue to administer the law relating to the fixing of rent and the purchase of land without regard to what would be the will of the Irish Legislature and the policy of the Irish Executive on that subject. Of course, if it could be shown to me that this clause is merely meant to secure that the financial interests of the present holders of office should be protected, and that, if they were to retire from office they should be entitled to the pensions prescribed in the last paragraph of the clause, that would be another thing; that would be compatible with harmonious administration in Ireland. But if, on the other hand, it is meant to secure that these gentlemen should remain in office as long as they pleased, say 20 or 30 years, without regard to the Legislative or Executive Authority in Ireland, then I venture to submit such a state of affairs would not be consistent with the principle of autonomy, that it would not be consistent with the right of the Irish Legislature to make laws in respect of the letting and purchase of land, and, above all, it would not be consistent with the liability which you propose by this Bill to lay upon the Irish Consolidated Fund with regard to the deficiencies arising through land purchase. The Commissioners would have power to carry through transactions of sale and purchase of laud without regard to the opinions of the Irish Government; they could spend the whole £30,000,000 of credit given by the Purchase Act of 1891 at their own mere discretion, though these transactions might fix a heavy liability on the Irish Consolidated Fund, because the Commissioners are only instructed to secure that the farms shall be the security of the landlord's interest in the farm. These liabilities to the last penny would fall upon the Irish Consolidated Fund; but by the Bill you allow the Irish Government no power to control the transactions on which this liability would arise, and by these words you secure that the Commissioners who control these transactions would be dependent in no degree on the Irish Government, but would be dependent altogether on the Government of the United Kingdom. I say that unless these words can be explained in a more limited sense than that which I am disposed to attribute to them, they would raise a formidable, if not insuperable, obstacle in the way of harmony between the Executive and Legislative powers on the one hand and the Administrative power on the other, which would be inconsistent with good government in Ireland. I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 21, to leave out the words "and Land Commissioners in Ireland."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, New-castle-upon-Tyne)

I think my hon. Friend has not quite grasped the significance of this clause. The general principle of the clause is that everybody affected by the clause is to be left exactly as now with respect to tenure, salary, and pension. The clause is no more than a declaration of the intention of Parliament to preserve existing rights as they are in these three respects. The clause deals with persons and not with offices, and it is intended to guard and secure the financial interests for one thing and the position for another of individuals who have, under Statute, a vested interest. The Irish Legislature is not to pass any law which affects their salary, or pension, or removability. But my hon. Friend overlooks the fact that, of course, these Land Commissioners, like any other Judges, would have to administer the law; and therefore if, on the expiry of three years the Irish Legislature changes the laws which these gentlemen interpret and administer, then clearly the Laud Commissioners will be bound—just as the Judges would be bound in reference to a change of law they are called upon to administer—to interpret the new law. My hon. Friend talks of their remaining under Imperial control. But, being judicial in their tenure and polity, they are not under the control of any Executive Government whatever. No Executive Government can either affix a certain interpretation to an Act of Parliament, nor can it interfere in the execution of that Act, and they will be just as they are now. At this moment the Land Commissioners, as my hon. Friend well knows, are in no sense whatever dependent upon the Irish Executive Government. They are appointed to interpret and carry out the law, and that would remain their business. If the Laud Law of Ireland was changed—if a valid Act was passed by the Irish Legislature affecting the conditions upon which fair rents were to be fixed, and so forth, these gentlemen would have to administer and interpret that law, just as now they interpret the various Acts of 1881, 1885, 1887, and 1891. They would be in precisely the same position. Suppose any change were to take place in the system of Irish government—this Parliament is perfectly free to make any changes it may think fit in the Irish land system—and the Irish Land Commissioners would have to interpret the law so passed. The case would remain just the same notwithstanding this clause, and the Land Commissioners will remain not removable except in the two modes prescribed by the Act.

MR. SEXTON

What are the two modes?

MR. J. MORLEY

The first is on an Address by the two Houses, and the second mode is that they are removable by the Lord Chancellor, no doubt. The Lord Chancellor may remove them for misbehaviour. But that can only be done by an Order, and that Order must lie for 40 days—or for a considerable time—upon the Table of the two Houses of Parliament; and if either of the two Houses object to that Order, the removal of the Land Commissioners would be an invalid operation. These are the two modes by which—and by which only—the Laud Commissioners can be touched. So much for the point made by my hon. Friend. I do not think it requires the Amendment to carry out the object the hon. Member has in view.

MR. SEXTON

I cannot quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the matter is left precisely as it was before, because the provision of the Land Purchase Act of 1891, dealing with the status of these officers, might have been altered by an Irish Act if it were not repeated in this Bill, but being repeated in this Bill the provision of the Organic Statute could not be altered by au act of the Irish Legislature unless it is made alterable in express terms. I wish to ask one question. Is it understood that the power of the Irish Legislature to make laws upon the relations of landlord and tenant, and relating to the sale and purchase of land after three years, would include the making of laws in respect of the administration of such laws? Provided that the rights of these Commissioners to salaries, and in the event of their removal to pensions, are preserved, would it be within the power of the Irish Legislature, as part of their power to make laws relating to landlord and tenant, to make laws respecting administration?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said, the Chief Secretary had omitted the most important point in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and that was the point relating to purchase. The right hon. Gentleman had stated clearly and plainly that if an Irish Parliament of the future legislated in the matter of fair rents the Land Commissioners, like any other Judges, would be bound to administer the law as they found it, and would have no right to ask where that law came from. He would like to ask a question about the £30,000,000 of Imperial credit, advanced under the Act of 1891. Would the Irish Parliament be at liberty to legislate upon that, because if they were that was a thing which had not yet been realised even in that House? He could hardly suppose that the Imperial Parliament which had placed this £30,000,000 of credit at the disposal of the Land Purchase Department were prepared to hand over the control and management of legislation upon that sum to the Irish Parliament. Would the Irish Parliament be free to legislate upon the credit that had already been passed?

MR. J. MORLEY

In answer, first of all, to my hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry, I must reply that the object of this clause is solely to protect vested interests. That object is not at all a fetter to legislation by an Irish Legislative Body upon the Land Question, only in that legislation they will not be able to interfere with or to overthrow or impair vested interests which these gentlemen possess. We could not, I think, have come to Parliament with any less proposal than that. In answer to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who asks whether the Irish Legislature will be free to make laws affecting the £30,000,000 which are capable of being advanced by the British Treasury under the British Treasury, and whether they would be able to alter and vary the conditions under which these advances are to be made, I think it will be found that the matter has been fully dealt with when we come to the Financial Clauses. I may remind him the matter was partially dealt with by Clause 17, but we had reason to think that clause was not well drawn. So long as the money is advanced out of the British Treasury and by the sanction of this Parliament, undoubtedly our view is that the Irish Parliament would not be able to alter and vary the conditions of those advances.

MR. SEXTON

said, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for the trouble he had taken in replying. He would not, in consequence of that reply, persevere with the Amendment on the Paper, but would ask leave to withdraw it.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

wished to point out that there were two questions. One was as to salaries and pensions of the Land Commissioners, and as regarded that there was no objection to the clause whatever. But the point regarding the removability of the Land Commissioners required consideration, and he thought it should be left to be dealt with, if necessary, by the two Houses of the Irish Parliament.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I hope the Chief Secretary will not accede to the request made to him by the Member for Aberdeen. I think this is a serious question, both from the point of view of Irish policy and the point of view of British financial interests. I do not propose to say much beyond this—that, even in the view of the Government, I think they must feel some regret at the reflection of their own views of what is likely to be done by the Irish Parliament at the end of the three years, when the Land Question in Ireland is thrown over to be dealt with by the new Legislature which they are proposing to create. They cannot look with equanimity upon the possible result of such an abandonment of the interests to which they have been pledged, which abandonment will be greatly aggravated if, in addition to an entirely new land policy, it were open to the Irish Government to have an entirely new set of officials to administer that policy. If you insist upon permitting the Irish Legislature by Acts of Parliament to interfere with the property of the Irish landlords, at all events you might not grudge them such small security as they may obtain from the fact that the existing Land Acts and any further Land Acts analogous to them will have to be administered under this Bill by the able and impartial gentlemen who now administer them. So much for the question of land policy. But there is another question which has been raised by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. T. W. Russell), and to which the Chief Secretary himself has made some allusion, and that is the financial interest of England. The Land Commissioners at the present moment administer the Irish Church Fund, upon which there have been large advances from the British Treasury, and the interests of the British Treasury would be seriously imperilled if that fund were badly administered. It seems perfectly proper and just that the British Treasury should retain in the management of that fund some officials appointed by them, and who hold office during the pleasure of the Imperial Parliament. And what is true of the Irish Church Surplus is equally true of the Irish Land Purchase Acts. The Member for North Kerry appears to be of opinion that at the end of three years it will be in the power of the Irish Parliament to deal as they please with the Land Purchase Acts.

MR. SEXTON

remarked that Clause 35 gave them power after three years to deal with the laws relating to the sale and purchase of land, and he, therefore, had asked if they would also have power over the administration of such laws?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The language is ambiguous. Clause 35 appears to hand over the whole of the Irish Land Question—whether it be a question of rent or purchase—to the new Irish Parliament. I understand the Government do not mean to admit that and rely on some other clause certainly not discussed, and I think not fully on the Paper, for securing that, so far as British credit is concerned, it may not be in the power of the Irish Legislature to modify the Land Purchase Acts at all. If that is to be admitted, it is quite clear that we ought to have administering these Land Acts gentlemen irremovable by the Irish Parliament, and appointed by the Imperial Parliament, and from the point of view of British credit it is necessary that some provision like that in this clause should remain in the Bill. My objection to the clause is not that it goes too far, but that it does not go far enough. You have secured, no doubt, by this that so long as the present gentlemen hold office the interests of the Imperial Parliament shall be safeguarded, but as soon as they resign or die, or are removed by the procedure laid down in the Land Act of 1891, who is going to look after the interests of the Imperial Exchequer so far as they are involved in the Land Question? Though this is not the clause in which to introduce it, we certainly ought, at some stage of our proceedings, to introduce a provision by which the Imperial Parliament shall be always represented, whether for the Church Surplus Fund or loans for land purchase. Thus, and thus only shall we be able to provide for permanently securing our financial interests. I am one those who think that there will be serious danger to British interests and to the British taxpayer if we go on making advances for laud purchase after this Bill has passed. We were not permitted to deal with that clause which seeks to deal with this point, for it was one of those passed after 10 o'clock on Thursday night. Certainly if on Report we are allowed a little more latitude of discussion than we have been permitted in Committee, I shall consider it to be my duty to point out to the House, and so far as I am able to the country, that the Government propose to continue this system of gigantic loans to Ireland, and at the same time shatter to the foundation the basis of credit upon which these loans can properly be issued. I leave that question for further consideration, and I only rise to beg the Government not to agree with the appeal made by the Member for Aberdeen, and to point out that, so far from this clause going too far in the matter of giving permanent status to the Land Judges in Ireland, in my opinion it does not go far enough.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

pointed out that the 20th section of the Land Act of 1891 provided— Save as aforesaid, each Commissioner other than the Judicial Commissioner shall hold his office by the same tenure as a County Court Judge in Ireland. That was to say, in 1891 that House gave each of these five gentlemen a permanent tenure, and two years after that they were lightly told by the Member for Aberdeen that they were to violate the undertaking which the House solemnly gave and these gentlemen accepted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SETON-KARR (St. Helen's) rose to move— In page 15, line 2, after "Ireland" insert "Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under 'The County Officers and Courts of Ireland Act, 1887.'

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, New-castle-upon-Tyne)

said, it might save the time of the Committee if he pointed out that the Government were providing for this class of officials along with two other classes whose vested interests they felt bound to protect from the terms of an Amendment which he (Mr. Morley) had on the Paper.

MR. SETON-KARR

said, he was not satisfied with the way in which the Chief Secretary raised the point as to these officials. He (Mr. Seton-Karr) would state his reasons—

THE CHAIRMAN

was understood to say that the Amendment was in Order, but that it might be convenient if the question were disposed of on the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary.

MR. SETON-KARR

said, he would like to state the reasons why he desired to have these officials included at this particular point. The Clerks of the Crown and Peace in Ireland had urged him to propose the insertion of these words, as they thought the Amendment was necessary to safeguard their interests. They were not satisfied with the course proposed by the Government, as the matter would remain doubtful; but by this Amendment their rights would be recognised in a perfectly unambiguous manner. He asked them to remember that these officials were permanent Civil servants, not paid out of the Consolidated Fund, but by Parliamentary Vote. For this reason they ought to have special terms included in the Bill for their protection. He held that they should be specifically named as he proposed. Another reason was that these gentlemen had been obliged to give up their private practice as solicitors, and that they were dependent for the rest of their lives on the carrying out of the Act of 1877. He believed that the officials for whom he spoke were all Unionists, having a substantial stake in the country, and when they were about to be handed over to the tender mercies of a Nationalist Irish Parliament that would probably be in a condition of chronic impecuniosity, they not unnaturally felt some anxiety about their future. He wanted to make a special reference to the word "existing." He would ask what would happen to the Clerks of the Crown and Peace when those existing had, in the natural way, departed, and their successors came to be appointed? Who would vote their salaries? The Parliament in Ireland or the Imperial Parliament? There was ambiguity here again. He took it that the salaries would be voted by the Irish and not by the Imperial, Parliament. He submitted that the House was in honour bound to safeguard in the most perfect manner the interests of these officials, and he trusted the question would be considered in a proper light.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 2, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words "Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under 'The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877.'"—(Mr. Seton-Karr.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he believed anyone who had listened to the hon. Member could have anticipated the answer he (Mr. Morley)would give. He entirely agreed with him. He had only to say that the sole question between the Government and the hon. Member was as to the convenient place in which this protection should be provided for. He had himself put an Amendment upon the Paper for the purpose of effecting the very object which the hon. Member had in view. The place where the hon. Member proposed to insert his Amendment was not the most convenient. The Government recognised to the full the legality and equity of the claims of existing Clerks of the Crown and Peace, and were anxious to safeguard their vested interests; and they defied anyone to say that they were not embraced within the scope of the clause as they proposed that it should stand. They were accused of wanting to hand these gentlemen over to the tender mercies of the Irish Parliament, whereas they proposed exactly what the hon. Member desired to have done. On the question about the future Clerks of the Crown and Peace, he had to say that they would not be paid by Vote from that House. The Irish Government would make its own arrangements with its own Clerks. They had only to safeguard the vested interests of those whom they were bound to by the tradition of Parliament, and who might suffer injustice.

LORD R. CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

said, his own impression was that the Chief Secretary's words were wider than the Amendment. He said his words covered two other classes of persons. Might he ask who those other classes were?

MR. J. MORLEY

said, in his Amendment the case of the Clerks of the Peace would be dealt with, together with the cases of certain officers connected with the Law Courts and of the Dublin Police Magistrates.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, the Chief Secretary must give credit to those who were raising the Debate, as they were trying to protect these men, who felt, naturally, very nervous about their position, and desired that it should be stated as clearly as possible. He did not think they would be as well satisfied if included generally as if specified directly. The Chief Secretary should be satisfied that, by the general inclusion which he proposed, there might not arise difficulty in the future, by which the decision of some Court might throw these men out. It was necessary they should be properly specified.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he thought the terms of his Amendment would meet the case.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, they were all agreed about what was wanted, but the Government ought to make the matter clear, so that the difficulties that had arisen under other Acts with regard to the position of officials might not arise under the working of this Bill, if it became law.

MR. W. KENNY (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green)

asked how would that part of the emoluments which were derived from the presentments by the Grand Juries be dealt with? Was it necessary, in order to bring the officials within the proposed Amendment, that the entire amount of the salaries should be paid by Parliament. He believed that they were paid partly out of the rates and partly out of the Votes.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the Committee would probably agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it might be desirable to introduce the words regarding all the officials together, and he admitted the weight of his objection from that standpoint. But there was the question of drafting, and he thought on that point the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Seton-Karr) would come in at a more appropriate place than the Amendment of the Chief Secretary.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, the right hon. Gentleman did not consider the definition given in the 1st sub-section of the clause as to persons whose salaries were charged on the Consolidated Fund.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

said, it covered all existing officers serving in Ireland in the permanent Civil Service of the Crown.

MR. J. MORLEY

Yes, whose salaries are charged upon the Consolidated Fund.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

If we had the words "receiving salaries provided by money voted by Parliament," would that not include money voted under Act of Parliament?

MR. J. MORLEY

No.

MR. SETON-KARR

said, he was strongly assured that these gentlemen were most dissatisfied with the words proposed to be inserted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. They could not be blamed if they regarded the probable working of this measure in this way with considerable suspicion. He would like to ask the Chief Secretary why he objected to the Amendment? He had not stated any objection. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was not legislating for his own benefit, but for the safeguarding of those who were entitled to be heard. He had other Amendments on the Paper directed to the same object—the protection of these men under the working of the Bill.

MR. J. MORLEY

If the Amendment is defeated it will be impossible for us to deal with the question at all.

MR. SETON-KARR

Tell me why you object.

MR. J. MORLEY

I have told you.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he would like to hear what was to be done with regard to the matter of the portions—one portion of the salary voted by Parliament, and the second by the Grand Jury. He understood that was the way in which the salaries were made up—partially by Parliamentary vote and partially by Grand Jury vote.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Partially by fee.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, it would be well to end all ambiguity as to where the Parliamentary portion was to come from in future. Were they to be burdened in this Parliament in future by this solitary Irish Estimate, or was it to be taken away, or withdrawn, from the Imperial Parliament? The other point was, what was to be done regarding that portion of the salaries which were now drawn from local sources? Was this to be controlled by the Imperial or the Irish Legislature? What was the Chief Secretary's view on this question?

MR. J. MORLEY

said, of course there would not be a solitary Irish Estimate. The clause would entitle the officials in question to receive their present salaries and their pensions from the British Treasury, the latter recouping themselves from the Irish Exchequer. They did not propose to guarantee any sums from local sources.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, it was necessary the matter should be made perfectly clear.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary told them that the salaries and pensions would be a matter for the British Treasury. If that were so, they should know whether they would be paid out of the Consolidated Fund? They should know whether they were to be paid under the authority of that House?

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

said, that if the fees paid by Grand Juries to these men were intended to fall on the Irish Exchequer, it was time for the Nationalist Members to protest against it. There were other officers besides these men in a similar position. The proposition of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) apparently was that the whole income of these men should be placed on the Public Revenue of Ireland. Was that reasonable? "Her Majesty"—which meant the Imperial Government—was to have the control of the duties of the officers. The Irish Parliament was to have no power in relation to modifying or controlling the discharge of those duties; but the Irish Revenue was to bear all the cost. Well, he did not think they could agree to that. He thought they might make it, "Her Majesty in communication with the Irish Government," or they should in some form of words give the power of control, and removal where necessary, to the Irish Government. Then, again, why should the Irish Legislature give those gentlemen who might be removed by Her Majesty, or who might retire upon the passing of this Act, the same amount of pension as they would receive if they were to serve 20 years longer? Could this be justified? Why should these gentlemen, who were protected in their offices by the fact that they could not be removed, be allowed to retire on pension on the morrow of the passing of the Home Rule Bill? As the whole of the burden was to fall on the Irish Revenue, he asked the Government to say that the Irish Government should at least have some opportunity of expressing an opinion in the matter.

MR. DUNBAR BARTON (Armagh, Mid)

said, he understood there were two classes of Clerks of the Crown, one being appointed under a Statute of Geo. IV., and the other under the Act of 1877. The class appointed under the Act of Geo. IV. were largely paid by fees and by Grand Jury presentments, but certainly part of their salaries was paid by the Crown. He wished to know whether Subsection 3 would include both those who were appointed under the Act of 1877 and those who were appointed under the Act of Geo. IV?

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

said, that some of the Members of the Opposition reminded him of the phrase about being more Catholic than the Pope. The gentlemen he referred to were more concerned about these officers than were the officers themselves. The Clerks of the Peace had stated their case, and the gentlemen who represented them had moved the Amendment now under consideration. That being so, it was somewhat interesting to find that fresh grievances had been discovered which were not contemplated by those who were immediately interested.

MR. H. PLUNKETT (Dublin Co., S.)

pointed out that the Clerks of the Peace, whose remuneration was paid partly by the Crown, partly by the Grand Jury, and partly by private individuals, did not come under the Amendment, because that Amendment only referred to officers receiving salaries out of money provided by Parliament. The class, however, consisted of very long service men, and he submitted that the Amendment should be recast so as to cover their case.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, the gentlemen referred to had no claim upon the provisions contemplated in the subject, as they received no salary from Parliament.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Perhaps I may suggest, in the interests of the progress of Business, that we should defer these very important questions until a later stage of the clause. I adhere to the view I formerly expressed, that the clause is rather clumsily drafted, but still I think it would take too long to bring it into a more æesthetic shape now, and I think it would be well to drop the Amendment and to amend the proposed Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

MR. SETON-KARR

said, he would take the course suggested by his right hon. Friend, on the distinct understanding that he moved the Amendment in another form later on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)

moved an Amendment providing that existing Judges and other persons having charges on the Consolidated Fund should be retired on pension on the day on which the Act came into force. He remarked that the Judges were Imperial Judges, and were appointed to carry out the Imperial law. If, however, the Bill became an Act they would have to carry out the local laws passed by an Irish Legislature.

MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

, rising to Order, asked whether the Amendment was not wholly inconsistent with the words already passed in Clause 26?

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY

said, he was dealing with "existing Judges" &c.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. and gallant Member must take care not to come into conflict with Clause 26.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY

said, he wished to clear the ground entirely of Imperial obligations. He thought that Parliament had no right whatever practically to desert the Judges at the present moment. The freedom of speech that existed in that House was not allowed to interfere with the Judges.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

There is no freedom of speech here.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY

went on to say that the Judges might not agree in politics with those who would be at the head of affairs in Ireland if this Bill became law, and in that case their lives would certainly not be very happy ones. He thought that the honourable course of the House of Commons was to settle up with these officers and let them go. As honourable men, Members could not force the Civil servants to serve other masters than those they were engaged to serve, and it must also be borne in mind that unwilling service was bad service. He did not wish in any way to reflect upon hon. Members who might form the Irish Executive, but he contended that the House had not only a right but a duty to take into consideration the feelings of the Civil servants, and to provide a means of escape for them. Many of these people would have to leave Ireland and seek a home elsewhere. They would scarcely be fit to start their careers afresh, and even if some of them should be able to, they would only be likely to receive small remuneration. No doubt the Chief Secretary desired to do what was fair and just, but in this proposal he had not attained his wish, and it was to be hoped that he would adopt such a scale of remuneration and compensation as would be satisfactory to the officials concerned. He had received a statement as to the terms desired by the officials, and having looked into those terms they did not appear to him at all exorbitant. In dealing with this question the Government should remember the dictum of Mr. John Bright, "that England cannot afford to be mean." To his mind, however, the Government would be acting worse than meanly if it did not adopt some such Amendment as this.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 3, leave out all the words after "Crown," and insert the words "shall be retired on the day that this Act comes into force, and shall receive as pension such sum as they would have earned as pension or gratuity if 10 years had been added to their actual service, and such further sum as may be considered equitable for loss of pay and allowances and prospects of promotion and higher pensions."—(General Goldsworthy.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and receiving salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom' stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. MORLEY

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a most extraordinary proposal. So far as I can understand it, it is that on the appointed day, the moment the Act comes into force, all the Judges and Land Commissioners and all the permanent Civil servants are to be retired, and compulsorily retired. I thought that the contention on the other side was that there would be too great a readiness on the part of the Irish Government to compel these important officials and servants to retire.

GENERAL GOLDSWOETHY

said, he had put his Amendment on the Paper without consulting the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. J. MORLEY

The proposal is one which cannot be seriously entertained in any quarter of the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, in a very heroic way, "Do not let us be mean—let us give them these pensions and gratuities."

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY

No; compensation.

MR. J. MORLEY

Quite so, compensation for loss of pay and allowances and prospects. "Let us," he said, "do this thing handsomely—do not let us be mean." But he forgets that all this money which he so generously distributes will have to come not out of our pockets, but out of the pockets of the Irish people; and I should think, therefore, that to entail this expenditure upon Ire-land would be about as mean a thing as we could do. We should be imposing upon Ireland the necessity of having a double set of Judges and Civil servants, and should be requiring them to pay for the same.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY

I have another Amendment further on.

MR. J. MORLEY

I hope I shall be better able to meet the hon. Member on the next Amendment than I am on this.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I listened to my hon. and gallant Friend, and when he said that the lives of the Irish Judges and permanent Civil servants of the Crown would not, perhaps, be very happy under an unrestricted Irish Legislature I fully agreed with his sentiments, and had great sympathy with his motives; but there are two reasons, in addition to those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, why I think it undesirable for the hon. and gallant Member to press his Amendment. One reason I draw from the position of these gentlemen themselves, and the other I draw from the position of the minority in Ireland. As regards these gentlemen themselves, I am not sure that, though the Amendment is designed entirely in their interests, that they would look with great satisfaction at having their official career cut short with no further security for compensation than is contained in the words— Such further sum as may be considered equitable for loss of pay and allowances and prospects of promotion and higher pensions. There is no very clear statement in the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend as to who is to make the equitable estimate.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY

That is in another clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If it is the Irish Government, I presume that would not satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Even if it is the Imperial Government, I am not certain that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would look with equanimity at leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the British Treasury. I, therefore, doubt if these officials would think it in their interest that we should adopt the course the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests—and suggests in perfect good faith—for the purpose of safeguarding their interests. There is another consideration that ought not to be absent from our minds. The difficulties of the new Irish Legislature when it comes into existence, and the friction and conflict which we apprehend will result from bringing it into existence, are more likely to be mitigated if we keep in Ireland a body of able, impartial, and educated public servants than if we deprive the Government of the services of such men. To hand over to an Irish Legislature, not only the management of Irish affairs, but the management of Irish affairs with an entirely new judicial and official staff would be most disastrous to Ireland generally, and especially so to the minority. It is in their interest, as well as in that of the officials themselves, that I would urge my hon. and gallant Friend not to press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON

said, that in the case of the alteration of the duties of any of the Judges, County Court Judges, Land Commissioners, or other officers, the country which paid the whole of their salaries had some right to be consulted. He ventured to think that that could not be considered an extravagant claim. He did not think it right that the Imperial Government alone should determine such change of duty, and, in order to secure that the Irish Government should be consulted in such cases, he begged to move that the words "in communication with the Irish Government" should be inserted in the clause, so that it might then read Or such duties as Her Majesty, in communication with the Irish Government, may declare to be analogous.

Amendment proposed, in line 11, after "Majesty," to insert the words "in communication with the Irish Government."

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he saw the point which the hon. Member raised, and it was, no doubt, not unreasonable that duties of this important nature should be fixed with reference to the wishes of the country which had to pay the officials for fulfilling those duties, and which was, therefore, most concerned in their good and efficient discharge. At the same time, he thought it would be contrary to all precedent if they were to insert in the Bill such words as "Her Majesty in communication with the Irish Government." He thought the object which his hon. Friend sought might be attained in another part of the clause by inserting the words he now suggested in cases where the Treasury, for example, had to make certain awards. They should assent to the introduction of words to the effect that the Treasury should be in communication with the Irish Government. In the present case, as he had said, he thought it would be contrary to all usage to attach such words as those suggested. He thought they might trust to the good faith, and to the natural growth of communications between the Irish Government and the Imperial Government in this matter. He hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, in view of the fact that he was prepared to meet him in another part of the Bill.

MR. SEXTON

said, he admitted the importance of the point the right hon. Gentleman had made, but this was a very different matter. At any time there might arise a question of the duties of the Judges. Land Commissioners, or others. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to admit the principle that it was desirable that the Irish Government should be consulted in these appointments. If he admitted the principle, he should be glad to leave to him the consideration of the method. He knew there was some technical difficulty as to the use of the words after "Her Majesty," but he had no option but to raise the point in the most convenient form. He should be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman introduced words to secure his object, and at present he would not press the Amendment.

MR. J. MORLEY

I think the object is not unreasonable, and I will consider between now and the next stage where we can introduce these words.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, there was a good deal in this, and he should like to see the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member on the Paper, so that it might be considered. These Judges and Civil servants had been appointed for a specific purpose by Her Majesty, but under the proposal of the hon. Member their positions might be rendered intolerable. He trusted that the Chief Secretary would stick to his clause.

MR. SEXTON

said the initiative would rest with Her Majesty.

SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)

said Her Majesty must act on the advice of someone. He failed to see what could be meant by the words "in communication with the Irish Government," unless Her Majesty were to have two sets of advisers.

MR. SEXTON

said, he had no such purpose as to suggest that the communication which should take place between Her Majesty and the Irish Government should place the latter in the position of advisers on these matters. His object was to secure that when a change was made the country which had to pay the money should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it.

THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN

said, the Irish Government were only to be "in communication" with Her Majesty, therefore he did not think the Amendment would have the slightest effect. Of course there would be communication between Irish Representatives and English Ministers, and, unless something were to be done on the advice of Irish Ministers, he did not see the necessity for putting in the words proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he wished here to raise the point as to the remuneration of these officers, which the Committee had been engaged in considering earlier in the evening. Subsequent to 1877 these officials had been paid by salary, but prior to that they were paid in part, if not wholly, by fees, and they held their offices during good behaviour. They held the tenure of Judges. The Government were bound on every principle of equity to see that these officials would in the future receive salaries not less than were paid them at present, and that their powers were not interfered with. The fact that the salaries had hitherto been voted not by Parliament but by the Local Authorities, did not, to his mind, affect the question. He thought the question could best be raised by moving to insert after "salaries" the word "emoluments," so that the clause would read "salaries, emoluments, and pensions."

MR. SEXTON

said, that the word "salaries" would include emoluments.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he wished to know how the interests of those officers who were appointed before 1877 were to be secured—the salaries of these gentlemen being dependent on sources other than Parliament.

Amendment proposed, after the word "salaries" to insert the word "emoluments."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'emoluments' be there inserted."

MR. J. MORLEY

said, the right hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that in the Definition Clause "salary" was made to include "remuneration, allowances, or emoluments." In 1877 these offices, which had previously been remunerated by fees, became freehold offices. Well, a freehold office was property which was protected by Clause 4.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

wished to know whether the officers appointed previous to 1877 were subject to the same principle of irremovability as those appointed subsequently?

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he took it that, their office being freehold, they were irremovable.

MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)

said, the noble Lord need not concern himself about these gentlemen. There were no officials in Ireland who more deserved to be removed. Though paid large salaries out of the county fund so far as he could learn these gentlemen did nothing. The Clerk of the Crown in County Antrim was Lord Donegall, who was never in Ireland. He (Mr. Knox) did not know if anyone was acquainted with his address in Ireland, indeed, he did not know if the noble Lord had ever been in Ireland. Lord Donegall, at any rate, drew a large freehold salary and did nothing for it. His salary was property, and the Irish Parliament, under Section 4, would not be able to interfere with it. That was a great pity. Unfortunately, to the day of his death Lord Donegall would draw a large salary for doing nothing.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)

asked what redress these Civil servants would have if their salaries were not paid? Would they have an abstract right to recover on the protection which was afforded to other Civil servants? If they had only the remedy of petition of right or whatever other remedy was given under Clause 4 it might take them a long time to derive any benefit from the provision.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, that their rights would be like those of other holders of freehold property in Ireland. The view of the Government was that they would be protected under Clause 4.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said, that the posts filled by these servants called for the performance of onerous duties, and the fact that the remuneration happened to come in the particular way which had been described made no difference. There was no security that that remuneration would not be withdrawn, and, if it was, against whom would they have a remedy? Would it be against the State who appointed them? No; but against some utterly unknown entity from whom they received power to recover under Clause 4. The State had engaged the services of these gentlemen—[Ironical cheers.] He understood that cheer. The offices these gentlemen held were onerous, though in some cases the functions were allowed to be performed by deputy. The offices were State offices performed for a consideration, and it seemed to him strange that the Government should with one hand profess to give these gentlemen security and with the other take away every security that was worth anything at all.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

said, the Chief Secretary had several times declared that these gentlemen were protected under Clause 4, and the right hon. Gentleman based his statement on the assumption that their right to hold their offices and to receive certain fees and emoluments was included under the word "property." He should like to ask the Solicitor General if he could confirm that statement?

MR. LITTLE (Whitehaven)

said, it was asserted that some of the gentlemen who received these salaries performed no service; and if that were so, should such a condition of things be continued? He did not press for an answer now, but he desired to have one before the Report stage;. because, so far as he was personally concerned, if the Government were going to charge on the Irish people the salaries and pensions of persons who did nothing, he should persistently oppose the recognition of such a principle at a later stage.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar)

said, he would answer the question as to whether the salaries of the officers they were discussing were property by saying "yes."

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, it was a most extraordinary statement to make, that Clerks of the Peace in Ireland had no duties to perform—

MR. KNOX

I said Clerks of the Crown.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, the hon. Member's only authority for that statement was that Lord Donegall did no duty in County Antrim. But there was not another Clerk of the Crown in Ireland of whom that could be said. It was absurd to say, because a man handed over certain duties to a deputy that, therefore, there were no duties of the kind to discharge in Ireland. Did the hon. Member (Mr. Knox) ever see the list of voters for the County of Cavan? If so, he would have seen the signature of the Clerk of the Peace at the bottom. That official was responsible for preparing the list; he had to attend Quarter Sessions and the Assizes.

MR. KNOX

I did not say those duties had not to be fulfilled.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Why, then, had the hon. Member referred to Lord Donegall? The only effect of doing that was to suggest that these gentlemen had no duties to perform. He (Mr. Russell) maintained that they had most important duties to perform. The Solicitor General for England could not know much about the matter; and he was, therefore, at a loss to know why the hon. and learned Gentleman had been questioned. There were only a few of these officials, and the question was whether they were to be dealt with in this happy-go-lucky way? Clause 4 protected them—that was to say, their property was not to be taken away without due process of law. He was not going to ask the old conundrum "What is due process of law?" but he maintained that it was a monstrous thing to leave gentlemen in possession of a freehold to scramble for their rights either under Clause 4 or in any other way.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

thought it desirable that the Committee should take note of the fact that a great deal of trouble was taken to secure the interests of private persons, but very little to secure the rights of the taxpayer. The position of the Opposition reminded him of an arrangement between officers and soldiers of a retreating army to take away as much plunder as they could. The Irish Legislature was to be compelled, under a heavy monetary penalty, to keep up officials for whom it might have no need in the future. The Irish Government should be left free to transfer officers to some useful post, or to get rid of them on the best terms in the public interest. Instead of this just principle being adopted, the Committee had to listen to these sordid demands by the Opposition, and to see the Members of that Party, with some Radicals to help them, play the ancient role of looking more at private than at public interests. The Clerks of the Peace in England in many cases had little to do—so little that they employed deputies to do it—and it was not difficult to believe that many of these officials would be unnecessary in Ireland. But it was now proposed that whether the Irish Government required them or not they were to retain their services, or pay them exorbitant compensation for retiring. He submitted that that was carrying the principle of private compensation out of public funds too far. While not disposed to be unjust to these men, he thought it would be more just to leave the Irish Government to settle affairs with them, not according to private interests, but according to the needs and the monetary resources of the Irish people.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

In asking leave to withdraw this Amendment, I desire to make one observation on the extraordinary speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland. The hon. Gentleman has given us to understand that we, the Tory Party, are at what he called our "old trade" of protecting private rights. Well, I never knew that the protection of private rights was the monopoly of the Tory Party. I had hoped, for the credit of this House, that there is no section of it that does not hold that when a man has rights they ought to be protected, even as against the taxpayers. The saving of the taxpayers' money is, no doubt, highly important; but there is something of higher importance still—namely, the fulfilment of the obligations of Parliament. If we disregard these obligations no savings that we can effect will prevent the State from rapidly falling into ruin. I do not wish to continue this discussion. The Government have met me in a fair spirit. They have admitted that the Civil servants have rights properly outside the sphere of the Irish Parliament, and I do not think it would improve their position by arguing the case further. I beg, therefore, to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. SETON-KARR

said, in reference to the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper, to insert after "Ireland," in line 2 of the clause, the words "Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under 'The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1887,'" that he did not move that Amendment, because he had been assured by the Chief Secretary that his point had been fully met by the definition of the Bill. He wished, however, to make the matter plain to the Committee, and have it on record that the Government were prepared to safeguard the interests of the Clerks of the Crown and Peace in Ireland. He thought it hardly became the hon. Member for Sunderland to describe the defence of vested interests as a sordid policy, for the hon. Member was one of those who were willing to appropriate many thousands of the British taxpayers' money to the purpose of paying Members of Parliament.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. MORLEY

I now beg to move to leave out, in lines 12 and 13 of the clause, the words "if and so far as not paid out of the Irish Consolidated Fund." The effect of omitting these words will be to enact that the salaries and pensions shall be paid out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. This is a proposal for which the friends of the Irish Civil servants ought to be grateful, because it will give them a claim upon the British Exchequer. When this Amendment is agreed to, I shall move another providing that the sums paid by the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, in the matter of these salaries and pensions, shall be repaid to it from the Irish Exchequer.

Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 12, to leave out from the word "pensions" to the word "shall," in line 13.—(Mr. J. Morley.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

Those who consider only the Irish Civil servants may be satisfied with this proposal; but those who think, as I do, something of the British taxpayer, ask for some further explanation of this extraordinary change. The salaries and pensions of the Irish Civil servants are going to be placed on the guarantee and security of the British Exchequer; but I want to know what guarantee the British Exchequer will have that the repayments will be made to it out of the Irish Consolidated Fund? I look upon this as putting an additional burden on the British taxpayer.

MR. J. MORLEY

My right hon. Friend must not have read the clause, for if he did he would see that under the clause as it stands the Exchequer of the United Kingdom is responsible for the salaries and pensions if there is a default on the part of the Irish Exchequer. If the Irish Exchequer makes default we shall have means of recouping ourselves under the new financial arrangements proposed by the Government.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

observed that the Chief Secretary was not quite accurate in his statement. Under the clause as it stood the salaries and pensions were, in the first instance, a charge on the Irish Consolidated Fund; but under the clause as amended the liability would be transferred from the Irish Consolidated Fund to the British Consolidated Fund. What security was there that the Irish Secretary would make good the payments made by the British Exchequer? The Chief Secretary said that the security would be found in some new financial arrangements which had not yet been submitted to the Committee. The Committee were still, to a great extent, ignorant of those financial arrangements. They were asked to impose a fresh liability on the British taxpayer.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

made an observation which did not reach the Reporters' Gallery.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, they were asked to impose a liability upon the British taxpayer, for whom some of them had still some feeling, on the understanding that any sums so paid by the British Exchequer were to be repaid by the Irish Exchequer. But the Irish Exchequer did not yet exist.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

again made a remark which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Pray hold your tongue while I am speaking. This was not merely a case of putting the cart before the horse, but of putting the cart before a horse that had not yet been foaled. The Irish Exchequer had not yet been foaled. It did not exist. How, then, could they talk about putting a charge upon it?

LORD R. CHURCHILL

I was making a remark for the good, as I thought, of my hon. Friend, when he interrupted me with very un-Parliamentary language. I was endeavouring to explain that the object of the Amendment is to make these salaries and pensions a charge on the British Exchequer in the first instance, and to provide that the British Exchequer shall be repaid out of the Irish Exchequer. The advantage of the change to the officials whom we are trying to safeguard is that their salaries and pensions become a charge on the British Exchequer first, and ultimately on the Irish Exchequer.

MR. COHEN (Islington, N.)

thought a sufficient answer had not been given to the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—namely, what protection against default by the Irish Exchequer the Financial Clauses would supply to the British Exchequer? The Committee were still in ignorance of what that protection was.

MR. SEXTON

thought no useful purpose was to be served by continuing the discussion. It was not a matter of the slightest moment. The original proposal was that the Irish Consolidated Fund should pay, the Imperial Treasury guaranteeing. Now it was proposed that the Imperial Treasury should pay, and be recouped from the Irish Exchequer. He could not refrain from saying that the Amendment would be offensive to the feelings of the Irish people in providing that their officials should be paid by the British Exchequer. The Irish Consolidated Fund ought to be good enough for them.

MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)

The important point that has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and others is what security is to be given to the British taxpayer that he will get back the money he has paid from the Irish Exchequer?

MR. SEXTON

Clause 14.

MR. GOSCHEN

Clause 14 seems to me, as at present advised, to be a most unsatisfactory security for the British taxpayer. The Lord Lieutenant may sign a cheque, but Clause 14 does not state how that cheque is to be honoured. This point of the security for the British Treasury will have to be carefully considered, that is, of course, if we can find the opportunity of considering it.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, that much of the difficulty that had now arisen was due to the postponement of the Financial Clauses. As to Clause 14, for instance, the Committee did not know whether the Government intended to stand by it in its present terms, and therefore they were at a disadvantage. There were no means whatever set out in the clause for enforcing repayment by the Irish Exchequer, on whose goodwill, it seemed, the British Treasury would only have to depend. He wished to ask the Prime Minister or the Chief Secretary whether Clause 14 would be introduced as it stood, or whether it would be introduced in a modified form?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR (Leeds, Central)

said, the Chief Secretary had stated that his Amendment was one for which those who were anxious to defend the interests of the Civil servants ought to be grateful. But a very different view of the Amendment was taken by the hon. Member for Kerry. The hon. Member had said that the Amendment was insulting to the Irish people—

MR. SEXTON

I said it was offensive to the people of Ireland that certain of their officials should be paid by the British Exchequer.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said, the measure of the gratitude which the Chief Secretary claimed must evidently be the difference between the security offered by the Imperial Exchequer and that offered by the Irish Exchequer. The hon. Member for Kerry considered it an insult to the Irish people to assume that any such difference existed. The Chief Secretary held quite another view, and one which they would remember when the question arose of the security offered by the Irish Exchequer for payments due to the British taxpayer.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

moved to insert after "shall," in line 13 of the clause, the words "continue to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and." He thought it was desirable that those words should be inserted, showing that the process by which the payment of salaries and pensions was secured should be continued.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 13, after the word "shall," to insert the words "continue to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

MR. J. MORLEY

That matter is already provided for in the clause. To say that these salaries and pensions shall be paid out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom is the same as saying that they shall be a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

MR. TOMLINSON

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 14, after the word "Kingdom." to insert the words "and all sums so paid shall be repaid to that Exchequer from the Irish Exchequer."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Is there any provision made for the payment of interest which may fall due owing to undue delay in settling accounts on the part of the Irish Exchequer?

MR. J. MORLEY

I think it would be very undesirable to give the Irish Government to understand that we contemplated the possibility of their being in arrears. If Clause 14 works at all there will be no chance of interest becoming due.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that Clause 14, as it stood, really contemplated default on the part of the Irish Government, for it provided that until the whole of the amount due by the Irish Exchequer to the British Exchequer was paid, no other amount should be paid out by the Irish Exchequer.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

moved to amend the Amendment by inserting the word "forthwith" after the word "shall," in order to secure that the payments by the Irish Exchequer to the British Exchequer should be prompt.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert the word "forthwith" after the word "shall."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'forthwith' be there inserted."

MR. BARTLEY

said he thought if the Prime Minister would say distinctly what the Government intended to do in regard to Clause 14. whether they intended to stand by it in its present form or not, the course of the Committee would be more clear.

MR. SEXTON

said, it was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to do this, for there were Amendments to the clause on the Paper, some of which he accepted. He maintained that the word "forthwith" added nothing to the force of the Amendment.

MR. GOSCHEN

I think we have a right to know from the Prime Minister whether, when we impose this, which, is a proper liability on the British Exchequer, Clause 14 is to stand as it is substantially? As to the word "forthwith," I think that a proper system of accounts ought to be set up between the British and Irish Exchequers, so that no delay with regard to payments may arise.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

The idea of the Government is that the collection of the Revenue shall remain in the hands of the Imperial Authorities, and that all claims shall be paid out of the money so obtained and the net remainder be handed over to Ireland.

MR. GOSCHEN

Will there be any objection to state that in some part of the Bill?

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

That is what will be done.

MR. HANBURY

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., S.)

desired to say, on behalf of the Party with whom he acted, that they did not at all admit the justice of compelling Ireland to pay the whole of the pensions, salaries, and gratuities of the class of Civil servants now under discussion. He could not but remember the speech of the Prime Minister in 1886, and also his speech of this year in introducing this Bill. He remembered perfectly well that in 1886 the Prime Minister described the Civil Service of Ireland as wasteful and extravagant; and he went into figures to prove that it was wasteful and extravagant. He proved beyond all doubt that while in England and Scotland the cost of the Civil Service administration was about 8s. 6d. per head of the population, in Ireland it was 16s. That seemed a very great disproportion indeed, and the right hon. Gentleman accounted for it, as they all on the Irish Benches accounted for it, by the fact of British misgovernment. The right hon. Gentleman most distinctly—as he (Mr. Clancy) recollected—attributed this wasteful and extravagant expenditure on the Civil Service to the system of Government with which Ireland had been blessed. As far as he (Mr. Clancy) had seen, that statement had never been challenged, and he was quite certain it could never be disproved. The government of Ireland by England had resulted in creating in Ireland the most expensive Civil Service to be found in the whole civilised world. He did not believe that they could find in any Province in the Eastern Empire any expenditure equal in proportion to this Irish Civil Service expenditure. He asked the Committee—and he specially asked British Home Rulers—was it fair, after having created this Civil Service in Ireland for British purposes, after having maintained it for years and years to the British interest, after having swelled the costs of the Service entirely for British purposes and so-called Imperial interests, to come down when they were settling their accounts and ask Ireland to pay the whole of the cost of their own misgovernment? He did not intend to discuss the matter at any length at this stage, because they had an Amendment down to a similar proposal in the next clause; but he desired to safeguard their position at this stage by saying that they did not in the least recognise the justice of this claim. They thought it another wrong imposed on Ireland for the benefit of the so-called British taxpayer, and it was a proposal entirely unjust to Ireland. They did not intend to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division; but they thought it right, holding the views they did, to make this protest, and he hoped it would be borne in mind that when their Amendment on a similar provision came on, they would insist in dividing the House on the question.

Amendment (Mr. J. Morley) agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

said, that, as he had before pointed out, Sub-section 2 of the clause contained the very novel and surprising provision that the Imperial Government might grant to any of the officials set forth in the clause any pension before the completion of his period of service, without the Irish Government being any party to it. That might involve the Irish Exchequer in very heavy charges. He said—and he would press the matter if necessary—that the Irish Representatives could not agree that the Irish Exchequer of hereafter should be burdened with pensions to these officers, beyond the period of their services, unless the Irish Government was consulted, and they could not accept the principle that the Imperial Government should fix fancy pensions for these officials without consulting the Government of the country which would have to provide the money. He therefore moved to omit from line 18, Sub-section 2, the words "Her Majesty may if she thinks fit," and to substitute "The Treasury may in communication with the Irish Government."

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 18, to leave out the words "Her Majesty may if she thinks fit," and substitute the words "The Treasury may in communication with the Irish Government."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. MORLEY

I have already stated that I see the force of the argument from my hon. Friend's point of view; and the Amendment he now proposes—through I cannot accept it, for a reason which I shall mention—would not go beyond the scope of the provision which I stated I would be willing to accept. But my hon. Friend proposes to substitute "The Treasury" for "Her Majesty," and to that I cannot agree. He must see that this is a question not of finance but of policy; and, therefore, not a matter to be settled by the Treasury, but by the Imperial Government. It would not be right to impose on the Treasury the burden of deciding whether a Judge of the High Court or a County Court Judge should get a pension on retiring before his period of service has expired. The Minister concerned, and not the Treasury, should decide that matter. That is the reason why I cannot accept the Amendment; but later on, on Clause 28, I shall regard it as perfectly reasonable and practicable.

MR. SEXTON

said, that Clauses 27 and 28 did not touch one another. Clause 28 referred to a different class of officials, and his argument dealt with the class of officials mentioned in Clause 27. The Irish Exchequer, which might very likely be a straitened Exchequer, might be burdened under the operation of this clause by very heavy pensions. He understood that the Chief Secretary agreed that special pensions should not be placed on the Irish Executive without consulting the Irish Government; and if the Irish Government was be to be consulted he did not care in what form of words that consultation was provided for.

MR. GOSCHEN

I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the danger of the word "consultation." I confess that the Irish Government would be entitled to notice. It would be hard that any decision should be taken which would mean imposing a burden on the Irish Government without fair notice. I would give the Irish Government opportunity of remonstrating if necessary; but the consultation asked for by the hon. Member for Kerry means more than that. I want further to add that if the Treasury are to be at all consulted in the matter the hon. Member for Kerry will find that the Irish Government will have security in the economical views of the Treasury, unless it is totally differently constituted from the Treasury which this generation knows. Whether British money or Irish money is concerned, the Treasury is as close-fisted as possible, and the hon. Member may rest assured that it will take the most economical view of all subjects that come before it.

MR. J. MORLEY

If my hon. Friend the Member for Kerry thinks that the object of this sub-section is to impose a burden on the Irish Exchequer he misapprehends it. We believe that when the Irish Government is established there will be more Judges than employment can be found for, and the effect of this sub-section would be to substitute a pension for a salary for these Judges.

MR. SEXTON

But the sub-section relates to Commissioners and Police Magistrates, and not to Judges alone.

MR. J. MORLEY

That is quite true, but there will also be more Commissioners than are required. The point of the sub-section is the substitution of pensions for salaries in the cases of officials of whom there are too many, and therefore it is a matter of retrenchment, and not a matter of imposing burdens on the Irish Exchequer. But, as I said, we will try, between this and the Report stage, to find some words laying down the propriety of inviting and hearing the views of the Irish Government.

MR. SEXTON

said, that communication would not be enough. Communication might be accompanied with contempt for the views the communication drew forth. What he wanted was a fair consideration of the opinions of the Irish Government.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I hope the Chief Secretary will not go beyond what he has said. One of the considerations the Government have had in view in framing the sub-section is not merely to supply a method of economically weeding the Irish Bench: but in the event of certain circumstances arising—which you think unlikely, but which we think very likely—it is only fair to allow existing officers to escape from duties which would be absolutely intolerable. Under such circumstances, it would be most improper to give the Irish Government a consultative voice in the matter. The decision should be left entirely to the Imperial Government.

MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)

said, that, granting the decision in this matter should rest with the British Government, he thought the Department to decide it should be the Treasury, and not merely the Secretary of State, for Her Majesty would act through the Secretary of State. But granting a pension was one thing, and fixing the amount was another thing, and he thought that in fixing the amount the Treasury should act in communication with the Irish Government.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, he thought that if the words suggested were put into the sub-section the whole protection afforded by the sub-section to the Civil servants would be gone. The principle of the sub-section was to safeguard the interests of the Civil servants under the Irish Government; but if every case of pension that arose was decided in consultation with the Irish Government it would do away with the advantage of the sub-section altogether, for if consultation meant anything it meant that the Irish Government should have the power of overruling the decision of the Government.

MR. SEXTON

On the understanding given by the Chief Secretary I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston) rose to move in page 15, line 19, after the first "pension," insert "to be charged on the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain." He said that the pensions could not be made effective unless they were made a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and he, therefore, proposed to make them effective by making them a charge on the Consolidated Fund.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 19, after the first "pension," to insert the words "to be charged on the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. MORLEY

I do not think the Amendment of the hon. Member is required, because, in the event of a pension being authorised, there is only one fund on which it can be charged.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, it must be remembered this introduced a new state of things altogether. If they were not face to face with a new Constitution it might not be required; but here they had an Irish Exchequer and an Imperial Exchequer, an Irish Consolidated Fund and an Imperial Consolidated Fund, and he submitted, without some such words as proposed, there was nothing in the Act to give effect to what they desired.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he now begged to move a third sub-clause providing that existing officers in Ireland in the permanent Civil Service of the Crown, although receiving salaries out of money provided by Parliament, should he removable only for misconduct or incapacity. He had, he thought, already sufficiently explained to the Committee what led them to insert this sub-section. They ascertained there were certain classes of officials in Ireland whose salaries were not charged on the Consolidated Fund, and whose tenure was not that of the Judges, Commissioners, and so forth, but who, in spite of that, were only removable for misconduct or incapacity. The persons concerned were Clerks of the Crown, Dublin Metropolitan Police Magistrates, and certain officers connected with the Four Courts—with the Courts of Justice. This was the class they had in view; but if, on inquiry, it should be found there were any other class they had lost sight of, but who came within the sub-section, they would be included. Anterior to 1867 these gentlemen had a permanent office, but they had no title to a fixed amount, and by this clause it was proposed to give them the same protection as was enjoyed by other persons in the service of the Crown in Ireland. This was a clause which they had included in order to add still further to the protection they had already given—namely, to put a number of gentlemen on the best footing that their scheme allowed, and he did not expect that it would meet with any opposition from any quarter.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 21, at the end of the Clause, as a new sub-section, to add the words—''This section shall apply to existing officers serving in the permanent Civil Service of the Crown, who, although receiving salaries out of money provided by Parliament, are removable only for misconduct or incapacity."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. SEXTON

said, he wished to move an Amendment to the Amendment at the beginning. So far as he could gather from the right hon. Gentleman, the intention here was to apply to those officers who held their offices permanently, except for misconduct or incapacity, the provision of Sub-section 2. These gentlemen, who might remain in office as long as they pleased, were to be allowed to retire immediately the Home Rule Bill passed, and upon such retirement they were to receive the same pension as if they had completed their full time. Therefore, he proposed to amend the Amendment by inserting at the beginning the words, "Sub-section (1) of."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to insert at the beginning, the words "Sub-section (1) of."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

hoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), because it was impossible to draw a distinction, in justice or in fact, between these officials and the Commissioners or officers referred to in Sub-section 2.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, that upon this occasion he was afraid he could not accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the Amendment would include the Bankruptcy Judges, who were officials that stood higher than other officers of the Court, and one of these Judges had been the object of special and virulent attack by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.

MR. J. MORLEY

pointed out that the Bankruptcy Judges held office under the same tenure as the County Court Judges, and, therefore, would be included in the benefits of Sub-section 2.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.)

said, the Bankruptcy Judges were paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and retained office under the same circumstances as County Court Judges.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, these officers had taken office under certain circumstances, and they were now going to be transferred against their will; and he wished to ask whether they ought not to have the right to say whether they objected to serve the new Government? If so, their interests ought to be safeguarded by the Imperial Government that appointed them and were responsible for them.

MR. SEXTON

had no desire to prevent them saying whether or not they would serve the new Government; but if they were so fastidious that they would not serve the new Government he objected to giving them the same pension as if they had completed their full term of service.

MR. DUNBAR BARTON (Armagh, Mid)

said, there were other very important judicial officers to be considered, the Chief Clerks and Masters in Chancery; and these, as well as the Bankruptcy Judges, should be included in Sub-section 2.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, that, as he understood it, the sub-section proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would secure these officers; but now, owing to the limitation proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), the Government were going to put in words that would debar this class of officers from the benefits of Sub-section 2. He thought the Government should stick to their guns, particularly after some of his hon. Friends had withdrawn an Amendment upon the understanding that these officers would come within Sub-section 2.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

agreed that, after what had fallen from the Government, it would be unfair that these officers should not receive the full privilege of the clause. But he put that on one side, and asked the Government if they meant to say that while the County Court Judges were entitled to the treatment of Sub-section 2 the Bankruptcy Judges were to be excluded.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, it was not the case that all the higher officials would wish to retire, though some might, and they could be spared. It was possible to contemplate the retirement of a certain number; but with regard to the Clerks of the Peace, Dublin Metropolitan Magistrates, or officers of the Four Courts, they were all gentlemen who had no claim on this sub-section. That was his distinction between the higher officers mentioned in the sub-section and these officers.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that after giving certain privileges to one class they proposed a new sub-section by which they dealt with persons whose salaries were not paid out of the Consolidated Fund, but paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and they said they should not have the privileges of Sub-section 2, because they were inferior officers. Now he pointed out that they were not all inferior officers, as the tenure was not the same for all of them, and in support of that he mentioned the Bankruptcy Judges, who were regarded with as much consideration as any Judges of the High Court; but their salaries, by an extraordinary anomaly, happened to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. As they were as highly placed as the Judges, Commissioners, and officers mentioned in Sub-section 2, he urged the Government to give them the privileges which, in Sub-section 2, benefited the officers mentioned in that sub-section. That point the right hon. Gentleman had not answered.

MR. SETON-KARR

reminded the Committee and the Government that he only withdrew his former Amendment in the interests of Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under the Act of 1877, on the distinct assurance from the Government that they were in favour of the spirit of the Amendment, and that all that he desired was secured in another way. Now an Amendment was sprung upon the Committee by the virtual Leader of the House, the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), under which these men were to be deprived of the benefit of Sub-section 2. Under the circumstances he was surprised to hear the Chief Secretary say he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry. In his (Mr. Seton-Karr's) opinion it was a breach of faith with the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman was not doing what he said he would do two hours ago. As had been shown by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, the contract with these men was made with the British Government; they were transferring them by this Act to a contract with the Irish Government; and the Chief Secretary had admitted they were in honour bound to respect their vested interests, and that was exactly what he asked the right hon. Gentleman to do.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, the hon. Gentleman was making a rather serious charge. If he had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Seton-Karr) it would not have made the slightest difference to the point they were now discussing.

MR. SETON-KARR

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would deny that a few hours ago he said his object was to protect their vested interests?

MR. J. MORLEY

And I am protecting them.

MR. SETON-KARR

said, that all he wanted was that these men should be placed on the same footing as those in Sub-section 2, so that if they found they could not get on with the Irish Government they should be allowed to retire on such pension "as to Her Majesty seems fit." If the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) were accepted these men would be excluded, and the question of their pension could not be considered.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

trusted that the Committee would consider the interests of the Irish and the English taxpayer. Under the clause as it stood an officer could retire and would be entitled to the ordinary pension; but what was asked by the Party opposite was that if a person who had held office for five years chose to retire when the Irish Government came into possession of its own, he should be able to retire upon a full pension as if he had completed his entire term.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said that, as he understood it, persons in the position of Chief Clerks and Registrars would be excluded from the benefit of Sub-section 2 if the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) were carried. If the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Seton-Karr) had been accepted it would have included both classes of officers within Sub-section 2, and no valid objection could be shown against that, except that in the one case the salaries were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and in the other case they were provided for out of moneys voted by Parliament. He thought they were entitled to ask on what ground this distinction was drawn, which, as it appeared to him, would work great injustice?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the difference was not in the payment, but in the tenure of office. In the first class the officers were only removable upon Address from both Houses, and now it was proposed to add another sub-clause of persons only removable for misconduct or incapacity. The interests of those referred to in the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helen's were amply safeguarded by the Superannuation Act of 1859, and it would make no difference in their position whether the Amendment were accepted or not. It was said they were depriving these of the benefit of Sub-section 2. That was simply because the sub-section carried a right to a pension that otherwise did not exist.

MR. SETON-KARR

"As to Her Majesty seems fit."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that the right to a pension was subject to certain statutory rights; in the case of a County Court Judge it was 20 years' service, in the case of a Judge of the Supreme Court it was 15 years, and in the case of certain other officers it was 10 years' service. But in the present case hon. Gentlemen opposite desired that a man who had only served five years, if he was indisposed to work for the new Government, was to be entitled to a pension. He thought such a proposition had only to be stated to answer itself; they were asking now to extend this privilege, which was not a vested right and did not exist at this moment, to these servants, and they were asking that they should receive that privilege out of the funds of the Irish people.

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

quite admitted that these public servants had not a vested right, but the foundation of this privilege which it was proposed to give them was this Bill. If there was no Bill there would be no necessity for this clause. These men were permanent Civil servants, paid by money voted by Parliament; they could only be removed on incapacity or misconduct, and surely it did seem to be an absurd thing that they would give better terms to permanent Civil servants removable on pleasure than to those who could only be removed for misconduct and incapacity. The greater number of gentlemen who would be benefited by this section were men who performed most important duties for the Crown and the Public Service in Ireland, and, as a rule, they were extremely capable public servants. They did not belong to one set of politics in Ireland, and he knew gentlemen belonging to the same political Party as hon. Members below the Gangway occupying some of these important posts. These officials were led to expect from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, and the policy which the Government declared they would adopt in regard to Ireland, that they would be treated like all the other permanent Civil servants in the country, and he asked the Government not to exclude them from this privilege.

MR. SETON-KARR

said, the President of the Local Government Board had stated that a man might retire for no good reason, and then ask for a full pension; but in the Bill of the Government in this subjection were the words "Her Majesty may, if she thinks fit." Surely the wording of that sub-section implied that each application should be considered on its merits. If there was an unfounded application for a pension on retirement it would be refused. It seemed to him the Government desired to take advantage of a technicality to exclude the officers appointed under the Act of 1877 from the benefits of this sub-section. If the Chief Secretary adopted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kerry, he would be virtually committing a breach of faith. It was a question of honour to protect the vested rights of these men who might be in an untenable position under the new Irish Government. He attached great importance to this matter, and if the Government persisted in resisting it he should consider it his duty to divide the Committee upon it.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

remarked, that the President of the Local Government Board had just said they were seeking to bring in a certain set of officers under this clause who had no right to be brought in. They were resisting an Amendment to exclude them. They (the Opposition) were standing by the clause as submitted by the Government. They were simply opposing an Amendment by one who had been called before now the real Leader of the House of Commons. He would answer what had been said by the Member for Sunderland by citing the case of the Bankruptcy Judges. In what did they differ from the Judges of the High Court? In absolutely nothing, save that for some reason or other their salaries were not charged on the Consolidated Fund. He agreed that there were too many Judges in Ireland, but there were not too many Bankruptcy Judges, he was sorry to say. Everybody who knew anything about Ireland knew that one of these Judges had been persistently and pertinaciously attacked in that House for the mere performance of his ordinary duties. He had sat in the House when the Speaker had had to interfere and protect that Judge from hon. Members opposite. Were they to be told that, having accepted employment under the Imperial Government, this Judge was now to be transferred without his will or consent to another Government, and that if he was anxious to retire and declined to serve the Government of the men who had over and over again unjustly assailed him, did the hon. Member for Sunderland mean to say that this Judge ought not to have the right to retire?

MR. STOREY

was understood to say the Judge ought to have the right to retire.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Ought he not then to have his pension considered, not by the Irish Government, but by the Imperial Government? This clause did not give him an extra pension, but only such persons as Her Majesty might think fit. They were constantly asked to remember that the veto, for example, would be directed by the Imperial Government. They were asked to trust the Imperial Government when it came to a question of veto; why should the Imperial Government not be trusted when it came to a question of pensions for officials? Why should such a matter be handed over to hon. Members opposite, who were the declared enemies and opponents of these men? The Opposition could not possibly allow these two Judges to be left to the tender mercies of the Irish Government, but they must insist on the Government doing what was a plain matter of duty in regard to men whose salaries ought to have been on the Consolidated Fund long ago.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. W. KENNY (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green)

said, there were three classes of Civil servants provided for under the 27th and 28th clauses. First, those whose salaries were charged on the Consolidated Fund, secondly those who held office during good behaviour, and thirdly those who held office during pleasure and whose salaries were not charged on the Consolidated Fund, But for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Civil servants who held office during good behaviour would have come under the 28th clause instead of the 27th. The Bankruptcy Judges held office during good behaviour, but their salaries were not charged on the Consolidated Fund. What was to be their position? There were two of these Judges—and upon the head of one of them abuse of no ordinary kind had been helped by gentlemen opposite. The other Judge was at one time a Member of that House. The position of these gentlemen at the present moment was that of Civil servants holding office during good behaviour, and, therefore, they were in possession of the freehold office which had been referred to in the course of the discussion that evening. They had a "property" in their office, and the Chief Secretary, finding that they came under Clause 28, brought up his Amendment which would place them under Clause 27. Why should they not have the benefit of the entire of that clause? It was not correct to suggest that the present Amendment had been framed to cover an inadvertence, for the intention of the Government was clear from the Amendments which had been put by them upon the Paper as far back as April last. It was clear that it had been the intention of the Government to give these officers who held during good behaviour all the benefits that were intended to be conferred on Civil servants whose salaries were charged on the Consolidated Fund.

MR. RENTOUL

said, there were two classes of permanent Civil servants whose offices had been described as "property." The first was those whose salaries were on the Consolidated Fund, and the second was the class of Civil servants whose salaries were not on the Consolidated Fund, but were voted from time to time by Parliament. Those whose salaries were charged on the Consolidated Fund were perfectly safe under Clause 27 as it at present stood without the Amendment of the Chief Secretary, that Amendment being intended to bring the second class under the clause. Then the hon. Member for North Kerry came in with his Amendment to nullity the effect of the Chief Secretary's proposal. Persons who were to be compulsorily transferred to new masters, whom, rightly or wrongly, they distrusted, ought to be allowed certain privileges in the matter of pensions if they elected to retire at the eud of a certain number of years. These persons—Bankruptcy Judges, Chief Clerks, and Masters—were appointed by the Imperial Parliament, and they had naturally anticipated that they would remain in the service of the United Kingdom so long as they held office. A change, however, was about to be effected by the Bill, and they were to be transferred to other masters. They distrusted those masters, and they asked that there should be no difference made between them and the Judges of the High Court. They might desire to retire when the change took place. Not long ago an official of the London County Council resigned his appointment through fear of the masters under whom he was compelled to serve. He said it was better to resign his position before a charge was made against him by persons hostile to him. What could be more natural than that Irish officials, who had already been persistently attacked in the House, should say—"Let us now retire—we should have been willing to complete our service to entitle us to a pension under the Imperial Parliament; we will complete that period of service in any other capacity, but we refuse to be transferred to an Irish Parliament without being made perfectly safe in the position we are to occupy." The Amendment of the Chief Secretary covered the case of these officials, and the right hon. Gentleman must be gratified to find the Opposition so enthusiastic in their support of his proposal. It was to be hoped, therefore, that he would not permit his excellent Amendment to be turned aside from its purpose.

MR. WEBB (Waterford, W.)

said, he should not have intervened in the Debate had it not been for the statement made at an earlier period that the Nationalist Party were the declared enemies of the class whose interests they were now discussing. He wished to repudiate that statement. Anything which in times past had been said reflecting upon these gentlemen had been said in the heat of agitation and under circumstances of extraordinary provocation. He believed that if English Members had received the same provocation, they would have said things quite as bitter as any which had fallen from the Irish Nationalists. But there were no people more quick to forget than the Irish, and he believed that these officials would have a more satisfactory position under the Irish Government than that they occupied at present, because they would find every one on their side only too anxious to make things easier for them in the future than they had been in the past. It had been said that these officials were able men. Well, if they were well fitted to discharge the duties which they were performing there would be no desire on the part of the Irish Government to get rid of them; but he protested against their being encouraged to neglect their work in the hope of being allowed to retire upon their full salaries. It would be a fierce light which would beat upon the Irish Legislature, and if there was the slightest injustice done the whole world would know it. He believed the Irish Government would work well with its officials, and any such arrangement as putting the gentlemen in question into the same position regarding subsidies as the superior Judges was quite unnecessary, and could not be beneficial.

SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)

said, he would acquit the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken of any desire to deal harshly with Irish officials, but at the same time the hon. Member did not say that inequality did not exist. He (Sir T. Lea) was certainly disappointed at the disposition shown by the Government to recede from the measure of justice to the Irish Civil servants which they had proposed to the House. The hon. Member opposite had said that language had been used in the House towards the Irish Bankruptcy Judges which he condemned. But although the hon. Member condemned the language which had been used, and although he excused it in view of the condition of things which prevailed at the time, he must admit that the Judges whose conduct had been so dealt with were likely to distrust those who had attacked thorn. In common justice to those Judges they should not be put on a lower level than the Judges of the High Court. Then, although the principal Land Commissioners would be treated fairly, the Sub-Commissioners were not paid out of money voted by Parliament, and would not, therefore, received equal treatment with the others. He hoped the Chief Secretary would adhere to his Amendment.

SIR J. GORST

thought the Government would feel that they had not treated Members on the Opposition side of the House quite fairly. Sub-section 2 undoubtedly placed in the hands of the Imperial Government a great power, and one which might be used greatly to the injury and dissatisfaction of the Irish Government; but he supposed that the sub-section was proposed by the Government and accepted by the Irish Members in good faith—on the understanding that the Government would not use a power of this kind in an unreasonable and unfair manner, and that the Government of Ireland should be informed as to the steps that were to be taken. He understood that permission to retire would not be given unless there was good ground for it. The words of the sub-section would permit the Government to pay the retiring official the pension to which he would have been entitled if he had completed his term of service. To give a full pension to a man who retired after, say, only five years' service would be grossly unjust, and no one supposed that any Government, whether Radical or Tory, would pay such a pension. The words, no doubt, were very large, but the assumption was that the Government would exercise its power reasonably. Most of the speeches he had listened to had been against the granting of that power at all rather than directing themselves to the question as to whether certain officers should have the benefit of Sub-section 2 and certain others should not. He considered the Government had pledged themselves to the hon. Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Seton-Karr), that the officials for whom the hon. Member had spoken should be put in the same category as the Judges of the High Court. ["No, no!"] Yes; and the proposal of the Government would effect that object. But suddenly the hon. Member for North Kerry sprung an Amendment on the Government to which the Government yielded without much consideration or thought of their previous pledge. There had been nothing said to justify the division of these Irish officials into two categories. Why should a Judge of the High Court in Dublin have the opportunity of retiring under Sub-section 2 when a Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy had not? The Judges of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland, it was said, were gentlemen who were very likely to wish to retire. He knew nothing about that. He spoke with the utmost impartiality in the matter, but he could not for the life of him see why the Government should exclude from the benefits of Sub-section 2 the officers they had promised at an earlier period to include. The only reason he could see was that the hon. Member for North Kerry wished to have it so.

MR. BYLES (York, W.R., Shipley)

said, he had some diffidence in prolong- ing this Debate, but so many Members had addressed the House on behalf of the pensioners and would-be pensioners under this scheme, and so many of the speakers had been Representatives of Ireland, who might be said to be interested on behalf specially of the Irish taxpayer, that he thought it right and just to say that there were many Liberal Members, representing large working-class constituencies in this country, who entirely agreed with the views taken by his hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry. He understood that the Government had accepted the hon. Member's Amendment to their own proposal. He understood that the Chief Secretary intimated at once that that was all that was meant by the Government Amendment, but if the Government had not accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry he should have divided with him, and he believed many other Members would have divided with him oven against the Government. He could assure the Committee that there was in this country, amongst working-class voters, a very strong and growing and intensifying feeling against pensions at all, and against vested interests. During the whole of the evening hon. Gentlemen had been endeavouring to extend the pension system, to exaggerate and inflate the amounts which were to be receivable from the Public Purse by the present holders of Office in Ireland, and it had been a somewhat instructive and not very agreeable Debate to him. He was not sure that they had not had hon. Gentlemen defending their own relatives. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Name!"]

MR. SETON-KARR

I rise to a point of Order. The hon. Member suggests that Members of this House have got a personal interest in the views which they advocated.

MR. BYLES

No.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is out of Order.

MR. BYLES

said, he did not say anything of the kind. He said he was not sure that hon. Members were not defending their own relatives. No doubt he should be able to provide the hon. Gentleman by-and-bye with what he desired. All that was asked by this Amendment was that officers under the Government at present discharging certain duties for a certain salary should be entitled to receive that salary if they chose to continue that office, but should not receive any further pension than that to which they were at present entitled. No one would be any worse than he was before; but the proposal of hon. Members opposite was that other officials should be put in the position of Judges of the land, who were being treated in a particular manner for special reasons—namely, that they might be induced to retire. He understood the Chief Secretary to say that the object of the proposal was to reduce the number of Judges. There were too many Judges in Ireland; too much money was being paid, and too little work was being done, and a sort of premium was offered to Judges in order that their number might be reduced. That was a motive which could be defended on economic grounds. But that that principle should be extended to all sorts of other permanent officials was a proposition which he was quite sure not only Irish Members, but a very large number of Radical and Liberal Members, would protest against.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said, the hon. Gentleman had no doubt given very forcible expression to his own opinion; but what authority had he for saying that he also expressed the opinion of the working classes of this country?

MR. BXLES

I represent a very large working class constituency. [Cries of "So do we!"]

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

did not deny that; but what authority had the hon. Gentleman to say that the working classes were against all vested interests? That was a proposition which the working classes would repudiate altogether. He was under the strong impression that there was a feeling amongst the working classes in favour of a scheme of old-ace or retiring pensions.

MR. SEXTON

For those who have worked hard for them.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

But the hon. Member was against pensions as a principle.

MR. BYLES

I did not say so.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said, the hon. Member spoke of pensions as a principle. He would remind the Chief Secretary of the still unanswered question why was a Judge of the Bankruptcy Court to be placed man invidious position—distinguished from all the other Judges of the land? Everyone who had any knowledge of the Irish judicial system knew that it was purely accidental whether a Judge filled a position in one category or the other. Some eminent Irish legal authorities had earned their position on the Bankruptcy Bench by services not a whit inferior to those which had placed other members of their profession in higher judicial positions. A Judge of the Bankruptcy Court was just as much entitled to justice and consideration as any other judicial officer. No doubt, technically, Judges of the Bankruptcy Court held their office under a somewhat different tenure to that of the other Judges, but the Chief Secretary had not, shown why they should be placed in a. different category to the other Judges.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

wished to put. a case to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Byles)—that of a private firm, say a firm owning a newspaper professing Radical principles. Supposing the editor and sub-editor, and the leading members of the staff of that newspaper, had permanent situations—that they were secured by a permanent tenure; suppose that that newspaper changed its politics (a thing which occurred not very long ago); he asked his hon. Friend what would he say to those gentlemen who had that permanent tenure if they refused to conduct the newspaper under its new auspices? What the hon. Member would do if he were the owner of the newspaper would be to pay them their pensions. Why should not the State do the same thing? Were they not turning things upside down in Ireland? Were they not telling men employed by the Imperial Government that they must take service under another and a totally different Government, professing totally different principles, which these men never undertook to serve, and which they ought not to be forced to serve?

MR. SETON-KARR

said, he must accuse the Chief Secretary for Ireland of a breach of faith in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry. If his (Mr. Seton-Karr's) Amendment had been accepted, the case of the officers concerned would have been fully met; it would not only have been unnecessary but impossible for the hon. Member for North Kerry to have moved his Amendment; this discussion, which had lasted three hours, would have been avoided, and it would not have been possible to jockey these men in the way now attempted. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. MAC NEILL

asked whether the word "jockey" was in Order?

THE CHAIRMAN

could not say it was out of Order, but he hoped such language would not be used.

MR. SETON-KARR

said, it was an ordinary expression which conveyed his meaning. He was sorry to offend the tender susceptibilities of the hon. Member, and he could assure him that he intended no personal offence. He wanted the hon. Member to know that, having the new sub-section of the Chief Secretary before them, and knowing nothing of the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry, they were induced to withdraw certain other Amendments, and at the last moment the hon. Member's Amendment upset the whole previous situation. Did the Chief Secretary know the hon. Member's Amendment was to be moved? If the Government adhered to their former assurances they were bound to give these men the full benefit of the whole clause.

MR. J. MORLEY

There is only one very short answer to the hon. Member. He says if he had known we should have accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) he would have divided on his Amendment. Does he not see, even with his very moderate vision, that supposing he had carried his Amendment, the effect of his victory would have been that we should have been precluded from dealing with these gentlemen?

MR. SETON-KARR

How about my second Amendment?

MR. J. MORLEY

If the hon. Member had lost his Amendment what would have become of the pensions of the Clerks of the Crown and Peace for whom he professes to be speaking? I turn aside from that and from the hon. Gentleman's polite and courteous language about "jockeying" to the one serious point that has been raised—namely, with reference to the position of the Bankruptcy Judges. I shall take time to consider that point. It certainly was not our intention to exclude the Bankruptcy Judges from privileges enjoyed by other Judges. We think there are reasons why, if anybody were so minded, he might make out a good case; but the circumstances of the Bankruptcy Judges being what we know them to be, and our desire never having been to place them on a lower footing, though they are on a different footing, from the other Judges, I will take time to consider between this and Report whether we can so amend the sub-section as to secure that they shall have the same privileges as the other Judges. As to the other officials, their position remains unchanged.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said, he did not propose to imitate the language of the right hon. Gentleman, or to make any references to "moderate visions;" but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, with his powerful vision, he did not see that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) absolutely traversed the whole object of the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment. If he did see this, he would ask him whether the allegiance which hon. Members all knew the right hon. Gentleman owed to the hon. Member for North Kerry—[Nationalist cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"]—well, whether the desire by which the right hon. Gentleman was actuated to do that which the hon. Member for North Kerry desired to see done, could be carried quite so far as to induce him to accept an Amendment flagrantly contradicting the Amendment he had himself brought forward.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 142.—(Division List, No. 221.)

MR. SETON-KARR

moved to insert in the proposed Amendment, after "to" in the first line, the words— Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under 'The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877,' and all. He said, that good reasons had been given for this proposal in the course of the Debate that had lately taken place.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— In line 1, after the word "to," to insert the words "Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under 'The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877,'and all."—(Mr. Seton-Karr.)

Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."

MR. J. MORLEY

We cannot accept this Amendment. There is no necessity whatever for it.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

spoke in support of the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. H. PLUNKETT

moved to insert in the proposed Amendment, at the end thereof, to add the words— And all Clerks of the Crown or Clerks of the Peace appointed previous to the 14th day of August, 1877, He said this proposal bore some resemblance to Amendments which had been proposed before, but in reality it was quite distinct and different. He understood the object of the Chief Secretary's Amendment to be to leave certain officers in the same position as they were in at present as regarded their tenure of office, salaries, and pensions. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Clerks of the Peace and Crown had a perfectly good case, but said they were covered by his own Amendment, and denied that the Clerks of the Peace and Crown appointed previously to 1877 had no case whatever. He (Mr. Plunkett) submitted that they had a very strong case indeed. In 1877 they were given a certain status by Act of Parliament. They were dealt with very liberally in the matter of pension, and, in addition, were given a certain reversion to a joint office which was then created. It seemed to him that 16 years' service since then could not have weakened, but must have very largely strengthened, their claim. The right hon. Gentleman stated that they had a freehold. But if it should so be that the Irish Government changed the Grand Jury Laws these officers would be absolutely deprived, not only of their salaries, but of their pensions, because their salaries were now paid by presentment of the Grand Juries—it was true it was under Imperial Statute; but if the Grand Jury Laws were changed he did not see where their salaries would come from. Therefore, he submitted that, though technically they were county officers, from every moral point of view they had a far stronger claim than Clerks of the Peace, who had been already provided for. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to treat the Amendment seriously, and to tell them on what grounds he refused this concession to a small and decreasing number of officers.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, at the end thereof, to add the words— And all Clerks of the Crown or Clerks of the Peace appointed previous to the fourteenth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven."—(Mr. Horace Plunkett.)

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he had already explained the view of the Government on this point. These persons held a freehold office under an old law of 200 years standing, and a freehold of that kind could not be disturbed by an Act of the Irish Legislature without violating the provisions of the 4th clause of the Bill. If the officers were disturbed, the disturbance must be accompanied by the grant of just compensation. The 4th clause already gave protection to them, and, therefore, he could not accept the Amendment.

SIR H. JAMES

said, that all the 4th clause stated was that no property should be taken away without due process of law, and this was all the protection it gave. But he doubted if an office was property within the meaning of that clause. A man could be deprived of an office by Statute without property being taken without due process of law. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree to insert the word "office" after the word "property" in the clause? The point was whether property, be it real or personal, included an office. If it was so declared in the Bill, all doubt would be removed.

MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)

said, the word property occurred twice in the same sub-section of the 4th clause. In the first part it said that no person should be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," and in the last part that no "private property may be taken without just compensation." He wished to ask the Solicitor General in which of these definitions of property the offices in question came?

SIR J. RIGBY

said, they seemed to be going back to a former condition of things, when everyone thought he was entitled to ask a question that had been answered before. Offices of the kind in question were property. The right hon. Member for Bury (Sir. H. James) said this could not be right, because property must be either real or personal. Well, some offices were real property and some were personal. At any rate, he took offices of this kind to be property, though he should like to inquire into the matter a little more before he said they were real or were personal property.

SIR H. JAMES

asked if the Solicitor General would kindly say so in the 4th clause, so as to make it clear?

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that to put in "property, including offices," would be very bad drafting, and would lead to very bad law.

MR. BYRNE

said, he must again ask the Solicitor General under which definition of property in the sub-section he placed the offices. To his mind it was an important point, because in the one case property could not be taken away without due process of law, and in the other a person could not be deprived of it without just compensation.

MR. VICARY GIBBS (Herts, St. Albans)

asked if the question was not to be answered? It seemed to him to be a very important question, and one that ought to be answered.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)

also thought there ought to be a definition given, so that there should be no difficulty in the matter.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he was severely taken to task by the Prime Minister in one of the early Debates for suggesting that so august a person as the Solicitor General had lost his temper. He did not say the hon. and learned Gentleman had lost his temper on this occasion, but he had certainly been very brief. Brevity was not a Parliamentary virtue which he regretted, but if they were to have brevity at the cost of not answering perfectly legitimate questions by competent persons he could only say they would have too much of a good thing. His hon. and learned Friend, a most competent lawyer, had put to the Solicitor General this question, whether the offices referred to came within the definition of property of which nobody could be deprived "without due process of law," or under the definition of private property in the other part of the subsection which could not be taken "without just compensation"?

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that if his hon. and learned Friend who put the question would give his opinion on the matter he would say whether he agreed with him or not.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

said, he understood that the Chief Secretary in the earlier discussion this evening was perfectly candid, and had stated that this class of official was protected, because they had a freehold property in their office, which was protected under Clause 4, and he (Lord R. Churchill) imagined the right hon. Gentleman would not go back upon that position.

MR. BYRNE

said, that the Committee had had two absolutely contradictory opinions on the subject—the one, that of the right hon. Member for Bury (Sir H. James) and the other that of the Solicitor General. Without these contradictory opinions he should have thought the question doubtful. He would now merely content himself with asking whether the Government intended that the gentlemen holding these offices should be deprived of them with or without just compensation? It was no answer to that question to say—"Will you, a private Member, pledge your opinion as to a sub-section you did not draw, and did not approve of?" instead of giving a reasonable opinion on which they might be expected to act in the Division Lobby.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, that he and his hon. and learned Friend had stated several times that these offices could not be interfered with without the occupants receiving just compensation.

SIR E. CLARKE

said, he had heard from the Solicitor General not an opinion, but a challenge to somebody else to give an opinion. Now, he would give an opinion himself. It was clear that the private property which could not be taken "without just compensation" was property taken away for public purposes from private individuals for the use of the public. That could not possibly apply to offices. As for the other part of the sub-section— Whereby any person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the word "property" there did not include offices such as that with which the Committee was now dealing, and he should be very much surprised if the learned Solicitor General would commit himself to a definite opinion the other way.' If not, these words should be put in to make it clear—in other words, that "freehold offices "should be included in this protecting sub-section.

SIR J. RIGBY

objected to be called up time after time under cross-examination and asked to repeat under different forms an opinion he had already expressed. In this case he did not hesitate to say that, in his opinion, these freehold offices were property in the first part of the clause and private property in the second.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

moved to add at the end of the sub-section, "And Subsection 2 shall apply to the Judges in Bankruptcy." The Chief Secretary, he thought, might well make so small a concession as the Amendment involved. There were only two Bankruptcy Judges, and one of them, Judge Miller, was so old that he was entitled to claim his pension at once. The other was Judge Boyd; and surely a case had been made out for Judge Boyd coming under Subsection 2. In the plain performance of duty which could not be shirked, Judge Boyd had brought himself into collision with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; the bitterest expressions had been used towards him; and it was certain that his life would not be a happy one under a Nationalist Government. [Cries of "Question!" and "Oh!"] Hon. Members carried the "angelic" theory further than it would go; for there were other people besides hon. Gentlemen who were concerned in the matter. He hoped the Chief Secretary would accept the Amendment at once, instead of deferring it to the Report stage.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words— And Sub-section (2) shall apply to the Judges in Bankruptcy."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."

MR. J. MORLEY

said, that he had already stated his opinion that it was reasonable that the Judges in Bankruptcy should have the advantage of Sub-section 2. But he was not at all persuaded that that object had not been already gained by Sub-section 1. It was necessary to consult with the Legal Advisers of the Government; and, therefore, he could not go further than promise to deal with the matter on Report.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to promise that, unless he got a clear opinion from the Law Officers that Judge Boyd was included in Sub-section 1, he would bring up words on Report which would include him.

MR. J. MORLEY

Yes.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, in that case it was hardly worth while to pursue the matter further.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, they were in this difficulty, that they did not know what might take place on Report. They might never reach the clause, as it might be gagged.

MR. J. MORLEY

It certainly will not be my fault if we do not get to it on Report.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, that if it was not the right hon. Gentleman's fault, might he ask whose fault it would be?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

thought the Committee could not discuss the question of whose fault it would be. As he understood it, they had a pledge from the Government that on Report they would carry out a certain Amendment, and it was the business of the Government to find means to carry out their own pledge. He assumed that with the pledge was involved the business of carrying it out.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Words, as amended, inserted.

MR. SETON-KARR

said, the Amendment he had to propose was to add two further subsections at the end of the clause, and he would state shortly the reasons why these should be added. They had heard something of the Clerks of the Peace appointed under the Act of 1867. These gentlemen were really in the position of County Court Judges, as they required to be possessed of certain qualifications; but as they were always gentlemen of an advanced age it was impossible for them to serve the requisite number of years that would entitle them to a pension. County Court Judges were provided for, and by his Amendment he proposed to put Clerks of the Peace in the same position as County Court Judges, and for the same reasons. The second sub-section of his Amendment opened up a somewhat wider question. There was no reason why the Irish Government should not abolish the office if they chose, and in such an event he proposed that these men should be placed in the same position as they would have been in if the office had not been abolished.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words— (4) 'The Superannuation Act, 1859' (the twenty-second year of Victoria, chapter twenty-six, section four), shall be deemed to extend to the office of Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under 'The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877,' and every such officer on retiring shall be entitled on the computation of the amount of his superannuation allowance to have added to the number of years he may have actually served a further additional twenty years on account of professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service, and every such officer shall be entitled to such superannuation after a period of service of five years. (5) In case the said office of Clerk of the Crown and Peace be abolished every existing officer if then holding office shall be entitled to a superannuation allowance equal to his full salary, such allowance to be payable out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Seton-Karr.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. J. MORLEY

The Government cannot accept this Amendment, on two grounds. First, because these Clerks of the Crown and Peace have accepted office without any such provision as is proposed in the first part of the hon. Member's Amendment and with full knowledge of the salary they were to receive; and, further, because the scale as regards pensions proposed in the Amendment is exorbitant and unprecedented. The second ground is that never since the Superannuation Act of 1859 was passed has a professional addition to the scale of 20 years been granted. It has scarcely ever gone beyond 10 years, and has only in a few cases amounted to 15 years. As to the proposal that these officers should have a superannuation allowance equal to their annual salary, if the hon. Member will read the Superannuation Act more carefully he will find that under that Act the highest compensation is two-thirds of the salary, and not the full salary. Many persons hold the view that even two-thirds of the salary is much too liberal, and yet here is the hon. Gentleman making a proposal which is altogether extravagant and unprecedented.

MR. GOSCHEN

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these allowances are unprecedented in the sense that they have never been allowed to persons who remained in the same service. But the case of these Irish Civil servants is absolutely unprecedented. This Bill practically calls upon them to transfer their allegiance. The Chief Secretary says that when these gentlemen entered office it was contemplated that they were to have these allowances. But can it be said that these gentlemen contemplated serving under a totally different Government from that under which they entered office? We desire that the whole of the Civil servants shall be treated on the footing that this is no ordinary abolition or change of office or retirement, but that it is a demand that they shall act under a Government under which they have never dreamt they would have to serve, and which would be composed to a great extent of men with whom they have been in conflict in the discharge of their duties. It is the duty of the Government and of the Committee to take special care that the future of these men shall not be spoilt and their lives put upon a different footing from that which they had contemplated. Without wishing to force any particular scale upon the Government, I deprecate the application of the ordinary Treasury rules and precedents as regarded pensions and retirements to the entirely unprecedented cases of these men.

MR. J. MORLEY

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to soften as much as possible any hardships that may arise. The right hon. Gentleman says he is not going to argue about the scale; but he used the argument and took up the position that on account of the extraordinary character of the change that this Bill will introduce not one of these gentlemen was to be displaced except upon his full salary. [Mr. GOSCHEN: I did not say so.] No, the right hon. Gentleman did not say so; he is too circumspect to say that, but his argument goes to that extent. I have shown the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment that the scale of retiring allowances that he proposes is unprecedented and excessive.

MR. SETON-KARR

I do not desire to bind the right hon. Gentleman to the scale I have proposed as long as he accepts the principle of my Amendment.

MR. J. MORLEY

In my view, the Amendment of the hon. Member is nothing but the scale. The whole point and purpose of the Amendment is to give to these Civil servants certain terms, not upon the ordinary scale—

MR. SETON-KARR

May I say one thing?

MR. J. MORLEY

The hon. Gentleman has said a great many things already. This is a serious point. Hon. Members opposite must make up their minds whether they are prepared to take up the position that every Civil servant in Ireland shall be permitted to retire immediately, not only upon their full salaries, but with an allowance calculated upon every possible increment upon these salaries.

MR. GOSCHEN

I do not claim that there should be full salaries given to these Civil servants as retiring allowances. But I claim that the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to quote precedent in cases that are entirely unprecedented. No ordinary Treasury Rules can possibly apply to cases that will be created by this Bill, for it proposes that the Civil servants shall transfer their allegiance from the Government under which they entered on service to a Government of which they had never dreamed.

MR. J. MORLEY

I think that the matter can be argued more appropriately upon Clause 28.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think there is something to be said for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this matter can be better dealt with on Clause 28. I may say, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would have saved discussion on the matter if he had stuck to the original proposal; but the Government, by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry, have divided the Irish Civil servants into two classes, one of which is to obtain the benefit of Sub-section 2, and the other of which is to be excluded from that benefit. Perhaps the best course to pursue under the circumstances will be to divide upon the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and to reserve the discussion upon general retirement allowances until Clause 28 is before the Committee, and until we know the proposals of the Government.

MR. SETON-KARR

said, that he had been charged by the Chief Secretary with not having read the Superannuation Act, and with having made a proposal which was unprecedented and exorbitant under that Act. But on referring to the Act again he found that 28 years was the maximum period allowed to be added for professional experience. The Clerks of the Crown and Peace in Ireland were men of advanced years, who had qualified themselves for their positions by long years of study and preparation; and he therefore thought they were entitled, on that account, to have 20 years added to their period of service.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that the Government had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry after their clause had been before the House for three months. The Government had changed front frequently on the subject under consideration. On the First Beading they took one view, on April 7 they took another, they had now proposed a third, and had accepted a fourth at the bidding of the hon. Member for North Kerry. He awaited with interest the fifth view which they should take of the question.

Amendment amended, in line 8, by leaving out the word "twenty," and inserting the word "fifteen," and inline 14, by inserting the words "three-fourths of," before the word "his."

MR. W. KENNY (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green)

asked whether the Committee "would be able to discuss the position of Clerks of the Peace on Clause 28?

MR. J. MORLEY

We shall be able to discuss the general question of the principle of compensation on Clause 28.

MR. W. KENNY

Therefore, if the Clerks of the Peace come under any section, they must come under this? MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!

Question put, "That the words, '(4) "The Superannuation Act, 1859 "(the twenty-second year of Victoria, chapter twenty-six, section four"), shall be deemed to extend to the office of Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under "The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877," and every such officer on retiring shall be entitled on the computation on the amount of his superannuation allowance to have added to the number of years he may have actually served a further additional fifteen years on account of professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service, and every such officer shall be entitled to such superannuation after a period of service of five years. '(5) In case the said office of Clerk of the Crown and Peace be abolished every existing-officer, if then holding office, shall be entitled to a superannuation allowance equal to three-fourths of his full salary, such allowance to be payable out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom,' be there added.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 201; Noes 246.—(Division List, No. 222.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 (As to persons holding Civil Service appointments).

MR. J. MORLEY

I think that I may be consulting the convenience of the Committee if I take this opportunity of briefly stating the general drift of this clause. Everyone will agree that a clause which affects a body like the per- manent Civil servants in Ireland is a clause of very great importance. So far as I am concerned, I regret that it has fallen to me to be the instrument for proposing terms which are not entirely acceptable to all the members of that Service, because I have received from all members of that Service with whom I have had dealings treatment of the utmost considerateness, though to many of them the policy with which I was associated was not altogether welcome. They have shown to a Government with which they are only partially in sympathy the same loyalty and fidelity which they have shown to other Governments, and it seems like a bad return for that loyal service that I should have to lay down some propositions which they do not altogether accept. I hope and believe that this is a part of the Bill which we ought to discuss so far as we can without any Party spirit, because whatever may happen it is indispensable for the Government of Ireland, whoever may be in power, that there should be the least degree of friction between the permanent Executive Service in Ireland and those who have the administration and control of it. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he believed we are all agreed in desiring to do what is fair, just, equitable, and generous to those gentlemen, only limited by the precaution that we shall not impose on the future Government of Ireland an unreasonable or excessive load of financial responsibilities. I should like to recognise the moderation, tone, and temper which the Civil servants themselves have shown in what I freely admit are rather trying and exceptional circumstances. I have had the honour and advantage of several interviews with their representatives; and I heard no language used, either as to any future Government in Ireland or as to our policy or this clause, which was not in tone and temper and spirit moderate and right. What is the principle of this clause? It declares that permanent Civil servants are to continue to hold office by the same tenure, to receive the same salaries, gratuities, and pensions, to perform the same duties as heretofore, or analogous duties. On that point the word "analogous" has raised some complaint, because it is a vague and unsatisfactory word. The answer to that complaint is that the word is used in other Acts of Parliament, and in the same sense as in this clause. The whole tendency in Parliament for many years past has been that Civil servants whose functions are changed, or whose position is changed, shall not only undertake duties which may be determined by the Heads of Departments to be analogous, but shall undertake any duties which the Heads of Departments, in their discretion and acting conscientiously, may wish them to undertake. What are the dangers to be guarded against for the Civil servants? Those dangers were capricious dismissal or reduction of salary. It some quarters it was also apprehended—but not by us—that there would be such unfair—what I may call scandalous—treatment on the part of the new Irish Government as would make the position of those servants intolerable, and would practically amount to expulsion. On the other hand, what are the dangers to the Irish Government? The danger of sudden retirement en masse of the Civil servants, a sort of large general strike, or else, what would be worse than a general strike, a sort of sullen service which would end in great inefficiency, and give the Irish Government no chance of conducting the government of the country. In order to guard against these two sets of dangers, we began by establishing a transitional period, originally fixed at three years, but, in deference to representations partly made by these gentlemen, now extended to five years, to give the Irish Government time to look around and feel its feet; and, on the other hand, to give the Civil servants time and opportunity to consider their position. Nothing could be worse than any sort of violent break in the administrative system of the country, and we have introduced this transitional period to ease off whatever difficulties might arise in the relations between the Civil servants and the Irish Government. During that transitional period a Civil servant may do one of five things:—(1) He may leave the Service under medical certificate or existing rules as to age; (2) he may be dismissed for misconduct or incapacity; (3) he may be removed on abolition of his office, or on reorganisation of the Department, provided that such reorganisation does not create a fresh office; (4) he may-resign; or (5) he may be required by the Irish Government to retire. We, however, make a provision that either in the case of a Civil servant wishing to resign, or in the case of the Irish Government desiring him to retire, there shall be six months' notice on either side; and we also provide that the number of retirements or resignations at one time shall be limited. It is, however, provided that the officer is not to have the benefits conferred by this clause if he is already, or within the period named, incapacitated by infirmity or is over age. We propose to guard the Civil servant during the transitional period by providing either that he shall have his whole salary if he continues to serve; or if he retires or is removed, we provide for him special terms of compensation; or if he continues to serve under the Irish Government after the five years of the transitional period, then we secure to him the full pension which he has earned up to the end of that period, payable, not upon the end of the period if he continues to serve the Irish Government, but upon his retirement. It is awarded to him at the end of the five years. Then he makes his own bargain with the Irish Government, and when he ultimately retires from the Service, the Treasury will pay him the sum which he had earned at the end of the five years. All these sums are secured by the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. We have introduced another provision, of which I hope the Committee will see the usefulness, and that is a Joint Committee, of which two Members shall represent the Imperial Treasury and one Member shall be nominated by, and shall represent, the Irish Government. That Committee is a protection to the Civil servant in this way. If the Civil servant says he has been wrongly dismissed, then he has the right of appeal to this Joint Committee, who, after investigating the matter, would report to the Treasury, and the Treasury would then be guided by that Report as to their decision. The Report would not be absolutely binding on the Treasury in making their award, but it would be a guide to them. It will be observed that we give the Civil servant a very considerable boon. If he resigns to-day, unless he has attained the age at which he is entitled to resign, he goes out of office carrying nothing with him. But under the Bill, if he resigns voluntarily, then we give him a very large pension to take with him. We must, then, give the Irish Government what I may call a correlative right. We do not allow him to resign without giving six months' notice, and we insist that the Irish Government shall not require any officer to retire without six months' notice. We take care of that, and we take care, in other ways, against anything like a vindictive clean sweep, which, however, we do not at all apprehend. To use an expression I have used before, the Irish Government would he mad from many points of view if they made anything like a vindictive clean sweep, and I do not think there is the slightest chance of their doing so. We take the precaution, however, that the Treasury may determine how many officers may resign at a given time, or how many officers the Irish Government may require to resign at a given time. The Treasury will thus control the matter for five years. This appears in Sub-section 2 of Sub-section 8. I now turn to the scale. The officer will receive, whether he resigns or is removed, the ordinary abolition terms, and we also give the following additional advantages. He is to be allowed to count for pension, whenever he resigns, the full five years' transitional period, and the pension will he calculated on the higher salary—namely, the salary he would be entitled to at the end of the five years, when it would have been added to by annual increments. The Committee will see that this is a considerable advantage to him. The Civil servant will receive an abolitional addition on the scale under the Schedule—that is to say, if he has completed less than 10 years' actual service, he will get three years' abolitional addition; if he has completed more than 10 and less than 15 years' service he will get five years'; and if more than 15 and less than 20 years' actual service he will get 10 years' abolitional addition, and there will be added to that, under any circumstances, the five years' transitional period. Take the case of an officer who has completed 10 years' service. His pension will be calculated on 10 years' actual service, plus five years' transitional service, plus an abolitional addition of five years. If he has completed 15 years' actual service, then his pension will be calculated on 15 years of actual service, plus five years' transitional service, plus 10 years' abolitional addition. Take one more case of an officer who has completed 25 years' actual service. His pension will be calculated on 25 years' actual service, plus five years for transition, plus 10 years for abolitional addition. That will be 40–60ths, or two-thirds, still calculated on the higher scale, which would be reached at the end of the transitional period. Of course, at the end of the transitional period, it will be for him to make his own bargain with the Irish Government. Beyond that date no responsibility will rest with the Imperial Exchequer. I would like to take one more case—the case of the Resident Magistrate. The Resident Magistrate, in many cases, is entitled to professional addition. That is given by the 4th section of the Superannuation Act, and I think the Committee will perceive that these gentlemen, entitled as they are to this professional addition, will get very good terms. The pension of a Resident Magistrate with 10 years of completed service will be calculated on 10 years' actual service, plus five years' transitional service, plus 10 years' abolitional addition, plus 10 years' professional addition, and that we consider very handsome. I ought to say that there are two other classes affected besides permanent Civil servants. The scheme extends to all persons continuously employed and paid by a State Department. That would include temporary clerks, copyists, and mechanics employed in a Government Department.

MR. W. JOHNSTON

Would it include National School teachers?

MR. J. MORLEY

No; National school teachers are certainly public servants in one sense, but they are not the officers of the Central Government. The National School teachers, with whom nobody would wish to deal more generously than I, are appointed by local managers, very often by an individual in a locality; and the Central Government, beyond imposing certain necessary qualifications upon them, is not their master, and, therefore, we have not been able to include them in the scheme.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Would it include Inspectors of National Schools?

MR. J. MORLEY

Oh, certainly; they are, undoubtedly, officers of the Central Government.

LORD F. HAMILTON (Tyrone, N.)

Does the clause apply to officials whose salaries are paid out of the county cess?

MR. J. MORLEY

If the noble Lord will wait a moment he will find I shall come to that. There is a further class permanently employed, but not giving their whole time, such persons as Crown Solicitors and Sessional Crown Solicitors. The clause gives such pensions to those gentlemen, in cases of abolition of office or removal, as the Treasury may think just, provided that it is one-fourth less than the superannuation allowance to which a Civil servant in the full sense is entitled. These gentlemen are paid by the Government for the work they do, but it does not give them the same claim for superannuation allowance that gentlemen whose whole livelihood depends on public service have. I will explain in a sentence why that distinction is drawn. These Crown Solicitors continue the practice of their profession, and they are paid by the Government for the work that they do for the Government; but it does not give them the same claim for compensation and superannuation allowance as clearly as you would give to gentlemen whose whole livelihood depends upon their public service. The proposal to give Crown Solicitors a professional addition cannot be considered, because that means giving compensation to a man for something he loses in abandoning his work for the public service. These gentlemen do not abandon their profession. Although we recognise their position as public servants, we bargain that their pension shall not exceed three-fourths of the scale of permanent Civil servants. The total number of persons affected by Clause 28 is 1,201. The gross amount of pensionable salary earned by these 1,200 gentlemen at the end of the transitional period would be £333,000. Then we have to make an approximate estimate of the gross annual amount of the superannuation allowance of these 1,200 people. It is £149,284, or, roughly, £150,000—that is to say, about half their pensionable salaries.

MR. GOSCHEN

That is if they all retire?

MR. J. MORLEY

Yes; and if they all claim their pensions. Then there is this fact to which I will call the attention of the Committee—that of the 1,201 persons 637 have an annual salary not exceeding £100, and the salary of 100 more does not exceed £200. That is an interesting figure, although I do not know that there is any particular moral to be drawn from it, except that in connection with these apprehensions of "a clean sweep" it is exceedingly unlikely that it would be thought worth while making a spoil of these 637 gentlemen. As to the Joint Committee, we have appointed that as a protection to stand between the Irish Government and the Civil servants. Something was said about the word "rights" in that clause. Perhaps "claims" would have been the better word. This Committee will inquire into the dismissal of any servant, and whether he is entitled to a pension or gratuity under the clause, and their decision will turn upon whether the appellant fulfils all the conditions prescribed in the clause. I have not been able to admit that county officers who are responsible to and paid by County Bodies have a necessary claim to the generosities of this clause. I see an Amendment on the Paper referring to this, and when that is moved it will be time to state my reasons. To sum up, I have not gone into the details of the claims made by the Civil servants. I have, however, circulated a frank and full statement of those claims; and I would point out to those who think we are dealing harshly that we have given more than abolition terms. We allow voluntary resignation; and we allow a pension calculated on the increased rate of salary. The Irish Representatives may have some remarks to make on this scheme; but I am at a loss to understand how hon. Gentlemen opposite can find fault with the proposals we now make to the Committee. We have endeavoured to frame a considerate and reasonable scheme which, without laying any excessive load on the Irish Government, will secure the just interests of the Civil servants under every likely, every probable, and, I will add, every possible contingency. If the Irish Government should prove to consist of lunatics, then contingencies may arise for which we cannot profess to make provision, and for which provision cannot be made. But if apprehensions of this kind are well-founded, and you are going to frame a scheme of compensation on the hypothesis that the Irish Government is capable of every enormity and iniquity, then you have only one course before you—that is, to allow every Civil servant, no matter how long or short his service, to retire on the appointed day, carrying with him his full salary, without the necessity of ever being called upon to do another stroke of work. On that hypothesis you will also have to guarantee to them some enormous gratuity to compensate them for the loss of promotion and other contingent and hypothetical advantages. It is inconceivable that anyone should propose, or that the Committee should adopt, such a lavish scheme. The only lines to go upon are the lines we have adopted; and I only say this in conclusion. If the whole Committee in its discretion, having fairly considered the matter, desire to extend the liberality of our scheme in some of those particulars which the Civil servants have brought forward, then it will, of course, be in the power of the Committee to do so. They will not, however, forget the limits of their generosity, because it will not be at our own expense. That generosity is, and must be, of such a nature as not to impose an unjust and intolerable burden on the Irish nation. Subject to that consideration, we desire to go as far as we can; and I submit to the Committee that we have followed the only practicable course. We have advanced very far in the path of generosity to those to whom we desire to be generous, to whom all British Governments owe a great deal, and on whom we should be extremely sorry to inflict the smallest hardship or the slightest injury.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I believe there is no question before the House; therefore it is only by the indulgence of the Committee that I can make a few remarks on the present occasion. I shall not abuse that indulgence by entering in any controversial spirit upon what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I only desire to thank him for his extremely lucid statement, and for the clearness with which he has laid before the Committee the views of the Government and the principles according to which they think the Civil servants of Ireland should be compensated. We shall have in the course of to-morrow to discuss in detail both the general principles which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down and their particular application to the present circumstances of Ireland. On the present occasion I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman feels keenly the duty which is due by the Imperial Government to the Irish Civil servants, and that although he has not shown in the Bill itself that he would give the same application to that sentiment that we should do in similar circumstances—if we could conceive ourselves in similar circumstances—it is not because he himself differs from the long line of his predecessors in recognising the enormous services given to the State by the Civil servants in Ireland. I shall wish to show, on some future occasion, that there are grounds for thinking that the special circumstances of Ireland and special promises given by important Irish officials make these proposals of the Government inadequate. I shall wait until we come to the detailed Amendments before I deal with them. The right hon. Gentleman knows what controversial matter underlies all these proposals; and I am sure he will not think that we, on our part, in making these Amendments, are indifferent to the interests of the Irish Exchequer; but we cannot help feeling that when you are going to effect a revolution in Ireland of the magnitude proposed by the Government, and when that revolution destroys the whole of the carefully-built-up Civil Service which has governed the country for many years, even the more or less exceptional proposals of the Government do not meet the whole circumstances of the case. There is only one point which I would mention, merely for the purpose of seeing if I have rightly interpreted the views of the right hon. Gentleman. He said he was going to give five years' full service to every man who resigns within the transitional period. Of course, that is a boon to those who resign early in the transitional period; and, if I have rightly interpreted the views of the right hon. Gentleman, it is also a boon to those who do not resign early.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the number of persons to be benefited was something like 1,200. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what proportion that bore to the total number of Civil servants in Ireland?

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he could not say at that moment; but the whole number of persons affected was included.

MR. BARTLEY

asked whether the five years was a diminishing number of years according to the period of retirement?

MR. J. MORLEY

said, that the five years were to be counted whenever the officers retired.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. J. Morley,)—put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.