COMMITTEE. [Progress, 17th July.]

HC Deb 18 July 1893 vol 14 cc1836-914

[FORTIETH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Judges and Civil Servants.

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

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that, in the absence of the hon. Member for East Down, he should like to move the Amendment standing in his name, not with a view of pressing it, but in order to obtain a statement from the Chief Secretary, who was, no doubt, aware that the national school teachers were very anxious about their position under the Bill. Why were the model school teachers to rank as Civil servants, while the head teachers of national schools were not to so rank?

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 23, after the word "Crown," to insert the words "and all principal teachers of national schools in Ireland."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

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

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

The answer is a simple one, and, I think, a good one. National school teachers are appointed by the local managers, and they are dismissable by them at, I believe, three months' notice. They are in no sense, therefore, in the Public Service. The position of a model school teacher is different. He is appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and is dismissable by the Lord Lieutenant; he gives his whole time to the service; and, therefore, he comes within the 28th clause.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Both classes of teachers are paid by the State. Does not that, therefore, give them the same kind of claim?

MR. J. MORLEY

I think not. Although national school teachers are paid out of Parliamentary grants, the grants are distributed by the school managers, and are not paid direct to the teachers by the Central Board.

MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)

said, the only difference between the two classes of teachers appeared to be that one set—the model school teachers—were appointed directly, while the national teachers were appointed first by the local managers, whose selection had subsequently to be ratified by the National Board. The fear of the teachers was that, many of the managers being priests, they would endeavour to remove the present teachers and bring in another class, such as the Christian Brothers. Some teachers must feel considerable apprehension, or they would not have sent delegates to London at their own expense to safeguard their interests. Whatever hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway might say, the Irish teachers rightly or wrongly were in great fear; and something, therefore, ought to be done to safeguard their interests.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)

said, the Committee would readily understand the importance of this question when it was borne in mind that there were 12,000 teachers in Ireland. Beyond doubt there was a considerable amount of apprehension. There was certainly a technical difference in the method of discharging these teachers, but otherwise their qualifications and the character of their employment were the same, and, after all, the local managers could only dismiss the National teachers from their immediate office; they still remained in the employment of the Board. This technical difference ought not, therefore, to take away from them their inherent right to a pension. There might, in certain schools, be a tendency to replace the existing teachers by teachers of the-Christian Brothers, who, undoubtedly, were capable teachers, and if that were done the National teachers would he practically without occupation. He submitted that the difference between the National and the model school teachers was absolutely illusory, and did not justify the difference of treatment proposed by the clause.

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

argued' that this question did not properly arise on the clause under discussion. He did not understand that the hon. Member for East Down had been authorised by the National teachers of Ireland to express their apprehensions that they would be made to suffer injustice.

MR. RENTOUL

I cannot give the names of the teachers at whose instance I am acting. The hon. Member will quite understand why.

MR. SEXTON

The hon. Member is raising a false issue; I did not ask for names. I say the teachers are not in such a state of apprehension that they desire the Imperial Parliament to insert a clause restricting the powers of the Irish Parliament.

MR. RENTOUL

This Amendment was submitted to and approved by the deputation.

MR. SEXTON

said, that whatever advantages the National teachers had gained from the Imperial Parliament during the last 20 years had been mainly due to the exertions of the Party to which he belonged. The Nationalist Members had never ceased to urge the claims of the National school teachers to better pay and pensions, and those teachers could have no ground for apprehending that they would suffer any injustice at the hands of an Irish Legislature representing a people who were fond of education and respected those who were engaged in educational work. He admitted that there was no power to create new pension rights, but the question was, were the model school teachers entitled to pensions out of the Public Revenue? The Irish Church Fund had been bled to the extent of £1,300,000 in order to establish a pension fund; and the model school teachers, like other teachers, were entitled to subscribe to it. Beyond that they had no rights to a pension.

MR. RENTOUL

admitted the statement of the hon. Member for. North Kerry that the Nationalist Members had always advocated the claims of the, National teachers in Ireland; but it should be remembered that the claims they had strongly urged had always, been claims on the Imperial funds. It was, however, now totally different. That was a totally different matter. The Irish National teachers would be placed in the hands of the Irish Legislature, and whilst no doubt those teachers who were Nationalists in politics would be safe, they could Dot forget the authoritative statement that when the Irish people obtained power in their own land they would remember who had been the people's friends and who had been their foes. Many of the National teachers in Ireland had been strongly opposed to the Nationalist cause, and they would be regarded as the people's foes. It was on that ground alone that these gentlemen were frightened for their positions, and' no class of persons needed safeguards more than the National teachers.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

observed that whilst the Chief Secretary had said that the National teachers did not come under the clause he had distinctly stated that the Inspectors and model school teachers were in a different position—were in fact Civil servants, and were to be treated as such. With regard to the National school teachers' deputation, he would point out to the Member for Kerry that the fact that the teachers came over to ascertain whether or not they had any rights under the Bill implied no distrust either of the Irish people or the future Irish Legislature. They were clearly entitled to have their position defined before the Bill passed.

Ms. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

could not accept the statement of the Member for North Kerry that to the Nationalist Members alone were the thanks of the National school teachers due for any amelioration that had taken place in the positions of the teachers, He must remind the Committee that it was his (Mr. Lowther's) lot when he was connected with the Government of Ire-laud to devote a portion of the Irish Church Surplus to forming a nucleus for a Pension Fund for the Irish teachers. At the same time he succeeded in inducing the National, Board to adopt a scheme, of payment which was more favourable to the National teachers. He might also point to the efforts of his right hon. Friends, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour), and, the right hon. Member for Bristol. (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) on behalf of this deserving class of public servants. He thought it could not be said that any one Party had a monopoly in this matter, or could claim the entire credit for Parliament having in recant years devoted considerable attention to the case of the National teachers. But that was not the point. The question the Committee was bound to consider was, were the teachers to be hereafter in as secure a position with regard not merely to their emoluments and employment, but also with regard to the pensions to which they had a claim, as they were now? The hon. Member for North Kerry had stated that the interests of the teachers would be safe in the hands of a Parliament elected by their countrymen. But there were school teachers and school teachers. There might be school teachers who might look forward to boons and gratuities and to an improvement in their lot under the system which the Government were endeavouring to create by this Bill. But he thought the hon. Member for Kerry could hardly wonder that those gentlemen who had communicated with his hon. Friend (Mr. Rentoul) and others representing constituencies in the North of Ireland, should be apprehensive that there might be another side to the picture, and that their position would not be improved by the alteration made by this Bill in the government and administration of Ireland. He understood the Chief Secretary was unavoidably detained on public business; but he hoped some Member of the Government would be able to assure them that the pensions to which the school teachers would, in ordinary circumstances and in due course, be entitled, would be in no shape or form injuriously affected or interfered with by that Bill. He considered that, having for a number of years past devoted considerable attention to improving the lot of the school teachers, Parliament would not be willing that the result of those efforts should be placed in jeopardy by any possible action of the Irish Executive.

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

As I understand the matter, this Bill will in no way interfere with the pension rights of the national teachers or any other class of teachers. No teacher will be deprived of his right to a pension under this Bill. In answer to the hon. Member for North Kerry, I have to say that under this Bill the model school teachers get a gratuity where they do not subscribe to the Pension Fund. On page 44 of the Amendment Paper it was stated in Schedule "D"— If the foregoing provisions do not apply to any officer, the gratuity or pension awarded may be such as to the Treasury appears just, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, but less than the amount which might have been awarded to such officer if he had been in the permanent Civil Service. There is no right given under this section to a pension which does not exist now.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 254.—(Division-List, No. 223.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)

Those Members of the Committee who were present last night when the Chief Secretary made his statement on this clause will recollect that I then indicated my dissent from the general scheme of the Government with regard to the Civil servants in Ireland. I admitted, as I think everybody must have admitted who heard the statement of the Chief Secretary, that he had really endeavoured as far as he could to grapple with the difficulties of the situation, and if we were to regard the present great change proposed in Ireland, and in the permanent Civil Service in Ireland merely as an ordinary case of abolition and re-construction, I think the terms suggested by the Chief Secretary would be liberal, and would commend themselves to the House. But, Sir, for the reasons which I shall indicate in my Amendment, we cannot consider this as a mere question of Departmental re-construction. We are dealing not with a Departmental reconstruction, but with a great official as well as great social revolution, and I can make this evident to the Committee not as a mere inference from the statements of gentlemen below the Gangway—important as they are—but also from statements made by Members of the Government themselves, and notably by the Prime Minister.

MR. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.)

What is the Amendment? Propose the Amendment. ["Order, order!"]

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have handed in the Amendment to the Chairman.

MR. MAC NEILL

But the Committee does not know it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If anybody doubts that there will be a great official revolution in Ireland, I will venture to present to them two different classes of considerations, and I shall deal with both briefly. The first arises out of the open and avowed policy of that Party in Ireland to whom we have every reason to believe that the Irish destinies will be committed if this Bill passes—

MR. SEXTON

I am sorry to have to interpose; but according to the usages of the House a Member either puts down an Amendment on the Paper or states what the Amendment is when he rises. If the Amendment is not on the Paper, and he makes his speech before he proposes it, how are we to know whether that Amendment comes before the Amendments which other Members have on the Paper?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

On the point of Order, may I ask you, Sir, whether, having handed in the Amendment to you, and you having it before you, you could not call me to Order if I went beyond the scope of the Amendment? I was pursuing the course I thought would be most convenient to the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite in Order. He will conclude by moving the Amendment.

MR. STOREY (Sutherland)

How can we possibly know whether the right hon. Gentleman is or is not out of Order—[An hon. MEMBER: That is for the Chairman.] [Cries of "Order!"]—until we have heard what the Amendment is?"

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment having been handed in to the Chairman, if I had thought that Amendment had been out of Order I should have ruled it out of Order—[Hon. MEMBERS: Read it.] The practice of the House is for an hon. Member to announce that he intends to move an Amendment, to make his introductory remarks, and to move the Amendment before he sits down. If an hon. Member then wishes to raise a point of Order, that is the proper time for him to do so.

MR. STOREY

I put it to you, although you may think the matter in Order, is it not perfectly competent for any Member of this House to submit a point of Order to you, and that you will then say whether he is right or not?

THE CHAIRMAN

That is exactly what I pointed out to the hon. Member—namely, that when the right hon. Gentleman has moved his Amendment and mentioned the terms of it, it would be quite possible for any Member of the House to raise a point of Order and to submit that the Amendment is out of Order.

MR. SEXTON

But the speech will be over then.

MR. STOREY

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to state the general terms of his Amendment? ["Order, order!"]

MR. SEXTON

I beg, Sir, to submit to you that during the progress of a speech of a Member of the Committee every Member of the Committee is entitled to apply his judgment to that speech, and by a question to you ascertain whether the Amendment is or is not out of Order. It is impossible to do that if the Amendment is kept secret until the end of the speech.

THE CHAIRMAN

I cannot alter the usual practice. As I said just now, when the Amendment has been moved there will be an opportunity for any hon. Gentleman to raise the question.

An hon. MEMBER: But then the speech has been made. ["Order!"]

MR. E. J. C. MORTON (Devonport)

On a point of Order, may I ask you, Sir, what is the Question before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

This practice has been followed continually throughout the Committee, and there will be a Question before the Committee when the right hon. Gentleman moves his Amendment.

MR. E. J. C. MORTON

May I ask that, inasmuch as you used the word—[Cries of "Order!" and "Chair!" in which the remainder of the sentence was lost.]

MR. MAC NEILL

Leave the Chairman alone.

THE CHAIRMAN

A speech is made, and at the end of that speech a Member moves his Amendment. If that Amendment is out of Order, then is the time to raise the question of Order.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I would ask you, Sir, whether it is competent for any Member to argue with the Chair after you have ruled?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I will only express my surprise at the want of courtesy shown by gentlemen when I was endeavouring to deal with a large matter brought before the House in a speech which we did not interrupt. [Interruption.] I only spoke by the indulgence of the Committee.

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

That is the point.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes; and I understood that speaking by the indulgence of the Committee—when a Member speaks by that indulgence he is strictly in Order—I thought it would be strictly in Order for me to make my statement. [Interruption.] I assure you, Mr. Mellor, I am not anxious to enter into any dispute with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I am merely dealing with the question, and trying to impress my view that if Irish officials are to be dismissed from the Public Service they should have the opportunity of having similar or corresponding positions under the Crown in Scotland or England. It would come in, I think, after "Crown" or after the word "for," or the word "day."

MR. SEXTON

We only want to know "where it is to come in.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Well, after "day" perhaps is the more convenient place. I regret anything that has taken place, and I will not refer to it. The point I had reached in my argument was that if we were dealing merely with an ordinary abolition the treatment would not be ungenerous; but, Mr. Mellor, we are dealing with an official revolution in Ireland, and I feel it is our duty to point out to the Government that the treatment they propose is wholly inadequate to the circumstances of the case. To those who may be disposed to deny that what we are dealing with is a sort of revolution I would submit two cases for consideration. We have had statements by gentlemen below the Gangway—the Irish Members—I am not going to bring them before the Committee again; but we have had discussion in these Debates on the plain statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon)—I shall not refer to it again. It by no means stands alone. I venture to refer to the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien), which was not spoken in stress of great excitement or at a time when any embittering scenes were before his mind, but was written after the victory at the poll of gentlemen opposite, and which indicated the policy he thought should be pursued by himself and his Party and by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) and the Party upon whom he relied. In this article he distinctly indicated this policy of "clearing out the Castle." I do not say that a statement of this kind—made in The Fortnightly Review—standing isolated, is to be regarded as an indication of policy. It would be unfair to weigh with scrupulous minuteness every word that may be said or written in the heat or stress of passion; but I do not think any impartial man who considers the circumstances of Ireland for the past 10 years can reconcile this statement of the Member for Cork with the "union of hearts." I cannot see how these statements are to be ignored. Whether, as the Chief Secretary puts it, it be made or whether it be not made, the policy is declared to be to "clear out the Castle." I go a step further—gentlemen below the Gangway have frequently been brought into violent conflict with a great many of the Civil servants whose interests we are seeking to protect. I can recall many occasions—occasions upon which it was thought necessary to bring questions before this House in connection with Resident Magistrates and other officials. Hon. Gentlemen attacked these officials in the most vehement manner and accused them of official crime; and is it to be supposed that it is in human nature that when these gentlemen have the power they will not deal with those gentlemen according to their own statement of what they deserve? Why, Mr. Mellor, they would be more than human if they did not act upon the principles they themselves have laid down in the circumstances. There are those on the other side of the House who believe that the Home Rule Bill is going to wipe out all the memory of the embittered past. To them I would commend these declarations of hon. Members below the Gangway—cot only their declarations on platforms, but their well-weighed words in English magazines; and I would even ask them to consider statements made by the Prime Minister—not once or twice, but many times—in the course of the recent discussion. The Prime Minister told us that hon. Members below the Gangway were not going to turn these Civil servants out from the motives of which I have spoken, but that they were to be turned out from motives of economy. If no other ground remains, there is the saving to be made in the expenditure of the Irish Parliament at their expense which the Prime Minister has prophesied.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, Edinburgh, Midlothian)

Conditionally—prophesied conditionally.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not profess to understand the meaning of the interruption, but there are only two ways of economising—one is by cutting down salaries, and the other is by dismissing the officials. I say that all these motives bear out my statement that an official revolution must follow upon this Bill. The affairs of the country in the latter case would have to be worked by a smaller staff. Either of these methods must produce the great official revolution which, in my opinion, on either hypothesis, will follow the passing of the Bill. It is quite clear that, either from the revengeful action of hon. Members below the Gangway—I do not use the word in any offensive sense—or else from the desire to carry out the economies suggested by the Prime Minister, there will be an enormous dismissal of Irish. Civil servants. [Several hon. MEMBERS: No.] Many of them will be thrown on their own resources, and will be told that henceforth they must make a livelihood for themselves with such assistance as may be derived from the pensions provided in the Bill. Is that a fair way of treating these Civil servants? Who are these men? They are men who, by the confession of every one of their Parliamentary Chiefs, have deserved well of their country. The right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Sir G. Trevelyan), when he left Office, placed on record a statement in the strongest and warmest terms of his approval of the manner in which every single class of Irish officials—Resident Magistrates and everyone else—had helped him in his office between the years 1881 and 1885. It is quite true that this declaration did not prevent the right hon. Gentleman from subsequently describing these Magistrates as "Removables." But, strong as were the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman, they were not stronger or more genuine than the expressions let fall by the Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley) last night, when he alluded to the impartial patriotism with which these Civil servants have discharged their duty under different Administrations of different politics and views, and carrying out very different policies. Therefore they have a claim upon the gratitude of the Committee, which is at least equal to the claim of their brethren in England and Scotland. The next consideration is this. These men are not Irish Civil servants, although it is the habit to talk of them—the phrase is convenient, but misleading—as if they were Civil servants specially connected with Ireland—not belonging to the Imperial Civil Service, but rather belonging to a Provincial Civil Service. That is not the case. They belong to one indivisible and organic service; they are obliged to pass the same examinations as their English and Scotch brethren, and it is not until they have passed such examinations that they become permanent members of the Civil Service and know for certain whether they are to be allocated to an office in England, Scotland, or Ireland. They are Imperial Civil servants, and ought to be treated as such. They have been induced to enter the service of the Crown by the prospect of advantages of which they will be deprived under this Bill. They entered the service—a service that offers few great prizes—after passing severe competitive examinations, because they believed that thereby they would secure a livelihood and safety in the storm and stress of life. Many of them entered the service at 20; they have no experience of business outside these offices; they are now 40; they have married and undertaken responsibilities; and now the Government propose that they should be cast adrift with pensions equal to half the salaries which they were given to understand they would receive. The result will be that they will be compelled to sell their houses, to withdraw their children from school, and to drop the insurances effected on their lives. The Government will, perhaps, say that they only propose to do what is done whenever a public office is re-constructed and Civil servants are dismissed on abolition terms. There is, however, no parallel between the cases, for when a re-construction takes place the clerks are asked whether they will go, and generally some of them retire voluntarily, whilst others are transferred to other offices, and only the less efficient members are treated with any severity. The Irish Civil servants are not to be treated with anything approaching this consideration, and are to be thrown upon their own resources. The policy of the Government amounts to it breach of faith, and the servants of the Crown will be the sufferers. They were induced to enter the Civil Service upon certain well-understood conditions, which the Government now propose to disregard. Their status was to be altered, and financial ruin would be the fate of most of them. My proposal is that places should be found in the Imperial Civil Service for those who have entered it. England and Scotland are retained in the hands of the Imperial Parliament; the Civil servants in these countries will remain Imperial Civil servants, but those in Ireland will cease to be so. They should, however, remain so, and places should be offered them before they have given them the alternative of serving masters they do not wish to serve, or of being ruined. The Member for Sunder-land (Mr. Storey), who spoke of our action yesterday, will feel, I am sure, that I have done no more than propose claims which must appeal to the sense of honour and justice of the Committee, and the sense of honour and justice of the Government. I trust I have made it plain to them that if they want the Civil servants in the future to behave with that public spirit and loyalty which they have shown in the past it is of vital importance that so great a branch of the Civil Service as that in Ireland should not feel that its interests are being betrayed by those who in honour are bound to protect them.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 24, after the word "day," to insert the words "unless and until they are transferred to other parts of the United Kingdom as hereinafter mentioned."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

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

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

The right hon. Gentleman, in his, doubtless, very humane and well-meant effort on behalf of the Civil servants of Ireland, has proceeded upon a most inadequate and a most inaccurate conception of the actual practice in this country when a case arises for dismissal or removal on a large scale.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I did not mention ordinary dismissals. I was speaking of abolition of office.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

That is exactly what I am speaking of. Several of the right hon. Gentleman's propositions, however, I am not concerned to dispute. The right hon. Gentleman said that the claims of the Irish Civil servants are as good as the claims of English and Scotch Civil servants would be in parallel circumstances; that the Irish Civil Service is an Imperial Service, and that what induces numbers of these Civil servants to enter the service is a sense of the security afforded by public appointments. With all these propositions I entirely agree. But the right hon. Gentleman assumes that there will be large dismissals of Civil servants by the new Irish Government. I believe this idea is a phantom which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman to the disturbance of his own imagination and of that of others. I have not the smallest doubt, notwithstanding the sharpness of the antagonism that has prevailed in Ireland, that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, if they are charged with the management of Irish Business, will themselves be undeceived when they come into contact with those who form the permanent Civil Service of Ireland and who have had practical experience of government. Those who are chosen to the Irish Legislature will be chosen, not because they now sit below the Gangway in this House, but because they will be men in whom the electors will have confidence. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the language of men out of Office, who had never been in Office, and who had never had any practical experience of the men in Government Departments, was no measure of the estimate they would form of those men when they came to know them. I remember perfectly well when the Conservative Party came into Office in 1841, after the Liberals had been in for a long series of years, they had considerable misapprehension of these gentlemen; but when they came into contact with them they found that they corresponded in all essential conditions with human nature elsewhere. I have not the slightest doubt that when the gentlemen below the Gangway come to administer the government of Ireland, they will entertain the same opinion with regard to the Civil Service of Ireland. What are the expressions quoted? There is one as to sweeping out Dublin Castle. What does that mean? It simply means the alteration of a system. This change has been recommended by the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and, unless I am much mistaken, the necessity for it has been accepted by a nobleman who is usually more measured in his language—I mean the Duke of Devonshire. There might be cases, such as the case of a Permanent Under Secretary in the Colonial Office, who was removed because the Govern- ment found that he was not the proper instrument for carrying out a policy, and in whose place Mr., afterwards Justice, Stephen was appointed. A case of that kind might happen, but that would be exceptional, and we shall be prepared to deal with it. Such a proceeding does not mean that the whole of the staff employed is to be turned out. I dismiss as wholly unworthy of contemplation the suggestion that there will be wholesale removals. Would the Irish Government be likely to be guilty of such a monstrous extravagance as to saddle itself with the burden of £150,000 a year in pensions, which such a course would entail?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is not my proposal.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I did not say it was. But, Sir, what injustice, what folly, what impolicy, what suicidal imprudence the right hon. Gentleman ascribes to the Irish Government! Surely it is not to be supposed that the new Irish Government would be so far from human nature that they would have no sense of pounds, shillings, and pence. I do not, desire to disparage the Irish character, but I will make this large admission to the right hon. Gentleman. Assuming the Irish Government were disposed to this act of imprudence and injustice, they would surely be restrained by considerations of pounds, shillings, and pence, which would overweigh even the moral sense of the injustice, and prevent them from turning out the whole Civil Service, and burdening themselves with this additional £150,000 a year. But I disbelieve any of these anticipations. There may, indeed, be isolated cases, such as the three or four Resident Magistrates, who in the time of the late Government appeared to be great favourites, but whose conduct gave rise to so much scandal, not alone to the Irish Members, but to many on this side of the House. [Cries of "Order!"] There was Mitchelstown. [Opposition cheers.] Yes; we will remember Mitchelstown. [Opposition cheers.] You will have to remember Mitchelstown. What was it? Mitchelstown in 1887 was a Peterloo—[laughter and cries of "Order! "]—only it was in principle worse than Peterloo.

LORD R. CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

This has nothing to do with the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "Order!"]

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

My argument has to do with the Amendment, and the interruption has led me to illustrate it by the conduct of certain members of the Irish Civil Service. I never meant to say that there might not be persons whom a new Irish Government would desire to dismiss, but I think I have limited myself properly when I suggest that they will probably be confined to two or three persons. As I stated in reply to the Belfast gentlemen who waited upon me—

MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

To whom you would not listen.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I studied with the utmost care a long document they sent to me. As I stated to them, I do not believe that anyone associated with the Irish Nationalists would accuse them of wishing to deal with the Civil servants by wholesale dismissal. I cannot ascribe to the new Irish Government such fatuity, such gross and wicked injustice as the intention, or the possibility of the intention, of rushing into such a course of wholesale dismissal as has been suggested. I cannot ascribe to them such fatuity as well as such great and wicked injustice as to admit the possibility of their adopting a policy of that kind. There is another point on which I entirely differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I think my knowledge of the Civil Service is pretty extensive. The right hon. Gentleman says that the education and training of a Civil servant disables him from undertaking any other duty. There cannot be a greater mistake. I believe that the preparation of a Civil servant is a good preparation for most of the pursuits of Civil life. But undoubtedly the training of a Civil servant is an excellent training. There are gentlemen at this moment who have retired from the Civil Service, and to gain their services in London for the purposes of carrying on great commercial affairs is the desire of many. The process, it will be observed, is entirely different from that which sometimes obtains in the City of London, of looking out for gentlemen with handles to their names. Undoubtedly, the very moderate salaries received in public offices sometimes lead, and have only recently led, to removal from such offices, in consequence of splendid offers received from outside. These offices are held by gentlemen whose merits in many cases would entitle them to much larger emoluments.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What I said was that there were no great prizes.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I agree with that, and as to the mass of members of the Civil Service, I must grant that we do not give them salaries that are equal to their merits. However, their positions rest upon the basis and security of good faith. It must be borne in mind that offices in the Civil Service are constantly being abolished, and that Civil servants are subject to compulsory retirement. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is some usage, or right, or presumptive claim that a Civil servant whose office is abolished should be transferred to another office. There is nothing of the kind. There is, I own, a great desire on the part of the Treasury in the interests of the public that transfers should be made to other offices wherever it can be done; but on the part of the person whose office is abolished there is no practice of the kind, and there is nothing approaching a claim of the kind. As a rule no transfer takes place, and the cases where transfers are made are rare exceptions. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that we could have no cognisance of the difference between England and Ireland, that is to say, the difference between an ordinary abolition and the sort of change that is going to be made in Ireland. It may or may not be that the word "revolution" which the right hon. Gentleman used may be applicable to the Irish case; but that does not affect the position of the Civil servant. We have had a revolution in this country, but I never heard that the country underwent any change at that time that affected Civil servants vitally or even sensibly. Have the differences between the case of the Irish Civil servant and the case of English Civil servants whose office is abolished been overlooked by the Government? I contend, Sir, that we have gone very great lengths in recognising them. In the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, if I understood him aright, he appeared to go on this principle, that we were dealing with this case as with an ordinary case of abolition of office. Sir, that is exactly what we are not doing. The principle of abolition of office is dealt with in this country by the addition of a certain number of years to the actual service of the person whose office is abolished in order to an increase of the pension. We follow out that principle, but we likewise credit the Irish Civil servant with the five years of the transitional period, though he may not have served during that time.

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

Only in certain cases. The officers who have not served their full time may be benefited, but those who serve the full five years receive no benefit at all from the arrangement.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

Does my right hon. Friend not see that they have not chosen to take advantage of the provision? They can give six months' notice, and, if they do so, four and a-half years out of the five will be enjoyed by every one of them.

MR. GOSCHEN

By sacrificing four and a half years' salary they get five years' half-salary.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

It is by escaping four years' service. The whole case is that under the new Irish Government the salary will not be worth having, because the conditions of the service will be intolerable, and, therefore, the option is given to them to escape from the service, and to do so upon four or five years' better terms than a man in England could obtain. Well, Sir, I say this is a liberal and bountiful scheme. I have not heard anyone attempt to argue the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman must be conscious that he has evaded the point. He has chosen to take a different issue, and to set up a different claim. Here is this large addition made to the claim which, if they choose, Irish Civil servants are entitled in every case to make. We contend that it is a capricious claim. I believe myself that if we were living in economical times we should be called to very strict account. But we are not living in economical times; we are living in times when we are extremely liberal with other people's money. These terms are offered, and we contend that they are most suitable and liberal terms. I do not, however, for a moment depreciate the services of the Civil servants, and I have not said a word in disparage- ment of them. I have not the practical experience which the right hon. Gentleman has to authorise me to deliver an authoritative opinion as to all that may be said on their behalf. This Amendment sets up a totally impossible claim. I conclude that the right hon. Gentleman's meaning is that some analogous office is to be found for Irish Civil servants in the British Civil Service. I will tell you, Sir, what this reminds me of. After the disestablishment of the Irish Church numbers of applications were made to me to provide for the disestablished Irish clergy in the Church of England.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

There is only one Church. [Cries of "No!"] There are two Organisations.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

The principle of promotion in the Church of England is vital to its welfare, and the principle of promotion in the English Civil Service is vital to its welfare. It is quite plain that the introduction into high office in the British Civil Service of men not on account of their merits but because their presence is inconvenient elsewhere, would paralyse the British Civil Service. The adoption of the Amendment might be found impossible, and I doubt very much whether it could under any circumstances be of any application. That being the state of the case, we oppose the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and I am rather surprised that he should have brought forward a proposal which is in such flat contradiction of all the principles of our Civil Service, and of all the principles upon which every Civil Service must be guided.

LORD R. CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

The right hon. Gentleman settles all these discussions by simple affirmation and simple denial of all his opponents' arguments. He expresses his entire disbelief in the validity of any opinion of the Irish people but that which is entirely transcendental. He says this Amendment is impossible. Why is it impossible to provide adequately for people to whom you are under every pledge and every obligation? Why is it more impossible than this Home Rule Bill which you have brought before Parliament? One of the reasons that make it impossible to pass this Bill is that the English people are not so lost to all sense of honour and good faith as the Government is. In the old days the right hon. Gentleman used different language on this subject.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

You would find it very difficult to discover such language on my part.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

I say the Government have violated the first principles of good faith to the Public Service, and the right hon. Gentleman would not have tolerated such a violation some 15 years ago. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman make the most fulminating denunciations of Members of this House who have advocated breaches of faith with public servants. And what are the Government committing but the most prodigious, the most unpardonable, breach of faith with the Public Service that has ever been committed, to use the Prime Minister's favourite expression, in the whole civilised world? The right hon. Gentleman actually draws an analogy between the ministers of the Irish Church, who were handsomely provided for as far as their life interests were concerned—although they had no contract with the State at all, and had never entered into any bargain with the State—and those men with whom the State has made a positive contract. If the Government had only treated the Civil Service of Ireland with the liberality with which the right hon. Gentleman treated the Irish Church, there would be nothing to complain of. As the Civil servants are to lose half their salaries, I think the treatment that has been meted out to them is inconceivable on any principle of justice and honour as hitherto understood by Ministers. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what right he has to express the belief he is always expressing, and to make the invariable answer to us that he knows accurately and infallibly, and no one else knows, what will be the character of the new Irish Government. He founds that belief in his own imagination. He did not hold that opinion years ago with respect to the Party he is working with now. He has described that Party in a very different manner, and the policy which they would be sure to pursue in Ireland as of very different character. In stating the belief that the Irish are going to develop all the manners and practice and honourable customs of civilised govern- ment, on what does the right hon. Gentleman found himself? Not on a knowledge of Ireland and Irishmen. He founds himself entirely on official Blue Books, on partisan statements, on the letters of Lords Lieutenant and Chief Secretaries, which must always be of a partisan character, and on official Reports which come from Dublin Castle. That is the sole source of information the right hon. Gentleman ever had about the people of that country. He once made an expedition to Ireland, and stayed a few days on the seashore of St. George's Channel.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

Entirely wrong.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

I remember it perfectly, and I assert that the right hon. Gentleman has never had a real practical opportunity of ascertaining by personal examination the system of Irish Government; has never had interviews in Ireland with the great Local Authorities controlling the Irish Government; has never visited any Irish county except Wicklow and Dublin; and has never placed himself in the position of many Chief Secretaries and Members of Parliament of knowing accurately the nature and customs of the inhabitants, their probable character, and the sort of action they would adopt under different passions and emotions. Of those things the right hon. Gentleman knows nothing. At one time the right hon. Gentleman attributes to the Irish a tendency to every crime; at another he attributes to them a tendency to every virtue. How can he expect that we shall pay any attention to these different opinions differently expressed? When he attributed to the Irish people a tendency to every crime the right hon. Gentleman was not in want of Parliamentary support. [Cries of "Question!"] I am answering the right hon. Gentleman on this point, his invariable argument being that the Irish are to be trusted in every degree—that was his only answer to my right hon. Friend. I say that when he wanted Parliamentary support he immediately elevated Irish Members to the skies. That is the only concise way of stating the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's policy. The great change took place in 1885. Then, of course, the Irish Members began to grow their wings and cherubic appurtenances. Be- fore 1885 they had characteristics the reverse of cherubic. Every argument is now to be silenced, the Closure is to be imposed in a general manner simply because the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind, and having failed more than once to settle the Irish Question he expects us to admit that his present Bill will give happiness to Ireland. Do you think that the English people will put up with that kind of attitude? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the English people have no memory and no imagination? Does he think that they cannot arouse their feelings, and recall the past? They may not be allowed to do so in this House, but they have other arenas. I put all these things before the right hon. Gentleman, because we are discussing one of the most important features of the Bill. God knows, British honour has often been imperilled by the Prime Minister. [Laughter] I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman interrupts me. We listened very attentively to him.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

made an observation across the Table.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

At any rate, he gave the signal for laughter. ["Oh!" and renewed laughter] This interruption is a game both Parties can play. I was saying that British honour has often been imperilled by the Prime Minister, but never more than when he renounces and repudiates the claims of these public servants. The English people are not accustomed to falsify their obligations, and repudiate the claims of those who have served them, and nothing could be more unpopular, nothing could be more distasteful and irritating to the feelings of the English people against Her Majesty's Government than the proposal not to fully compensate and provide for in the future those who were promised a long official life on certain terms, and who are now going to have those terms destroyed. ["Oh!"] No doubt these facts are unpleasant to gentlemen opposite. There is no limit you will not exceed in support of this policy of breaking the word of Great Britain and the Imperial Parliament to these public servants. We have seen hon. Gentlemen opposite walking behind the right hon. Gentleman, no matter what preposterous proposal inconsistent with honour he makes. [Cries of "Question!"] This is very much the question. By violating your pledges to these Civil servants you are inflicting an irreparable blow on the honour of England. You would not dare to treat the English Civil Service in that way. Why? The Government that treated the English Civil Service in that way would be out of Office in 24 hours. [Laughter.] I have often been laughed at in the House of Commons before.

An hon. MEMBER: No wonder.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

The Prime Minister used to say that Parliaments would never dare to treat England and Scotland as they treated Ireland. That was a tremendously effective argument with the right hon. Gentleman, but I say the present Government would never dare to treat English and Scotch public servants as they are going to treat those of Ireland. In the whole history of our Public Service there cannot be found a precedent for the treatment it is proposed to accord to these men, and it cannot be defended by the Government except by giving flat denials to what is said by their opponents. The Bill raises every possible personal difference which a legislative Act can raise; it inflicts injury on every class it touches; it violates the plighted faith of England; and it will inflict irreparable damage upon the credit of the Imperial Ministry.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, the noble Lord had dealt in generalities rather than with the particular issue before the House. He had told them that he objected to this particular clause, or was in favour of the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, because the Irish were not to be trusted. Well, he (Mr. Labouchere) had heard that argument before. The noble Lord had further complained that the Prime Minister was a man not to be trusted; that he had occupied his life for many years in seeking in every possible way to degrade and disgrace the honour of this country, and, consequently, that as this had been suggested by the Prime Minister it followed that it must degrade and disgrace the honour of the country. The noble Lord went a little into particulars. He had said that the Prime Minister knew absolutely nothing—he (Mr. Labouchere) might say did not know as much as the noble Lord—of the matter, because he had not been to Ireland as often as the noble Lord. It was not necessary, however, in order to form an opinion on this subject, that a person should have been long in Ireland. The habit of Civil Service employés—and, he might add, of military employés—was to try to get as much as they possibly could and to do as little as they possibly could for it. That was a rule of universal application. He was not in the least complaining of it—it was merely saying that they were human, and that was human nature. He, to a certain extent, agreed with the noble Lord. He objected to the scheme precisely as the noble Lord did. The noble Lord objected because these Civil employés were not to receive a sufficient indemnity; he (Mr. Labouchere) objected because they were to receive a great deal too much. The Prime Minister had said he thought there had been times in the House when the desire for economy was stronger than at present—when there would have been some persons who would have protested against this scheme. Well, he (Mr. Labouchere) was happy to say that below the Gangway on the Ministerial side there were a few true to the principles of economy who did undoubtedly protest against this wild, recklessly generous-scheme. What was it? If these men were perfectly healthy and could perform their duties, they were not only to be allowed to retire, but to receive a larger amount than the ordinary pension that would accrue to them if they were ill. And why was that? Because they happened to disapprove of the description of government existing in Ireland. It did not seem to him an adequate reason why they should turn these gentlemen loose with huge pensions to knock about and do nothing, save become directors of rotten companies—as was usually the case—that they did not happen to be Home Rulers. They turned over a number of employés emanating from the Central Government when they established County Councils; but who supposed that they were going to give them an extra pension and tell them that they might eat their heads off at the expense of the country because they disapproved of the County Councils? He should conceive that a good many of these Irish employés particularly—and, of course, he was speaking politically-abominated the present Secretary for Ireland. He did not see much difference in this respect between the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He did not see much difference between the rule of those two. If the hon. Member for Kerry were head of the Administration in Ireland there would be still less difference between his rule and the present; then why were these employés to be told that because there was a change of Government, which in no sort of way affected their duties, they were to come forward and say—"We object to this particular scheme of government, and, therefore, we ask to be allowed to be retired on an excessive pension." He was one of those who were in favour of Home Rule all round. But let them see what would be the result of that. They would have Scotch officials put on the pension list because they objected to being handed over to the Scotch Government, and they would have Welsh and English officials treated in the same manner. Every one of these people would receive an excessive pension, and then the Scotch ex-officials would go over to Ireland and get employment there, and the Irish ex-officials would go over to Scotland and get employment there. In fact, it would simply mean that these gentlemen would be receiving a great deal more than their services were worth. He, for his part, registered a protest against this scheme. It was preposterous to tell him that officials were to be allowed to eat the bread of idleness, because they did not approve of a law passed by the Imperial Parliament. If this sort of thing were to be allowed, he would ask the Irish Members what would become of their surplus about which so much had been said? If it was to be eaten into by all these hungry locusts the surplus would disappear altogether. Where was the money to come from? The Irish Members, no doubt, would suggest that it should come from the Imperial Government. He would suggest, on the other hand, that it should come from Ireland. A man had a right to be paid a salary so long as he did duty for it. If he engaged on the terms that on reaching a certain age or on becoming unhealthy he was to receive a pension, then let him by all means receive a pension; but he (Mr. Labouchere) protested against recklessly throwing away the money of the taxpayer for the sake of saying—"Observe! we act with the greatest generosity towards these people." Did the Government suppose that these officials would be won over to Home Rule by this? Not at all. They would receive the money, and would roam all over the country doing their best to make the government of Ireland under the Irish Legislature impossible. A worse set of men—he did not mean criminally, but us citizens—than persons living on pensions from the Government with hardly enough money to live at their ease, and, therefore, always trying to make a little more, could not be conceived. He hoped the Prime Minister would reconsider the matter, and would come to the conclusion that he was giving away too much money, and that the love of economy did exist in some parts of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman reconsidered the matter he would see that his proposal was not perfect, and that it could be amended by telling the Irish employés that the Government would take care that they were not unfairly or unjustly treated by the Irish Parliament, but that they must not think they were to eat the bread of idleness simply because there had been a change in the scheme of government in Ireland.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, the hon. Member for Northampton had spoken in sweeping terms of the Civil Service. He (Mr. Bartley) could only assume that the hon. Member spoke from his own experience in the Diplomatic Service when he referred to Civil servants getting as much as they could and doing as little as they could for it. The bulk of the Civil servants looked upon their duty in a very different light. He (Mr. Bartley) had some knowledge of them, having himself for 20 years been a member of the English Public Service. It seemed to him a most serious step in this ill-fated measure that they were going to break faith with a large body of public servants. The Prime Minister did not believe that a large number of Civil servants would leave the Public Service when the Bill became law; but those who drafted the Bill evidently thought that that would be the case, and many of the public servants themselves felt that if the measure passed a large number of them would be dismissed, or would find their position so intolerable that they could not remain in the Public Service. The Prime Minister had stated that it would not be possible to transfer men from one branch of the Public Service to another; but in the last Parliament a Resolution was passed against the wishes of the Government, ordering that the Treasury, whenever a redundant office was created, should, as a first duty, transfer the displaced officials to another branch of the Civil Service. If that was the case, why could not the same plan be adopted in connection with the Irish Civil Service? It was perfectly obvious that a great portion of those Civil servants could be drafted over to positions in this country. The Chief Secretary told the Committee last night that there were 1,200 affected by this rule, and that 637 of them, or more than half, were receiving salaries under £100 a year. Surely it would be easy to transfer the men with the small salaries, at the rate, say, of £100 per year, to those branches of the Civil Service in this country which were constantly requiring accessions to their strength? He therefore looked upon the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition as a most reasonable proposal. He agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton that for a number of men to be loafing about Ireland with insignificant pensions—not enough to live upon decently, but just enough to keep them from honest and industrious work—was one of the worst things possible for Ireland; and, on the other hand, the proposal to take these men from Ireland, where there was no work to 'do, and transfer them to England, where there was plenty of work to do, was a most reasonable and beneficial proposition. The Prime Minister had said that the Irish Government would not dismiss these men, as it would be a most extravagant course, for it would impose a heavy burden on the Irish Exchequer. But it had been the cry of the Irish Party for years that when they came into Office the spoils would go to the victors, and it was a well-known fact that there were an enormous number of men in Ireland who were looking out for those spoils, and who would bring such pressure to bear on the Government to secure them that it would be impossible for any Irish Government to withstand. The Committee had every reason to suppose, therefore, that during the five years allowed most of the Civil servants of Ireland would be dismissed. He thought they should support the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. It was a most reasonable proposition. Let the Committee remember that they were going to change the system of government under which the Irish Civil servants entered into their offices, and therefore they were bound in honour to give these Civil servants just and reasonable compensation. It was said that the amount of pension proposed was excessive. It was something less than half-pay, and he asked, was half-pay a very large pension for men whom they were about to deprive in the prime of life of the opportunity of pursuing the avocation for which they had trained themselves, and in which they had been, some of them, for 20 years engaged? The Prime Minister bad said that public servants were in great demand in private employments. But that was not the fact. He said distinctly that the number of men brought up in the Public Service who were picked out of that service to enter into private work were few indeed, because, really, the training in a public office did not tend to make a man efficient in private employment. The fact was that a great number of men who were pensioned off by the Public Service found immense difficulty in getting anything to do at all, and were looking about in all directions to get some sort of work. As one who had always endeavoured to uphold the honest and the good intentions of the Public Service, he supported the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. The Public Service of this country was the highest and the purest of any Public Service in the world, because it had always been treated honourably and liberally, and the Bill before the Committee not only sought to undermine the Empire and the Constitution, but to strike a blow at the honour and integrity of the Public Service, which had always been one of the greatest glories of this country.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, he did not believe the Committee realised the effect the clause would have on a certain class of public servants in Ireland. The Chief Secretary last night gave them three illustrations of how the clause would work out. These, of course, were favourable cases; and if they afforded a fair illustration of the working of the clause on the whole, he admitted that the Committee might well be satisfied with the proposals of the Chief Secretary. But he denied altogether that they were fair average cases. The Prime Minister spoke generally of the British Civil Service. Why, the very essence of the Amendment was that there was no such thing. The Civil Service was an Imperial Service, and the real issue was whether the Imperial power was prepared to carry out its responsibilities to these men? These men had been appointed by the Imperial Power. Was the Imperial Power prepared to carry out the responsibility which it took upon itself when it appointed these men? The Prime Minister had once again used his favourite doctrine about trusting the Irish people, and when the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the phrase "Clearing the Castle," moaning simply a change in administration, he could not help thinking that it might mean a different thing to different persons. The right hon. Gentleman might mean simply a change in administration. He did not know what the hon. Member for Cork meant by it; but he knew what another Irish leader meant by it. In 1882, when James Carey read in The Freeman's Journal about the Castle being cleared, he promptly set about murdering the Under Secretary for Ireland, and he gave evidence that that was the action which was suggested to him by the words in The Freeman's Journal about clearing the Castle. It almost passed endurance for the Prime Minister to call upon the Civil servants to trust themselves to hon. Members opposite. Why, hon. Members opposite had for years been threatening those Civil servants in season and out of season, and it was altogether too much for the Prime Minister to say that the Civil servants must trust these gentlemen because he himself had changed his mind about them. The real question was whether these Irishmen who would be Members of the Irish Executive had changed their minds? He simply took the speeches and actions of these hon. Members in the past as evidence of what their conduct would be in the future; and, judging them by those speeches and actions, it was impossible for any section of the Civil servants to trust them. He would give the Committee some individual cases of hardship which would arise under this clause The Land Commissioners were provided for under Clause 28, but take the Assistant Land Commissioners. The hon. Member for Shipley had talked last night about hon. Members trying to protect their relatives, and therefore he thought it necessary to say that he had no relative in the Civil Service in any shape or form. Up to 1891 the Assistant Laud Commissioners were liable to be dismissed at a month's notice. They were then in no way Civil servants, and had no claim on the State. But under a. clause of the Land Purchase Act of 1891 a certain number of these men were permanently retained. They were called upon to give up their occupations and take service under the State. No one would deny that their work was important. What was their position now? Their service was a short service, for many of them had only been permanent Civil servants since 1891. These men were engaged fixing fair rents. Had they never been threatened? Why, the Irish Members had over and over again declared, within the last two years, that one of their first duties when they came into power would be to clear out the Assistant Land Commissioners and appoint men who would fix fair rents properly. The effect of the clause would be to place these 35 men at the mercy of an Executive which was already pledged against them. Did anybody doubt that they would be dismissed? He did not doubt it in the least. He did not say that there would be a clean sweep made of them; but they would be weeded out by degrees, and Campaign valuers would be put in their places. He asked his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey),was that fair? The hon. Gentleman might have got some ugly twists in politics, but he did not think the hon. Gentleman would intentionally do a wrong to any man. He appealed, then, to his hon. Friend was it fair, having permanently appointed those 35 men in 1891, and they having been frequently warned by Irish Members that they would be cleared out—was it fair to run the risk of the absolute ruin of those men? That was what would happen if the Committee rejected the Amendment. These men were doing State work. They had been appointed by the Imperial Government, and the Imperial Government should see to their safety. He would now give some instances of hardship from the cases which had been compiled by the Civil servants themselves. Here was one man of 13 years' service; the amount of his salary was £167, and his pension would amount to £91 13s. 4d. If that man were allowed to go on in the natural course, at the end of his service he would have realised a sum of £6,095. That was what he was entitled to expect when he entered into the Imperial Service, and now the Imperial Government proposed to hand him over to another Power. Take another case. Twelve years' service; salary, £170; pension, £88; and if allowed to go on in the natural course to the end he would be entitled to £6,428. What were the liabilities of this man who might be dismissed by the Irish Government on a pension of £88? His house Tent was £40; the yearly premium on his life insurance was £12, and he was a married man with a young family. He put it to the Committee was it fair—was it honest—for this great Imperial Power, having entered into a bargain with this man at an early age, to say at the end of 12 years, during which he had incurred several liabilities, "You are going to be dismissed on a pension of £88; your house costs you £40 a year, your insurance £12, and you and your family may live on the balance." He declared that it was a shame—that it was a reproach to the country that such a thing could be possible. There was another man who had 10 years service; his pension would be £78 17s. 8d., and if allowed to continue in the service in the natural course he had the expectation of being able to realise £6,356. His rent was £40, his insurance £9, and he is supporting a widowed mother and sister.

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

Hear, hear!

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

The hon. Gentleman is not ashamed to cheer in a case like this.

MR. BYLES

He gets £78 for doing nothing.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, the country entered into a bargain with that young man 10 years ago. Was that bargain to be kept? The young man was entitled to expect, when he entered the service of the State, that it would be a life-long employment. But now, after 10 years' service, he was to be told—"Take your pension of £78, and your widowed mother and sister may look out for themselves." It was said the working men were against those pensions. Working men would be ashamed to do anything of the kind, and he absolutely denied that hon. Members around him represented the great working classes of the country in any such contemptible meanness as this. They had got no mandate from the country to do such things. He knew of nothing so contemptible in the history of the country as that men on the Treasury Bench dared, at that time of day, to stand up and declare that these things must be done in order to carry out a bargain with hon. Members opposite. The Prime Minister had said it reminded him that after the Disestablishment of the Church a great number of Irish clergymen came over to England to try to get English appointments. They were entitled to do that if they could. A great many people liked English appointments as well as clergymen. [Nationalist Cheers.] His withers were unwrung. Let them not think that it applied to him. But there was no analogy between the case of the Irish clergyman and the case of the Irish Civil servants. They did not dare to take away the clergyman's life interest in his benefice. They preserved it.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It was a freehold.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, that an appointment in the Civil Service was practically a freehold. [Cries of "No, no!"] When they entered the Civil Service they expected it to be a permanent appointment. But this was not an exciting subject for debate. Members did not take so much interest in it, as the state of the Benches showed, as they would in an ordinary political wrangle. If they were baiting the Chairman, or doing something of that kind, the Benches would be crowded, and the greatest possible interest would be taken in it. And yet this was one of the most serious parts of the Bill in more ways than one. This was a matter, not for English Members, but for Irish Members; because the cost would be borne by the Irish Exchequer. He represented a people who, if the Amendment were carried, would have to pay their share of the cost. As the Representative of these people, he was prepared to take the responsibility that this should be done. He could not take the responsibility that it should not be done. He had no hope that the Irish Civil servants would get better terms from the Treasury Bench. But the Treasury Bench was very near the end of its tether. Very soon the words would be spoken—"Thus far them shalt go, but no farther." They intended to spoliate these Civil servants, and to hand Ireland over to men of whom the Prime Minister, 13 years ago, thought very differently of than he did now, but whom the right hon. Gentleman could not expect the Unionists to think so highly of as he did now.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The hon. Member for South Tyrone said that this was not a very exciting subject of debate. But the hon. Member and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington have introduced some very exciting language into the Debate.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

Quite right.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Well, in dealing with this matter, I will only recall one sentence from the noble Lord and one sentence from the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The noble Lord said the Government were lost to all sense of honour and good faith, and the hon. Member who has just sat down said that there was nothing so bad in the history of the country as that men could be found sitting on this Bench who dared to make such a proposition as that now before the Committee. I would venture to remind both those non-exciting orators that there is no argument in either one speech or the other to prove these assertions. Neither of them dealt seriatim with the Government proposals, showing how they would work in practice. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has appealed to the sympathies of the House in respect of one or two exceptional cases of hardship. In one of them he told the story of a young man who had a widowed mother and a sister to support in addition to his own family. I admit that that is rhetorically effective; but it is not argument. Every case he gave as an illustration—every argument he urged—would apply with equal force to any scheme for the abolition of offices which may take place in the Civil Service of this country. The hon. Member argued that the Irish Civil servants and the clergy of the Irish Disestablished Church were on the same footing, and declared that the position of a Civil servant was a freehold. I must enter my protest against the idea that a member of the Civil Service, who holds office subject to pleasure, and who is liable to be dealt with by Parliament, has a freehold office in respect to which he cannot be interfered with. That is not a doctrine of the Constitution or of Parliament; that is not the position in the Bill, for in the Bill a broad and just distinction is drawn between such Civil servants and those who hold freehold offices, and who are removable only on an Address from both Houses of Parliament. No doctrine could be more destructive of the economy and proper management of the Civil Service than the doctrine propounded by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. I wish now to show the accuracy of the statements of the hon. Member. He made a strong appeal to the Committee with reference to the Assistant Land Commissioners. He said that they only became Civil servants in 1891, and adduced the argument that as they had only been a short time in the Public Service they would not be entitled to the benefits of this scheme. But the Assistant Land Commissioners will be entitled to count for the purposes of superannuation the time they previously passed in the Public Service.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Some of them were only appointed in 1891.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I must also express my dissent from the views stated by the hon. Member for Northampton. I do not regard Civil servants as a class of men who endeavour to do as little and to get as much as they can. No one can be brought into close relations with the Civil servants in England without fully appreciating the great services they render the State, and I have no doubt the Irish Civil servants are just as much entitled to appreciation for their services as the English Civil servants. Now, what do the Government propose? The Committee will remember that in this country no Civil servant in good health is entitled to resign and claim a pension until he is 60 years of age. Upon attaining that age, and upon complying with certain conditions imposed by the Superannuation Act, he is entitled to a pension calculated upon the basis of l-60th of his salary for every year he has served; but in no case can he claim more than in respect of 40 years, which practically makes two-thirds of his salary the maximum amount of pension. What does the Bill propose? The Bill proposes that during the transitional period of five years, either at its commencement or at its close, Irish Civil servants shall be entitled to resign, and to receive certain advantages in the shape of pension. There are provisions in the Bill to meet the case not only of voluntary resignation, but also of compulsory retirement, for, of course, the Irish Government will be in the same position as the English Government is in now as regards the power of dismissing a Civil servant. If an Irish Civil servant voluntarily resigns now he is not entitled to a pension; but under the Bill, in the event of voluntary resignation or compulsory retirement, the Civil servant is entitled to add five years to his service, and he is also entitled to additions which are called in the English Civil Service abolition terms, under which if he has served 10 years he will add three more years, if he has served 15 years he will add five years, and if he has served 20 years and upwards he will add on 10 years. His pension is calculated on that basis, and he will then be set free from all work whatever, to dispose of his time as he pleases. Let me illustrate these proposals. I will take the case of a man 40 years of age who retires after having served 20 years. He will first add to his 20 years five years, which makes 25 years, and he will then add to the 25 his abolition term of 10 years, which will make in all 35 years. His pension will be calculated upon what his salary is at the expiration of the five years; and, therefore, he will get at 40 years of age a pension of 35–60ths of his salary. If he lives and serves his term out he will only be entitled to 40–60ths.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

But on a bigger salary.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Yes; but a Civil servant will obtain a very considerable part of his increment at 25 years' service. A man, even although he may be improperly and unjustly discharged, will, at 40 years of age, have an income guaranteed to him for the rest of his life equal to more than half his salary, and he need not do another stroke of work in the Public Service; but he may get employment such as competent and able men get elsewhere. Hon. Members opposite may think that these terms are not liberal enough, but you have no right to say that the proposal before the Committee is a most shameful one, or that the Government which put it forward are lost to all sense of honesty or shame. The acceptance of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is impossible. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is well acquainted with the working of the Civil Service, will get up and defend such a course as that of transferring the Irish Civil servants to the English Service. To transfer a number of Irish Civil servants into the English Service would interfere seriously with the flow of promotion, and English Civil servants would have just ground of complaint if their prospects of promotion were lessened by the adoption of an arrangement of that kind. For my part, I do not believe that the Irish Government will be foolish enough to act as right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to anticipate, and to get rid of the men who for years have been associated with, and know the working of, the permanent Civil Service of the country. I cannot admit that they are likely to fine themselves very heavily in order to give effect to the vindictive feelings which are ascribed to the Leaders of the Irish Party by the opponents of the Bill. In France, under Republics, Monarchies, and Empires, the permanent Civil Service remains the same, and that, in my opinion, will be the case in Ireland. If you cannot trust them in this they are not fit for Home Rule at all. [Opposition cries of "Hear, hear!"] Yes; but that is not the ground you are entitled to take in this Committee, for the House has decided that they are to have Home Rule. I do not believe that the Irish Government will commit this act of folly for the purpose of vindictive revenge; but even if they do commit this act of folly the interests of the Civil servants are fully safeguarded by the Bill.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

said, that if there was an Irish wound of any description open the hon. Member for South Tyrone was ready with his vial to pour vitriol into it. The hon. Member had taunted him with resigning his Irish seat because he distrusted the Irish people. That was not the fact. He gave up his Irish seat because he had been invited to one in his own country; and if the same course were taken by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, he would earn the gratitude of one of the countries at least. He had heard many speeches on this Bill. He made one himself, but it was a very small one. The speeches of the Opposition were based upon two or three groundless assumptions, three or four prophecies equally baseless, and half-a-dozen speeches made by the Prime Minister and by Nationalist Members 10 or 20 years ago. The Opposition's mistrust of the Nationalist Party need not be greatly heeded, for mistrust had ever been the chief characteristic of the Tories. They just as much mistrusted the people of Great Britain as they mistrusted the people of Ireland. The President of the Local Government Board had conclusively proved that the terms offered by the Government to the Irish Civil servants were most liberal. He thought it would be sufficient if pensions were provided for those servants who were dismissed. But even if a servant resigned he would get a pension. The Government had dealt not only fairly, but extravagantly, with the Irish Civil servants under this Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 199; Noes 241.—(Division List, No. 224.)

MR. J. MORLEY

The Amendment which I have to move is to insert, after the word "pensions," "according to the scale of the class to which they belong." The scale has a maximum and a minimum, with an annual increment. We are informed that the words "the same salaries" might be taken to mean the salaries without these increments; and in order to avoid misunderstanding I have put down these words—that is to say, the salaries so long as these servants continue to serve will rise by an annual increase up to the maximum, if they serve so long.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 26, after the word "pensions," to insert the words "according to the scale of the class to which they belong."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

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

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, he took it that a class would not be able to go up to another class during the five years' period.

MR. J. MORLEY

Vacancies in any class will be filled up, exactly as they are now, from the class below.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. MORLEY

There was circulated the other day a reprint giving the complete form of Clauses 27 and 28. By an inadvertence it has been made to appear that the Committee was to award the pensions. That was a mistake. We wish the clause to stand as it did before.

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

said, that last night the right hon. Gentleman undertook that, wherever there was a reference to the Treasury under this clause, the Treasury should act in communication with the Irish Government?

MR. J. MORLEY

proposed the insertion of words providing that the Treasury should act "in communication with the Irish Government."

Amendment proposed, to insert the words "in communication with the Irish Government."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)

asked what these words meant? Did they mean that the Irish Government should have control, or simply that the Treasury should courteously make some communication to them?

MR. J. MORLEY

I believe that no English Minister at the head of the Treasury in his senses would fail to make the communication which the right hon. Gentleman suggests; but in inserting the words I have not intended that there shall be control by the Irish Government over the awards of the Treasury.

MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)

said, it did not appear to him that the words were applicable to the particular case. At present the Treasury was, in a sense, a protection to the Civil Service, and stood really in the position of a Court of Appeal; but if they inserted the words read, they would take the members of the Civil Service away from the protection of the Treasury.

MR. SEXTON

submitted that the Irish Government had as close an interest in this matter as it was possible to conceive. The question was, after the appointed day, what new duties would a public servant in Ireland be called upon to perform? The Irish Government ought to be consulted as to the duties of Civil servants, and as it would have to pay their pensions it might, at least, be consulted.

MR. BARTLEY

said, this was another instance of hon. Members below the Gangway ruling the Government. The clause was drawn by the Government as they considered right, but the hon. Member for North Kerry was not satisfied, and so they were now completely altering it. They were putting in these words really at the dictation of the hon. Member, and they absolutely changed the principle of the clause. If the Treasury were to communicate with the Irish Government, it was quite clear that such communication must be intended to have some effect in influencing the action of the Treasury in this country. Were the Treasury to be guided by the Irish Government on the questions of salaries, duties, gratuities, and pensions? If so, the Chief Secretary was not fulfilling his pledges which he had given, and the safeguards of the Civil servants would be taken away. This was another instance of the miserable weakness of the Government in being unable to resist the hon. Member for Kerry, and the Committee had to sit and see the changes of the Government adopted at the dictation of one Member.

MR. SEXTON

said, he was an Irish Member, and this was a Bill for the future government of Ireland. He must ask the Chairman whether he would continue to allow a practice which had been growing up of late, that whenever he rose and proposed some Amendment it was immediately said, if the Government adopted the Amendment, that they were yielding to terror and not to reason? Not only were such suggestions un- founded, but they constituted a dishonest line of argument. He had as much right as any Member to make suggestions to the Government concerning a Bill for the future government of Ireland as the hon. Member would have to make suggestions or alterations in a Bill for the future government of London, for which he was a Member. He trusted that hon. Members would see for themselves, and, if not, that the Chairman would make them see, that it was scarcely decent to attack him and other Irish Members, by making suggestions of the kind put forward by the hon. Member for Islington. Already in the clause words were used similar to those now proposed. He had risen merely to remind the Chief Secretary that in the Debate last night he volunteered the statement that, where the question of pensions arose, the Treasury should act after communication with the Irish Government.

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

thought the hon. Member for North Kerry was entirely erroneous in thinking that the hon. Member for Islington was finding fault with the Irish Members; he was not finding fault with the Irish Members, but with the Government for so readily giving away their own opinions expressed in the Bill. If this important Amendment were really put forward in fulfilment of a pledge given last night, why was it not put upon the Paper?

MR. SEXTON

Why did not Mr. Balfour put his down? ["Order, order!"]

MR. CARSON

said, the right hon. Gentleman gave no undertaking of the sort. The reason why this Amendment was not put down was because the Chief Secretary did not like to do that until he had heard once more from the hon. Member for North Kerry. He objected to this Amendment, because he did not see what the legal effect or meaning of it was. Hereafter it would probably be said that the Imperial Parliament would never have inserted these words unless they were intended to have some controlling effect. He wanted to know what the controlling effect would be? As the Bill stood at present, the Treasury were not under the control of the Irish Government. It was not fair to the Committee to make, at this stage, a complete change in this clause. The Amendment would, in fact, alter the whole course of Section 28, and was of vastly greater importance than the Committee were led to believe from the mild tone in which it was proposed by the Chief Secretary in obedience to the hon. Member for North Kerry.

SIR H. JAMES

said, he did not read this Amendment in the light that the hon. Member for Islington had done. He did not think that the words would control gratuities, pensions, or offices. All those were fixed in the earlier part of the section, and all it referred to would be as to analogous duties. If the Amendment was to be taken in the meaning attributed to it by the hon. Member for Islington, he thought a great many Members would oppose it. It was limited to one clause alone.

MR. BARTLEY

said, the hon. Member for North Kerry made it apply to the former part of the clause. Whether it would or would not do so in law he did not know.

MR. SEXTON

remarked that, whatever power he possessed, he had no power to alter the grammar of the language. The Amendment would be confined to whatever duty might be analogous.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think this Amendment is either useless or injurious, according to whether we take the interpretation of the hon. Member for Kerry and the right hon. Gentleman for Bury or the interpretation of the hon. Member for Islington. First, let us decide what the intention of the Government is. Do they mean absolutely to confine this consultation with the Irish Government to the case of determining what is or what is not an analogous duty? If the Government mean to confine it to duties which are analogous, it cannot well be injurious, and it is quite proper that there should be communication between the Treasury and the Irish Government. But I am sure the Government themselves admit that to allow the Irish Government to have any finger in the pie of what pensions there may be, whether right or wrong, is not, at all events, consistent with the policy which the Government have announced. I hope they have not changed the views which they have expressed on that subject.

MR. J. MORLEY

I assume the words I propose to introduce are limited to the declaration of the duties, and I think it is perfectly clear; my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury understood that from the first. I intend to propose the introduction of the same words in other parts of the clause in another sense, as to which I shall say something when the time arrives. But as to this part, the Government intend to strictly confine the effect of the words to the duties which the Irish Government consider to be analogous, and we do not intend by these words to imply that there is to be control.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. MORLEY

I now beg, Sir, to move the following Amendment:— In page 15, line 28, leave out from "and," to "provided," in line 58, and insert, "during the period of five years after the passing of this Act (in this section and the Fifth Schedule referred to as the transitional period), the said gratuities and pensions shall be awarded by the Treasury (in communication with the Irish Government), and the said gratuities and pensions so awarded and the said salaries shall be paid to the payees by the Treasury out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. Any such officer shall during the transitional period hold office unless he—(a) leaves the service on a medical certificate, or under the existing rules as to age, or is dismissed for misconduct or incapacity; or (b) is removed upon an abolition of office or re-organisation of Department which does not involve the appointment of any new officer; or (c) resigns under this section; or (d) is required by the Irish Government to retire. This Amendment, first of all, reduces to a definite shape the transitional period, and then the latter part defines the four conditions under which an officer may cease to hold office. I think they all speak for themselves, except possibly Sub-section (b), which enacts that the officer shall hold office unless he is— Removed upon an abolition of office or re-organisation of department, which does not involve the appointment of any new officer. That is to meet a contingency which I cannot think is likely to arise—namely, that the Irish Government, in order to get rid of an unwelcome officer, might, under colour of abolishing his office or re-organising the Department in which he served, get rid of him, and, unless interfered with, put some other officer in his place. We therefore propose to the Committee that they should only remove an officer upon that plea in a case where they did not fill the office which is vacated by the abolition or re-organisation. It is said, among the many good-natured criticisms made, that the Irish Govern- ment would deliberately displace a great number of officers and evade other provisoes by this device of a sham re-organisation, and from jobbery or some other motive put in other officers. In order to baulk that device so charitably imputed, we say that in the case of the appointment of a new officer that is to be a case of abolition or re-organisation which is not contemplated by this clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 28, leave out from "and," to "provided," in line 38, and insert "during the period of five years after the passing of this Act (in this section and the Fifth Schedule referred to as the transitional period), the said gratuities and pensions shall be awarded by the Treasury in communication with the Irish Government, and the gratuities and pensions so awarded and the said salaries shall be paid to the payees by the Treasury out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. Any such officer shall during the transitional period hold office unless he—(a) leaves the service on a medical certificate, or under the existing rules as to age, or is dismissed for misconduct or incapacity; or (b) is removed upon an abolition of office or re-organisation of department which does not involve the appointment of any new officer; or (c) resigns under this section; or (d) is required by the Irish Government to retire."—(Mr. J Morley.)

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

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

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

said, he had to move an Amendment which was not on the Paper, to amend the Chief Secretary's Amendment by omitting the words "during the period of five years after the passing of this Act (in this section and the Fifth Schedule referred to as the transitional period)." The reason for this Amendment was that it seemed impossible to understand the words referred to in connection with the 4th sub-section. The objection of the Civil servants to the proposal was that it limited the security for their pensions to five years, and they wanted to know how they would stand with regard to pensions after the end of five years. As regarded salaries, the Civil servants did not ask that after the transitional period they should be paid out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, but they did expect that their pensions should be so so paid, and it seemed as if this was in- tended by the 4th sub-section. He should like to hear from the Government the exact purport of the words he proposed to leave out, and whether the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman referred to a different class of Civil servants to those referred to in Sub-section 4.

Amendment proposed, inline 1, to leave out from "during," to "period" in line 2.—(Mr. H. Plunkett.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, it was clear that the Civil servants during this transitional period would retain the same relations to the Treasury as they had now. The hon. Member would see, if he referred to Sub-section 4, that provision was made that, whatever gratuities and pensions they were entitled to, the Imperial Treasury would pay. If the Civil servants elected to go on after the transitional period they must make the best bargain as to their salaries they could with the new Irish Government, but their rights were safeguarded up to that time.

MR. H. PLUNKETT

said, there was some misapprehension on the part of the Government. Would the pensions continue to be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, so long as the relations existed as at present the payment would be as at present.

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

asked if he was to understand that Sub-clause 4 covered all pensions and gratuities, whether awarded in the transitional period or subsequently?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, all matters would be technically covered by the clause as a whole.

MR. H. PLUNKETT

said, he did not wish to waste time, and he thought he was not doing that so long as he was trying to make the point clear. They had words as to the period of five years. How much was covered by that? Was it gratuities and pensions and salaries, or salaries only? It appeared to him that if the words he moved to be left out were put in after the word "salaries" the meaning would be perfectly clear.

MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)

said, he rose to draw attention to the words "in communication with the Irish Government."

THE CHAIRMAN

That does not arise on the present Amendment.

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

said, he would point out that if the Amendment was adopted in the present form, the Imperial Government would be charged with salaries as well as with pensions. The Amendment was not so clear as that of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He would suggest the words, "salaries payable within the said period."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, they had the words, "during a period of five years," and the words, "the said salaries." He thought there was no doubt about the meaning to be placed on the section as it read.

MR. SEXTON

said, there was no reference to salaries in the first line of the Amendment. The reference to pensions and gratuities was clear; but there was nothing applying the limit of five years to salaries. The words he had suggested would cover the meaning.

MR. H. PLUNKETT

said, there could scarcely be any objection to his having the matter made clear on this point.

MR. SEXTON

suggested that the Member for South Dublin should adopt the words he had indicated.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

Do we understand that the words "in communication with the Irish Government" cannot be discussed on this Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

They cannot be discussed on this Amendment.

MR. SEXTON

hoped the hon. Member below him (Mr. Plunkett) would withdraw the Amendment and adopt his form of words.

MR. H. PLUNKETT

said, he was willing to do that if the Government would agree to his proposal, which was simply to make the meaning clear.

Amendment (Mr. H. Plunkett), by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the words 'salaries payable within the said period of five years 'be there inserted."

MR. J. MORLEY

said, there could be no objection to these words, as the Government simply intended to make the meaning clear.

Question put, and agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is also in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. H. Plunkett).

MR. H. PLUNKETT

I do not move. I withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN (Lambeth, Brixton)

moved to omit the words "The Treasury may, in communication with the Irish Government." He ventured to ask the meaning of the words. He submitted that, understood in the ordinary way, they had no meaning at all, and he was confirmed in that view by the fact that the Chief Secretary had said that any English Minister would communicate with the Irish Government before taking any steps whatever. That was a proposition he ventured to lay down last night. The communication, as he understood it, was not to be in the nature of ordinary communication between Ministers, but was to be something, more or less, in the nature of the establishment of a formal demand, They were told it would be gross injustice to the Irish Parliament if they had not the power of dealing with their Executive officers; but if these words were accepted the Amendment would go a great deal further than any previous proposal, because it referred to "gratuities, pensions, and said salaries." If they handed these powers over to the Irish Parliament they would hand over all dealing with the gratuities, pensions, and salaries to the Irish Executive. They would have a complete revolution. Every speech made by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the country went to the specific point that they were perfectly safeguarding the lives and liberties of the Loyalists in Ireland by reserving to the Imperial Parliament control over the whole of the Irish Judges. If they gave the Irish Parliament the right of deciding what these pensions, gratuities, and salaries should be they might as well hand the whole control over to them.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to omit the words "in communication with the Irish Government."—(The Marquess of Carmarthen.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. J. MORLEY

said, the authority of the noble Lord in regard to legal construction—as he would, no doubt, himself admit—was not very high. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury had asked whether the words proposed would give the Irish Government a controlling power in a minor or major degree, or whether they would mean such communication between the Treasury and the Irish Government as any sensible English Government would undoubtedly initiate? His answer was that the Government did not for a moment intend that there should be a control over the action of the Treasury by the Irish Government in any legal sense, but that it was simply equitable and just that the Treasury, in making these awards, should have before them the views of the Irish Government, who, after all, were most intimately concerned. These words would have no binding or authoritative voice technically in the decision of the awards by the Treasury. The hon. Member for Kerry, in a most rational and unanswerable manner last night, had pointed out the fairness and equity of consulting the Irish Government in a matter so nearly affecting its interests. The Treasury was to listen to the voice of the Irish Government. Control? No. They would listen to the voice, the opinions, and facts that might be brought under their notice by the Irish Government. No fair-minded man would doubt that that was reasonable and equitable.

MR. RENTOUL

said, that after the right hon. Gentleman's explanation it did not seem that the words proposed would be of any value at all. No one could argue that the Treasury would be prohibited from asking for information; but if the words meant that the Treasury were in every case to receive an ex parte statement from the Irish Government without the other side having an opportunity of expressing their views, the arrangement would be an altogether one-sided and unfair one.

MR. MACARTNEY

thought the word "communication" a somewhat ambiguous one. The right hon. Gentleman said it was to give no legal or tech- nical power to the Irish Government; but was there any reservation in the phrase; would it give a statutable power? "Communication" appeared to him to involve something mere than a mere notice. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Irish Government had strong claims in view of the position of responsibility they occupied with regard to these Civil servants. Well, he (Mr. Macartney) objected to the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this responsibility. The responsibility was solely that of the Imperial Government, and the right hon. Gentleman had no right to endeavour to cast a share of it on to the shoulders of the Irish Government.

Mr. STOREY

said, it seemed to him that they were having a great deal of discussion upon a very simple matter. The Government contended that the Irish Legislature would have no power in this matter; and, on the other hand, the Irish Members held that the Treasury ought not to take a resolution like this, involving charges on the Irish Government, without having the whole of the facts brought within the purview of the Imperial Government. The words selected by the Government seemed to be objected to on the ground that there might be some suspicion that the Irish Government would have some controlling voice in the matter. Well, it seemed to him that the most simple way out of the difficulty would be to adopt words that would be unobjectionable to the two sides. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who seldom listened to anything he (Mr. Storey) said, would take a suggestion for once from a Radical, he would submit words which ought to be unobjectionable to both sides. It was not worth while having a long discussion about words, especially as this was a Bill which, after all, would never pass into law. He suggested that the words "after ascertaining the views of the Irish Government" would avoid all difficulty. He could not move those words, as there was already an Amendment to the proposed Amendment before the Committee; but he laid his suggestion before the Government as a sensible contribution towards the settlement of the question, and as a means of bringing an unnecessary Debate to an end.

SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)

said, the hon. Member who had last spoken declared that the Bill would not pass, and he, therefore, took the opportunity of suggesting an Amendment of a reckless character. He (Sir H. James) would not follow the hon. Member's example; but he thought that under the words proposed by the Government it would be difficult to avoid the construction that it was intended that the act of awarding pensions and gratuities should be in communication with the Irish Government. The words "after ascertaining the views of the Irish Government" were open to the same objection, because if they were only to act after ascertaining the views the reasonable construction would be that the views were to prevail. The words he would suggest would get rid of the first objection that the act would be done in communication with the Irish Government. He would propose that the words should be "after communicating with the Irish Government."

MR. J. MORLEY

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland said he (Mr. Morley) never accepted a suggestion from a Radical. That was not accurate; for not only had he accepted suggestions from Radicals, but he had made many to them. The words suggested by the hon. Member for Sunderland were, he was afraid, rather more of a literary than of an Act of Parliament character; but the right hon. and learned Member for Bury had suggested a perfectly reasonable Amendment, to which he saw no objection. It might be that the words proposed by the Government were open to the objection that they might seem to imply a contemporaneous influence upon the decision of the Treasury at the time the decision was taken. That was not the view expressed by the hon. Member for North Kerry. Hon. Members opposite seemed to suppose it would be natural and proper for the Treasury to make awards without reference to the Administration concerned; but it was absurd to suppose that the Treasury did so at present without reference to Departments. It would be ludicrous for the Treasury to do any such thing. He thought they should avoid further delay by accepting the words the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury had suggested.

MR. JACKSON

thought there was less objection to the words suggested by the right hon. Member for Bury than to those of the Government, if any words were necessary at all. It was not so absurd as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there should be a power in the Treasury to decide on awards for services with which the Irish Government had nothing whatever to do.

MR. SEXTON

They will have to pay.

MR. JACKSON

said, that the Irish Government in the future would have nothing more to do with the matter than the present Irish Administration had to do with any Civil Service which might terminate to-morrow.

MR. SEXTON

Except to pay.

MR. JACKSON

said, that that was part of the scheme of the Bill. If they had a right to interfere because they paid, did that mean that there was to be interference with regard to the amounts to be awarded? That was not what the Chief Secretary proposed. If the interference were not with regard to the amounts, the question of who was to pay did not enter into the matter at all. Let them take the case of a Civil servant who, after an appointed day, exercised his option under the Act and sent in his resignation. The Treasury would have to award the pension. It was true the burden of payment would fall on the Irish Government, but the Irish Government would have no more to do with awarding the pension than anyone else would have. The pension would be awarded for services rendered to the Imperial Government with which the Irish Government had had nothing to do. So far as his knowledge of Treasury practice went, he knew of no instance in which any outside body had been allowed to interfere with the award of pensions by the Treasury. He would venture to remind the President of the Local Government Board that, under Mr. Ritchie's Act creating County Councils, it was for the Treasury to decide questions as to pensions awarded to county officers. It would be a new and undesirable departure to weaken the power of the Treasury in regard to pensions. But it was not unreasonable that the Treasury should hear anything the Irish Government had to say. He did not understand the Chief Secretary to go so far as to say that the Irish Government should influence the Treasury, though they were drawing a narrow line when they used the words "in communication with the Irish Government." If the Act passed into law, those words would have to be interpreted by somebody besides the Government, and the question would naturally be asked why the words were inserted unless it was believed that there might be some influence exercised by the Irish Government. Though he should have preferred it if none of these words had been inserted, he saw less objection to those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury than to those of the Government.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that applications for pensions went to the Treasury through the Departments. Of course the Treasury was supreme, and that was what was meant in the Government proposal.

MR. BUCKNILL (Surrey, Epsom)

asked whether, if the words "after communication with the Irish Government" were inserted, that communication would be necessary in the case of every pension that was granted? In some cases such communication might be reasonable and proper, but there would be cases in which it would be unnecessary.

SIR H. JAMES

said, that communication might be made with reference to several cases at once, but the matter was one which would settle itself.

MR. SEXTON

said, the speeches from Members of the Opposition curiously illustrated the frame of mind produced by irresponsible control over the affairs of another people. Pensions were to be paid out of Irish Revenue, and all the Irish Members asked was that the Irish Government should be told what was about to happen, and should be asked for their opinion. This simple, reasonable, and unanswerable claim had given rise to a long conversation. The words of the Chief Secretary would be less embarrassing than those of the right hon. Member for Bury, because "after" communication implied that communication was to be begun, continued, and concluded, before a pension was awarded. The right hon. Member for Bury, therefore, had overshot the mark, as his Amendment would lead to delay and difficulty in granting pensions. But whether it was "in" or "after" the power would rest with the Treasury.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said, the best answer to the few observations of the hon. Member for Kerry was the speech of the Chief Secretary, who had told them that his intention was to preserve in the Treasury an absolute controlling power. Would anyone tell him what was the use of imposing on the Treasury by Statute a duty which every Member on the Treasury Bench would tell them was now recognised by right? If it was not intended to interfere with the action of the Treasury there was no necessity for the insertion of the proposed words. [Cries of "Agreed!" and "Divide!"] He had it on the authority of a right hon. Gentleman opposite that communications already passed between the Departments and the Treasury whenever a question as to pensions arose.

THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN

said, he would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the words proposed by the right hon. Member for Bury were agreed to.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the words 'in communication' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'after communicating' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. STOREY

said, he wished to move to leave out "(c) resigns under this section; or." The proposal before the Committee was that when Civil servants were removed from their offices they should have certain exceptional terms on withdrawal. He wished to differentiate between the man turned out of office and the man who voluntarily resigned, and he thought he could show the Committee that he was founding himself on a very just principle. The hon. Member for South Tyrone asked his approval of an Amendment on the ground that he was an honest man. ["No!"] Well, a just man. ["Hear, hear!"] He claimed the support of the hon. Member for South Tyrone for this Amendment on the ground that he was a just man. They were told that these men would resign rather than serve under an Irish Government composed of men free chosen by the Irish people. ["No!"]

An hon. MEMBER: Chosen by the priests.

MR. STOREY

Freely chosen.

Several hon. MEMBERS; No, no!

MR. STOREY

Why, they were getting back into the Dark Ages.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

To the Meath Election.

MR. STOREY

Why cast the Meath Election in his teeth? His hon. Friend knew that he had been mixed up in a number of elections, and he had seen as much influence by employers of labour and Church parsons. It was not his fault that he had been diverted from his argument. Let him come back to the point. It had been imputed to these officials that as they were placed under a Government chosen by the people they would, therefore, throw up their appointments and be exceptionally treated at the expense of the Irish Exchequer. If this were true he should be ashamed of such Irish officials. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who was not in his place, said the Civil servants would withdraw from their positions as public servants because they would be placed under masters whom they abhorred.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

Nothing of the kind. What my right hon. Friend said was that they had only made a contract with the Imperial Government and not with the Irish Government.

MR. STOREY

said, he had happened to take down the words he had quoted. As the noble Lord challenged him he would put this point to him. Whom did the Irish officials serve now?

LORD R. CHURCHILL

The Imperial Government.

MR. STOREY

Whom will the Irish officials serve when the Irish Government is established?

MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

The National League.

MR. STOREY

said, he thought they would serve their country, and if they gave up their posts simply because someone was placed over them whom they did not like he should think very little of their patriotism. He admitted freely that if Irish officials were compelled by the new Irish Government to withdraw they should have not only fair and liberal treatment, but the most generous treatment, and he apprehended that this was secured to them under the Bill. He would take a concrete case. Suppose he himself were an Irish official. He was very sorry he was not when he considered the good things that were going at the present time. Supposing he were a young Irish official of five years' standing and he had liberty to serve the new Irish Government, but said—"No; I do not. like these gentlemen who compose the new Irish Government, and I will retire." What did the British Government say in such a case? It said—"You shall have the same allowance, the same exceptional treatment, as if the Irish Government had forced you out of office." Every Member in the House could see that it would not be fair that an Irish official who might continue to serve his country, but chose to withdraw his services, should have anything more than the treatment he would receive under similar circumstances in England. Well, what would happen in such a case in England? Suppose a Tory Government came into power and some public officer said—"I was quite content to serve the State under the Liberal Government, but now there is a Tory Government in power I withdraw from my post." What treatment would he receive? The gentleman in charge at the Treasury would simply say—" Very well, you have given up your post, and are not entitled to a pension. Good day." That would be the end of the transaction. Yet the Government proposed that if an Irish official threw up his post after having served 10 years he should be entitled to a pension calculated upon 20 years' service.

MR. SEXTON

Sometimes 30 years.

MR. STOREY

said, his hon. Friend was quite right. If a Resident Magistrate who had served 10 years gave up his post he would be entitled to a pension based upon 30 years' service. He (Mr. Storey) called this generosity gone mad. If a man gave up his position he did not deserve to be treated as if he had been turned out by the Irish Government.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "(c) resigns under this section; or."—(Mr. Storey.)

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

LOUD R. CHURCHILL

I think it would be much better if the hon. Member for Sunderland, when he moves Amendments in this Committee, would avoid retrospective examination of his honesty and conscientiousness, because such an examination has absolutely nothing to do with the subject under discussion, and has no interest whatever for the Committee. The hon. Member bases his Amendment upon an argument which goes dead against the strongest arguments of the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Is the hon. Gentleman so ignorant of the conditions of the Civil Service in Ireland under the present system and the future system not to know that peculiar conditions are being measured out to Irish Civil servants which were never measured out to English Civil servants? I am now treating of the privileges which the Government does give them, and which, of course, I think inadequate. The hon. Member, who is so well informed of the conditions of the Civil servants in Ireland, and has made such a lifelong examination of them, thinks the Irish Civil servants are bound to serve under an Irish Government with whom they have absolutely no contract. Is the hon. Gentleman going to vote on his Amendment? He assumes in his argument that he is an official under the Irish Government. He is certainly serving an admirable apprenticeship in this Parliament. Supposing he does become au official in Ireland, and supposing the conditions under which he takes service are wholly different from those under which he is subsequently asked to serve, and he is compelled to withdraw from the service—

MR. STOREY

The noble Lord quite misunderstands my point. I did not argue the case of those who are compelled to withdraw. I took the case of a man who chose to withdraw.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

I am quite within the recollection of the Committee as to the hon. Gentleman's argument. He said he would like to be an official under the new Irish Government. I would advise him to be a little cautious before he takes service with that Government. Does the hon. Gentleman think that these gentlemen below the Gangway, who have carried on this warfare for 12 years, have not got to provide for lots of followers of their own in the Civil Service of Ireland? Does he not know that many of the prominent men in Ireland have claims upon them that they cannot fail to recognise, and have established over them an influence which must make them provide offices for them? That is why I hold the Irish Government will make many vacancies in the Civil Service. They are bound to provide for their own friends. Is that insulting to the Irish people? Why, how have they carried the measure of Home Rule so far except by sticking to their friends, and sticking together? They will have to reward their friends, and they will find rewards for thorn in the rich appointments of the Irish Civil Service. It is of no use for the hon. Member for Sunderland to sermonise, moralise, and preach to us. We have no want of knowledge of the Irish Question, as we have shown by our Debates and Divisions, and I think the hon. Member would do a great deal better by carrying out his real intention of voting for the Government than by moving an Amendment which he does not mean to divide upon, and which is not only founded on gross injustice, but is dead in the teeth of the basis on which the Government rest their financial proposals.

MR. J. MORLEY

I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite show, as the noble Lord says, their knowledge of these Irish questions in Divisions, and I am not sure that he has himself made a very important contribution to our knowledge on the present occasion. At the same time, I am not at all sorry to have his judgment on our side. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has argued that there should be no special privilege given to those who voluntarily retire from the Irish Service. My hon. Friend admits, as I understand, the justice of making special provision for those who may be compulsorily retired by the Irish Government. I think that last night I made it clear to the Committee that our scheme was framed as a whole, and in view of the whole set of conditions—of alarm on the one side, and of the necessity on the other side of not overloading the Irish Government with an excessive burden. It was framed in view of all the conditions which under any reasonable and even under some unreasonable expectations could arise. We have come to the conclusion that it will not be unjust to the Irish Government, and that it will not be more than is equitable to Civil servants in respect to the apprehensions which some of them have expressed, and which their Parliamentary friends have expressed in louder tones than they have themselves used, to frame a scheme which should guard against all possible and reasonably and unreasonably apprehended dangers, and, above all things, that we should clear ourselves from the reproach which the noble Lord (Lord R. Churchill), in an earlier speech, so lavishly and in such violent, and, I must say, extravagant language, poured upon us, of having thrown overboard engagements of honour and credit entered into with the Civil servants.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

I was supporting the proposal of the Government that the Irish servants should be at liberty to quit their employment. I do not approve of the whole of the Government scheme.

MR. J. MORLEY

The noble Lord says he does not approve. Before 8 o'clock he took a very different tone. He charged us with being guilty of baseness which no Government had ever been guilty of before.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

I do not withdraw that.

MR. J. MORLEY

He does not withdraw that, and yet he says that this provision is in itself a redemption of our obligations to the Civil servants.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

I said nothing of the kind.

MR. J. MORLEY

He does not admit that it is ft complete discharge, but I am glad to find, at all events, that his language now is much more charitable and indulgent to us than it was earlier. So far as the Amendment of my hon. Friend goes we cannot possibly accept it, because if we once began to disturb the framework of the scheme we have constructed we should be landed in a great number of embarrassments and inconsistencies, which I do not think my hon. Friend desires to see us embarking upon; therefore, we must adhere to our scheme. The terms are liberal and generous terms, and we are not prepared, in consequence of any argument my hon. Friend has urged to-night, to alter that portion of the scheme.

MR. STOREY

asked on what ground the right hon. Gentleman based the decision of the Government to give to a man who voluntarily withdrew, because he did not want a new Government, the same terms that were granted to a man whose office was taken away? That was the point he wanted answered. He would not object to the question of the five years, because under the exceptional circumstances they might give these gentlemen five years' extra pension; but on what ground did he give them out of the Irish Exchequer the same terms of abolition which were given to a man whoso office was taken from him?

MR. J. MORLEY

The answer to my hon. Friend is this, and I think if he had not failed to appreciate what I presented to the Committee last night he would see what we mean. What we mean is this. If you draw a distinction between the Civil servant who voluntarily resigns and the Civil servant who is compulsorily retired by the action of the Irish Government, what do you do? I do not say the danger is one that is likely to arise; but there is an apprehension in the minds of some of the Civil servants—it is argued or urged, at all events, that the Irish Government might be tempted, either from what was called by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition "revengeful feelings," or from a desire to make room for friends of their own, that they might be tempted to make the place of the permanent Civil servant now serving the Government so disagreeable, so onerous, so intolerable, that it would be equivalent or tantamount to a compulsory retirement. I do not for a moment entertain the possibility of that. I may be wrong. I may be living in a paradise of dreams and illusions——that may be, but that is our view; and that being our view, when we find these apprehensions entertained, we are willing to introduce this provision, which withdraws from the Irish Legislature any possibility of taking that course.

MR. STOREY

wished to put one other point. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fact of giving these extra terms to gentlemen who voluntarily retired would not be an extra temptation to them to retire? Clearly the better terms they gave on voluntary retirement the more they were likely to take advantage of them, and the point he wished to put was this—whether the effect of this would not be to induce men to retire, and therefore to put the Irish Government in this position—that they would have to pay half salary by way of pension to a man who did nothing, and full salary to another man to do the work?

MR. J. MORLEY

Only one word in answer to the question of my hon. Friend. My answer is this—I suppose the human nature of an Irish Civil servant, whatever the human nature of the Irish Government may be, would be that of the rest of us, and does my hon. Friend suppose an Irish Civil servant will sacrifice his salary, which is more than the pension?

MR. STOREY

If frightened, as you say.

MR. J. MORLEY

He would wait until he was frightened.

MR. STOREY

But why should he?

MR. J. MORLEY

Then the case fails.

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

was not disposed to criticise the scheme in detail; but in regard to Clause 27, which had been passed, and which involved heavier expenditure than in this clause, also in regard to this clause, and also in regard to Clause 30, it would be necessary for them to make grave and serious comment as to the joint and several effect of all these schemes upon the financial arrangement. All he said on the present Amendment was, that he was somewhat surprised to see Sub-section (c), and he agreed with the hon. Member for Sunder-land that the existence of this sub-section would be likely to increase the difficulty of the Irish Government by inviting and even by stimulating capricious retirement on the part of Civil servants. He noticed that Civil servants were to be very amply protected against any caprice on the part of the Irish Government, but he did not find that the Irish Government were to be correspondingly protected against caprice on the part of the Civil servants. But there was, in the last proposed sub-head, a suggestion that a Committee should be appointed for determining appeals from the Irish Government. If the Irish Government were to dismiss a man for misconduct or incapacity he would have the right to go before that Committee, and the Irish Government would have to satisfy the Committee that he was guilty of such misconduct or laboured under such incapacity—in other words, the Committee would have to be satisfied that the Irish Government had a right to. dismiss him, and if the Irish Government had no such right, the Civil servant would be treated as though compulsorily retired. If the Civil servants were to have this protection, why should not the Irish Government have protection against capricious retirement? The Chief Secretary had put the case that a man's office might be made intolerable to him—it was possible, but he did not think it was likely to arise—but in such a case the Civil servant would have the right to retire. If, on the other hand, a man chose to retire capriciously, without cause—if he exercised a caprice simply because the Government under which his duties were to be performed fell into the hands of his countrymen—that man was guilty of a dishonest act if he left the Service and claimed, having served 10 years, a pension as if he had served 30 years. A man ought not to be allowed capriciously to retire; he should go on doing his work until he was entitled to his full pension; but if he could show to the Committee that he was being harshly treated or unduly burdened, or in any way unfairly handled, let the Committee treat him as a person bound to retire. What he would suggest as being satisfactory was that these words should be inserted in Sub-head (c), after the word resigns, "with the approval of the Committee hereinafter mentioned."

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) made an appeal to him. He desired to meet that appeal as frankly and fairly as it was made. The question asked was, why Civil servants who voluntarily resigned were to get any pension?

MR. STOREY

No; why are they to get the same as a man whose office is abolished?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, he accepted the correction; but the hon. Gentleman forgot that these men had made a contract with the Government. He had the case of 13 men before him in one division, the second class, with length of service varying from five to 16 years at salaries of £100 each, rising by £10 per annum to £300, with a prospect of promotion to the first class, and salaries of £500 a year. That was a contract that these men entered into—it was a bargain with the State who were to pay these men during the transitional period, and the moment that period expired, that was after the five years expired, the Civil servant must make his own terms with the Irish Government. The Committee would see that at the end of the transitional period the bargain entered into would be broken, and a fresh bargain would have to be made. As the Irish Government would not be in a position to treat the Civil servant in the same way as the Imperial Government did, the Civil servant might be called upon to accept a lower salary with a smaller increase per annum, and he (Mr. Russell) said that a man had a right to object to that. If he objected, and resigned in consequence, he had a right to generous treatment for the breach of contract on the part of the State. That was his reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey).

Amendment (Mr. Storey) negatived.

Amendment (Mr. J. Morley) agreed to.

MR. J. MORLEY

The next Amendment I have to make is not much more than a drafting Amendment; it is to insert after the word "notice" these words, "of resignation under this section or of required retirement." That is to say, it is to be a reciprocal arrangement, and it is to make what was tolerably obvious perfectly clear.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 39, after the word "notice" to insert the words "of resignation under this section or of required retirement."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, the Amendment standing in his name was to leave out Sub-section (b). He thought it was a somewhat unreasonable and unnecessary sub-section; if the members of the Civil Service were to retire the sooner the change took place the better. He thought the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) would agree that the change should be made as rapidly as possible rather than that the matter should hang over for a considerable time; it would not involve any larger expenditure, and would hasten the placing of the Civil Service on a better footing.

MR. J. MORLEY

I rise to a point of Order. I have an Amendment on the next page which comes before the word "such," and if the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) moves to omit the sub-section I should be unable to move mine. I therefore move to insert, before the word "such," the words "before the end of the transitional period."

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 42, before the word "such," to insert the words "before the end of the transitional period."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

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

MR. GOSCHEN

asked if the Amendment would not raise the whole question of the transitional period, or was it merely consequential?

MR. J. MORLEY

This sub-section only deals with a particular provision for limiting the amount of retirements that might take place in any given period.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR, on the point of Order, asked whether the Chairman ought not to put the question whether Sub-section (b) should be left out before they came to the question of amending it?

THE CHAIRMAN

The Motion has not been made to omit Sub-section (b). The hon. Member rose to move it, and the question was raised whether the Government had not priority. The right hon. Gentleman has moved this first Amendment, and I think it is quite in Order to go on with that.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he had no objection to either course; but was it not the rule of the House that if a Member moved to omit a sub-section that Motion was put before they came to amend the sub-section; and he ventured most respectfully to submit that the priority of the Government did not give them power to amend the subsection before the Motion to omit was disposed of.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby)

I would not put my authority against that of the right hon. Gentleman, but my idea is that the practice is that you first amend a sub-section. Let me give a reason for that. It may be that the House would desire to omit a subsection, but if it were amended they might wish to retain it; therefore, before you determine the question of omission you must determine the form of the sub-section. That is common sense, and, I believe, is the practice of the House.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

On the point of Order, may I point out to you that the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension; it is not competent for my hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) to move to omit after the sub-section has been amended—["Why not?"] Because after you have passed certain words you cannot go back upon them; you can move to omit the clause, but not the sub-section.

SIR W. HARCOURT

It is quite true that the sub-section is not like a clause, but my right hon. Friend has an Amendment, and the Chairman will not put the whole of the words, but so many of the words as would permit my right hon. Friend's Amendment to come in.

THE CHAIRMAN

The matter is quite clear. If the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) had been allowed to move to omit the sub-section, I must have put the first words of the subsection—that is the rule, and if I had done that it would have shut out the Government Amendment. The Government have priority, and the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to move his Amendment, and then the hon. Member can vote against that Amendment, and if it is defeated afterwards move to omit the sub-section.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

Is not that absolutely a new ruling? ["Order, order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

This is no new ruling at all; this is in substance what I ruled the other day, when I pointed out the distinction between a sub-section and a clause.

MR. J. MORLEY

Then I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, to insert, before the word "such," "before the end of the transitional period." This makes it clear that the power of limitation by the Treasury subsists during the transitional period.

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the course his hon. Friend would have to pursue, if he wanted to omit the sub-section, would be to vote against the words proposed to be inserted, not that they were inappropriate, but because he considered the sub-section ought to be omitted.

MR. BARTLEY

thought there was no other course open to him, because if he moved to omit the remaining words of the sub-section there would be no sense in them. His object in wishing to omit the sub-section was that the change might be made as soon as possible; that the sooner those who desired to go left, the better it would be for the Irish Civil Service. He considered it would be an intolerable position to keep in suspense Civil servants who were known to have no keen interest in the government of the country, and who, to say the least, were unwilling servants. He, therefore, thought that those men whom the Irish Government wished to go should go as soon as possible.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

In order to test exactly what the Government mean, let me put an extreme case as a test case. Suppose the Treasury were to say no Irish officer shall retire at all during the five years. In that case will the Irish officers be at liberty to retire en masse, with all the privileges conceded to them under Clause 28, at the end of five years?

MR. J. MORLEY

That is, indeed, an extreme case; but undoubtedly if the Treasury were so misguided as to prohibit any Irish servant from retiring or from being retired, then at the end of five years there might be a clean sweep. The Civil servants might resign en masse, or they might be compulsorily retired. That is the case we have tried to meet under this sub-section. So many evils would come from a great displacement of the officers who have knowledge of the administration of the Departments that the Government have thought it right to limit this power of a clean sweep one way or the other by this provison.

MR. CARSON

said, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory as regarded the intention of the Government; but he failed to see where in the clause the intention was carried out.

MR. J. MORLEY

The intention will be carried out by a subsequent Amendment, which the hon. and learned Gentleman will see on the Paper. I intend to move to insert, after the word "sanction," the words— So, however, that a notice to resign under this section given by an officer shall, unless withdrawn, operate at the end of the transitional period if he has not sooner left the service.

MR. CARSON

Yes; that will meet my objection. I was not aware of it.

Amendment (Mr. J. Morley) agreed to.

MR. J. MORLEY

I now beg to move in page 15, line 42, after "shall" insert "resign under this section, or be required to."

Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN

I beg to move to omit the word "in," after the word "Treasury," line 43, and substitute "on." The right hon. Gentleman will recognise the importance of the change.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. MORLEY

I now move— In page 15, line 44, after "sanction," insert "so, however, that a notice to resign under this section given by an officer shall, unless withdrawn, operate at the end of the transitional period if he has not sooner left the service; and (c) an officer resigning under this section shall show that he is not incapacitated by mental or bodily infirmity for the performance of his duties, and that he will not be required under the existing rules as to age to retire before the end of the transitional period, and otherwise he shall not be entitled to any further gratuity or pension than he would have been entitled to if he had left the service on a medical certificate. (3) Upon any such removal, or resignation upper this section, or required retirement, there may be awarded to the officer by the Treasury on communication with the Irish Government, a gratuity or pension in accordance with the Fifth Schedule to this Act, and for that purpose his service shall be reckoned as if it had continued to the end of the transitional period, or to any earlier date at which under the existing rules as to age he will be required to retire.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

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

moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in lines 5 and 6, to leave out "that he is not incapacitated by mental or bodily infirmity for the performance of his duties, and." He thought it unfair to a Civil servant to require him to prove a negative as to his alleged incapacity.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words "that he is not incapacitated by mental or bodily infirmity for the performance of his duties, and."—(Mr. H. Plunkett.)

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

MR. J. MORLEY

I am afraid that we must insist on retaining these words. I do not think that the way suggested is the ordinary method of looking at matters of this kind. If the Irish Government make up their mind that an officer is incapacitated, it is for the officer to show that he is not incapacitated.

MR. BARTLEY

said, he did not mean to suggest that the action of the Irish Government would affect the minds of the Civil servants; but if during the five years any mental or bodily complaint were to fall upon the officer, he would lose and be seriously injured under the present proposal of the Government. The effect of leaving the words in would be that the Civil servant would have to give notice while in a fit state of health, and this would encourage the men to give such notices. He thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Dublin would obviate this difficulty.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The point is that if the man resigns he will be entitled to the special terms. Tf he is incapacitated, of course he will be unable to continue in service.

MR. BARTLEY

said, his point was that though a man might be in the best of health at the time the Bill passed he would be compelled to give notice at once, for if he were to get ill during the five years he would lose the benefit of the section, and have to retire without so large a pension.

MR. STOREY

said, he did not think that was the essential point. The essential point was this—that if the man was well he was to have special terms if he retired; but, if ill, he was only to have common terms. That was, surely, profligacy in expenditure.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he desired to know what the officer was intended to do to show that he was not incapacitated? Was it intended that he should go before a Medical Board to be constituted by the Irish Government or by the Treasury, or would it be sufficient for him to bring a certificate from his own medical man? He thought it would be most unfair to throw on the man the burden of showing that he was not incapacitated. The provision, as it stood, was certainly extraordinary.

MR. CARSON

said, he would not have intervened but for the fact that he knew the Civil servants, especially those of the second class, did not at all like this provision, which was meant to apply to the case of a man who, up to the moment of his resignation, was perfectly performing his duties. Probably, then, for the first time he would find out, on submitting himself to medical examination, some latent defect in his constitution of which up to that time he had been unaware; and the result would be that he would find himself deprived of the benefits of the provisions of the Bill. The fact that a man was properly performing his duties up to the time of his resignation should be taken as proof that he was capable of performing them, and he should not be compelled to go under a medical examination, which probably, by the discovery of some latent ailment, would make him unhappy for the rest of his life.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that the sub-section required a man to prove two negatives. He always understood that it was difficult for a man to prove one negative. The officer was required to prove, first, that he was not incapacitated; and, secondly, that he was not required, under the existing rules as to age, to retire. The fact that an officer was at the moment discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors ought to be taken as proof that he was not incapacitated, and it might reasonably be presumed that the authorities took some means of informing themselves of the man's age when entering the Service.

MR. H. PLUNKETT

said, that he spoke for the Irish Civil servants, and what they complained of was that their pensions might be withhold by the Treasury on a false representation from the Irish Government that they were incapacitated, and that they would have to bring suit against the Treasury to compel them to do justice by them.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

asked what better proof could be given of a man's capacity to perform certain duties than the fact that he was actually performing them? What the Civil servants complained of was that the medical examination might result in showing that the officers retiring were not first-class lives, and that their pensions would be reduced in consequence. They submitted that the fact of a man being in active service ought to be considered sufficient evidence of his state of health. Suppose a man desired to retire, and on submitting himself to medical examination found that he had some latent disease, which had not yet shown itself, but would in time show itself, would that fact be taken into account by the Treasury?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 239; Noes 199.—(Division List, No. 225.)

^*MR. W. KENNY moved the following Amendment to the Amendment:—Line 14, after "pension," insert "or gratuity and pension." He said the object of the Amendment was to provide that it should be in the power of the Treasury not alone to grant a pension, but also, in such cases as they might think right, to give in addition a gratuity on the resignation or retirement of an officer. The clause as it stood at present stated that upon the removal or resignation of an officer he may be awarded by the Treasury a gratuity or pension, in accordance with the Fifth Schedule to this Act.

He proposed to amend that by adding after the word "pension" the words "or gratuity and pension." The gratuities that were contemplated in the Fifth Schedule of the Bill were gratuities under the Superannuation Act of 1887. His proposal was not directed to gratuities of that character, but to such gratuities as a year or a half-year's salary, which would enable the officer retiring to make special provision according to his needs. His Amendment was based on the Admiralty and War Office Regulation Act of 1878, which gave special terms to officers who, on re-organisation of the Department, were obliged to retire under the scheme. First of all, it provided that a gratuity might be given in addition to the pension which the officer received under the Superannuation Act of 1859; and it then declared that if that pension did not come up to one-half the salary the pension was to be made up to one-half. He, therefore, submitted that in the Act of 1878 he had a very good precedent for his proposal. What would be the position of these clerks in the various Public Offices in Ireland in case they should be compulsorily retired or should resign? A large number of them were in receipt of very small salaries indeed; and many of them had contracted obligations in the way of insurance, and house-rent, and the education of their families, so that, even with their salary, there was but a miserable margin left to these gentlemen after providing for these demands. If on retirement their salaries were reduced to one-half, where was the money to come from to provide for the fulfilment of these obligations? In a great number of cases no alternative would be open to many of these officers but emigration. He pointed out that Irish Civil servants had entered into a contract with the Imperial Government, and there was obligation on both sides. On their appointment, by competitive examination, it was specifically stated, in the Orders in Council, that they would be entitled to increments of salary, to rights of promotion, and of pension; and on the faith of being entitled to those terms they entered the service of the Crown. The Committee were now dealing admittedly with the "permanent" Civil Service of the Crown. The Solicitor General and the Chief Secretary had admitted that a man who served during good behaviour held a freehold office, and the position of the Civil Service was popularly regarded as determinable only on misconduct. Having regard, therefore, to the position these men would be placed in by the Government proposal, and to the fact that many of them would be obliged to leave the country, he thought power should be given to the Treasury to extend some further consideration to them in the direction suggested in his Amendment, which he begged to move.

Amendment proposed, in line 14, after the word "pension," to insert the words "or gratuity and pension."—(Mr. W. Kenny.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that this Amendment was another mode of reopening a question the Committee had already decided. The Government had considered the case of these men as a whole; and while, on the one hand, they had resisted proposals from their own side to minimise the scheme, they must, on the other, resist any proposals to enlarge it. He said that now, although the proper time to raise the question would be on the Schedule, when the number of years would be decided. The hon. Gentleman's proposal was to add another year's salary to the pension. He might tell the hon. Member that the precedent he had quoted had been universally regarded by the Treasury and the financial authorities of this country as a bad precedent. The Royal Commission, which sat on the Civil Service some years ago, specially reported as to the extravagant nature of that celebrated re-organisation of the Admiralty and War Office. It was a precedent which had never been followed. One of the conditions of the Superannuation Act was that if an office were abolished the officer should have certain privileges accorded to him, and under the present scheme additional privileges were also given. But under the Superannuation Act no man was entitled to any gratuity, nor had any gratuity been given on the abolition of an office; and the Government could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (Mr. J. Morley) agreed to.

MR. J. MORLEY moved the following Amendment:— Page 16, line 1, leave out from "officer," to "a pension," in line 2, and insert "is serving in a capacity which qualifies him for a pension under 'The Superannuation Act, 1859,' and continues to hold office after the end of the transitional period the Treasury may, within three months after the end of that period, award him.

The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to make sure that the officer who was to have his pension secured to him up to the end of the transitional period should, whether he retired earlier or later, have his pension calcu- lated upon the five transitional years, and upon the highest of the five years.

Amendment agreed to.

^*MR. W. KENNY moved the following Amendment:— Page 16, line 4, leave out "his ultimate retirement from the service of," and insert "the cessation of his service under.

The only object of the Amendment, he observed, was to make it clear that the clause covered all the cases in which the service of an officer might be determined. An officer who, after the transitional period, remained in the service of the Irish Government, might be dismissed at any time, as his service would be "during pleasure." The clause as it stood, however, provided only for cases of retirement. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 16, line 4, to leave out "his ultimate retirement from the service of," and insert the words "the cessation of his service under."—(Mr. W. Kenny.)

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

MR. J. MORLEY

I think the hon. and learned Member has moved his Amendment under some not very unnatural misapprehension. I understand he represents the view that the word "retirement" applies only where the officer withdraws on account of age, or under a medical certificate, and does not apply if he resigns or if his office is abolished. I repeat that is a misapprehension on the hon. and learned Gentleman's part. If an officer resigns, or his office is abolished, that signifies that he retires from the Service, and the expression that we have approved of in this Bill is the expression used in the Superannuation Act of 1859, in the wide sense in which we use it, and which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to express, as he will see if he will refer to the 12th section of that Act.

Amendment negatived.

MR. J. MORLEY moved the following Amendment:— Page 16, line 5, leave out from the word "in" to the word "shall," in line 6, and insert the words "pursuance of this section.

It was, he said, merely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

^*MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.) moved the following Amendment:— Page 16, line 8, leave out "all sums paid," and insert "one-half of the net amount payable.

He said, the Government had prepared a very liberal scheme for the Civil servants in Ireland to retire under, but in doing that he scarcely thought they had acted fairly towards the future Exchequer of the Irish Government. It would be admitted on all hands that the terms on which the Civil servants in Ireland were to be treated under this Bill were not fair to the Irish people. He could quote a strong extract from a speech of the Prime Minister in support of this view. In his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill of 1886 the right hon. Gentleman, alluding to the Irish Civil Service, said not only was there a waste of public money, but a demoralising waste, and a waste which exercised a demoralising influence; that while the Civil charges in Great Britain were 8s. 2d., in Ireland they were 16s. per head, and they had increased in Ireland during the last 15 years by 63 per cent. He (Mr. Hayden) maintained that that Service had been so kept up extravagantly not for the benefit of Ireland, but for the benefit of the Imperial system. They were reminded that evening by the Leader of the Opposition that the Civil servants were Imperial and not Irish officers; that it was a Civil Service under the Crown; that they could not be separated from those of the other parts of the United Kingdom, and that they must treat these officers in one country as they did in another. Accepting that statement, he thought they were entitled to ask the Opposition, as well as the Government, to see that the money for this extravagant system of superannuation should not be altogether borne by an impoverished Irish Exchequer. The previous night the Committee agreed that the entire cost of the superannuation of the Judges and certain other officers should be borne by the Irish Exchequer, but he did not think it was too much to ask that in regard to the general body of the Civil servants in Ireland the government of that country should only be called upon to bear half the cost of such a scheme of superannuation as that proposed in the Bill. They were not asking that any individual should suffer by the change. On the contrary; they were prepared to deal with all the Civil servants in a most liberal manner, but this generosity ought not to be altogether borne by the Irish Government. He considered that the British Government, in whose interest these officers had acted far more than for that of Ireland, should at least be asked to bear a fair proportion of the charge. He was of opinion that an examination of the financial position of Ireland would show that if the members of the Civil Service chose to avail themselves of the terms which it was proposed should be granted them it would run away with almost every penny of the surplus Ireland was supposed to have under the Bill. If these officers chose not to serve under the Irish Government, but rather to serve the Imperial Government, on which they certainly had claims, it was only right that the Imperial Government should bear its fair share of the expenses. The proposal made in the Amendment was a just and equitable proposal, and it ought to be accepted as a matter of policy, because it would give the Irish Government a better start. It was a proposal which, unlike many of the Amendments which had been moved that evening from the other side, was made in all seriousness. He begged to move the Amendment, which he hoped would meet with acceptance.

Amendment proposed, In page 16, line 8, to leave out the words "all sums paid," in order to insert the words "one-half of the net amount payable."—(Mr. Hayden.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'all sums paid' stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. MORLEY

I have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend with attention, and I feel that there is a certain substance in what he says, and I feel that we are in this clause especially making very liberal terms, which terms have to be satisfied not by ourselves, but by the Irish Government. But we have got to look at the situation as a whole and in all its bearings. This provision no doubt imposes a considerable burden on the Irish Exchequer, but I will point out that the amount of that burden in no inconsiderable degree will depend upon the action of the Irish Government itself. I do not admit that the burdens of these pensions is likely, as a matter of probability and fact, to fall on the Irish Government, because I do not think the Irish Government are likely to resort to a course of policy which, by either provoking to resignation or compelling retirement, would lay this burden upon their shoulders. I believe the Government, in relation to its Civil servants, will go on very much in Ireland as in England. If not, no doubt the Irish Government will have to bear a certain burden which I, for one, would rather not impose upon them if it could be avoided. But—to use an expression which has been used before in these Debates—you have got to strike a balance between the advantages and the disadvantages, and I submit that the scheme which we propose to the Committee and ask hon. Gentlemen from Ireland to accept is one from which they will suffer no disadvantage, and from which, in the sense of the security, goodwill, and good feeling which this scheme is calculated to promote, they will receive very considerable advantage. I would point out one more consideration to my hon. Friend, and it is this: The points he has raised are really points affecting the financial scheme of the Government, and the Financial Clauses will be considered at a later stage.

MR. J. E. REDMOND (Waterford)

This question we are now discussing affects most vitally the question of the surplus.

MR. J. MORLEY

It is quite true that, if the burden of the pensions accorded by the 28th clause falls in all its entirety to the tune of one-half of the pensionable salaries, that would make a considerable invasion upon the working surplus of the Irish Government. I do not deny that; but I say that, if you are going to discuss the surplus, this is not a good point from which to approach it; and this is not a point which really tells effectively against the surplus, because the extent of this burden will depend upon the discretion of the Irish Government. [Mr. J. E. REDMOND: No, no! ] That is the position we take; therefore I submit to my hon. Friend that he will do well not to press his Amendment.

MR. CLANCY, in reference to the last observation of the right hon. Gentleman, wished to assure him that they were quite in earnest upon this Amendment; and moreover, it seemed to him if they did not press their views upon the Government on this occasion, they would have no other opportunity of doing so. As the Member for Waterford had remarked, this clause was really part of the financial scheme of the Government, and when Thursday night week came he was afraid they should find very little opportunity indeed—[Opposition cheers]—owing in a large degree to the efforts of the gentlemen who cheered him, for discussing the financial scheme. The Chief Secretary rarely made a speech in that House in which there was not a good deal of argument; but the speech he had delivered on that occasion was totally destitute of argument. The hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment had proved, from the utterances of the Prime Minister in the past, that England in justice was bound to take a considerable share in the expenses that would be thrown on the Government of Ireland in this matter. He thought if one thing was proved more than another it was that the excessive cost of the Civil Service in Ireland was due to the misgovernment of Ireland in the past by this country, and now, when accounts were to be settled, the cool proposal was made that Ireland should bear the whole cost of that misgovernment. It appeared to him to be a most inequitable proposal, which could not be defended on any ground whatever. The Debate of that evening had supplied an additional reason for urging this Amendment on the consideration of the Committee. Since he entered Parliament he had never listened with greater humiliation to any Debate than the Debate of that evening. Here they proposed to pass an Act of Parliament maintaining by Statute a certain number of gentlemen holding official positions in their places as long as they liked, and securing their salaries, and also to pass a Statute providing pensions for them if they cared to retire. They actually went the length of prescribing these pensions and enacting rules by which they were to be awarded, and they would not allow the Government of Ireland the slightest discretion even in the application of these rules. The Irish Government had to pay for this matter, and yet they were not allowed to take the slightest part in the administration of this section. He thought if the arguments supplied by the speeches of the Prime Minister and the facts of the case were absent from the situation altogether—and they had only to consider the Debate of that night—it would supply a sufficient ground for demanding that the Government of the United Kingdom, which was to have the sole administration of this section and the sole power of determining what pensions should be given, should at least bear part of the cost. The right hon. Gentleman said it would depend to a large extent upon the Irish Government whether there was a burden or not. It did not depend upon the action of the Government in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman by his clause was tempting resignations. He was offering inducements, baits, and bribes to these officers to resign, and it would be very strange indeed if large numbers of Civil servants in Ireland did not avail themselves of this provocation. There was not the slightest hostile intention on the part of the Irish Nationalist Members towards the members of the Civil Service, and, that being so, he thought one of two things ought to be done: Either the Irish Government ought to get some control and some discretion over the administration of this section, or else those who assumed the whole control and power ought to pay at least their proportionate share of the expenses.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am glad I have not got to defend the vote the Government mean to give, because I should find it extremely embarrassing to answer the arguments of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. The view of the Government appears to be that the Irish Civil Service is an extravagant Service, and the fact that it is an extravagant Service is entirely due to the misgovernment of Ireland. That is the view they have expressed in this House, and certainly if I held that view I should think we were called upon to bear part of the burden that would result from a diminution of the magnitude of their Civil Service to proportions proper to a Government—to use an accepted phrase—which governs according to the will of the Bill. The view I, and those who act with me, hold is the direct opposite. We do not think that the Irish Civil Service is an extravagant Service, or that its magnitude is at all due to any fault on the part of this country. We think that the Irish Government would be in the wrong if it dismissed any of the members of this Service. If the Irish Government should ever come into existence, and if these members are dismissed, and if, in consequence of their dismissal or want of confidence in the Government which gentlemen opposite, against our views, insist on establishing in Ireland there should be a burden on some taxpayer or other, the taxpayer who ought to bear that burden is the Irish taxpayer, who is insisting against the will of the English taxpayer and the Scotch taxpayer in forcing upon us that alteration of a Constitution from which all these costly results are expected to follow. That being our view, we think that those who call the tune ought to pay the piper, and I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Government, however illogical their position may be, in defending the interests of the British tax-payers.

MR. SEXTON

The Chief Secretary for Ireland is no doubt right when he says that we must regard this situation as a whole. It is also true that the first of the new clauses of the Prime Minister governing the financial relations will be open to debate on Friday next and the succeeding days, and that we shall be then able to deal with the whole subject of the surplus. At the same time, this Amendment, though it goes but a short way, goes in the right direction. When the right hon. Gentleman tells me to regard the situation as a whole I do regard it as a whole, and what do I find? I find that you take from Ireland, as an Imperial contribution, every penny of her Revenue that is left after the payment of the charges as they now exist. I find that the only reason why we have any surplus at all is because you are pleased to make what you call a contribution towards the cost of the police for a certain number of years. The only contribution we shall have is from the diminishing cost; and if the charges were to remain the same as they now are when that contribution ceases, we shall have no surplus at all. Unless the Revenue remains at its present level—and I am not sure that the Inland Revenue error has yet been probed to the bottom—and unless the charges remain stationary and do not increase, the surplus will be encroached upon. The charges are increasing. You have provided for it in Clause 26; you provide for it in this clause, and in a far more extensive degree in the Police Clause 30. I cannot forecast—no man, however keen his intelligence or profound his study, can forecast—the precise effect of these financial arrangements upon the Irish surplus. I am unable to say that there will be any surplus, and I have to remember that that surplus is required, and will be required for many purposes apart from those charges. We will be responsible for the Irish Church property and the charges upon it, and for the deficiencies which may arise from Land Purchase. We will be responsible for £8,000,000 of local loans due to the Treasury, and for the future loan service of Ireland, which on the present basis will amount to £500,000 a year. The surplus of £500,000 will be required apart from these charges, and I cannot regard any of the charges you are now providing for without the gravest apprehension. Though the Amendment goes but a short way, it goes in the right direction. I say that the Imperial Government ought to bear a portion of the cost of winding up the Imperial system in Ireland; that share could not equitably be fixed at less than one-half, and if the hon. Member goes to a Division I shall feel bound to support him.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 251; Noes 92.—(Division List, No. 226.)

It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.