COMMITTEE. [Progress, 18th July.]

HC Deb 19 July 1893 vol 15 cc1-53

[FORTY-FIRST NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Judges and Civil Servants.

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

Amendment proposed, In page 16, line 12, after the word "Kingdom," to insert the words "except that this section shall apply to the clerical staff of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, with the substitution of the Treasury for the Irish Government."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

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

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

What is the object of this Amendment?

MR. J. MORLEY

To bring under the terms of the 28th clause the clerical staffs in Dublin of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police.

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

said, he supposed the meaning was that the Treasury should do with regard to these clerical staffs what the Irish Government might do in regard to others; that they might require them to retire; and, if so, then they would be entitled to the benefits of the clause. The question was, Were these officers now entitled to a pension, and, in regard to pensions, were they to be allowed to count the transitional period and abolition years?

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, there was some uncertainty as to the real meaning of the clause. He found at the beginning of it the words "the Treasury in communication with the Irish Government shall." The Amendment was to substitute the Treasury for the Irish Government, and, consequently, the clause would run—"The Treasury in communication with the Treasury," &c. What was the real meaning and intention of the Amendment?

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

The meaning is quite clear. Under the section as it now stands the Irish Government has authority to retire these officials, and we propose to transfer that authority to the Treasury. This is merely a consequential Amendment on a preceding clause.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

But do not the words of the Amendment leave it rather ambiguous?

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, he could not understand how these words carried out the intention of the Government. They found under the clause as it stood that the Treasury was to communicate with the Irish Government before it took certain action. The Amendment provided that the clerical staff of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Force should be subject not to the Irish Government, but to the Treasury; but the result of the form of wording adopted was that the Treasury was to communicate with the Treasury! Was not that a very obscure form?

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

If this Amendment is, as I take it, to refer solely to the line in the 1st sub-section of the clause which has the letter (d) prefixed to it, why not say so distinctly and thus remove all doubt?

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, he should like to ask as to the meaning of the "except" with which the Amendment commenced. Surely it was very peculiar English? He could not conceive what it meant.

MR. J. MORLEY

I am told that this is a perfectly grammatical and familiar form of drafting.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Is this Amendment only intended to apply to Sub-section (d)?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The word "section" means, as I stated yesterday, the whole section, and not merely a subsection.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he must press his point. If the Amend- ment were intended to apply to the whole section, then he was bound to point out how, in several instances, the clause would provide that the Treasury should communicate with the Treasury, which was absurd on the face of it.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Could not this be made a separate sub-section? It would remove all doubt, and grammatically be better.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We will consider this point before the Report stage.

MR. FISHER (Fulham)

asked where in the Bill was to be found a definition of the words "clerical staff"? He knew when he was in Dublin a great deal of the clerical work of the force was done by the constables themselves. To whom would this Amendment apply? That should be made clear.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

Are we to understand that the Amendment is to be withdrawn and other words substituted?

MR. J. MORLEY

No. We intend before Report to consider the necessity of any verbal alteration.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

In reply to the hon. Member for Fulham, I have to say that the clerical staffs of these forces form part of the permanent Civil Service, and at present these gentlemen are left out in the cold. The object is to secure to them the same privileges as are to be enjoyed by other Civil servants.

MR. FISHER

And the Amendment then applies solely to the clerical staff—to the men whose time is wholly occupied in clerical work?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Certainly.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

said, the next Amendment which stood in his name was proposed by him on behalf of the Second Division clerks, and his object was to give the Government an opportunity of admitting the principle that a gratuity was due to these officers for loss of prospect and disturbance from office. The amount of the gratuity would have to be discussed when the Fifth Schedule came to be considered. The case of the Second Division clerks was one of peculiar hardship. It was true that they were mainly short-servicemen, and it was generally assumed that the longer a man had served the harder his case became on dismissal; but that principle scarcely applied to these clerks. Sir Francis Mowatt, in his evidence before the Ridley Commission on Civil Service Establishments, said— I think the principle of that system of awards (abolition scale) is not logical. You compensate a man for what he loses on his abolition—if I may say so—for the loss of his lease of office, and the longer his lease of office to which he may look forward the greater is his claim for compensation; the shorter his lease the less his claim. Now, promotion in this particular branch of the Service was purely departmental, and, consequently, when a clerk was transferred for service to any other part of the United Kingdom any reputation he might have already earned was lost to him, because it was unknown to the Department to which he was moved. There was a high probability that there would be very numerous transfers of these clerks should the Home Rule Bill pass, and the result would be interference with the private arrangements of the men, who could not have foreseen this liability to removal. They pointed out that the principal attraction of the Service had always been the promise of permanent employment; and while they took the ordinary chances of abolition, they never contemplated such a catastrophe as was likely to result from the passing of this Bill. They, therefore, thought it was not unreasonable to ask for some moderate recognition of their claim to a gratuity in this unforeseen calamity. The Government had several times asserted in the course of the Debate that it was quite gratuitous to suppose that there would be any large dislodgment of existing officers. On the other hand, the Prime Minister had told them that the Civil Service in Ireland was greatly over-manned, and it was in view of that assertion that the Civil servants of all classes in Ireland were alarmed as to their probable retention in office. He hoped the Government would indicate their acceptance of the principle of the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to Mr. J. Morley's proposed Amendment (page 16, line 12), line 4, after "Irish Government," add— Provided that each clerk of the Second Division retained in the service of the Government of the United Kingdom, by means of transfer to Great Britain, shall receive a gratuity, as set forth in the Fifth Schedule, by way of compensation for disturbance from office and loss of prospect, and that nothing herein contained shall interfere with the right of resignation conferred by this section, or with the privilege of continuing to hold office under the Irish Government."—(Mr. H. Plunkett.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It is now argued that a very great injustice is inflicted on these Civil servants by transferring them to the service of the Imperial Government, instead of leaving them under the control of the Irish Government. Hitherto it has been urged as a grievance that the officers were no longer to remain under the power of the Imperial Parliament; but now we have an entirely new complaint put forward. It must be remembered that there is an essential difference between the Higher and the Second Division clerks. The Higher Division clerks are appointed to a certain Department in which they acquire certain rights and privileges. These have been dealt with in the former part of the clause under debate. But the clerks in the Second Division are the servants of the Civil Service Commissioners, who can change them about as they think fit. There is good reason to believe that all who leave Ireland will be absorbed in the service of the United Kingdom; and the Treasury always deals liberally with servants in this Division who are removed from one place to another. A man who is transferred from Dublin to Liverpool will begin in Liverpool on equal terms. An allowance is made to him for disturbance, and he will probably have better prospects of promotion. He, therefore, can have no claim to receive a gratuity in addition to the ordinary allowance.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that for once he was able to agree with the Government. He did not think this Amendment was a fair proposal at all. Their contention up to the present had been that it would be an injury to these men to compel them to remain in Ireland, and now it was contended that they ought to receive a gratuity if they were retained in the service of the Imperial Government, by which their prospects were improved. For disturbance leading to improvement, instead of receiving compensation, they ought to have some- thing deducted from their salaries. He was, therefore, unable to support the Amendment.

MR. CAKSON (Dublin University)

said, the hon. Member who brought forward the Amendment was, no doubt, under the impression that the transfers from Ireland to England would be much more frequent in consequence of the Bill becoming law than they had heretofore been, and that, consequently, the Second Division clerks would be a good deal more "knocked about." But he thought the explanation given by the President of the Local Government Board was perfectly satisfactory, and would be deemed to be so by the clerks themselves. As he understood it, the rule was that when these officers were removed from any place in Ireland to any place in the United Kingdom their expenses were provided for, and they retained exactly the same rank, instead of being placed at the bottom of the list in their new office. It was quite natural that the hon. Member for Dublin County should have been anxious to see that no hardship was inflicted; but after the explanation given he might very well withdraw the Amendment.

MR. TOMLINSON

pointed out that the cost of removal would fall on the Imperial and not on the Irish Government.

MR. H. PLUNKETT

After the irresistible logic of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. MORLEY

The next Amendment in my name I will move in sections. I beg to propose the first part— Page 16, line 12, at end, add—"(8) Where an officer, though not in the permanent Civil Service, is in the public service of the Crown, then—(a) if he devotes his whole time to the duties of his office, this section shall apply to him in like manner as if he were in the permanent Civil Service; and (b) if he does not so devote his whole time, and is removed from his office for any cause other than incapacity or misconduct, he may apply to the Treasury, who may award him compensation for loss of office in accordance with the Fifth Schedule of this Act."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

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

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

said, this Amendment called for some explanation. The clause professed to give permanent Civil servants only their present rights in regard to gratuities and pensions. This Amendment, however, against the engagement of the opening line of the clause confining its application to persons in the permanent Civil Service, brought in an entirely new class of persons; it brought in those who were not in the permanent Civil Service. Who were the persons mentioned in the two paragraphs; how many of them were there; what were their salaries; and had they a right to pensions? He supposed the persons dealt with had other sources of income. Had they pension rights at present? He should think that they had not. If a gentleman derived only a part of his income from the State, and had other sources of income, he had no pension rights, and any proposal giving such officials the benefits of this clause must be subjected to the closest scrutiny.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

also asked for a full statement of the classes of officials proposed to be brought in under this clause.

THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN (Lambeth, Brixton)

asked if the clerical staff of the Royal Irish Constabulary and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police did not come under the description of "not in the permanent Civil Service"?

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Where does Sub-section 8 come in? I cannot find out.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The first section or class dealt with are the model school teachers, who do not snbscribe to the Pension Fund. The second class are persons who do not devote the whole of their time to the Public Service, and these are Crown and Sessional Solicitors. I believe that they are the only class to whom the Amendment will apply. Crown Solicitors do not devote their whole time to the duties of the office, and are remunerated for only a portion of their time. Still, if their offices were abolished they would be entitled to compensation.

MR. SEXTON

What rights have they now?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The same as other Civil servants, who, if deprived of their position after a considerable number of years' service, are entitled to compensation in the form either of a gratuity or a fixed annual payment.

MR. SEXTON

said, he must point out that the words in the clause were ambiguous. It was not intended, he supposed, to give model school teachers and the solicitors a pension? [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No.] Well, that should be made clear; otherwise, under the words as they stood, it might be possible to give them something not intended by the Bill.

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

I am disposed, at the first glance, to agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the grammatical interpretation of the clause; but I cannot assent to the policy which he advocates. It is quite clear that if a man in the service of the Crown is obliged to devote the whole of his time to his work he should be treated in common fairness as a member of the permanent Civil Service, for, after all, the difference in his position and that of a permanent Civil servant is a purely technical one. I hope the Government will leave the Amendment in its present form.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, he was told on the previous day that model school teachers and Inspectors of National Schools were clearly within the clause; that they were appointed by the State and paid by the State; and that, therefore, their rights were undoubted. But now the President of the Local Government Board seemed to imply that they would not be entitled to a pension. Was there anybody in the House who would say that they were not so entitled? He did not believe there was, and he certainly could not part with this Amendment until they had a clear statement from the Government that these men who were appointed by the State and devoted their whole time to their work were entitled to all these advantages.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

My hon. Friend does not quite understand the point. There are a large number of persons not In the permanent Civil Service—not, to use a technical term, on the Establishment, who give their whole time to the service of the Crown, but are not entitled to a pension.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Does that apply to the model school teachers?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

There are a certain number on the Pension Fund. They are in the Civil Service, and are entitled to a pension. Those not on the Pension Fund are entitled to a gratuity. This clause will do away with this distinction, and treat them all as if they were in the permanent Civil Service. With regard to those officers who do not devote their whole time to the Public Service, if they are removed from office for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity, the Treasury may award them compensation for loss of office, and the Schedule, lays down the basis on which the award has to be made. These Crown Solicitors and Sessional Crown Solicitors are simply, by this Amendment, placed on the same footing as other gentlemen in the Civil Service who do not devote the whole of their time to the duties of their office. To return to the model school teachers, in order to entitle themselves to a pension they must subscribe to the Pension Fund, and I do not see why they should not so subscribe after the Act has passed.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

They will not live long after the Act has passed.

MR. SEXTON

That is one of the uncalled-for and bitter suggestions which constitute the mainstay of the opposition of the hon. Member.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I did not mean to imply anything against hon. Gentlemen opposite. Everyone who knows anything about teaching in Ireland must be aware that these model schools are doomed.

MR. SEXTON

Certain aspects of their purpose may undergo modification, but that does not justify the assertion that they will not be allowed to live. What we now object to is the creation of new pension rights I have not yet received an answer to my question whether the Crown Solicitors are at present entitled to pensions. I think they are not. The words in the Schedule leave it open to the Treasury to grant them either a gratuity or a pension; and we object to George Bolton, or anyone else who is not now entitled to a pension, becoming a burden on the Irish Consolidated Fund by reason of this Act.

MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)

said, the objection of the hon. Member for North Kerry was that the Amendment would place the model school teachers in a better position after the passing of the Act than they now occupied. But that was exactly the reason he had for supporting it. The position of these teachers would not be so safe under an Irish Government, and this provision was, consequently, necessary in their interests. He took it that the Treasury would have power to consider each individual case on its merits. Then, in regard to the Sessional Crown Solicitors, he might point out that, although they were not compelled to devote their whole time to the duties of the office, it often happened that they were so fully engaged that they really had no time for private practice. There could he no hardship in allowing the Treasury to consider cases on their individual merits.

* MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

said, they asked the assistance of every fair-minded man in resisting proposals of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had referred to Crown Solicitors. It appeared that Sub-section (c) would apply to Crown Solicitors in Ireland. In his (Mr. Flynn's) opinion, they ought not to be placed under this Bill in a better position than at present, or in a worse position. To place them in a better position was a great injustice upon the Irish Exchequer; in fact, it seemed to him, the further they proceeded with these clauses, that the £500,000 surplus—on paper—would have vanished before they got to the Financial Clauses. It was necessary to resist what appeared to them to be a conspiracy on the part of every official in Ireland; by hook or by crook to get themselves into this clause and be made a charge on the future Irish Exchequer. They thought that was a monstrous proposal. With regard to Crown Solicitors, these were gentlemen who were generally in large practice in the town in which they resided, and when an ordinary solicitor got the business of the Crown it gave him a status and assisted him in his own business. Take the case of a Limited Liability Company, who appointed solicitors to do their work. When these gentlemen were changed they had no claim on the company, and he could not see why a solicitor should have any claim because he was appointed by the Government to do work from time to time which occupied but a small portion of time, and which was generally managed by one clerk on the Establishment. They protested against these gentlemen being placed upon the Irish Exchequer. If they were entitled at the present time to pensions or retiring allowances he made no objection; but if they were not, he said it was a fraud in advance upon the Irish Exchequer; it was a fraud that there should be this collusion and conspiracy on the part of all these clerks and officials in Ireland.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

thought it was hardly the proper thing to use the words "fraud" and "conspiracy" and "collusion" when the Government were attempting to do their best. They might make mistakes, but they were endeavouring to do justice, and there was no fraud, no collusion, and no conspiracy; there might have been error of judgment, but nothing more.

* MR. FLYNN

said, he did not attribute fraud or collusion to the right hon. Gentleman, but to the officials in Ireland.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Government might be dupes then. The hon. Gentleman just now said they did not object to their remaining as they were now. The Government did not propose to alter their position from what it was now; if any of these gentlemen were removed, under the existing rules of the English Government, for misconduct or incapacity he had no claim, nor would this clause give him any; but at present the rule of the Service of the United Kingdom, under which these men were serving, was twofold. If the office was abolished altogether they had, under the Superannuation Act, a distinct claim for compensation, and that they would be entitled to if they were removed for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity; they might apply to the Treasury, who might award such compensation as the Treasury thought proper, with the limitation that the Treasury would never give them within one-fourth of what they would receive if they remained in the Civil Service. They proposed that they should be as they were now, and for the protection of the Irish Government they went further, and if the hon. Member would turn to the next Amendment he would find a Committee was to be appointed consisting of three officials—of whom the Irish Government would appoint one—by whom all these claims would be considered. This Committee would have to decide what the rights of the parties were under this clause, and he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) could not conceive a fairer mode of dealing with the question.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

said that, to bring the matter to an issue, he begged to move in line 4, after the word "him," to insert the words "so far as concerns gratuities." This subsection, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, referred to model school teachers. It appeared there were certain model school teachers who were entitled to pensions because they had subscribed to the Pension Fund, and the others, who were not entitled to pensions, were not entitled because they had not subscribed to the Pension Fund; and to put the latter on the same level now—to treat them as well as the persons who had been provident enough to take care of themselves by subscribing to the Pension Fund—was a great injustice to the former class; and he thought for that reason, and because the language of the clause might possibly lead to giving pensions where they were not now entitled, that they should not be entitled to get anything beyond what they were entitled to now. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Committee would be appointed; but let him point out that Ireland would have a minority representation in the matter—there would be two Imperial Committee men and only one Irish Committee man, and, of course, the two were more than one.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Named in the Act.

MR. CLANCY

said, they were to be named by the Imperial Parliament—to be named by an authority that was not the Irish Parliament. To bring the matter to an issue he begged to propose the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, To insert in line 4, after the word "him," the words "so far as concerns gratuities."—(Mr. Clancy.)

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

MR. J. MORLEY

The class of model school teachers affected by the proposed clause only number about 30. These gentlemen, it is quite true, have no claim under any Act of Parliament; but by usage and by prescription it has been the practice of the Treasury to give the model school teachers of this class a gratuity on retirement, generally upon the scale of one year's salary for every 10 years of completed service. I cannot think the Committee or my hon. Friend himself would regard it as just to withdraw from this class the benefit of the practice that has been in existence for a considerable number of years.

MR. CLANCY

thought the language of the right hon. Gentleman was most extraordinary. He did not propose to take away from the school teacher anything that he had now; on the contrary, he secured to him the very thing he had at present by putting in the word "gratuities" and making it certain he should receive a gratuity; but he proposed to prevent him getting more than he was entitled to at present—to prevent his getting a pension when he was not entitled to one. The sub-section, if amended as he proposed, would read as follows:— If he devotes his whole time to the duties of his office, this section shall apply to him, so far as it concerns gratuities, in like manner as he were in the permanent Civil Service.

MR. J. MORLEY

Surely my hon. Friend must see that gratuity represents a commuted pension, which in this case, as I have said, is calculated on a scale of one year's salary for every 10 years' completed service. The Treasury now award a gratuity to which he does not object, and that award is going to be made in the future by the Treasury Authorities plus a Representative of the Irish Government. Does my hon. Friend think the addition of an Irish Representative would make the award more extravagant than it is now?

MR. CLANCY

said, he had no doubt that the presence of a Representative of the Irish Government would have a beneficial effect; but he did not see why there should be two Treasury Representatives and only one Irish Representative.

MR. J. MORLEY

The two will be persons who know the practice that the hon. Member wishes to preserve.

MR. CLANCY

could not understand how it should be thought he wanted to deprive these persons of anything they had now when he proposed to introduce the word "gratuity." He protested against the idea that he wanted to deprive them of a single thing they were now entitled to.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

asked if the Government would now tell them whom they intended to propose as A. B. and C. D., the two Members of the Committee to represent the Treasury? He could not understand the reticence of the Government on this point, and the whole thing turned upon whom they might be.

MR. MACFARLANE

understood hon. Members opposite were willing to agree to gratuities, but not to pensions; but might not a pension be the exact equivalent of a gratuity? A small pension might equal a lump sum given as gratuity, and it might be easier to the Government to pay small pensions rather than large sums down; therefore, he could not understand why they should object.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

did not desire to get any additional advantage for the model school teachers to what they had now, and therefore he at once accepted what the Government said on the point; but he hoped they would stick to that and resist the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.

MR. BARTLEY

said, that he, for one, felt rather in sympathy with the Irish Members. It seemed to him that on the question of pensions they ought to be most, precise. Clause (a) gave a right of pension to those who did not have it now, if they gave their whole time to the Public Service. That they might fairly accept, but he thought this clause, instead of giving it vaguely, ought to state precisely the class of persons who ought to have it. He should resent this vagueness in England, and therefore he resented it in this Bill. Then came Clause (b), which was very wide in its terms. It said that persons who had not devoted the whole of their time to the Public Service were to have either pensions or gratuities. He thought they were rather quibbling over words, as they might be made the same thing; but if it was right in principle to give pensions—

* THE CHAIRMAN

I must remind the Committee that the Amendment before the Committee is the Amendment to the Amendment on Sub-section (a).

MR. BARTLEY

was sorry for the limitation, but it seemed to him they ought to determine and specify every class that came within the purview of the sub-section, and if that was done he should strongly support it, but he thought it was a large order to give absolute discretion to grant gratuities or pensions to anyone they liked.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

did not quite understand the difference between the Government and the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, because, so far as he could see, they were both prepared to go on with gratuities.

MR. SEXTON

could not accept the statement that gratuities were the same as pensions. These persons now could only get the gratuities which came to a certain level, but pensions had a tendency to mount. The Government said that only gratuities were given; but, with an obstinacy which he attributed to someone behind them who was pressing them to keep in these words in order that they might do something hereafter they had no intention to do, the Government declined to introduce the words of the Amendment. However, having regard to the limited number of teachers affected, he would not advise his hon. Friend to take a Division.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

MR. J. MORLEY

I bog now to move the insertion of the 9th sub-section which is on the Paper; but in the second line of the sub-section, instead of "permanent Civil servant, "it ought to be "Public Service of the Crown." With that alteration, I beg to move the Amendment. The object is to bring the Petty Sessions Clerks and the officers in the Registry of Petty Sessions Clerks in Dublin within the purview of this clause. I may, perhaps, point out to gentlemen of the Committee not acquainted with Irish matters that there is a difference between the tenure and position of Petty Sessions Clerks, of whom there are something like 400, and the Clerks of the Registry of Petty Sessions Clerks, who are not more than 12 in number. The difference of position between these two bodies of gentlemen is this: first, that the officers of the department of the Registry of Petty Sessions Clerks in Dublin are obliged to obtain Civil Service certificates; secondly, they are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and are only responsible to him for the proper discharge of their duties, and the Lord Lieutenant alone has power to dismiss them; and thirdly, they are required to devote the whole of their time to their duties. The Petty Sessions Clerks do not give their whole time, as there is no necessity for them to do so; they do not possess Civil Service certificates; and they are appointed by and subject to, not the Lord Lieutenant, but the local Justices, on confirmation by the Lord Lieutenant. These two bodies of gentlemen are not paid either by moneys provided by Parliament or local funds now assessed, but out of a special fund called the "Fees and Fines Fund." That fund is replenished by fines and fees, and certain sums from the Dog Tax. What we are going to do in this sub-section and the two sub-sections (a) and (b) is to make sure against any depletion of the fund, or that, if it should be depleted by legislation, the deficiency shall be charged on and paid out of the Irish Consolidated Fund. But we do not see any reason to suppose the fund, maintained on its present lines, will be unable to meet the calls upon it. I may say there is an accumulation from the surplusage of successive years amounting to something like £170,000. The sub-section provides that that accumulated fund shall not be applied to any new purpose until every gratuity or pension now subsisting upon it is satisfied.

MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the charge is?

MR. J. MORLEY

I have not got them now, but I have sent for them.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Amendment last added, to add the words— (9) This section shall apply to Petty Sessions clerks and to officers in the Registry of Petty Sessions Clerks in like manner as to officers in the public service of the Crown, with the exceptions that any payment in pursuance of this section to any such clerk or officer shall be made out of the fund out of which the pension of such clerk or officer is payable instead of out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, and that in considering the amount of gratuity or pension regard shall be had to the amount of the fund. Provided that (a) if, by reason of anything done after the appointed day, the fund becomes insufficient to meet the full amount of the said gratuities and pensions, the deficiency shall be charged on and paid out of the Irish Consolidated Fund; and (b) the existing accumulated fund shall not be applied for any new purpose until every such gratuity and pension is satisfied."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

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

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

said, he would like to know what was the amount of the fund into which, he supposed, were swept all the fines and fees, and what was the annual charge on the fund?

MR. J. MORLEY

I ought to have said not £64,000, but £168,000.

MR. SEXTON

What is the annual charge upon it?

MR. J. MORLEY

That I will endeavour to find out.

MR. SEXTON

said, the Committee did not know how much was applied for pensions, and they were ill-equipped to arrive at any judgment on the Amendment.

MR. J. MORLEY

One of the sources of income is the Dog Tax, as I have said, but the Irish Government may alter or abolish that tax.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

commented upon the money received under the Explosives Act, which, he held, was an illegitimate source of income.

* MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

said, that the Potty Sessions Clerks were appointed by Magistrates at the present time. They were not in any sense public servants. They had to pass no competitive examination of any kind whatever. They were not paid out of the rates and taxes, and he thought that if the Government confined themselves to leaving in Subsection (b) and omitting Sub-section (a) they would meet their views and the justice of the case.

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

said, that the Petty Sessions Clerks were not subject to competitive examination, but they had to pass a qualifying examination for the office which they fulfilled. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Kerry in calling this fund a private fund. It was nothing of the kind. He did not think the hon. Member could really say that these gentlemen looked to a private fund for their pensions. It was absolutely neces- sary for the Government to make some such reservation as that which they had made in Sub-section (a), because not only would the income of this fund be subjected, as the Chief Secretary had said, to diminution, but it depended also upon the amount of fines levied at Petty Sessions. Assuming that in the future under the Government of Ireland Bill popular Magistrates would be appointed who would administer justice according to the popular ideas, they would probably be in favour of smaller fines, or no fines at all, for offences that might be committed; and it might, therefore, happen that a very serious inroad would be made upon the annual income of the fund, and, consequently, the accumulated fund might be touched. It was perfectly evident that it would be necessary to make the provision which the Government had made in Sub-section (a).

MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)

said, that admittedly at the present time a larger proportion of the Magistrates in Ireland were Unionists, as were also the Petty Sessions Clerks, and these were the men who were being dealt with in the Amendment. Nothing was more probable than that in future fines would go down very largely; and, therefore, one of the sources of revenue from which these gentlemen were paid would be done away with. The provision of the Government was a most reasonable and fair one.

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

said, that he did not know or care whether the Petty Sessions Clerks were of his political opinion or not. He was endeavouring to protect what would be a very poor Exchequer against inequitable demands. The Amendment said regard was to be hail to the amount of the fund, and, therefore, the Government admitted the principle. He was not of opinion that fines should be kept up in Ireland in order that these gentlemen should be maintained. They should be levied according to the justice of the case. As to the Dog Tax, he admitted that if that tax were abolished these gentlemen would have a claim; but he did not admit that any casual diminution of the fund, owing to the reduction of the fines, would give them a claim. He would be willing to agree to the Amendment if the Government would consent to the insertion of some such words as "if by reason of anything done."

MR. J. MORLEY

said, that he had no objection whatever to the insertion of such words.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should like to ask one or two questions before the right hon. Gentleman assents to the Amendment. The remarks I am going to make refer solely to the office in Dublin. Supposing no Home Rule Bill were passed at all, and supposing for some reason or other, either from the action of this House or some other reason, the fees were so to fall off that the ordinary scale of pensions would not be allotted to these small offices in Dublin, I assume in that case that the English Treasury would be bound to supply out of the Votes of this House a scale of pensions similar to that awarded to other Members of the Civil Service. If that is so, the hon. Member for North Kerry will feel, no doubt, that these gentlemen ought not to be in a worse position by the passing of this Act than they are at present. At present they are paid out of a fund which is ample; but that fund might, if Home Rule were to become a fact, prove to be insufficient, and the Government would have to make good any difference out of the Imperial Funds. Under these circumstances, I think it would not be fair to put those gentlemen in a worse position—and I think they would be in a worse position if the Amendment suggested were carried. I am not arguing for any new privileges, but merely for the retention of those now possessed.

MR. J. MORLEY

I do not believe that the danger contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman can arise. The fund amounts now to nearly £170,000, and the number of gentlemen who have claims upon it is only 12. It is amply sufficient to meet the present charge and the contingent charge created by all those having claims upon the fund retiring at once. The accumulations are derived from a surplus which averages £16,000 a year. There are £16,000 a year more than the demands made on it, and therefore I do not think the contingency contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman practically concerns us.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures; and I hope that the hon. Member for Kerry will notice that, if they are correct, the possibility of a new charge coming on the Irish Consolidated Fund is nil. If the clause is left, as it stands, it will give the officials concerned a feeling of security.

MR. SEXTON

said, that 412 gentlemen were concerned, and he thought there was no security that there would not be future additional claims on the fund. He should not like to run the risk of a charge falling on the Irish Consolidated Fund fortuitously and without the intervention of the Irish Legislature. He should press the Amendment to leave out the words "anything done after the appointed day," and insert "after the passing of an Irish Act."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 9, to leave out the words "anything done after the appointed day," in order to insert the words "the passing of an Irish Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

asked if the Fees and Fines Fund, out of which the pensions were paid, depended entirely on Act of Parliament, or merely upon Executive acts? If it were the latter, it was obvious that no protection whatever would be left to the fund.

MR. MACARTNEY

asked what was the annual value of the Dog Tax and the fees and fines?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the income of the fund was derived from fines and fees paid to Petty Sessions Clerks. The fund had an income of £82,000 a year; there was an accumulation of something like £164,000, and it was charged with the salaries and pensions of the Petty Sessions Clerks. He supposed that no fine or fee could be imposed except by Act of Parliament.

MR. CARSON

said, the fines and fees might be imposed by bye-laws, and in that case it would be easy to diminish the sources which fed the fund.

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

pointed out that under the Petty Sessions Clerks Act of 1881 there was express provision made for the possibility of variation in the amount of the fund from which the pensions and salaries were drawn, and power was given to the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks to obtain the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant to the reversion of the still larger amount which was already paid by the Local Authorities in aid of the fund.

MR. A.J.BALFOUR

I do hope the Government will reflect before they accept this Amendment. The original Act leaves it to the Lord Lieutenant to direct the purposes to which the fines shall be applied. Therefore it would be possible, without any Irish Act at all, to deprive the fund out of which the pensions are paid of what are the very largest of the confluent streams with which it is at present supplied. It would not surely be fair to deprive these men of the right they had in equity, if not in law, to have their pensions charged upon the same fund as any other members of the Civil Service. He hoped the Government would consider the point.

* MR. FLYNN

said, they should consider the source of Revenue, and how it would affect the Revenue in Ireland. A large proportion of these fines was derived from intemperance. Was it to be supposed that the Irish Exchequer was to suffer if there should be au increase of temperance?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he hoped the Government would not allow the discussion to conclude without replying to the views that had been expressed on this matter. He would ask them to take note of Section 2 of the Act of 1881, which gave the Lord Lieutenant a discretion to deal with the fund payable by the Local Authorities in Ireland, in order to secure an adequate fund for the payment of pensions. It would be possible for the Lord Lieutenant, as the Executive officer, without an Irish Act, so to deal with the fund in the future as to make it totally inadequate for the purpose for which it existed, because he had a discretion to deal with it wholly irrespective of the Irish Legislature.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, it did seem to him that under Section 2 of the Act of 1881 the Lord Lieutenant might, by an administrative act, put a variation on the contributions which constituted the fund, but he should like to further consider the matter, and he would, therefore, ask the hon. Member for North Kerry to withdraw his Amendment provisionally.

MR. SEXTON

said, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he thought that was the wrong way of dealing with the question. His Amendment was founded on the clause of the Act of 1881. The Act laid down that it was in order to secure the adequacy of the fund that the discretion was given to the Lord Lieutenant. If, therefore, he were to act in such a way as to diminish the fund, he would be acting illegally. That being so, he would prefer to stand by his Amendment for the present. If, on further consideration, it was found that the Amendment did not meet the requirements of the case, the matter might subsequently be dealt with.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he had in the interval considered the effect of the Amendment, and, on the whole, he could not see that it would carry the hon. Member's (Mr. Sexton's) object one atom further than the words of the original proposal. Nothing could be done that would affect the fund except by legislation or by Executive act, and the words of his Amendment were as good in their effect for that purpose as the alternative suggested by the hon. Member. Therefore, he must adhere for the present to his own words; but if, on further consideration, he found that they were open to doubt, he would be willing to amend them.

MR. SEXTON

said, he regretted the right hon. Gentleman's decision, more especially as it was at variance with the decision he announced at an earlier period of the Sitting. He could not agree that it would be possible for the Lord Lieutenant to divert any money from the fund; and the effect of the words of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be that 400 gentlemen who had now no shadow of a claim on the Imperial Exchequer might come upon the Irish Exchequer for their gratuities and pensions.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 263; Noes 118.—(Division List, No. 227.)

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, After "Fund," in line 21, to insert, "and such charge shall be repaid, if and when the state of the Fund allows, to the Irish Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

MR. J. MORLEY

I think there are no objections to the insertion of these words. Of course, it will be for the Irish Government to consider whether the fund is sufficiently large to admit of the repayment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As far as I am concerned, I sec no objection to the Amendment.

Qustion put, and agreed to.

MR. H. PLUNKETT moved to further amend the Amendment by adding the following sub-section:— (9) This section shall apply to Secretaries of Grand Juries in like manner as to officers in the Public Service of the Crown, with the exception that any payment in pursuance of this section to any such Secretary shall be made out of the Fund out of which the salary of such Secretary is payable, instead of out of the Exchequer of the United Kingkom. He said that the Secretaries of Grand Juries performed most important duties, and held positions of immense responsibility. They handled amongst them over £1,000,000 annually. When appointed they were generally in the prime of life, and in many cases they served an apprenticeship as assistant secretaries. They were not, of course, Civil servants, but, although they were paid out of the county cess, their salaries, duties, and emoluments were decided by Act of Parliament, and could not be varied by the Grand Juries. They had certain Imperial duties to perform. When Returns affecting local administration were required by Parliament, it was they who had to make them. Again, under the Tramways Acts, in the event of a baronial guarantee not being paid by a Grand Jury, the Secretary was given by Parliament power and instructions to levy it himself. When, in 1867, the office of County Treasurer was amalgamated with that of Secretary to the Grand Jury, the County Treasurers received liberal pensions, and he did not see why the officers who had succeeded to their position should not be treated in the same manner. The Local Government Act of 1888 dealt generously with English county officers, and the Scottish Local Government Act with Scottish officers whoso interests were interfered with. The Committee on the Dublin Improvement Bill in 1890, though it was composed mainly of the supporters of the present Government, admitted the claim of every collector and other officer to compensation in the event of the abolition of his office. He admitted that the Secretaries of Grand Juries did not at present enjoy any pension, but a ease of dismissal was unknown, and they held their offices as long as they were capable of performing the duties. He counted upon the support of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who, in his Irish Local Government Bill, had admitted the principle of fair compensation to these officers.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, To add the following sub-section:—"(9) This section shall apply to Secretaries of Grand Juries in like manner as to officers in the Public Service of the Crown, with the exception that any payment in pursuance of this section to any such Secretary shall be made out of the Fund out of which the salary of such Secretary is payable instead of out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. H. Plunkett.)

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

MR. J. MORLEY

As my hon Friend knows, I had an opportunity only yesterday afternoon of hearing a very full statement of the views of these county officers. There is a great deal in what they say as to their claims on somebody in case any hardship is done to them. I must, however, remind my hon. Friend that this is a Bill which deals with the Central Irish Government. These gentlemen are not the officers of the Central Government in any sense. As he has very fairly said, they tire not paid out of central funds, and no Central Body has any responsibility in respect of them. My hon. Friend has referred to the Local Government Acts of England and Scotland, in which provision was made for county officers. He forgets, however, that these Acts abolished the offices for which compensation was provided. That will be a measure of subsequent legislation as far as Ireland is concerned, and it does not come within the scope of the present Bill. We have laid down the principle in the premises of these clauses that no provision should be made for compensating officers who are paid out of the local funds only. It is quite true that the last sub-section deals with Petty Sessions Clerks who are not paid out of the Parliamentary fund, but are paid out of a special fund, which is not local but general in its constitution, although it is local in its sources. That being so, there is no exception to the principle we have laid down for ourselves that officers who are paid out of local funds and are responsible to Local Authorities should not be compensated under this Bill. In our opinion, it would be most unfair to charge the Central Irish Government with compensation for local officials. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour) said, the other day, that if the Irish Legislature did what everybody assured it would do and set up County Authorities of some kind, the officials of the Grand Juries would no longer have anything to do. That may be so or not; but we have no reason to assume that the Irish Legislature, in constituting now Local Authorities, will dream of dealing harshly with the existing officials. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) brought in his Local Government Bill for Ireland he assumed that duties analogous to those now discharged would have to be performed by County Bodies, and he took steps for securing the position and emoluments of the existing officials. We have no reason to suppose that the Irish Government will not do the same, and, that being so, I cannot think my hon. Friend has made out a case for departing from the principle we have laid done for ourselves.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not wish to put this case too high. I desire to argue it perfectly fairly, and therefore I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his contention that it would not be right to charge the Irish Central Fund with the salaries of these gentlemen. But, if I caught the words of the Amendment aright, that is not the proposal. The proposal, I think, is to throw the charge for fair compensation upon the Local Authority which now pays the salaries. As to the second objection of the right hon. Gentleman, it was to the effect that the Bill did not deal with future Local Bodies, and that we had no concern with what might occur in the future. Well, there is force, I quite grant, in that argument, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is force also in the opposite contention. We are not only setting up a Central Authority in Ireland, but are setting up a Central Authority to whom we give great powers, and to whom we intend to entrust the task of framing the future Local Government scheme. In framing that scheme the Irish Legislature ought to have regard to the equitable compensation of the existing local officers. That is not denied by the right hon. Gentleman, and can hardly be denied in face of the example which has been set by this House in regard to England and Scotland. Well, does not the fact that we are setting up a Legislature which will, as its earliest duty, pass a Local Government Act, make us more or less responsible for the course that Legislature may take in dealing with men whom we should compensate if we constituted the new Local Government Bodies? I can understand the Government saying that if the Irish Legislature chose to pass a Local Government Act which did not provide for compensation it would be the duty of the Lord Lieutenant to veto such an Act, or to inform the Irish Legislature confidentially that it would be vetoed. Is not that, however a rather clumsy and elaborate method of arriving at a result which we can very simply arrive at by the addition of a few words to this clause? I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend intends to give the whole set of safeguards to the County Authorities which are given to us as Civil servants. If so, I think he goes too far.

MR. H. PLUNKETT

The Amendment would put them on the same footing as the Petty Sessions Clerks.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Well, I have not the English Local Government Bill before me, but I am certain I am not wrong when I say that the compensation goes a good deal beyond that which was given in this country. If so, the Amendment goes too far. But that does not prevent mo agreeing with the broad principle of my hon. Friend, which is, that in giving to the Irish Legislature the power which they expect to exercise we should so fence it round as to prevent it being used for unjust purposes. I do not think the veto of the Lord Lieutenant is a convenient or adequate method of effecting that object; therefore I hope the Government will put in words for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of this deserving class of persons.

MR. SEXTON

said, that when reference was made to the Irish Local Government Bill of the Leader of the Opposition, it ought to be remembered that that Bill did not pass.

An hon. MEMBER: It was read a second time.

MR. SEXTON

said, the principle, no doubt, was affirmed, but the Bill did not pass. It was very natural that the right hon. Gentleman, in a Bill dealing with the constitution of County Bodies, putting an end to Grand Juries and establishing an elective authority in their place, should deal with the future of these officials. But the Committee were not dealing with those Bodies now. They were establishing a Legislature and a Central Executive in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken frankly, and had pointed out that the Amendment, if accepted, would entitle these officials to exceptional privileges. These were not the officers of the Irish Government. The Irish Government would have no power to terminate their employment, yet in a clause which, according to its structure and title, dealt only with officials whose employment the Irish Government could terminate, they proposed to bring in these local officers who were paid out of local rates. What would be the results of the Amendment? One would be that every County Secretary in Ireland might resign without any cause whatever. They might refuse to do any more work—might strike. Simply because of that they would be entitled to add to their service the five transitional years, and seven or ton years, and calculate their pension on that artificial basis of service, and throw their charge on the county cess. The acceptance of the Amendment would bring these gentlemen within the range of privileges that neither they nor their employers ever contemplated. He did not believe the Irish Legislature or the Comity Authority would desire to deal harshly with any of these officials. They would not desire to deprive any man of his employment or of his fair remuneration for his work; but if they were to accept any such Amendment as this it would bar out any arrangement between these men and the Irish Government. It would be conceivable for terms of this kind to be given by employers in the case of a body of public officials whom it was necessary to conciliate, and who would be themselves interested in carrying out the government of Ireland. Such a proposal as that before the Committee, which would render impossible any treaty between the officials and their employers, seemed to him unworthy of consideration.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

thought that this question might be fought on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tyrone. He would, therefore, advise his hon. Friend to withdraw the present Amendment.

MR. H. PLUNKETT

said, he was not wedded to the words of his Amendment, and in view of the Amendment on the Paper in the name of his noble Friend (Lord F. Hamilton) he would withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RENTOUL

said, the case of the County Surveyors had been brought specially under his notice. These officials stood on a peculiar footing, because, although they were not technically Civil servants, they suffered all the disadvantages under which Civil servants laboured. In the first place, they had to pass a Civil Service examination exactly as if they were in the permanent Civil Service. In the second place, they were appointed, not by the Grand Juries, who they, in a certain sense served, but by the Lord Lieutenant. In the third place, they were dismissed by the Lord Lieutenant at pleasure. They were also required, on their appointment, to pay an ad valorem stamp duty of 5 per cent., the same as if they were Civil servants, and their appointment was notified to them not by the Grand Jury, but by the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Therefore, in every particular, they stood upon the same footing as permanent Civil servants, with the single exception that their income did not come from the same source. Furthermore, though under the Grand Juries the County Surveyors were, nevertheless, frequently and compulsorily made use of by the Government under the Light Railways Acts, and in the inquiries by the Drainage Commissioners. It was true that they received remuneration for this extra work, but they had no option as to accepting or refusing it. They were particularly anxious for recognition under this Bill—not that they thought it would ever become law, but in order that they might be in a strong position, when, in a couple of years' time, a Conservative Government should bring in a Local Government Bill for Ireland. He thought the Chief Secretary would have no difficulty in introducing the County Surveyors into the Bill. A deputation, representing the County Surveyors, had had an interview with the Chief Secretary, and had been so impressed by the manner of the right hon. Gentleman that they were perfectly convinced their omission had been an oversight, and that the suggestion that they should be included had only to be made in order to be enthusiastically received by the right hon. Gentleman. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 12, at end, add—"Any officer or person at the passing of this Act in receipt of salary, fees, or allowances payable out of county cess, or assistant secretary who is removed from his office or deprived of his salary, fees, or allowances, or any part thereof, for any cause other than misconduct, may apply to the Lord Lieutenant, who shall award him a pension by way of compensation for loss of office, calculated in like manner as is provided in the case of pensions to be awarded under this Act to persons in the permanent Civil Service serving in Ireland in a capacity which qualifies them for a pension under 'The Superannuation Act, 1859.' Any such pension shall be paid by the local authority out of the county rate of the county in which said officer or person was acting at the time of his removal, and said pension shall be levied and paid in the same way as the salaries of existing county officers shall from time to time be levied and paid."—(Mr. Rentoul.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

In the course of these Debates every effort has been made to prevent the Bill from passing into law, and it is indeed refreshing to have a little light thrown on what is to happen when the Bill is thrown out. The Committee now understands that this fight which the Irish Civil servants are making for the recognition of their rights and for certain pecuniary advantages is not intended for purposes of the present Bill, but to put them in a stronger position when, two years hence, the Party opposite bring in their Home Rule Bill. We shall be quite ready, when that interesting epoch, to which the hon. Member alluded, shall arrive, to deal with the subject, but the Committee must, however, look at the matter now upon the hypothesis that the present Bill will be passed into law. The hon. Member said that there was no difference between the County Surveyors and Civil servants, except in the source from which they draw their incomes. But that is a very essential and important distinction. It is the essential distinction between local servants and Imperial servants; between servants of Boards of Guardians, Grand Juries, Town Councils, and Town Boards, and servants who draw their salaries from the public Votes granted by this House. I want to ask where the hon. Member proposes to draw the line? If the County Surveyors' claims are recognised, where is it to end? The argument is, not that this Bill is proposing to deal with these servants; not that they in any way come within the purview of this Bill; but that as one of the consequences of this Bill the Irish Legislature may hereafter re-construct the County Government of Ireland, which may possibly involve some change in the duties and positions of these men. But you might apply that argument to all the legislation of the Irish Parliament. The Irish Parliament may deal with Boards of Guardians and Municipal Corporations. They may be inclined to follow what I hope will be the example of this Parliament, and establish District and Parish Councils. But here we are dealing only with the question of establishing a Central Authority in Ireland, and dealing only with those servants who in consequence of this Bill will be transferred from the Imperial Authority to the Local Authority. We have got nothing to do with officials who 10 years hence may have their positions altered by the legislation of the Irish Legislature. Is it the proposal of the hon. Member that we are to deal with all the Departments of the Public Service? Are we to deal in this Bill with all sorts and conditions of men and officers, of every kind and character, who, by some subsequent Act of the Irish Legisiature, may have their positions altered? [Mr. RENTOUL: Yes.] Would the hon. Member venture to make such a proposition in regard to England? Such a proposal would not be made except in the case of Ireland. It has been said that this was done in England when the Local Government Act was passed. The case of the Local Government Act does not apply, for this is not a Bill dealing with Irish County Government at all. The Government cannot and will not accept this Amendment, in any shape or form. When Irish Local Government shall be brought up for discussion, the proposal put forward must stand or fall on its own merits. I quite admit that if we were discussing what is called a Local Government Bill for Ireland I should support those proposals, for under such circumstances I would think them absolutely fair. But, as I have said, this Bill is not a Bill dealing with Irish County Government at all; and we cannot forecast the nature of Irish legislation. For my part, I do not think we can assume that the Legislature we are about to construct in Ireland is going to commit in its first legislation some absurd and gross acts of injustice which it is necessary to guard against by special provision in this Bill. That is not the view the Government take, and as the Bill deals only with the establishment of a Central Authority in Ireland, and not with County Government in Ireland, we cannot accept the Amendment.

MR. DUNBAR BARTON (Armagh, Mid)

said, the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the claim advanced on behalf of these public servants in Ireland was a meritorious claim, and he answered it by drawing delicate and refined distinctions between those servants and the servants included in the Bill. The question here was not what particular fund these gentlemen's salaries were paid out of, but whether they were in danger of being deprived of their appointments without adequate compensation. There was no doubt that these gentlemen were in danger. No one would deny that they would lose their offices when the Bill was passed. No doubt they would not lose their positions under this particular Act; but this particular Act would give powers to the Irish Legislature to create County Bodies, under which, unquestionably, these gentlemen would lose their offices. The right hon. Gentleman said they could not forecast Irish legislation. But in Clause 4 they had protected certain rights of property and other interests from the consequences of the legislation of the Irish Parliament; and was it to be said that these men were to be condemned to certain dismissal under this Bill without the slightest consideration being paid to their claims? The right hon. Gentleman made a curious error. The hon. Member for East Down had said that the Conservative Government might introduce a Local Government Bill, and that the claims of these gentlemen would then have to he considered. The right hon. Gentleman said the hon. Member was referring to a Conservative Home Rule Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had told his constituents that Home Rule meant Local Government, and he was so possessed of that idea that he mixed the two methods now. But these officers were proved to be meritorious public officers, and different only on technical grounds from the Civil servants who were protected by the clause, and if the Civil servants ought to be protected, why should these officers be unfairly and unjustly condemned to dismissal without compensation?

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he had little hope that the claims of the County Surveyors would be favourably considered by the Treasury Bench. But bethought the Debate on the Amendment had been useful, because they had now the authority of two of the Ministers for successfully disposing of a favourite theory as to the general purposes of the Bill. It had often been represented that the Bill was merely for extending Local Government in Ireland. The Chief Secretary had said that they were not dealing with Local Government, or with an extension of Local Government, and the President of the Local Government Board had said that it they wore dealing with Local Government he would not be able to resist the claims of these county officers. The Unionists had, therefore, very high authority for disposing of one of the misrepresentations of the purposes of the Bill, which had been found extremely useful in the interest of the Government.

SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)

said, he presumed the Amendment covered the Assistant County Surveyors as well as the County Surveyors. The salary of those Assistant County Surveyors was strictly limited by Act of Parliament to £80 a year. They had accepted that salary in the belief that it was perfectly sure; but he was afraid that after this Debate, if the Bill passed, they would feel their salaries very insecure.

Question put, and negatived.

* MR. ROBY (Lancashire, Eccles)

said, he desired to make a Motion, probably only pro formâ, in order to elicit from the Government the exact position of the Principals and Professors of the Queen's Colleges under the Bill. His Amendment was, to add to the end of the section these words— This section shall apply to the Principal and Professors in Queen's Colleges, notwithstanding that their salaries are paid from the Consolidated Fund. He had been applied to by several gentlemen connected with the Queen's Colleges in Ireland who desired to be placed under Clause 28 rather than under Clause 27. Their position was this. Their salaries were paid from the Consolidated Fund, and they received also, not exactly fees, but a sum in lieu of fees, which was voted on the Estimates every year, so that they appeared to come partly under Clause 27 and partly under Clause 28. Their own opinion was that they should be treated as the Civil servants in a corresponding position were treated, and placed under Clause 28. The advantages that would accrue to them by being placed under Clause 28 rather than under Clause 27 were several. But the principal was that they would have the option of retiring, and that whenever they did retire their pensions would be based, not only on their salaries, but also on the amounts they received in the way of fees. He was not going to discuss what the ultimate position of the Queen's Colleges would be under Home Rule. Some of the Professors thought that the interest of the Colleges would be interfered with prejudicially. Some of the Professors were supporters of the Home Rule movement and some were not, but they had all some fear that possibly under Home Rule the amount assigned for the support of the Colleges might be reduced, and that, therefore, the efficiency of the Colleges would be impaired. However, in moving this Amendment he was desirous mainly to obtain the views of the Government; and did not expect to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on it.

Amendment proposed, To add to the sub-section the words, "This section shall apply to the Principal and Professors in Queen's Colleges, notwithstanding that their salaries are paid from the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Roby.)

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

MR. J. MORLEY

I am extremely sorry to say that we cannot accept the Amendment. These gentlemen, of whom I desire to speak with all respect, are now under Clause 27. What they want, apparently, is to be both upon Clause 27 and upon Clause 28. One portion of their salaries is paid out of the Consolidated Fund under the Queen's Colleges Act. They used to get fees in addition to their salaries, but these fees were not allowed to count for the purposes of pension. An arrangement was made for these fees to be paid to the Imperial Exchequer, and the Professors thereafter received additional sums from the Votes. The chief reason for placing them under Clause 27 was that they are paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and removable by the Crown. They now want to have the opportunity, the day the Bill passes, of going to the Treasury and claiming to retire, not only on the pensions awarded them by Clause 27, but also by this Clause 28. I would point out that under Clause 27 they can, with the assent of Her Majesty, have awarded to them such pension as Her Majesty may think fit—that is to say, full pension. Their position, therefore, is one that does not need to be improved.

* MR. ROBY

wished to know whether the pensions of the Professors would be based on the fees received as well as upon their salary, or upon the salary only? Their own impression was that it would be based on the salary only. He might mention that the positions of the Professors varied considerably. In some cases the incomes were made up of three quarters from salary and one quarter from fees, and in others the incomes were made up of one quarter from salary and three quarters from fees. Therefore, if pensions were fixed according to salaries only, in the latter cases the pensions would be based on one quarter of the income instead of on the whole. He would like an answer from his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on this point.

MR. J. MORLEY

The pension is calculated upon their salaries paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and three years' average of their fees as well.

MR. BARTLEY

said, the hon. Member for Eccles had stated that some of these Professors were strong Home Rulers. They were anxious, however, to secure their positions, and get the largest pensions possible, should the Home Rule Bill be passed. He thought that fact should be noted.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

pointed out that it might very well happen that, owing to the legislation of the Irish Parliament, the incomes of the Professors of the Queen's College would be seriously diminished; and that, as a consequence, their pensions would be very much less than what they were entitled to look forward to when they accepted their positions. He thought that these Professors should at least get the same terms as were given to other Civil servants; but they seemed to have been put on a different footing.

MR. CARSON

asked whether the Professors of the Royal University of Ireland stood, in this matter, in the same relation as the Professors of the Queen's Colleges?

* MR. ROBY

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. MORLEY

I now beg to move as a new sub-section— (10.) For the purpose of determining finally all questions which may arise during the transitional period as to the rights of the officers or any of them under this section there shall be appointed a committee, consisting of A. B., the chairman, and C. D., and one other person to be nominated after the appointed day by the Executive Committee of the Irish Privy Council. Any vacancy which may arise among the persons named in this section may be filled by Her Majesty under Her Royal Sign Manual, and any vacancy which may arise from the death or resignation of the person nominated by the Executive Committee may be filled by that Committee. This Committee will consist of three gentlemen, one of whom will be nominated by the Irish Government, while the other two will be named in the Bill. It will be their business to hear the claims of Civil servants or other persons affected by this clause, to judge of the facts or allegations of facts bearing on the awards made by the Treasury, and make a Report to the Treasury. The Treasury, in making the final award, would have the Report of the Committee before them. The names of the gentlemen to be given in the Bill, one of whom will be a competent lawyer, I will submit to the Committee on Report.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words— (10.) For the purpose of determining finally all questions which may arise during the transitional period as to the rights of the officers or any of them under this section there shall be appointed a committee, consisting of A. B., the chairman, and C. D., and one other person to be nominated after the appointed day by the Executive Committee of the Irish Privy Council. Any vacancy which may arise among the persons named in this section may be tilled by Her Majesty under Her Royal Sign Manual, and any vacancy which may arise from the death or resignation of the person nominated by the Executive Committee may be filled by that Committee."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

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

MR. CARSON

said, it was not quite clear from the sub-section what the functions of the Committee were to be. If it was the intention of the Government that the Committee was not to finally determine the questions, but was merely to advise the Treasury—which, he thought, was the proper course—the terms of the sub-section would not carry out that intention. The sub-section said that the Committee was formed "for the purpose of determining finally all questions," and how the Chief Secretary could say in face of these words that the functions of the Committee were merely advisory passed his comprehension. He thought the matter should be made clear.

MR. SEXTON

said, he ventured to think, with all due respect to the high authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the terms of the sub-section were compatible with a final decision by the Treasury. The Committee, according to the Chief Secretary, would determine the facts of individual cases, and the Treasury would then make an award. The power of the Treasury to make an award was absolute, so that, whatever might be the decision of the Committee as to the facts in individual cases, the Treasury could afterwards exercise their discretion in respect of allowances or gratuities. He thought, however, that the Committee had not sufficient information before them to enable them to come to a definite conclusion on the Amendment. The names of the gentlemen to be appointed were not known. If they were known he should be able to determine the merits of the Committee. Two of them would probably lie found to be guardians and representatives of Imperial interests, and there would be only a solitary representative of Irish interests. The Committee would have very important functions to discharge—functions affecting £330,000 in salaries, and possible pensions to the amount of £150,000—and, although it would not finally decide, it had to aid and guide the Treasury in awarding pensions. He considered that, as every penny of the money, and also every official dealt with, would be Irish, and as the Treasury would have the final word, the more reasonable course would be that Ireland should have two Representatives on the Committee, and the Treasury only one. He did not admit the principle that the Treasury in this case, having to deal with Irish Revenue only, should have a majority on the Committee. He would, therefore, propose to amend the clause by making it consist of four persons, two to represent Ireland, and two to represent the Treasury. As the Committee were only to guide, it was hardly necessary to have a majority on either side, but the Chairman might have a casting vote.

* THE CHAIRMAN

was about to put the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

On a point of Order, Mr. Mellor. I rather gathered that the Government had seen the force of the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University. If so, the Amendment he suggested should come first.

MR. J. MORLEY

I propose to insert, after the word "finally," the words "the facts of," so that the Committee to be appointed shall determine finally the facts of all questions that may arise.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

asked whether the Members of the Committee were to receive salaries, and, if so, out of what fund they would come?

MR. J. MORLEY

It is not in the contemplation of the Government that the members shall be paid.

Amendment amended, by inserting in line 1, after the word "finally," the words "the facts of."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended, in line 4, to leave out the words "one other person," in order to insert the words "two other persons."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'one other person' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. J. MORLEY

This Amendment involves a certain misapprehension of the purposes for which the Committee is to be constituted. My hon. Friend assumes that there will invariably be a difference of opinion that the two Imperial Members will always consult together on one side, and the unfortunate and isolated Irish gentleman will be without a friend on the other side. I do not share that view. It will be the desire of the Government to got two gentlemen of character and position, and it is not to be supposed that three gentlemen meeting together to determine claims on grounds of equity and justice will fly off into two separate Parties on every occasion. I would point out, further, that the two Imperial Members will be chosen not by English or Scotch Members, but by Parliament, and in that selection hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will have a voice. My hon. Friend anticipates that if there were four Members the views of the Committee might be equally divided, and he is, consequently, willing to give a casting vote to the Chairman. But by that magnanimity on his part he has given his case away. It is a better plan to have either five Members or three Members; but we consider a Committee of five Members would be far too large for this Ministerial purpose. We must adhere to three; and we cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.

MR. BARTLEY

pointed out that the Irish Members could really nominate all three Members, for, as the Unionists were in the minority, the 80 Irish votes would settle everything. They could negative every name that might be proposed unless they were willing to accept the person so named. He, as a Representative of the United Kingdom, therefore thought the Irish Members would have far too large a share in nominating this Committee.

MR. SEXTON

said, the hon. Member had more imagination than one would suppose from the bent of his mind. If the hon. Member looked back upon the proceedings in Committee he would find that whenever the Irish Members moved an Amendment which was not accepted by the Government, the Government were always supported by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. It was certain, on the nomination of these gentlemen on the Report stage, the Government, if they nominated persons who were disagreeable to the Irish Members, would carry their nomination by the help of the Tory Party.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington as to the voice the Unionist Party are likely to have in the selection of these gentlemen. The hon. Member for North Kerry does not share our apprehensions, because he says that, whenever there is a difference between the Government and the Irish Party, the Tory Party always combine with the Government to vote down the Irish. My own observations of the proceedings in this Committee are of a very different character. Hon. Members below the Gangway have been very careful not to have a difference with the Government unless they know that the Tory Party will support the Government. I do not at all blame them, but I never saw gentlemen so nervously anxious as they are lost on any occasion they should have the unhappy success of carrying any one of their Amendments. I can, however, imagine a very different state of things when gentlemen below the Gangway will not be perturbed by the idea that their votes may embarrass the Government.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

observed that where names of gentlemen were inserted in an Act of Parliament to perform Ministerial or Judicial duties they were never inserted on Party grounds. He could give a large number of instances to show that men were selected who were acceptable and who possessed the confidence of all Parties in the House. It was quite certain that the Government, in selecting two officials, would desire that they would be—ami he was sure they would be—not partisans in any sense of the word, but men of long official experience who possessed the confidence, not only of gentlemen opposite, but of gentlemen in every part of the House. If it was to be made a Party question, the course would simply be to say the English Government should nominate two, and the Irish Government one, and then it would be open to the construction of being such a majority as the hon. Member for Kerry seemed to contemplate; but the two names being put in the Bill was a pledge that these two names should be those of perfectly independent and impartial men, who from long experience might be trusted to carry out the onerous duties imposed upon them. He would tell the hon. Member for Kerry that if he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) were an Irishman and called upon to decide as to this Committee, he would rather have no Committee at all, but leave the matter in the hands of the Treasury. There could be no possible body of men selected who would so carefully and economically safeguard all the interests of the Irish Exchequer as the English Treasury, and he was quite sure whatever they decided or awarded would not be in the interests of extravagance. As it was thought desirable that the decision given should be subject to another tribunal, he could not conceive any more impartial tribunal than that inserted in the Bill.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, the Amendment was to have five members' of this Committee instead of three. He believed that in Dublin, if the Committee was to be composed of only three Members, there would very often be a difficulty in getting a quorum. Four or five would be a much more sensible number, and one which would obviate such a difficulty. It was a very small Amendment, which the Government might very easily concede to the Irish Members.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

desired to make a suggestion. By the insertion of the words— For the purpose of determining finally all questions which may arise, the Committee had been turned into an absolute jury; and, that being so, it might meet the views of the Member for Kerry if this Committee were to act on the jury principle, and that their decision should be required to be unanimous.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 298; Noes 131.—(Division List, No. 228.)

Words, as amended, added

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

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

I do not propose to divide against the clause, because it affords such protection as the Government are willing to give to the Civil servants in Ireland; but I do not like to part with it without making one final protest against the whole scheme of the Government. The clause seems to me to have been so drafted that we have not been able to raise one of the most important points in the whole scheme—namely, the device of the transitional period. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury objected to the idea of there being "a clean sweep"; and the Chief Secretary, in the statement he made to the House, stated that after the five years' period the Civil Service would have to make its bargain afresh with the Irish Government. I should wish to be corrected if I am wrong in that; but I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that at the end of the five years practically the whole Civil Service would be in the position of making a fresh bargain with the Irish Government. The right hon. Gentleman used those exact words of "a fresh bargain." That is to say, the bargain is good for five years, and for five years only; and every single member of the Irish Civil Service will be in an unsettled state of mind during the whole of these five years. The Irish Government may not intend to dismiss the whole of the Civil Service, but they will be able, as has been stated, to impose fresh terms on the Service at the end of that time. One of the Ministers—I think it was the Prime Minister—asked, should we have proposed similar terms or made similar demands in the case of Scotland or England? I put it to hon. Members opposite—and, indeed, to every Member of the House—what would be the position of the English Civil Service if they had notice that at the end of five years the whole of their tenure of office might be changed? There is not a single Metropolitan Member in this House—and, in fact, no Member who has Civil servants among his constituents—who would venture to vote in favour of such a scheme; and that being so, and it being admitted that the Irish Service is part of the Imperial Civil Service, we are as much bound to look after them as we are bound to look after the English or Scotch Civil servants. I do think, therefore, that hon. Members opposite might have taken a different view, and have associated themselves with us in our endeavours to get the Government to re-consider the question of the transitional period. I wish that it should be thoroughly realised that at the end of five years the Civil Service in Ireland, as a whole, will be—I will not say at the mercy—but at the discretion, at all events, of the Irish Government; and it appears to me, both from the administrative point of view and from the personal point of view, that it is an intolerable position in which to place the whole of the Civil Service in Ireland. The Prime Minister and the Government think they have given sufficiently good terms to the Irish Civil servants—indeed, they say they have given generous terms; and hon. Members below the Gangway think that it is a spectacle in which they are afraid of the Irish Civil servants going about "eating their heads off," to use the expression of the hon. Member for Northampton—if this Bill should pass—with the Irish taxpayers' money in their pockets. If these men are to retire or to be dismissed with their pensions, they will not be eating their heads off; but it is highly probable they will be starving. That is the point. I should like to know what the constituents of hon. Members opposite, who are in receipt, perhaps, of £250 per year, would think if they had to accept compulsory terms by which they would only have £100 a year? [An hon. MEMBER: And their freedom.] Would they think they were eating their heads off? They will have their freedom! That is the fallacy by which hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to sacrifice the Civil Service of Ireland. If they have their freedom, the question is, what is their freedom worth; and is their freedom in the position in which they will be placed with their pensions equal to their salaries and their prospects in their employment? And it is because hon. Gentlemen opposite will not appreciate the fact that freedom and a small pension is worse than salary and prospects of work that they inflict—as I believe they will inflict—a great damage upon the whole Civil Service of Ireland. The Prime Minister said that they would be able to find remunerative employment, and be pointed to the fact that Civil servants obtained employment as Directors of Public Companies, and in other ways. Yes; but these are the few who are at the head of the Service. But we are not concerned with the few at the head of the Service. Remember what was said by the Chief Secretary for Ireland—that in Ireland, out of 1,200 Civil servants, 600 are in receipt of small salaries; and they are not in a position to receive valuable appointments. Now comes another point, which seems to have escaped the Government entirely. It is of the essence of the case. It is easy, when an abolition of office takes place on a moderate scale, for a certain number of men who have to seek other employment to find work here and there. But here you will have a large number of men seeking other employment who have been educated for no other purpose than for the Civil Service in Ireland, and how are they all at once to find work? They will wander about with their freedom but their freedom will not feed their wives and children, and their freedom will not help them unless they find work. And what sympathy did hon. Gentlemen opposite evince for them? When we suggested that they should be transferred, as far as possible, to employment in England and Scotland, there was no sympathy whatever shown towards the suggestion. You are disorganising the whole of the Civil Service in Ireland in the first place, and in the next you are going to have a fresh hiring at the end of five years. Was there ever such a proposal made to the House of Commons? One Minister quoted the case of the French, where the Civil servants served first under the Republic and then under the Empire. But here notice has been given to them that after five years their whole tenure of office may be changed. It is, therefore, a fresh hiring which is imposed upon them under most disadvantageous circumstances and with a most inadequate compensation. The Government think they have done a great deal by offering these Civil servants five years of a transitional period, and offering that they should receive a pension on these five years even if they do not serve. But even that is marred by a provision—and a proper provision in its way—that the Treasury and the new authorities can impose a limit upon the number of men who are to retire; and, therefore, a number of men may be compelled to serve on till the end of the five years, and then they will receive no boon whatever in consequence of this abolition. We do not vote against the clause, as it contains the only protection the Civil servants have; but I do not wish that the clause should be finally passed without making a protest, and saying that we do not consider the case of the Civil servants has been adequately met. We believe, on the contrary, that if the Bill passes a great sense of injustice and grievance will remain; and the whole Service will be so disorganised by the provisions of this Bill as to be most seriously detrimental, from an administrative point of view, to the interests of the Irish Government themselves.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

It is rather peculiar that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) did not make his speech yesterday, when an Amendment was before the Committee which was practically the alternative proposal of the Leader of the Opposition for dealing with the Irish Civil servants. I then put the challenge direct to the right hon. Gentleman to get up in his place and tell the House whether that alternative was actually possible? His great knowledge of the Civil Service would have enabled him to reply to that question, which was whether it was possible to transfer the Irish Civil servants into the English Civil Service; but he remained perfectly silent. He knew it was impossible; he knew that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was not one that could be practically carried out; and, therefore, He very wisely abstained from taking part in the Debate. Now, Sir, he raises an objection to this term, and he says it is a monstrous injustice that the Treasury should have the power to say that a certain number of persons are to remain up to the end of five years, who will then get no advantage or boon whatever. They will have precisely the same advantage which anybody would get if they retired at the commencement of the five years, and they would have this additional advantage—namely, they would have been receiving full salary for five years, and would be servants of the Imperial and not of the Irish Government. These men will be better off, so far as they are concerned, during that five years. I am not going over the whole facts of the case; but when the right hon. Gentleman draws a picture of what he calls a "general clean sweep" of Dublin Castle, and Dublin Castle attempting to commence a new Civil Service, the answer to that is that such a thing is possible in theory, but absolutely improbable according to the usual course of public affairs. If they remain on as Civil servants they are to have the same salary and the same tenure of office, and all their rights are fairly maintained. No doubt it will be in the jurisdiction of the Irish Legislature, as it is in the jurisdiction of this Parliament, to alter the terms of their service and their salaries. Every man who takes office in the English Service takes it subject to the pleasure of Parliament; and these officials—of whom I desire to speak in terms of great respect—will hold their office after the five years subject to the pleasure of the Legislative Authority in Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that is not the position in which they desire them to be placed, as they think that they might be unjustly and unfairly treated, and that the Irish Legislature might impose terms which the English Parliament would not have imposed if they had remained under its jurisdiction. Our answer to that is that we give them the option during the five years of retiring from the Civil Service altogether, and of retiring on the most liberal terms—terms actually unprecedented in any abolition or transference of office that has ever taken place in this country. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, is of opinion that no justice, no fairness, could be displayed towards these gentlemen by an Irish Legislature. If I held that opinion I should take the same view as the right hon. Gentleman takes of the whole question. I think if they are incapable of justice and fairness they are incapable of being a Legislature at all, and ought not to be one. We make these proposals because we hold the contrary opinion, because we believe that as the Representatives of the Irish people they will not act in the manner which hon. Gentlemen opposite affect to think they will. Surely the Irish people are not likely to favour injustice towards their own kith and kin and their own race! That is not a characteristic of Irishmen specially, any more than of any other nationality. They would not be allowed to do injustice to Irishmen in an Irish Legislature. On the contrary, we believe that, representing the Irish people, they will treat their officers with fairness and justice. They will have in their own hands a very competent Civil Service. That Civil Service is an expensive one, I am quite ready to admit, and I think, in the course of time, it will be the duty of the Irish Administration to reduce the cost of that Civil Service, as I am sure we should do it if we were ourselves responsible in the sense that they will be for the Irish Civil Service, because every gentleman who knows anything about it knows that the Irish Civil Service, in the better and higher posts, is paid at a higher rate than the English Civil Service.

MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)

No, no!

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The right hon. Gentleman says "No."

MR. JACKSON

I say so, and I adhere to it.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I say that in the higher Departments they are much better paid in Ireland than in England, and I will give an illustration of this. I will speak of my own Department. The permanent head of the Local Government Board in England is Sir Hugh Owen; and no one who knows anything about the Civil Service of this country—and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition, who was himself President of the Local Government Board, will agree with me—can speak of that gentleman except in the highest terms for his great ability and his eminent services. He is the permanent head of a Department which deals with 29,000,000 people, with the enormous complications of administration, and he receives a salary of £1,800 a year. I do not wish to say anything at all derogatory to the gentleman who holds a similar position in Ireland. The permanent head of the Irish Local Government Board, which does not deal with 5,000,000 people, and has nothing like the complications to deal with that the English Local Board has, has £2,000 a year. I do not wish to be understood as detracting from the eminent ability or services of that gentleman; but I simply mention a matter of fact which is in direct contradiction to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I say, as a matter of fact, that the Irish permanent Civil Service in its higher Departments is remunerated at a higher rate than the English Civil Service in the same Departments. When we come to the Estimates I think there will be no difficulty in dealing with that. The matter does not arise on the present occasion, except so far as to point out that in the future the Irish Government, if they are to be financially sound, must deal economically with the administration of their affairs. What we are concerned with in this clause is this—We admit we are changing the Government of Ireland; we admit we are transferring gentlemen who have hitherto served the United Kingdom to the Service of one of the Kingdoms which form part of that Kingdom; and we are—I admit it—removing them from the control of the Imperial Parliament and putting them under the control of the local Parliament directed by their own neighbours. I say that in doing that we have guarded against their being compulsorily retired; and if they themselves, from any ill-grounded or well-grounded fears, are apprehensive that justice will not be done to them, we have allowed them to retire—no matter what their capacity for future service may be, how young they are, or whether they are in the prime of life—wo have allowed them to retire on terms guaranteed by the Imperial Exchequer, which I think most favourable, and, indeed, most generous. Under these circumstances, we adhere to this clause, and shall vote for this clause; I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman intends to press the matter to a Division. I will only say, in conclusion, that there has been no tangible proposition put before the Committee for improving these terms. The right hon. Gentleman himself has proposed nothing to make the position of these gentlemen better; but the only alternative proposal was by the Leader of the Opposition, which was to transfer these gentlemen bodily into the Imperial Civil Service, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) himself admitted that that would be impossible.

MR. JACKSON

I think the right hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood the proposition of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. If I remember the proposition correctly, it was a proposition to do nothing of the kind as that which the right hon. Gentleman has said. The proposition was to protect the interests of the Civil servants in Ireland until they were transferred into the general body of the Civil Service of England, supposing they were not wanted in Ireland. It was a protection to the Civil servants in their offices—it was a protection to them that they should not be arbitrarily treated or dismissed; and the alternative proposal was their transference to the general body of the Civil Service in this country. The right hon. Gentleman makes the great point that it is impossible to transfer men serving in Ireland to serve in England. But, surely, that has been done over and over again. There is no difficulty about it. I quite admit that in the case of a reorganisation of offices, or in the case of the abolition of certain offices, there is a great difficulty in transferring men who are so displaced to other parts of the Service, or to other offices. It is admitted that that is so. That is a transfer, possibly, from one Department to another Department. But what we contend is this. Take, for instance, the Inland Revenue Service. The servants of the Crown serving in Ireland in the Inland Revenue Department are part of a Service which is a Service as a whole, and that you cannot distinguish, and ought not to distinguish. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman knows himself that the man who is at this moment at the head of the Customs Department in this country came from Ireland to that position. He knows also that another man at the Inland Revenue Department—one of the Commissioners—also came from Ireland, and there are instances which can be mentioned where men have been transferred to like positions in Ireland from this country; therefore, so far as regards the possibility of transfer, I say there is no absolute bar on the ground of impossibility. The right hon. Gentleman took my right hon. Friend to task because he had criticised the proposal to deal with these servants arbitrarily at the end of five years. If I may say so, with all respect, I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate the point. The point is this—these men are in the permanent Civil Service of the State, and you are determining arbitrarily at the end of five years absolutely the employment under the Crown. In that five years' period, it is true, you give them some opportunity either to retire, or at the end of that time to accept pensions, or they can accept pensions before. But you make no provision for them. You terminate absolutely their service under the Crown at the end of five years, and you leave them at the mercy of the Irish Government at the end of that time to make what terms they can and in the best way they can. I say, so far as I know, there has never been in the history of this country any such proposal submitted to and approved by Parliament, and the parallel which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to draw between this and an ordinary abolition of office by a reasonable reduction of the staff is no parallel at all, because in this case you are absolutely terminating the service of men in order to put other men in their place. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] Does the hon. Member suppose that the Civil Service in Ireland is going to be carried on without men then? Of course, if they are not going to be displaced, no injury is done; but you make no provision and secure no protection for them. That is our contention—that you make no provision for them, although you absolutely terminate their engagement at the end of five years. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] Hon. Gentlemen behind the Government Bench do not understand the question. If they had been in the House, they would have heard the Chief Secretary state that at the end of five years they must make the best terms they could with the Irish Government, and that, so far as their service under the Crown and so far as the responsibility of the Imperial Parliament to these servants were concerned, they would come absolutely and completely to an end at the expiration of the period of five years. With regard to the terms, I must be allowed to say that, so far as I can judge, there is really no justification for the assertion that has been made that these terms are either extravagant or liberal to these servants. My experience has been—and I think right hon. Gentlemen on that Bench will confirm it—that whenever questions have been submitted to Parliament in connection with the Civil servants of this country, Parliament has always taken a very strict view of what they considered to be public faith pledged to public servants. In proof of this, I may refer to one case which will be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman. That was a case in which there was some doubt as to whether a notice had been given to certain Woolwich workmen by which they had a legal termination of their right to superannuation. That question was referred to a Committee upstairs; and, if my recollection serves me right, I think the result of the award of that Committee was to pass something like nearly £500,000. I know the Treasury strongly dissented from that view as being extremely extravagant and liberal; but it has always been the case that Parliament has taken, I believe, a much more liberal view of compensation towards public servants who might be displaced from their offices than ever has been taken by the Government of the day, or by the particular Department. I cannot but feel that as regards these Civil servants they are placed in an extremely difficult position. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, they are put in this position. They do not know—they cannot know until the end of the period of five years—whether they will be allowed to continue in the Service or not. They may go on for the period of five years, and they may have their service terminated at the end of that time without any additional compensation beyond that which would be accorded in the case of Civil servants dismissed on an ordinary reorganisation, or in a reduction of the office. I do not feel that these can be at all truthfully described as liberal terms; I believe the case is without parallel, and I feel that justice has not been done to the Civil servants in Ireland who have served the Crown so faithfully.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 29 (As to existing pensions and superannuation allowances).

MR. J. MORLEY

My object, in the two Amendments I have on the Paper, is this. The clause deals with existing pensions. The first liability is upon the Irish Exchequer, and the effect of the two Amendments will be that these existing pensions shall be paid out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, and shall be repaid to that Exchequer from the Irish Exchequer. That is the way the clause will run if my view is accepted. I beg to move the first Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 19, to leave out from "beginning," to "shall," in line 20.—(Mr. J. Morley.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. MORLEY

then moved the following Amendment:—Page 16, line 21, after the word "Kingdom," to insert the words "and shall be repaid to that Exchequer from the Irish Exchequer."

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

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

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.