Page 47, line 22, leave out sub-section (1)."—(Mr. Dillon.)
§ MR. DILLON
The reason why I propose to omit this sub-section is that in my opinion, of all the mean things that could be conceived, it is the worst. In the previous portion of the Bill I drew attention more than once to the shabby manner in which we are being treated as to the arrears of the agricultural rate. I consider we have been fleeced to the extent of £300,000 by your not giving us that grant. Now note what the Government is going to do. What this sub-section provides is that the expenses and remuneration of these officers shall be paid out of the Local Taxation Account. The whole of these expensed I do not suppose will amount to more than about £2,000 a year, and I do think there is something inconceivably mean in coming for this £2,000— cadging on our store of money. I trust there will be no difficulty in altering this sub-section so as to provide that the money required for putting up this machinery will he provided by the Treasury.
MR. T. M. HEALY
What makes this matter far worse is that the Irish taxpayers keep up the valuation office. £8,000 has to be found by the grand juries for the valuation office, the chief purpose of which is for collecting income tax, and for any benefit it gives on the valuation the Government reap £100,000 a year. First you make an Imperial office, and then, under the idea that it confers some benefit on us, you make us pay to keep it up. If anyone would turn to the Estimates he would find a credit for the valuation office in Dublin. You will find n, credit in favour of the Treasury, of which £8,000 a year you practically levy off us by this system of compulsory presentment which is perpetuated under this Act. Notwithstanding that this is a mere office for the collection of income tax, you now propose that any additional expense is to be taken out of this money. I do urge that as the valuation office is largely an Imperial office, the amount we have to pay is certainly too much.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
In this sub-section we have merely followed the precedent of the English Act. The 574 money which represents the equivalent grant, which will amount to something like ,£,300,000, will not be drawn upon for this purpose unless the sum mentioned in sub-section 2 is insufficient. Ay to the valuation office, I think the honourable Member for Louth is under a misapprehension so far as the Treasury is concerned.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
The expenses of the assessment committees are entirely borne by local authorities in England, whereas in Ireland, on the contrary, the expenditure in connection with the valuation office is £22,900, of which only £9,000 was borne by local authorities.
MR. T. M. HEALY
In England the income tax is levied not by State or Imperial Departments, but by one's neighbours; in Ireland it is not. I think that the powers conferred by this subsection may be exercised to fleece Ireland.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)
I certainly do think upon this occasion that the Government have been extremely mean. I may point out that I think Ireland has been treated very hardly in this matter. We certainly ought to have by this time £1,000,000 in that Treasury in respect of the agricultural grant which was given to us by this country, but which stopped on its way, and now to try to raise out of Ireland this amount is a shabby operation, and I do not think it comes well from the Government to press it.
§ * MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)
I think that, at all events, the Irish Members should emphasise their protest against this very shabby section, and upon the action of the Government, by pressing this matter to a Division. I think it 575 will end just like every other Division that we have had in this Debate, and will go one way; but I think we owe it to our constituencies not to let it be said or supposed that we allowed this clause to pass into the Bill in silence. Now, this section says—The Local Government Board and commissioner of valuation respectively may, with the consent of the Treasury as to number and remuneration, appoint and remove such officers and other persons as they or he may think necessary for the purpose of any adjustment under this part of this Act or otherwise for purpose if any work to be done for carrying this Act into effect if such adjustment is made or work is done within twelve months after the commencement thereof, and the remuneration and expenses of all officers and other persons so appointed shall be defrayed out of the money standing to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account under the Local Taxation (Ireland) Estate Duty Act of 1896.So far as I can see, we have no means of checking that expense, and in my opinion there ought to be a provision that all expenses of this nature should come out of the Treasury. This is a great Act which is instituting a revolution in the local government of Ireland, and I think all the expenses incidental to carrying it out and setting it afloat ought to be paid out of moneys given by Parliament. I do not think that we ought in any way to diminish the local taxation fund. I do not know any way of checking this; everything is done with the secrecy of red tape, and though protests may be made and notices may appear in the public press, the people will not be able to check the expenditure.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
Upon purely national grounds I am forced to join my honourable Friends opposite. Whatever is done should in my opinion be done out of the Consolidated Fund. Whatever payment may have to be made under this Bill ought to be made out of the fund, or out of money supplied for that purpose by a fund provided by Parliament. This clause, as I read it, provides that the money shall be provided not by an interception of a certain tax, but by an interception of an interception, and I think such an interception should not be made in favour of this Bill, and if 576 the matter goes to a Division I shall for the first time this Session vote against Her Majesty's Government.
§ MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry, N.)
So far as I am aware, the only provision in the English Act for payment of expenses by local authority is in respect to local matters. I know of no other provision which throws upon any authority, except out of the moneys provided by Parliament, the heavy expenses of carrying a Bill into effect. The work of the local government bodies in England has enormously increased between 1890 and 1894. In this case a large number of officers were appointed, and there was even a departmental committee to inquire into that increased work of the Local Government Board, and it recommended that there should be increased expenditure, and that expenditure ought to be made out of a Parliamentary fund.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
The salaries will not be paid by the Local Government Board. The extra work will create extra officials, and those will be paid by Irish funds. That was not all. After the English Act of 1888, every local authority in England sent out questions to the Local Government Board and demanded an answer. Additional officials had to be employed at once, and there was a great increase throughout England. The same thing, of course, would occur in Ireland; clerks of unions would consult the Local Government Board on questions that arose exactly as was done in England. Thin pressure of expenditure in Ireland would be exactly corresponding to the work done by the extra officials appointed in England, for which the Treasury paid; and, what was more, the work done by those gentlemen was a comparatively small part of the work. Though they worked hard and did excellent work, still the work they did was very much smaller than the work thrown upon the Local Government Board in connection with one Act for which the Treasury charged nothing at all. The Local Government Act of 1894 in England, referring to district councils and other authorities which had less local assistance than the county 577 councils, threw a still wider measure of work upon the Local Government Board. This Act in Ireland, of course, took the place of both Acts in England. In England there was no provision throwing any part of the administrative expense upon the local authorities. There was another part of another Act which might be looked upon as a parallel—the English Agricultural Hating Act. In the Act extra, work was thrown upon the Local Assessment Committee. That was done, of course, without payment. But in addition to that there was large extra work thrown upon the Local Government Board under the English Act—a very large amount of extra work—and he never heard that the local authorities had to pay for that extra work thrown upon the Local Government Board. Members of the Local Government Board had informed them of how the work of the Department had been enormously in creased by the English Agricultural Hating Act. So far as he was aware, that extra departmental work in England was paid for out of money provided by Parliament. If the only precedent on which the right honourable Gentleman relied was the provisions on the English Act of 1888, which threw upon local authorities the costs of the arbitrations between different local authorities, and lase the charges of the inspector who held the local inquiry, he ventured to think he had not proved his analogy. It was objectionable as a precedent; if these administrative expenses were to be paid out of Irish funds, Parliament lost control over them. There would be no means of questioning the salaries of those officials employed in tin work which ought to come under tin new Department. It was objectionable on Imperial principles, and it was doubly objectionable, on Irish principles. He ventured to think that though it we defended on an English analogy, it did not bear out that case. He should not object if the English analogy had been followed in the case of local inquiries, 578 and the sum charged for the official conduct of the inquiries; he would assent to that. But this was going very much further. There would be an enormous, number of extra officials employed in Dublin, such as clerks, and so forth. He believed that the honourable Member for East Mayo had greatly under-estimated the amount, of expense which would be thrown upon the Irish funds. To say that all these men who were employed in purely administrative work were to be paid directly out of the Irish funds was, he ventured to think, distinctly unjust.
§ MR. DILLON
said that in his opinion., the objections to this proposal on Irish grounds were exceedingly strong, and the general objections on the ground of principle, from the financial point of view, and from the House of Commons' point of view, were equally strong. The right honourable Gentleman has pointed to the provisions of another Act on which he relied, but it was not analogous at all. But, even in the case of the English analogy, what happened was this, that the sum taken from the local bodies was paid into the Exchequer, and then the expenses of administration must have been voted by Parliament. The principle recommended was a vexatious one, and, if the system were extensively resorted to, would be perfectly intolerable. He proposed that they divide.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said that in the case of England there was no fund out of which this expense could be paid; it would be easy, however, to move for a return of the accounts under this section, so that the whole question of policy and expenditure could be raised on the Local Government Board Vote.
That sub-section (1) stand part of the clause.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 88.—(Division List No. 120.)581
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Flannery, Fortescue||Milward, Colonel Victor|
|Allhusen, Augustus H. E.||Fletcher, Sir Henry||Monk, Charles James|
|Ascroft, Robert||Folkestone, Viscount||More, Robert Jasper|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||Newdigate, Francis Alex.|
|Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy||Fry, Lewis||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Baird, John Geo. Alexander||Galloway, William Johnson||Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Garfit, William||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Gedge, Sydney||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Goldsworthy, Major-General||Purvis, Robert|
|Beach, Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Goschen, George J. (Sussex)||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Gourley, Sir Edward T.||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Graham, Henry Robert||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Savory, Sir Joseph|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mdsx.)||Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Brassey, Albert||Gretton, John||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Gull, Sir Cameron||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)|
|Brookfield, A. Montagu||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Spencer, Ernest|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Hardy, Laurence||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Carlile, William Walter||Heath, James||Stephens, Henry Charles|
|Cavendish, R. F. (Lancs., N.)||Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.||Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs)||Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUny)|
|Chamberlain, Rt.Hn. J. (Birm.)||Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)||Thorburn, Walter|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Holland, Hon. Lionel R.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Jeffreyss, Arthur Frederick||Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles R.||Jessel, Capt. Herbert M.||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon|
|Cox, Robert||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Kenyon, James||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-L.)|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Lafone, Alfred||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Doxford, William Theodore||Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)||Wilson, J. W. (Wore, N.)|
|Drucker, A.||Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)||Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)|
|Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart||Lucas-Shadwell, William||Young, Com. (Berks, E.)|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Macartney, W. G. Ellison|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.||Maclure, Sir John William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane.)||Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Sir William Walrond and|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Mr. Austruther.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Meysey Thompson, Sir H. M.|
|Allison, Robert Andrew||Daly, James||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Asher, Alexander||Dane, Richard M.||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)||Dillon, John||Jameson, Major J. Eustace|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Doogan, P. C.||Jones, D. B. (Swansea)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbysh.)||Doughty, George||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)|
|Billson, Alfred||Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Jordan, Jeremiah|
|Blake, Edward||Field, William (Dublin)||Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth|
|Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)||Flynn, James Christopher||Knox, Edmund F. Vesey|
|Brunner, Sir John T.||Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)||Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)|
|Caldwell, James||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)|
|Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Hammond, John (Carlow)||Leng, Sir John|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)||Harwood, George||Macalecse, Daniel|
|Cawley, Frederick||Hayden, John Patrick||McDonnell, Dr.M. A. (Qn.'sCo.)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-||MacNeill, John G. Swift|
|Clark, Dr. G. B.(Caithness-sh.)||Healy, Maurice (Cork)||McCalmont, Mj -Gn. (Ant'm, N.)|
|collery, Bernard||Healy, T. M. (Louth, W.)||McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.)|
|Colville, John||Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.||McCartan, Michael|
|Crilly, Daniel||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.||M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)|
|Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)||Hogan, James Francis||M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)|
|Maddison, Fred.||Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Mandeville, J. Francis||Power, Patrick Joseph||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Mappin, Sir Frederick T.||Redmond, William (Clare)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Molloy, Bernard Charles||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)|
|Murnaghan, George||Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Shee, James John||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Smith, Samuel (Flint)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)||Sonttar, Robinson||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)||Sir Thomas Esmonde and|
|O'Kelly, James||Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)||Captain Donelan.|
|O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.||Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)|
Page 47, line 33, leave out sub-section (2)."'—(Major Jameson.)
§ MAJOR JAMESON (Clare, W.)
said there were no such officers. They were mainly clerks of the Local Government Board; they were not officers at all, and they were to be foisted on to them. He hoped the Chief Secretary would reconsider the matter and allow the clause to be amended. It could do no possible good, but would do a great deal of harm.
§ Mr. FLYNN
said they had no objection to any of the officers receiving the remuneration they were in the habit of receiving, but it placed them in a more advantageous position at the expense of newly-elected bodies, which was a system against which they protested. He would like to see them get proper remuneration, but he did not agree with the idea of giving them a better position and then giving them superannuation. On the general subject of superannuation, they on his side would have something to say on the new clauses the right honourable Gentleman brought forward, but here was a kind of advance guard of that principle, and they certainly objected to it. He advised his friends very strongly against putting gentlemen, at the expense of the local ratepayers, in a better position than they stood at present. If they were really entitled to super-annuation, he for one would not object.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said they had a moral, if not a legal, right to super-annuation at the present time.
MR. T. M. HEALY
said either the clause was necessary, or it was not. Either it granted them superannuation which they had not got, or it was unnecessary. There was no escape from it. The Government had taken a stand, with which he largely agreed, in refusing to increase superannuation to any existing officer, or to create compulsory superannuation where it was not in existence at the time, of the passing of this Act. But here, in regard to some of their own officers in the Castle or the Customs House—some of their own. gang—they provided superannuation by this clause. The Government said that they would let the law of superannuation stand; the would not alter it. Existing officers either had the right or not. If they had the right, it was independent of the Act. If they were without the right, then there was no escape from the position that they were doing something for these officers which they had refused to do for the general body of officers.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said that under the existing Act these men would be entitled to a pension; but this Bill changed their position, and the intention was to safeguard their rights to a pension.
§ * MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
suggested that the Chief Secretary should ascertain whether under the existing law these officers came within the Superannuation Act of 1869. If that were so, it was reasonable that the clause should stand as it was. It. was a matter that could be ascertained by inquiry. There were a great many officers who did not 583 come under that head. Originally these accounts were audited by a Master in Chancery, and the work was done by clerks in the Master of Chancery's office. It would be well to ascertain whether they were now entitled, after a certain number of years, to come under the Act of 1869, and, if so, they were entitled to have the same advantage as before.
MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)
said that, notwithstanding the good case made out on the previous evening in regard to attendants in lunatic asylums, they were met by strong opposition on the ground that there was to be no chancre in the superannuation of officers. The right honourable Gentleman had not given any explanation in regard to those officers to whom he proposed to grant superannuation. If men engaged as lunatic asylum attendants would not receive superannuation, he could not understand why those privileged individuals who belonged to grand juries should receive superannuation. He thought Irish Members should vote against the proposal.
§ MR. SHEE (Waterford, W.)
submitted the sub-section was unnecessary, as it left the law exactly as it was under the Act of 1869.
§ SIR W. FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)
As there is no new right of superannuation, it simply continues the right they had under the Act of 1869.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
It is a very complicated Measure. I am perfectly satisfied that these men have a moral right to superannuation, and it is necessary to safeguard them. I feel confident that it will not put them in a better position than they are now.
Attendants in lunatic asylums have a stronger moral right, because their position demands on their part more care and attention.
§ SIR W. FOSTER
thought that, having received an assurance from the Chief Secretary, they might well allow the matter to be reconsidered on Report. So far as he understood, there were no new rights of superannuation given by this, clause, and if any defects in it were discovered he had no doubt that the Chief Secretary would take steps to remedy them.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said he was prepared to state clearly on the Report exactly what was intended by these provisions.
§ Amendment negatived without a Division.
Page 48, line 6, at end, add—
(3) No future officer shall be appointed by the Local Government Board save after open, competitive examination, to be conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners."—(Mr. Vesey Knox.)
§ MR. VESEY KNOX
desired to protest against exceptional temporary appointments, and the constant tendency of the departments to make what he would not call jobs, but appointments which had not been gained by open competitive examinations. It. was a mystery, when appointments to the Civil Service were supposed to be only available after open competitive examinations, that such an enormous, number of Irish Civil Service officers, should be able to enter by the back, stairs of Dublin Castle. He had been unable to discover the real reason for it, but there is no doubt that the officials in Dublin Castle had been able to secure an exemption from the ordinary Civil Service rules of an enormous number of candidates for temporary posts in Irish administration, which only ceased to be regarded as temporary when it came to be a question of superannuation. He thought it was extremely objectionable; in a case like this, when a large number of men would be required, that they should be unable to obtain appointments except after an open competitive examination. He confessed that he should be glad to see that applicants for employment under the local authorities should be elected only after open 585 competitive examinations, and so far as the departments affected by this Bill were concerned, he failed to see why that should not be the case. Under the Census Commission, the clerks obtained their posts only by open competitive examinations, and he failed to see any reason why the same rule should not apply to clerks under this clause. Of course, they would not be first-class clerks, and they would be only temporary clerks at a small salary, but still he failed to see why these appointments should be obtainable by anyone who had private influence, and should not be filled up in the regular way of Civil Service examination.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
pointed out that, as these appointments would be only temporary, Civil Service examinations would be inapplicable.
§ MR. VESEY KNOX
said, of course, in regard to these appointments the Chief Secretary was beyond suspicion, but there were strong forces at work behind the officials in the endeavour to worm men into appointments without their passing an open competitive examination, such as was ordinarily required in the Civil Service. The favourite dodge was to get these favoured persons appointed to temporary posts, and when they once attained that position they advanced to permanent berths. The Census Commission was an illustration of his argument. There the clerks were employed for only about a year, and they were just, the same class of clerks as those who would be required in connection with this Act; and he failed to see why one rule should apply to appointments under the Census Commission and another rule to persons receiving appointments under the Local Government Board. Why should they have a right to appoint a large number of clerks all over the country as a job every year? The Chief Secretary said these appointments were only for one year, and the Civil Service examinations would not apply to them, but Civil Service examinations were constantly held, and the machinery was ready at any time, so that candidates could attend the examinations in Dublin without incurring any great expense, and there was no doubt that a large number of young men 586 and other deserving persons would compete in examinations who, if chosen to do this work, would be much better for the purpose than those who would try to get appointed by the round-about methods which it would be necessary to adopt under this Act. Therefore he asked the Chief Secretary how he was going to choose these officers. What rule or standard was he going to have, if it was not that of an open competitive examination? How was he to know whether a person who asks for this temporary job as a clerk was accurate in his arithmetic or not? He ventured to think, although no doubt this might appear to be a very small point, that his Amendment was a crucial test of the proposed method by which men were to gain entrance into the Irish Civil Service. He would like to know why any man should gain a post, whether temporary or permanent, or whether highly paid or lowly paid, except by the method of open competitive examination. In America, he believed, this test was considered to be a necessity of the principle of good government. By some the doctrine of the "spoils to the victor" was condemned. They saw that in English papers "Tammany" was denounced because it did not appoint officials by examination. They found that American officials were denounced in English papers for appointing officials for four years from amongst their own friends, and not from the Civil Service; but here they were going to appoint a whole host of officials, amounting to not less than a thousand officials, who would be required for the purposes of this section, and they were to be appointed without any test at all. The authorities would know nothing as to whether they could do a rule-of-three sum accurately, although their work would be mainly arithmetic; yet they would be appointed by the favour of officials at Dublin Castle. He protested most strongly against this proposal. It would lead to endless complaints of unfairness, if not of actual jobbery, and the Chief Secretary would be quite unable, by himself, to ascertain whether or not these who were recommended to him for appointments were fit for them. Members of Parliament would have a crowd of people applying to them to use their influence to get them appointed to these 587 posts. He ventured to think that, for the sake of his own. peace of mind, for a year or two the Chief Secretary should accept this Amendment, which he would press as being required by the principles of good government.
§ MR. VESEY KNOX
was not sure that the remark of the Chief Secretary amounted to an assurance that nobody should be appointed to an office under this clause without passing even a qualifying examination. If he were assured that there would be no appointments made by mere favoritism, he should be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. T. M. HEALY
wished to remind the right honourable Gentleman of what had occurred in regard to the staffing of the Land Commission, which was wholly under the direction of the Treasury and the Government. They took over the officers of the Church Temporalities Commissioners, and he raised the point that it was unfair that the Land Commission should be staffed solely from a body of Scotchmen and by men of one religion and nationality. He got a distinct pledge from the Attorney General of the day, which would be found in "Hansard," that the office should be staffed fairly, but that promise was broken, and the Church Temporalities Commission's officers were placed in the office of the Land Commission, and there they were to this day. The result was that wherever Irishmen went in Dublin, if they turned the handle of an office door, they were met by an alien and an enemy who would like, if he could, to restore the pitch cap and the triangle, and repeal the Catholic Emancipation
Act. Men with influence could put a nephew or a cousin, no matter how distant, into these posts without his passing a qualifying examination, and before they knew where they were he might imitate the boast of the Admiral, in "H.M.S. Pinafore"—
That pass-examination did so well for me That now I'm the ruler of the Queen's Navee.
If a man were appointed in this way, without the regular Civil Service examination, when once he got his finger inside the office door, he might be gradually pushed up to the top of the Department. In the lists of the officers in these departments it would be found that the same family name was perpetuated for successive generations, for they always had a son or a relative ready for a job, and when once put in he blossomed, like the rest, and in three or four years' time lie would be hoisted over the head of some officer who was entitled, under the Civil Service system, to promotion. In that way the whole of Dublin Castle was absolutely handed over to people who were anti-Irish, anti-National, and anti-Catholic.
§ SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)
did not think it was possible, under present circumstances, that the Amendment could be accepted, but he would recommend the Chief Secretary to lay it down that there should be a qualifying examination, and provide that in no case should a man be considered fit for a Civil Service appointment if he had the recommendation of a Member of Parliament.
That those words be there added.
§ The Committee divided—Ayes 74; Noes 129.—(Division List No. l21.)589
|Allison, Robert Andrew||Collery, Bernard||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond|
|Asher, Alexander||Colville, John||Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)|
|Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)||Crilly, Daniel||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)||Gourley, Sir Edward T.|
|Billson, Alfred||Daly, James||Hammond, John (Carlow)|
|Caldwell, James||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Harwood, George|
|Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Doogan, P. C.||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Cawley, Frederick||Doughty, George||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-|
|Clark, Dr. G. B.(Caithness-sh.)||Field, William (Dublin)||Healy, T. M. (Louth, N.)|
|Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.||Maddison, Fred.||Shee, James John|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.||Mandeville, J. Francis||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)|
|Hogan, James Francis||Mappin, Sir Frederick T.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Molloy, Bernard Charles||Souttar, Robinson|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Murnaghan, George||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Jones, D. B. (Swansea)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Sullivan, T D. (Donegal, W.)|
|Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)|
|Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Kitson, Sir James||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)||O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur||Weir, James Galloway|
|Macaleese, Daniel||O'Kelly, James||Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)|
|McDonnell, Dr. M. A.(Qn'sCo.)||Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)|
|MacNeill, John G. Swift||Redmond, William (Clare)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|McCartan, Michael||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Mr. Knox and Mr. Maurice|
|M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)||Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford)||Healy.|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Fisher, William Hayes||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Allhusen, Augustus H. E.||Flannery, Fortescue||Newdigate, Francis Alex.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy||Galloway, William Johnson||O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.|
|Baird, John Geo. Alexander||Garfit, William||Pease, Arthur (Darlington)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gedge, Sydney||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.|
|Barry, Rt HnAHSmit-(Hunts)||Goldsworthy, Major-General||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Purvis, Robert|
|Beresford, Lord Charles||Graham, Henry Robert||Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs)||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Gretton, John||Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mdsx.)||Gull, Sir Cameron||Savory, Sir Joseph|
|Bowles. T. G. (King's Lynn)||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Brassey, Albert||Hardy, Laurence||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Heath, James||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)|
|Brookfield, A. Montagu||Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)||Spencer, Ernest|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)||Stanley, Lord (Lanes)|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)||Howard, Joseph||Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)|
|Carlile, William Walter||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Stephens, Henry Charles|
|Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.||Johnson-Ferguson. Jabez E.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J. (Birm.)||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf dUny)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Kenyon, James||Thorburn, Walter|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Lafone, Alfred||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles R.||Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon|
|Cox, Robert||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-L.)|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson||Lucas-Shadwell, William||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Maclure, Sir John William||Wilson, J. W. (Wore, N.)|
|Dlbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh||McCalmont, Mj-Gn. (Ant'm.N.)||Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm|
|Dane, Richard M.||McCalmont, Col. J.(Ant'm, E.)||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||McKillop. James||Wylie, Alexander|
|Doxford, William Theodore||Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Drucker, A.||Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Young, Com. (Berks, E.)|
|Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Milbank, Powlett Charles J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn K.||Milward, Colonel Victor||Sir William Walrond and|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir j. (Mane.)||Monckton, Edward Philip||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Monk, Charles James|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 76 was then added to the Bill.590
§ Clause 77 was agreed to591
Page 6, after clause 13, insert the following clause:—