§ The Congested Districts Board may, with the approval of the Treasury, make a scheme providing for the grant of pensions or gratuities, according to the scale and subject to the conditions (as far as applicable) prescribed by the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1892, or any Acts amending the same, to such officers or persons employed by them, not being otherwise pensionable, as may be from time to time approved by the Treasury; and the Board may pay to any such officers or persons out of the funds at their disposal such pensions or gratuities under the scheme as the Treasury may sanction in each case.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
moved, after the word "conditions" ["subject to the conditions "], to add the following words:—
2258 "(1) It shall be lawful for the Congested Districts Board, with the approval of the Treasury, to grant to any permanent member of the Board on retirement such superannuation or other allowance (if any) as he would have been qualified for under the provisions of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1802, or any Acts amending the same, if he were retiring from the permanent Civil Service of the State. Any such allowance shall be payable out of the funds at the disposal of the Board; provided that where a permanent member was at the time of his appointment a, permanent Civil Servant of the State such portion of the allowance as the Treasury determine to be properly payable in respect of his previous service in that capacity shall be payable in the same manner as a superannuation or other allowance under those Acts."
2259 This is an Amendment which enables the Congested Districts Board, out of their own funds, to grant pensions to any permanent member of the Board on the Civil Service scale. Under the Bill, as it stands, the two permanent members could receive no pension, and that is a circumstance which might deter people otherwise eligible from accepting these posts. The success of the Board's operations, of course, depends very largely upon the character and position of these two persons, and it is undesirable that the Board should not be able to offer them, both now and hereafter, the privileges of pensions which very likely attached to their previous employment. It is not made obligatory upon the Board, but they are authorised to deal with their own funds in that way. The rest of the Amendment deals with a very important point. If any person appointed to this position is already a permanent Civil servant, and is entitled or in the way of being entitled to a pension, it is desirable that that previous service should be taken into account and that the Treasury should be called upon to contribute a proportionate part of the superannuation allowance. Therefore we have inserted the words:—
"Any such allowance shall be payable out of the funds at the disposal of the Board; provided that where a permanent member was at the time of his appointment a permanent Civil Servant of the State such portion of the allowance as the Treasury determine to be properly payable in respect of his previous service in that capacity shall be payable in the same manner as a superannuation or other allowance under those Acts."
That, of course, will come to the relief of the Board. If they choose to exercise the powers conferred upon them of giving a pension, they will be able to require from the Treasury what proportion of the pension would have been allowed, having regard to the member's service in the permanent Civil Service at the time he entered the service of the Congested Districts Board. I think that is an Amendment which will commend itself to all persons who are satisfied that the Congested Districts Board require the services of paid servants.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I do not rise for the purpose of objecting to this Amendment, though, I think, considering the stubbornness with which we are told the Treasury 2260 act in other cases, it is remarkable the readiness with which a long Amendment like this is assented to by that body. I rise to ask whether the corollary is in existence—the 65 Rule. As I understand the Civil Service, the 65 Rule prevails. I drew attention in the former Committee stage to the laxity of the Treasury in this respect and other directions. I have looked through this Bill and previous Bills, and, unlike every other Bill with which the Treasury has to deal in regard to a body dispensing public money, there is no suggestion of an audit. What advice they are following on this question is more than I can understand. Here is a body which is to dispense, as far as I know, hundreds of thousands of pounds. There is no check and no control over it. We do not know even who the Gentlemen are, but as they are to be permanent Civil servants, I think we are entitled to have their names. They are to receive £2,000 a year, whereas the President of the College at Cork gets only £600 or £700, and professors of Greek and Latin only receive £500 or £600. Yet these gentlemen whose names are withheld are to receive £2,000 a year. When you were dealing with the Land Commissioners you offered them £3,000 a year with pension, or £3,500 without. These gentlemen are to have £2,000 with pension. I am not opposed to the idea of a pension, but I would point out that here you are dealing with the most miserable part of Ireland, with a poor and hungry population, with a country in which the majority of the holdings are not more than £5 or £6 valuation; yet to oversee these wretched people, who hardly know how to keep body and soul together, you are appointing officials with the splendid salary of £2,000 a year, with pension. It is more than I can understand. Why is this largesse being given by a Treasury from which in the past we have found it impossible to get a sixpence with the aid of a corkscrew? It is because this money is ear-marked, and they do not care how it is spent. And while you are starting with these gorgeous salaries, you are not insisting on a stringent audit, I certainly think you should do so, especially in the matter of funds affecting the very poorest of the poor.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I would just like en this question of audit to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down that the Congested Districts Board are under statutory obligation to have an 2261 audit of the strictest possible character, and that they have habitually had an audit of that description from the very beginning. Nobody who is familiar with the Congested Districts Board would for a moment entertain the idea of their not being subject to the strictest possible audit, and every farthing they have received and spent has been strictly accounted for. It is such a vital matter that I should not like it to be supposed for a moment that it had been overlooked. The only reason why there is no audit section in this Bill is that it is unnecessary because of the previous measure. With regard to the other point, I can only say that the main reason why the 65 years' limit is made to apply to persons in the Cavil Service is not because people are incompetent, but because it is desirable in all permanent offices which go on for centuries to secure a flow of promotion in order that there may not be any block in pay and promotion from the ranks upwards, but that does not apply in this case, where we are not dealing with a body of a permanent character, although it will last for a good many years to come. But it is not a permanent branch of the Civil Service, and therefore the reason does not necessarily and properly apply. The 65 years' rule is not necessarily to get rid of a man at 65, but to get rid of him so that somebody serving in the office for a great number of years may secure his promotion. These gentlemen are removable by Order in Council, and it therefore becomes a matter of Parliamentary discussion, and therefore I do not think we need fear that any dotard will be kept in office when he is past his work. The hon. Gentleman-said something about not mentioning the names of the two persons who are to be the permanent and paid members of the Congested Districts Board. Sometimes it is undesirable on principle to mention names, and sometimes it is desirable, but names have been mentioned during the course of the proceedings on a Bill. The Estates Commissioners were mentioned in 1903, though not in the Bill, and it is not in any sense undesirable that I should mention the names, and I have no hesitation in doing so. The two persons whom the Government have in their minds are Mr. Doran and Mr. Micks, and when the Bill becomes law these are the two persons whom we propose to ask whether they will accept these offices. In regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about this being a poor district, I do not think because a district is poor that the 2262 people who have to administer the very delicate work which devolves upon them should necessarily be poor too. It is said that "Who drives fat oxen should himself be fat," but I do not know that he who drives thin oxen should himself be thin, and I think it is desirable that the salaries should be sufficient, so as to secure the services of persons of energy and eminence in their particular line. In conclusion, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the audit is as strong as it possibly can be, and I attach great importance to that necessary condition.
§ Mr. WALTER LONG
I am reluctant to say anything which may appear to be offering opposition, because I am entirely in favour not only of having good salaries for permanent officials but also of securing to them pensions. But the Chief Secretary has made some rather startling announcements in regard to the history of the law which governs permanent officials. He told us that the origin of the retirement age of 65 was not the incapacity of the individual at that age but was due to the fact that it was necessary to secure promotion. I have a very vivid recollection of the declaration of the great statesman, who was, I think, Prime Minister at the time of the passing of the Act governing the superannuation of permanent officials, and it was frequently quoted against Mr. Gladstone that he had laid it down as a justification for the change in the law that 65 was the age at which a man ought to retire from active public work. That was the reason given at the time, and not that there might be promotion. But apart from that, the Chief Secretary has also given a rather startling reason in regard to the pension question. I am not at all desirous of preventing any valuable public servant from getting a pension, but what Parliament has hitherto been very tenacious of in granting pensions is that the official should have given to the State a sufficient number of years' service before he can claim a pension. If we had made this proposal to make new appointments to the public service, and to entitle them to pensions, apart from the existing conditions, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would have risen in their wrath and would have offered the most strenuous resistance to any suggestion of the kind. The fact that the Chief Secretary has been good enough to take us into his confidence as to the names of these officials makes it still more difficult for anyone who has had the privilege of working with them in Ireland to offer any criticism 2263 at all, and I am reluctant to do it, but I cannot forget that only the other day the Government were urging with vehemence that there were so many public departments in Ireland, and so many salaries being paid, and so many people entitled to pensions, that there ought to be a radical change, and the number ought to be enormously reduced, and that is one of the reasons why the Irish Councils Bill was brought in.
Now we find that all that is changed, and not only are we to have a new Department and two permanent officials paid high salaries, but they and others are to be entitled to pensions. I suppose by this time we have ceased to look for anything like consistency on the part of the Government, and I do not wonder that they should be prepared to make this particular change because appointments, particularly when they have good salaries attached to them, are no doubt desirable things to have, and when the appointment rests in the hands of those who are creating the Department, they very probably look altogether differently upon the addition to the public charges from the view they take when they are in a different position. The arguments of the Chief Secretary are fallacious and misleading. I think all the conditions which appertain to the Civil Service ought to apply to any new officials who are being appointed here. I am not quite clear whether they are subject to any exceptions. If they are I suggest that the Chief Secretary ought, in the interests of good government, to make these new permanent officials subject to all those conditions which now apply to Civil servants. Give them pensions1 by all means, but only in respect of the service which they have given to the Crown. Civil servants can only obtain a pension, unless there is some special exception, if they have served a certain number of years, irrespective of the age at which they were appointed. No case has been made out why these permanent officials should be treated more generously than anyone else, unless it be that they have held offices hitherto which are not pensionable in which they have rendered service to the State, and therefore there may be a case for doing for them what has, I know, been done for other public servants, making special conditions applicable only to them for the moment. That is a matter for the Government to decide.
§ Mr. DILLON
The Congested Districts Board has a great many bitter enemies, and I do not know why, unless it is the fact that it is the only Board in Ireland, which is independent of Castle control. The accounts of the Board have always been subject to as strict an audit as those of any body in this country or Ireland from the first year of its existence down to the present time. The accounts have been audited by a public auditor, and every sixpence of expenditure has been known to the public every year. Therefore, the charge made against the Board that there has been no control over, or publicity given to, the expenditure is absolutely without justification. I fully recognise that there was nothing in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Long) which was not fair to the Board. There is not a single Chief Secretary who has worked in Ireland since the Board was founded, about 19 years ago, who will not bear testimony to the good work which the Board has done. I have never heard any Chief Secretary do otherwise than praise the Board. I was glad that the Chief Secretary mentioned the names of the two officials, Mr. Micks and Mr. Doran, he intended to appoint. I take considerable responsibility on myself when I venture to say that these names will give absolute satisfaction in Ireland. I do not know two better officials in Ireland, and I think I am justified in assuring the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin that it was never contemplated in this Amendment to give them any special treatment. I am perfectly certain that the Treasury has not the least notion of consenting to any special treatment. These two officials have long been known in the public service of Ireland. They have been in the public service 25 or 30 years, and they are men—it is rather a rare thing to be able to say—against whom I have never heard any complaint from any quarter. They have been undoubtedly distinguished by their zeal and hard work. I feel all the more strongly on the point since I heard the names of the officials. The 65 Rule is the general rule of the Civil Service, and was introduced largely for reasons which do not apply to the Congested Districts Board. The Board, quite apart from its functions and relations to the State, differs considerably from other branches of the Civil Service, and none of the ordinary considerations apply. County court judges sometimes sit up to 70, 75, and even 80 years of age. I would like to 2265 see some limit of age applied to judges and county court officials, but I would not like to apply the 65 Rule. I think it would be a great waste of public money. But what I desire to impress on the Committee is that is an independent Board, to which totally different considerations apply as compared with the ordinary Civil Service, and I trust that the Chief Secretary will adhere to his decision not to apply the 65 Rule, but will leave the matter over for further consideration. On the question of salaries the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin mentioned that complaints have frequently been made as to the number of officials in Ireland and their salaries. Complaints have been, and shall be made again, on this point, because more than half of those officials are irresponsible or mischievous officials who are paid large salaries for doing no good or doing harm to the people of Ireland; but there is never any criticism on the subject of salaries from above the Gangway until we come to some official from whom the people have experienced some kindness. When there is a proposal to appoint some officials to discharge one of the most difficult, responsible, and delicate tasks ever cast on officials in Ireland, immediately hon. Members above the Gangway are very much shocked at the size of the salaries proposed. I do not share that view. The Congested Districts Board is to have the disposal of large sums of money; it is to have enormous responsibility cast upon it. I do not know any officials in Ireland, including even the Estates Commissioners and the Land Commissioners, who will have more heavy duties cast on them than are being placed on these officials; and whether we consider the character of these gentlemen or the responsible nature of their duties, I, for one, do not consider their salaries excessive.
§ Mr. MOORE
moved, in the proposed Amendment, after the word "State,"["service of the State"] to insert the words "and all Civil Service rules as to retirement for age shall apply."
After the most conciliatory speech to which we have just listened, it is perfectly obvious that I must ask my Friends to support my Amendment in the Division Lobby. I cannot forget that this is the first allotted day for Report, and the Chief Secretary is naturally anxious to get into the Report stage, so I wish to move this Amendment at once, because one can never tell in present circumstances 2266 when the Chief Secretary will abandon some of these proposals, and I should be sorry that that should happen before my Amendment was put to the Committee.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
For reasons which I have already foreshadowed, I am unable to accept this Amendment. I do not think that the Congested Districts Board is on the same footing, or is to be guided by the same rules as the Education Board, or the Local Government Board, or the Board of Trade. It was called into existence for a particular purpose, and its operations are necessarily governed by time. It is not for a moment supposed that its work will go on for ever, although I daresay it will be prolonged for a considerable time. The purpose is not so much to get rid of men at the age of 65 as to secure flow of promotion, and to give hope and heart to younger men, and we still adhere to that rational view. Of course, some men vary. Some men are played-out at 65, some men are just beginning at the age of 65, and some men only discover their intellectual attainments at 40. But I ask the Committee to confine their attention to the Congested Districts Board, to consider its limitations of time, the character of its work, and also the nature of the staff that it employs. It is not of the same kind and constitution as a permanent Board. Therefore, I think it would be most undesirable to apply to the paid members any such rule as that applying to 65 years of age. If you happen to get two men knowing all the complications, knowing undoubtedly all the fibres of this- most difficult problem, to get rid of them by any severe and arbitrary rule of age would, I think, be injuring and not benefiting the vivacity of this Board. I, therefore, am strongly of opinion that it would be most disastrous in this case to apply the ordinary rule. But when you come to the question of the Congested Districts Board, with its funds, which though large on paper are really very small, even with the new funds which it is proposed to confer upon it by this Bill, to suppose, having regard to the duties of that Board, that those funds will be squandered on pensions, is outrageous. But even if the Board did desire to do so, they would require the approval of the Treasury, a Department which holds severe and traditional views on the question of pensions. I do not think there is the least likelihood, first of all even if the Beard wished it, of its wishing lavishly to bestow its funds upon retiring officers, and 2267 I am perfectly certain, in the second place, that they would not obtain the consent of the Treasury. I am unable, therefore, to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. WALTER LONG
I must certainly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division, and I am astonished at the inability and unwillingness of the Chief Secretary to accept it. He has told us nothing, and there is nothing to show there is any distinction between the officials of the Congested Districts Board and those of any other great Department. They require the same characteristics, knowledge, experience, and probity as those in any other Department. Let me remind him you have got in the provisions of the Civil Service all the power you require if it is necessary to retain the service of any of them. Under the Civil Service Regulations the Minister in charge has only got to make a representation to the Treasury that the retention of the Civil servant is essential in the public interests and he can be retained considerably over the age of 65. What is the evil to which you are exposed if no Regulation of the kind exists? The Civil servant can go on not only to 65, but to 70 or 75. The Minister at the head of the Department is then placed in an extremely difficult and disagreeable position. As the Chief Secretary said, men vary. Some men are good at 65, and some worn out at 60, but the man who is worn out may take a different view of his own capacity from those who become acquainted with his work. Unless you have a rule there is no means of getting rid of a Civil servant who has no fault except that he is worn out. I am certain those who are experienced in the Civil Service will confirm me when I say that one of the reasons which has made this change in the Civil Service of the utmost value was that, without any reflection being cast on the individual or without a Minister having to exercise any invidious powers, when the time came in the natural course the man has to retire. He retires regretfully.
We all know Civil servants who were as full of energy at 65 as many younger men are. What is also true is that there have been many cases of men warmly attached to their work and very reluctant to leave it, and where the giving up of their employment and falling back upon the pension has meant, I will not say privation, but at all events a change which has involved a very great difference for 2268 the man and his family. The most piteous appeals are sometimes made to continue the occupation a little longer. Now that becomes impossible when you have a strong rule. I say this in no opposition to the Government, and in no spirit of opposition to those who are about to be appointed. I do not suggest for a moment that the Congested Districts Board will exercise their duties improperly; I do not think it, and I do not suggest pensions will be wrongly granted, but I do hold no reason has been given why these Civil servants should be treated differently from other Civil servants of the Crown. I feel it is desirable in the best interests of the public service that there should be this limitation of age, knowing as I do that when Ministers desire to retain the service of officials they have the power to do so. I cannot admit there is any justification for a departure, which I regard as a serious one, from long-established practice, and the value of which has hitherto been accepted by both sides of the House.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
As these two gentlemen have been mentioned for the first time, it is right to say that Mr. Micks has the reputation of being an honest official; of the other gentleman I know nothing. But what are their present salaries? It is all very fine to say that £2,000 a year is only a moderate salary. The point is that this money is being taken out of a fund, moderate in character, which ought to be expended upon the poor. This is a poor man's fund, and a poor man's fund should not have rich men's salaries attached to it. Moreover, you are launching a new-Board, which for the first time has a popular element upon it, and instead of allowing it to fix the salaries, pensions, and other details connected with its officials, Parliament is tying its hands in advance by saying that these salaries must be paid. I am not at all suggesting that a gentleman like Mr. Micks in another sphere would not be fully entitled to a salary such as that proposed. But I cannot see what the difficulties of the administration of the Congested Districts Board are. There is no attack on the Board. My proposal is that it should have extra power. The proposal of those who want to fix the salaries and pensions is that it should be tied up. County court judges have been referred to. I think it would be good for the country if the 65 Rule applied to them. But their salaries range from 2269 £1,200 to £1,500, and the salaries of professors and heads of colleges are not half the amount here proposed. I think we ought to know what are the present salaries of these two gentlemen.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
There is no mystery about the matter. Mr. Doran's present salary is £1,500; Mr. Micks' is £1,200, and
|Division No. 670.]||AYES.||[11.15 P.m.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Fell, Arthur||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Fletcher, J. S.||Moore, William|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Forster, Henry William||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Gordon, J.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D,|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hamilton, Marquess of||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Clark, George Smith||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Clive, Percy Archer J.||Kekewich, Sir George||Watt, Henry A.|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Kerry, Earl of|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Keswick, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)||A. Acland-Hood and Viscount|
|Du Cros, Arthur||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Valentia|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Lambert, George|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lamont, Norman|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Elibank, Master of||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Evans, Sir S. T.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Everett, R. Lacey||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis|
|Ambrose, Robert||Falconer, James||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Farrell, James Patrick||Lundon, T.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Ffrench, Peter||Lupton, Arnold|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Field, William||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Barker, Sir John||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)|
|Barnard, E. B.||Flynn, James Christopher||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Fuller, John Michael F.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Fullerton, Hugh||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Gibb, James (Harrow)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, 8.)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Gilhooly, James||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)|
|Bell, Richard||Gill, A. H.||M'Kean, John|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)||Ginnell, L.||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Glendinning, R. G.||Marnham, F. J.|
|Boland, John||Glover, Thomas||Massie, J.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Meagher, Michael|
|Bramsdon, Sir T. A.||Grayson, Albert Victor||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Gulland, John W.||Middlebrook, William|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Mooney, J. J.|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Harrington, Timothy||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Morrell, Philip|
|Byles, William Pollard||Harwood, George||Muldoon, John|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Murnaghan, George|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Helme, Norval Watson||Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Henry, Charles S.||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Higham, John Sharp||Nicholls, George|
|Clough, William||Hogan, Michael||Nolan, Joseph|
|Clynes, J. R.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Jardine, Sir J.||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Jowett, F. W.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Joyce, Michael||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Kavanagh, Walter M.||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Cullinan, J.||Keating, M.||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Kelley, George D.||O'Dowd, John|
|Delany, William||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Dillon, John||Kilbride, Denis||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||O'Malley, William|
|Duffy, William J.||Laidlaw, Robert||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
§ in about 18 months' time he would be entitled to a pension of £800 a year.
§ Question put, "That the words 'and all Civil Service rules as to retirement for age shall apply' be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 190.
|O'Shee, James John||Scanlan, Thomas||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Partington, Oswald||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Seely, Colonel||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Shackleton, David James||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Philips, John (Longtord, S.)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Pointer, J.||Sheehy, David||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Simon, John Allsebrook||Wiles, Thomas|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Radford, G. H.||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Reddy, M.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Young, Samuel|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Summerbell, T.|
|Roche, Augustine (Cork)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)||Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Bill reported, with Amendments.
§ Bill, as amended in Committee and on re-committal, considered.
§ [Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.]