§ Mr. DILLONI did not say that the national teachers were quite satisfied. How could I say that on behalf of all the teachers? What I said was, as far as my knowledge goes, nobody entitled to speak for the teachers had applied for this protection.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThat makes the case very much weaker than I thought it was. We have surely a duty towards these people apart from their making clamant demands on us. I think that the very last precedent which we should set up is that we are to pay no attention to the grievances of anybody who has a claim upon us until he makes himself so disagreeable that we cannot help ourselves. I do not think that is a strong case. We do think there is a great danger at least of many of these people being deprived of their employment. We do not believe that there will be any great expenditure of money unless there is a wholesale discharge of teachers. If there is that wholesale discharge, they have a claim upon us. The mere fact that some form of compensation, however small, had to be given, 141 would make it less likely that these men should be dismissed on trivial grounds. All that we ask is that the right hon. Gentleman should give it consideration, but not in the way in which he considers other things. As he pointed out, his method is to consider them constantly and whenever the Clause is passed to forget all about them.
§ Mr. BIRRELLWhen have I done so?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe right hon. Gentleman said he was always considering.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe case of the teachers.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI have seen no result of that consideration.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI got £100,000 for them.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI am sure that that is true. I know enough about Ireland to know that that is one of the things in which the right hon. Gentleman has been greatly interested, and that he has done his best, but then I think that that should make him more inclined to consider whether or not there might be some legitimate grievance in. the arrangement proposed, and whether or not it is the duty of this House to try, so far as it can, to protect people, who are placed in a certain position by our action, from being placed in a worse position by the action which we are now taking.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes, 279.
145| Division No. 399.] | AYES. | [7.29 p.m. |
| Aitken, Sir William Max | Fell, Arthur | Mount, William Arthur |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Newton, Harry Kotingham |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Fletcher, John Samuel | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Forster, Henry William | Nield, Herbert |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gibbs, Georgo Abraham | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gilmour, Captain J. | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Goldman, Charles Sydney | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Quilter, Sir William Eley C. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Randles, Sir John S. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Alien B. (Glouc., E.) | Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bird, Alfred | Harris, Henry Percy | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Blair, Reginald | Harrison-Broadley, H. B | Sassoon, Sir Philip |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Helmsley, Viscount | Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton) |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Boyton, James | Hoare, S. J. G | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Stanier, Beville |
| Burdett-Coutts, William | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Butcher, John George | Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Swift, Rigby |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Cassel, Felix | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Ingleby, Holcombe | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Cator, John | Jessel, Captain Herbert M. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Touche, George Alexander |
| Cave, George | Kimber, Sir Henry | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Larmor, Sir J. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport) |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo., Han. S.) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lyttelton, Hon, J. C. (Droitwich) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Croft, Henry Page | MacCaw, Wm, J. Mac Geagh | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Daiziel, Davison (Brixton) | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Younger, Sir George |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | |
| Dixon, Charles Harvey | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir P. |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton) | Magnus and Mr. H. Barrie |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Armitage, Robert | Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Arnold, Sydney | Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Guiney, Patrick | Nolan, Joseph |
| Barnes, George N. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Barton, William | Hackett, John | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Hall, F. (Yorks, (Normanton) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Hancock, John George | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O' Doherty, Philip |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George) | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | O' Donnell, Thomas |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | O' Dowd, John |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Ogden, Fred |
| Black, Arthur W. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O' Grady, James |
| Boland, John Pius | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | O' Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | O' Malley, William |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O' Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Hayden, John Patrick | O' Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Brace, William | Hayward, Evan | O' Shee, James John |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Hazleton, Richard | O' Sullivan, Timothy |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Hemmerde, Edward George | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Bryce, John Annan | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Burke. E. Haviland- | Henry, Sir Charles | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Buxton. Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Higham, John Sharp | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hinds, John | Pointer, Joseph |
| Cawley. Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood) | Hodge, John | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Hogge, James Myles | Price. C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Clough, William | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Radford, G. H. |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Reddy, M. |
| Cotton, William Francis | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Jowett. Frederick William | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Crean, Eugene | Joyce, Michael | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Crooks, William | Keating, Matthew | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln; |
| Crumley, Patrick | Kellaway, Frederick George | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Cullinan, John | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Kilbride, Denis | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | King, J. | Robinson, Sidney |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Dawes, J. A. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Rowlands, James |
| De Forest, Baron | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Delany, William | Leach, Charles | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lewis, John Herbert | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Dillon, John | Lundon, Thomas | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lynch, A. A. | Sheehy, David |
| Doris, W. | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Duffy, William J. | Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Shortt, Edward |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | McGhee, Richard | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe) |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Macpherson, James Ian | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | M' Curdy, Charles Albert | Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N.W.) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | M' Kean, John | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Sutherland, John E. |
| Falconer, J. | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Sutton, John E. |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Masterman. Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Fiench, Peter | Meagher, Michael | Tennant, Harold John |
| Field, William | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Thomas, James Henry |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Menzies, Sir Waiter | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Millar, James Duncan | Thome, William (West Ham) |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Molloy, Michael | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Gilhooly, James | Molteno, Percy Alport | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Gill, Alfred Henry | Mooney, John J. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Ginnell, Laurence | Morrell, Philip | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Morison, Hector | Wadsworth, John |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Morton, Alpheus cleophas | Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Muldoon, John | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Munro, Robert | Wardle, G. J. |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C | Waring, Walter |
| Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Whyte, Alexander F. | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wiles, Thomas | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Webb, H. | Wilkie, Alexander | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| White, J. Dundas (Tradeston) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | |
| White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
§ The CHAIRMANDoes the hon. Member for Chelsea desire to move?
§ Mr. HOAREI beg to move in Subsection (1), alter the word "Section" ["last preceding Section"], to insert the words "including teachers in model schools."
I simply move this Amendment for the purpose of asking the Chief Secretary a question. I think what he said on the previous Amendment was that the model school teachers are included in the scope of the Bill. What I want to ask him is whether they are included in Part I. or Part II. of Schedule 3?
§ Mr. BIRRELLIn Part I.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the word "remuneration" ["including conditions as to remuneration,"], and to insert, instead thereof the word "salaries."
The object of leaving out the word "remuneration" and inserting "salaries" is because the latter word is an inclusive one, while "remuneration" is not so. The object is to secure the continuance of existing conditions in regard to emoluments as well as remuneration. The word "salaries" is a wider term than "remuneration," and appears in Clause 47 as including remuneration, allowances and emoluments. By that definition we decide that the word "salaries" includes remuneration and emoluments. Many Civil servants have called attention to the point, because they were dissatisfied with the word "remuneration," and accordingly I have inserted the word "salaries."
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThe right lion. Gentleman referred to the definition of the word "salaries," but I would point out to him that in the Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend, the Member for Salisbury, the word "salary" is used. The right hon. Gentleman has put the word in the plural, and, since, he has referred to the definition Clause, may I 146 point out to him that the word in that Clause also is in the singular. There may be some Delphic reason for the difference.
§ Mr. BIRRELLNot at all. It is only a grammatical reason, because there are several offices in the Clause, and the word "salaries" appertains to each office.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI presume there will be a consequential Amendment in the definition Clause seeing that the term used there is "salary."
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo, I think not.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "or such duties as the Civil Service Committee established under this Act may declare to be analogous."
I move this Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). This Amendment bears more directly on Clause 34, but I think this is the first occasion in the Bill in which we have any mention of this tribunal which is to be set up to adjudicate upon these questions, namely, the Civil Service Committee. Unlike the case of the Joint Exchequer Board, I am not quarrelling with the setting up of a tribunal for this purpose. I say quite frankly and at once that I do not see how many of the complicated questions you have to-settle could be settled in any other way than by setting up a tribunal of this kind. I believe that when the Act of Union was passed a similar body was constituted. I am not sure, but I rather think there was a similar provision, or something similar, in the Bill of 1893. At the same time I confess I was struck by the force of the observation which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) when he was making his speech, and that was that it is rather a remarkable thing that this Board, which is being set up to decide questions which vitally affect the existence from the monetary point of view of various Civil servants, as to their status, should consist of three members of whom one is to be appointed by the Treasury, one by the Irish Govern- 147 ment, and one by the Lord Chief Justice, and that those Civil servants have no representative on it.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is not relevant to the Amendment.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONWe are in the same difficulty here, which is one of drafting, as we were in with regard to the Joint Exchequer Board. In that case we were dealing with provisions which said that the Joint Exchequer Board was to do this or that, before we set up or denned the Board. In the same way here we have to deal with what the Civil Service Committee has to do before we formally set it up. I think Civil servants might possibly feel in hard cases, which are sure to arise, that they were receiving a greater measure of justice if they had representation on the Committee. This Committee is to declare whether the duties of Civil servants are or may be described as analogous. If the right hon. Gentleman can give me a satisfactory explanation I do not want to press this Amendment to a Division, but I really do think before he asks us to pass this provision he might, at all events, give us some sort of idea as to the sort of cases which it is intended to meet. There are many cases which one might suggest where Civil servants are performing certain duties, and where they might be asked to perform other duties not quite of the same character, but something of the same character. For instance, a man in the postal service employed in the telegraph department might be transferred possibly to the Telephone Department. I should like to know whether a transfer of that kind would be described as being analogous. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to lay down any general classification at all, but I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind when he puts these words in the Bill. It is quite obvious that a Civil servant might be placed in a position of some difficulty if he were asked to perform work for which in his opinion he was not qualified, and which he did not like, and which yet was declared by the Civil Service Committee to be analogous. He would then be placed in the position of either having to do the work, which ex hypothesi he does not like, or to go. If he goes, then under the conditions of the Bill he would go under very much worse conditions than would otherwise have been the case. There is no appeal from the decisions of this body as to what is or what is not an analogous 148 service. I do not ask that there ought to be at the moment. I think it is very difficult to say that these questions of fact can be decided by any other body. I think, however, the right hon. Gentleman could at least indicate to us the sort of thing he has in his mind. If his explanation is satisfactory, then, so far as I am concerned, I should not want to press the matter to a Division.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe hon. Member has put his point very fairly. The Amendment, of course, would have the effect of stereotyping the duties of any Civil servant to those which he performed on the appointed day, which would be a little bit unreasonable. We do provide that, though the duties may not be in all cases precisely the same, the Civil servant is not to be required to discharge duties which are not similar or analogous. He has his appeal to this tribunal to determine the matter, and if the tribunal come to the conclusion that they are not similar or are not analogous, he can retire with compensation, just as if he had been dismissed. The hon. Member asks, "What do you mean by similar and by analogous?" In other words, he asks me to discharge the delicate duty which will fall on this Committee. I can quite imagine cases in which the duties would be clearly analogous. Take the case of the man doing a particular kind of duty, say fixing of rents, and then by some readjustment of the duties of the office he is not only required to fix fair rents, but possibly he has to come to some decision or to examine some titles relative to the land. I should have thought if, on reference to his qualifications, it appeared that he had been chosen as a legal gentleman, there would be nothing unanalogous or dissimilar in asking him possibly to enlarge the scope of his duties in that particular way. If, on the other hand, being a legal gentleman and qualified to deal with questions of title and so on, he were asked to discharge duties of a non-legal character, which would require an expert in agriculture, or somebody who was competent to go on an estate and to assess its value, then I should say he would be reasonably and properly entitled to say that those duties were not analogous or similar, that they did not- fit in with his training, and that it would be sending him to school again to learn his business. I cannot pretend in exact language to say what is an analogous duty, but I should imagine there would be no more difficulty 149 in deciding that than there is now. Duties are pretty nicely differentiated nowadays. The duties of a parlourmaid are different from those of a housemaid. They know and appreciate what those differences are, and people know what it would be to be called on to discharge duties outside their particular professions or callings. I think that is the sort of thing we have in view. I cannot get much nearer to it. In one sense it would be a matter for deciding whether the duties are of a kind that the person with his training and qualifications can easily assume without in any way imposing a burden upon him by the acquisition of new qualifications.
§ Mr. HUGH BARRIEI wonder why the Government draftsman, in dealing with this Clause, did not go back to the words of the previous Bill, "perform the same duties or duties of a similar rank."
§ Mr. BIRRELLI do not like the word "rank."
§ Mr. BARRIEYou might have a case, say in the Post Office, where an assistant has been for many years in charge of counter work and where he might be transferred to the telephone service, which might involve great hardship. If that applies as regards the Post Office it applies with even greater force to duties of the great Departments in Dublin, where you might perhaps find Civil servants called upon to perform duties in connection with the Land Commission. You might have people in the Customs after years of service suddenly relegated to the Land Commission, and by that very great hardship would be involved. Perhaps it is not too late to press on the Chief Secretary to reconsider whether better words might not be brought in.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELLI desire to make one suggestion which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may accept, and we may pass on. The only objection I have to the words proposed to be left out is the use of that curious word "declare." You say, "such duties as the Civil Service Committee established under this Act may declare to be analogous." I would suggest the word "determine." It should be a judicial matter, involving the exercise of discretion.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI will accept that and move it as an Amendment.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI have to thank the right hon. Gentleman. I do not press my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
§ Amendment made: in Sub-section (1) leave out the word "declare" ["may declare to be analogous"], and insert instead thereof the word "determine." — [Mr. Birrell.]
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words, "If this Act had not passed," to insert the words, "Provided that if an existing officer agrees with the Irish Government to accept a salary less than that which he is receiving at the passing of this Act, he shall retain his rights as an existing officer under the Act, and his pension when he ultimately retires shall be calculated on the amount of his salary as it stood before it was reduced by the Irish Government."
8.0 P.M.
There is only one point involved in this Amendment. Supposing that a Civil servant after the passing of the Rill agrees with the Irish Government to a reduction of salary; for instance, if he has been getting £500 a year and he agrees with the Government to accept £400 a year: the point of the Amendment is that ha should not on that account lose his right to a pension on retirement. It is quite conceivable that if he accepted a reduction of salary it might be said that he put himself outside the four corners of the Bill and rescinded the original contract between the Government and himself as a Civil servant.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI am sorry that the hon. Member did not put the Amendment on the Paper and that therefore I have not, been able to consider it. Personally, I should not have thought there was any need for the Amendment. If there is an agreement between the parties they can incorporate in their bargain the new terms which the hon. Member desires to put into the Act of Parliament. It seems to mc that it is a little out of place in an Act of Parliament to contemplate an agreement between A and B and to say that it shall be a condition of this outside bargain, the contents of which we do not know, that the man shall be entitled to a pension. Moreover, it is possible that the Amendment might work a certain amount of hardship.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONIt is quite possible that, although there may be an agreement with the Irish Government, the reduction of salary may be practically 151 forced upon the Civil servant. He may find that his situation is impossible unless he consents to accept a reduction of salary, and I feel that in that ease the pension to which he would have been entitled ought to be secured to him under the Hill.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI do not see how he can be forced in any sense of the word. If he docs not want to go on he can retire under the terms provided in the Bill.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONThis is not an Amendment out of my own head. It has been put down at the request of a very distinguished Civil servant, and a large section of the Civil servants of Ireland are in favour of it.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI had not heard of it before, and as it was only handed in at the last moment I have had no opportunity of considering it. I am perfectly willing to consider it on Report if there is anything in it, but I do not think there is. I am afraid, however, that it involves an increased charge.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThe increased charge, if any, would be not on the British taxpayer, but on the Irish Government. So far as I can see, it would be perfectly possible under the Rules of Order to impose on Report an extra charge on the Irish Government, though it would not be possible to impose an extra charge on the British taxpayer.
§ Mr. BIRRELLIf it is possible I will consider it.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI am glad to hear it, because I think there is something in the case. The right hon. Gentleman is a little hard on my hon. Friend when he complains that Amendments are put down at a moment's notice. I have never known an important Bill in connection with which so few manuscript Amendments were handed in during the Committee stage. As a matter of fact, if anybody has put down Amendments at a moment's notice it is the right hon. Gentleman himself. Every day the Paper is flooded with Amendments, and at this moment there are standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman on a subsequent Clause Amendments which are mutually inconsistent one with another, and which appeared on the Paper at the same moment. As I say, I think my hon. Friend has made out a case. I do not think it is extremely likely to occur, but judging from 152 what happened in South Africa it is quite possible. I hope that if an opportunity offers on Report the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter. If it turns out to-be a point of substance, I think it is quite possible by the exercise of a little ingenuity to meet it without imposing an extra charge on the Irish Government. If the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that if possible the point shall be met on Report, I think my hon. Friend will be satisfied.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI do not want to give the hon. Member the idea that his Amendment commends itself to my mind. It does not though it may be that on consideration, if I am placed in communication with the distinguished public servant who thinks the Amendment is desirable, my opinion may be altered. If so, I will do my best.
Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry)It does not appear to me that any extra burden will be imposed either upon the British or the Irish taxpayer. A case might certainly arise in which it would be very desirable that there should be no doubt as to the status of the official who had accepted a lower salary. It might be suggested to him that if he did not moderate his salary he would not get promotion or something of that kind, and once his contract was broken it might be said that he was outside the provisions of the Act. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will give more than a perfunctory consideration to the matter.
§ The CHAIRMANDoes the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do. If he can pledge himself that he will carefully consider the matter, and that we shall have an opportunity of dealing with it on Report, I will not press the Amendment.
§ Mr. BIRRELLT cannot give an undertaking. I cannot guarantee that this particular Amendment shall come on on Report. What I will undertake is that between now and Report I will give it such consideration as I can, but I want time to consider it; that is all.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words: 153
Provided that notwithstanding the provision hereinbefore contained as to the tenure, of existing Irish officers any existing Irish officer who at the time of the passing of this Act is removable from his office by His Majesty, or by the Chief Secretary, or by any person other than the Lord Lieutenant, or in any special manner, may be removed from his office after the passing of this Act by the Lord Lieutenant.The object of this Amendment is to delete the Sub-section under which in future the power of removal in respect of Irish officers is to be taken out of the hands in which it is vested at present and placed in those of the Lord Lieutenant. This is a very important matter, because it raises the whole question of the future status of Irish officers. It is quite clear from the terms of the Clause that Irish officers at present are removable as to some by the King, as to some by the Chief Secretary, and as to some by persons other than the Lord Lieutenant. The effect of this Amendment would be, I take it, to leave the power of removal in future in the hands of the Civil Service Committee, because in Clause 36 (2) these words occur:—If any question arises whether an officer is an Trish officer as so defined, or otherwise as to any claim or right of an officer under the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers, that question shall be determined by the Civil Service Committee.My reading of that Sub-section is that the question whether or not a man should be removed from his office would certainly involve a question of his claim or right which it would be for the Civil Service Committee to determine. But I am not very much concerned as to that. I do not very much care whether the power of removal remains in the hands in which it is at present or whether it is put into the hands of the Civil Service Committee. What I am concerned to provide is that the power of removal shall not in the future be put into the hands of a purely political officer. I am in a little doubt myself as to what the position of the Lord Lieutenant in future is to be. On Thursday last the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made one of his passing incursions into the Debate, incidentally told us, in simple English, that he anticipated that in future the Lord Lieutenant would be a political partisan. A short time afterwards the Prime Minister also making an unusual incursion into the Debate, told us that the one thing the Gov- 154 ernment desired to guard against was that the Lord Lieutenant should be a partisan, and he even accepted an Amendment to provide against such an utter disaster. We are therefore in some doubt as to what the position of the Lord Lieutenant will be. The one thing we do know is that he is to act on the advice of his Executive; that is to say, the Ministry of the day are to advise the Lord Lieutenant, who will act according to the majority in the Irish Parliament. What will be the result of that? You are providing very fairly in the earlier part of Clause 33. You are going as little as possible to affect in the future the position of existing Civil servants. You safeguard their duties, their remuneration, and you safeguard that in the future they are not to receive any smaller remuneration, than at the present time. Both the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford have showered pæans of praise upon distinguished officers in Ireland, and vied with each other in their desire for the future; but you are going to make them removable by a purely political vote! Is that right? It is difficult to raise questions of this kind in the hearing of Nationalists representatives, because we are told that it is so offensive to Ireland. I never think that is a very just criticism, because the conditions under which this Lord Lieutenant is going to carry on his work, indeed under which the Irish Parliament is going to exist, are wholly different from the conditions in any Parliament in the civilised world.There is no record in history of giving self-government to a country and initiating a Parliament under circumstances such as that which obtains in Ireland, for you have there the violent opposition of a considerable section of people to your scheme. Therefore, the conditions are so dissimilar that Irish Members ought not to throw it in our teeth that we are offensive to suggest that this purely political power which is going to lie in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant in future threatens the existence of the Irish officer. I press this Amendment upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I suggest to him that if he is, as I am sure he is, bonâ fide in his desire to protect these people, the terms of office under which they have got their work should be left as they are at the present time. These officers have been appointed under certain conditions, one of which is that they are only removable in one case by the right hon. 155 Gentleman himself, in another case by the Lord Lieutenant, and in the third case by some other dignitary of Ireland. That being so, if you are going really not to prejudice them in the future, leave the power of removal in the hands where it is now; or if that does not satisfy, then at any rate let it be under the Sub-section which I have read, vested in the hands of a Committee which you are setting up. One thing you ought not to do, if you really intend to deal fairly by these people; that is to alter the terms of their removal from their appointment, and place this most drastic and fatal power in the hands of an officer who will act upon a purely political vote in the House of Parliament which might unfortunately be antagonistic to the officer and all his class.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI cannot accept this Amendment. The proviso which the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to omit is to the effect that every existing officer at the time of the passing of the Act, and removable from his office by His Majesty or Chief Secretary, may be removed from his place, after that date, by the Lord Lieutenant. I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that all these persons hold their office at pleasure. For example, take one of the cases referred to. The Vice-President of the Local Government Board, Sir Henry Robinson, is removable by the President. The President of the Local Government Board, in the Irish Cabinet, is the President of a Board which is one of the most important Boards in Ireland, having great work in connection with rural and municipal institutions. That the Vice-President of that Board should be removable, not by his chief, not by the authority of Parliament, but by these three gentlemen who have been referred to, and who have been set up not to exercise power in high political matters of that sort, but simply to determine certain questions of compensation, salary, duties, and the like, which they can very properly discharge, is not to be thought of. It seems to me to be involving the whole question, which I do not want to go into, of Home Rule. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not shrink from that. He deliberately mentioned these persons—not that they are very numerous. There is the Vice-President of the Local Government Board, the Commissioners of the Local Government Board, the members of the Con- 156 gested Districts Board, and persons of that sort, who were not appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. Some of them—not many—were appointed by me in my capacity as President of the Local Government Board. These are the officers who are aimed at by this Clause. I say they must be transferred to the Irish Government. It is part and parcel of the Irish Government, or any Government, that officers of this kind should hold their offices at pleasure, and in such Departments of the State that they should be subject to the control of their chiefs. The idea of interfering with them is one which very seldom occurs, and I do not think that people of that kind need be under any misapprehension that their chiefs will be anxious to use the power in their hands. But the power ought not to be in the hands of any third party. I think, therefore, that this proviso is absolutely essential, having regard to the changes that we contemplate in the Irish Government. It is all very well at present to have this threefold power—the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, and the Crown—but the moment you hand over to the Irish Parliament control of its own affairs, and place subject to Parliamentary control Parliamentary questions, to my mind it goes without saying that, whatever the difficulties appear to be, you must face them and allow the appointments made— to subordinate offices all the same—to be taken away from the persons mentioned, and to be given to the Lord Lieutenant as the responsible head of the Executive Government.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept the Amendment. I do not know whether I quite correctly gathered that the object of this Amendment is to transfer the dismissal of these people from the Lord Lieutenant to the Civil Service Committee, or rather from His Majesty and the Chief Secretary, to the Civil Service Committee in place of the Lord Lieutenant. If that be the object of my hon. and learned Friend, I say frankly that I do not agree with him.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSWhat I desire is to leave the power in the hands where it is now.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI am glad my hon. Friend has explained it, because I would not have agreed with him if his proposal had been to transfer the dismissal of these people from His Majesty and the 157 Secretary of Suite to a body of three. I quite agree with the Chief Secretary that that would be very undesirable, but I gather from my hon. and learned Friend that that is not his view, and therefore I agree with him most emphatically it is very undesirable to make this transfer of power in this particular Clause. I do not refer to officials appointed by His Majesty. It does not appear to me to be of vital importance so far as the constitutional question is concerned as to whether removal is exercised directly by His Majesty or through His Majesty acting through the Lord Lieutenant. But what strikes me as a constitutional proposal of the first importance is the proposal you are making to take the power of removal, which at present resides in the Chief Secretary, and to transfer that to the Lord Lieutenant. I ask the Committee to realise that this is really a big constitutional question, because the Chief Secretary is a man who, in popular language, we can take and hang in this House. Strictly speaking, the Lord Lieutenant cannot be touched in this House; that is a well-known practice, and lion. Members interested in the matter will find in the eleventh edition of Erskinc May, which says that—
Unless a discussion is based upon a substantive Motion drawn in proper terms—Of course that means one of the ordinary. Motions which a private Member is at liberty to place upon the Order Paper, and that could only be discussed if the private Member was fortunate enough to prevail upon the Government to give a day for the discussion. In my experience the Government never do give a day for the discussion of such Motions. Therefore "a substantive Motion drawn in proper terms" is entirely illusory.Unless a discussion is based upon a substantive Motion, reflections must not be cast in debate either on the Heir to the Throne or members of the Royal family, the Viceroy and Governor-General of India, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means. Members of cither House of Parliament, or judges of the Supreme Courts.Hon. Members know that that rule in regard to Members of Parliament is more honoured in the breach than in the observance, but it is adhered to with regard to the Lord Lieutenant, and I think you, Mr. Maclean, ruled against me the other day, when I was making some reference to the Lord Lieutenant in his official position, and told me it was not in order to question the act of the Lord Lieutenant in any way. If that is so, it is really rather a serious matter that the removal 158 of these officials should be taken out of the hands of the Chief Secretary, who is responsible, and placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, who, as my hon. Friend said, may be a political partisan, but whose conduct cannot be impugned in this House. You may say you could raise it on the Lord Lieutenant's salary, but there again that supposition is wrong, because the Lord Lieutenant's salary never comes before this House. There is an expenditure for the Lord Lieutenant's household, a paltry sum, which includes the Lord Lieutenant's chaplain and various subordinate officers. I do not think it would affect the Lord Lieutenant enormously if Parliament by way of protest did stop that sum. It is nothing in comparison with the salary of the Lord Lieutenant. You cannot question the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant upon the question of his salary, because it comes upon the Consolidated Fund and is not part of the votes of this House. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that while I am prepared to agree, so far as I am concerned, that with regard to people removable from office by His Majesty it does not make much difference whether you remove them directly or indirectly through the Lord Lieutenant, I do think there is an important change made by taking away this power of removal from the Chief Secretary and giving it. to the Lord Lieutenant. The Chief Secretary is a man whose conduct we can question and criticise, and who, if we believe to be wrong, we can control. The Lord Lieutenant is a person whose conduct we cannot criticise; he cannot be controlled by any other means than that of a substantive Motion, which depends upon the Government of the day whose nominee he is, and whose partisan he is. It is in the power of the Ministry to prevent us questioning the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant in these matters. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will be accepted.
Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry)I think, having regard to what the Chief Secretary said, the Committee ought not to resist this Amendment. The Chief Secretary said that the class of officers referred to are officers removable at pleasure. If you consider that, you will find that the only protection these officers have it the protection in the person who has power to remove them. You provide that for other officers they should be treated exactly in the same way in the future as in the past 159 but the officers here are merely removable at pleasure, and such officers have protection in the fact that the persons who had power to remove them at pleasure are persons in whom they could trust. Remember you are dealing here with existing officers removable at pleasure, not with future officers, and whether they like it or not, you transfer those existing officers from that position of security which they believe they enjoy and you place them under a new power or authority which is to have power to remove them. How is that new power and that new person to act? The Lord Lieutenant in future will act upon the advice of the Executive Council and the Executive Council will be the Ministers in Ireland. The gentlemen who are at present in office removable at the pleasure of His Majesty or the Chief Secretary entered upon that service upon the condition that that power of removal would continue to be vested in His Majesty or the Chief Secretary, as the case may be. You now create a new body of persons and you hand over to them that absolute power. I do not understand why that should be done in regard to existing officers. It may be that when this Bill becomes an Act that at some future time the vested interest of those gentlemen who hold these offices will have ceased and that new persons are to be appointed who may come in with full knowledge, but they are to be subjected to removal by or on the advice of the Executive Government. That is a different matter. I think this House have always endeavoured, whether it has succeeded or not is another matter, to be careful not to interfere with vested interests or with the position of persons who may have reasonably anticipated that their position would be preserved and continued, and all that is suggested by the Amendment here is that those gentlemen—existing officers removable at pleasure—should remain in the same position as when they entered into service, namely, that that power should remain vested in the Sovereign or the Chief Secretary, as they had every reason to anticipate it would.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELPerhaps I may be allowed to say a few words now in further explanation of the absolute necessity of this proviso which it is proposed to leave out. Clause 33, in the first Subsection, says —
Irish officers in the Civil Service of the Crown, who are not provided for under the last preceding Section and are 160 on the appointed day serving as Irish officers, shall after that day continue to hold their offices by the same tenure and upon the same terms and conditions as theretofore.Consequently if it became necessary, unfortunately, to dismiss an officer of the Irish Government guilty of some misconduct, he could only be dismissed by the same authority as now has the power to dismiss him. Take the case of a postman in Ireland guilty of drunkenness. Such cases do occur, although I am happy to say they are exceedingly rare, as the Post Office staff are remarkably sober, and the proportion of dismissals from this cause is very small. Nevertheless such cases do occur sometimes, and supposing after this Bill came into operation a postman has been guilty of drunkenness on duty and after due warning it became necessary to dismiss him. Supposing this proviso were omitted, what would occur? The Postmaster-General would issue an order that the dismissed servant would no longer be required. The postman would say that by Clause 33, Section (1) of the Government of Ireland Act of 1912, "I can only be dismissed by the same authority that, had power to dismiss me before, namely, the Postmaster-General of the United Kingdom, and I appeal to him." The Postmaster-General would say that he knew nothing of the circumstances, and that it was ridiculous to appeal to him in the case of an officer over whom he has no control, and probably, as a matter of form, he would give his assent to the dismissal, while everyone would say that no more ridiculous provision was ever made in an Act of Parliament, and they could not understand why Parliament omitted this proviso.
Mr. JOHN GORDONThe Chief Secretary stated that the only officers referred to were those who were removed at the pleasure of His Majesty or the Chief Secretary, and he gave as an instance Sir Henry Robinson, the Vice-President of the Local Government Board. So far as the postman is concerned, the Postmaster-General knows ver ywell that he does not come within the persons mentioned.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI do not think the Chief Secretary said that. He mentioned the most important offices and gave two or three examples, but he did not exclude others. The hon. and learned Member has only to look at the words of the very proviso he proposes to omit, and 161 he will see that it disproves his contention. The words are:—
Provided that notwithstanding the provision hereinbefore contained as to the tenure of existing Irish officers, any existing Irish officer who at the time of the passing of this Act is removable from his office by His Majesty, or by the Chief Secretary, or by any other person other than the Lord Lieutenant.Now the Postmaster-General is a person other than the Lord Lieutenant, and an Trish postal servant would be an Irish officer within the meaning of this Bill after the Home Rule Bill comes into operation, consequently the whole purpose of this proviso is simply that any officer of an Irish Government Department is to hold his tenure at the will of the head of his Department, who would then be an Irish Minister, just as now he holds his office at the will of the head of his Department. There is this difference, that while now my supposed intoxicated person is dismissible by the Postmaster-General without any appeal, under our provision his tenure is more secure. In the first place, he can be dismissed under this proviso by the Lord Lieutenant, who will, no doubt, act upon the advice of his Minister, but he must be consulted before the dismissal takes place. But, more than that, he has an appeal which he does not now have to the Civil Service Committee, because the Trish Government has power to dismiss a man for incapacity or misconduct. But if the man says he is not guilty of misconduct, that he was wrongly charged and was not intoxicated, and that the evidence was false, and he claims his pension on the ground that while he was dismissed for misconduct he was not really guilty of misconduct. Then another question arises as to whether the claim related to an existing officer or not, and that would have to be determined by the Civil Service Committee. This man would claim his pension and gratuity on the ground that he has been wrongfully dismissed, and that is decided, not by the Irish Minister, but it may be referred to the Civil Service Committee.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI do not say they would reinstate him, but he can claim the same compensation on retirement as if ha had been dismissed. Hon. Members will quite realise that it would be absurd to omit this proviso, which would mean 162 that if these various Departments of the Irish Government have any case of dismissal, it must be dealt with, not by the head of the Department, but by the person who would have been the chief of this Department if the Home Rule Bill had not been passed into law.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI am sure we all welcome the explanation of this proviso which has been given by the Postmaster-General. The Chief Secretary indicated that this Clause was useful in dealing with a very considerable number of officers, and he gave as an illustration an officer of very high rank. Now, the Postmaster-General has taken his illustration from an officer of very humble rank. But the position of all officers, whether high or humble, deserves grave consideration by this House before they are handed over to a new system. Perhaps the Postmaster-General may be satisfied from this point of view, that what we desire is to leave the more humble officers of the State who at present enjoy his jurisdiction to him,, because we feel more confidence in him than we should feel if these men are handed over to some other officer or Postmaster-General, even though they are given the seductive opportunity of an appeal to the Civil Service Committee. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may feel a little flattered that there are public servants in Ireland who at the present time would like to remain under his jurisdiction and remain as they have been in the past. There is this particular point underlying the arguments which have been presented from this side of the House. You must always remember that in the case of the Civil Service, the State to a large extent makes a contract with the servant it employs. If the servant is employed in the higher ranks, he has the right to his salary, and in a certain time he has a pension. The same is equally true of servants who serve in a lower capacity. But in each case it is a contract, and when an applicant for the public service is deciding whether he shall enter that service or take some other course in life, one of the things he looks to is the certainty and confidence with which he can enter the public service as one of the attractions which leads him into that walk of life. This proviso vitally alters the position with regard to a number of public-servants, and it is not right that that contract should be altered and a much wider question involved, namely, the permanence of the contract between the Civil servant 163 and the State. That is the real question at issue under this proviso. Just let us see what is the difference that is made. At present officers of the State who know what Government under the Union of Great Britain and Ireland is are quite content to take service in the various Irish offices. I know the Postmaster-General regards the security and the happiness of their position under an Irish Minister to be exactly the same as at present under an English Minister, but he must recognise there are a large number of persons who will not place the same confidence in an Irish Minister hereafter as they place in an English Minister to-day. They have entered into a contract, and they are rendering duties with the security of feeling that they are under an English Minister and a United Kingdom Parliament. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they have a right to have that contract respected, and it is not right, without their consent, to hand them over to an Irish Minister and to take away what has undoubtedly been a protection to them in the past, namely, service under an English Minister.
Who is the person to have control of them? It is to be the Lord Lieutenant as advised by his Irish Ministers. It sounds very well. The Lord Lieutenant, it no doubt may be said, will be a very impartial person, but he can only act upon the advice of his Irish Ministers. So you do not get rid of the fact that you are taking away that confidence persons have when they are employed under an English Minister and handing them over to employment under an Irish Minister, which they regard as a weaker position. It is all very well to offer an appeal to the Civil Service Committee. People in the public service, whether in a high or a low position, do not look with very much confidence on an appeal. They want a decision given directly by persons responsible to this Parliament. They do not want an uncertain position with an appeal to some other tribunal. This Clause strikes at the root of the confidence of the public servants of the United Kingdom. We are breaking a contract with them, a contract they have enjoyed in the past, and without their consent Parliament ought not to hand them over to be dealt with by another person. There is really no difficulty in leaving the matter where it is. Supposing a letter-carrier unfortunately were not sober, and his case had to 164 be dealt with, there will really be no difficulty in handing the matter over to be dealt with by the Postmaster-General of the United Kingdom. Indeed, I think it will have to be dealt with by him, because, inasmuch as service was originally taken while he was in power, application will have to be made to his office to get the record of that service and to ascertain the conditions and regulations under which the man took service. The right hon. Gentleman may personally get rid of the matter, but his own officials and staff in London will be concerned just as much in the future as they have been in the past by looking up the records and getting the details of the case. It will be quite easy for the matter to be still dealt with as at present, and I see no reason whatever for passing this Clause and striking a real and serious blow at the system under which the Civil servants of the United Kingdom are employed, and. if my hon. Friend goes to a Division. I shall have much pleasure in supporting him.
§ Mr. CASSELI should like the position made clear with regard to a good many Civil servants who will be discharging duties both in connection with services which are reserved to the Imperial Parliament and in connection with services which have been transferred to the Irish Parliament. I will take the case of someone discharging ordinary duties of the Post Office and also duties in connection with the Savings Bank. Supposing that person misconducted himself in connection with his Savings Bank duties, who would dismiss him? I cannot find any provision in the Bill which makes that clear. Section 36, Sub-section (3), which appeared to me to be the Section relative to the point, provides:—
If in any case the Civil Service Committee are of opinion that the service or employment of an officer is such that he is partly an Irish officer and partly not, that Committee shall determine any question which arises as respects the proportions in which any allowance, gratuity, or compensation payable to that officer is to be paid as between the Exchequer or Consolidated Fund of Ireland and of the United Kingdom respectively.That appears to me to deal simply with the question of allowances, gratuities, and compensation. It does not follow at all that it deals with the question who has the right of dismissal in the case of those 165 officers. I imagine this is not a matter of an isolated case here and there. There will be hundreds and thousands of officials who will at the same time be discharging reserved duties in the strict sense of the word—duties altogether excluded from the Irish Parliament—and duties which have been transferred to the Irish Parliament. It may be I have missed some Sub-section in the Bill which deals with the case, but I do not for the moment see it, and I would ask the Postmaster-General to tell us exactly what the position is with regard to those persons: first of all, whose misconduct is in connection with a matter which is reserved to the Imperial Parliament. Would they be dismissed by the Lord Lieutenant, or would they be dismissed by the officer by whom they could previously have been dismissed? Would it still be the Postmaster-General if the misconduct on the part of the officer took place in connection with the Savings Bank. I take that merely as an illustration. There must be numerous cases which could be given, and T should like to have the matter cleared up.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe hon. and learned Member by dint of long practice has become apt in putting conundrums, and the further we advance the more subtle his conundrums appear. He puts the case of an officer discharging duties in connection with a reserved service and in connection with a transferred service at the same time, and suggests that one portion of him might be dismissed while the other portion of him might continue in office. The question might appear as difficult as the one with which Solomon had to deal when two women claimed the same child; but, as a matter of fact, the case will not occur, and, even if it did occur, there are means of dealing with it in the Bill. In the first place, the illustration is not one which applies, because an officer of the Post Office who is doing Savings Bank work one minute, the Savings Bank being a reserve service, and postal work the next minute, the postal work being an Irish service, is not quâ Savings Bank in the employ of the Imperial Government at all. The Postmaster-General will have nothing to say either to the appointment or to the dismissal or to any of the conditions of service of Irish postal clerks on the ground that they are part of their time doing Savings Bank work. The matter will be dealt with by the two Departments by arrangement between them under Clause 44. The Postmaster-General of the United 166 Kingdom will arrange with the Postmaster-General of Ireland that the ordinary Savings Bank work shall be done by the Irish Post Office as a Post Office in such and such a way, under such and such conditions, and for such and such terms. The Post Office of Ireland will undertake the Savings Bank work, while the management and control of the Savings Bank will remain in the hands of the Comptroller of the Savings Bank at West Kensington, with possibly a branch in Ireland. Therefore the postal clerk in Ireland will be simply in the employment of the Irish Postmaster-General, and will be dismissed by him. If some other postal clerk takes his place another postal clerk will do the work of the Savings Bank, and the Postmaster-General will have nothing to say. It is not a question of thousands of persons who may have a double capacity—being both Imperial and local officers—but it will be an exceedingly small number, if any. There maybe some. Certain officers in the Land Department may, possibly, after the Act has been passed, have to do some work under the Land Purchase Act, and some work under the Land Acts transferred to the Irish Parliament. I think it is improbable, because the Land Commission will in all probability divide itself into two departments, according to the division of functions made under this Bill. It is conceivable, however, that an officer may be at one and the same time, in a few individual cases, doing both Imperial and Irish local work, and, in that case, if there were any doubts as to whether or not he was dismissible by one Minister or another, the question would arise under Clause 36, and the matter would be dealt with by the Civil Service Committee.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIGAs a North of Ireland representative I look on this from the point of view of friends of my own—I do not mean personal friends—people who come from the part of the country from which I come, and who are supposed, if they have any politics at all, to have Unionist politics. These people, I am afraid, would, under the powers given to a Lord Lieutenant, appointed by a Radical Government, which naturally would appoint a nominee of its own to act as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, be placed in an unfair position. We know that the Radical party at the present time do exactly what the Nationalists tell them to do, not only with regard to Ireland, but with regard to other matters. We know, therefore, that if 167 for any reason the Government in Ireland is dissatisfied with the conduct or work of any of the officers included in this scheme, or if, for any reason, they desire to get rid of them, they have only to express a desire to the Lord Lieutenant, and it is very improbable indeed that the Lord Lieutenant, if he is given these very sweeping powers, will fail to comply with their wishes. Therefore we submit this Amendment in the interest of any person who comes within the purview of this Section, and whose services it may be desired to dispense with, at a time when the Lord Lieutenant is amenable to the wishes of the Irish Parliament and of a Radical Government in this country. We do not trust our fellow countrymen under a Home Rule Bill. But it is not necessary for me to consider the matter from that point of view. I need not suggest that they would desire to do anything unfair. But suppose they desired to cut down some of these Departments—suppose it be said, and it may be truly said, that economies can best be effected in a certain public Department by cutting down the officers at the top instead of those at the bottom. It has often been said—I do not agree with it—that many of these superior officers have very little to do, and that the real work is done by the humbler members of the staff. It has been said that in many Departments two or three of the superior officers could be dispensed with. That is a statement often made by hon. Members below the Gangway when asked how economies are to be effected. The fact remains that they only have to say, when they desire to get rid of certain officials, that they consider, under the altered circumstances, their services are no longer necessary, and that the work they do can be equally well done by subordinates, and the result will be that the Lord Lieutenant will be unable, or unwilling at any rate, to say it is not so. We shall then have this position, that men who have been in the service for twenty, thirty, or more years, who were appointed on certain fixed and known conditions, and the condition of whose appointment was that so long as they behaved themselves and did their duty properly they would remain officers of the King, will be liable to dismissal by a Lord Lieutenant, who may take his orders from a Radical Government, and may say to these men, without being able to adduce one single instance of dereliction of duty on their 168 part, that, for certain reasons, he is determined to dispense with their services, and they must therefore give up their posts. I say that is absolutely unfair. Every one of these officers has accepted a position in the Civil Service in Ireland under certain definite conditions, and, even if it costs this country or the Home Rule Government an extra payment, we are in honour bound to see that they receive the utmost consideration during the remainder of their term of service and get as good treatment and remuneration for their work as they have done up to the present. I shall most certainly vote for this Amendment. I do not claim that, in all its technicalities, it is correct. I admit that the Postmaster-General has succeeded in picking holes in it, but the principle underlying it is absolutely sound, and I think the Government ought to give us at least a pledge that they will bring up some words on the Report stage which will meet these cases. This Committee, and the House of Commons, and the Government are in honour bound to see that the terms upon which these people originally accepted service are faithfully carried out.
§ Mr. HEWINSI hope that the Government will make the position a little clearer than the Postmaster-General has succeeded in doing to-night. This Amendment seems to turn very largely on what is an Irish officer? I find there is a definition at the end of the Bill which says that the term "office" includes "any place, situation or employment, and the expression 'officer' shall be construed accordingly." I suppose we might, by introducing the word "Irish," define what is an Irish office and an Irish officer on those lines.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELClause 36, Section 1, deals with that.
§ Mr. HEWINSI am coming to that. An Irish officer is clearly a man discharging an Irish service. The determination of what is Irish service, if I may judge from what the Postmaster-General said, rests with two bodies: first there is an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and, secondly, the Civil Service Committee, and the decisions of the latter body are to be final and conclusive. But if you decide what is an Irish service, you must decide also what is an Irish officer.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe Civil Service Committee has nothing to do with deciding what is an Irish service.
§ Mr. HEWINSI know that. As the light hon. Gentleman says the Civil Service Committee is to determine whether it is an Irish office. I say than an Irish officer is obviously a person discharging an Irish service. The body which decide what is an Irish service is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There is no appeal provided for from the Civil Service Committee to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman where we are? Who is to decide the matter? Supposing my reading of the Bill is correct, I ask the Postmaster-General whether he wants this proviso in at all. What is the use of it? We have already, in Clause 4, dealt with the Lord Lieutenant and the Executive power. The Lord Lieutenant is only exercising functions delegated to him by His Majesty. When you hand over to the Irish Government certain Irish services, you clearly hand over to that Government, and to the head of that Government, the Lord Lieutenant, the powers delegated to him by His Majesty under this Bill. It therefore seems to me that you do not require the proviso at all. I am always amazed at the constitutional theories underlying the expressions of the Government. I confess I do not like the drafting of this proviso; I do not like the expression
by His Majesty, or by the Chief Secretary, or by any person other than the Lord Lieutenant, or in any special manner.Who is the Lord Lieutenant? Is he not a Minister of His Majesty? He does not exercise any authority of his own, and he is not a separate isolated person exercising special functions and powers. All the powers he exercises are derived from one source. If you have the proviso at all it is quite enough to say "by His Majesty," and then go on to deal with the Lord Lieutenant. You do not want the words "by the Chief Secretary or by any person other than." I very much dislike this method of drafting, and I cannot help thinking that if the Government—I suppose they have consulted the Law Officers of the Crown— had had a little more consultation they could have made the proviso more in accordance with the constitutional usages and the constitutional doctrines under which we live. If I may say so, the Chief Secretary is nobody, except so far as he derives certain powers from, the functions imposed upon him.
§ Mr. BIRRELLHe is in a good many Statutes.
§ Mr. HEWINSThe fact that mistakes have been made in other Statutes is no reason why you should now add another to them. I maintain that the proviso is not necessary at all, or, if you must have it, that you should redraft it so that there should in no case be a conflict in the functions you are assigning to the Judicial Committee and those you are assigning to the Civil Service Committee.
§ Mr. CASSELI do not think the Postmaster-General has met the point I made. The difficulty to which I alluded was the case of an officer in a dual capacity, partly dealing with an Irish service and partly with an Imperial service. The right hon. Gentleman himself gave an instance of a person dealing with land purchase and the other branches of the Land Commission. In the case of that officer the right hon. Gentleman said that the question by whom he was dismissible would be determined under Clause 36, Sub-section (2). The Civil Service Committee have no power under that Sub-section to deal with the question, because it is obviously clear that so far as he is dealing with land purchase he is not an Irish officer. The only question they can deal with under Sub-section (2) is whether or not he is an Irish officer. If any question arises whether an officer is properly so denned they can deal with it. There is no question of that kind in this case, because it is clear that in so far as he is dealing with land purchase he is not an Irish but an Imperial officer. There is nothing in the Bill, notwithstanding all that the Postmaster-General has said, that makes it clear to my mind what is the position of the person who is in that dual capacity. I should like to emphasise the argument that you are leaving the Civil Service Committee to deal with, and making their decision final and conclusive upon the same question which, in another part of the Bill, you have referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I think we are entitled on these grounds to a more satisfactory explanation from the Government. The Postmaster-General says that this will apply to a few isolated cases. I venture to think it will be more than a few. Even if the cases are few, it will be very important to the persons concerned. The matter is now in a state of hopeless confusion and fog. Further explanation is certainly required. We have elicited that in the view of the Government, so far as these services which are reserved to the Imperial Parliament are 171 concerned, the power of dismissal will rest, not with the Imperial Government, but with the Irish Government. That is a very important fact. The right hon. Gentleman stated that in regard to the Savings Bank, although that is reserved to the Imperial Parliament, the power of dismissal of the officer will not rest with the Imperial Parliament.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELNot Savings Bank officers, but postal servants who incidentally do Savings Bank work, acting as agents for the Savings Bank Department.
§ Mr. CASSELIn some cases the Imperial service may be the most important part of the Irish work. Take the case of land purchase and other branches of the Land Commission. It may be that the Irish service is incidental to the Imperial service, just as an Imperial service may be incidental to an Irish service. We have now a statement from the Government, even with regard to an Imperial service and a reserved service, that officers dealing with them can be dismissed not by the Imperial Government, but by the Irish Government. If that is the view of the Government it is an important admission, and one of which we ought to take notice. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, before we go to a Division, to clear this matter up.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSONI am very pleased to have an opportunity of speaking to a full House, because I have noticed during the last hour that there were about ten Members present on the Government side. [HON. MEMBERS: "There were only six on yours; there are only ten now."]
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSONI only said I was glad to have an opportunity of addressing a full House. I think, having regard to the importance of the question, and considering it from the point of view of the number of speeches delivered by Cabinet Ministers, it was at least worthy of consideration. As a matter of drafting, I cannot understand what is the meaning of the proviso. It says:—
Provided that not withstanding the provision hereinbefore contained as to the tenure of existing Irish officers any existing Irish officer who at the time of 172 the passing of this Act is removable from his office by His Majesty, or by the Chief Secretary, or by any person other than the Lord Lieutenant, or in any special manner, may be removed from his office after the passing of this Act by the Lord Lieutenant.Honestly, I do not know what that means. It may have some occult meaning in Irish legislation, and the Chief Secretary no doubt appreciates its value, but the Committee ought to know what "in any special manner" means? I also do not understand where the proviso says, any existing officer may be removed by any person other than the Lord Lieutenant. Certainly on the point of drafting, and understanding the proviso, we ought to have some understanding about it.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThere are a variety of ways in which a number of these persons are appointed. Some are appointed by the King, some by Statute, some by the person for the time being in the office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, some by the Lord Lieutenant, and some by Order in Council, and I have no doubt the words, "or in any special manner" have reference to that mode of appointment. There may possibly be some other mode of appointment. I know not.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSONThat is provided for already. What I want to know is, what is the meaning of the words, "or in any special manner."
§ Mr. BIRRELLBy Order in Council. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then say so."] It may be there is some other mode.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI wish the right hon. Gentleman to state what will be the position of a very worthy class who have been subjected to very undue obloquy in the past. I refer to the resident magistrates. When I first took an interest in politics I used to find the Liberal papers of the day full of attacks upon these gentlemen whom they designated by the name of removables. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. W. Russell) was foremost in their support and defence in those days. I should not be surprised if the pamphlets which were issued under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman in former times did not also contain references in the nature of obloquy to these gentlemen. I would ask the Chief Secretary whether they will be removable at the pleasure of the Government in future, because I am not at all certain that they will not enter upon 173 their duties under the new Government with a good deal of suspicion attaching to them. Many of them are men who have served the public very well for a great period of years, and I am sure it will be a satisfaction to all those who have appreciated their efforts and who wish the Irish Government to start with a fair field before it, to know that no injustice would be done to these very worthy public servants. I would ask the Chief Secretary to state what their position will be.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI have already answered that question. They are Civil servants, and will be entitled to protection.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThey will be entitled, I understand, to the same terms as the other Civil servants, but will they be removable by the Irish Executive?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThey cannot be more removable than they are now.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEWill the Irish Government have the same power of removing them as the Imperial Government has had?
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 90.
175| Division No. 400.] | AYES. | [9.20 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts; Cricklade) |
| Ailen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Falconer, James | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Armitage, Robert | Farrell, James Patrick | Leach, Charles |
| Arnold, Sydney | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Ffrench, Peter | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Barnes, G. N. | Field, William | Lundon, Thomas |
| Barton, William | Fitzgibbon, John | Lynch, A. A. |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Gilhooly, James | McGhee, Richard |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Gill, Alfred Henry | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Ginnell, L. | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Black, Arthur W. | Gladstone. W. G. C. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Boland, John Pius | Glanville, Harold James | M' Callum, Sir John M. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M' Kean, John |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Goldstone, Frank | Mc Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Brace, William | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Guiney, Patrick | Martin, Joseph |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Hackett, J. | Meagher, Michael |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Hancock, John George | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Molloy, Michael |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Mooney, J. J. |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Morreli, Philip |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Morison, Hector |
| Clancy, John J. | Hayden, John Patrick | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Clough, William | Hayward, Evan | Muldoon, John |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Hazleton, Richard | Munro, Robert |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Nannettl, Joseph P. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Crawshay-Williams, William | Henry, Sir Charles | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Crean, Eugene | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Crooks, William | Higham, John Sharp | O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hinds, John | O' Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Cullinan, John | Hodge, John | O' Doherty, Philip |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hogge, James Myles | O' Donnell, Thomas |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Ogden, Fred |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Howard, Hon, Geoffrey | O' Grady, James |
| Dawes, J. A. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon Sir Rufus | O' Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Delany, William | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | O' Malley, William |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | O' Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O' Shaughnessy, P, J. |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O' Shee, James John |
| Dillon, John | Jowett, Frederick William | O' Sullivan, Timothy |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Joyce, Michael | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Doris, William | Keating, Matthew | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Duffy, William J. | Kellaway, Frederick George | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Kilbride, Denis | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | King, J. | Pointer, Joseph |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Scanlan, Thomas | Wadsworth, John |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Sheehy, David | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Sherwell, Arthur James | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Radford, G. H. | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Wardle, G. J. |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Webb, H. |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) | White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) |
| Reddy, Michael | Snowden, Philip | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Whyte, A. F. |
| Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Sutherland, J. E. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Sutton, John E. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Robinson, Sidney | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Tennant, Harold John | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Thomas, James Henry | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Rowlands, James | Toulmin, Sir George | |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Verney, Sir Harry | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Fletcher, John Samuel | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Forster, Henry William | Norton-Griffiths. J. |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Gilmour, Captain John | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Greene, Walter Raymond | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Randles, Sir John S. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Barrie, H. T. | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Bird, A. | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Boyton, James | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Stanier, Beville |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Butcher, John George | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Swift, Rigby |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hume-Williams, W. E. | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Knight, Captain E. A. | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Larmor, Sir J. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Valentia, Viscount |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Dixon, Charles Harvey | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagb | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Magnus, Sir Philip | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | |
| Fell, Arthur | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Morrison-Bell, Cant. E. F. (Ashburton) | Cassel and Mr. Rawlinson. |
Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "passing of this Act" [" may be removed from Iris office after the passing of this Act by the Lord Lieutenant"], and to insert instead thereof the words "appointed day."
This is really a drafting Amendment, the object being to provide that this new power to dismiss officers who formerly were dismissed by other authorities is not to be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant until the appointed day. That is the day the officers are to be transferred to the new Irish Government. There is no necessity for the Lord Lieutenant to exercise this power between the passing of this Act and the appointed day.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI have listened to the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that I am convinced by it. He says it is a drafting Amendment, and he gives as his reason for the alteration that it will not be necessary, in his opinion, that this Clause should become operative until the appointed day. In order to understand the Amendment one must look forward to the Amendment put-en the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman on Clause 46, which says the appointed day shall be
the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed.177 I said earlier in the afternoon that the Bill was rather complicated and not very easy to understand. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain exactly his particular object in leaving out the words, "passing of this Act," and inserting the words "appointed day." It seems to me to be almost the same thing.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI can only explain by repeating myself The date of the passing of the Act and the appointed day are two different periods of time. The appointed day is subsequent in point of time to the passing of the Act, and therefore I do not want to interfere with the existing authorities in regard to appointments until the latest possible day, namely, the appointed day when the new Irish Government takes over the duties appertaining to the new Constitution. These executive acts are postponed under Clause 46, which fixes the appointed day. But for the insertion of these words the constitutional changes which the hon. Baronet wishes to accelerate, would come into operation after the passing of the Act, but being of a more Conservative disposition I say, "No, keep things exactly as they are until the fateful moment arrives when on the appointed day the Act comes into active operation."
§ Sir F. BANBURYAs I understand, the right hon. Gentleman wants to postpone the evil day as long as possible. If it is a good thing that this power should be given to the Lord Lieutenant to dismiss these people, why should it be postponed for eight months? Taking the Sub-section as it will now read, what does the word "may" mean? Does it mean "shall"?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Baronet is not proceeding regularly in this matter.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhen will it be possible to raise it? Will it be in order later on to move, an Amendment to leave out "may" and insert "shall"?
§ The CHAIRMANYou might be able to do that if the Chief Secretary withdrew his Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment?
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThe Chief Secretary says that the effect of this Amendment is to postpone the fateful moment. The Bill says that certain things 178 are to happen on the passing of this Act. The Chief Secretary says that that is too vague and uncertain, and that it would be well to put a definite principle into the Bill. He says that the words "the passing of the Act" indicate an uncertain period. I agree that it is a very uncertain period. He desires to put in the words "the appointed day." Then we should have to put the new definitions into the Bill in order to know what the fateful moment is likely to be. If the Amendment as to the appointed day is carried, Clause 43 will be as follows: I will read the whole Clause——
§ The CHAIRMANWe cannot have that. We have had reference to that point before. When that matter was raised, I said that we must wait until that Clause comes, on. It, is based on Clause 42, and we cannot have it on this Clause.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONMay I point out that since the Bill was introduced into Committee the Government have introduced an entirely new definition of the appointed day. When we dealt with the appointed day in Section 1 the appointed day meant one day in the view of the Government. It now means an entirely different day. Therefore I submit that we are at least entitled to point this out. The right hon. Gentleman was quite in error in thinking that the appointed day is a fixed definite moment. It is not so even in terms of his own Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman quite forgets that there is also power in that Clause, to which I will not further allude, to fix any period within seven months either before or after the eighth month, and not only that, but different periods may be fixed for different portions of this Act. Therefore, I do submit that when the Committee are asked to take out the words "passing of the Act" and put in the words "appointed day," they are entitled to have some further explanation of what the Government mean by the appointed day. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to commend this Amendment on the ground that it fixes a definite point, because it does nothing of the sort.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEMay I call the attention of the Chief Secretary to what is an extremely practical point, especially in relation to these Civil servants, whose interests are affected. I ask him to say, not by exercising any special gift of prophecy, but in the course of ordinary political prescience, when the appointed day is likely 179 to be, and I trust that he will do so in the interests of these Civil servants who are specially affected by this Clause. Some persons seem to think February, 1915, and some September in that year as a likely date. It is really important in the interests of a worthy body of public servants to know what the representative of the Government, exercising his political sagacity on this point, thinks the most likely date.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI admit that it is not a very important point as points go under this Bill, but it is important for the Irish Civil servants, whose pensions and term of office will be modified by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. I see the Postmaster-General present, and would like to know what he thinks of this Amendment.
§ Captain CRAIGI wish to ask a question on one point on which I am not quite clear. The Bill refers to superannuation, other allowances or gratuities, which may become payable after the passing of the Act. Now we are told it is to be after the appointed day. I wish to know whether it is not possible——
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe hon. and gallant Member I think is referring to a further Amendment standing in my name in regard to the appointed day.
§ Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, South)I beg to move in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words,
"Provided that so far as relates to the Grant and ascertainment of the amount of any allowance or gratuity under those Acts as respects any such officer who, at the time of his ultimate retirement, is serving under the Irish Government, the Civil Service Committee shall be substituted for the Treasury."
As far as I can see the meaning of that particular paragraph is that instead of the grants, gratuities, and allowances, which are to be made on the retirement of any officer or Civil servant, being fixed by the Treasury as is usual, they are to be fixed by this new body, the Civil Service Committee. I cannot understand why this change should be made in reference to existing officers. On the preceding 180 Amendment therefore I made some observations on the point, but the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General seemed to base his entire position on the fact that the new Executive in Ireland having control of the officers ought to have this power. But we are dealing here with existing officers. The whole section, as I understand it, merely provides for the rights of existing officers. Why these existing officers should be placed under the control of a new body for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the grants, allowances, and gratuities which may be made to them upon their retirement, is more than the ordinary man can conceive. The Treasury at the time of their appointment, was the body who had to fix the amount of those grants, gratuities, and allowances. The Treasury will still exist, and what we are doing here is to give them only a third of the power that they had at the time the appointments were made, because this new body will consist of one member nominated by the Treasury, one member nominated by the Executive, which will be the Ministry in Ireland, and the other by the Lord Chief Justice of England.
I should like to understand why men who have been appointed under certain definite terms should find that when they come to retire, the grants, gratuities, and allowances should be fixed by another body altogether. I respectfully submit that that is not a good thing for the Civil Service. If you are going to have changes made in every part of the country, if you are going to have eleven or twelve different local Legislatures established throughout Great Britain and Ireland, then you will have all these Civil servants in different places coming under different bodies, who will have to determine the allowances and gratuities, whereas when they entered the service they were under the control of the Treasury, and the Treasury were to ascertain those allowances and gratuities. There is no reason why the Treasury should not continue to do so in reference to existing officers. New officers appointed will be subject to the new state of affairs; they will know perfectly well that their rights have to be submitted to a different body, and if they do not like to agree they will not enter the service. But when men are already in the service, and to continue in the service, and provision is to be made in the Bill for the purpose of protecting them, why there should not be protection in reference to gratuities and allowances, as well as 181 salaries and duties, is very difficult for an ordinary man to conceive. I think the Government should at once accept the Amendment and strike this provision out. Their doing so would do no injury to anyone, and I hope existing Civil servants will be left as they were when they entered the service, namely, under the Treasury.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThese officers whose position we are now considering are officers who, by the time they become pensionable or retire from service with a gratuity, have spent part of their service under the Imperial Government and part under the Irish Government. They are, therefore, to be allotted pensions in respect of service to both Governments, and it seems a right and proper thing that in the ascertainment of the precise amount of the pension the authority which is to determine it should be an authority which is representative of both Governments under which the officers have served. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. Gordon) has asked why we do not give the same protection to the Civil servant transferred to the Irish Government in respect of gratuities and allowances as we give in regard to salary and other remuneration. We do give him the same security and even more, for his rights under the Acts, which are mentioned in this Sub-section, are statutory rights, and the Statutes will continue to apply to him. All that is delegated to the Civil Service Committee constituted under this Bill is the ascertainment or, I may say, the calculation of the amount which is due to the Civil servant under the terms of the Statutes. In the ascertainment of that amount it seems right and proper that a body which represents not only the Imperial Government under which he used to serve, but which represents both his earlier and his later employers, should be represented. I would point out, lastly, that we are not leaving it to the Irish Executive to determine this matter. It might have been left to the Irish Treasury perhaps, but we are not doing so. We leave it to a Committee which consists of one representative of the Imperial Treasury, who naturally will treat the officer just as fairly as he would now treat the officer, and the second the representative of the Irish Government, and the third will be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England, in whose impartiality I feel certain every Civil servant in Ireland and elsewhere will have the most complete confidence. For those reasons, I suggest 182 to the Committee it is better to keep the Bill as it is.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe Postmaster-General stated that the reason for this Amendment was that the Civil servant will spend part of his time under the Irish Government and will have spent part of his time under the English Government. Under those circumstances he thinks the amount of the pension should be settled by both. There may be something in that argument, if that is really the position. It may be my stupidity, but that is not the reading that suggests itself to me. As I understand the Cluase and Sub-section, it is to provide that any Civil servant who is dismissed after the passing of this Act or after the appointed day, by the Irish Government, not on the ground of misconduct or incapacity, but for some reason known to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, either because he is a Protestant or because he is a Roman Catholic, or because he has some connection with the landlords, or is against the Nationalist movement, or has said something disrespectful of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford, or something of that sort, that then the English Government is to step in to say that under those circumstances certain compensation in the form of a pension shall be payable to that Civil servant. Under those circumstances, if I am right in so interpreting the Clause, the argument of the Postmaster-General, if I may say so very courteously, does not apply, because he will not be dismissed by a Government under whom he has been serving, but will be dismissed at once or in a very short time, not for what we consider just cause, but for some reason which is apparent to hon. Members below the Gangway who want to get rid of the Civil servant. Under those circumstances the people to whom he proposes to give the power to say what the pension or compensation is to be, are the wrong sort of people. They ought to be the people—that is the Treasury—who appointed those Civil servants. Therefore I fail to see why a Civil Service Committee should be set up. It seems to me that the only possible argument for that is that the Government are so obsessed with the idea of appointing special Committees under every possible conceivable circumstance that they are obliged to set up another Committee. Surely we have got the Treasury, which has some experience. It is quite true we are not honoured with the 183 presence of any representative of the Treasury when we are discussing whether or not certain powers ought to be left to them. It is quite possible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some other representative of the Treasury, having dined, will presently stroll in to see what is going on in the House of Commons, and if he fortunately strolls in before the guillotine falls we may have the pleasure of knowing what his opinion is on the subject. For the present we are left to the guidance of one Member of the Government. There is not even at present an Under-Secretary sitting on the Treasury Bench. We have there the Postmaster-General alone in his glory, and, with the exception of a red box, there is not a single object or person supporting the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe Chief Secretary has been here for nearly six hours.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI quite understand, but it is not our fault that we have to sit here and support the Government. Probably other Gentlemen will come in afterwards in evening dress. Under those circum stances I think we are entitled to some further explanation from the Government. There is a right hon. Gentleman opposite who is a prominent Irishman and a prominent London Member, and perhaps he can explain——
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Baronet might direct his attention to the Amendment. I should not have selected this Amendment unless I thought there was going to be a pertinent discussion on it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt is really difficult to discuss matters connected with the Treasury when we had not any Member representing the Treasury. I have been endeavouring to show that the right hon. Gentleman's answer is no answer at all, because the real meaning of the Sub-section is to prevent the Treasury, who are the people who have appointed these Civil servants, settling the pensions they are to have, and that the whole meaning of the Clause is that the English Government shall not protect those people if they are moved capriciously by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the question, and if he can show me I am wrong I will be perfectly willing to admit my error.
§ Mr. HEWINSThere is really a good deal to explain about this proviso. According to this proviso the Civil Service Committee is to determine the amount of these pensions, and they are to be deducted from the Transferred Sum. We understand that the Joint Exchequer Board is to determine the amount of the Transferred Sum. Then again the Joint Exchequer Board is to determine what are Irish offices—that is, what are Irish services. What I want the Postmaster-General to explain is the relation between the Civil Service Committee whose decisions are final and conclusive, and the Joint Exchequer Board whose decisions are final and conclusive, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to whom an appeal is permitted. We really do not know where we are at the present time, and I earnestly ask the Postmaster-General to explain.
§ Mr. LOUGHI think this proviso is altogether in favour of the arguments of hon. Members from the other side. The fact that it should be, I was going to say obstructed, but I do not want to use any offensive phrase, but the fact that this concession should be treated in this way really does not encourage my right hon. Friends to put in Clauses for the protection of Gentlemen opposite as I might say.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYProtection of us—how?
§ Mr. LOUGHI will explain. The hon. Baronet said that according to the proviso this matter was left to the Irish Treasury and the British Treasury. It is not so left. That is the whole point. It is left to one Irish and two British representatives. The strength of the British side is double that of the Irish.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI must have expressed myself wrongly, or else the right hon. Gentleman did not understand. What I said was that I would prefer to leave out the proviso, because then the matter would be left to the Treasury, which I thought was a better tribunal for the purpose.
§ Mr. LOUGHI will explain again. Instead of being left entirely to the Treasury, there are on the Committee of three two British representatives, one appointed by the Treasury and the other by the Lord Chief Justice of England—that is, two instead of the one for which the hon. Baronet asks. The w7hole object of the proviso is to give extra strength to the opinion represented by the hon. Baronet. The hon. 185 Member opposite (Mr. Hewins) wants to drag in the Joint Exchequer Board and the Privy Council.
§ Mr. HEWINSI want the Government to explain what the functions of this body are in reference to the points contained in the proviso.
§ Mr. LOUGHI was not misrepresenting the hon. Member. He mentioned the two other bodies. He wanted to widen the discussion. Might I appeal to hon. Members opposite? They have had a most courteous, full, and complete reply from my right hon. Friend.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWe have had no reply at all.
§ Mr. LOUGHAnd anything that my right hon. Friend did not say I have now added. Surely hon. Members opposite might be satisfied, and let us go on to some sensible point. There are many most interesting matters to be dealt with. We have three Clauses to discuss, and yet hon. Gentlemen opposite waste time.
§ Captain CRAIGThe right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lough) has given us a good illustration of wasting time, because not a single Member could gather anything from what he has said. It is obvious that the Treasury have all the machinery for dealing with the intricate matter involved in this proviso. A great number of the Civil servants mentioned in this Clause will possibly and probably, although serving the Irish Parliament for a few days, have been engaged in the first instance on terms laid down by the British Treasury. They may have served for years under those conditions, and have been for only a short time in the employment of the Irish Government. Yet they are not to have their service computed on the old scale by the British Treasury, but are to be immediately handed over to this Committee of three, only one of whom is a Treasury official and knows anything at all about actuarial statistics. Can anyone deny that the Treasury which has hitherto computed the various services which qualify a Civil servant for a pension, is a far preferable tribunal under the circumstances than a newly appointed body with no experience whatever on this point? The proviso does not even say that the Treasury official is to be chosen because of his fitness to deal with this point. I take it that the Committee will have other duties to perform, and the Treasury official may 186 be chosen not particularly for his ability to deal with this matter. Besides the Civil servants who may desire to retire after trying Home Rule for a few days, there will be those who have served for years and years under British control, and who desire to stay on, but who would be in the peculiar position of being transferred perhaps against their will to the Irish service, and they would be put under this Board instead of under the Treasury. In the transferred services or in the Post Office and the Customs, there, would be a large number of Civil servants really servants of the Imperial Parliament or under their jurisdiction. It would be absolutely absurd that they should run the risk of being transferred from one control to the other before they know exactly what this Board or its personnel is to be. My hon. Friend was quite right in pointing out that you cannot be too careful in carrying out your bargain with the Civil servants. It is unfair to compel them to go to a different Board to settle their retiring pensions or superannuation allowances. The Acts involved apparently cover a period of seventy-five years. They have to be known and studied by the body which undertakes the computation of the superannuation allowance. Surely even the light-hearted Chief Secretary can see, when you are dealing with matters so intricate and with matters of law which are largely controlled by precedent, that by leaving out this particular Sub-section justice will be done and no harm inflicted on anybody. Unless we get a further explanation I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIn reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough), I am not in the least objecting to the new committee qua new committee. I do not doubt that the persons appointed will form a good committee, but that is not the point. My point is that there exists at the present moment a body who understand the particular question involved, and I fail to see the object of setting up a new Committee. There must be some object. If the right hon. Gentleman could have told us what the object was I would have withdrawn my opposition if I had been satisfied, but the right hon. Gentleman did not do so. Nor did the Postmaster-General. He merely said that the Committee was necessary because the Civil servants would serve under the. Irish Government. But a great number of these people will not serve under the Irish Government. I therefore think that argument is not to the point.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt is not a question of Civil servants changing their mind. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the point. He should really give a little more attention to the Amendment. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will go to a Division, because the Amendment seems to me to be a proper one, and the answer to be one of a most perfunctory character.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSI would like to utter one word of protest as to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. We have heard it repeated more than once that we ought to be grateful for alterations
§ made in the Bill. If the Government accept an Amendment from our side, or they introduce a necessary one, we are told we should be grateful. The Amendment is just or unjust; right or wrong! It is their Bill, not our Bill. It is their duty to put forward the Bill in a proper form. If the Government Bill is so bad that some Amendment we suggest is so obvious that it has to be accepted, why should we be grateful? That seems to me to be a ridiculous proposal. We have heard it over and over again, and I hope it will not be repeated in the future.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided; Ayes,287; Noes, 156.
191| Division No. 401.] | AYES. | [10.18 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Dawes, J. A. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Addison, Dr. C. | De Forest, Baron | Henry, Sir Charles |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Delany, William | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Armitage, R. | Devlin, Joseph | Hinds, John |
| Arnold, Sydney | Dewar, Sir J. A. | Hodge, John |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Dickinson, W. H. | Hogge, James Myles |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Dillon, John | Holmes, Daniel Turner |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Donelan, Captain A. | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Doris, W. | Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Duffy, William J. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset,) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hughes, S. L. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus |
| Barton, W. | Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Falconer, J. | Jones, W. S. Glyn (T. H'mts., Stepney) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Farrell, James Patrick | Jowett, Frederick William |
| Black, Arthur W | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Joyce, Michael |
| Boland, John Pius | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Keating, M. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Ffrench, Peter | Kellaway. Frederick George |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Field, William | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Fitzgibbon, John | Kilbride, Denis |
| Brace, William | George, Rt. Hon: David Lloyd | King, J. |
| Brady, J. P. | Gilhooly, James | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon. S. Molton) |
| Brocklehurst. William B. | Gill, A. H. | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Ginnell, L. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Glanville. H. J. | Leach, Charles |
| Burke, E. Haviland. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Goldstone, Frank | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Griffith, Ellis J. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Lundon, T. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Guiney, P. | Lynch, A. A. |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Chancellor. Henry G. | Hackett, John | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | McGhee, Richard |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hancock, J. G. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Clough, William | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hardie, J. Keir | M' Callum, Sir John M. |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon, Sir J. | Harmsworth. Cecil (Luton, Beds) | M' Curdy, C. A. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Harmsworth. R. L. (Caithness-shire) | M' Kean, Jchn |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Harvey, A, G. C. (Rochdale) | McKenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Cotton, William Francis | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds. W.) | M' Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | M' Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines.,Spalding) |
| Crean, Eugene | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Manfieid, Harry |
| Crooks, William | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hayden, John Patrick | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Cullinan, J. | Hayward, Evan | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.) | Martin, J. |
| Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Meagher, Michael | Pringle, William M. R. | Sutton, John E. |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Radford, G. H. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Millar, James Duncan | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Molloy, Michael | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Thomas, James Henry |
| Mooney, J. J. | Reddy, Michael | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Morison, Hector | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Redmond, William (Clare) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Muldoon, John | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Monro, R. | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wadsworth, J. |
| Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince) |
| Nolan, Joseph | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Robinson, Sidney | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Wardle, George J. |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Waring, Walter |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| O'Donnell, Thomas | Rowlands, James | Webb, H. |
| Ogden, Fred | Rowntree, Arnold | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| O'Grady, James | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| O'Malley, William | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Samuel, J (Stockton-on-Tees) | Whyte, A. F. |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Scanlan, Thomas | Wiles, Thomas |
| O'Shee, James John | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| O'Sullivan, Timothy | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Outhwaite, R. L. | Sheehy, David | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Sherwell, Arthur James | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Parker, James (Hallifax) | Shortt, Edward | Wilson, Rt. Hon J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Snowden, P. | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Pointer, Joseph | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) | |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Sutherland, J. E. | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) |
| Aitken, Sir William Max | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Joynson-Hicks, William |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Cripps, Sir C. A. | Kerry, Earl of |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Croft, Henry Page | Kimber, Sir Henry |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Knight, Captain E. A. |
| Baird, J. L. | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Larmor, Sir J. |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Dixon, C. H. | Law, Rt. Hon. A, Bonar (Bootle) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Faber, George D. (Clapham) | Lee, Arthur Hamilton |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fell, Arthur | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) |
| Barnston, Harry | Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee |
| Barrie, H. T. | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Lyttelton, Hon. J. G. (Droitwich) |
| Bathurst. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Forster, Henry William | Macmaster, Donald |
| Beech, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gardner, Ernest | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Gibbs, G. A. | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Gilmour, Captain John | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Goldman, C. S. | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Bird, Alfred | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Blair, Reginald | Greene, Walter Raymond | Wills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Boyton, James | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) | Mount, Wiliam Arthur |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Butcher, John George | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Harris, Henry Percy | Norton-Griffiths, J. |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Cassel, Felix | Helmsley, Viscount | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Peel, Capt. R. F. |
| Cator, John | Hickman. Col. T. E. | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Pole, Carew, Sir R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hoare, S. J. G. | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Chambers, James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Randles, Sir John S. |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Houston, Rabert Paterson | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Ingleby, Holcombe | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Rolleston, Sir John | Stewart, Gershom | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Ronaldshay, Earl of | Swift, Rigby | White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport) |
| Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | Sykes, Alan John (dies., Knutsford) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Salter, Arthur Clavell | Talbot, Lord Edmund | Wood, Join (Stalybridge) |
| Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Sanders, Robert A. | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Sanderson, Lancelot | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Smith, Harold (Warrington) | Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North) | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Spear, Sir John Ward | Thynne, Lord Alexander | Younger, Sir George |
| Stanier, Beville | Touche, George Alexander | |
| Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) | Tullibardine, Marquess of | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Valentia, Viscount | Hume-Williams and Mr. Hewins. |
| Staveley-Hill, Henry |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words "passing of this Act."
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI want to make an appeal to the Government. They know perfectly well that under the Guillotine Resolution we can never discuss what the appointed day means. It has occurred here not for the first time, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in framing the Guilltone Resolution for the Report stage, to try and provide that we shall have an opportunity of discussing Clause 46, which establishes what the appointed day is.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt can be raised on Clause 42.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONBut the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to leave out the only operative part of Clause 42. I should like to know whether we shall be able to discuss the appointed day on Clause 42. I want to press upon the Government that by far the most important thing of all is the time at which this Act is going to come into operation. We have been told it will come on Clause 46, and it is obvious we shall not have any such opportunity.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI will do my best to give that opportunity.
§ Amendment put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the following words:—
(5) Where any existing Irish officer in the Civil Service of the Crown to whom the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, do not apply is on the appointed day serving as an Irish officer in a capacity which, in accordance with a condition of his employment, qualifies him for a superannuation allowance or gratuity payable otherwise than under those Acts, that condition shall after the appointed day have effect, subject to the following modifications, that is to say, any superannuation allowance or gratuity which may become payable to the officer 192 in accordance with that condition after the appointed day shall, if and so far as the fund out of which such allowances and gratuities are payable at the time of the passing of this Act is by reason of anything done or omitted after the passing of this Act not available for its payment, be charged upon and paid out of the Irish Consolidated Fund, and any powers and duties of the Treasury as to the Grant or ascertainment of the amount of the superannuation allowance or gratuity, or otherwise in connection with the condition, shall be exercised and performed by the Civil Service Committee.It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIEMAM proceeded, pursuant to the; Order of the House of the 14th October, i to put forthwith the Question necessary I to dispose of the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL(seated and covered): On a point of Order. Are hon. Members not to hear what is the Amendment?
§ The CHAIRMANCertainly. If any hon. Member desires it, I will read the Amendment when I put the Question a second time.
§ The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's silting.
§
Government Amendment made: At end I of Clause add the words—
and any terminable annuity payable in respect of the commutation of an allowance shall be payable out of the same funds as the allowance.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
194§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 178.
195| Division No. 402.] | AYES. | [10.30 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Ffrench, Peter | Mac Veagh, Jeremiah |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Field, William | M' Callum, Sir John M. |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Fitzgibbon, John | M'Curdy, C. A. |
| Allen, m. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Kean, John |
| Armitage, Robert | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Arnold, Sydney | Gilhooly. James | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Gill, A. H. | M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines.,Spalding) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Ginneil, Laurence | Manfield, Harry |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Glanville, H. J. | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Goldstone. Frank | Martin, Joseph |
| Barnes, G. N. | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Barton, w. | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Meagher, Michael |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Guiney, Patrick | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Gulland, John William | Millar, James Duncan |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Molloy, M. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hackett, J. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Black. Arthur W. | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Mooney, John J. |
| Boland, John Pius | Hancock, J. G. | Morison, Hector |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Muldoon, John |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Hardle, J. Keir | Munro, R. |
| Brace, William | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. |
| Brady, P. J. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B, | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hayden John Patrick | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Hayward, Evan | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.) | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Ogden, Fred |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Grady, James |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Chancellor, Henry G. | Henry, Sir Charles | O'Malley, William |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Higham, John Sharp | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Clough, William | Hinds, John | O'Shee, James John |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Hobhouse, Rt Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hodge, John | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Hogge, James Myles | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Holt, Richard Durning | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Crawshay-Willlams, Eliot | Hughes, S. L. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Crean, Eugene | Illingworth, Percy H. | Pointer, Joseph |
| Crooks, William | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Cullinan, John | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcilffe) | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Davies, Timothy (Louth) | Jones, W. S. Glyn (Stepney) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jowett, F. W. | Radford, G. H. |
| Dawes, J. A. | Joyce, Michael | Raff an, Peter Wilson |
| De Forest, Baron | Keating, M. | Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry |
| Delany. William | Kellaway, Frederick George | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Kilbride, Denis | Reddy, Michael |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | King, Joseph | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Dillon, John | Lambert, Richard (Cricklade) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Doneian, Captain A. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Doris, W. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Duffy, William J. | Leach, Charles | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Duncan C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, otley) | Lewis, John Herbert | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lundon, T. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lynch, A. A. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Esslemont, George Birnle | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Falconer, J. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Rowlands, James |
| Farrell, James Patrick | McGhee, Richard | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifle) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Tennant, Harold John | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P. |
| Scanlan, Thomas | Thomas, James Henry | Whyte, A. F. |
| Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Scott, A. Mac Callum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Thorne, W. (West Ham) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Sheehy, David | Toulmin, Sir George | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Shortt, Edward | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Verney, Sir Harry | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe) | Wadsworth, J. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Snowden, Philip | Walton, Sir Joseph | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Young, William (Perthshire, E.) |
| Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) | Wardle George J. | |
| Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.) | Waring, Walter | |
| Sutherland, J. E. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Sutton, John E. | Webb, H. | Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones. |
| Taylor, John W. (Durham) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner. James Tynte | Gardner, Ernest | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Altken, Sir William Max | Gastrell, Major W. Hougton | Newman, John R. P. |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Gibbs, G. A. | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Gilmour, Captain John | Nicholson, William G. (Peterslield) |
| Ashley. Wilfrid | Goldman, C. S. | Nield, Herbert |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Norton-Griffiths, J. |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Greene, W. R. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Peel, Captain R. R. (Woodbridge) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Barnston, Harry | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Barrle, H. T. | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.) | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Quilter, Sir William Eley C. |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Harris, Henry Percy | Randles, Sir John S. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Helmsley, Viscount | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bird, Alfred | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Blair, Reginald | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Rutherford. Watson (L'pool, Derby) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith | Hills, John Waller | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Boyton, James | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Burdett-Coutts, William | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Stanler, Beville |
| Butcher, John George | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Campbell. Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Hume-Williams. William Ellis | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Cassel, Felix | Ingleby, Holcombe | Stewart, Gershom |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) | Swift, Rigby |
| Cator, John | Jessel, Captain H. M. | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Joynson-Hicks, William | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Cave, George | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kerry, Earl of | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts. Hitchin) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Knight, Captain E. A. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Larmor, Sir J. | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Chambers, James | Law, Rt Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Lawson. Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lewishem, Viscount | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han. Sq.) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Croft, Henry Page | Lyttelton, Hen. J. C. (Droitwich) | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Macmas'or, Donald | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Dixon, Charles Harvey | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Faber, George D. (Clapham) | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Fell, Arthur | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Younger, Sir George |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Mount, William Arthur | Shirley Benn and Mr. S. Roberts. |
| Forster, Henry William | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
-
c79
- BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. 142 words
- BILLS PRESENTED.
- CLERKS OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL. 34 words c79
- SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. 26 words
- GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. 3 words c79
- TWENTY-FOURTH ALLOTTED DAY.— [Progress, 4th December.] 5 words cc79-140
- CLAUSE 33.—(Continuation of Service of, and Compensation to, "Existing Officers.) 25,574 words
-
c79