HC Deb 03 March 1915 vol 70 cc918-42

(1) Where a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police belongs to the Naval Reserves or the Army Reserve and has, in pursuance of any Royal Proclamation, been called out, in the case of a constable belonging to the Naval Reserves, for service during war or any emergency, or in the case of a constable belonging to the Army Reserve, on permanent service, the police authority may, with the approval of the Treasury, grant to or for the benefit of his wife and children or any of them, or in the case of an unmarried constable to or for the benefit of any person whom he is legally liable to maintain and towards whose support he has regularly contributed, an allowance of such amount and subject to such conditions and restrictions as they think equitable:

Provided that—

  1. (a) any such allowance shall be granted for a limited period not exceeding one year and may be renewed for a further period, but shall not be continued after the police authority have received notice that the constable has ceased to be employed on naval or military service;
  2. (b) the aggregate amount of the weekly allowance granted in respect of a married constable together with the weekly amount of any separation or other allowance required to be paid out of naval or military funds in pursuance of any Royal Warrant and the weekly amount of any compulsory deductions from the constable's pay as a seaman or soldier shall not exceed the total weekly amount he was receiving from police funds on being called out;
  3. (c) the allowance granted in respect of an unmarried constable shall not exceed in the aggregate eight shillings a week.

(2) If the constable dies or is disabled whilst employed on naval or military service, the police authority may, with the approval of the Treasury, grant to his widow and children or to him pensions and allowances equal to one-half the amount payable out of naval or military funds in pursuance of any Royal Warrant, so, however, that the total amount receivable from the police authority when added to the amount payable from such funds as aforesaid shall not in any case exceed the maximum amount which could have been granted under the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1883, as amended by any subsequent enactment, if the death or disablement had been occasioned by an injury received by the constable, without his own default, in the execution of his duty as a constable and not accidentally.

(3) If, with the consent of the police authority, any officer or constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary or any constable of the Dublin Metropolitan Police for the purposes of the present War enters, re-enters, enlists, re-enlists, or receives a commission in any of His Majesty's Naval or Military Forces, Sub-section (2) of Section five of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1883, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section one of the Irish Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, and the foregoing provisions of this Section shall, subject to the necessary adaptations, apply to him in like manner as they apply to a constable belonging to the Naval Reserves or Army Reserve who has been called out for service during war or any emergency or on permanent service, as the case may be, with the modification that in the application of the foregoing provisions of this Section to an officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1874, shall be substituted for the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1883, and a sum fixed by the Treasury shall be substituted for eight shillings.

(4) This Section applies in the case of officers and constables called out entering, re-entering, enlisting, re-enlisting, or receiving commissions, whether before or after the passing of this Act, and any pension, allowance, or gratuity granted, with the approval of the Treasury, to or in respect of any such officer or constable, in anticipation of the passing of this Act is hereby confirmed and shall be deemed to have been granted under or in pursuance of this Act.

(5) Any pensions, allowances, or gratuities, granted under or in pursuance of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(6) In this Section the expression "police authority" means as respects the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Inspector-General, and as respects the Dublin Metropolitan Police, the Chief Commissioner.

(7) Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Irish Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, is hereby repealed.

Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland)

I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "shall," to insert the words, "subject to the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1914."

Some comment was made on my absence from the Second Reading of this Bill, but I beg to assure the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) and the House that my absence was unavoidable. On the outbreak of War there were a certain number of Reservists in the Royal Irish Constabulary and in the Dublin Metropolitan Police who were called and went to the front. No question, of course, arises with regard to those men who had certain rights. Shortly after that, some 200 of the Royal Irish Constabulary and 130 of the Dublin Metropolitan Police volunteered for service in the Irish Guards. Those men were, so to speak, ready-made soldiers, and it was considered a very great matter at the time to obtain the services of such a competent body of men. The Government promised and indicated to those men that they thought they ought not to be in a worse position than the Reservists who had their pensions and separation allowances, and that such privileges, to call them so, should be conceded to the men who volunteered.

I can only regret that even the semblance of difference should arise as to the pensions and allowances in the case of men belonging to such a distinguished force. This Bill is for the purpose of providing pensions and separation allowances in the case of those 330 men. Separation allowances are really a very small matter, as I think there are not more than twenty of the volunteers who are married, and therefore separation allowance does not arise to any great extent, although some of them may have other dependants. We had to provide that these pensions should be paid out of some fund, and in the ordinary way, in the common form sanctioned by the Treasury in these cases we provided that they should be paid by money voted by Parliament. It so happens that last year a Bill was passed in this House dealing with the English police who volunteered for the front, who were accepted, and who claimed separation allowances. Those are dealt with in the same way as these men. The English police authorities will pay the pensions and separation allowances out of the police fund, and subsequently there will be a Parliamentary Vote, and the matter will be treated exactly as we are treating it. But the English police fund, out of which these moneys will be first of all paid, is a local fund.

Members of this House, whether they are old or whether they are young, know perfectly well that the police force in England and the police force in Ireland are very different things. The one—the English force—is a local force under local control, that is to say, the control is between the county council and the Standing Joint Committee. We have nothing of that kind in Ireland. Both the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police are practically Imperial forces, and the Corporation of Dublin, and nobody in fact in Dublin, has any more control of the Dublin Metropolitan Police than they have over the Brigade of Guards at Wellington Barracks. If I wished to illustrate that, I could not give a better illustration than what happened some little time ago. The House will remember the disturbance which occurred in connection with the arrival of rifles at Howth, when there were very sad results. The police were called out, but the police officer never dreamed of going to the Lord Mayor or to any local authority, but went straight to the Castle. Thus, in Ireland the police force is an Imperial force and in England a local force, but in the case of England the pensions are first taken from a local fund, though they will come under the Parliamentary Vote ultimately. The only point of difficulty in the case of Ireland is that out of the Dublin rates a certain amount is paid as a subvention from the corporation to the Imperial funds. I think that sum so contributed by the corporation is £56,000, out of £167,000.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Can the right hon. Gentleman conveniently say how the pensions, allowances, and gratuities of the Reservists are calculated and what fund they come from?

Mr. RUSSELL

Those men are in the Service. They are Reservists, and are simply compelled to go.

Lord R. CECIL

I should have thought the two things were exactly the same.

Mr. RUSSELL

I think, in effect, they are the same, and the volunteers in asking for the same terms were right. The question is not a very large one. Where we are now is this: The hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), whose very sharp eye on finance we all know, referred to this matter on the Second Reading. From a long experience I have always tried to arrange matters with him, and have always found him very fair. The real point of difficulty does not, I think it will be agreed, arise in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which is admitted to be an Imperial force, and which will remain after the Home Rule Act comes into operation for many years an Imperial force. The difficulty arises with regard to the subvention of £56,000 paid by the Dublin Corporation in aid of the Imperial contribution.

Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL

Is that in the form of a police rate?

Mr. RUSSELL

Yes; the hon. Baronet says "pensions by all means, for these are gallant men performing a difficult and serious duty; but let them be paid by Ireland." My reply to that is this: It is quite true that Dublin pays a portion of the police tax. But that does not make the Dublin Police a local force—far from it. Although we pay, we have no control. The real question in this matter is whether the payment by the city of Dublin of that comparatively small sum is to make it right for this Committee to say to these men, "You cannot get your pensions or separation allowances although you are serving the Empire, and not merely Ireland, unless Ireland pays for them." I think that is wholly indefensible. I do not complain personally about it, but I am extremely sorry for the sake of things in Ireland, where there are elements of difficulty, that this matter should have been raised.

Those of us who look forward to a better and brighter Ireland cannot help feeling that it looks somewhat ungrateful to put the matter in that way to these gallant men in the trenches. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has on the Paper an Amendment by which he makes this charge a purely Irish charge. I submit, however, that it is not an Irish service at all, as these men are doing work for the Empire. But in order to meet the hon. Baronet, I say let the matter be decided according to the provisions of the Home Rule Act. If, after that Act comes into operation, any difficulty or question of dispute arises between the Imperial and the Irish Parliaments, there is a Court expressly tat up to settle it—the Joint Exchequer Board. If this is an Irish charge, the Exchequer Board will so decide; if it is an Imperial charge, the verdict will go in that direction. I only make that proposal because I wish to be perfectly fair. I think it is due to the machinery set up by this House for the express purpose of settling points of difference on financial matters between the Imperial and the Irish authorities, and I am willing to carry that Amendment if the hon. Baronet will accept it.

Sir F. BANBURY

The question at issue is not whether pensions shall or shall not be paid to any policeman, whether in the Dublin Metropolitan Police or in the Royal Irish Constabulary. We are all agreed that these men should have their pensions in the same way as the English police have theirs. But let me point out the effect of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has unintentionally mislead the Committee. There is no question of the whole of the pensions being paid by the Imperial Parliament.

Mr. RUSSELL

I expressly said so.

9.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am afraid I have not made myself clear. When policemen, whether Reservists or Volunteers, in England or in Ireland, went into the New Army, they said that if anything happened to them they would get only the same pension or allowance that any other person entering the Army would get, whereas if they had remained in the police they would have got a larger pension. Therefore an Act was passed last year to put both the Irish and the English police upon the same footing as regards pensions as if they had remained in the police. In England that pension is made up in this way: The State pays the amount that a man who had not been a policeman would get, and the difference between that amount and the larger pension which the man would have got if he had remained in the police force is made up out of the ordinary fund allocated for the payment of police pensions. For instance, if a man would receive 15s. from the State as a soldier, while he would have received 20s. as a policeman, 15s. is paid by the State and the other 5s. is paid out of the fund allocated to police pensions. All we say in this case is, not that the Irish police should not be paid out of Imperial funds the 15s. which they would have received if they had enlisted in the ordinary way, but that the difference between the 15s. and the sum they would have received if they had remained in the police should be paid out of the fund provided for the payment of police pensions—that is, that they should be put in exactly the same position as the English police.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

Is there a pension fund in Ireland similar to our pension fund?

Sir F. BANBURY

I was just coming to that. The Dublin Metropolitan Police are paid in a different way from the Royal Irish Constabulary. They are paid partly by a rate levied in Dublin and partly from Imperial funds. But the rate levied in Dublin must not exceed 8d. in the £, so that there might possibly be some difficulty in paying the pensions out of it. Therefore I do not press that, but I propose to put the Dublin Metropolitan Police upon exactly the same footing as the Royal Irish Constabulary. Is there a fund out of which the Royal Irish Constabulary pensions are paid? There is. It was specially enacted in Section 37 of the Home Rule Act that there should be a fund of that description, that it should be provided by the Imperial Parliament, but that the Imperial Parliament should recoup itself out of the Transferred Sum.

The effect of the Amendment of which I have given notice is that that shall be the fund from which the difference to which I have referred shall be taken. I do not know what that difference is, but probably it is 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. My Amendment is that that sum, whatever it may be, shall be paid out of the Transferred Sum. I hope I have made it clear that there is a fund out of which this money can be paid. All I ask is that the English and the Irish police shall be put on exactly the same footing, and that the difference in the pensions for the Irish police shall be made up out of the fund allocated for pensions for the police, just in the same way as a fund is allocated for police pensions in England. The Committee must bear in mind that this fund was made by the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends when they passed the Home Rule Act last year. What the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to alter the Home Rule Act, and instead of providing that in this case the funds necessary for the pensions should come out of the Transferred Sum, wants to arrange that it should come out of the pockets of the English taxpayers. To that I object.

I have a grievance upon this matter. I am going to make an attack upon the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Russell)—or at any rate I am going to draw his attention to an aspect of this matter. When this question was raised last week, I rose to a point of Order, and said that I objected to it being taken because the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I had had some previous conversation, was not here. The right hon. Gentleman told me that we should have a proper discussion when the Second Reading came on. I did not raise the question upon the Resolution in Committee of Supply for that reason. When the Bill was moved the right hon. Gentleman was in Ireland. I therefore suggested that it should not be taken, but the hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney) rose and said that he was quite competent—which I never doubted for a moment—to deal with the matter, because he had spent four years in the office of the Chief Secretary.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Four happy years!

Sir F. BANBURY

Four happy years. During that time he had devoted a great deal of attention to this matter. Therefore, as I supposed that it had been arranged that the hon. Baronet should take charge of the Bill I withdrew my opposition. What did the hon. Baronet say? He said:— The simple suggestion is that as in the past they have been provided by Parliament, so they shall be in future. There is no desire to make any change. I think I am right in saving that that has always been so, and that is the reason this Sub-section has been put in."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1915, col. 349.] I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) to say that he was under the impression that when the hon. Baronet said he desired to make no change, that the meaning of that was that the funds should be found in the way originally considered, which, when the Home Rule Act is first put into operation, will be out of the Transferred Sum, and that, therefore, he had practically met our objections. I have a letter from the hon. Baronet, dated 27th February, which I handed to the right hon. Gentleman, and in which these words occur:— The Bill in its present form has been approved by the Irish police authorities, and by the prison authorities; further, if you still wish it, we shall be ready to accept an Amendment on this or any other point. Our sole object is to provide pensions and separation allowances for the Volunteers and their dependants. I thought that after the speech of the hon. Baronet, who spoke with full authority, and after this letter, there would be no further trouble with my Amendment, the object of which is only to ensure that this small extra percentage should be met in the way in which pensions are to be provided for under the Home Rule Act, and that that Amendment would at once be accepted. But the right hon. Gentleman comes back from Ireland and refuses to accept it. He puts in an Amendment which my Noble Friend behind me will inform the House has no effect at all, and he might just as well leave it out. He says that this Act is to be subject to the provisions of the Home Rule Act. But this Act is passed after the Home Rule Act, and hon. and learned Friends of mine point out that the result will be either to raise an enormous crop of litigation, or for the Government to say, "Oh, well, the Home Rule Act was passed before this, and this Act over-rides the Home Rule Act." That is, I think, what the effect of his words are. I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand Division is not present. He has authorised me to say that both he and myself think that we have been very badly treated by the Government. We endeavoured to meet them by at once acquiescing when they desired to take the Bill with the hon. Baronet in charge. As soon as we had explained our position to the hon. Baronet, and he had made certain statements in reply, which are recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and which he afterwards confirmed in writing by the letter which I have here, the right hon. Gentleman comes from Ireland, takes the matter out of his hands, and absolutely refuses to carry out that part of the bargain made by the hon. Baronet across the floor of the House, and confirmed by letter.

If we are to carry on a truce in that kind of way there will be some difficulty in doing it. I should be the last person to desire to interfere with an arrangement. Everybody in the Committee knows that in ordinary times I am a strong party man. I have never concealed it; but I have always endeavoured to be fair and straightforward in all my dealings, and as soon as there has been a truce, I have—as everybody will admit—instead of Mr. Whitley occasionally catching your eye, sat quietly here and said nothing. I wanted loyally to assist in carrying out the arrangements we have come to for the good of the country. But both sides must do the same. Because the hon. Baronet happens to be in the majority he must not take advantage of us, and come down and make statements, and then afterwards run away from them. Further, there must be no alteration to Acts of Parliament which are already passed. The Home Rule Act was not one of our Acts.

It is not right for the Government to attempt to amend the Home Rule Act by some of the small Bills which they bring forward under the guise of emergency. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee any longer. I know perfectly well we are helpless—for two reasons. The first is that were we to divide we should break the truce, which we do not want to do, and the second reason is that if we were to divide there are very few of our men here. If, however, a majority were here I would not divide on this present question. But I repeat in the strongest words I can that we have been extremely badly used by the Government, and the only possibility, the only alternative which remains to them is to admit, that, by—I daresay—some little accident, or other, not having considered the matter, they have made a mistake. The hon. Baronet shakes his head. I really do not understand him. He says what is here in the OFFICIAL REPORT. He writes this letter. He shakes his head. The right hon. Gentleman says he cannot accept my Amendment. I do not understand him either. He was not here. The hon. Baronet was. I say his duty is to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he has committed himself, and that the right hon. Gentleman must abide by what he has said.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

There is one point in his speech which the hon. Baronet has really not explained. He does not explain who finds the money in Ireland now for the existing and future pensions. I understand that he realy takes exception to Sub-section (5) of this Bill, where it states that, "Any pensions, allowances, or gratuities, granted under, or in pursuance of, this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament." Now I am given to understand—he may correct me if I am wrong—that the pensions which are now paid are really paid out of moneys provided by Parliament in Ireland. The Dublin Corporation, I am given to understand, from the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman sitting below me, have no control over the police. They pay £50,000 a year towards the maintenance of the police, and it is limited to a halfpenny rate. There is a great and striking difference between that and the English system.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

No.

Mr. SAMUEL

Perhaps the hon. Member is not a member of a local authority.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I am a magistrate.

Mr. SAMUEL

But a magistrate has nothing to do with the police.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Oh, yes.

Mr. SAMUEL

Not in cities. In the counties the police are managed by the joint committee, and the standing joint committee are persons who decide who shall have pensions, or whether or not the officer is entitled to a pension, and they have a pension fund set aside. If there is any deficiency in the pension fund, it comes upon the local rates. They have full control of the police, although Parliament, I think, maintains half the cost of the police. Still, the local authority is the controlling body, and they have the deciding votes as to whether a policeman or sergeant, whatever the case may be, is entitled to a pension and how much he is to receive. That is quite different from the Irish law, and if, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, the moneys already provided for the payment of these pensions are provided by Parliament, what objection can there be if these allowances and these pensions, or the difference as pointed out by the hon. Baronet, are to be charged upon some fund which is provided by Parliament?

Sir F. BANBURY

The question entirely turns upon the Home Rule Act. The Home Rule Act lays down how these pensions are to be provided. All I want to do is to carry out the intention of the hon. Gentleman's Government, and see that they are paid according to the provisions of the Home Rule Act.

Mr. SAMUEL

Not war pensions.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am not talking about war pensions. I do not want to pay war pensions out of anything except by the imperial Parliament. This Act does not touch war pensions. It only touches the additional sum which has got to be paid. It does not matter in the least who has got the control. The largest body of police is in London; but here, the Government have the control of the police, and the Bill which deals with the London police provides that this extra money shall be paid by the ratepayers in London.

Mr. SAMUEL

But the ratepayers in London will only pay a proportion of it, and not the whole of the pension.

Sir F. BANBURY

The whole in London.

Mr. SAMUEL

I think, if the hon. Baronet will look into it, there have been discussions in this House when London Members have—

Sir F. BANBURY

That is a different point.

Mr. SAMUEL

I think the suggestion which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is a proper one.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

These words do not carry out the suggestion.

Mr. SAMUEL

If any question arises hereafter with regard to these war pensions, cannot it be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the Home Rule Act?

Sir F. BANBURY

That is exactly what we want; we do not want any more.

Mr. SAMUEL

He says he is prepared to give you that.

Sir F. BANBURY

But he has not done it.

Mr. SAMUEL

I understood the hon. Baronet's point was that the extra amount he recommended would come out of the pension fund in England which is maintained by the ratepayers, who have control over the police.

Sir F. BANBURY

No.

Mr. SAMUEL

Excuse me, in the provinces they have; but in Ireland it will come out of moneys voted by Parliament. The existing fund is provided out of money voted by Parliament, and, therefore, I cannot see why the hon. Baronet should press his point.

Mr. RUSSELL

Will the hon. Baronet allow me to correct a point? He has referred to Sub-section (5) of Clause 37, the spirit of which he says ought to be carried out. Now what does that Subsection say?—

"Any pensions and other allowances and gratuities which may become payable to officers and constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police after the appointed day, or to officers and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary after the day of transfer under the existing enactments applicable to them, and any compensation payable to any of those persons under the provisions of this Act, shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom; but any sum so paid shall be made good by means of deduction from the Transferred Sum under this Act in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury."

What I want to point, out is that this is not an Act of Parliament yet, and cannot come under the "existing enactments." We are dealing with war pensions and not with police pensions.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I do very much regret this discussion has been allowed to be raised in Committee at this time at all, and I cannot help feeling that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture was much better advised than the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland, when he made what I think was not only a perfectly fair offer, but an offer in accordance with the spirit in which we have so far been conducting our proceedings in Parliament, that, if the Opposition really felt they had a grievance in this matter, the Government were not going to stand on the strictly technical position they might take, but that they would concede a point, as we have conceded points without number to the Government. We have granted them over and over again things they could not possibly have obtained except by leave of the Opposition, and I must say my hon. Friend has been treated extremely badly in this matter, and in a way I do not think any other occupant of the Treasury Bench would have treated him, except the Vice-President. As to the merits of the thing we are discussing, they are quite simple. My hon. Friend only wishes the matter to be left exactly as it was left by the Home Rule Act. That is all we are asking. The hon. Member opposite, who, I am sure, does not want to do anything unfair, does not appear to have realised quite the difference of opinion between the Vice-President and us. We do not wish to interfere in any way with the terms of the Home Rule Act. The right hon. Gentleman pretends that this provision will bring these pensions under the provisions of the Home Rule Act, but he must know that it will have no such effect. He says that these pensions which are granted do not come under the wording of the Home Rule Act.

Mr. RUSSELL

Not under that Section.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Nor under any other Section. Which Section does the right hon. Gentleman mean?

Mr. RUSSELL

Section 14.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Section 14 is the one which deals with Irish Revenue and Expenditure, and under Sub-section (3) it provides as follows:—

"(3) Provision shall be made by the Irish Parliament for the cost of Irish services within the meaning of this Act, and except as provided by this Act, any charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom for those services, including any charge for the benefit of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, or any Grant or contribution out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, so far as made for those services, shall cease, and money for loans in Ireland shall cease to be advanced either by the Public Works Loans Commissioners or out of the Local Loans Fund."

That entirely applies to the Grants and contributions which were then in existence. This Grant was not in existence, and the insertion of the words "subject to the provisions of the Home Rule Act" mean, and were intended to mean, absolutely nothing. We are quite content to adopt any form of words which honestly and really will carry out the avowed purpose of the right hon. Gentleman. If he does not like the words proposed by my hon. Friend, I suggest an alternative form, which I think by no possibility could be thought to have any kind of effect except to put these funds under the Act. I suggest the leaving of Sub-section (5) as it is, and to add the words,

"And shall be deemed to be pensions, allowances, or gratuities within the meaning of Section 37 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1914."

That carries out the avowed purpose of the right hon. Gentleman, and carries it out fully. That would make these pensions payable out of the funds under the Home Rule Act, and subject to all those conditions. I agree that the amount of money involved is small; in fact, the whole dispute is small, and ought never to have been allowed to come into public discussion. I venture to say that it would have been settled by any other Minister on that bench except the right hon. Gentleman. The proposal he made is a perfectly fair and just one. It is that so far as these pensions are police pensions they shall be dealt with as police pensions under the Home Rule Act, and so far as they are military pensions, then they come out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. None of us grudge a farthing of that money, and that is a perfectly just proposal. I ask the right hon. Gentleman even at this moment to try and he just for once.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney)

The hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord opposite have said some very strong things, no doubt because they feel very deeply on this matter and think the Government have not dealt fairly with them. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on this question, because it was my privilege to be connected with the Debate on the Second Heading of the Bill. From the point of view of the hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord, nothing could seem more miserable than for the Government to make a promise through one Minister and refuse to fulfil that promise through another Minister. Really there is no disagreement between my right hon. Friend and myself. As the hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord both know, we have the same advisers at the Irish Office, and there really is not any disagreement. The, hon. Baronet opposite has read a letter which I wrote in consequence of a talk we had together at the Bar. What I wanted to convey was that, for my part, I believed, and still believe, that there was no reason to have any Amendment at all, but I went on to say that if the hon. Baronet still wishes it we are prepared to put in an Amendment on this or on any other subject. The hon. Baronet's complaint is not that we do not put in an Amendment, but that we do not put in his Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY

The hon. Baronet did not quite read the whole of what he said in his letter. His words were:— We should be ready to accept an Amendment upon this or any other point, our sole object being to provide pensions and separation allowances for Reservists and their dependants.

Sir H. VERNEY

The hon. Baronet's complaint was that I would not accept his Amendment There is a difference between accepting any Amendment and accepting an Amendment with the advice of the Irish Office in order to make a point more clear which I think was perfectly clear before.

Sir F. BANBURY

We had a discussion on the Second Reading and the point was made perfectly clear.

Sir H. VERNEY

It was to make the point perfectly clear that I said I would accept an Amendment. I did not mean to convey that we should accept any Amendment which the hon. Baronet put down. My words were not intended to convey that at all. Now it comes to a question of what Amendment meets this point. The Noble Lord wants the matter left as it is in the Home Rule Act. The mere fact that the Noble Lord and I hold different views on that Act rather tends to strengthen my argument on this point. It is open to argument whether these pensions ought to be considered as an Irish service. Would the Noble Lord agree with me in that?

Lord ROBERT CECIL

It seems clearly open to argument.

Sir H. VERNEY

This is an Irish service, and what does the Home Rule Act provide? It provides that, supposing there is a doubt as to whether it is an Irish service or not, there is a body set up to decide it. But the Noble Lord and the hon. Baronet opposite say, "No, we want to decide the point here and now."

Sir F. BANBURY

No.

Sir H. VERNEY

The hon. Baronet says "I want to prejudge this question." and the Noble Lord says it is open to argument.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I do not agree that it is open to rational argument.

Sir H. VERNEY

I am inclined to think that it is not an Irish service, but the Joint Exchequer Board will decide it. If they decide that it is not an Irish service under the Home Rule Act it will be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. If it is an Irish service, provision will be made by the Irish Parliament for the cost, and any charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom shall cease. If it is an Irish service any such charge will cease and it will be provided by the moneys of the Irish Parliament. I hope that I have made my point clear.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

The point I dealt with was whether the words proposed by the Vice-President would bring them under that special Clause. I myself think that you are bound first to put it under Clause 37 in order to make the other part operate.

Sir H. VERNEY

Clause 37, Sub-section (5) only applies to pensions under existing enactments. It does not apply to this at all, but only to those existing at the time of the passing of the Act. I think it is a very simple matter and that it is left very fairly between the two parties. We do not say whether it will be provided by Parliament or whether it will come out of the transferred sum. We leave it open. We say that it is open to discussion whether it is or is not an Irish service. If it is an Irish service, then under the Government of Ireland Act it will become payable out of the transferred sum, and if it is not an Irish service it will be paid out of monies provided by Parliament. That is the only point, and I said if it was not clear that we would accept an Amendment on the subject. The hon. Baronet's complaint was that this would be contrary to the Home Rule Act. He was afraid, according to my interpretation of his remarks, that there might be some question of it being prejudged owing to it being said that it was to be money provided by Parliament. In order to make it clear that it should not be contrary to the Home Rule Act we propose to put in these specific words: "Subject to the Government of Ireland Act, 1914," so that when it comes to be decided on its merits it has to be decided on Section 14, Sub-section (3) of the Government of Ireland Act.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

The hon. Gentleman says that the Amendment he proposes will really effect the purpose. I venture to suggest that it will not do so. An Amendment of that Amendment would make it perfectly clear. It would be done by putting in the words, "Subject to this being an Irish charge under the provisions of Section so-and-so of the Government of Ireland Act," but the mere putting in of the words "subject to the Government of Ireland Act" has no more benefit than putting in the words "subject to the Magna Charta." Of course, it is subject to the Home Rule Act because it is a Bill affecting Ireland after the Home Rule Act comes into force. The mere insertion of those words "subject to the Government of Ireland Act" will not, I am perfectly certain, effect the purpose. It could be quite easily done by expanding the words, as I am quite sure the draughtsman will tell the Under-Secretary, and inserting some such words as I have suggested. If the hon. Gentleman really means, as I take it he does, to keep the arrangement made between himself and my hon. Friend, I suggest to him that he should adopt those words and then everybody would be satisfied.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Yesterday I consulted three hon. Members learned in the Law, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher), and my hon. Friend the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), and everyone of them agreed that the insertion of these words would not bring this particular Clause under the operations of the Home Rule Act, and that is all we want to do. We do not want to do anything more; but we want to be certain that we are going to do that. In face of the fact that three hon. Members, learned in the law, have stated that these words will not have that effect, I really think the hon. Baronet, if he cannot accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend has proposed, might consider whether he cannot accept some other Amendment which would carry out what he himself desires. We are only being played with now, because these words do not mean anything at all. I really think the hon. Baronet might agree to words which carry out what he has just said himself and bring it under the provisions of the Home Rule Act. I venture to suggest that he might see his way tomorrow to bring in words which would meet the point. If to-morrow he says he has really tried and cannot do it, I suppose that we must accept the inevitable.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

We will do it for him, it is quite easy.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do think that something of that sort ought to be done. There is no hurry about this. We keep on giving way in every way, and we really ought to be met on this occasion. Therefore I move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Sir H. VERNEY

I am very anxious, and so is my right hon. Friend, to meet this point, but I do not think anything can be gained by an adjournment. A great many of us have been discussing this matter in different parts of the House, and I still think, as I said before, that it is perfectly clear.

Sir F. BANBURY

Why not accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks)?

Sir H. VERNEY

No, we cannot do that. It is perfectly clear, without any words at all, that this will be subject to the Home Rule Act. The Treasury have no doubt about it, the Irish Office have no doubt about it, and we have no doubt about it. If the hon. Baronet thinks that there is no use in putting these words in, we are prepared to leave them out. The Treasury and the Irish Office, who are primarily concerned, assure us that no words are necessary, and we merely put these in in order to emphasise the fact that it will be subject to Sub-section (3) of Clause 14. It is really unnecessary to accept any Amendment of that kind, but we are prepared to put in those words if hon. Members think them better, and if they do not we do not press them. We do not gain anything, however, by adjourning, and I hope that we shall go on with the discussion.

Mr. SANDERSON

I have come to this matter perfectly fresh, and have listened to the whole Debate with the greatest possible interest. I understand that there are two points—the first point is, whether the Home Rule Act applies to this measure at all.

The CHAIRMAN

We are now on the merits of the case. We must get rid of the Motion to report Progress first.

Mr. SANDERSON

I do not want to speak on the merits of the case at all. The second point is this: The hon. Baronet says that we want to make it perfectly clear that the Home Rule Act will be applicable. It seems to me the words suggested are absolutely useless, and that we might adjourn this matter until to-morrow to see if we cannot agree upon a form of words which will be accepted.

Mr. RUSSELL

I hope that this Motion will not be pressed. The Treasury, the Irish Office, and the War Office—this Bill has been through each of these offices—all agree that the thing is perfectly clear, and that any Amendment is unnecessary. The Noble Lord said that I knew this Amendment would not bring it under the provisions of the Home Rule Act. I do not think he was justified in saying that.

The CHAIRMAN

It is clear that the Motion to report Progress is liable to develop into a Debate on the merits. If it were withdrawn, it could be renewed later if necessary.

Mr. RUSSELL

The kernel of this thing is whether this is Irish or not.

The CHAIRMAN

That again is dealing with the merits.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Perhaps I might be allowed to say one word. If I said anything which the right hon. Gentleman thinks was unduly severe, I withdraw it.

Mr. RUSSELL

I do not think that you ought to have said it.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I am quite ready to withdraw it. I do not wish to bring unnecessary heat into this discussion. The only reason that I suggest it would be well to adjourn is this: This particular point of the effect of Section 14 of the Government of Ireland Act has been raised in Debate to-day for the first time. I am still of the opinion that the words suggested by the Government are not adequate to make it quite clear that this provision would fall to be dealt with under the joint provisions of Section 14 and Section 37. I should have thought it quite possible to devise words which would make it clear that this new Grant from Imperial taxation was to be dealt with on exactly the same footing as Grants which existed at the time of the passing of the Home Rule Act. I am not now on the question whether it should be treated as pensions existing at the time of the passing of the Act or as a charge on Imperial funds. I feel very strongly that the words proposed are not appropriate to that purpose, and, for that reason, I should have thought that a short adjournment would have been desirable in order that we might arrive at an agreement.

Mr. RUSSELL

I repeat that the Bill, without these words, would be adequate, and it would come under the Home Rule Act. I was anxious to make that perfectly clear, and so were my advisers. Section 14 has been referred to. What does it propose? It proposes that the Irish Government shall meet the Irish services for the year, and a Joint Exchequer Court is set up by the Home Rule Act for the purpose of deciding what are Imperial and what are Irish services. What could be more fair than to put in words to that effect, and send the whole thing to the Home Rule Act as the constituted authority? I hope the Motion will be withdrawn, for the reason that I do not think it would be good, either for Ireland or for this country, that these particular pensions to Irishmen should be the subject of a discussion like this.

Lord EDMUND TALBOT

Really there is no hurry for twenty-four hours. I think the request for an adjournment of one day might well be granted.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has been legally advised that the proposed Amendment covers the point raised by the other side. We have been told by the hon. Baronet (the Member for the City of London) that three eminent lawyers on his side have advised him that it is essential to amend the Bill. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted his legal advisers, and whether they say that this Amendment would carry out the object which the hon. Baronet has in view?

Mr. RUSSELL

Yes. The Amendment was, in fact, drawn by the legal advisers of the Irish Department.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

That is why I want to report Progress. We have no one here representing the legal branch of the Irish Department to answer our arguments. The representatives of the Government simply tell us that we are not right. That is the only way in which they meet our arguments. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture that he was assured by the Irish officials that this Amendment would meet our arguments, but we have a body of opinion on this side of the House which is dealing with the matter from a legal point of view, and I am convinced that they are right when they say that these words which are proposed to be inserted have no meaning at all. We have no Law Officer of the Crown here to reply to our argument. We are simply told that somebody under the Gallery, a permanent official who is not a Member of this House, says we are wrong. That is not a proper way in which to treat the House of Commons. We ought to have one of the Law Officers here, and for this reason I think Progress should be reported.

Sir GEORGE TOULMIN

I hope my hon. Friends opposite, and I trust I may call them hon. Friends, seeing we are now under a truce, will not press this Motion. The hon. Member for the Brentford Division does not seem to have paid sufficient attention to what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. My hon. Friend did not state that he had consulted someone under the Gallery. What he said was that the matter had been before the Treasury, the Irish Office, and the War Office, and all were agreed as to the source from which this money ought to be taken. I have very great sympathy indeed with the hon. Baronet for this reason: This is not a question whether or not these men should have the pension, but it is a question whether a system of finance which has been arranged between the two countries should be broken into, and whether we shall begin nibbling at and passing over an Imperial Act.

It is quite proper that the question should have been raised, but I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree to insert the Amendment now. In the meantime, before the Report stage, we can consider whether the words can be made stronger, and put in such a form as will remove the objections of the Noble Lord. It appears to me that the two sides are agreed in principle, and that what is wanted is a form of words which will make more sure that which, in our opinion, is already sure. I have no objection to that being done. But apparently we are not able to settle the difficulty across the floor of this House at the moment, and it would therefore, perhaps, be better agree to put the words in now, and see if some settlement cannot be come to before the Report stage.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse)

Perhaps I may be allowed to make an appeal to the Committee, although I probably have no knowledge of the particular dispute which has arisen other than perhaps what any Member may have picked up by listening to the arguments, pro and con. I think it began with an honest misunderstanding on both sides, but I hope that that misunderstanding as to intentions has been removed. The dispute turns upon whether the words proposed by the Vice-President are sufficient to carry out a purpose which is common to both sides. I am very anxious, as I am sure the hon. Baronet opposite is, that there shall be nothing in dispute between the two sides upon a question of principle on which they are agreed. I understand, if this Amendment is put in now, an opportunity will arise on Monday—on the Report stage—for seing whether or not the words which we now propose to use are adequate for the purpose which the hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord and my hon. Friends have in view. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite, under these circumstances, will accommodate themselves to our wishes for the moment, and I will undertake, on the part of the Government, that they shall have an opportunity of reconsidering the position on Monday. I hope what I have said may find favour on that side of the House. If it does, I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to allow the Bill to proceed.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the very conciliatory tone he has adopted. I entirely agree with what he says. The difficult I feel is this: I do not want to have another discussion in this House on this subject. That would be a very unfortunate thing. We have got now much nearer to an agreement than we have ever been before, because we now see exactly what I frankly admit I did not understand fully—it may have been my fault or my stupidity—the point the Government take. The idea of the Government is a reasonable one. It would be a reasonable compromise, but I am not quite satisfied about their wording. I do not like it at present, because it does not appear to be too certain. It would be much more satisfactory if the subject were never heard of again in Parliament. If we adjourn now that would almost certainly be the result. The only object I had was to see that the Amendment carried out what the Government wanted, and was such that reasonable men could arrive at a conclusion without any difficulty. If the Government would adjourn, I am confident the chances are at least nine to one that the subject will never be heard of again.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I would suggest to the Noble Lord that if we were to leave the words out now, and if by Monday we are convinced that the words must be put in, we shall still hear of them here; but if, on the other hand, he will agree with us and allow the matter to go through as it stands at the present moment, and if by Monday he and the hon. Baronet agree that our view is substantially right, then we shall not hear of the thing again. It is very difficult, I agree.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

There is not very much in it.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I agree there is very little in it. The Amendment having been moved with a desire to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they were to allow us to proceed with the Bill with the Amendment that would not be an unreasonable proposition. Remember that we ourselves do not think the Amendment is necessary. We put in the words in order to try to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they think we have not met them, then we can debate it again on Monday, but if they think we have, the matter ends.

Sir F. BANBURY

I quite recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has been very pleasant in his manner, but may I point out to him that what he suggests is not a concession, because we must have a Report stage, therefore the concession comes from us. However, I do not want to press the matter, and therefore ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." by leave, withdrawn.

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

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next (8th March).

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.