HC Deb 25 June 1920 vol 130 cc2557-79

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That it is expedient to authorise further payments, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for the salaries and allowances of Resident Magistrates in Ireland and to amend the Law relating thereto.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry)

This Resolution is preliminary to a Bill which is to be introduced for the purpose of increasing the salaries of resident magistrates in Ireland, and making a slight change in regard to qualification. There are 66 resident magistrates at the present time, and they are divided into three classes, 1, 2 and 3. There are 20 resident magistrates in Class 1, 32 in Class 2, and 14 in Class 3. The salaries are graduated according to the class. The maximum of Class 1 is £675, Class 2, £550; Class 3, £425. It is proposed in the Bill to amalgamate the three classes, and to fix the minimum salary on appointment at £500, the present minimum being £425, and the maximum at £700, the present maximum being £675. Instead of keeping separate classes there will be one class with an annual increment of £20 a year, ranging between £500 on appointment to £700 as the maximum. The increases are not very large. The Act under which the salaries were fixed was passed so long ago as 1874, and there has not been any increase in the salaries since. The duties of the resident magistrate are extremely onerous and they are exposed at times to very great risk.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Do these salaries include war bonus?

Mr. HENRY

No.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the whole salary will be with bonus?

Mr. HENRY

The war bonus will be about 25 per cent.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN

What about allowances?

Mr. HENRY

Allowances include railway fares when the magistrates are attending sessions. They are also allowed when they are absolutely detained on business a subsistence allowance, but they must be more than 20 miles from their house. As the resident magistrate must always reside in his district, that limits the charge in that respect. It is not proposed to increase the allowances. They will remain the same as before. The only difference is the increase in salaries. The war bonus will, of course, be governed by the ordinary rules relating to the bonus.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Is the war bonus permanent?

Mr. HENRY

No. It is paid as a temporary emergency, and it is not proposed to make it permanent in this Bill.

Mr. HOGGE

I should have thought that the Bill which will rest on this Financial Resolution is the kind of measure which ought not to have been taken at this time. We are passing through the House of Commons an Irish measure which proposes to entrust the Irish people with the management of their own affairs, and it does seem rather a premature step on the part of the Government to come down on a Friday morning and ask us to agree to overhaul a system which is obviously pertinent to the people of Ireland, and to the people of Ireland alone. I am surprised that the Government, in view of the fact that they are making, presumably, a perfectly honest and sincere attempt to hand over the government of Ireland to the people of Ireland, should want the British House of Commons to interfere in a perfectly personal matter affecting the appointment and salaries of resident magistrates. I do not think that any hon. Member who takes part in this discussion will differ from the view which I have expressed that this is a matter solely for the Irish Parliament. The memorandum which has been issued in connection with this Resolution shows that this Bill seeks to give power to the Lord Lieutenant. We have heard from time to time of what is known as Castle Government, and many of us agree that many of the ills from which Ireland is suffering—

The CHAIRMAN

That may be in the Bill; I do not know, because I have not seen it, but it is not in this Financial Resolution. This Resolution is required to authorise the Committee on the Bill to deal with the salaries of resident magistrates. The points of the Bill must be dealt with when the Bill is introduced.

Mr. HOGGE

On the Financial Resolution, are we not entitled to discuss the policy that arises out of the appointment of those resident magistrates?

The CHAIRMAN

No.

Mr. HOGGE

If that be so, may I remind the Committee of the history of the appointment of resident magistrates by the Lord Lieutenant, and seek to show from one or two examples that the appointment of resident magistrates is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the question?

The CHAIRMAN

No. This is purely a question of money, and nothing else. It simply is to empower the House and the Committee of the House to deal with the Bill which I suppose is going to be introduced. These matters may or may not be relevant when the Bill comes along. I cannot say until I see the Bill.

Mr. HOGGE

Can we not discuss the appointment and qualification of resident magistrates?

The CHAIRMAN

No—only the question whether the Committee will sanction this procedure, to enable the Bill to propose an increase of salary. We have been informed that this is all that is in the Bill. It is solely the money aspect that concerns us here to-day.

Mr. HOGGE

In that case I will confine my remarks to the proposal to increase those salaries by the amount of £8,000. I suppose the argument for the increase is the necessity of meeting the present cost of living in Ireland. What the Bill proposes is to scrap an old arrangement of three separate classes of magistrates the lowest of which is receiving at least £420 a year, which is £20 more than members of this House receive, though they also are affected by the high cost of living, while the first-class goes to £675, and these magistrates are enjoying on those salaries the equivalent war bonuses. That is a considerable sum. Taking it at 25 per cent. it would give on the £625 an increase of at least £160. The right hon. Gentleman did not give us any argument to justify the scrapping of the series of classes of magistrates. In Scotland you have, from the Lord Advocate downwards, certain appointments which are paid certain sums. Men enjoying the lesser posts and emoluments are men who are at the beginning of their legal career. And we want some justification for taking those resident magistrates from the lower classes and putting them on a minimum basis of £500, plus war bonus, which at 25 per cent. would bring the salary up to £625, which is the present maximum of first-class magistrates. Some reason should be given for extravagance of this kind. It is expenditure of British money. If I were allowed, I could advance reasons why the whole system should be done away with as being a bad system; but as I am not allowed to go into that, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give some justification for raising those forty-six men up from the lower classes. I suppose that every one of these forty-six men will at once go on to the minimum of £500 with war bonus, and presumably the men in the other classes who have more than £500 will start at the figure which they have now, plus war bonus. I hope that we shall have some further explanation in view of the fact that this money is going to be spent on a policy which ought to be in the hands of the Irish people themselves, and not dealt with by the British House of Commons.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

This is an example of a method of procedure which ought to be strongly reprobated. We are dealing with a Money Resolution which concerns a Bill not yet got before us. It makes it extremely difficult to curtail the extravagance of the Front Bench opposite if they deprive us of a Bill, and the arguments for that Bill which we should naturally hear if it were introduced, before dealing with the Financial Resolution. I do not remember any previous occasion when we have had Financial Resolutions to debate before the Bill has been before the House.

The CHAIRMAN

The Bill, according to our Rules, cannot be introduced and printed until the Resolution has been passed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

It can get the First Reading, and be printed.

The CHAIRMAN

No; when this Resolution has been accepted by the Committee and reported by the House, we shall then be told who will bring in the Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Of course the Financial Resolution will come before the House again in that case. It is difficult to deal with a Resolution like this without knowledge of what the Government policy is concerning the reconstruction of the judiciary in Ireland. My principal objection to the Bill is, that by voting this money you are creating a vested interest just at a time when the whole question of Irish Government is in the melting pot, so that we in this country may be saddled for all time with the payment of these salaries.

Mr. LYNN

No.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Yes, and if they get Home Rule, or an independent republic in Ireland, we shall be committed to these salaries to be paid from the Imperial Exchequer, and shall have around our necks this perpetual burden. It is this creation of vested interests which has to be watched very carefully. In India the same sort of thing has been going on, and with a great change in the political government coming close, you find all the permanent officials doing everything they can to entrench themselves, so that if the change of government results in their services being dispensed with they may be sure for all time of very large salaries for doing nothing. Now, when a Home Rule Bill is going through, when there are possibilities opened up that the Prime Minister, in conversation with the right hon. Gentleman for Derby (Mr. Thomas), may effect some real settlement of the Irish question, we should be very chary of saddling these negotiations or these proposals with definite vested interests which will have to be squared in coming to any sort of a settlement. I wish that the Resolution might be postponed and that this additional burden, which appears to be only £8,000 a year but involves us in far larger annual sums in future, could be postponed also, at any rate until the question of Home Rule has been settled. There is this further argument. The additional cost of living has hit the whole of the Civil Service throughout the country, and not merely in Ireland. It hits the judges and stipendiary magistrates here just as hard as it hits the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland. If you are dealing with the increased cost of living and with the readjustment of the War Bonus into a definite rise in salary all round, that should be part of a general scheme of readjustment and not refer merely to the resident magistrates in Ireland. I am an old resident magistrate myself and I have a great deal of sympathy with them. There are very few people connected with the courts in Ireland who are worse paid than these magistrates, and the increased cost of living hits them just as it hits others.

The whole of the civil service should be dealt with simultaneously and not one class selected. The rise in the cost of living which has been universal, is less marked in the country districts of Ireland than, probably, in any other quarter of the globe. It is in the towns in a country such as this, and still more in countries where the coinage has depreciated, that you get this enormous increase in the cost of living. You are beginning with the wrong end of the stick by dealing with people in country districts in Ireland who are already in receipt of salaries with which, in conjunction with the Bonus, they can carry on. You should deal with the struggling class of permanent officials throughout Great Britain as well as Ireland. They have an even stronger case and an even more urgent need. Because I do not want to tie the hands of any future Irish Government, and do not want, if they refuse to have their hands tied, to saddle this country with permanent compensation for these officials, and because I think the whole question of raising the pay of the Civil Service should not be dealt with piecemeal but universally, I urge this Committee to think twice before it accepts this Resolution. This is the thin edge of the wedge. If you accept this, every other class of Civil servant will come along, and you will gradually get more and more money screwed out of the taxpayer for the benefit of the Civil servant. I think we shall have to pay much bigger salaries to Civil servants, but the question should be considered generally, and not in relation to one specific class.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS

I rise to ask the Government to withdraw this Resolution on a ground entirely different from that backed by my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Hogge). He seemed to be rather disturbed, and to take exception to £625 as being exorbitant pay. I should like to know whether these gentlemen are allowed to carry on any private practice by which they can supplement their income. If not, I say that £625 for a man in that position is entirely inadequate. I hope hon. Members will assist in pressing upon the Government the necessity of giving these gentlemen adequate remuneration, in view of very arduous duties performed in a very honest manner, and in view of the risks they run. Six hundred and twenty-five pounds is really only about £300 a year pre-war value. While I do not approve of assisting the Government which is carrying on in Ireland, I ask them to reconsider the whole question of the payment of these men. Resident magistrates have positions to keep up. They must live in a sphere of life that will enable them to command the respect of the people with whom they have to deal. They have not to be dependent in any way upon the people over whom they exercise jurisdiction. It is necessary, therefore, that they should have adequate remuneration, and I hope hon. Members will say something in support of that view.

Mr. LYNN

I rise to endorse what has been said by the last speaker. He and I differ in politics, but I am glad to see that he looks at this matter from a reasonable point of view. I am rather surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood), who has found safety in the Labour party, refuses to allow these magistrates to have a living wage. I should have thought that the first duty of one who is an enthusiast in the Labour party would have been to see that any man employed by the Government was paid adequately. There is no doubt whatever that under present conditions these resident magistrates are not being paid a living wage. Speaking for myself and for my colleagues, I say that we are in favour of paying them a decent and an adequate salary. The hon. Member who leads the Opposition (Mr. Hogge)—the real Leader of the Opposition—has complained about scrapping classes. As a matter of fact, all these magistrates are doing the same class of work. Is there any reason why they should not get the same amount of salary?

Mr. HOGGE

The hon. Member should explain why there are these three classes of magistrates, and why it is proposed to scrap them. We want to know. We might let you have this money if we knew.

Mr. LYNN

The arrangement was originally made by an ulta-Tory Radical Administration. After all, the Radical is a Tory at heart. I see no reason why a man sitting in County Kerry should not have the same salary as a man sitting in County Antrim. As a matter of fact, a Kerry man has to do nine or ten times the amount of work. The friends of my hon. Friends opposite reside in Kerry, and they give more employment for the magistrates in Kerry. I suggest that men who do equal work should get equal pay. A reasonable proposition of that kind should appeal to the Labour Members opposite. The question really resolves itself into this, are these magistrates being paid an adequate salary for the work they do? I say they are not, and I hope therefore that the Committee will say that these men should be paid a living wage.

Major BARNES

I am not at all out of sympathy with what has been said by my hon. Friend who has just spoken, but there are a great many people who are feeling the increased cost of living. That applies, though probably not quite so much, to Ireland as well as to this country. I had the opportunity yesterday of speaking in the Lobby to four or five men from Ireland and on this question of the present cost of living they said that Ireland was not at all a bad place to live in. Hon. Members opposite are interesting themselves in one class of officials but there is another class in Ireland who are feeling the increased cost of living very much. I refer to the teachers.

Mr. DONALD

Were it not for obstruction from the Benches opposite, the teachers would have better salaries.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not see that this question has anything to do with the present Bill, and I rule the reference and the interruption out of order.

Major BARNES

When a measure is brought in to deal with one class owing to increased cost of living, one might naturally expect that measures would also be brought in to deal with another large class of people in Ireland in whom members in all parts of the House are particularly interested. At question time yesterday strong pressure was put on the Government by the hon. Member for Ormeau (Mr. Moles) to deal with this matter to which I have referred and the answer was that there was not time, as there were a great many other measures to be dealt with. If the Government can find time to deal with the position of resident magistrates and sheriffs, why can they not find time to deal with the position of the teachers? I was a little surprised that the hon. Member who spoke last did not make that point.

Mr. LYNN

I would have made the point only I thought that the Chairman would have called me to order had I attempted to do so.

Major BARNES

As to the suggestion that there has never been any opposition from this side I think I can say that if a measure were brought in dealing purely with the question of the salaries of teachers no opposition would have been raised in any quarter of the House, but it had other matters attached to it. I assume that the Bill founded on this Resolution will be confined to the proposals contained in it and that there will not be any question of adding to the number of the magistrates. I think it would be wrong to base any opposition to this Bill on the question of the duties these officers are performing. There they are and those duties have been laid upon them and I think they discharge them very fearlessly and under very great difficulties. I think some very pertinent remarks were made by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood). We are passing a Bill which proposes to give hon. Members opposite control of their own affairs in the North of Ireland and I assume that that power will include control of their officials and the salaries to be paid. There is the possibility that Northern Ireland might decide to dispense with this particular class of magistrate. In that event what would be the effect of this proposal upon the obligations of the British taxpayer. We propose to advance these salaries and I do not suggest that that advance is unreasonable, but will it become the basis of pension allowances, or if a change were made say in the Northern Parliament, would it mean an increased charge on the taxpayers of this country? I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will explain the reason for abolishing the different classes of magistrates. There must have been some reason for it. The suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Woodvale that these resident magistrates were the result of a measure passed by an ultra-Tory-Radical Government. The Bill was passed in 1874, and I am under the impression that Lord Palmerston was Prime Minister and that was not an ultra-Tory-Radical Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Beaconsfield."] I am told I am wrong as to who was Prime Minister, but I do not think I am wrong in saying that there certainly was not an ultra--Tory-Radical Government. The sum of £8,000, is mentioned as being the additonal cost to the Exchequer. May I ask whether this £8,000 is the ultimate cost to the Exchequer or the cost which will arise on the first Order made after the passing of this Bill, and therefore liable to be increased as time goes on?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

My memory does not go back to 1874, and I do not propose to go into the history of the appointment of resident magistrates in Ireland. I have no hostility to them. I think they functioned pretty well up to about a year ago, and the reason why they ceased to function was owing to the bad faith of the Government to Ireland. I propose to vote against this increase of salaries. My first objection to it is that I do not like the idea of giving this power to the Lord Lieutenant. The whole power over the judiciary, paid and unpaid, should be vested in the Parliament or Parliaments to be set up in Ireland, and this sort of legislation, which reserves certain things, and the policy of the Government in pretending they cannot trust the Irish Parliaments, is only in line with their general insult to that long-suffering race. I cannot understand why my hon. Friends representing North-East Ulster support it, because I should have thought they would take it as an affront. They are going to set up a Parliament in Northern Ireland, and I should have thought they would be jealous to see that every possible power was given to that Parliament. I hope, therefore, I shall have the support of those hon. Members. I have another very strong objection to the Resolution, but may I first pour a little praise on the Government? I welcome their apparent intention to give equal pay for equal work, and I hope the next time this principle is sought to be applied in other legislation we shall have the Government's support. The greatest objection my Friends and I have to this expenditure of money is that the resident magistrates over a great portion of Ireland are not doing their work. The law in Ireland is not being administered by His Majesty's Government.

The CHAIRMAN

That has already been ruled out of order when the hon. and gallant Member was not here.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I do not wish to transgress a ruling which I did not hear, but am I in order in raising the point that there is an extreme probability that martial law is to be applied in Ireland?

The CHAIRMAN

This Resolution authorises the bringing in of a Bill to raise the salaries of the resident magistrates in Ireland.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

My contention is that the resident magistrates are not functioning, and therefore I object to voting money for duties which are not being carried out.

The CHAIRMAN

We are not voting any money at all by this Resolution.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

But we are authorising money.

The CHAIRMAN

No, we are authorising a Bill to be brought in, and the Bill may authorise expenditure. That is the occasion when the hon. and gallant Member should object to it.

Captain W. BENN

On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Resolution which you put was not "That it is expedient to authorise further payments—?" Does not that permit us to discuss what the payments are for?

The CHAIRMAN

Certainly—to discuss whether a Bill is to be allowed to be brought in to raise the salaries of magistrates.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

If I object strongly to the Bill which has been outlined by the Government, may I not try to persuade the Committee to prevent that Bill even being introduced? I object very much to the proposed Bill, and I am trying to take the constitutional means of preventing even its introduction, or the expense of its printing, because, in conjunction with a great many other Bills dealing with Ireland, which the Government have introduced, it is literally, in my opinion, not worth the paper it is printed on. It is within the knowledge of the Committee that the only real justice that is being meted out in Ireland is in those parts where the irregular Courts are functioning. The party of law and order, or the so-called Unionists—

The CHAIRMAN

That does not arise. The hon. and gallant Member cannot proceed unless he find something more relevant.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I will wind up my remarks in one sentence, by saying that I consider this money that we are asked to vote a waste of money.

Mr. R. MCLAREN

I presume these resident magistrates are Civil servants, and if so I am rather surprised that their income is to be so small. I am very much astonished to find that the Government have been so niggardly, not only in connection with salaries, but in the matter of the War Bonus of these resident magistrates. In the Civil Service of this country, the War Bonus has been not less than 30 per cent., and why these men should only get 25 per cent. I am at a loss to understand. A magistrate, who, I presume, has got a good education, receives only £625, less income tax, whereas in my own district there are ordinary working-men with no responsibility as well off. I think the Government should treat these men more generously, and that the War Bonus should be at least equal to that of the Civil Service.

1.0 P.M.

Major HAYWARD

I had not the advantage of hearing the opening of this Debate, but I am informed that the Minister in charge of this Resolution did not explain to the Committee what the final financial obligations were likely to be under this Bill when introduced; and, reading the Resolution together with the White Paper, there are one or two obvious questions, which, I think ought to be cleared up before a decision is arrived at in this matter. As pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend, the estimated additional cost to the Exchequer in the first year only will amount to £8,000, but it is stated in the White Paper that it is proposed to substitute by order made from time to time a scale rising by annual increments. I think the Committee ought to know what those annual increments will finally amount to. There is a further point. According to the White Paper, £8,000 is in respect of salaries, but the Resolution provides for salaries and allowances. I do not know whether the word "salaries" alone in the White Paper is a deviation from the meticulous care, which usually characterises a Government department in preparing these papers, or whether it implies that there is something additional, in the way of allowances, to the sum mentioned in the White Paper. This information really goes to the root of the whole matter so far as the financial aspect of the question is concerned.

Captain W. BENN

This, of course, is a Resolution on which a Money Bill is to be founded. So that the whole gravamen of the proposal is a financial one, and, therefore, it is quite natural that we should examine it with care, because the main element is expense. I shall not apologise, therefore, if I go into some detail from the financial point of view. We are asked to vote to day under the first Order £8,000, under the second Order some hundreds of pounds, under the third some thousands, and under the fourth £10,000,000. That is the program for one day of the Government, which is striving in every way to seize—I think it was the expression of the Chancellor of Exchequer—every opportunity or reducing the floating debt. I have not the least intention of challenging the right of these magistrates to have reasonable salaries. Without going back on anything I have said about the Irish question, I really think the resident magistrates are very brave men. But that does not mean that I approve in the least of the infamous system under which they are working. I admire their courage, and no one desires to reduce their pay or to see that they do not get a proper remuneration. What we do say is that, before we are asked, in the words of the Resolution, "to authorise further payments," we want to know first of all whether we approve of the expenditure, and, secondly, whether further payments are required. As regards further payments, there is a certain amount of money at present available with which to pay resident magistrates. A most significant sidelight on Irish Administration is the fact that these judges—for they are judges—are paid out of Supply. All other judges are paid out of the Consolidated Fund, which means, of course, they are out of reach of the power of the Executive; but not so resident magistrates, who are paid out of Supply, so that the Castle can regulate their procedure so far as they consider proper so to do. Therefore, there is a certain amount of money voted hitherto in Supply for the payment of these resident magistrates. What was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is perfectly true, that in a large part of Ireland, resident magistrates' Courts and many other Courts are being administered in another way, so that out of the pool from which resident magistrates are paid, a certain amount must surely be available for the areas where other Courts are operating in their rough-and-ready way to preserve law and order. Let us suppose, for example, that step by step the area of another domination is extended, are we to go on indefinitely extending the amount of financial provision for the judiciary, though in the greater part of the island it ceases to have any function? The right hon. Gentleman addresses the House with a charm of manner and great courtesy, but it does not provide the amount of information desired, and we ought to know how far he is going to ask the House for more money without explaining his attitude towards the fact that, as regards the judiciary, a large part of the country is derelict, and cannot cost anything. The Government are constantly introducing Bills to reduce the number of resident magistrates. Has that no financial bearing? There was a Bill for extending the Defence of the Realm Regulations in Ireland. Under those Regulations certain Courts are held by resident magistrates, but, in order to strengthen the grip of the Castle over the judiciary, and in order to remove any element of the semblance of a Court or jury there might be, the number of resident magistrates to constitute a Court was reduced.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. D. M. Wilson)

indicated dissent.

Captain BENN

If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks up the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, he will find it is so.

Mr. WILSON

indicated dissent.

Captain BENN

I remember quite well we protested against the number of resident magistrates. If these men are not to be employed, why should we increase the outlay? The fact of the matter is that the functions of this body are dying of atrophy, because it has not the public approval to keep it alive. Despite that, the Government ask us to hand out more money. It is not our intention by any means, although it may be thought by some to be so, to deprive the resident magistrates of a proper salary, but we say the money available is sufficient if properly distributed.

There is one small point to which I wish, in passing, to draw the attention of the Attorney-General. Under the Act of 1874, which an hon. Member in the course of the Debate has described as having been passed by an ultra-Radical statesman—Section (5), in addition to the allowance paid for travelling—that is Sub-section (2)—there is a further allowance for actual absences from home, and so on. That is the Section to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. But what about the first part of the Section? In addition to the salaries provided by this Act—that is the salary to which he referred as being set out in the Schedules—to be paid to every magistrate heretofore or hereafter appointed under the authority of the Act of 1836, there shall be an allowance for travelling of £100 per annum…" I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was not a little inaccurate in setting out the emoluments of these resident magistrates by omitting with the £100 travelling allowance the additional allowance which they may receive from time to time in respect to actual absences from home? I conceive this to be the right time for a protest on this matter to be made, and against the method by which the magistrates are controlled, because it is, I think, by the design of the Government that they have been put outside the refuge or sanctuary in which the judiciary of this country resides, and put within the control of the executive.

The CHAIRMAN

We cannot go into that aspect of the case. We are dealing at present, I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with the question of salaries for the resident magistrates.

Captain BENN

I will not pursue that further, except to refer to the White Paper, and to the abolition of the three classes. Why were there ever three classes? In the first place, why does the Government seek under the resolution and the Bill to be founded upon it to retain control of the salaries of these magistrates? The reason, I believe, is—and I say these words with a full sense of responsibility—because the executive desire to retain a degree of control over the resident magistrates which is absolutely improper if they are to preserve their judicial functions and character. Anybody who knows anything about administration in Ireland knows that is so.

Mr. ARCHDALE

It is not.

Captain BENN

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why? Who is to decide whether a resident magistrate has to have a rise or not? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me?

The CHAIRMAN

What we are dealing with at present is whether or not an annual increment shall be granted.

Captain BENN

I remember the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I understand that an order may be made from time to time varying the scales of salaries, so that there is a discretion left to the executive. It is to that that I object. The fact of the matter is that the Castle may by order alter the scale of increments paid to resident magistrates. I think that is highly improper. A magistrate in the exercise of his judicial functions, and in coming to a decision, ought to feel that his emoluments are not affected by that decision. So far as I can judge it is possible to make an order from time to time varying the scale of increments to these magistrates. It is useless for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon) to demur by nodding his head. The effect of the Bill will be to abolish the statutory salary applicable to these men. A man under the Act of 1874 knew what he was going to receive. There is now to be substituted an order which from time to time may alter the scale of salaries received and the annual increment, so that if a magistrate is a good magistrate, and satisfies the requirements and ideas of the Castle, it is within their power to see that everything is satisfactory so far as he is concerned. I think that is very improper. I have always objected to what Mr. Gladstone—and here I would remind certain members of the Liberal and Labour Parties who are afraid to speak their mind on Irish administration—called these "Re-Movable" magistrates. That was Mr. Gladstone's expression.

Where do we stand when we have passed the resolution and when the Bill has become law? Will the Bill authorise the executive to pay into Supply services year by year these new salaries of the magistrates amounting to a total annually of apparently £8,000? I think we ought to know that because it is a very important point. I cannot deal in detail with the Government's Irish proposals, even as affecting the judiciary, but I may point this out, that the higher ranks of the judges are specifically made a reserve service, but the magistrates are not.

Mr. HENRY

They are.

Captain BENN

Clause 46 of the Government of Ireland Bill says that During his continuance in office his salary shall not be diminished or his rate of pension altered without his consent. So that let the House realise that if we pass this resolution and if the Bill based upon it becomes law, these will finally be a charge upon the Supply services of this country. I suppose it means that. That is rather a different matter from that of the mild statement made by the Attorney General. We should like to know more definitely what the final charge is, and how far the disappearance of the functions of the courts—I do not mean in an offensive sense, but without duties—have rendered the magistrates without work; and therefore how far it is possible to contract the numbers in view of the diminished work, and in view of the requirements the Government themselves have made? What exactly is the position of these magistrates both as reserved services and at the time of Irish union? Here is a point to which I would direct the attention of the Attorney General; it is true that this is a reserved service until such time as the union takes place, and that after the time of union the service becomes transferred. When the service is transferred will there come a charge upon the consolidated fund of this country?

The CHAIRMAN

That matter does not arise on this Money Resolution, but it can be dealt with effectively by an Amendment to the Bill.

Captain BENN

The ultimate charge is a point of substance, but I have not the least desire to go beyond what is proper under the Money Resolution. It is a question which I submit is worthy of reply, but I will not say more than that about it. I venture to think that I have put a few questions which deserve a reply, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman with his usual courtesy will deal with the points which I have raised, I am sure that he will satisfy the legitimate desire of the Committee for information.

Mr. HENRY

My hon. and gallant Friend, I fear, must be suffering for the moment from loss of memory. He referred to an occasion when we did propose a Bill with one resident magistrate in it, but I would remind him that I accepted an Amendment from himself to put in two magistrates.

Captain BENN

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. It is a very ungrateful thing that I should have forgotten that fact, but at the moment my mind was concentrated on the original beneficent proposal of the Government. I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. HENRY

The Treasury have agreed to supplement the salaries of these magistrates to this extent, and the Bill will provide for the concurrence of the Treasury before any further increase can be given. The House may rest assured that extravagance will not be the main point of the Treasury, especially in a question of this sort. One of these resident magistrates has lost his life, and a salary of £500, rising by annual increments to £700, is not an unreasonable sum.

Captain BENN

It is not a fixed sum.

Mr. HENRY

It will be always open to the Treasury, concurring with the Lord Lieutenant, to give a slight increase, but it will have to appear on the Votes of this House. The sum already sanctioned by the Treasury is not unreasonable, and, whatever sum be granted, it will have to be voted by the House.

Mr. HOGGE

The intention is to substitute by order made from time to time it does not say by whom—a scale or scales of salaries rising by annual increase. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the minimum was £500 and the maximum £700, and this White Paper says that someone by order can alter that maximum and also the increment. Can that be done without coming back to this House, and who are the people who are to give this order?

The CHAIRMAN

That is a proper point to raise on the Bill or to make the subject of an Amendment to the Bill, but it is not pertinent here on this Money Resolution.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I have listened very carefully practically to the whole of this Debate, and I do not rise to oppose the Resolution, but I should like to ask whether it is the intention that the Treasury shall be represented this afternoon. Although it is Friday, it is practically a Supply Day, because we have no less than four Money Resolutions down on the Paper. I agree that this is a very small sum, although it is an indefinite sum, and although we do not in the least know what it is going to be in the future, but when we come to the fourth Resolution a sum of £10,000,000 is involved. I must say that it is treating the House with a want of respect that there should not be a single representative of the Treasury on that Bench. I should like to point out that these Resolutions are not on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but in the name of the representative of the Treasury. They are supposed to be moved by the Treasury, and, after all, it is the business of the Treasury to look after the interests of the taxpayer. It is not respectful to the House that we should have a long series of Money Resolutions and that the Treasury should not be represented. You cannot expect the public outside to go in for economy if day after day they see money spent in this House with the Government evidently taking absolutely no interest in the proceedings.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I would like to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that we on these benches have no quarrel whatever with him. He has made an admirable and clear statement of the case for this Bill, but I would like to emphasise what my hon. Friend (Mr. Locker-Lampson) has said. Here we are voting money and we have merely the spending Departments represented. without the Treasury dogs to look after the expenditure. We have been told over and over again that if only we would put our finger on a single spot where money could be saved the Chancellor of the Exchequer would save it. Here we are voting millions of money on a Friday afternoon without any check from the Treasury. Why are we asked to make this additional contribution to the salaries of this particular class of civil servants instead of dealing with all the civil servants in Ireland or elsewhere? Why is this particular branch of the Civil Service being dealt with at the present time? Is it because he is in danger? I agree that he is in danger and that he is showing great courage in danger, but let us have it stated if that be so. I would point out that there have been many people in danger during the last five years. They have worked for a smaller salary than the resident magistrates in Ireland, and they have done it willingly, because they knew that it was for the honour of this country. We want some explanation as to why this particular branch of the civil service should have a special enactment to raise their salaries while other branches of the Civil Service have not. We ought to have an explanation as to whether by passing this Money Resolution we are creating a new vested interest or merely increasing a vested interest that already exists. I notice that in the original Act of 1874 the appointment was made by the Lord Lieutenant or chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, whereas in this Resolution it is the Lord Lieutenant, alone. I am a little nervous lest we are creating a vested interest, which, in case the Lord Lieutenant vanishes, will require compensation as against a vested interest which at present is dependent upon the goodwill not only of the Lord Lieutenant but also of the Governor or Governors of Ireland. What I am really anxious about is that we should not, by the passage of this Resolution, create a fresh vested interest, which will have to be compounded on the passing of the Home Rule Act or any other Act, and which would involve this country in a large capital expenditure in addition to this more or less reasonable annual expenditure. The sum of £8,000 a year is not much, but if a capital of £45,000 at 25 years' purchase is going to be involved, then that is a considerable sum to add to the liabilities of this country. I want an assurance that we are not creating a vested interest which may amount to £800,000 capitalised, and which would have to be paid in compensation to those resident magistrates if they lost their jobs under a Home Rule Bill, or through secession.

The CHAIRMAN

I have already answered that point, which can be dealt with only by an Amendment to the Bill. There is nothing in the Resolution which commits us on that matter.

Mr. HENRY

The reason the Bill is necessary is that it would be possible to increase the salaries of other civil servants without a Bill, but under the Act of 1874 the salaries of resident magistrates are fixed by Statute; therefore a Bill is necessary.

Captain BENN

I understand that it would be quite possible to introduce in Supply a Supplementary Vote for the

salaries of resident magistrates, but by passing a Resolution are we in some way committing ourselves in a sense more than we do simply by a Vote in Supply, which, of course, becomes an Act in the Appropriation Act. I should like to know where there is anything in that point, and where by this Resolution there is any further commitments?

The CHAIRMAN

I have said several times that we are not committing ourselves by this Resolution.

Mr. KILEY

Attention has already been drawn to the absence of any representative of the Treasury, and I was under the impression that some action would be taken, and that a representative would be sent for. I have seen several representatives of the Treasury about the building, and the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Towyn Jones)—

The CHAIRMAN

That is not in order.

Question put, "That it is expedient to authorise further payments, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for the salaries and allowances of Resident Magistrates in Ireland and to amend the Law relating thereto."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 8.

Division No. 159.] AYES. [1.29 p.m.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Hallas, Eldred Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Hamilton, Major C. G. C. Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Hanna, George Boyle Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Astor, Viscountess Harris, Sir Henry Percy Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Atkey, A. R. Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Raeburn, Sir William H.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Hinds, John Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals) Hood, Joseph Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Barnett, Major R. W. Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Barnston, Major Harry Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Blair, Reginald Hopkins, John W. W. Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Borwick, Major G. O. Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H. Seddon, J. A.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Bridgeman, William Clive Jesson, C. Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Brittain, Sir Harry Johnstone, Joseph Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Brown, Captain D. C. Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)
Brown, T. W. (Down, North) Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George Stevens, Marshall
Burdon, Colonel Rowland Kenyon, Barnet Stewart, Gershom
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) Sugden, W. H.
Cope, Major Wm. Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lindsay, William Arthur Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid) Lorden, John William Taylor, J.
Dawes, Commander Loseby, Captain C. E. Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) Lynn, R. J. Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Dixon, Captain Herbert Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Donald, Thompson McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Edge, Captain William M'Micking, Major Gilbert Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Marriott, John Arthur Ransome Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. Mitchell, William Lane Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith Moles, Thomas Woods, Sir Robert
Galbraith, Samuel Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Morgan, Major D. Watts TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Goff, Sir R. Park Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Gould, James C. Nall, Major Joseph
NOES.
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) Tellers for the Noes.—
Hayward, Major Evan Myers, Thomas Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and Colonel Wedgwood.
Hogge, James Myles Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Lawson, John J. Swan, J. E.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be Reported upon Monday next.