SHERIFFS (IRELAND) [SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES]. (Hansard, 25 June 1920)

§ Mr. HENRY
This Resolution deals with the position of salaries of under-sheriffs and bailiffs in Ireland. The under-sheriff in Ireland is at present appointed by the high sheriff. He holds office for a year or during the period of office of the high sheriff. At present he is remunerated by a grant from the county, supplemented by one allowed by the Treasury. In most cases he gets £100 a year from the county, and about the same from the Treasury. In addition to that, during assize times the Treasury allow him a remuneration of £3 3s. per day. What we propose to do is that out of moneys provided by Parliament there should be paid to the under-sheriff of the county and borough of Dublin the sum of £250, to the under-sheriffs for other county boroughs the sum of £150, and to the under-sheriffs for the counties the sum of £200. That is the Government contribution, and the result of carrying this measure will be that the total increased expenditure will amount to £362, the savings effected by cancelling the payments now made almost balancing the sum which the House is asked to vote. The present allowance in respect of under-sheriffs and assize expenses is £8,300. The new figure is £8,662.

§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
How many sheriffs are there?

§ Mr. HENRY
There are 32 counties in Ireland and 3 county boroughs each with one under-sheriff and, in addition, in the case of Tipperary there are two sheriffs. This Bill has been promoted by the Government as a result of representations from various bodies representing mercantile interests in Ireland. A Committee was appointed to investigate the question, the Chairman of which was the Recorder of Dublin. Among its members were the President of the Incorporated Law Society, the President of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, Sir George Fottrell, the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for Dublin, and a representative of the Treasury, and it is in consequence of the recommendations of that Committee that this Bill has been brought forward. The object is not so much to increase the salaries of the under-sheriffs as to give them fixity of tenure. At present they are liable to be dismissed at the end of the year. In the future they will hold office under appointment by the Lord Lieutenant, and they will become permanent officials. They will also act as returning officers and it is obvious, having regard to the responsible duties they will have to discharge, they should have some fixity of tenure.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Do we understand that this Bill involves only an additional expenditure by the Exchequer of £362?

§ Mr. HENRY
That is in respect of under-sheriffs. In addition, however, recommendations are made by the Committee that men should be appointed as bailiffs to execute decrees of the County Courts and judgments of the Superior Courts. Those who at present in the County Courts serve civil bills get a sum of £20 per year. Originally they had £10. It is proposed to take a certain number of the best of these men and to appoint them at a salary of £40—an increase of £20 on their present remuneration, and for a certain class of business they will get small fees in addition. It is very desirable to have fairly decent men in these positions and I cannot think it will be suggested that £40 is an excessive remuneration.

Captain BENN
How many are there?

§ Mr. HENRY
I will give the exact numbers in Committee, but I should think that six for each county would be ample. That would mean 170 appointments, and the additional salary of £20 represents a total of £3,400. I may remind the Committee that the County Courts contribute considerably to the taxes, for each proceeding, however small, 1s. goes to the Exchequer, and if the sum involved exceeds £5, the contribution to the Exchequer is 1s. 6d. There are further stamp duties in the case of decrees and so on, and it is very desirable in the interests of the mercantile community that these men should have a reasonable salary. I have said that, respecting the Under-Sheriffs, £262 represents the total additional charge for the Treasury. Of course, we provide that the municipalities shall contribute as well, but that is quite a distinct charge. Their contributions, how-over, will be slightly increased.

Captain BENN
Is the amount of the contribution of the municipalities taken into account in this estimate?

§ Mr. HENRY
I think my hon. Friend will find that Dublin provides £350 as against the Government's £250 for the Under-Sheriffs. The counties provivde £250, against £150 from the Treasury.

Captain BENN
I asked that question because, of course, if the amount we are now voting depends on the amount which the municipalities are prepared to vote, we shall have to consider whether or not there is any likelihood of the municipalities refusing to contribute.

§ Mr. HENRY
It is not a matter of voting. The municipalities at present contribute, under Statute, to the up-keep of the Under-Sheriffs, sums varying from a maximum of £150 downwards. It is not proposed in any way to increase, beyond the figures that are here set out, the amount payable by the municipalities. The matter dealt with in the Resolution involves merely an increase of £362 from the Treasury in respect of the Under-Sheriffs, and a sum which I shall be able to deal with clearly in Committee, but which I estimate at about £4,000, in order to provide for the bailiffs.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The increase in the fees or salaries of the Under-Sheriffs is borne both by the Exchequer and by 2582 the local authorities. Is the increase in the salaries of the process servers borne partly by the Exchequer and partly by the local authorities, or does it all fall on the Exchequer?

§ Mr. HENRY
It is all borne by the Exchequer.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
It seems to me that this is a matter which is more important than appears at first sight. An increase of £362 seems small, and I rather felt inclined to let it go, as we vote millions with such cheerfulness. What the right hon. Gentleman said, however, put a rather different complexion upon it, and I am sorry that more hon. Members do not see fit to supervise this expenditure of public money. This seems to me to be peculiarly a matter which ought not to be decided by this House, but ought to be left to the Irish legislative bodies which are to be set up. This is the second of these money Resolutions affecting the judiciary in Ireland which has been brought before the Committee to-day, and when I see Bill after Bill affecting these small details of Irish judicial life, I suspect strongly that the Government are not in earnest in their policy. I should not be in order in discussing that policy, but this small resolution is another straw showing which way, not the wind, but the gale is blowing. The previous Resolution was brought in on the ground of levelling up the remuneration of resident magistrates, and I think we all welcome the Government's conversion to the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. This Resolution does exactly the opposite. We are asked to vote money to remunerate the Under Sheriff in Dublin at a different rate from the Under Sheriffs in the country. I can understand the argument that it is more expensive to live in Dublin than in the rest of Ireland. I do not know if it costs more to live in Belfast, to which I suppose this applies. The hon. and learned Gentleman has a wider experience of living in both places than I have, but I have certainly found Dublin to be not a cheap place to live in, although the rest of Ireland is very cheap. If his argument is that the addition is made because it costs more to live in Dublin, I think it is a most mischievous argument. I objected very much during the War to the differentiation in regard to pensions in London.

§ Mr. HENRY
The reason for the larger amount in Dublin is that there is much more work there. The Courts are sitting constantly, whereas in Belfast they only sit for Assizes.

§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
That explains that part of the matter, but not the difference between the remuneration in the county boroughs and in the counties. I do not know if the same explanation applies there.

§ Mr. D. WILSON
indicated assent.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I understand from the hon. and learned Gentleman that it does, and, personally, I am satisfied with that explanation. The next objection I have to this is that this sum of money is grossly inadequate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the under-sheriffs must be persons of some position. That means that they have a position to keep up, and it is proposed that they should do that on from £200 to £350 a year. I take it that there are certain fees, but that is the only sum that they can rely upon. In view of the increased cost of living, I consider that to be quite inadequate. I do not believe in our approving of sweated wages, and I shall have to vote against this Resolution for that reason, if for no other. To ask persons of some position, exercising important judicial functions, to live on this guaranteed wage, is, to my mind, an insult, and I am afraid it will be accounted one more affront that is put upon Ireland by this Parliament. These admirable persons, under Clause 3 of the Bill, are practically prohibited from accepting any other employment. They are not allowed to practice as barristers or solicitors in any Civil Bill Court, in the Court of Quarter Session, or at Assizes. I do not know whether they are allowed to engage in trade or farming, or by any other means to increase their livelihood, but they will have to do something of the sort in order to live and keep their families in any sort of decency.
With regard to the bailiffs, who are being given the princely sum—again in addition, of course, to fees—of £40 a year certain, that seems to me also to be simply heinous. I suppose they are responsible people, and have to be incorruptible. There are 170 of them in all, and the total sum they receive from the municipalities is £3,400 a year. The hon. and 2584 gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the case of the municipalities refusing to pay, and I think that ought to be cleared up. Otherwise, hon. Members might be under the impression that they were only voting an additional £360, which was not much to quarrel about. This, however, is a matter of £3,400 in the event of the municipalities refusing to pay. A great many muncipalities in Ireland are, of set purpose, deliberately refusing in any way to help the Local Government Board or the Executive—in fact, they are almost obstructing—and I should think there will be many cases of refusal to pay. Although the Crown can put the law in motion to attach their property and distrain upon them, that would mean a great deal of delay, and in the meantime these unfortunate bailiffs would be on their beam ends. Undoubtedly the Treasury will make advances, and this House will be asked to authorise the payment of the sums involved. I think that matter ought to be cleared up before we pass this Resolution.
Finally, I come to the most damning part of this Resolution and the Bill which is founded on it, in that this gives more power to the Lord Lieutenant to appoint persons to public offices because of their political opinions. Under the Bill the power of appointing these under-sheriffs—I take it there are people who wish to be under-sheriffs; there are probably some social advantages to be gained thereby—is taken from the sheriffs and vested in the Lord Lieutenant, and that is only increasing once more the power that is exercised far too much in Ireland, as I am sure hon. Members from North-East Ulster will admit. It applies in the South and in the North both ways, because of their religion or their politics. In the South you have men appointed because they belong to one denomination or one political party, and in the North because they belong to exactly the opposite, and that is one of the curses and banes of Irish life. Here you are vesting that matter still more greatly in the Lord Lieutenant. It means that any man who wants to be an under-sheriff in theory must satisfy the Lord Lieutenant and in practice must satisfy one of the permanent officials at Dublin Castle, who will naturally, I am afraid, only appoint a man of one particular political complexion. If for no other reason 2585 than that, apart from the sweated wage offered to these men in these times, I shall have to vote against the Resolution.

§ Mr. SEDDON
I have never heard more contradictory speeches than those which have been delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). On the last occasion he voted with his friends against a living wage. On this occasion he is opposing this Bill, because in his opinion it does not give a living wage. I hope the friends of the blind will notice the collusion that is taking place, which is pure obstruction to the third Order.

§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
Withdraw.

§ Mr. SEDDON
I am in the hands of the Chair. The hon. and gallant Gentleman intervenes more and creates more ill feeling than any other man in the House, and then when he is replied to begins to shout "Withdraw" without rhyme or reason. I think he ought to understand that other Members in the House have privileges as well as himself. I am deeply interested in the next question.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
So are we.

§ Mr. SEDDON
It is deliberate obstruction, and I hope the friends of the blind will recognise the combination that is trying to prevent these unfortunate people getting justice.

§ Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS
I am here to support the Blind Bill. I appeal to hon. Members not to obstruct this measure, but to let the Blind Bill come on; otherwise they may talk till five o'clock and the blind people will be neglected.

§ Mr. KILEY
I am as interested in the blind as the last two hon. Members who have spoken, and they need have no anxiety about the Bill going through. They had better have waited a little longer before making the observations they have made. I rise to express my strong disappointment at the lack of information which has been forthcoming from the Minister in Charge concerning the Resolution we are now considering. One of the most important proposals before us is the question of the appointment of Under-Sheriffs. If there is any objection I have to arrangements which have arisen out of the War, it is that there 2586 is to much centralisation. For no reason that I can gather from the Minister in Charge, it is proposed to make some very drastic changes, and before we pass the Resolution we ought to have some real reason. There is also the question of the payment of these Under-Sheriffs. The Minister dealt with the necessity of getting responsible and reliable and the best class of men it is possible to get for these very important positions. If you look at the salaries which are given to these important and better class individuals, you will find they start at something like £150 per annum. I do not know what the Labour party have to say to that magnificent sum for a superior, well-educated, well-trained, reliable person.

§ Major MORGAN
Some went into the Lobby last time in favour of a living wage.

§ Mr. KILEY
Some of the hon. Member's colleagues were in the same Lobby. I was not there, but some of his Friends were in that position. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what class of superior, well-educated persons he expects to get for a salary of £150 a year. We are entitled to further information on these points, and I shall listen with interest to what he has to say.

§ Captain W. BENN
I should not have been anxious to examine the proposal if it had not been for the amazing speech of the hon Member (Mr. Seddon). He visits the House very rarely, and he expects the House immediately he arrives to sit to attention while he delivers his speech. I do not think since Colonel Pride came into our midst there has been anything quite like it.

§ Mr. SEDDON
I have sat here as long as the hon. and gallant Gentleman—since the House started.

§ Captain BENN
The hon. Member should know from his long experience that this is a Committee intended to examine financial proposals put before it. The fact that he wishes to get on to a proposition about the blind, with which we all most earnestly sympathise and intend to support—

§ Mr. SEDDON
Let us get to it.

§ Captain BENN
The hon. Member is impatient. I do not propose to get to 2587 it till we have disposed of this Resolution. What sort of right has he to insist that the moment he arrives, the Bill he is interested in should be considered, and that everyone else should be silent? I have never heard of such a thing. The sooner he habituates himself to the ordinary procedure and courtesies of the House the better it will be for the conduct of business.

§ Mr. SEDDON
You are not a very good judge of courtesy.

§ Captain BENN
It is not our fault that the Government has put down Money Resolutions, and then whispered round the Lobbies that it is indecent to oppose them because there is something important that is to follow. The Attorney-General does not do it, but the myrmidons do it—the minions. We are told it is not decent to discuss a financial Resolution because there is something of importance coming on. I think people outside the House will not blame us for insisting, even on a Friday afternoon, in finding out the reason for a grand total expenditure of between—10,000,000 and—20,000,000 which is proposed to-day. That is the grand total of the bill of fare presented by the Patronage Secretary.

§ Mr. SEDDON
Do you object to the proposals for the blind? They are very important.

§ Captain BENN
Of course, they are important, and I am in sympathy with them. We have three hours yet. Why should we not discuss other things on the Order Paper because there is a proposal of some other kind coming on later? We are here examining the proposed payment in respect to salaries and allowances of sheriffs in Ireland, and they are matters of importance on which I wish to ask questions. If they are satisfactorily answered and we can come to a decision, we can get to the next proposal. First of all, I reiterate what was said on the other Resolution, that it is not a right thing for us to legislate now and to make changes in the framework of Irish legislation if the Government is in earnest on the Irish Home Rule Bill.

§ The CHAIRMAN
This question has been repeated three times, and it comes under the Rule against repetition.

§ Captain BENN
I was out of the House, and I did not know that it had been mentioned before.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is all the more important. Standing Order 19 is directed against Members repeating things that have been said by themselves or other Members.

§ Captain BENN
I know the Standing Order well. I was not aware that other Members had mentioned it on this Resolution. My second point is that it is proposed to transfer the appointment and the payment of these officers from the local to the central authority. They were formerly appointed by the High Sheriffs, but they are to be appointed in future by the Lord Lieutenant. We should not have to vote this money if the change was not being made. This means an increase in the central fund, and the reason we have this Resolution, I presume, is because the High Sheriffs cannot in the eyes of the Government be trusted.

§ Mr. HENRY
indicated dissent.

§ Captain BENN
I think some of the High Sheriffs have refused to appoint under-sheriffs. This Resolution is an integral part of a new proposal to centralise the government and to destroy all vestige of local control in Ireland.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That may be in the Bill, but it is not in the Resolution. This Resolution authorises only the financial part of the Bill. Any criticism of the Bill must be reserved until we come to the Bill itself.

§ Captain BENN
It is very difficult for us to consider adequately the proposals of the Government when so much of them have a purely financial bearing. I am anxious to keep within your ruling. The Leader of the House, in reference to these money resolutions, gave a pledge that we should have an estimate laid before us of all the costs that would be involved, but the White Paper, Command Paper 748, dealing with this resolution does not fulfil the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman. We should like to know what the total charge is to be. The resolution says that we are to "authorise the payment out of monies provided by Parliament of annual sums not exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds each to under-sheriffs, and of 2589 increased salaries not exceeding forty pounds per annum each to process servers who are also bailiffs." We cannot know what cost that involves until we know the number of the persons concerned. Has that occurred to the hon. Member for Hanley? We do not know what amount of money we are voting. I want to know how many of these people are to be appointed, in order that we may know what sum is likely to fall on the consolidated fund. Is that an unreasonable request or an obstruction? This money has been found by the municipalities in Ireland.

§ Mr. HENRY
Not the whole.

§ Captain BENN
Part of it. Is there any reason to suppose that they will pay it? Is it not true that 29 out of 33 local authorities have refused to acknowledge the authority of the Local Government Board? Therefore a sum of money which was previously paid by the local authorities is going to come out of the Imperial Exchequer.

§ Mr. HENRY
No.

§ Captain BENN
That is what the Resolution says—"out of monies provided by Parliament." What is the number of these officials, and what will be the total cost?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Two of the hon. and gallant Member's colleagues have already put all these questions seriatim. The hon. Member is not fair to the Committee. I have warned him of the Standing Order as to repetition, and I must now ask him to resume his seat.

§ Major MORGAN
I desire to offer a personal explanation. The Chairman has already called the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the fact that his arguments have been repeated more than six times by—

§ The CHAIRMAN
It will be wise to leave that to the Chair.