§ LORD MONKSWELL, in moving for a Return in reference to State Pensions, 190 said that the Return was merely supplementary to one which had been granted in the House of Commons. It was quite open for a Member of the House of Commons to move for such a Return embracing both Houses of Parliament; but it had been thought it would be more courteous to let the Return with respect to the Members of the House of Lords be moved by a Member of that House.
§
Moved, That there be laid before the House—
A Return showing the names of all present Members of this House who are in receipt of public money from the National Exchequer, whether in the form of salary, pay, pension, or allowance of any kind, or who have received commutation in respect thereof under the Commutation Acts, with separate columns showing the amounts they receive or have commuted, with the amount of the commutation money, and, the name of the office or nature of the service for which the money is or has been paid."—(The Lord Monkswell. )
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHBefore this Motion is agreed to I should like to ask for some further information on the subject. I do not rise to oppose the Motion, but I think it would he interesting for us to know whether this is a matter which is within the province of the Local Government Board, and is therefore moved for on behalf of the Local Government Board by the noble Lord as representing that Department in this House—whether it is in any sense a Government Return, or whether, to put another hypothesis, it is moved for in the interests of the London County Council, of which the noble Lord is a member. I entirely concur with him that, as a matter of courtesy, a Return of this kind it is better should be moved for in this House. I have said already I do not propose to offer any opposition to it. I simply ask the question, because I think it would be interesting to know if any indication can be given to the House of the reasons why it is found desirable that this Return should be asked for and what use it will be put to when obtained.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, that he had moved for a similar Return in 1888, and, as he was not then questioned, he had supposed that the present Return would be granted without comment. No member of the London County Council had said a word to him on the subject, 191 and he could not see why the noble Lord should suppose that the County Council was particularly anxious to get this Return. Previous to putting the Notice on the Paper he was assured by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he was in favour of its being moved for. If the noble Lord wanted to know more he could ask his friends in the other House to question the Secretary to the Treasury.
§ THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsaid, that the information desired by Lord Monkswell was already obtainable, but the two Houses were not distinguished. The Motion simply placed upon certain clerks the duty of selecting out of the lists which existed the Members of the House of Lords. Why should a Return be made in that particular form rather than in the general form in which the information was now given?
THE EARL OF DUNDONALDasked whether in the Return the amount received from the Treasury by every officer in the Army would be stated, without the amounts which the necessity of his position compelled such officer to pay back. That would be to place before the country an unfair statement of the facts. Officers had to provide horses and servants and to pay subscriptions; and in his own case he had invested a large sum of money in the purchase of his commission. An appendix should be given showing the amounts that each recipient of salary from the country had to pay back.
§ EARL CADOGANI must say I think the answer which the noble Lord has given to my noble Friend is very unsatisfactory. There may be no objection to the Return, but the noble Lord who asked for it ought to state what was its object and how it was to be obtained. It seems to be a Return of a very inquisitorial character. The noble Lord has disclaimed speaking for the County Council, but he has not been quite so definite in disclaiming his agency as a Member of the Government. He told us he had asked the opinion of the Secretary to the Treasury and was disposed to refer Members of this House to the Secretary to the Treasury for information, but surely, the noble Lord will not decline to inform us what use he means to make of this Return when he has got it.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had only been able to discover three reasons for asking for this Return, and none of them seemed to justify the expense to which it would put the country. First of all, these pensions were possibly asked for in order to tax the persons named in the Return on "betterment" principles, or the noble Lord might be intending to make use of the Return as ancillary to making payments to both Houses of Parliament, or he might be intending to pick up the mantle of Mr. Bradlaugh. It was difficult to see any other reason for asking for this Return.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that if the noble Lord was at a loss for a reason for his Motion he would suggest that he was moving in the interests of the Financial Reform Almanack.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYThe reason for moving for the Return is exceedingly simple. As stated by my noble Friend, it has been moved for and granted in the House of Commons. Out of courtesy to the House of Lords the Motion in the House of Commons was limited to the Members of that House in order that a separate Motion might be made in the House of Lords. I cannot understand the curiosity of noble Lords as to the intention with which the Return was moved. There is nothing at all uncommon in it. I am unable to say what particular object there may be in it, but I cannot see why particulars of pay and pensions should be objected to by those receiving them. If it had not been moved for in the other House no doubt it might have been invidious, but my noble Friend simply moved for it in this House because it was thought more courteous to your Lordships.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONasked whether the House was to understand the Return was moved in the interests of the Government, because, if so, the Government ought to know the reasons for moving for it. Another important point had been raised by the noble and gallant Lord (the Earl of Dundonald)—namely, of what was this Return to consist, and whether it was to take into account the money which had been paid back in one form and another by the recipients of pay or pensions. That noble and gallant Lord's expenses as Commanding Officer of one of the regi- 193 ments of Household Cavalry ought to be set against the pay he received. Under the circumstances, the House ought to be informed by the noble Lords opposite what it was they asked, and why they asked it.
LORD MONKS WELLsaid that as there seemed to be so much opposition to the Return, and as it could be moved equally well in the House of Commons, he was quite willing to withdraw the Motion.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, there was no cause for that remark; he had clearly said he did not wish to oppose the Return, and he had obtained from the Lord President of the Council the information he had asked for, and which he did not get at first.
§ THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsaid, that there was no objection to the Return in itself, though it was unnecessary, and was imposing on a number of clerks a duty which was not called for, because the information was easily accessible.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI hope I have made it quite clear, and it must be understood that the Return is not moved on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Motion agreed to.