Page images
PDF
EPUB

describe that this police reporter was | Address for a Return showing, for each endeavouring to force his way to the of the years from 1881 to 1886 inclusive platform? I also wish to know from (1) Total number of constables prothe Attorney General whether he will moted to the rank of sergeant; (2) numdo his best to get information in the ber of the above who at the time of course of to-day, as I am anxious about their promotion either were over 35 the matter?-the combatants being my years of age or had served in the force constituents, of whose conduct I am in- upwards of ten years. tensely proud to-day.

MR. SPEAKER said, the hon. Member could not move for the Return, as it was opposed.

MR. PICKERSGILL said, that there was no Notice of opposition on the Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! MR. SEXTON: I beg to give Notice, Sir, that I shall strenuously resist any progress being made with the Appropriation Bill unless a full and official account is laid before the House to-day. DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid): Isary. wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is a fact, as is would move it at the close of the Sitting.

shown by to-day's papers, that the commencement of this terrible affair

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! A number of Questions have been asked on this matter, and the Ministers have replied that they are not in possession of sufficient information. The matter cannot be carried further.

DR. TANNER: I bow to your deci sion; but--

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

MR. SEXTON: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are other Questions on the Paper which have not yet been put.

DR. TANNER: Hear, hear!

IRELAND-BELFAST-GRANT FOR

CITY CHARTER.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.) asked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the Irish Law Officers reported on the Petition for the grant of a City Charter to Belfast; what is the cause of the delay in finally dealing with the Petition; and, when he expects to be able to announce the granting of the Charter?

THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster): I have had no time to obtain information on this subject, the Question having only appeared on the Paper this morning.

MR. SEXTON: I will repeat the Question on Monday.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.

MOTION FOR A PAPER.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.) said, he rose to move for an VOL. CCCXXI. THIRD SERIES.]

MR. SPEAKER: That is not neces

MR. PICKERSGILL said, that he

[blocks in formation]

CONSIDERATION.

Bill, as amended, considered.

Clause 2 (Power to grant retiring allowances to persons removed).

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.) said, he rose to move the omission of words from the clause, which provided that the particulars of a civil servant's inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office should be set forth in the Treasury Minute granting an allowance.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "the particulars of his inability to discharge inefficiently the duties of his office."(Mr. Jackson.)

Question proposed, "That the words. proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.) said, he strongly objected to this Amendment. He thought it was only reasonable that these particulars should be given. This was a Bill to give the Treasury a discretion which hitherto had been exercised in an illegal and irregular manner. If public servants made themselves sufficiently disagreeable, they were got rid of in the prime of life with large superannuation allowances, the result being that their services were lost to the public, while an additional burden was imposed upon the

G

DR. TANNER (Cork Co.. Mid) said, that the Bill, which was of considerable importance and very long, had never been discussed except in the small hours of the morning. There was one particular point connected with the general question of superannuation which he thought ought to be considered by the House.

taxpayer. He had no doubt that both | security was taken under the clause as the First Lord of the Treasury and the it stood, because it provided that the Secretary to the Treasury were vigilant Treasury Minute granting the allow guardians of the public purse, but they ance should set forth the amount of the had pressure put upon them, and, as the allowance and the reasons for granting old proverb had it, quis custodist ipsos it and should be laid before Parliacustodes? He had been for some years ment. sitting in the House, but it was only lately he had come to understand that the Auditor General was no real check. It was true that the Auditor General often reported that certain grants of pensions and other grants were illegal, irregular, and unauthorized, but they were got through by the Committee of Public Accounts. That Committee was no doubt an excellent body, but it was composed of Members of that House, and the Government had great influence over them. He did not remember one single case in which the Public Accounts Committee proposed that these illegal and irregular payments should be refused by the House. The words proposed to be left out were allowed to remain in the Bill during its two previous stages, and he now made an appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober of the Treasury not to strike them out.

MR. JACKSON said, the matter was really a very trivial one.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Not at all.

MR. JACKSON said, that the hon. Member appeared to be under the impression that since the Bill passed the second reading and the Committee stage some pressure had been put upon the Government to strike out these words. That was not the fact. He was not aware that the words had been left in the Bill. He admitted that was his own fault, because he agreed when the Bill first came before the House to strike out the words, as he thought them unnecessary and needlessly offensive.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: With whom was the agreement made?

MR. JACKSON said, it was made with those who thought their interests were affected. The hon. Gentleman complained that in discharging a disagreeable duty the Treasury sought to discharge it in a manner as little disagreeable as possible. If a man was given a certificate of inability it was entirely unnecessary to give the particulars and set them forth to the world. So far as knowledge of the circumstances was desirable full and complete

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must not discuss the provisions of the Bill, but must confine himself to the Amendment.

DR. TANNER: I had not the slightest intention of doing so.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman was certainly doing so.

DR. TANNER said, his only object was to lead up to the Amendment of the Secretary to the Treasury, which struck out of the clause the words "the particulars of his inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office." His own opinion was that whenever a civil servant was superannuated, whether from accident, old age, inefficiency, or disease, the cause should be clearly stated. He hoped the House would divide against the Amendment, as he believed it would destroy the whole gist of the clause.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.) said, that there was reason to complain that at the last moment this change, which was a most important one, should have been sprung upon the House. He asked for the retention of the words in the interests of the civil servants. If there was security that the civil servant should know the precise grounds upon which he was discharged his objection would be met. He did not understand what security there was that the civil servant would be able to ascertain the precise grounds.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND) (Hampstead) said, that under Section 2 the Secretary to the Treasury was required to state the amount of the allowance granted to a discharged civil servant, and the reasons for such allowance. The only point was whether it was necessary to go further and state the par

ticulars of the officer's inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office. To do that would, it appeared to him, be both unnecessary and mischievous to the officer, especially as the particulars could always be ascertained.

MR. PICKERSGILL said. that did not meet his objection; the reasons for the allowance were perfectly distinct from the reasons for which the officer was discharged.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith) said, he should support the Amendment. He agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury that the proposed alteration in the Bill was a kindly concession to the civil servants. He thought all the information that was necessary would be contained in the certificate.

Treasury could do it in every case, he thought the words were not necessary. Question put.

The House divided:-Ayes 23; Noes 76: Majority 53.-(Div. List, No. 471.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

DR. TANNER: No!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member name a Teller?

DR. TANNER: I name the hon.
Member for North Kildare (Mr. Carew).
MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Mem-
ber tell?

MR. CAREW (Kildare, N.): Yes, Sir.
Question put.

The House divided:-Ayes 81; Noes 16: Majority 65.-(Div. List, No. 472.) Bill read the third time, and passed.

BANKRUPTCY (DISCHARGE AND CLO-
SURE) BILL.-[BILI. 327.]
Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General,
Baron Henry De Worms.)
CONSIDERATION.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin) said, he regretted that the omission of these words had been proposed. They were a defence and protection to the Treasury. While the House, as a rule, looked to the Treasury to prevent extravagance, the Treasury itself was not so strong that it could afford to throw (Mr. away a protection if it could obtain it, and that protection was being thrown away out of delicacy to the feelings of the officer himself. He thought they were carrying that delicacy too far in refusing to put in the Minute the reasons why the officer was discharged. The Treasury were occasionally pressed to allow retirements of which they did not approve; and if they were able to put in the certificate the reasons for the discharge, they would find in that a protection which they were now, for reasons which appeared to him totally inadequate, going to throw away.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEESTER) (Isle of Wight) said, if he thought the hon. Gentleman was right in the view he had taken of the words he would support his contention. But he ventured to think that, as the words stood, they were sufficient protection to the Treasury. There were cases in which it was very desirable to state, and the Treasury would state, the reasons for the dismissal if it was necessary to protect themselves; but, on the other hand, there were cases in which it would not be necessary to do so in order to protect the Treasury, and yet if those words were retained they would be compelled to do it, and therefore, as the

Bill, as amended, considered. Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid) said, he had an Amendment to move to the second clause of the Bill.

hon. Gentleman cannot move an AmendMR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The ment, as the Question is that the Bill be read a third time.

DR. TANNER: "As amended to be

considered" is on the Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is that the Bill be read a third time.

DR. TANNER: I challenge a Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member name a second teller?

DR. TANNER named the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien).

Question put.

The House divided: -Ayes 80; Noes 14: Majority 66.-(Div. List, No. 473.) Bill read the third time, and passed.

DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT (No. 2) BILL [Lords]-[BILL 381.] (Mr. Attorney General.)

CONSIDERATION.

Bill, as amended, considered. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."-(Mr. Attorney General.)

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.) said, he did not think it right that the Bill should be read a third time in this summary way without some explanation of its contents being given to the House. The Attorney General, who had sprung the Bill upon them, had stated on a previous occasion that the Bill had been discussed last Session, and that it had been considered by several Irish Members of Parliament.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight): I said the Bill was considered this Session.

MR. CLANCY said, that so far as he

recollected the Bill had never been discussed in the House, or, at any rate, he had never been present during its discussion, in spite of the fact that the Attorney General said that he (Mr. Clancy) had taken part in the discussion. He should like to move an Amendment to the 5th clause, and he had understood that such opportunity would be offered on the Report. He should like to know whether or not he would be entitled to move an Amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: I distinctly asked the House whether there were any Amendments to this Bill, and the hon. Member in charge of it said "No." Therefore, the next step was to put to the House the Question that the Bill be read a third time.

MR. CLANCY: May I move an Amendment now?

MR. SPEAKER: No Amendment can be moved now.

MR. CLANCY said, in that case he must protest, by way of taking a Division, against the third reading of the Bill. The measure had been hurried through the House in the early hours of the morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that matter now. He is not discussing the Bill or anything connected with it.

MR. CLANCY: I was going to give

some reasons-

MR. SPEAKER; Order, order! I must warn the hon. Gentleman.

MR. CLANCY said, he was only stating his reasons against taking the third reading now. He hoped he might be permitted to add that if he had had an opportunity he would have moved an Amendment to Clause 5, under which the period for registration was to be seven days. It appeared to him that that was a very short time to allow. This seemed to be a clause for filling the pockets of the lawyers with fees. On this ground and on other grounds he begged to move that the Bill should be read a third time on this day three months.

MR. SPEAKER: Does any one second that proposal?

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid): Yes, Sir, I do.

the word "now," and at the end of the Amendment proposed, to leave out Question to add the words "upon this day three months."-(Mr. Clancy.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. COURTNEY said, that perhaps he might be allowed to clear up a misapprehension which appeared to exist in the mind of the hon. Member. The hon. Member said that the Bill had only been brought in at early hours of the morning, and that it had not been discussed in that House at all. This Bill was a peculiar one. A Bill precisely the same word for word as the present Bill quitted the House of Commons early in the Session. It was discussed at considerable length, and the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) took great interest in it, and co-operated largely with the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. King) and the Attorney General in bringing it to a third reading. The Bill went up to the House of Lords, but its promoters in this House were unaware of the necessity of getting some Peer to take it up and prosecute its progress in the other House. Along with one or two other Bills which went up to the House of Lords with the full concurrence of the House of Commons, it was delayed until after the time when it was possible for it to be taken by their Lordships. It therefore practically became a dropped Bill. In order that the

time and labour of this House might not be wasted, their Lordships apparently spontaneously brought in a new Bill word for word the same as the measure which had left the House of Commons. That Bill being passed in the House of Lords now came down to this House, and this House was now asked to go through what was perhaps an empty form, that of reasserting and reaffirming what was done at an early part of the Session. That was the excuse for the Bill being passed without explanation or consideration in the early hours of the morning, which the hon. Member complained of. The hon. Member would see that the House had had full knowledge of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Bill was as much the work of the hon. Member for Kilkenny as of its original promoters. He trusted that the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.) said, he also hoped that after the elaborate and courteous explanation of the hon. Gen- | tleman the Chairman of Committees, for which they were all very thankful, his hon. Friend would withdraw his opposition, though that opposition had, in the absence of any explanation on the part of the Attorney General, been quite justified.

MR. CLANCY said, that this discussion would have been obviated if the explanation given by the Chairman of Committees had been given at the outset by the Attorney General. It was part of the policy of Her Majesty's Go

vernment to

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

so he would move that the Speaker should leave the Chair that day three months. This Bill provided for the continuance of a number of Acts of various kinds, and which were continued in a hand-to-mouth fashion from Session to Session without any opportunity being given for their reconsideration. It continued, for instance, the Employers' Liability Act. The whole subject-matter of that Act had been threshed out before a Select Committee of the House. There was no reason whatever why a new Employers' Liability Bill should not have been passed into law in the present Session; but the Government, instead of taking up useful projects of that kind, had thought fit to fritter away the time of an unsually prolonged Session in so-called Business which could not possibly conduce to the well-being of the Empire, or any part of it. The labours of the strong and industrious Committee on the Employers' Liability Act had been practically thrown away, at any rate, for a considerable time to come. The whole question was ripe for legislation. The House and every branch of industry were agreed in the provisions embodied in the Special Report of the Committee, and he believed the Government had actually a Bill ready for presentation to the House, founded upon that Special Report. What was the consequence of the conduct of Business by the Government? The whole class of seamen was excluded from the provisions of the Employers' Liability Act, and besides that whole classes of men were now compelled by the terms of their service to contract themselves out of the benefit of the Act. Other recommendations of the Committee which would have found acceptance were, for the time being, absolutely wasted, and the present imperfect law was to be continued by the hand-to-mouth method of this Bill. protested against this miserable way of carrying on the Business of the country. He hoped that the Attorney General would state in the clearest way what was the intention of the Govern

He

ment with regard to the Bill, and the recommendations of the Committee, and, in the meantime, he moved that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill this day three months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of

« PreviousContinue »