opposed it, on the grounds that the Rector had not complied with the condition under which he had stipulated to fulfil the duties of the incumbency. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

seconded the Amendment, and complained of this House being called on to make a rate upon the parishioners of Christchurch for the payment of the Rector, who did no duty in the parish, and who held other livings. He had heard that the rev. Gentleman was a most amiable and good man, but his objection to the rate-payers being obliged to contribute 400l. a-year to a pluralist was founded upon principle, and he trusted that this House would, upon the principle of right and justice, refuse to sanction this Bill.

begged to state the ground upon which he objected to this Bill being supported by the House. Two years ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury introduced a Bill into the other House, which sanctioned pluralities. When the Bill came before this House, he (Mr. Hume) moved an Address to the King, praying the numbers and amount of pluralities should be laid before the House. The Returns had he called upon the House, in obedience to its own previous declaration, not to pass a Bill of this kind which sanctioned the principle of plurality. He knew nothing of the rev. gentleman in question. His opposition was to the principle of the Bill.

considered pluralities the greatest abuse existing in the Church. He did not think the property of the Church too great if it were properly distributed, and one means of effecting a more proportionate distribution would be, to prevent any gentleman who already held a living or a stall of the value of 500l., or upwards, to take any other benefice whatever. He opposed the present Bill.

opposed the Bill, which, he said, if it were allowed to pass, would constitute a precedent to encourage any Rector, who was not content with his income, to apply to that House for power to compel his parishioners to pay him more, whether they were pleased with him or not.

opposed the Bill, but said he was certain the Church property was not more than sufficient for the purposes for which it was intended, if properly distributed; and, if a proper distribution did not soon take place, the destruction of the Established Church would be inevitable.

believed the Bill was not properly understood by the House. All the Rector received, after the payment of his Curate, was about 112l. per annum, and he submitted to the House whether it was reasonable to suppose that the duties of the clergyman would be properly performed, in a parish containing 13,000 individuals, by only one Rector. He should give the Bill his support.

was of opinion that nothing could be more injurious to the Church Establishment than compulsory payments to the clergy. The clergyman in the present instance had formerly received a large stipend from the voluntary contributions of the parishioners, so long as he resided in the parish. They had thought proper to discontinue that voluntary support on the ground of non-residence, and the House was now called upon to say whether it was willing to convert that voluntary payment into one that would be compulsory on the parishioners. In justice to the parish and the Church, the House ought to oppose such a measure. If the House should consent to permit a compulsory rate to be raised upon persons of all religious persuasions, it would be creating a source of evil and discontent, which would continue to increase in the minds of all persons who were compelled to pay the rate, and which it would be very difficult to heal.

wished to state what were the circumstances under which this Bill was proposed and objected to. The Rector had formerly received gratuities from the parishioners which were deemed by them necessary to enable him to provide for the discharge of the duties of the parish. The grounds upon which these gratuities had been withheld were, that the rev. gentleman had become a non-resident and a sinecurist. The facts of the first charge were, that the Rector lived six doors out of the boundary of the parish, and only four hundred yards from the parish church, and this was what was called non-residence. He was really surprised that any Gentleman in that House, knowing the facts, could allege non-residence against this clergyman as a ground of refusing the Bill. He was as much opposed as any man to non-residence and pluralities under the ordinary meaning of those terms; but he called upon the House to judge of the opposition to the Bill from this specimen, and he trusted that it would be passed. With regard to the charge of the Rector being a pluralist, he had accepted the living of Mitcham on the express condition that he should hold it only until another gentleman should be old enough to take it, and he resided there only during the three months of the year which the law allowed him to be absent from Christchurch, and when not there himself he provided for the performance of the duty. The friends of the Bill did not wish to interfere with any of the details of the arrangement between the rev. gentleman and his parishioners, but only to provide that a certain sum, which was no more than necessary for his maintenance in his proper station, should be supplied.

hoped the House would not pass the Bill. The case, he said, was exactly thus:—The parishioners, in an open vestry, where no excitement whatever prevailed, granted the Rector a certain sum per annum, a voluntary rate, to mark their esteem for his character, and their not yet been laid before the House, and appreciation of the manner in which he performed his functions. That grant had been withdrawn. For what reason? He was now an object of aversion to those very individuals who had before been amongst his best friends, and the foremost in granting the annuity. Why was that? There was no change in the parish or in the parishioners; the change which warranted such a revulsion of feeling was in the rev. gentleman himself. His non-residence in this parish was the real cause of it. It was not because he took another house without the bounds of the parish that his flock took umbrage at his conduct; but it was because he accepted another living, and left them to live among his new parishioners. It was said, that he lived three months in the year in Mitcham. Was that residence? The parishioners were wholly averse to enter into any compromise of the kind; they would have their clergyman among them the entire year, or not have him at all. However, he had no doubt that, if that rev. gentleman returned to the parish and lived among his flock in future, a provision equal, at least, to that which had been withheld, would be made for him. But, if the rev. gentleman supposed, as was the intention of the Bill, that he could make the voluntary grant of the inhabitants a compulsory payment, he was much mistaken, and would surely be defeated.

could not understand why it was, that all this opposition on the part of the parish of Christchurch should exist to this just and proper claim of their Rector. One of the complaints of the parishioners was, that 150l. a-year was given by the Rector to his Curate. "Why, the greatest complaint made in that House against the Clergy was, that they did not pay their Curates enough. And was this rev. Gentleman to be the subject of censure, because he was more liberal than other Rectors? Taking into account the deductions made from the salary of the rev. Rector of Christchurch, he would only have 290l. to maintain himself and his large family.

was willing to bear testimony to the character of the rev. Gentleman who was concerned in this Bill. But that was not the question. The real question was, whether the House would give the Rector power to compel the parishioners to make up the deficiency of his income, if the legal payment were not sufficient for his maintenance? But he (Mr. Hill) would warn those who stood forward as the friends and supporters of the Church, not to push that principle too far. The main argument used against interference with tithes was, that tithes were property and not a tax. But, if the principle of this Bill was recognised, it would place tithes on the footing of a tax for services done—for the Bill went so far as to say, that if the tithes were not sufficient to pay the services of the Rector, then he should have a power to distrain the goods of one parishioner for the default of another.

would not go into any calculations of what this Gentleman received from his two livings, and what he paid to his two curates; he objected to the Bill as bad in principle. He had received a letter stating, that this clergyman applied for the Bill for the sake of his family, and to support the Established Church. He should be sorry that his vote should deprive the applicant's family of any advantages they might derive from this Bill; but there were other parties who were entitled to the protection of that House who had also families to support—he meant the rate-payers, from whom it was proposed to take their property.

said, that the true cause of the refusal to pay the rector the salary of 400 guineas a-year, was the discovery of its illegality; or, at least, that it was not competent to pay such a sum out of the parish rate. The present Bill was to provide a remedy for this. The gentleman had been unfairly dealt with, because, if an Act of Parliament had not unjustly passed, depriving him of the benefit of the provisions of Marshall's will, he would have the remuneration which his services deserved. If the sum legally devoted to the payment of the rector were to be continued, it would not be sufficient to support a gentleman. He, therefore, hoped the House would prevent non-residence by providing adequately for the rector.

wished to state the grounds on which he should support the second reading of the Bill. Having himself succeeded in obtaining the insertion of a clause in the Churches' Building Act of 1831, to prevent the holding of any new district church or chapel with any benefice having cure of souls, he could not be justly charged with being a friend to pluralities. He was equally opposed to non-residence; and it was for these very reasons that he was in favour of the present Bill. The parish had, in this case, compelled non-residence by making it requisite, that the rector, who had a family of eight children, should accept another living to enable him to support them; and he called upon the House to sanction a Bill which would render it unnecessary that the rector should be a pluralist, and by its enactments would make non-residence impossible. If the money bequeathed by the will of John Marshall to purchase lands of the value of 60l. a-year, with which he directed the church to be endowed, had been so applied by the Trustees, such lands would now be of the annual value of 1,000l., and the rector would have had no need to apply to that House for relief.—Instead of which, the parishioners and the trustees applied to Parliament in 1738, and obtained powers to apply the trust funds in rebuilding the church, and making an additional church-yard, in consideration of raising for the rector 60l. a-year in money by a rate on the inhabitants. Sensible of the disadvantage under which the rector laboured in this respect, to meet his exigencies, and in testimony of the high sense entertained of his services in the parish, the vestry, for twenty years together, made him an annual grant, which, if it had been continued, would have rendered an application to Parliament unnecessary. The allowance of 400 guineas was made a serious question at Easter 1830, the year after the rector had accepted the living of Mitcham, but on a poll, it was carried by a majority of 397 against 83. In 1831, a poll took place, whether the allowance should be 300 or 200 guineas, and the larger allowance was carried by 392 against 56; and in 1832, the numbers polled for the allowance were 192 and against it only two. After this, could it be truly said, that the parishioners were hostile to their rector? far from it, and it would be strange indeed if they were so, after receiving twenty-five years of his laborious exertions, in the course of which his health had greatly suffered, he was compelled to resort to Parliament in consequence of its being illegal for the vestry to make the grant, which, in 1832, he was obliged to pay back, after he had received it. He knew no more of the rector than he gathered from the general acknowledgment of his excellence, but, having thus attempted to show the equity of his claim to assistance, and that the parish had recognised and ascertained the proper amount he should receive, he besought the House to allow the Bill to go into Committee, for which it was a most fit subject, and where, he had no doubt, an accommodation might be effected which would be satisfactory to both rector and parishioners.

condemned the proposition before the House as one of the most shameless attempts to violate private property by taxation he ever remembered.

said, he approved of the general principles of the Bill, but he dissented from some of the clauses. The clause then under consideration entitled certain high officers of State, after two years' service, to a retiring pension of 2,000l. per year. In his opinion, it would be much better upon the clause in question, to pursue a middle course. The door should not be opened too widely, nor yet should it be completely shut, so as to exclude persons of moderate property. When the former Bill, granting pensions of 3,000l. a year, was introduced by the late Administration, it was opposed by the members of the present Government. He did not approve of the regulation by which a man possessed of 100l. a-year was obliged to serve ten years before he became entitled to any pension, whilst one of the Ministers, those mentioned in these clauses, had only to serve two years. He would propose an Amendment which he thought would place this part of the subject upon its proper basis. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an Amendment to the clause under consideration, that it might be lawful for all persons filling any of the situations, either as First Lord of the Treasury, any of his Majesty's Secretaries of State, First Lord of the Admiralty, or President of the Board of Control, should, after a service of not less than five years, receive a pension of 1,000l. a year; and after a service of not less than ten years, a pension of 2,000l, a-year,

, in opposing the Amendment of the hon. Member, thought it necessary to state the circumstances under which the present measure had originated. The measure on which the Bill under consideration was founded, grew out of the report of a Committee, of which Mr. Banks was chairman. The report of the Committee recommended the abolition of all those sinecures, or the immediate modification of them by which the service of the Minister had formerly been rewarded. In consideration of that sacrifice on the part of the Crown, by which it was deprived of the means of rewarding persons who might have rendered an efficient service, the report recommended that superannuations should, under certain circumstances, be granted. A number of offices were abolished, such as the Auditor of the Exchequer, Clerk of the Pells, &c, the emoluments of which amounted to 100,000l. In lieu of these means of rewarding persons who might have rendered service to the State, the House recommended, that pensions to the amount of 42,000l. a-year, should be placed at the disposal of Government. By that measure, then, 58,000l. a-year was saved. Out of the pensions, the predecessors of the present Government only granted in pensions 16,000l. a year, although entitled to grant 42,000l. A reduction of the pensions from 3,000l. to 2,000l. was proposed in the Bill before the House, and in his opinion the relative value of money now, compared with 1817, fully justified such a reduction. With respect to the principle of rewarding persons for public services, without reference to their personal circumstances, he (Sir J. Graham) thought it absolutely necessary to invest the Crown with such a power. As to the length of service which entitled any person to receive a pension, he thought the House would agree with him, that a pension ought to be bestowed after two years' service. Suppose a young man, after passing through his collegiate course with honour and academic distinction, and when just about entering upon professional pursuits, accepted a situation under Government. By devoting two years to the service of his country, he injured his professional prospects just as effectually as if he retained the situation for five years, and, in common justice, should be entitled to a pension. He would illustrate the proposition by a reference to the case of Mr. Perceval. Would it be said that, when he left the King's Bench, and gave his services to the Government of his country, he did not, by retaining his situation for two years, blight his professional prospects as completely as though he had remained in office for five years. Upon these considerations, he (Sir James Graham) was disposed to adhere to the clause as it stood in the Bill.

stated, that it was to this clause that great objection had been made by the gentlemen employed in the public offices; and he certainly should not have brought it forward, unless he had thought it was consistent with public faith and honour, and with principles of just economy. He was disposed to be provident for the future, and to deal tenderly with the parties who were at present interested. This was a feeling which had been embraced in a subsequent measure of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. A report then made enforced that principle which he held to be good—namely, to effect the greatest possible saving in the public service with the least possible injury to individuals. Acting on this principle, he had been most studious that there should be nothing in this Bill which should have a retrospective view; that those Gentlemen who had entered the service before the year 1829 should be dealt with according to the circumstances under which they entered the service. These were his principles of equity; and though he was a reformer and an economist, he would not wish to act upon any other principle. He was bound to say, that the public business could not have been carried on without the zealous co-operation of the clerks in the public offices; and he was equally bound to say, that since his Majesty's present Government had succeeded to office, they had experienced the most cordial assistance from them. The greater part of those gentlemen who were affected by these measures, were men who owed their appointments to the predecessors and opponents of the present Government. He might speak for himself (and he was satisfied he might also speak for his colleagues), when he said, that the alterations made would have been impossible to have been achieved without the warm, the faithful, and the exemplary co-operation of the clerks in all the public departments. They had never withheld from the Government any assistance which could be given. He was, therefore, anxious (and justice demanded the acknowledgment from him) to declare, that he entertained towards these gentlemen nothing but warm and grateful sentiments. Nothing had been clone to stimulate them to exertion. They worked by day for a stipulated remuneration, and they gave that which money could not give, namely, their honest assistance in the faithful discharge of their duty. He begged to state thus much, as it was painful to him, that any thing should be supposed to induce him to act with injustice towards those gentlemen. There were two points to which those gentlemen objected; first, the clause which had just been put (the 10th clause), because it went to give a permanent effect to the Treasury minute of June 21, 1831; and secondly, to the 26th clause, which attached a per-centage, or reduction from a salary, on the promotion of a party. In an interview with the gentlemen interested, he had attended to all their arguments as applied against the Treasury minute of 1831, and he had introduced some modifications of the clause, though to the fixed principle of the Treasury minute he was disposed to adhere. Referring to the history of superannuations, the right hon. Baronet stated, that from 1782 to 1810, these superannuations were not recognised by Acts of Parliament; but those grants rested wholly on Treasury minutes. In the year 1810, the Finance Committee sat, and reported that it was necessary to restrain the practice; and in 1810, the first Act respecting superannuation was introduced. In the year 1824, a Bill was introduced to repeal the Act of 1810, which had excited considerable dissatisfaction; and, in 1822, a reduction was made in the salaries which had been augmented during the war. Now the clerks argued, that inasmuch as their salaries were reduced by the Act of 1822, it was hard upon them to extend to them the principle of the Treasury minute of 1831. The Treasury minute stated distinctly the maximum of scale which should guide the arrangement. His Majesty's Government, acting upon the Report of the Committee of 1828, had followed out the principle then laid down, and had not attempted to affect persons who had entered the service prior to 1829. The Government had also said, on the principle of the Act of 1810, that, "in future, the maximum shall not be the general rule; but each case shall stand on its own merits." He proposed as an Amendment to this clause to omit the words, "had proved more than ordinarily meritorious, and," as he found they were considered to convey an invidious distinction. An objection was made to the tax on a graduated increase of salary; but he did not think it held good in respect to the case of a person being promoted. He did not see the hardship of paying a small tax of five per cent under such circumstances.

thought, that this Bill would entail a great hardship upon many old servants of the public. The only argument, or the only shadow of an argument, which had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet, was that in which he referred to the Act of 1810, when it was stated, a maximum was fixed in respect to the superannuations. He had no doubt, that the Act originally intended that persons should have the full benefit of the maximum stated, except in the cases of those who might have been disqualified. The gentlemen who were clerks in public offices had to complain of the constant changes which had been made in their prospects. Prior to 1810 it appeared that no system at all had prevailed. If, however, any had existed, it was, that they who had friends and patronage, got superannuations, and that they who had not, got none. In 1810, a certain scale of salary and superannuation was decided upon. In 1818 it was reversed, and the Act of 1818 was reversed to a considerable extent in 1822. This arrangement was again altered in 1823. In 1828 came out another plan, and then another in 1829, which was supposed to be a permanent Act, similar to that of 1822, except that it was not retrospective. But this was the least complaint made. All the clerks had to complain of injustice. All those who had entered the service after 1810, were under specific engagements to receive certain advantages, partly in the shape of salary, and partly in superannuation. He was told, that six out of seven clerks did not receive any superannuation, and that, of those receiving the superannuation allowance, the average amount was 90l. a-year. Previous to the Superannuation Act, the clerks in public departments raised a fund of their own, and in the Excise, it amounted to 73,000l., in the Customs, to 254,000l. The Government then said, they would pay the money for superannuations. They took these sums of money, and applied them to the public fund. If, then, the Government pursued the course prescribed by this Bill, they ought, at least, to refund this money, which, at compound interest, would amount to nearly 800,000l. If they did not do this, they ought not to allow this Act to have a retrospective effect. If his right hon. friend did not consent to one of these things, he feared he should be under the necessity of dividing the Committee against him.

said, that concurring as he did, in all that had fallen from his right hon. friend, respecting the merits and services of these persons, he should be sorry to utter a single expression calculated to militate against their interests, or give a moment's pain to their feelings; but the plain question for the consideration of the House was this, "Is this Bill calculated to injure their just interests?" Before the introduction of this measure, the universal cry on the other side of the House was, the continuance of the dead weight of pensions; but no sooner was the Bill laid before the House than a storm of indignation was raised against it—["No, no."] Hon. Members might cry, "No, no," but such was the fact; nor did he complain of it, he mentioned the matter historically. If the doctrine laid down by the hon. member for Weymouth, with regard to superannuations, were to hold good, so would it hold good with respect to the salaries of the same parties. That doctrine had certainly the merit of novelty to recommend it, for hitherto, if the salaries of public officers were found too high, they were reduced. He contended, that from the date of the Treasury minute of 1831, the course pursued with regard to superannuations had been in conformity to it. How then could they be accused of acting with injustice towards those parties? Had they acted otherwise, the House might call upon them to retrace their steps; but it would now be not only difficult, but unjust, to make a new rule for the year 1834, and to leave those who had been placed under the regulations up to 1831 as they stood. Such a proposal was too absurd to be entertained for a moment.

said, he wished to add to the clause:—"That this measure should have reference to officers and clerks who had entered the public service subsequent to the 4th of August, 1829." He wished this distinction to be drawn, as those persons who had entered this service before that period, were very differently placed from the others; as would be seen by a petition which he had that day presented to the House at its early sitting. From this, it was clear, that those clerks had entered into the public service with the understanding, or, at least, under the impression, that they should receive the then usual retired allowance, but now they found themselves mistaken. He had before said, that Government was bound to deal openly, candidly, and fairly, with those individuals, and not to introduce a retrospective measure affecting their interests. Such a proceeding was manifestly unjust. The parties affected by the proposed regulation, threw themselves upon the protection of the House from, and showed they had reason to complain of, a measure which had never been contemplated when they entered the service.

totally differed from the course taken, both by the hon. member for Weymouth (Mr. Buxton), and the hon. member for Truro (Mr. Tooke), as to the construction put upon the Act of Parliament in question. In order to show the principle on which the Act of 1810 was founded, he would refer them to the Act of 1808, which was introduced for the purpose of doing away with abuses which still continued to burthen the country. There had been an annual increase in the amount of superannuations. Some of the allowances were granted most unreasonably and improperly. He found that there was a case where a gentleman of forty-two years of age, who had held the office of Inspector-General, had received a superannuation allowance of 580l.; another, who was called a retired Treasury Solicitor, received for thirty-one years' service an allowance of 1,200l. a-year; so that this gentleman must have been a solicitor at sixteen years of age. There were many other instances of the same description. The hon. member for Weymouth had stated, that these clerks had accumulated a large sum by their own contributions, which had been taken from them by Government, who provided the superannuations in lieu of it. But, if this were so, still they must be benefited, inasmuch as they could not obtain as much from the interest of that fund, as they would receive by receiving superannuations.

said, the question for the consideration of the Committee was, whether this Bill was a breach of contract with the parties opposing it?—and if the Committee would attend to him for only a few moments, he would undertake to show that it was not. Much stress was laid upon the words "not exceeding," but it was clear that those words were never meant to convey an impression that superannuations, up to that amount, were to be paid. The Act of 1810 was introduced to limit the discretion of Ministers, but it by no means bore the construction given to it by the hon. member for Weymouth. If they looked to the history of enactments generally, they would find, that no doubt could be entertained on the subject. Before 1810 the Treasury had in itself the full power and discretion of granting superannuated allowances, and it was to limit and confine that power, that the Act of 1810 was passed. The Act said, you shall not, in certain cases, go beyond such and such a sum, but it never said, or meant to say, "You must give that sum." On the contrary, the discretion of Government was left to go as much under it as all circumstances would justify. Before that Bill there had been a looseness in all Treasuries in granting pensions, and no sufficient checks were in existence to limit the discretion of the Treasury. Yet the Treasury did cut down offices where they were found to be too great; and they also curtailed superannuated allowances when it was found, that the parties were receiving similar allowances from other departments. He, therefore, called the attention of the Committee to the good principle, that of having a full inquiry into the merits of the parties of every case, and the circumstances under which the superannuation was allowed. He hoped the Treasury would always hold the right to this reward, as a security for the good conduct of the parties looking forward to it, as well as a check upon their remissness or misconduct. It was right that such parties should be aware that their conduct was watched from the first day of their entering the public service down to the day of their quitting it. Hon. Members acquainted with the nature of public office, would well understand the benefit to be derived to the public from a strict observance of this regulation.

thought, that the hon. member for Weymouth had used two words of very different signification. He stated, that the parties in question depended on the "justice" and the "liberality" of the House. If they depended upon its justice the last speaker had put the question on its right footing; if they depended upon its liberality, then those who were continually calling for economy ought not to stand in its way when it was proposed unless a clear case of injustice were made out.

said, that if he saw any general desire to carry economy into other departments of the Government, he should be more inclined to give Ministers credit for it in the present instance. But he regretted, that he did not perceive any such anxiety on their parts, He was sure that great injustice had been done to these parties. Their own fund had been seized upon—["No" "no."] Surely it was their own fund, saved out of their own salaries?

said, that the parties who objected to this Bill had not contributed one farthing to the fund.

proceeded: Every person on entering office as a clerk or public officer contributed.

said, that the whole of the money had been repaid.

asked whether this was the case in the Customs?

answered "Yes."

said, he had understood differently. At all events, the universal understanding was, that proper superannuated allowances were to be given to these parties. He had himself had to lay before the Treasury a case of severe and unmerited hardship. It was that of a gentleman who had held an office of 600l. a-year, and who, on being superannuated, was allowed no more than 66l. a-year, merely because he happened to be just under the stipulated age. If Ministers had supported the Pension-list on the ground of "usage," and "practice," they ought a fortiori to support the cause of the poor clerks on the same ground.

defended the measure, and contended, that no injustice could be sustained by any party from its operation. However highly he valued the service of these clerks, and he would say that their services had been most valuable, still he thought that they were not inadequately paid. They were much better paid than clerks in mercantile establishments.

thought, that the clerks were rather hardly dealt with. He saw opposite more than one right hon. Member who might retire upon a pension of 2,000l. a-year after two years' service: now, if it were proposed to reduce that pension to 1,000l. a-year, the saving would be worth considering, and he should like to see it made; but the retired allowances of these clerks ought not to be less than they were led to expect in entering the public service.

could not permit this Clause to pass without a few observations. He gave credit to his right hon. friend (Sir James Graham) for his services in the cause of his country; but he objected to the Clause, as it would have an ex-post-facto and, therefore, an unjust effect. It would be very hard upon persons who had served for many years, that they should now be mulcted to an extent to which they had never been willing parties. He held that an implied contract should never be violated. We should be bound by equity and honour in our conduct to officers appointed before the pass- ing of this Act. He would move that all the words after the words "per cent," in this Clause should be omitted.

said, that the Amendment would exclude persons who entered office before 1829, as well as since. In fact, the Amendment would go farther than the noble Lord really intended. He could assure the House that great pains were taken by him before he brought forward the system of reduction, and he could also say, that the services of valuable servants had been especially attended to. He would not touch upon either express or implied contracts, indeed, on the contrary, he would religiously observe them. He did not believe, that one of either class was infringed on by the Bill.

would be glad to learn what would be the amount of the saving made to the public by the operation of this clause. If it were one which pressed but lightly on the clerks, it could not effect any important saving to the public; but if the saving were of large amount, it might press with severity on the clerks. He thought it would be dealing more fairly with them to alter the Clause, so that it should not have any retrospective effect. He would press this the more urgently on the right hon. Baronet and on the Committee as it was well known that, owing to the great reduction in the number of clerks in most of the public offices, the chances of promotion were greatly diminished. In the office which he had held, there were, during the war, near 170 clerks. They had since been reduced to sixty; and, in the Ordnance department, the reductions had been in the same proportion.

took the same view of the case as his right hon. and gallant friend near him. It was quite clear that those clerks who had been appointed since 1829 must submit to any minute regulating their salaries which might be made by the Treasury or Admiralty; but the same rule did not, in his opinion, apply to those who had been appointed before that. Suppose a young man of good character, education, and abilities, had been appointed before 1829, at a salary of 95l. a-year. It might be four or five years before he got a step in his office, and then it made his salary only 105l. a-year. Now, would it not be hard on such a man to say, that he must contribute as much to the super- annuation fund as one who had come in since 1829 with a certain knowledge that his salary was to be subject to the deduction. In forwarding their own principle, they ought to make their rule apply to those only who entered the service since 1829. There was also another point to which he wished to call the attention of his Majesty's Ministers. Supposing a gentleman to hold an office of 500l. a-year, and to get another instead of it of 550l. a-year, that was not so much a promotion as a transfer. They ought therefore to insert the words "or transfer" in this Clause, if they wished to carry their own principle into effect.

contended, that there was no such thing as an absolute right to promotion. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite that the result of the late reductions had practically proved a great stop to promotions; and he likewise concurred in the meed of approbation which he had bestowed upon the excellent spirit and conduct which were displayed by the clerks in the public offices. If anything were to damp their zeal, the injury which would be inflicted thereby on the public service would not be compensated by the gain derived from any pecuniary reduction in their salaries and emoluments. In accordance with the suggestions made by the right hon. Baronet, he should propose an Amendment to this Clause exempting from its operation all persons appointed since the order of the 8th of February, 1822.

was much gratified by this declaration, as it evinced a desire on the part of the right hon. Baronet to meet the fair claims of those who were engaged in the public service.

rose, to move the second reading of the Central Criminal Courts' Bill. He did not anticipate there would be any objection to allowing the Bill to be read a second time; and he should content himself by simply stating, that one great object of the Bill was, to increase the number of Sessions held in the year. Formerly, they used to be eight, but henceforward it was proposed there should be twelve; and by this regulation, punishment would almost immedi- ately follow the commission of crime, and the gaols would not be so densely crowded as at present.

had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman; and he should take the opportunity of observing, that he would move in Committee, that stealing from the person, embezzlement, and a second conviction, be added to the offences contemplated by the Bill.

rose to inquire of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General), why the Chief Judge and the two other Judges in Bankruptcy were among the Judges of the proposed Court appointed by the Bill? Considerable surprise had been expressed in the City of London on the appearance of those learned persons in the Bill, who seemed to have no natural connexion with a Criminal Court. He would take this opportunity of giving notice of his intention, in the Committee on the Bill, to move, that the parishes of Bromley and Beckenham, in the county of Kent, be comprised within the limits of the proposed Court; and the insertion of words in clause 17th, saving the rights and privileges of the Sheriffs of the City of London, and Sheriff of the county of Middlesex: also a clause to provide, that all and singular the enactments, persons, and authorities, made and given in and by the Act of George 4th, cap. 48, "for enabling Courts to abstain from pronouncing sentence of death on certain capital felonies," shall be deemed to extend, and shall extend, to the proposed Court.

said, that the reason why the three Judges in Bankruptcy were named in the Bill was, that in the absence of the Judges on circuit their assistance might be necessary to enable the Court to sit.

said, in moving for the second reading of this Bill, he begged to assure the House, that he was actuated by no feeling, but a desire to discharge what he held to be a public duty. He should, therefore, as briefly as possible, state to the House the objections attending the present system of swearing witnesses in Court, and the advantages which would, in his humble judgment, be derived from the change which he proposed to make. Formerly it was the practice, in most counties in Ireland—in itself bad and contrary to law—for Grand Juries to find bills of indictment upon the informations previously taken, and which were usually sent up with the bills—and without a vivâ voce examination. To provide against this practice, an Act was passed in the 56th George 3rd, requiring, that bills should only be found upon the production and examination of the witnesses in person before the Grand Jury. This Act directed, that the witnesses should be sworn in Court, and their names indorsed on the back of the bills, to which the Clerk of the Crown was to attach his signature or initials, and left it discretionary with the Court to send up the informations; but provided that they were not to be evidence in support of the Bill. The object of sending the informations so before the Grand Jury, was to enable the Jurors to compare the evidence of the witness with what he had previously sworn, in order that, should it appear that he was swearing falsely, proceedings might be instituted against him for perjury. The proposed Act would not interfere with the very useful provisions of the Act to which he had alluded. It was merely intended to obviate certain inconveniences, and to bring the obligation, under which the witness deposed, more immediately before his mind. At present the administration of the Oath took place under circumstances disadvantageous to solemnity, and to the furtherance of the ends of justice. The Clerk of the Crown, upon the first day of the Assizes, calls over the names of all prosecutors. In some counties these amount to several hundreds, and many hours are consumed in calling the names. As the Assizes advance, the witnesses are from time to time called, and sworn in batches of five, six, or seven, as the case may be, amidst the noise and confusion consequent upon such a proceeding; the Oath pronounced as rapidly as possible, and the witness understanding imperfectly, if at all, the nature of the obligation he has just taken. The witnesses are then ordered to attend before the Grand Jury; and it often happens, that two or three, and in large counties such as Cork, eight or ten, days elapse between the administration of the Oath, and the evidence given under its sanction. It must be obvious to every person in the habit of attending Assizes in Ireland, either as a Magistrate or a Grand Juror, how great must be the difficulty to impress upon the mind of the witness, that the evidence he is giving before the Jury is under the solemn sanction of the Oath administered to him eight or ten days before in the Court. But there were other considerations of equal, if not greater, importance to the ends of justice. In the interval between swearing the witnesses in Court, and giving their evidence before the Grand Jury, the friends of the prisoners, having ascertained, from their appearing in Court to be sworn, who the persons are who are to give evidence upon the trial, resort to all kinds of threats, intimidation, and bribery, to induce the witnesses not to give direct evidence, and not seldom with effect. Unable to resist, the witness either swears before the Grand Jury in opposition to what he has previously sworn before the Magistrate; or, when he comes upon the table, finds himself unable to identify the person, of whose identity, until that moment, he had never entertained a doubt; and it sometimes happens, that when all their efforts have failed, the witnesses are by force carried off, and the prisoner discharged for want of a prosecution. This Bill may properly be considered as forming a part of the Bill of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, which was now about to come into operation. The fiscal duties being now separated from the other duties which Grand Juries have to discharge, no reasonable complaint can be made of the additional labour imposed upon them. The right hon. Secretary had informed the House, that he had been instructed by the Law Officers of the Crown to oppose this Bill, and that they have assigned as a reason the difficulty which would attend the being able to identify the witnesses in case it should be necessary to proceed against them for perjury. Now, with every respect for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland (he presumed the right hon. Gentleman meant the Attorney and Solicitor-General), he could not help saying, that without going out of that House, he thought the right hon. Gentleman could have found better authority, because, until appointed to the offices which they now held, neither of these Gentlemen were in the habit of going circuit or attending Assizes. He regretted the absence of the hon. and learned Serjeant, and the member for Monaghan; he regretted it doubly, because it proceeded from indisposition. Were that hon. Member present, he would have explained much more fully and satisfactorily than he (Colonel Verner) was capable of doing, the advantages which would be derived from the change he proposed; being so convinced of its necessity, that he told him (Colonel Verner), he had intended proposing, during the last Session, a clause to be added to the Grand Jury Bill to this effect; and he believed it would be admitted, that that hon. Member's experience on this subject was fully as good, if not better, than that of the Law Officers of the Crown. In reply to the opinions of those Gentlemen, as stated by the right hon. Secretary, with regard to the greater difficulty of proving the identity of the witnesses in case of perjury, he should beg permission to read a few words from a Letter he received within these few days, from as high legal authority as any in Ireland; they were thus:—"Your Bill will greatly facilitate prosecutions for perjury; indeed, under the present system, I know not how such a prosecution can be maintained against a witness who has gone back of, as the phrase is, or, when before the Grand Jury, contradicts his sworn informations. Who is there that can prove that the witness has been sworn to give evidence before the Grand Jury? Is it the Judge? It is not pretended that he can take notice of the individuals who are sworn. Is it the Clerk of the Crown? Quite impossible under the present system when they are sworn in groups, and amidst such confusion, whereas in the method which you propose, it is much more than probable, that the foreman or other Grand Juror, who calmly in the Jury-room administers the Oath to the witnesses one by one, would be able to prove, that he had been sworn." He could assure the House, that he had not undertaken the bringing in of this Bill without consulting those whose knowledge and experience enabled them to form an accurate judgment upon it, and he was happy to say, he had the approbation of every individual to whom he had spoken, from the Bench down. Upon the present occasion, he looked upon Magistrates and Grand Jurors as no incompetent judges, and he believed it would be found, that they were unusually favourable to the adoption of the plan he had recommended. In reply to the observation of the hon. and learned Member (the Solicitor-General), he had only to say, that he did not for a moment doubt that hon. and learned Member's judgment with regard to the best system to be adopted in this country; but with regard to the practice best calculated for Ireland, he could not yield the opinions of those, under whose direction he proposed this Bill, even to those of that hon. and learned Gentleman. When he brought the measure before the House, he did not calculate upon the possibility of its meeting with any opposition; however, after the declaration of the right hon. Secretary, he should not put the House to the inconvenience of a division, but beg leave to withdraw it.

thought it would be a very ungracious course to pursue, if the Government should throw out the Bill in its present stage. If it were read a second time, the House would have another opportunity of taking the discussion, which it was then too late an hour to enter upon, and of distinctly understanding the nature of its provisions. As at present advised, he was inclined to think that an oath would be administered under circumstances of greater sanctity and solemnity, under the provisions of the Bill, than by the present practice; but still he should be unwilling to make any hasty change in a matter of this important nature against the opinions of those authorities to which the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, had alluded. He hoped, however, that he would consent to let the question stand over.

was opposed to the introduction of a principle into Ireland, for which there was no precedent in England.

said, he entertained a very strong objection to the present system, because it gave Grand Juries in Ireland an opportunity of finding just what bills they pleased. That it had that tendency he must repeat; and if it were not then so late, he would undertake to prove the assertion.

said, that, the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down, as well as the tone and manner in which they were uttered, could not be permitted to pass unnoticed. He presumed that these observations came from a gentleman who had been used to sit on Grand Juries. If so, he could only say, that the hon. Member must have belonged to Grand Juries of a description such as he never had the honour of meeting with. He most solemnly declared, in the presence of the House, that he never knew a Grand Jury find bills as their fancy might dictate; nor did he believe, that any Grand Jury in Ireland pursued any but a conscientious, and honourable, and straightforward course. He did not agree in the objection taken by the hon. Member below him, because, in the event of a prosecution for perjury, Grand Jurors are authorized to give evidence in a court of justice of what occurred in a Grand Jury-room, and thus the oath of secrecy which a Grand Juror takes, does not disqualify him from being a witness. There could not be much regard paid to the sanctity of an oath, administered as it was under the present system. A man was sworn in an angle of the court by the Crier, amidst the noise of the Court, when not a single word could be heard. By the Bill of his hon. friend, the Foreman and twelve members of the Grand Jury would, in every case, necessarily be present, one of whom, being a magistrate, would be qualified to swear the witnesses; and he confessed, under these circumstances, he thought the Bill would be an improvement on the present system.

objected to the principle of the measure, and said, he should oppose its further progress. Much business was done by Grand Juries in England, but it was never impeded by the form of their oath. This measure would introduce another discrepancy into the laws of the two countries, while the object generally contemplated was to assimilate them.