, Sir, I rise to make a formal Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday. I do so for the purpose of making certain observations, and, as I think it possible those observations may provoke some remarks, I do so for the purpose of reserving to myself the right of reply. Sir, I suppose I may assume that the great majority of this House is very anxious the question of Parliamentary Reform should be settled. That, I think, is not a very wild proposition, or one unsupported by facts. But it appears to me that the course the House is now invited to pursue will, if adopted, lead to the exactly opposite result. Now, with the permission of the House, I will address myself to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London; he has put upon the books of the House a Resolution which, if carried, will, though not formally, yet in reality, negative the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think one consequence of this will be that you may not have a chance of passing anything like a Reform Bill this year, because we are told to expect that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Bench will thereupon dissolve this House. [Cries of "No!"] Hon. Gentlemen say "No, no!" but they are sure in then hearts that what they so deny will be done, and if it is done it is quite clear that but question of a Reform of Parliament will be deferred till the meeting of the now House, when we may have a second edition of the present Bill.

said, he rose to order. He wished to know whether it was competent to the hon. and learned Gentleman, on a Motion of adjournment, to discuss a question that stood on the paper as a subject for debate on a future day?

said, it would be out of order then to discuss a subject fixed for a future day; but he understood that the hon. and learned Member proposed to address a question to the noble Lord the Member for London, on a notice the noble Lord had placed on the paper.

I hope the House will grant me its indulgence. I am not often in the habit of troubling it at any length, and what I have to say will soon be brought to a close. When I was so kindly interrupted I was about to observe that by the course the noble Lord would persuade the House to pursue the question of Reform is very likely to be deferred indefinitely. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to adopt a precedent of his own. During the last Session of Parliament the right hon. Gentleman opposite brought in a Bill to reorganize the Government of India. That Bill did not meet any favourable reception in this House. The noble Lord, then, with that chivalry that belongs to him, stepped in to aid the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and proposed that the House should proceed by way of Resolution, that the Bill brought in by the Government should be dropped, and that the House should come to certain Resolutions on which a new Bill should be introduced. The noble Lord, having regard to the interests of India—and thereby for the interest of England also—proposed that course. I now ask the noble Lord to consider that the interests of England are bound up with a new Reform Bill; I ask him whether he cannot borrow an example from his own principle, and enlarge the Amendment he has proposed into a series of Resolutions which may be the foundation of a new and better Bill. I put this question to the noble Lord, and I am sure he will be kind enough to give me an answer. [Lord J. RUSSELL dissented.] I now ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if the course I have suggested is pursued, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to forego the present Bill and bring in another framed in accordance with the Resolutions adopted by the House. Having put these two questions, one to the noble Lord, the other to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I would address myself to the hon. Gentlemen behind me, particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who, I see, does not approve my suggestion. But I ask those hon. Gentlemen to consider what would be the result if the proposition of the noble Lord is carried. That proposition can only be carried by an alliance between the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentlemen who now sit on the Opposition benches. To what would that lead? Last year the House dismissed those right hon. Gentlemen; and we are now called upon, by a side wind, to do something that will re-establish them in office. Now I, for one, am not prepared for that. I will go further than that; I do most earnestly request those hon. Gentlemen who took part in the proceedings of last year to consider well what they are about now; for it is quite clear that the proposition of the noble Lord has been put on the paper with a full understanding with certain parties on the Opposition bench. We know well what will happen, and I ask hon. Gentlemen and I ask the country if they are prepared at this time, with the terrible state of affairs existing abroad, if they are ready to place the destinies of the country again in the hands from which they took them last year. Any dislocation of the Government of England at this moment may lead to terrible calamities abroad. A dissolution of the House of Commons may lead to instantaneous war! Let mo explain how. Europe does not understand England. It will believe from a dissolution of this House that all parties are dislocated; that we are all at sixes and sevens; that there is no strength in English public opinion. It is English opinion that now keeps the world at peace. But let the world believe that English opinion is as nothing, and there will be confusion, riot, and bloodshed throughout the whole of Europe tomorrow. Sir, it is with these considerations strongly oppressing me that I ask the noble Lord not to pursue the course he has proposed. On his shoulders rest the great destinies of this country now, and by the course he is adopting he may bring upon us incalculable calamities. Therefore I say, think carefully what you are about; let no considerations of party, no considerations of self, no considerations of paltry ambition interfere and lead you to pursue a course that may be to the detriment of the interests of your country. I know well that the statements I have made will he disagreeable to certain hon. Gentlemen on that bench. By adopting the course I have suggested they may avert great calamities from England, though it may bring on their shoulders the great calamity of keeping them still in Opposition. But that, Sir, is an object I at once declare I have very much at heart. I am unwilling to detain the House longer. I only ask the noble Lord to adopt the principle he acted on last year, and move certain Resolutions on which a Reform Bill may be framed, so that the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be entirely dropped.

said, he rose to express his obligation to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having put the question which he (Mr. Cox) had given notice of his intention to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Knowing the hon. and learned Gentleman's standing in that House, he was free to admit that he was glad the hon. and learned Gentleman had done so, and also that he had addressed another question to the noble Lord the Member for London. Like the hon. and learned Member, he was not at all satisfied with the position in which the question of Reform stood in that House. If, on the second reading of the Government Bill, it were met with a direct negative, he should have no hesitation in the vote he should give, for he should go into the lobby and vote against it; but when he found the noble Lord placing an Amendment upon the paper for which the hon. Gentlemen sitting below the gangway—he meant the Radical party—would feel themselves bound to vote. ["No no!"] Well, then, he would speak for himself, and say that he, as one of the Radical party, would feel bound to vote for it; and that it was placing aim in a position of very great difficulty, because the noble Lord's Amendment did not go far enough to satisfy him or those who called themselves Radicals in that House. The Amendment of the noble Lord stated that the Bill of the Government was not satisfactory, because it did not provide for a sufficient extension of the suffrage in boroughs and cities. ["Order, order!"]

said, he was compelled to intimate to the hon. Member that he was transgressing the rules of the House by proceeding to discuss the terms and substance of the noble Lord's Resolution.

said, he was sorry he was out of order. He would, however, endeavour to steer clear of the difficulty. At ail events, a notice had been given of some Amendment, which, as he was told, was to effect—[Cries of "Order!"] He appealed to the House. He only asked for the same indulgence which was extended to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield and he thought, as it was he who gave notice of his intention to put this question he had some slight claim. Suppose at Amendment was moved on the second reading of this Bill which was to have the effect, as he was told it was to have, of changing the sides of the House—transfer ring them to the opposite side of the House and bringing hon. Gentlemen opposite to this side, he wanted to know what the noble Lord meant to do with the subject of the ballot, because it would be impossible for the Radical party to assist the noble Lord to obtain a place in the Government if he would not, at all events, assure them that the ballot must be granted. He thought the time had come when men like himself who belonged to the Radical party, should tell the Whigs that they must not expect them to act together for the purpose of giving place to the Whigs, and then, when place had been obtained for them, hon. Gentlemen on the other side were to be used for the purpose of preventing any Reform being obtained. It was well known that the Liberal party in that House were in favour of the ballot, and were they to give their votes to place the Whigs it power, in order that the Whigs might join with the other third of the House to prevent their having the ballot? He, for one, must tell the noble Lord that it would never do for him to attempt to lead the Liberal party unless he made up his mind to give them the ballot. He remembered reading a speech two or three years age made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, ill which he said if fifty sincere and honest men in the House made up their minds to have the ballot they might get it. He begged to assure the noble Lord that if there were not fifty men there was a number approaching to it who were prepared to take the course foreshadowed by the hon. Member for Birmingham. They meant to take every means in their power to get the vote by ballot. he would conclude by asking Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of which he had given notice, whether, as all parties express a desire that a Reform Bill should pass, it would not be better to proceed by way of Resolution, in order to frame a Bill to carry such desire into effect?

said, he supposed there was to be no answer to the question, and therefore he would take the opportunity of explaining an error into which he had fallen, relative to a matter which he had referred to a few nights ago. On that occasion he inquired of the Home Secretary if he could account for the great increase which had been made in the list of magistrates for the county of Huntingdon. He stated that three Liberals had been passed over, that the sis new magistrates were all Tories, and that four of these were clergymen, and the other two were laymen. It was because he wished to state where he was correct and where he was incorrect that he now called the attention of the House again to the subject. He had been told by the gallant General the Secretary for War that he was wrong in every way, from beginning to end; but he thought he could satisfy the House that he was much nearer the truth than the gallant General. Of course the gallant General's denial was a Parliamentary way of tolling him (Mr. Duncombe) that he had spoken an untruth, a conclusion which anybody would naturally draw. The hon. Member for the county, too, advised him to place no reliance upon those who had instructed him in future—advice which he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to transfer to his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department. That right hon. Gentleman was certainly right in saying that, instead of four, only three of the new magistrates were clergymen, and that the remaining three were laymen. The mistake arose from one of the laymen bearing the name of Spurling, which was also the name of a clergyman there, and his impression had been that it was the clergyman, and not the layman, who had been appointed to the magistracy. With regard to the three Liberals who had been passed over, the right hon. Gentleman said that one of them—the Rev. Mr. Shafto—had been passed over because he resided in the same parish with his brother, who was a well-known magistrate there. But here the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly wrong; for he (Mr. Duncombe) had been informed that the brother had gone to the county of Durham four or five years ago to reside, and would not return. Therefore, if there were any man who ought to have succeeded to that gentleman in the commission of the peace it was certainly the Rev. Mr. Shafto. The hon. Member for the county had denied that any one of the clergymen had canvassed for him; but he (Mr. Duncombe) had received a letter from a gentleman who stated that he not only saw one of them canvassing with the hon. Gentleman, but also saw them mobbed. The Rev. Mr. Grove, he believed, did not canvass, but he voted for the Tory candidates. The other, the Rev. Mr. Stopford, not long since brought an action against one of his parishioners, which was tried before Barn Pollock, from whom he received a severe rebuke by being asked how a minister of the Gospel could go to law with a parishioner to-day and meet him at the Sacrament to-morrow? Well, these gentlemen had been put into the commission of the peace, and three others had been passed over. He came now to the statement of the Secretary for War, who had given him such strong denials on a previous night.

said, it was passing the limits of order for the hon. Member to reply in detail to an hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House in a past debate. He had understood from the hon. Member that he merely desired to make an explanation in reference to certain points on which he had been misapprehended. To re-open the whole question, and reply to the hon. Gentleman who spoke in a former debate, would be entirely out of order.

said, he merely wished to make a personal explanation, as he had been accused of stating what was not true in that House. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he was incorrect from beginning to end. He (Mr. Duncombe) had stated that there had been no contest for Huntingdon for thirty years; and, to a certain extent, he was wrong. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that there had, for he himself had stood two within that period. He would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman when? He knew that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had a contest at the time of the Reform Bill; but when was the other? It was true that Mr. Prendergast, an eminent barrister, once went down to Huntingdon, but he received the answer which was proverbial in the town, "It's no use your coming here, our Members are return in Lord Sandwich's drawing-room." Mr. Prendergast withdrew before the nomination, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would surely not call that a contest. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that Huntingdon was not a pocket I rough; but he (Mr. Duncombe) held in I hand a book which gave all the informa- tion needed. It told them that Huntingdon was celebrated for its agricultural produce and its soft cheeses, and then it gave all the polls which had taken place since 1832. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, as a proof of his independence, that he voted for the Repeal of the Corn Laws, while Lord Sandwich was on the opposite side. But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not quite candid in his relation of that matter; for he forgot to tell the House that at that time he was Surveyor General of the Ordnance, and was, therefore, a subordinate in his brother's Government. In conclusion, he (Mr. Duncombe) ventured to say that what he had advanced the other night was substantially correct from beginning to end.

said, that as the hon. Gentleman had made a personal appeal he would answer him respecting the contests at Huntingdon at once. The first was when he first went to the borough, when he was opposed by a Gentleman whose politics somewhat resembled those of the hon. Gentleman. That was in 1830 or 1831, and after the passing of the Reform Bill, he was again opposed by a gentleman who polled a considerable number of votes in his favour. The hon. Gentleman insisted that Huntingdon was a pocket borough of Lord Sandwich. Now he could tell the hon. Member that if Lord Sandwich and all the House of Lords were to unite together to return him (Mr. Duncombe) for the borough of Huntingdon they could not do it. He said that with all respect to the hon. Member, for the reason was that his political opinions were not in unison with a large majority of the most respectable constituents. The hon. Member said that three gentlemen of Liberal politics were passed over, and among them the Mayor of Huntingdon. What opportunities the hon. Member had of knowing that gentleman's political opinions he (General Peel) did not know. He was precluded from voting at elections, as he hold a situation in the Stamp Office; but he (General Peel) had known him for many years, and he had reason to believe that his political opinions were more in unison with his (General Peel's) than with those of the hon. Member. He was very sorry if, in what he said on a former occasion, he had said anything to offend the hon. Member; he only meant to say he had been misinformed from beginning to end of his statements; and he still thought so, but he never meant to say that the hon. Gentleman made those assertions of his own personal knowledge.

said, he could not help expressing his regret that the hon. Gentleman had thought fit to renew this subject after what had been said on the former occasion. The hon. Gentleman had said that everything which he had previously stated was correct. Now, with all respect for the hon. Member, he begged to tell him that what he had stated on a previous occasion was substantially wrong. He had represented him (Mr. Fellowes) to have said that none of these clergymen canvassed with him at his election. He had never said anything of the kind. What he had stated, and what he would repeat, was this, that these gentlemen were not put into the commission of the peace as a reward for political services. And he begged to tell him that though some of these gentlemen were Conservatives, and one or two did canvass with him, they did not take any active part in the election for the county. The hon. Gentleman had brought forward the name of the Rev. Mr. Stopford, and had alleged that his was a very improper appointment. He believed that some charge was brought against that gentleman at the assizes, but whatever the decision was, there was nothing to affect his personal character, or make him unfit to be in the commission of the peace. So far from that rev. gentleman taking any active part in the election of the county, he did nothing beyond giving his vote for his hon. Friend and colleague. Although he was the agent of a large estate belonging to his brother, he would not influence any of the tenants, and the majority voted for the Liberal candidate. With respect to Mr. Spurling, what he stated was, that his father, who was since dead, and whom he had succeeded in the estates, was the owner of large property in the county; that he was a clergyman, and that he took a very active part in the election, not for the Conservatives, but for the Liberals. With regard to Mr. Shafto, he (Mr. Fellowes) certainly knew him as a strong political opponent, but he did not believe that he had been passed over on that account. He did not know how the hon. Gentleman was acquainted with the fact that Lord Sandwich had refused to appoint three gentlemen to the commission of the peace because they were Liberals, unless the hon. Member had had private communication with the noble Lord upon the subject, He believed that the hon. Gentleman was entirely in error upon this point. He did not know the object of the hon. Gentleman in making these charges; but, if they had been made for political purposes, he begged to tell him that the noble Lord against whom he had directed them stood too high in the esteem and respect of those who were acquainted with him, and that nothing which fell from the hon. Gentleman would damage his character in the slightest degree.

said, he hoped the House would allow him one word in defence of a personal friend, Mr. Stopford. As a proof of the high esteem in which that rev. gentleman was held, he might state that he had lately been appointed by the University of Oxford one of its proctors.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has considered the complaint addressed to him by the Visiting Magistrates of the House of Correction at Wands worth respecting the committal to their charge of old convicts from the Police Offices in London for short periods, instead of such convicts being committed for trial at the Old Bailey, and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy the evil?

said, with reference to the subject which was brought before the House by the hon. Member for West Surrey, it was not confined to this metropolis nor to the House of Correction, to which he alluded. There had been, he was sorry to say, a too general misinterpretation of a clause in the Criminal Justice Act which led to a great deal of abuse. The Act was intended to empower magistrates to deal summarily with cases of petty larceny or first offences; but it was applied by some magistrates to persons who had been previously convicted, not two or three, but many times. The magistrates committed these offenders sometimes for six months, sometimes for throe months, always for short periods, so that there was no power of bringing reformatory influences to bear upon them. There were other persons besides who, for petty offences, were sent to prison fifty or sixty times over for a week or ten days at a time; and the moment they were let out they began their vicious habits again. With respect to the intentions of the Secretary of State, he might inform the hon. Gentleman that his right hon. Friend proposed to address a letter to the police magistrates to ascertain the course they pursued. By giving publicity to that letter they hoped to call the attention of the Magistrates of counties to the misinterpretation of the Act in question. If it was not possible to correct the evil otherwise, it would be necessary to proceed by way of legislation.

said, I rise, Sir, to put a question to the First Commissioner of Works relative to a subject of great public interest. I do not put the question with any artistic view, but as a simple one of convenience, I might almost say of necessity, to what will be admitted to be an influential, and is certainly an important class of society—I mean the legal profession of England. I think every one who has had anything to do in the course of his experience with our courts of law must be aware of the great inconvenience that arises from their present dispersed situations. Some of them are located in Lincoln's Inn, some here, and some at Guildhall; so that Judges and lawyers, solicitors and their clerks, are left scouring about the town all day long in cabs and broughams to their great inconvenience and expense. It may be in the knowledge of the House that a scheme has been for some time before the world for the concentration of our law courts on a space of ground nearly seven acres in extent near all the Inns of Court, and affording full accommodation for all the courts of law and equity between Carey Street and the Strand. That scheme has met with the strongest recommendation from the highest authorities in the law—from the solicitors and proctors in their Incorporated Society, whose petition, in favour of the scheme, I had the honour to lay on the table of this House, and from the Society for the Amendment of the Law, which is under the presidency of Lord Brougham, and which is represented by some of our moot eminent barristers—all are exerting themselves in its favour., It seems also that there is a sum of money forthcoming for this purpose derived from a fund known as the Suitors' Fee Fund, which would he available, at least to a certain amount, for the purposes of this undertaking. For my own part, I had thought that this fund would be available as far as it would go for the whole purposes of the building; but on account of some technical objection—the nature of which I do not pretend to understand—an opinion has been given that it is only available as far as respects the courts of equity. But as far as the courts of equity are concerned, it certainly would be available; that is to say, for so much of the new site and of the new building as would belong to the courts of equity the money might be available, and might be thus applied to the purpose of the concentration of the courts of law. But another scheme has also been set forth under high patronage which purposes to rebuild the courts of equity within the premises of a private institution; no doubt a most powerful, a most influential, and a most privileged corporation—but still only a private corporation—I mean the Society at Lincolns' Inn. It is proposed to rebuild the court3 of equity within the precincts of Lincolns' Inn, of such a size and with such a solidity, as to render the future concentration of the courts of law and equity impossible. All the advantages that are to be derived from direct concentration, and from having a common place of meeting for the two Bars—that creation of a common feeling of common rules of action, of common principles of conduct, which nothing but a concentration of the different courts under the same building will ever effect, would thus be for ever rendered impracticable. There would not be a mere diminution of a portion of the benefit, but so far as the benefits of amalgamation are concerned they would, I repeat, be thus rendered impossible for all time to come. I trust, therefore, the House will not speedily consent to anything which would frustrate an amelioration so important and so easily to be attained as the concentration of the courts of law and equity. The question I have to put to my noble Friend is, whether the Government has any intention to take steps to concentrate the courts of law and equity in pursuance of the recommendations of the Incorporated Law Society, and of the Law Amendment Society; and if they are not now prepared to take any steps of that kind, I trust the noble Lord will give us the assurance that at least a fair and full investigation will he granted, and that they will not allow themselves to be led to adopt in the dark any course which would render impracticable a scheme, the benefits of which are so apparent; that some full inquiry will be granted —I trust by a Committee of this House— and that the advantages and disadvantages of the scheme may thus be brought fairly before the public.

said, in answer to my hon. Friend I have to say that every one must admit the inconvenience of the present situation of the courts of law, and that a scheme of concentration, if it could be carried out, would be a great been to the legal profession. But my hon. Friend must be aware, that though the Incorporated Law Society and the Law Amendment Society have recommended that the Government should concentrate the courts of law and equity, and have pointed out the means by which, in their opinion, such a concentration could be accomplished; yet a great number of persons of the highest eminence in the profession are of opinion, in the first place, that the funds to which my hon. Friend has referred could not be realized, and in the next place, that if they could, they are not properly applicable to the building of courts of common and civil law. Under these circumstances, I may tell my hon. Friend that the present Government are not prepared to take any immediate steps in the matter. With respect to the other part of my hon. Friend's question, I am willing to admit that the two points I have mentioned may very properly be made the subject of investigation, and the only question is whether that investigation shall take place by means of a Select Committee or by a Royal Commission. I am not prepared, at present, to tell my hon. Friend which of these courses will be adopted, but I will communicate it to the House as soon as the Government shall have decided which is most advisable.

said, he understood that certain correspondence had been going on with reference to the Indian Artillery, and he wished to know when that correspondence would be laid before the House.

Before this debate goes further, I wish to make some remarks in reference to what has fallen from the hon. Members for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) and for Finsbury (Mr. Cox). I hope they will understand it was from no want of courtesy to them I did not immediately rise to answer their questions. But it appeared to me that their questions involved a discussion with respect to the merits of a Bill now before the House, and with respect to an Amendment of which I have given notice on the second reading of that Bill, which at this time would be in the first place completely out of order, and in the next place I do not feel myself called upon to enter into the discussion of a question now which we must discuss at any rate on Monday next. I shall still more refrain from entering into the question whether, in the event of that resolution being carried, Her Majesty's Ministers will take the step of advising Her Majesty to dissolve the present Parliament. That is a very grave and important step, and one which might be attended with the hazards to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded; but at all events it is not upon a Motion for the adjournment of the House from the Friday to the Monday that so important a subject ought to be discussed. I can, therefore, only say at present, in answer to my hon. Friend, and to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury, that in my humble opinion the Government have taken a right course in proposing a Bill in this House upon the subject of the representation of the people; and I trust that on Monday I shall be able to satisfy the House that I have not been wrong in proposing a form of Resolution as an Amendment to the Motion that the Bill be read a second time. With regard to the other statement of the hon. Member for Finsbury, I can assure him that I shall never shrink from the question of the ballot. Whenever that question may be brought forward I shall be ready to give my vote in this House, and, if necessary, I shall be ready to address the House upon the subject. But I think the hon. Gentleman must perceive, upon reflection, that it would be unbecoming in me to bargain for support, by the announcement of any policy at variance with the convictions which I honestly entertain. That is a course which I shall never pursue for any object upon earth. Having thus noticed the two speeches that have been made upon this important subject, I shall now-pass on to the question of which I have given notice to the noble Lord the Secretary for India. It appears from all the accounts which we receive—and very gratifying accounts, indeed, they are—that the pacification of Oude has been effected—that the only large body of the mutineers that remains has gone into the kingdom of Nepaul, and that, generally speaking, the revolt has been suppressed throughout India. Under these circumstances I wish to know whether it is the intention of the Government to ask this House to pass a Vote of Thanks to the Governor General of India, to the distinguished general who is in command of the troops in that country, and to the other officers, civil and military, who have assisted him in the arduous operations which have led to that great and glorious achievement. I will say fairly that I should have left it entirely to the discretion of Her Majesty's Government to name the time when they should think fit to propose that Vote of Thanks, were it not for certain papers which have lately been laid on the table of the House. Those papers I hold in my hand, and they contain copies of the answer of the Governor General to the secret despatch of the Court of Directors, and of the despatch of the noble Lord dated the 9th of December. Now, I am not going in any way to revive the question of the wisdom of the Proclamation which was issued by Viscount Canning. I will admit, if you like, all that the Government say upon that subject. I will admit for the sake of argument that it was unwise to issue that Proclamation. That is not my opinion; but I will admit it for the purpose of the statement I have to make. I own it appears to me that after that matter was settled, after the Government had stated the opinion which they entertained with respect to it, and after Viscount Canning had in a very able despatch shown at least that he had reasons for his conduct, it would have been just to a man placed in the anxious position of Governor General of India during one of the most trying emergencies that ever arose in any country and charged with an immense responsibility, proposing at one time measures that did not meet with the approbation of the Government at home, and at another time directing a military operation which was not in conformity with the judgment of Lord Clyde—I say that it would have been right to a man in that position to have pursued one or other of two courses—either to say that his judgment was erroneous, that he was unfit to carry on the Government of India in that great emergency, and to appoint some other person in his place, or else to treat him with confidence, and to show by the terms in which you addressed him that that confidence was not given in a niggard or a stinted spirit. I read with wonder, and I may say with indignation, that despatch of the 9th of December, which appeared to me, by its cold and sneering tone, to imply and to convey a distrust which Her Majesty's Ministers did not think fit, for some reason or another, openly to express. I therefore feel it my duty to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to do justice to Viscount Canning are services, which I think were never surpassed by any Governor of India, in the suppression of that revolt. I shall be happy to find that I have been mistaken in the supposition I have formed upon the subject, and that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose a vote of thanks to the Governor General, to Lord Clyde, and to various other officers whom I need not name, but who have greatly distinguished themselves in that service. As to Lord Clyde, no one, I suppose, has the least doubt or difficulty. Never did a man in a difficult military position act with greater vigour, with greater decision, and with greater judgment, and I hope he will be spared to return home in health, and to enjoy the rewards he has so justly earned at the hands of his Sovereign.

said, that as the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) could not speak twice on the Motion he might be permitted to remark that now the dreadful events of the mutiny were over, there was a general expectation that some distinguished mark of merit would be given to Sir John Lawrence, The late Government of India actually made a provision for any honour that might be conferred on that distinguished man, for they gave him a pension, and there would be a general feeling of disappointment if the man who was considered the saviour of India had not some mark of favour from the Crown bestowed on him.

Sir, In reference to the question which has been put by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I wish to assure him and the House that the Government fully recognize the great services which have been rendered by Sir John Lawrence; but I cannot altogether admit that which, if not stated, was at least implied in the speech of the hon. Member—that no recognition of those services has already taken place. I do not speak of the promotion of Sir John Lawrence to the rank of Lieutenant Governor—a rank which has been held by him for only a very brief period of time. But I must observe that he received the thanks of this House, a baronetcy, the Grand Cross of the Bath, and a pension of £2,000 a year, in addition to any pension to which he may be entitled as a retired member of the Civil Service; and that he can hold, if he pleases, a seat for life in the Council of India. But I hope that his active career is not yet closed; and if his health should be restored, no doubt some future Minister for India will be anxious to avail himself again of his services in that country. I cannot, therefore, admit that his services, great as they are, have hitherto gone unrewarded. Now with regard to the question of the noble Lord the Member for London, I have to state that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose a vote of thanks to those who, whether in a civil or in a military capacity, have taken a prominant part in the pacification of India. In that vote undoubtedly both the Governor General and Lord Clyde will be included. The reason, and the only reason, why that vote was not proposed at the beginning of the Session, was that at that time the pacification, although obviously near its accomplishment, was not completed; and we were anxious to have an opportunity of including in that vote the authors of any exploit which might still be performed, and which might seem to us to deserve the approbation of this House. I must add, that if it is inconvenient, as the noble Lord states, to discuss the question of Reform on the Motion for the adjournment of the House, it is not less so to take that opportunity of discussing a question which was so fully debated last year—namely, the policy of the Indian Government in regard of Oude, At the proper time, and when a full opportunity is afforded me, I shall be ready to vindicate the course which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government upon that question. I am not surprised that some political considerations which were adverted to this evening should have recalled to the mind of the noble Lord the circumstances which attended the debate of last year. I feel confident that if ever that debate should be resumed in this House it would be attended with the same result. But with regard to the general policy of Lord Canning, apart from that particular transaction, I do not think the noble Lord himself would speak in terms of stronger approval than I have done, not merely of late, but at the time when it was formerly under discussion in this House. A question has been put to me by the hon. and gallant General the Member for Westminster on the subject of the Indian Artillery; but as he did not give me notice of that question I have not had an opportunity of ascertaining when all the papers will be ready. I shall, however, make inquiry into the matter, and I shall afterwards be ready to communicate to him any information which I may obtain.

— Sir, I have only one word to say upon that which has fallen from the noble Lord with regard to the observations of my noble Friend the Member for the City of London. My noble Friend did not revert to the debate of last year. My noble Friend did not advert to the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to India; but my noble Friend did make observations upon that which I think must have struck with pain the mind of every man who has read that despatch. My noble Friend did make observations upon the taste—upon the feeling—I will say no more—of that reply which the noble Lord opposite thought it consistent with his duty to write to Viscount Canning in answer to that noble Lord's despatch. I cannot permit the noble Lord to escape from those remarks which my noble Friend so appropriately made, by endeavouring to revert to the discussion of last year, and to impute to my noble Friend an intention which the language of my noble Friend showed could not have been in his mind. I deeply regret that the noble Lord should have thought right, in his position as a Minister of the Crown, to have written a sneering, taunting, and ironical despatch in reply to Viscount Canning—in answer to explanations which every man must have read with admiration. I say nothing as to the concealment of these despatches for the many months during which they lay in the office of the noble Lord. At last they have come out, and I am persuaded that no man who has read them can help feeling sentiments very different from those expressed in the reply of the noble Lord.

said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs how the £40,000 voted in the Estimates for the Foreign Office Messengers are disposed of; what is the tenure of the office of Queen's Foreign Service Messenger; and what are the regulations which have been recently made with reference to the remuneration of that corps? The total amount voted for the payment of Foreign Office Messengers was £47,000, and as it was stated that no less than 60,000 despatches or enclosures were sent out every year from the Foreign Office a heavy charge under this head of expenditure was unavoidable. The present mode of paying their messengers was very objectionable. The messengers were gentlemen, many of whom had been in the army, who had abandoned their respective professions to embark in the service of the State, and who were required to discharge duties of the most arduous description. They travelled, on the average, from 30,000 to 40,000 miles a year, by day and by night, in all weathers, and they were liable at any moment to be despatched on service. They were consequently exposed to constant wear and tear of body, if not of mind, and he thought they were entitled to the consideration of the Government and of Parliament. The great object was to obtain efficient servants, and when that object was gained they ought to be fully and amply compensated for their services. He believed it would not be denied that the gentlemen to whom he was referring had discharged their duties most faithfully and zealously, and he put it to the House whether it was just that old and deserving men, some of whom had been thirty-five years in the public service, should have their incomes at once reduced from £500 to £200 or £300 a year. The salaries of our ambassadors, our consuls-general, and our consuls had been increased, and it appeared to him somewhat hard that the incomes of these worthy and intelligent officers should be the only salaries to be reduced. He might be asked upon what tenure these gentlemen held their offices. It appeared to him that their appointments were specifically life appointments. In 1824 they were assured that their clear incomes should never be less than £400 a year, and at the same time certain rights and privileges were conferred upon them. In the Finance Committee of 1848 these gentlemen were spoken of as possessing vested interests, and as forming a sort of corporation; but, on the score of economy, be presumed, an alteration had been made in their incomes, which he believed would be as injurious to the public service as it was unjust to these meritorious servants. The average income of Foreign Office messengers had been £800 a year, and their expenses were £270, leaving a clear income of £530. Under the old system, the more work these officers performed, the more pay they received; but under the now plan that incentive to zeal and exertion had been removed. It must be remembered that these gentlemen were engaged in a service in which there was no promotion, and that they were exposed to numerous casualties of various kinds. As an instance of this, he might mention that last year no less than twelve wrecks occurred among the steamers of the Messageries Impériales, by which these messengers were constantly travelling in the discharge of their duties. It was a mistake to suppose that the cost of living abroad was but trifling. In some countries the cost had recently risen 25 per cent, and in others between 40 and 50 per cent. He assumed that it was not too much to expect that the expenditure of a man in the position of a Queen's messenger would be at least £1 1s. a day; and any hon. Gentleman who had been to St. Peters-burgh or Constantinople would know how expensive those places were. Yet the Foreign Office messengers were expected to spend not more than from 16 francs to 18 francs a day. Very often these messengers were placed in a position where they required to spend a considerable amount of money. They were obliged to go to the; most expensive hotels, and to pay whatever was demanded of them. He himself knew an instance in the East, where it was the practice to charge each traveller so much per bed per diem, which included the cost of his entire maintenance. The effect of; this regulation was, that a Queen's messenger on one occasion finding it impossible to get a single-bedded room, was put into one with two beds, and had to pay 30 francs per day instead of 15. It struck him that the present arrangement for the payment of the messengers was unjust in its operation to individuals, and injurious to the public service. Besides, the Queen's foreign service messengers had other burdens to pay of which the House might not be aware. It was true they were released from the payment of £20 a year to the superannuation fund, and he might remark, parenthetically, that according to the book of Mr. Cavendish, an instance occurred in which a messenger had paid no less a sum than £700 to that fund, for which he derived no advantage whatever beyond that now proposed to be given, But, in addi- tion to this, each foreign messenger had to pay a fee of six guineas per annum to some clerk in the Foreign Office for auditing his accounts. He would ask the House whether this was a desirable system to be continued, or whether it was necessary that a sum of between £3,000 and £5,000 a year should be paid to the clerks in the Foreign Office for "agency," which really meant nothing more than receiving the cheques of persons engaged in the foreign service, forwarding the amount, and taking charge of their letters. This agency charge appeared to be quite unnecessary. But, in addition, each consul, upon his appointment, had to pay to some gentleman a fee of five guineas, and each consul-general a fee of ten guineas per annum. Another circumstance in the case was, he thought, not undeserving of consideration in estimating the remuneration to be paid to Foreign Office messengers, and that was, that they had often to carry packages more adapted for Pickford's vans than anything else. He had heard of one instance in which, when a bulky despatch was opened, it was found to contain a tea-kettle, and another in which three or four pots of caviare having been pushed into the bag, in the course of the journey they burst, and the despatches were rendered illegible in consequence of being smeared all over with the dark condiment. Some had gone so far as to send bottles of wine to their friends in the despatch boxes. The most crying injustice, however, under which they suffered was the small amount of their remuneration. The public did not believe that economy was promoted by injustice; it wished to see efficient men employed, and that they should be well paid. The new arrangement tended to discourage the foreign messengers, as they were required to pay their expenses out of their own pockets; the more frequently a messenger was sent abroad the worse off he would be. They should give a fair compensation to the older messengers, and begin the new system with those who were appointed since 1859; to apply the new system to those who had been many years employed created dissatisfaction, and must be injurious to the public service. It would be better to give a lower salary, and allowances while abroad. What he would suggest was, that there should be a fixed salary of £400 a year; a retiring allowance of £150; and that when the messenger was on a journey he should be allowed his expenses at the rate of £1 1s. per day. If the Foreign Office modified the new arrangement in that way he was sure the House would defray the expense.

said, he was sorry it would not be in his power to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford, who, it should be borne in mind, had on many occasions complained of the expenditure of the Foreign Office Department. He was not now prepared to follow the hon. Gentleman in the observations he had made; he should confine himself to shortly answering the questions he had asked, but on Monday or Tuesday he should place upon the table papers which would entirely explain and amply justify the course which Government had taken on the subject. The hon. Gentleman first asked how the £40,000 a year voted for the expenses of Government messengers was disposed of. In answer to that, he (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald) would remind him that £35,000 of that sum was expended in providing for the expenses of messengers and couriers for the Foreign Office and Home Office, and for telegraphs —the expenses for the last item having very much increased within the last two or three years. There was also a deficiency in the sums voted for that purpose in the year 1857 and 1858, and a portion of the £40,000 had been applied to that purpose. But with regard to one part of the expenses, which had been very large —that of messengers to St. Petersburgh and Constantinople—by the improvements introduced by his noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury), a very considerable saving— £10,000 or £12,000 a year—would be effected. The second question asked by the hon. Gentleman was as to what was the tenure of office of those messengers. The Queen's messengers held their office during good behaviour, and under a warrant signed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Their salaries were necessarily of a very fluctuating nature, and hitherto in case of illness they received scarcely any salary; but under the new system of his noble Friend they would have a fixed salary of £525 a year each, in addition to which they would be allowed expenses for boat hire, coach hire, railway expenses, and other items. He should not now enter further into the question; he would only say that when the papers to which he had referred were laid upon the table, the House would see that the arrangements made were not unfair nor unjust.

said, he wished to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Trade whether he has received information from the Conservancy Board of the River Thames as to the removal of the Harbour Master's office from the river side at East Greenwich to an office at Tower Hill, and, if so, on what grounds of public convenience such removal has been determined?

replied, that there was no communication between the Board of Trade and the Thames Conservancy Board; but he understood that the Harbour Master's Office at Greenwich had not yet been abolished, but that part of the duties had been transferred to the office at Tower Hill, where the orders for the colliers lying in the river between Black wall and Gravesend were now issued to the owners or consignees, who themselves forwarded them to the vessels, thus saving time and expense.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Report of the Royal Commissioners on Decimal Currency, who were appointed in 1855, may be expected to be laid on the table?

said, he regretted that the Report of the Commissioners had not yet been laid on the table. Indeed, he could not help expressing his surprise, as well as his regret, that it had been so long delayed. The Commisioners were Lord Monteagle, Mr. Hubbard, and Lord Overstone. Having seen Lord Overstone, he knew that his Report was ready. He hoped that fact would induce the other Commissioners to hasten theirs, so that a measure on the subject might be introduced as early as possible.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the public objection of the Admiralty to the embankment of Chichester Harbour, as notified to this House on 14th February last, has been removed; if so, on what grounds; and whether he can lay on the Table of the House the written consent of the Board?

replied that the Admiralty as conservators of all navigable waters entertained the strongest objection to the proposal, and that they intended to offer to it their decided opposition.

, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, said he thought it would save time if he gave some explanations as to its provisions. The measure had excited considerable interest in the country, and every time he came down to the House he had five or six hon. Members inquiring as to some point in the Bill while the petitions which had been presented in reference to it were very numerous, having last week been five times as many as those on the subject of the Reform Bill. Some of the principles of the Bill were not very clearly understood. The Superannuation Act of 1834, which the present measure was proposed to amend, laid down a scale of retiring allowances to be granted to officers belonging to the departments named in the schedule attached to that Act; and it provided that the Treasury should have power to bring within the scope of that statute any department not included in the schedule. Acting on this authority the Treasury had placed several new departments within the operation of the Act. But the Act of 1834 also contained a clause requiring all officers who were to be entitled to its advantages to pay an abatement from their salaries of 5 per cent and 2½ per cent according to their class towards the expense of their own superannuation. Accordingly, when any public office was brought under the provisions of this statute, the employés were made liable to these deductions at the same time that they were permitted to receive the benefits of the measure. Therefore some hesitation was felt on the part of particular departments to placing themselves under the Act; and various important offices continued to be omitted from its operation for a considerable period, and no abatements were paid by their officers. When these persons retired the question arose whether they ought to receive any pension, and though, by the strict terms of the statute they were entitled to none, yet it was felt that it would be hard to deprive of any compensation men who had long served the public long and faithfully. Thus there grew up an irregular practice of granting superannuations to those who had no legal claim to them, and the whole system fell into no little confusion. The subject of abatements also attracted a large amount of attention from the Civil Service a few years ago. The question was taken up by hon. Members and by the newspapers, and the result was that the right hon. Member for Radnor (Sir George Lewis) brought in a Bill which was referred to a Select Committee of that House, who considered the matter and introduced several Amendments which were not accepted by the House. The Bill consequently did not pass, and the matter was then referred to a Royal Commission, upon whoso recommendations the Bill brought last Session by the late Government and the present Bill were substantially founded. The main point on which the present Bill differed from the former Act was that the Act of 1834 gave superannuation allowances to those officers only who were comprehended within its schedule; whereas this Bill would extend them to all persons belonging to the public service. The abatements having been abolished, the ground of the distinction between one class of civil servants and another was swept away with them. The principle of this Bill was, that all officers belonging to the permanent Civil Service of the State should be entitled to superannuation, except those who were expressly provided for by Act of Parliament, as was the case with certain judicial and other functionaries. As the measure now stood, it proposed also to except all persons whose superannuation was provided for by Order in Council; but he had given notice of his intention to strike out the words "or Order in Council," which applied especially to the workmen in our dockyards. As to the workmen in dockyards, there were such varieties of them that the common phrase "workmen in dockyards" did not convey with sufficient clearness the meaning as to the persons thus designated. There were some who were and always had been entitled to superannuation under the old Act, and another class would be entitled to it under the Act of 1834; then there was the class affected by the scale of fortieths, and again the class of workmen paid superannuation allowances of £10, £24, and £30, according to the length of their services. With respect to these persons it was proposed to discontinue dealing with them under the Order in Council, to treat them as officers, and to grant them superannuation allowances. There was another class who, though permanently employed, had not been considered entitled to pensions, and who, if they fulfilled the requirements of the Bill, would be entitled, like all others permanently employed in the Civil Service, to the same scale of pensions. At that point he thought they must stop. There were other classes of persons employed in the dockyards, but they were not in the position of permanent servants, and it would not be acting in the spirit of the Bill to grant them superannuation allowances. There were other classes of officers whose cases had been specially brought forward. For instance, there were those employed in the Post Office, and probably there could not be a stronger case for showing the mischiefs under the system of 1834 than this. By looking at the schedules of the Act of 1834 they would find that among the offices included in it was the Post Office; but the construction which, in practice had been put upon the Act was, that the right to superannuation was confined to the persons employed in the metropolitan Post Offices, while those who were in the country, although it might be at Manchester, Liverpool, or Birmingham, where the work was quite as heavy as at Dublin or Edinburgh, had no claim to it. Letter-carriers in London, too, received superannuation allowances; while those throughout the country, although equally in the service of the State, had no such advantage. The principle which would be applied to these classes of persons under this Bill was precisely the same as that according to which the dockyard labourers were to be dealt with. That was to say that all persons who were permanently employed in the service of the Post Office in such capacities as rendered it necessary for them to give up all other business and devote themselves wholly to the service of the State would receive superannuation allowances, and would receive them exactly upon the same principle and according to the same scale as clerks in the London Post Offices, or in any other department. As under this principle it would be necessary to exclude from the benefits of the Act all those persons who were only temporarily or partially employed, such as country postmasters who were also the keepers of shops, he had communicated with the Postmaster General upon the subject, and had received from him a letter in which he distinguished between the different classes of officers who were and who were not required to give up their employments. It was intended that, if this Bill passed, a minute should be founded upon that letter, which would accurately define the cases in which superannuation allowances would be paid. Another condition necessary to entitle persons to such allowances was that they should be paid out of Imperial funds; and therefore all persons paid out of county rates—such as prison, workhouse, and other Poor Law officers—would be excluded from the benefit of this Act. It might be very proper that there should be legislation in order to provide for the superannuation of those persons; but these cases could not be dealt with by this measure. The Bill would not apply to persons who were paid by fees. Such persons were not entitled to superannuation, because the principle upon which that system rested was that in fixing a man's remuneration you considered how much he ought to have by way of salary, and how much by way of retiring allowance. And the difficulty with regard to persons paid by fees was that, although they were employed in the service of the State, and were, to a considerable extent, under its control, they generally held their offices partly at the will of other persons, and might be dismissed by them. Such was the case with regard to procurators fiscal in Scotland, and Judges' clerks in England, the former of whom held their offices at the pleasure of the sheriffs of counties, and the latter at that of the Judges. To give superannuation allowances in such cases would be opening the door to great abuses. He must apologise to the House for entering into such minute details, but he was speaking as much for the country as the House — there being such a number of persons who were anxious to know how they would be affected by the Bill. He had said enough, however, to show the main principle on which they proposed to define who were civil servants. He would now refer to another point of great interest. Some evenings ago a question was put to him by the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham as to what increase of expense would be caused by the provisions of this Bill. He was sorry to say that that must be so much a matter of conjecture that he felt it quite impossible to make any satisfactory statement with regard to it. There were three ways in which the expense of superannuations would be affected by the passing of this Bill. In the first place, there was the adoption of a new scale. The present scale was what was called a "jumping" one; it went by periods of seven years. That provided by this Bill was a "sliding" scale, advancing year by year by 60ths, It stopped at the same maximum, as at present existed— namely, two-thirds, or 40-60ths, of the salary; but under it a man would arrive somewhat earlier at his maximum allowance than he did at present. The scale was, however, so arranged that while it gave an advantage to those who had served long periods it diminished the allowances of those who had been engaged in the service of the State for shorter ones, He might say generally that up to his 24th year of service a man would receive more according to the scale of 1834 than according to this; while after that period of his service the case would be reversed. In order, therefore, to determine how much the expense of superannuations would be increased by this Bill it was necessary to calculate after what periods of service civil servants were likely to retire. This could not well be settled by taking the average period after which they retired at present, because those who were now withdrawing from the public service generally received allowances according to the scale which was in force up to the year 1829, which was a more favourable one than that established by the Act of 1834. He therefore thought that, to ascertain the average rate at which persons retired now, and to make that the basis of calculation, would be an erroneous way of proceeding. But he might say generally that if the proposed scale were to apply to exactly the same class of persons as were included in the Act of 1834, and to them only, the difference in point of expense would be slight. The proposed scale, indeed, was in many respects better and more economical for the public than the existing one, because it would tend to discourage persons from leaving the public employment after a short period of service. There was another way in which the Bill might add to the expense of superannuation, and that was by bringing new classes of officers under the provisions of the Act. There again, however, he found it exceedingly difficult to come to any kind of conclusion. Upon being asked what classes and what number of officers would be brought under the Bill, the different departments replied by inquiring to what classes the Bill was intended to apply, and a difficulty arose as to who were and who were not to be included under the term "permanent civil servants of the State." He had been for some time engaged in discussing the question with representatives of the different Departments, but he was sorry to say they had not arrived at anything which could furnish a datum for saying what would be the addition under this head. Another difficulty was that a considerable number of officers, though not entitled to superannuation under the Act of 1834, did constantly receive pensions, and therefore to bring them under the provisions of the present Bill would not really increase the expense. There were only two or three great departments in which an increase by the addition of new classes of persons could take place, and it appeared from returns obtained from the Customs, which was one of them, that of the 2,000 officers belonging to that dc- partment whom the present Bill would include in the superannuation system, a large proportion were persons who had been placed upon the permanent establishment after some years of temporary service, and who would therefore be entitled under the existing system to superannuation of one kind or another. The same was the case with regard to a considerable number of the dockyard people, and in point of fact the only department in which a great number of entirely new persons would be added was the Post Office. According to the original estimate of the Postmaster General, there were about 8,000 officers in that department who would be included under the Bill; but upon closer inquiry he had ascertained that a large number of those persons would not come under the definition of "Permanent Civil Servants of the State." There would also be a large addition from the dockyards, but not so large as might at first sight appear, because a considerable number of the dockyard officers who would nominally be now included for the first time, already received pensions. But there was a third way in which the Bill would, to some small extent, add to the expense by adding to the number of civil servants entitled to superannuation. One of the clauses gave permission to officers to retire at the age of sixty, and another made it compulsory so to retire at the age of sixty-five, unless they were specially asked to stay as being efficient servants. Upon inquiring at the different departments what number of officers would be required to resign on account of age, he was met by the same kind of counter-question instead of answer—namely, what classes of persons were intended to come under the provisions of the Bill. However, he had very recently been informed that the number would not exceed 190 or 200, although the Civil Service Commissioners, in returns presented some time ago, put it at 300. But the result of all their inquiries had convinced the Government of the necessity of limiting the operation of the Bill, and of laying down some more stringent rule than was afforded by the words "Permanent Civil Service of the State." They now thought it desirable that the new system of superannuation should not apply to any persons but those who were really bonâ fide civil servants, and were passed as such by the Civil Service Commissioners. He therefore intended to move the insertion of a clause, stating who were to be deemed civil ser- vants. No person was to be deemed a civil servant unless he either held his appointment directly from the Crown, or was admitted with a certificate from the Commissioners. The condition of the Civil Service had occupied the serious attention of successive Governments, and, among other measures taken to improve it, a Commission had been appointed, the duties of which had been discharged with great ability by Sir Edward Ryan and Sir John Lefevre, the mere mention of whose names was a sufficient guarantee for the manner in which they had performed the office allotted to them. The main object was to introduce into the service a superior class of officers to those who had been frequently admitted into subordinate appointments, and also to obtain securities for the public that men would not be appointed either at too high an age, when they would have little service in them, or in a state of health which would render it probable that after a few years they would retire or be unable to do their duty. Almost all classes of persons admitted to the junior appointments were now required to pass an examination before the Civil Service Commissioners. The question of obtaining a certificate from the Commissioners was distinct from, though connected in some degree with, that of open competition, because the system was applicable to all kinds of admissions, and included not only literary but what were equally important, medical examinations. He believed, for his own part, that by adopting a system which seemed calculated not only to procure able and efficient officers, but to ensure them fair and equitable treatment, the House would do much to allay the present uncomfortable and excited state of the civil servants, and to permanently improve the condition of the Civil Service itself; and, although his statement with respect to the possible expense of the proposed scale of superannuation might appear unsatisfactory to some hon. Members, he would entreat the House to look at this subject in a broader point of view. What the country really wanted was not to save so many pounds, shillings, and pence in the superannuation of its civil servants, but an adequate supply of good, cheerful, and willing servants, and the adoption of measures which would enable those in its employment to retire at the proper time without a feeling of hardship. It was treated as a hardship that civil servants should be required to retire at sixty-five years of age. Before 1829 there was a scale in operation, according to which, after a certain number of years' service—fifty for instance—the civil servants were entitled to a superannuation allowance equal to their full salaries. Subsequently, the scale was altered and no man could have a superannuation allowance for more than two thirds of his salary. The consequence was that at present men were unwilling to retire, because retirement involved the loss of one-third of their income. Steps, therefore, should be taken for the retirement of those who were past work, who, not falling in with the spirit of the times, were opposed to innovations, and who stood in the way of younger men with more spirit and emulation. This was the reason for adopting an arbitrary rule that at a certain age men should retire, unless, indeed, such as, being still efficient, might fairly be asked to stay. Having spoken with those acquainted with the feelings of the civil servants, he believed that this provision of the Bill would not be considered a hardship by them generally. It. might be said that this retirement at the age of sixty-five would throw a great deal of patronage into the hands of the Government, and that it might be used by those in power as a means of getting good places for themselves. But he could only say that the clause was introduced not at the instance of one Government or another, but upon the recommendation of the Royal Commission which had investigated the whole subject, and the great mass of offices were filled by the promotion of men from the junior ranks, so that there would be no opportunity in reality for anything like jobbing, for if the head of an office went, the next in succession took his place. With respect to another class of officers a case of suspicion might arise, he alluded to officers in higher situations, such as Commissioners of Customs and other more important appointments, which situations were filled by men who had not risen from the ranks, but who were taken from the outside and placed in their offices at once. Undoubtedly the men who filled these offices were generally able to continue in service beyond sixty-five years of age, as they did not involve as a necessity the requirements of too much labour and energy as the rest, and he should therefore propose an amendment to exclude all that class from retirement at sixty-five years of age, but he should require the retirement at that age of persons who entered through the Civil Service Commissioners. He should be ready to give any further explanation in Committee.

said, the House was in a singular position with regard to this Bill. It was read a second time at twelve o'clock at night, when no one was present; he took an objection, grounded upon the total ignorance in which the House was as to the increase of expense the Bill would cause; but he was told that in going into Committee pro formâ alterations would be made, and in that form it would come before the Committee. But what had happened? It had gone into Committee pro formâ, and its principles had been essentially altered, and he begged leave to say that all the constitutional safeguards of legislation had been lost; there had been no opportunity of discussing the principles of the Bill on the second reading, the main feature of the superannuation clause had been altered, for it had been extended not only to salaried civil servants, but to all those whose remuneration consisted of daily pay and wages. He did not think that a fairway of opening the question, for the House had a right to pass its opinion upon the question whether, in point of expediency and expense, it was desirable to increase the number of those entitled to superannuation. He objected also to the manner in which the rights of civil servants were defined. Every civil servant ought to be able to obtain at a glance a knowledge of his position as a public servant with reference to superannuation; but as the Bill stood he would have to wade through several Acts of Parliament before he could arrive at the information, for the section alluding to the subject contained references to no less than eight Acts of Parliament. The old and new law was so huddled up together that, in fact, none but an experienced lawyer could find out what the sections meant. This speech of the hon. Baronet, clear as it was in other respects, was rather obscure as to the question of what would be the additional expense that would fall on the public by the passing of this Bill, and this was a very serious question. The amount paid already yearly for pensions and superannuations was enormous —it amounted to a million and-a-half. As an approximation towards it, he would take the Civil Service salaries at £5,339,000, and he inferred that the charge with regard to that sum imposed by the Bill would be £1,122,000 for superannuations. Add to that the £74,000 lost by abolishing the deductions from the salaries and the compensations consequent on the abolition of the Ecclesiastical Courts, find other compensations amounting towards £1,500,000. The Select Committee who sat on this question had recommended the repeal of such portions of existing Acts as provided for reductions from the salaries of the civil servants to form the superannuation fund, but they also recommended a revision of the salaries. The point he desired to impress on the House was this. Let that reduction be a by-gone thing. Let the civil servants have the benefit of it; but let the House not increase the scale of superannuation. His object was to do justice to the Civil Service, and certainly at the same time to the taxpayers. He said, therefore, by all means give them the advantage of a repeal of the tax, but adhere to the scale of 1834. He did not mean to argue for the infallibility of that scale, and if the jump every seven years were unwise, let it be altered. Let them not, however, increase the scale of superannuation. Under the Act of 1834 a person who had served thirty-eight years would be entitled to superannuation at the rate of £50 for every £100. How would the new scale work if it were adopted? Why, that every person who had served thirty-two years would be entitled to £53 for every £ 100, and when he had served thirty-eight years he would receive £63 for every £100. There could be no question that Parliament had wisely yielded the tax. It was too much, however, after having done that, to say that they would also increase the scale of superannuation. With regard to the number of persons who would be entitled to superannuation under the Bill, the House was at present utterly in the dark; he apprehended, however, that they would not fall short of 40,000. Indeed, now that the deduction was abolished, it was difficult to fix a limit. He begged to move as a Resolution, therefore,—

"That all deductions from salaries, in order to form a fund for superannuations, having been abolished, it is not expedient to add to the amount of public charge by an increase in the scale of superannuation."

seconded the Amendment,

said, he did not propose to enter at any length into a discussion of the provisions of this Bill. He had listened with great interest to the very clear and most ingenuous statement of his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury, but at the same time it appeared to him that the Bill raised some very serious questions for the consideration of the House. In the First place his hon. Friend made a large demand on the House when as financial Secretary he exhorted them to take a broad view in this matter, and so contrived his own invitations as to apply it to this point, and asked the House to enact a system of pensions on a new basis, without knowing what classes were to be included within the provisions of the measure, and without being aware of the extent of the burden about to be added to the already heavy burdens on the public finances. He knew that it was difficult even for a Government Department to obtain exact information on this subject; but he must impress on the House the absolute duty to have the best estimate which the Government could give, and not to proceed to adopt a new system without obtaining such an estimate from the Government as at all events it must be in their power to afford. He thought he saw from some parts of the statement of his hon. Friend, that the reason why they had not given an estimate at the present moment was, not that the subject was incapable of any estimate, but the communications between the Treasury and the different departments had not yet reached a stage of maturity to enable the Government to arrive at an estimate.

explained that what he said was, that the communications were such as to render it improbable that any estimate could be given.

said, he had merely stated the inference which he drew from what the hon. Gentleman had said, that the communications between the Treasury and the various departments were not yet complete. He did not say that it was absolutely necessary to protest against going into Committee, but the case was not ripe for the House to pass finally a Bill through their hands until the communications were complete, and the calculations of the Government founded on those communications had been laid on the table. He was almost afraid that a love of uniformity had too much influenced the deliberations on the subject. The old system of pensions was founded on schedules, and the House was made clearly and distinctly aware of the nature of the steps which they were taking. This was a subject upon which it was eminently necessary the House should have full knowledge of that which they were about to do, because they were not enacting to day that which would take effect tomorrow, and of which to-morrow would give experience for correction the day after. They were enacting now that which would not take full effect for the next forty or fifty years, and they were now entering into a new set of engagements, every one of which, even if it reached over half a century or more, must be kept absolutely sacred, however onerous might be the consequences. This inherent difficulty in the case rendered it necessary that they should exhaust the means at their disposal to obtain a clear view of what they were about before they proceeded to give a final vote on this Bill. There was one illustration of his hon. Friend which confirmed his suspicions of a great tendency on the part of the hon. Gentleman to indulge in generous liberality. His hon. Friend spoke of the great anomaly which was at present exhibited in the Post-office Department, where it appeared London letter-carriers were entitled to superannuation and country letter-carriers were not, and, scandalized at this anomaly, his hon. Friend proposed to cure it by admitting he did not know how many thousand country letter-carriers to the benefits of superannuation. He did not say that the case of letter-carriers in very large towns was not strictly analogous, but be did say that there were very good reasons why a distinction should be drawn between the London and the country letter-carrier. The London letter-carrier was on his legs all day, and his duties absorbed his whole time; but in the country very often the letter-carrier spent an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening in the service of the Post Office, and was no higher in quality than a common labourer. By giving him superannuation he would be placed on a footing entirely different from that of his class, and he would receive that for which be had by no means the same claims as the letter-carrier in London. He had been struck by the form of the clause which his hon. Friend proposed to introduce for the purpose of supplying a test upon which the Government might act. He thought the hon. Gentleman could hardly ask the House to adopt the clause that evening, because at present it was quite uncertain to what classes of persons the certificate of the Civil Service Commissioners extended. The system of the Commissioners was yet in its infancy, but be fully concurred in what his hon. Friend had said with reference to the services of those distinguished men, and he thought the House and the country owed a deep debt of gratitude to Sir J. Shaw Lefevre and Sir E. Ryan for the part they had taken in organizing the system. The very ambiguity of the clause confirmed him in the impression that his hon. Friend had as yet shown no sufficient cause for departing from the old principle upon which Superannuation Acts were constructed — of scheduling in the Acts themselves the classes of officers to whom they were intended to apply. When this question was examined and it was first decided by a Committee of that House that it was desirable to remit the deductions which had been levied under Act of Parliament from the salaries of the civil servants, the Committee recommended that the salaries of civil servants should undergo a revision generally corresponding to the deductions, and only a few years previously the House had been almost upon the point of adopting a vote for a general diminution of the salaries of civil servants, entirely irrespective of any relief they were to receive by a revision of these deductions, but the deductions having been remitted the revision of salaries appeared to have been entirely forgotten. He did not make any charge against any one, and he was perhaps wrong in saying it bad been forgotten, for he hoped it was still intended to carry that process into effect. But it might be said that the civil servants were very insufficiently and illiberally paid. But his hon. Friend had said that at this very hour, when the House was determining to remit these deductions, the Civil Service Commission were showing by the result of their examinations that the system of admission to the Civil Service had been ex- tremely lax, and that no inconsiderable number of persons had been allowed to hold offices, and to receive salaries for the discharge of duties to which they were incompetent. Upon that ground, therefore, as well as upon others, he submitted that there was no case of injustice on the part of the civil service as a body. It could not be alleged, with the slightest colour of truth, that that service, as a body, was underpaid. Everything that the public had contracted to do for them had been rigorously and faithfully performed, and he asked, therefore, whether it was just to the people of England that, wholesale, without the slightest respect either to the merits of individuals or classes, or to the relations between the salary and the duty to be discharged, the House should proceed to remit the form of deductions, and to add in that manner to the public burdens, while at the same time it entirely ignored the corresponding recommendation of its Committee that with reference to this deduction a revision of the salaries should take place? He hoped to hear from the Government, first, some declaration as to the manner in which it was intended to proceed with regard to the classes of persons who ought to be included within the provisions of the Act; secondly, some promise that before the Bill was read a third time an estimate should be framed of the addition which was likely to accrue to the public expenditure; and thirdly, a statement whether it was intended that the remission of the reduction should be followed by a reconsideration of the rates of salary, or whether, on the other hand, it was meant that that remission of deductions should stand as a simple, sweeping, wholesale augmentation of the salaries of the civil service, entirely irrespective of the particular merits, duties, or features of the different cases.

said, he thought the House ought not the proceed with the Bill in the absence of an estimate of what the probable increased charge would be. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford had made some very proper observations, as he thought, upon the injustice of remitting the deductions without entering into the question of the salaries. There was no occupation in the country in which persons were employed so few hours per day, as in the Civil Service. They were supposed to work from ten in the morning until four in the afternoon; but a considerable portion of the morning was devoted to reading the newspaper, and talk- ing over the events of the day. He did not know what would become of the mercantile and commercial interests of the country if they conducted their affairs in that manner. He believed it would do persons in public offices a great deal of good if they were employed for a longer period than they were at present.

said, from his own experience he could understand the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury felt in attempting to form any accurate estimate of what the additional cost of these new arrangements would be. It was his (Mr. Wilson's) duty, two years since, to bring under the consideration of the House what the ultimate result of a fair superannuation measure must be; because it was perfectly obvious to the Government of that day that the remission of deductions was only a part of a series of measures which must necessarily follow. He (Mr. Wilson) then made a statement of the ultimate additional cost that would be entailed upon the country by the proposed measure, and estimated it at £100,000 for the remission of abatements, and another £100,000 for the creation of additional pensions. He did not understand that the present Bill proposed any additional scale for superannuation. The scheme of the Government, like that proposed by the Treasury of that day, acting upon the recommendations of the Committee, was this—according to the Act of 1834, the pensions were regulated by periods of seven years, and a person was entitled, at the end of ten years and under fifteen years' service, to four-fifths of his annual allowance. The result of the Bill would be to give effect to the practice which had hitherto prevailed in awarding pensions under former Acts of apportioning the pensions to the exact number of years of service. As he understood the question, the Government did not propose to increase the scale of compensation to be given. The only effect, therefore, as far as regards those who were formerly paid under the 40th scale would be to give them a Parliamentary title to their compensation, instead of the title to be derived from an Order in Council merely. With regard to Post-office servants, those only were now entitled to compensation who were in the offices at London, Dublin, and Edinburgh; but he confessed he could not see upon what principle of justice clerks employed at Liverpool, Bristol, or Glasgow, should not equally be en- titled to the same privileges. Then came the question, where was the line to be drawn? Was the sore to be always open, and was the discontent among the civil servants of the Crown to become chronic? They might depend upon it that so long as one class of public servants were precluded from privileges which others with no higher claims upon the Crown enjoyed, so long would there be discontent and agitation. What, he asked, would be the condition of affairs if the whole body of civil servants were arrayed against the Crown, and what sort of discipline could be expected in such a state of things? His advice to the House, therefore, was to settle the question upon a broad principle which every one could understand, and which would be just to all. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had misunderstood the proposal of the Secretary of the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman very properly laid down this distinction, that where a person was permanently, solely, and exclusively devoted to the public service, he was a public officer, and ought to receive a pension. Therefore, in the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman of a Post-office runner, who was employed for an hour or two in the day, and then returned to his shoe-making or other trade, the Bill would not apply. He believed that the best way to promote content would be to establish uniformity. The whole class of persons to be included in this scheme were now in the receipt of but small salaries, but when it was said that 700 or 800 persons would be brought under the operation of the Bill, that number would not be the measure of those who would become chargeable on the country. He regretted to say that a very large portion of the public servants died or disappeared before the time for superannuation arrived. On the whole, he did not believe that the operation of the Bill would add more than 12 or 13 per cent on that which was now paid, or increase the charge more than £100,000.

said, that although an economist, and anxious to save the public money, he was bound at the same time to be just, and therefore he should support the Bill. The higher servants of the Crown were able to provide for their old age out of their salaries, but the lower class could not do so, and if they were permanent servants it was the duty of the State to do that for them which they could not do for themselves. In the great towns the Post-office runners were upon their legs all day, and were entitled to the same consideration as the same class of public servants in London. An increase of 12 per cent in the present charge for superannuation would be, in his opinion, cheaply purchased by the goodwill and increased efficiency which would thereby be obtained.

said, he had opposed the Motion of the noble Lord now Secretary for Ireland, (Lord Naas), for getting rid of the old system of making no deductions from the salaries of public servants, and he did his best to persuade the House that it would be unwise and most expensive to adopt that step. The House, however, contrary to the opinion of the Government of the day and the Committee, was pleased to get rid of the system. The question was settled, and he had no desire to re-open it; but that was really the source and spring of the expenditure proposed by the present Bill. This Act was the corollary of the former one. The only question, then, was how much they had to pay. By the old scale a discretion was allowed to the Treasury within certain limits to give the good servant a larger, and the indifferent servant a smaller superannuation. By the present system that discretion was a good deal removed, and upon the whole he preferred the new plan to the old. With regard to those who were now introduced to the benefit of the Superannuation Fund for the first time, let him put the question to the House in this way:—They had now a higher class of public servants, they bad increased their salaries 5 per cent, and they proposed to give them a better scale of retiring allowances and certain other advantages. That being so, he asked on what principle they could possibly refuse to consider the case of a workman in the dockyard, who was less able to provide for old age, some small increase in his superannuation allowance, when the clerk who paid him his wages had his allowance increased. Such a system would be productive of nothing but discontent and dissatisfaction. So long as the system of deduction was continued, they had a fair answer; but now when all classes were put upon the same footing, the pensions must be placed upon the same equal scale. He objected to that clause in the Bill which required the retirement of an officer at the age of sixty-five, but not on money grounds. He would, therefore, reserve his objections to that clause for the Committee. He en- treated the House most earnestly to settle the question. No one hardly knew how much inconvenience and dissatisfaction had been caused by the matter remaining in its present unsettled state. There was a great deal of canvassing, not of the House, but of the Members, which he very much disapproved of. He had not been troubled very much in that way himself, but he knew that others had been, and whatever the House did it could not do worse than leave the matter unsettled. It had only two courses open to it, either to revert to the old system or go on. It could not revert to the old system, and so its only course was to go on, even though it might have to pay somewhat dearly for its whistle.

said, he was ready to accept the consequences of the decision that the abatements should be abolished, and that the distinction which the payment of those abatements previously made between the class of public servants entitled to superannuation allowances by reason of their being subject to such abatements and the class of officers not entitled to superannuation allowances by reason of not being subject to such deductions should be done away with. But he was not prepared to go beyond that principle. He could see no reason why the principle which the hon. Baronet embodied in his Resolution should not be carried out—namely, that no increase should be made in the scale of superannuations now fixed by law. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury was in error when he stated that the late Government had introduced a Bill altering the scale of superannuations last Session, or since the time when abatements were abolished. The Bill which he introduced upon the subject was introduced previous to the decision of the House with respect to the abolition of the system of abatement. He (Sir George Lewis) felt himself quite at liberty to vote against the scale of superannuation proposed by the present Bill; but he approved that scale in so far as it converted the septennial division into an annual payment; though he saw no reason why the scale of allowance fixed by the present law should be increased. No reason had been assigned for any substantial increase in the existing scale. With regard to the introduction of a new class of officers entitled to superannuation pensions, he admitted it was desirable that an intelligible rule should be laid down; but what he con- fessed somewhat alarmed him was the number of officers on the establishment of the Post Office, who, it was said, were to participate in the allowance. The Secretary for the Treasury had, on the estimates made by the Post-office authorities, stated the number to be about 8,000, who would thus, for the first time, he entitled to superannuation allowances; but he added that on investigation, the number might be reduced. The House ought to consider carefully how they admitted the whole of the Post-office service to the benefit of the superannuation allowance. With respect to the clerks employed in the Post Offices in large towns in the country—such as Liverpool and others—he thought they ought to stand on precisely the same footing as the clerks in the General Post Office. He could see no good reason, however, why Postmasters in country Post Offices, who did not devote their whole time to the public duties, and to whom the keeping a Post Office was more of an advantage than otherwise, should be admitted to the benefits of the superannuation allowance. There was another large class of persons in country Post Offices whom he should be extremely reluctant to bring within the provisions of this Bill. The country letter-carriers in general received about the wages of a day labourer. It was a vocation much sought after in the country, as the duties were less laborious than the usual work. Besides, they occasionally obtained perquisites which made a considerable addition to their earnings. They were not a class considered to belong to the permanent Civil Service, and there would be no difficulty in finding persons to do the duty for the wages given, without the right to a pension. he did not understand whether it was intended to bring them within this Bill as entitled to pensions. He should vote for going into Committee if he were assured that the Bill would not entail any substantial increase in the scale of pensions.

Sir, I do not think the effect of the Bill will be substantially to increase the scale of pensions; and I do not think that the Motion of the hon. Member for Evesham is founded on substantial evidence. No doubt there may be, in a certain sense, some slight increase in the superannuations under this Bill; but the increase has not been occasioned by any wish of increasing the salaries. The scale in the Bill is the scale recommended by a Committee of the House, and also recommended by the Royal Commission, and the reason that there is some slight increase in some portions is, that that scale has been framed in order to obtain the annual progression which was considered desirable; and, indeed, generally speaking, this Bill only legalizes what was before the practice of the Treasury—and which was the remedial practice of the Treasury—in order to counteract the evil effects of the scale that then obtained. It has been urged in the course of to-night's discussion that the communications between the Treasury and the officers and classes comprised in this Bill have not been completed; but I think that my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury was entirely misunderstood by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford when he made that allegation, because it was not stated by my hon. Friend that the communications between the Treasury and the other public offices have not been completed. They have been completed, and we have established a principle which is to guide us in the management of all the cases that come under our notice, namely, that those who receive the privilege—if I may so call it— of superannuation shall pass under the examination of the Civil Service Commission. And I must remind the hon. Baronet that we have a complete check over the various classes to which he has adverted, because it is for the Treasury to decide what cases shall come under the Civil Service Commission. The hon. Baronet who proposed the Amendment has endeavoured to alarm the House by dwelling upon the large number of persons who, he says, will come under the influence of this Bill if it passes into an Act; and he has remarked that the House, which has been accustomed always to consider that the number of civil servants was 16,000 will find them to be 40,000. Now, it is possible that a number of persons amounting to 40,000, or approximating to that number, may ultimately come under this Bill, if it shall be passed; but the fact is that it is not an increase from 16,000 to 40,000, but that between 16,000 and 30,000 are included in this Act who were before in the enjoyment of superannuations by other means, and, in fact, the real increase under this Bill cannot be estimated at a higher figure than between 6,000 and 8,000 persons, those persons being subject to the Treasury control to which I have adverted, and which, I think, will be a substanial check to any abuse. So far, therefore, as regards the principle urged by the hon. Baronet, I must say that, in the spirit of the case, there is no increase —no substantial increase in the scale of superannuation. What we have done is — we have reduced the minimum and accelerated the maximum, so that a person who enters the service and completes the time—namely forty years—I hope there are few such — would not, under these regulations, receive a greater amount of public money than under the old system. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) has said that before this discussion terminates he expects from the Government information on three points— first, the class of persons whom we propose to bring under this Act; secondly, whether we intend to revise the public salaries; and thirdly, he wishes to have an estimate of what will be the increase of charge if this Bill passes. With regard to the first point —the class of persons who will come under this Act—I will say at once that all those who are included in the original schedule of the existing Act, all added since, such as Poor Law Commissioners and others, and all those who have become entitled to be added, will come under the provisions of this Act, also those classes mentioned in this debate—namely, those employed in the dockyards and the Post Office. As to the second point, whether it is the intention of Government to institute a revision of the salaries, I would beg to refer to the opinion given on that subject by the Royal Commissioners. The Royal Commissioners were of opinion that such revision would be impracticable, and they gave their reason for their conclusions. Our opinion agrees with that of the Royal Commissioners, and we do not think that it is expedient, taking a general view of all the circumstances connected with the question, that a general revision of the salaries should take place. I need hardly touch upon the third point, the increase of the amount of charge if the Bill passes—because the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) has given his opinion to the House, an opinion founded on experience, and entitled to be regarded as of authority on this point. I would say that I believe the estimate of the hon. Gentleman is well founded; but I believe the expenditure would be rather under that figure than not. And if that is the case, can the House hesitate to pass a Bill of this kind, which I think is founded on principles of policy and justice, which has been recommended, and fairly recommended, by the public, and which after a long dis- cussion appears to receive the approbation of the House. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham intends to divide on his Amendment; but I think his Motion is not well grounded, and I should feel it my duty to oppose it.

said, he wished to move the omission of the words "in an established capacity," because they had created great doubt and difficulty as to their exact meaning and application. It was supposed, and not without some reason, that if those words were not omitted from the Bill a certain class of civil servants in the largo departments—the Customs, for instance— would not be entitled to any superannuation unless they had been ten years in the service The class of persons here referred to were the supernumerary civil servants. These gentlemen, in many cases, devoted their whole time to the service of the country, and they ought to be admitted to the benefits of the measure. When the Committee considered that the Bill would not extend to any one who was not employed for ten years, they would, he thought, come to the conclusion that a supernumerary employed for that length of time ought to have a superannuation allowance. The words he proposed to expunge were not in the old Act, and why they should have been inserted in this Bill he did not know. He hoped the Committee would agree to his Motion.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury the meaning of the words "in an established service," because he had had the honour of being entrusted with a petition signed by 800 persons, who claimed to be placed on the same footing as other public servants? The petitioners were a useful body of men, namely, the process-servers of Ireland. He did not desire to extend the operation of this Bill, which he considered one of the most discreditable ever introduced by any Government; but, as hon. Members seemed to take it as an accomplished fact, he thought it but fair that the claims of all classes should be brought before the Committee and the Government.

said, he wished to inquire whether the terms of the Bill included the large class of persons employed in the Ordnance survey.

said, he would suggest that in bringing up the Report a schedule should be attached to the Bill, showing the civil servants who were entitled to superannuations.

replied that those who were called supernumerary clerks were in fact to all intents and purposes established clerks, and had an organization of their own, and they would certainly come under the provisions of this Bill. With regard to the process-servers in Ireland, the case was quite different; they did not require the same qualifications for the discharge of their duties as civil servants in the public establishments; neither was the same strictness required in their case á regarded age and the length of service as in the case of the civil servants, and therefore they would not come under the provisions of this Bill. As to the Ordnance Offices he could hardly give an answer, but he did not see at that moment why the Bill would not include them.

complained of the hardship that was inflicted upon numbers of the constabulary who had been discharged from their service in Ireland without any compensation or superannuation, while officials who were discharged from the Poor Law Board were superannuated. On these grounds he objected to the discretionary power of the Treasury in cases of this kind.

said, he rose to draw attention to the case of the artificers employed in the steam factories in the dockyards, and he wished to ask whether it would not be worth the while of the Government to consider if it would not be desirable to place them on a footing which would secure their permanent services.

said, that the whole scope of the Bill was to diminish as much as possible the discretion of the Treasury. With regard to the statement of the gallant Member, he might explain that the artificers to whom he referred were a fluctuating body. They were attached to the steam factories, and they were in no way bound to the Government.

said, he considered that those skilled labourers who were employed in the construction of the steam navy, and were, although not on the establishment, permanently employed in the dockyards, should be placed on the same footing as shipwrights.

said, be rose to move an Amendment to the clause.

said, there was one Amendment already before the Committee.

said, he hoped the hired men would be included in the provisions of the Bill. They were almost permanently employed, and did the same work as the established men.

remarked that the men alluded to would, by the provisions of the Bill, come within its scope, only that the Treasury would exercise a discretion in deciding whether they had had fixed and established employment.

said, he wished to know if it were intended that the men should undergo an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners?

said, he thought it but proper that the Treasury should have the discretion referred to, but he understood from the Bill that if a man had served twenty-nine years and was then discharged for a time, but afterwards brought back and retained in the service for seventeen years more, his superannuation would be calculated for the seventeen years only. That would, he considered, be a great injustice.

said, he wished to know what was the meaning of the words "established capacity."

said, the words were not his but those of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon-port, but he did not think there was any difficulty in understanding them. With regard to the question of his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) in reference to the examination of the men by the Civil Service Commissioners, he had to state that it would be necessary for the men to obtain from the Commissioners certificates as to their age, the state of their health, and other such matters as were elements in the calculation of their superannuation.

remarked, that the words "established capacity" were perfectly intelligible to every person acquainted with the public departments.

said, that the clause considered only the status of those at present in the public service, and not that of those who might hereafter join it.

observed, that he was so satisfied with the explanation of his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury, Sir Stafford Northcote, that he would withdraw his Amendment. His reason for moving the omission of the words was that they created a great deal of uncertainty among the civil servants. He would, however, still urge the claims of the engrossing clerks in the Scotch Land Office.

said, he would then move an Amendment to the effect that no person be entitled to superannuation allowance, except granted in respect of any office mentioned in the schedule to this Act annexed, "except as hereinafter mentioned."

What is the meaning of the words, "except as hereinafter mentioned?"

It meant any exception which the Treasury might start.

said, he could not yet understand the Amendment.

said, the same rule ought to apply to all the establishments. As there must he decision somewhere, it ought to be exercised by the Treasury.

moved the following Amendment—line 20, after "service" insert "and also an allowance of one-sixtieth for each three years' service of all persons who entered into the service of the State between the 30th day of September, 1829, and the 1st day of July, 1857, and who had paid the abatement on their salaries deducted by virtue of the Act 4 & 5 Will. IV."

opposed the Amendment, which was negatived without a division.

moved an Amendment, protecting the interests of the class—a very limited one—of public servants who had entered between 1829 and 1834. They wore not numerous, and an attention to their claims would not seriously affect the Bill. What be proposed was, that their retiring allowances should be fixed at the rate which was current at the period at which they entered office.

declared that the Amendment could not be put, as being-identical with one which had already been disposed of.

said, he must again beg to ask whether the effect of the clause would be to inflict any additional charge on the public?

said, he had already stated that it was impossible to estimate the expense which this clause would impose upon the public.

remarked, that under it persons who had arrived at the age of sixty-five, though they might be hale and hearty, were obliged to retire, which might be a great loss to them.

asked how far this clause would affect the present state of the law, which limited the number of pensions payable to Under Secretaries of State?

said, his attention had not been called to this point, but provision should be made for it, in order that the limitation now imposed by statute might not be altered.

said, he would propose the omission of certain words to prevent persons who had served their full time in Government Offices from being placed in a worse position, with respect to their superannuation allowance, than those persons who had been discharged in consequence of a reduction of the establishment.

said, he would propose to omit the words two-thirds, and to insert three-fourths in the clause, with a view of providing for meritorious cases, in which a greater proportion of the salary as a retiring allowance, might be deserved, and giving the Treasury a discretion to that amount.

defended the clause.

said, he wished for some explanation on this clause. It related to the heads of departments who had nobody above them to certify as to their having served with diligence and fidelity. He objected to the Treasury having the power of granting a retiring allowance to the heads of departments, who they might declare had not served them with diligence and fidelity.

said, that this clause was taken, substantially, from the Act of 1843.

said, that the two next clauses referred to the case of a full grant of superannuation allowance. In the case of a subordinate officer it would be competent to the head of the department to make the necessary certificate, but in the case of the head of a department, of course he could not certify to himself, and therefore the regulation had been made that the Treasury should certify to the fact.

It would be as well if they were to omit this clause.

said, that it appeared to him this clause gave an official power to retire after sixty years' service, whether he was capable or not. Such a course seemed very objectionable.

said, the provision of the existing law was that the Government should not be able to grant a superannuation allowance to any official under sixty-five years of age, unless he was physically disabled. The present clause merely altered that to sixty years.

said, he was sorry to be so troublesome, but he thought a public servant had no right to say he was sixty-five years of age, and therefore, would claim his retiring allowance. He wished to know whether this clause gave power to an official at sixty years of age to say he would claim a retiring allowance?

explained that under the existing law a public servant had power to retire after sixty-five years of age, but if he retired under those years, unless he could produce a medical certificate, he could not obtain a superannuation allowance. The result was that the Treasury was met by medical certificates which they were compelled to look upon with an eye of indulgence—sometimes importing no more than that the applicant had a severe cold, and upon this certificate superannuation was often granted upon insufficient grounds. The result of the proposed clause would be that civil servants would be enabled to retire at sixty instead of at sixty-five.

said, he could not see that any valid objection had been brought forward to the existing state of things, and if a division took place he should vote against the proposed change.

said, that this Bill would bring under the provision of the Superannuation Act a large body of officers who were not at present within its provisions—many of whom would not be under the immediate observation of the Treasury. The effect of the Bill generally was to increase the burden upon the public, and to benefit the public service. If the Committee acknowledged the right or understood claim of every public officer to retire at sixty, the difference would be that a considerable addition would be made to the public expenditure, and a corresponding advantage would accrue to the service. Now, he did not feel satisfied that any sufficient case had been made out, and he should therefore move that the words "sixty-five" he substituted for "sixty" in the clause.

said, he had some difficulty in meeting the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, because the wording of this clause was connected with that of the 15th clause, to which the Committee had not yet arrived. But the general scope of the Bill was this: it was thought desirable that persons who had fairly discharged their duties should leave the service with good will. It would now be necessary to retire at sixty-five, and, as a compensation for this, it was thought right to permit public servants to retire at sixty. Younger men would be permitted to enter the service than formerly, namely, at years varying from eighteen to twenty-five, thus taking the average at twenty; and they would be permitted, if they wished, to retire at sixty; and it must be allowed that forty years of the best part of a man's life was an ample period of public service to deserve a pension. It was thought desirable not to retain unwilling or incapable servants; and at the same time it must be remembered that by retiring at sixty they gave up one third of their income.

observed that the House allowed Members of the House to be exempt from serving on Committees at the age of sixty.

observed that it was contemplated under this Act to admit no one into the civil service over the age of twenty-five; the average of persons entering the service would thus be of the age of twenty, and the present term of service was considered practically to amount to forty years. In France, members of the civil service were allowed to retire at fifty-five. He trusted the Committee would agree to the clause.

said, the practical question was, would the Treasury say that gentlemen between sixty and sixty-five were not fully competent to do their duty? If not they ought to be released.

said, that under the proposed arrangement forty years' service would be secured to the public before the retiring pension came into force. He did not think we ought to mete out a less measure of liberality than that given in the French civil service, which was admitted to be a very good one.

said, he thought the Committee appeared to be of opinion that the charge upon the country would be much greater than it would be found in reality. He did not share in that apprehension.

said, he should oppose the Amendment, and put it to the Committee whether they would prevent a public servant from enjoying the only five years of his life which it might be in his power to pass in comfort.

proposed an alteration, in order to exempt persons from the necessity of retiring from public offices, at the age of sixty-five, who had been appointed in a certain manner.

said, he was willing to strike out the words "life and good behaviour," and to insert, "And not being an officer included within the terms of any order or warrant made by the Commissioners of the Treasury under the provisions of section 4 of this Act." The intention of the clause was that retirement should be compulsory at the age of sixty-five; but it was not intended that this provision should affect persons ordinarily employed until a later period of life, and who accepted office at a comparatively late age.

said, he had a clause to add, that no person should be deemed to be in the civil service of the State, or entitled to superannuation allowance, unless he held his appointment direct from the Crown, or had his salary provided out of the Imperial funds.

said, he would propose to nominate the Select Committee on this subject.

said, he must object to the construction of the Committee. It was composed of ten gentlemen from one side of the House, and of only five from the other; it did not comprise any officer of the Ordnance; the three officers who were nominated belonged to the Guards, while the Army at large was unrepresented; and lastly, the late Under Secretary at War and a former clerk to the Ordnance would probably be examined as witnesses, and ought not therefore to serve upon the Committee.

said, he also had to complain of the composition of the Committee. On a subject referring to military organization the military element was not sufficiently represented in the persons of General Codrington, whose services, owing to his appointment to a foreign command, the House will shortly lose; of Lord March, whose duties in his department and interest in another Committee might prevent his attendance; and of Lord Hotham, the only military man on the Committee. Two Members, Sir John Ramsden and Mr. Monsell, ought more properly to be called as witnesses. From the constitution of the Committee, containing five members formerly connected with the civil War Department, there would he a majority inclining to the views strongly advocated last year by the Mover—namely, that the Army should he brought under the more complete control of the Secretary of State for War, who, in the generality of instances, would be a civilian.

said, he had no party object in view when he drew up the Committee. His only desire was to have a full and fair inquiry. He might further say that the composition of the Committee was approved by the Secretary for War.

said, it was at his suggestion that the name of Viscount Palmerston was inserted in the list.

moved,

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire how far, and in what way, it may be desirable to find increased space for the extension and arrangement of the various collections of the British Museum, and the best means of rendering them available for the promotion of science and art."

said, he was anxious that there should he some understanding as to the objects of the inquiry; as the latter part of the Motion stood, there was no limit to the extent to which the inquiry might be carried.

said, he entertained a similar opinion, and he would suggest that the latter words, "and the best means of rendering them available for the promotion of science and art," be omitted. He begged to move that these words be struck out.

said, he could not assent to the Amendment; the wording of the Motion had been approved of by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The public was determined there should be an inquiry to ascertain whether the Museum could not be made available for instruction as well as exhibition. He considered the Motion, as it stood, fully carried out the understanding come to on the previous evening.

suggested that the words objected to should be struck out and others inserted; so it would stand, "render them available for purposes of instruction." The proposal of the hon. Gentleman would create a total revolution in the arrangement, objects, and character of the Museum. The present officials were chosen totally irrespective of any purpose of teaching; there were no rooms for lectures in the institution, and the alterations which would be necessary to fit it up as a university would involve a large expense.

said, the terms of the Motion had been approved of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself, and, in his opinion, they fully carried out the understanding come to on the previous evening, and the vagueness of the words of the reference were intended to meet the various views then urged.

said, he wished to know whether the opinion of the trustees had been taken on the terms of this reference?

said, he was not aware they had been consulted. He understood that the subject of the trust was not at all involved in the inquiry.