The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-08 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE_I wish to put a question to
the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the sub
led of the Reform Bill. On the first evening of our meet-
[rig the right hon. gentleman stated that the Government
were ready with their new reform measure, but my right
hon. friend added—(cries of " Order")—l am trying to
make my question intelligible to the house. (Laughter.)
The SPEAKER—The hon. gentleman must not enter
into any argument in putting a question.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—No, Sir, lam not doing so. lam
only stating the reasons why I asked the question. The
right hon. gentleman added that the bill would not be
brought in until the more important business of the country
was disposed of. That has led to some misconception and
some misunderstanding on the subject, and to considerable
misgiving in the public mind as to when the bill will be in-
troduced. (Cries of " Order.") As I have no doubt all this
can be removed, the question I have to ask is whether it is
the intention of Her Majesty's Government during the
present month to introduce their bill for the amendment of
the representation of the people. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI.--The question which was addressed to ,
me the other night upon the subject was, whether the Go-
vernment was prepared to bring in this bill immediately, to
which I replied that it was not their intention to bring it in
immediately, as there was other important and urgent busi-
ness which required the attention of the house. I indicated ,
then some portion of that urgent business, and though it
it would be presumption to say how long it would occupy,
the natural inference from what I said when I referred to
the navy estimates, and to some votes being taken to enable
my right hon. friend (Sir J. Pakington) to make his state-
ment, and to bring forward the measures which he deems
necessary, was that the delay would not be very consider-
able. There is also other business, of an urgent cha-
racter, of which my noble friend near me (Lord Stanley)
has given notice. The house can probably form an opinion
of how much time will be occupied in the discussion of
Indian finance. The house is as good a judge as lam of
the time these measures will require for their fair discussion.
When they are settled, it is my intention to give notice of
a day when I shall have the honour of bringing forward a
measure for amending the representation of the people.
(Hear.) The hen. gentleman will understand that it isnot
in my power to fix the day; but, taking a general view as
to what will be the course of the session, not only is it our
intention that it shall be brought in before Easter, but we
contemplate the second reading being taken before Easter.
(Hear, hear.) As Easter is rather late this year, if the
second reading meets that reception which we fondly anti-
cipate—(laughter)--the house will have the opportunity
even of making progress in committee upon the bill before
that time. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRlGHT—Perhaps I may be allowed to ask another
question. Permit me to say that what the public require is
time to consider the bill before it comes to a second read-
ing. (Hear, hear.) That is the essential thing. I would
therefore recommend—(Cries of " Order.") Well, if I
may not [recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I
will ask him whether he will name a day, or state when he
will name a day, when the bill will be introduced, because
I presume that not more than one night will be taken in
the introduction of the bill. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI—It is' not in my power to name pre-
cisely the day when the bill will bo introduced, but I shall

give fair notice, and shall take care that there is ample op-
portunity for consideration between the introduction and
the second reading. (Cheers.)

REGIMENTAL CHAPLAINS IN INDIA.
Mr. KINNAIRD begged to ask what permanent increase
to the regular Bengal establishment of ehaplainsto the Pro-
testant troops had been made during the last 12 months,
and whether it was the intention of the Government to
make any further permanent increase, in consequence of the
probability of a much larger English force than formerly
being kept in India ?

Lord STANLEY said that up to September, 1857, the
permanent strength of the establishment of chaplains of the
Church of England was—ln Bengal, 68, Madras 35, and
Bombay 26, making 129 in all. Since that time they had
been increased from 68 to 80 in Bengal, from 35 to 40 in
Madras, and from 26 to 30 in Bombay, making 150 in all,
or an increase of 21. The whole of that increase had taken
place within the last 12 months. In addition, 10 supernu-
merary chaplains had now been sent out to meet the urgent
wants of the troops, who were not placed on the permanent
establishment, but would be absorbed into it. There had
also been an increase of Presbyterian chaplains from 6 to 13.
CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.

Mr. H. BERKELEY gave notice that he would, to-
morrow, ask the Attorney-General whether, in the prospect
of a speedy dissolution of Parliament—(laughter)—it was
his intention to deal with the Corrupt Practices Act this
session.

Mr. H. SHERIDAN asked Mr.. Secretary Walpole
whether it was his intention to recommend to her Majesty
that Sir John Dean Paul and Mr. Strahan, the late bankers,
should be pardoned, on the ground that they had already
been punished to the extent demanded by the laws of the
country ?
Mr. WALPOLE—I have to request the attention of the
house to the question which has just been put to me, and
to.the answer which lam about to give. The question has
been put to me in a form which would lead to the inaccu-
rate impression that Sir J. Paul and Mr. Strahan have
already been punished to the extent demanded by the laws
of the country. These questions are of the most painful
character to one who fills the situation which I have the
honour to hold—(hear, hear)—but as it has been put to me
I had better answer it instead of requesting the permission
of the house to refuse to answer it, as under ordinary cir-
cumstances I should have done. I had better answer it,
because great mistakes have occurred with reference to the
subject, and also in order that the house may be made aware
that Parliament itself is partly the cause of the complication
which exists with respect to it. By the law under which
Sir John Paul and Mr. Strahan were tried, and which still
exists unrepealed, the offence of which they were. convicted
—that of selling securities deposited for safe custody with
them and appropriating the proceeds to their own use—was
punishable by transportation for not exceeding fourteen
years and not less than seven years. These unfortunate
gentlemen were tried in October, 1855; and they were con-
victed under that law, not of one single offence, but I must
point out, without any wish to press unduly upon them, of
a series of offences which was the cause of misery to hun-
dreds of people, equal to any which they have suffered from
the punishment inflicted on them. (Hear, hear.) It is
true that Parliament has since, unhappily, sanctioned
another law—the Fraudulent Trustees Act—without repeal-
ing the old law, which enacts for precisely the same offence
a punishment of not exceeding three years' penal servitude,
or not less than two years' imprisonment. It was under
these circumstances that I was pressed to say whether an
entire remission of their sentence ought not to be granted to
these gentlemen. My first duty was to inquire what had
been the practice of the Home-office with reference to
recommendations to be made to the Crown where punish-
ments of a graver nature had been relaxed by subsequent
statutes. lam speaking in the presence of three of the
ablest men whohave filled the office of Home Secretary, and
they will confirm me when I say there is no instance in the
records of the Home-office of any person tried and con-
victed under a particular law being held entitled to a miti-
gation of punishment in consequence and on account of
any subsequent legislation. Perhaps I may be permitted
to Aay that most extraordinary representations have been
made, sometimes by persons high in rank and position,
attributing to me that by a prejudiced view of the case, and
by ft severe administration of the law, I had imperilled the
lives of these prisoners, and destroyed the mind of one of
them. Such representations, totally unfounded as they
were, ought not to have proceeded from such a quarter.
(Hear, hear.) The question is whether, under these cir-
cumstances, the law being complicated by subsequent legis-
lation, and the principle of the Home-office, founded on
good reasons, being such as I have stated, there is any
ground for my recommending, not a mitigation—for that is
not asked for—but an entire remission of the sentence. I
wish to point out to the hon. gentleman and to the house,
and through the house to all persons who may take an in-
terest in matters of this kind (in fact, they must interest
the whole community) that in ordinary cases where a series
of gross delinquencies have been proved it is not usual to
limit the punishment to the maximum of one offence ; but
for the interests of justice very often to add another punish-
ment to begin when the first expires. Placed under such
circumstances, I have no means of judging, except by con-
jecture:what the courts would do; but I have thought it
right to consult the highest authority in the land, and I
am informed by him that it is reasonable to consider the
subsequent law as virtually repealing the former law, and

as entitling the parties to some mitigation, though not
stating what it ought to be. (Hear.) Now, it is my duty
. .

to lay down a rule with regard to the future and with re-
gard to the past. With regard to the future, it will be in
the power of the Court to say whether, when a serious and
grave offence has been committed, the punishment shall

or shall not be the maximum described by the Act,
or whether the punishment shall be cumulative,
I have, therefore, no difficulty with regard to the future.

But, with regard to the past, Imust endeavour to lay down

a rule, party by conjecture, as to what would have been the
punishment awarded supposing the second statute had been
the statute under which these gentlemen had been tried.

The only conclusion to which my mind has arrived is this,

that if I can lay down some rule I ought to do so ; that in
laying down that rule I should take special care to draw no

distinction between those convicted under tho statutes—.

cheers)—and that on behalf of myself and of every one

who may hereafter hold the office which• I have the honour
to hold I should request most humbly, respectfully, and

earnestly the support of the house with reference to the

discharge of the duty that devolves upon that office. I hope
that the house will at least feel confident that, without any

partiality on the one hand, or any prejudice on the other,
I shall endeavour to take care that justice is properly ad-

ministered, and discharge to the bast of my ability this
racst delicate, difficult,' and painful duty. (Cheers.)

ARMY COMMISSIONS.
On the motion of Sir DE L. EVANS, a return was
ordered of the Treasury minutes relative to increasing the
remuneration of the officers of the army, and the impossi-
bility of doing so until they shall be relieved from the
necessity of purchasing their commissions on the 20th day
of July, 1857 ; the 13th day of March, the 21st day of June,
1858 ; and the 21st day of January, 1859.
POPULATION RETURNS.
On the motion of Mr. BRIGHT, a return showing the
population of each county and division of a county, and of
each borough, according to the census of 1851, the num-
ber of electors, &c , reprinted in June, 1858, was ordered to
be again reprinted, but with two additional columns, the
one showing the population in each case according to the
census of 1841, and the other showing the computed pro-
bable population on the completion of the eighth year since
the last census—namely, on the 23d of March, 1859, the
computation to be mane from a comparison of the most
recentand authenticmaterials in the hands of the Registrar-
General; and, in cases where no other materials exist, the
computation to be made according. to the ratio of the ascer-
tained annual increase or decrease, as the case may be, be -
tween the population in 1841 and 1851; and the column
showing the number of Parliamentaryvoters in each county
and borough to be taken from the most recent returns which

ENDOWED SCHOOLS
Mr. DILLWYN moved for leave to bring in a bill to
amend the law respecting endowed schools. He would not
go into the details of the measure, as it did not differ essen-
tially from the bill of last session.
Mr. WALPOLE would not oppose the introduction of
the measure,' but the Government would not be bound to
support the bill in all its clauses.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in bring-
ing in a bill amending the present laws concerning super-
annuations and other allowances to persons having held
civil offices in the public service, said,--The measure pro-
posed on this subject is very similar to, or identical with,
the bill of last year. That bill was withdrawn, in conse-
quence of the great desire expressed that the session should
be brought to a close. Notice had then been given of several
amendments to the bill; and, as I believe their objects have
been generally attained in the present measure, I do not
anticipate for it the oppositionthat was expressed to the bill
of last session. The house will remember that this subject,
the superannuations granted in the civil service of the
Crown, has already been investigated by a select committee
appointed in 1856; and it is one of such importance that it
was also submitted to the investigation of a Royal Com-
mission, which made its report in March last. The object
of the present measure is to embody the recommendations
made both by that Royal Commission and the select com-
mittee of the house. The chief points of difference be-
tween the proposed bill and the regulations now in exist-
ence, refer, first, to the duration of the periods of service.
Superannuations will now commence at the termination of
10 years, and the full supperannuation allowance will be
granted at the end of 40 years. Under the bill, at the end
of 60 years any person may be permitted to receive his full
superannuation, but at the end of 65 retirement becomes
compulsory. • This is a condition which we believe will be
for the interests alike of the public and of the civil servants.
But, as there may be incidental circumstances which may
render it advantageous to the Government to invite a per.
son who has completed his 65th year still to remain in the
public service, and to devote to it those abilities by which
he may have been distinguished, power for that object is
reserved in the bill. But the most important portion of the
bill is the new scheme of superannuation. The existing
scale is very defective in many respects. These defects
have been pointed out by the Parliamentary committee and
the Royal Commission, and the recommendations they have
made to remedy them have been embodied in the bill. One
of the principal defects of the existing system is, that super-
annuation being fixed at the end of septennial terms of ser-
vice, the same pensions are enjoyed by individuals who have
really fulfilled very different terms of service. That is re-
medied in the proposed measure, as the superannuations
will be according to the yearly service of the public ser-
vant. There are provisions in the bill also which refer to
the special circumstances of professional men who enter on
the public service comparatively late in life, and to rogu-
late the superannuation to which in such circumstances
they may be entitled. There is also a provision relative to
the judicial service of the country, from which, however,
the judges of the superior court are excepted; and there is
another provision for compensation in the case of the aboli-
tion of offices, besides some other provisions of an analo-
gous character bearing on matters that have not hitherto
been:satisfactorily settled, having been regulated rather by
the discretion of the Treasury than by the sanction of Par-
liament. (Hear, hear.) I cannot anticipate any objection
to the introduction of the bill. I can only further express
the hope that it will fulfil all the expectations that have
been entertained on this important subject. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILSON did not rise to offer any opposition to the
introduction of the bill, but to make an observation arising
out of circumstances which had formerly occurred in
connexion with this question. The house would remember
that the noble lord the Secretary for Ireland (Lord Naas)
brought in a bill 10 years ago on this subject, and it would
be remembered that he (Mr. Wilson) on that occasion dis-
tinctly stated to the house that the effect of abolishing the
abatements would be to do away with all distinctions
between the public servants in regard to superannuations.
The house was aware that by an Order in Council compen-
sations were accorded to persons employed in dockyards. A
great many of the higher class of officers engaged in the
dockyards had retired on full salary, but while that had
been done many who entered the service at the same time
had received superannuation allowances amounting to only
one-fourth of their salaries. (Hear.) He knew a case of two
men who entered the service on the same day, and who were
superannuated on the same day, afterhaving been employed
for many years in the same manner, bearing unexception-
able characters, both having received the thanks of the
Admiralty. One of these men has been superannuated on
an allowance of £740 a year, and the other of £34 a year.
(Hear, hear.) That arose from the inequality of the law as
it now stood. He contended, however, that, as they had
abolished the abatements, they could no longer make any
distinction between the public servants. (Hear, hear.) He
wished to know from the right hon. gentleman whether the
inequality that now existed was to bo maintained, or whee.
ther the bill would be made applicable to all alike. It all
the public servants wore to be made alike he would be con-
tent, but if not he would at the proper stage move an amend-
ment to carry out that object. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, when
the hon. gentleman moved his ameudment he should be
better able to deal with it than he could now. He would at
present only say, with regard to the dockyard servants, that
they were specially provided for by the Admiralty orders.
He thought, therefore, it was pito unnecessary that they
should be ixcluded in the provisions of this bill.
Mr. KINGLAKE said the bill of last year gave super-
annuation allowances to Post-office servants resident in Lon-
don, but excluded those who lived in the country. The
natural result was that much disquiet was caused by the
distinction, and he hoped the defect would be remedied in
the present session. (Hear' hear.)
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY hoped the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would place on the table documents to show
what- increased charge would fall upon the public in the
event of this bill becoming law. If the house legislated on
this question at all, they ought to put it upon some intel-
ligible basis. Those public servants who held high and
those who held inferior situations should be treated as far
as possible on the same footing. He admitted that with
regard to very high political offices, which were generally
hold upon very brief tenures, some distinction must be
drawn. But by the Act of 1834, which regulated these pen-
sions, any person occupying the post of Secretary of the
Treasury, or Secretary of the Admiralty, for a period of fivo
years, was entitled to a superannuation allowance of
£1,200 per annum. This was perfectly monstrous, and cal-
culated to spread dissatisfaction through the entire civil
service.

Mr. COLLIER believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was in error in asserting that the superannuation of dock-
yard labourers was provided for by certain Admiralty
orders ; and if so, ho hoped that the right hon. gentleman
would reconsider the whole subject.
Sir ERSKINE PERRY concurred in, the same view,
and recommended that all the servants of the Government
should be pensioned upon one uniform scale, according to
the length of their services and the amounts of their sala-
ries.

Mr. RICH suggested that, as the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would be paying away in superannuations an
amount representing a capital of £3,000,000, it might be as
well to restore that system of abatements from salaries
which was lately abolished at the instance of the supporters
of the present Government.
Sir F. SMITH trusted that the bill would embody stipula-
tions by which the dockyard labourers would be protected
even against. the Admiralty, which was sometimes inclined
to be niggardly. These labourers could not possibly save
anything from their pay fpr their old age, and they had
therefore the first claim to be considered in any system of
superannuation. -

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER-explained
that he had referred to the latest copies of the Admiralty
orders; which, as they bore a date so recent as October last,
had not, perhaps, been seen by hon. gentlemen who had
just spoken. [The right hon. [gentleman then read frown
the Admiralty-order in question a passage referring to the
superannuation allowed to
on.labourers and artificers.] This
showed that the labourers_in our dockyards were in receipt
bri nm in
of reg ul at
the bill. rates of pensi--- Leave was then given. to

MANOR, COURTS, ae, .(IRELAND.)
Mr, WHITESIDE, in moving for leave to introduce a

.~
a