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

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 That bill was withdrawn, in conse-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 por -
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 regu-
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 superannuation.
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. Oae 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 be maintained, or who-
ther the bill would be made applicable to all alike. It all
the public servants were 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 quite unnecessary that they
should be included 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. WILLO UGHBY 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
held 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 five
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, he 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 for their old age, and they had
therefore the first claim to be ccnsidered 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 born 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 from
tohne allowed
labourers to
in labourersou.dockyards and a artificers.] t
were
fi
the Admiralty order in question a passage referring to the
cer
si. n] receipt This
of regulated rates of pension.—Leave then '
ssuhPcrednnthauatti
bring in the bill. was given to
MANOR COURTS, Scq, (IRELAND.)
Mr, WHITESIDE, in mo •
Yulg for leave to introduce a

bill for the abolition of Manor Courts, and for the better
recovery of small debts in Ireland, briefly pointed out the
evils incident to these tribunals, which were, moreover, now
rendered wholly unnecessary by the existence of the. Count y
Courts. He proposed to abolish the Manor Courts through-
out the entire country, more especially as under the County-
Court Act the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council had
power, whenever a case was made outfor such a proceeding,.
to create new circuits for the judges of those courts. The:
bill proposed to (rive to magistrates in petty sessions a mita
debt jurisdiction to the extent of 205., with an appeal from
their decision to a County Court judge. The hon. and
learned gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring
in the bill.
After a few words from Colonel FRENCH,
Leave was then given to bring in the bill, which was
read a first time.
SALE AND TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND.)
Mr. WHITESIDE then moved for leave to bring in a bilf -
to facilitate the sale and transfer of land, by simplifying
and
consolidating the law relating to judgments, and by providir
for the protection of purchasers against Crown debts in Ire-
land. In ancient times a judgment did not affect the land,
but the law in Ireland differed from that in England, and
judgments were made assignable at law. The result was that
when a landowner wanted moneythe country attorney sent
for a stamp, and assigned the judgment to a friend, who
brought the property into Chancery, had a receiver ap-
pointed, and accumulated costs upon the estate. In 1835
Sir M. O'Loughlen introduced an act which gave power to
creditors, instead of taking a moiety, to apply for a receiver
over the whole of the debtor's estate. The result was that
the country was covered with receivers, and greater evils
were produced than those which were sought to be reme=
died.- The next act, the 3d and 4th of Victoria, known as
Piggott's Act, extended the lien from freehold estates to
leaseholds for terms of years, so that leasehold estates be-
came complicated as well as freeholds. In 1849 one of the
best committees that ever sat was appointed by the House
of Commons to inquire into the receiver system. This com-
mittee evidently doubted whether there ought to be so
much facility given for Irish gentlemen to get into debt.
They were, however, told by the lawyers that Ireland was
not ripe for the remedy which was clearly in the minds of
the committee. They therefore recommended some pallia-
tives, and said it might be necessary to have an entire
change of system. The evidence taken by that committee
conclusively proved that a more mischievous sy'stem than
the then existing system of judgments and receivers it was
impossible to imagine. The 12th and 13th of Victoria,.
endeavoured to carry out some of the recommendations 0f
the committee, and in one of the clauses of that act he found
the solution of the present difficulty. This clause provided
that where the judgment did not exceed £l5O it should net
be a lien upon the land. If the principle were geed, why
should it not be adopted, whatever the amount ? Sir John
Homily, in the 13th and 14th of Victoria, sought to cure
the evils still existing from the state of the law in Ireland,
but his measure also produced greater evils than it found.
To the policy of the first part of his bill he entirely sub-
scribed. Sir J. Romilly said that the evils caused by the
law relating to judgments in Ireland were of two descrip-
tions one due to the management of the land, the
other as to the power of disposing of it. It was peculiar
-to Ireland that a judgment creditor might, without
notice to the debtor, go to the office for registering deeds
and file an affidavit to the effect that the debtor had
land in a certain county. The affidavit was considered to
place the parties in theposition of granter and grantee. The
affidavit was turned into a deed, and then it could be turned
into a mortgage. The act was therefore called the Judg-
ment Mortgage Act. It was supposed that such a judg-
ment creditor had a veritable mortgage ; but that turned
out not to be the case, and recent decisions gave him only
the position of a judgment creditor. These decisions made
the act worth nothing ; and he proposed to repeal it and all
other acts upon the subject, simply enacting that no judg-
ment should be a lien upon land until equitable execution
was sued out, in the shape of a petition in the Landed
Estates Court for the sale of the debtor's property against
whom there was a claim. He had, no doubt, said enough
to induce the house to grant him permission to introduce a
bill. (Cheers.)
Mr. M'EVOY wished to know when the right hon. gen-
tleman would introduce a Landlord and Tenant Bill. ,•
Mr. DOBBS concurred that it was, necessary to reined/
the chaotic state of the law as to judgments.
' Mr. MALINS congratulated the Government on intro-
ducing so useful a measure for Ireland, and expressed a
hope that the same principle would be extended to England.
There was no more reason why a judgment should be a lien
upon a man's land than upon his household furniture. A-
judgment ought not to bind the land until a suit was insti-
tuted, or, at all events, execution sued out. (Hear, hear.)
Leave was then given to introduce the bill, which was
subsequently read a first time.
RECEIVERS IN CHANCERY (IRELAND).
Mr. WHITESIDE, in rising to move for leave to intro-
duce a bill for the abolition of receivers under the Court of
• Chancery in Ireland, said, in reference to the question of
• the hon. member for Meath, that he would appoint a day for.
bringing in the Landlord and Tenant Bill when he returned
from Ireland, where he was obliged to go for a few days.
With regard to the present bill there had been so many cora-
' mittees and they had all so unanimously condemned the sys"
tern of appointing receivers that he did not apprehend any
difficulty in obtaining permission to legislate on the subject.
There were at present 1,100 receivers in the office of the
Receiver Master, besides 200 or 300 others in the offices of
the other Masters. The effect of the system had been to
complicate the land of Ireland to an enormous extent, with-
out effecting any good in return, and its abolition would be -
a great boon to landed property. The bill would provide that
no receiver should be appointed where a party could obtain
a sale. Of course, there would be certain exceptions, but
they would be very few.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill, which was
subsequently read a first time.
MARKETS (IRELAND).
Lord NAAS obtained leave to introduce a;bill for the Re'
gulation of Markets in Ireland. He said the measure was,
in many reepects, similar to the bill introduced by his pre:
decessor last year, but in one important respect it differed
from it. It did not propose to deal with the question of
fairs. These fairs were not held so frequently as the mar-
kets, and it would be almost impossible to provide sufficient
enclosed space for them. Tolls, too, had been abolished at
most of the fairs, and any attempt to reimpose them would
be most unpopular. The same necessity for legislation did
not seem to exist in the case of fairs. The bill proposed to
appoint a commissioner and assistant-commissioner, whose
duty it should be to regulate the markets.
LUNATIC POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord NAAS moved for leave to bring in a bill to consoli-
date and amend the laws relating to the lunatic poor in Ire-
land. In 1856 a commission was appointed to inquire into
the state and circumstances connected with the asylums for
the lunatic poor in Ireland. These gentlemen, after examin-
ing a great number of persons, published a report and other
documents, in which would be found all the information ne-
cessary to a complete acquaintance with the subject. The
bill which he proposed to bring in would, in a great mea-
sure, carry out the recommendations of the commissioners,
although it would not go to the extent suggested by those
gentlemen. The bill would not include the private lunatic
asylums in its provisions, but would be confined to asylums
for the lunatic poor. The main feature of his bill would be
the introduction of local supervision and control in respect
to these asylums, instead of placing them under the direo-
tion of the executive of Ireland, as they were by the exist-
ing law. The effect of the existing system, owing to the
want of proper control, was that a number of costly build-
ings had been erected in various parts of Ireland for the
confinement of the lunatic poor, and great dissatisfaction
had been created in those parts of the country, where the
asylums had been erected on account of the expense created
by the erection of these buildings. It was determined that
this system should cease, and in lieu thereof he proposed to
substitute a committee of visitation for the several localities
in which asylums were erected, who would have power to
give directions for the erection and repairing and general
management of the several asylums, and these committees
should emanate from the grand juries of the several comi-
ties in Ireland, and they would have the appointment of the
inspectors and other officers connected with the institutions,
and would also direct what was to be the amount of the sa-
laries to be paid to the officers. The commissioners, to whom
he had already alluded, recommended that a general cen-
tral board should be formed in Dublin, who would have the-
entire control of the asylums in question. Now, he could
not agree with this, as ho looked with distrust upon all
such bodies. He proposed by his bill to define the duties
of the several persons to be appointed under the bill, and
the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would have power to see
that the several provisions of the bill would be carried out
in respect to the appointments to be made under the bill.
The noble lord then referred to the present mode of ad-
mission of pauper lunatics into lunatic asylums, which he
looked upon as defective, and he proposed to throw on the
Poor-law relieving officer the responsibility of seeing to the
admission of a pauper lunatic into the local asylum, either
by bringing him before the magistrate, or by taking the
magistrate to the poor man, with a view to the necessary
order being given for the admission of the lunatic into
the asylum. He also gave power in the bill to remove all
lunatics from workhouses and gaols to the asylum, as he
conceived that nothing could be worse than to keep such
persons in either gaols or workhouses. It appeared that
there were at present 3,823 poor lunatics in district asylums
in Ireland, 1,700 in the workhouses, 150 in the gaols, and
3,000 at large all over the country. Now, he proposed to
give power to the committees having the direction of
the asylums in question, to admit a certain class of lunatic
patients into the asylums upon paying a certain sum for
their care; and he further empowered the committee, •
they found that patients had property, to make the property
liable for their support and medical care. The bill would
repeal all previous acts on this subject. It would be a corn- •
plete code, in which all persons engaged in or with the asy-
lums—from the inspector down to the humblest officer—
will find all their duties defined and stated, so that there
would be no difficulty hereafter in reference to these points.
He begged to move for leave to bring in the bill in question.
Mr. BAGWELL was favourable to the principle of the
bill, but doubted the policy of having the controlling com-
mittees of the asylums selected from the grand juries.
Lord NAAS, in answer to the objection taken, thought
it would be better to leave the appointment of the officers
of those institutions to the representatives of those who paid
for them.

Mr.
M'EVOY thought it would be improper to leave the
whole of the appointments in the hands of grand juries.
He approved of the view taken by the noble lord who in-
troduced the bill.
Leave was then given'to introduce the bill.
HIGHWAYS IN ENGLAND.
Mr. HARDY moved for leave to bring in a bill fbr.the
better management of highways in England.
Mr. PHILLIPS suggested that the bill should contain a
definition of what a highway is.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill, and it was read
a first time.

TRAMWAYS IN IRELAND.
Sirß. FERGUSON obtained leave to bring in a bill to facili-
tate internal communication in Ireland by means of tram-
roads or tramways.
The house adjourned at ten minutes to eight.

LONDON : Printed and Published by MI.TRDO YOUNG,
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112,
Strand, in. the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of
Middlesex, Tuesday, February 8, 1859, •