to the past. With regard to the future it will be for the Court to say whether, when a series of grave offences has been committed, the punishment shall or shall not be the maximum prescribed by the Act, or whether the punishment shall be cumulative or not. I have, therefore, no difficulty with regard to the future. But, with regard to the past, I must endeavour to lay down a rule, partly by conjecture as to what would have been the punishment awarded supposing the second statute had been the statute under which these persons had been tried. The only conclusions to which my mind has arrived are these, that if I can lay down such a 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 the statutes whether they are rich or whether they are poor, 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 in 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 duly and properly administered, and that it will firmly give me its support as long as I discharge, to the best of my ability, this most delicate, difficult, and painful duty. THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.-SUPPLY. HER MAJESTY'S Speech considered. Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty." LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an indefinite answer as to the time at which the promised Reform Bill would be introduced, for he had made it depend upon two other questions, one of which related to the Naval Estimates. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what day he proposed to name for the consideration of the Naval Estimates? The right hon. Gentleman must know that it was a mere matter of calculation when these Estimates could be laid upon the table, and probably he could at once name upon what day they would be brought under the consideration of the House. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE. QUER assured the noble Lord that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the dmiralty would take care that no time should be lost. The Government had communicated to the House, with perfect frankness, their intention respecting the Bill for improving the representation of the people. He thought that the question of the noble Lord must have been prepared before the statement which he made on the part of the Government, and he thought that the question of the noble Lord must be taken to be answered by that statement. OCCASIONAL FORMS OF PRAYER BILL. SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. WALPOLE, in moving the second reading of the Occasional Forms of Prayer Bill said, he had discovered that there was another day to be added to the list of special occasions to which he had referred in moving the first reading of this Bill; he meant the 23rd of October. In looking over the Acts of Parliament by which people were required to attend church, and to abstain from all work on particular days. An act of Charles II. had been found which provided that this day should be observed, in consequence of its being the day upon which the conspiracy to seize the town of Dublin was supposed to have been discovered, and it was now proposed to repeal this part of the statute by this Bill. Motion made and Question proposed, MR. HADFIELD said, that considering that these observances were not only offensive to every Christian mind but were regarded by many as impious, it was astonishing that these statutes should have remained in existence for so many years: yet when a noble Lord attempted in "another place" to remove these absurdities, he was told that no change could be allowed, because there was no telling where it might end. He wished to know whether the present proposition had the sanction of the Church? because, if not, when the Bill reached the other House they might find their time and trouble had been thrown away. He asked were the improvements of the Book of Common Prayer to stop there? He believed that the members of the Established Church comprised only about one-third of the population of the United Kingdom. He contended that there was more unity of sentiment out of the Established Church without the Articles than within the Church with the Articles. Was it fair or right that the Established Church should preclude the whole of her The matters he had re clergy from officiating in places of public | Hadfield) meant. worship belonging to nonconformist con- ferred to concerned only those who were gregations, inasmuch as there was one members of the Church of England; but common object entertained by all religious his hon. Friend always prided himself on classes of Her Majesty's subjects, that of being a Dissenter. If the Church of Enginculcating piety and submission to the land chose to preach twenty-four hours laws. He wished to know whether all every day it could be nothing to him. He those portions of the Book of Common hoped the House would deal with the Bill Prayer which were offensive to other re- like men of common sense. The Governligious sects were to be continued or not?ment had at last come to the conclusion In order to give more ample opportunity that these services were unnecessary, and for the consideration of the details of the he trusted the Bill would be passed withpresent measure, he moved as an Amend-out any delay. ment that the second reading of the Bill be postponed to this day week. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "this day week." Question proposed, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question." MR. NEWDEGATE said, that although he was unwilling to interfere with the proceedings of the Government with reference to the present measure, he should remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill had only been placed in the hands of the Members of that House that morning, and therefore there had not been sufficient time given for the consideration of its provisions. As a member of the Established Church, and taking a deep interest in everything relating to the Book of Common Prayer, he was naturally desirous that the Government should give the House ample opportunity for the consideration of a Bill of the present nature, which went to repeal certain Acts appertaining to religious services of the Church. He could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would overlook any provision that affected the interests of the Church, and the principle of the Bill had been already sanctioned and to a certain extent acted on; nevertheless, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would excuse an independent Member for expressing a wish to look into the Acts proposed for repeal before the Bill be proceeded with further. MR. ROEBUCK said, he hoped the House would not require seven days to consider whether they should do an act of absolute common sense. Were they to stop now to discuss the propriety of abolishing such services as those for the Execution of Charles I. and the commemoration of the Gunpowder Plot of Guido Fawkes? The question did not require a delay of seven minutes much less seven days. He could not understand at all what his hon. Friend and colleague (Mr. MR. GREGSON was understood to suggest some other improvements in the services and discipline of the Church, one of which was that the solemnization of marriages might take place at any hour of the day, instead of being confined, as it now was, to some period before twelve o'clock at noon. MR. WALPOLE explained that the special services had been established and continued by Royal warrant under the sign manual. By the same authority they were now abolished. All that the present Bill did was to affirm what both Houses of Parliament and the Crown had agreed to, and to remove certain statutory obligations connected with these services. All clergymen were bound to read the For:ns of Thanksgiving on certain days, and every person in the country was equally bound by statute to abstain from all kinds of trade and labour, and to attend church on certain days. Two of these statutes, in quantity amounting to two pages of a folio volume, were also appointed to be read in all churches on certain days. These obligations the Bill removed. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. ENDOWED SCHOOLS. LEAVE. FIRST READING. MR. DILLWYN moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to Endowed Schools. He said the measure was in effect the same as that he had introduced last year. He believed the Government did not intend to offer any objection to his Motion. MR. WALPOLE said, although the Government would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, he thought it was important that further consideration should be given to its details. In assenting to the introduction of the Bill he did not wish it to be supposed that he acquiesced in all its provisions. Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. | his abilities and usefulness, power was given DILLWYN and Mr. MASSEY. Bill presented and read 1o. SUPERANNUATION OF CIVIL SERVANTS. LEAVE. FIRST READING. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved for leave to bring in a Bill with regard to the superannuation of civil servants of the Crown. The measure he was about to propose was similar to that which was introduced last Session, but which was then withdrawn on account of some Amendments which had been given notice of by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson), and of the desire of the House that the Session should be brought to a close; at that late period of the Session he thought it right that any Bills which were likely to promote discussion should not be pressed, and he had accordingly withdrawn it. The principal Amendments of which notice had been given by the hon. Gentleman were in reference to including in its operation the officers and labourers of the Dockyards. These officers were brought under the provisions of the present Bill, and no further opposition might therefore be expected. Hon. Gentlemen would remember that this question of superannuation had already been investigated by a Select Committee of the House in 1856. Subsequently the subject was considered of so much importance that it led to a Royal Commission which had presented two Reports, the last being in March last. The Bill he now proposed was intended to embody the recommendations made by the Select Committee and the Royal Commission. The principal heads of difference between the proposed Bill and the law as it at present stands were, first with regard to the duration of services and time of superannuation. It was intended that superannuation should commence at the termination of ten years, and that the full superannuation allowance should be granted at the end of forty years' service. Under this Bill every person in the Civil Service, of the age of sixty, would be permitted to receive his full superannuation, and at sixty-five retirement from the public service would be compulsory. This latter provision Her Majesty's Government considered to be for the interests of the public and the exigencies of the service. But if special circumstances should render it advisable that any gentleman above the age of sixty-five should remain in the public service, owing to the sense entertained of in this Bill to retain his services. Of course that power would only be exercised in the case of a person of rare and distinguished abilities. The most important provisions of the Bill were those which regulated the new scale of superannuation. The old scale was defective in every respect. The defects were pointed out by the Committee of the House and by the Royal Commission, and the remedies which they recommended were embodied in the Bill. One of the greatest defects of the existing system was, that superannuation being fixed, for example, at the end of a septennial term of service, the same pensions were often enjoyed by persons who had really served very different terms. These defects were remedied by the present Bill, superannuation being calculated by the yearly services of the public servants. Provisions were also inserted having reference to special circumstances; for instance, regulating the superannuation to which professional men who entered the public service comparatively late in life should be entitled. The Bill also contained provisions by which the whole of the judicial service of the country, with the exception of the Judges of the superior courts, were brought within its scope. It also provided for the abolition of offices and other matters of an analogous character, which hitherto had not been satisfactorily settled; or if so, were arranged rather by the discretion of the Treasury than by the sanction of the law. In moving for permission to bring in the Bill, he could only express a hope that it would meet with no objection, and that it would be found to give all the satisfaction which the exigencies of the case required. MR. WILSON said, he did not rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill, but he thought a part of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman required explanation. In the first place the right hon. Gentleman had said that the present Bill was substantially the same as that of last Session but he then referred to his (Mr. Wilson's) proposed Amendments to the Bill of last Session, and stated that the present Bill included the objects of those Amendments. But if the Bill was substantially that of last Session, it certainly would not include the principle for which he (Mr. Wilson) had contended, and still contended. The House would recollect that when the noble Lord the present Secretary for Ireland (Lord Naas) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE. QUER said, it would be more convenient to discuss the Bill when the hon. Gentleman had it in his hand, and when the House would be better able to decide on its character; but, speaking generally, he might Amendments of the hon. Gentleman applied were included in the Bill. But he might add that the dockyard labourers were specially provided for by the Admiralty orders, and it was unnecessary that there should be any provision in the Bill to include them. brought in a Bill on this subject two years that House must be free from suspicion in ago, he (Mr. Wilson) called attention to taking such a course. He wished to ask one of the consequences which would follow the right hon. Gentleman whether the perfrom it that its effects would be to do sons to whom his (Mr. Wilson's) Amend. away with all distinctions between the pub-ments last year referred-namely, docklic servants in regard to superannuation. yard labourers only-would be included in Those who knew the circumstances under the Bill, and whether it would affect alike which the Bill of 1834 was brought in, all the permanent officers, high and low? knew that no persons in the civil service If that were so, he would be content, and had any legal claim to superannuation allow- he would do all in his power to assist in ance, except they had submitted to the passing the Bill. If not, he should give abatements provided for under that Act: notice that at the proper stage he would but if you repealed the enactment creating endeavour to introduce Amendments which abatements, you could not deny to all per- would do justice to all classes of public sons in the public service allowances, as servants. was done under the Act of 1834. Those who would be acted on by not going on that principle would be the most defenceless persons in the public service, day labourers in dockyards, and certain persons employed in the Post-office, who at present were not entitled to superannuation allow-say that the class of officers to whom the ance. He was aware that Orders in Council had been issued upon the subject; but they applied to the superior officers in dockyards, and instead of mending the case of the other persons to whom he had alluded it had only made it worse. You not only had dealt liberally and almost lavishly with superior officers-perhaps doing them no more than justice-in giving them full salary on retirement; but at the same time it had been arranged that other men in the same service should not receive more than a fourth of their salaries after fifty years' service. He knew a case of two men who had entered the same service on the same day, and who retired on the same day, both of them with unexceptionable characters, both of them having received the thanks of the Admiralty: one of them had been superannuated on £740 a year, and the other on £40 a year. That arose from inequality of the law as it now stood. SIR H. WILLOUGHBY was one of He contended that as abatements had been those who took a fearful view of the inabolished, there was no principle on which creasing charge for superannuation allowyou could draw a distinction between any ances. He wished to know from the Chanparts of the service. Having, however, cellor of the Exchequer if there was any been induced to take that step, it now only document which he could lay upon the remained to do justice, and to allow the table which would show what would be the superannuation allowance to bear the same increased charge on the public purse if this proportion to the salary, whether great or Bill, as proposed, became law? small, of every man in the public service. Act of 1834, if any gentleman held the There was a class of men who were most office of Secretary to the Treasury or Adinjured, inasmuch as they had no super-miralty for five years he was entitled to a annuation allowance, and they were men in whose cause no one could be said to be interested on political grounds, inasmuch as their means were on so low a scale that they had no votes, and their advocates in VOL. CLII. [THIRD SERIES]. MR. A. KINGLAKE said, that the Bill of last year was so worded that it purported to give superannuation allowances to Post-office servants in London, and excluded a large class of those servants in the country. There was caused a great disturbance in the provincial mind by this distinction, and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to remove the de fects of the Bill of last year, and place the official servants in the country on the same footing as those in London, which would much facilitate the passing of the Bill. pension of £1,200 a year. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) that you should treat all officers, high and low, on the same principle, if you could, and he admitted that in the higher political F 7 He offices there might be some distinction | vant was claiming superannuation. made, as the tenure of office was gene- would throw out, for the consideration of rally very brief; but in the lower offices, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that such as those of Secretary to the Trea- superannuation allowances represented a sury or Admiralty, for a person who held capital of £3,000,000. As the Governthem for five years to receive £1,200 a ment was changing their opinions on other year pension was monstrous, and must points, perhaps they would reinstate the cause dissatisfaction in the civil ser- abatement clause, which would furnish them vice, which was treated in so different a with au answer to every one asking for a pension. manner. MR.. COLLIER wished to correct an error into which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen with regard to dockyard labourers. The right hon. Gentleman said that Admiralty orders provided for them; but he believed that was a mistake, and, if so, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter, and not object to the introduction of such persons to the advantages of superannuation to which labourers were as much entitled as any other class. SIR ERSKINE PERRY agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in error in this respect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he wished to carry out the recommendations of the Commission which inquired into the subject, and one of its recommendations was, that whereas many officers in dockyards who were on day-pay were not entitled to superannuation allowance for the time they were on day-pay, that the time on which they received such pay ought to be taken into the calculation. With regard to labourers, they had no pension at all. He thought the principle of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Wilson), should be carried out, and that superannuation allowance should be extended to all classes of public servants according to the length of their services and the amount of their salaries. MR. RICH said, that various suggestions had been made with regard to superannuation allowances in the last ten years. Once a Motion was made by a Gentleman opposite, the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), to reduce all salaries in the public offices. But a change came over Gentlemen opposite, and they tried to get rid of the system of abate ments in the civil service, and the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for CockerInouth (Lord Naas) was carried. It was then said that this was not merely a question of abatement, but that the House would be pestered by every public servant for a pension; and they saw the beginning of that state of things now, for every public ser SIR F. SMITH was inclined to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in error with regard to the dockyard labourers; but he hoped that the Bill would contain provisions for the protection of that class even against the Admiralty. These labourers could not possibly save anything from their pay for their old age, and therefore were persons who, of all others, ought 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 from the Admiralty order in question a passage referring to the superannuation allowed to labourers and artificers.] This showed that the labourers in our dockyards were in receipt of regulated rates of pension. Leave Given. Bill to amend the Laws concerning Superannuations and other allowances to persons having held Civil Offices in the Public Service, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Sir STAFFORD NORTHcote. Bill presented and read 1° MANOR COURTS (IRELAND), &c. LEAVE. FIRST READING. MR. WHITESIDE moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of Manor Courts and the better recovery of Small Debts in Ireland. He said that before the institution of County Courts in Ireland there were a number of Manor Courts, the constitution of each of which depended on the patent granted to the owner of the manor. Great evils grew up in these courts, which were corrected to a certain extent by an Act of George III.; but they still grew up, and continued until they had reached a point at which the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland described them as nuisances of the worst description, and that the only remedy for such a nuisance was its total |