Lords Sitting of 11 May 1857

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Earl Amherst, after the Death of his Father; John Lord De Freyne—Was introduced, by virtue of a Special Limitation in the Patent dated 5th April, in the Fourteenth Year of Her Majesty's Reign, and sat first in Parliament after the Death of his Brother.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Probates and Letters of Administration; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.

CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION.

  PETITIONS.
  EARL FORTESCUE presented a petition from the Customs Clerks at Dartmouth, in favour of an alteration and amendment of the existing system of Superannuation.
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE presented
  100
  a petition to the same effect from the civil servants of the Crown in the Coast-guard Department, Lymington. The noble Earl said, that the history of the Superannuation Fund was this. In 1812 the officers of Customs and Excise had a Superannuation Fund to a considerable amount. The Government of that day quietly abstracted the fund from the civil servants, and gave them in exchange an Act of Parliament, stipulating that they should not be required to contribute towards a Superannuation Fund. Faith was kept till 1822, when, in direct violation of the Act, the Government procured a tax to be levied on the officers of Excise and Customs. In 1824 that tax was repealed, and Parliament reaffirmed the principle laid down in the Act of 1812. The cupidity of the Government was again attracted by the Superannuation Fund in 1828, and in that year a Bill was introduced to re-impose the tax; but Parliament would have nothing to say to it, the Bill was withdrawn, and the Goverment then attempted by a Treasury Minute to supersede law. In 1834 was passed the Act of which the civil servants now with so much justice complained. One of the chief objections to it was that it was partial and unequal in its operation. For example, some of the persons connected with the Treasury were compelled to pay the tax, while others were entirely exempt. The high political, diplomatic, and judicial functionaries did not contribute a single farthing to the fund. He hoped the grievance of the civil servants would be speedily redressed, otherwise both Government and Parliament would expose themselves to the same odious imputation which in old times was cast upon the nobility and clergy—viz. that of exempting themselves and taxing only their plebeian countrymen. The annual tax amounted to £66,000. The sum paid out was £11,000, no portion of the remainder going into the pockets of the civil servants. Since the tax had been levied the total contributions amounted to £900,000. Of that sum the Government had paid away £82,000, leaving a balance due to the civil servants of £818,000. Only one-sixth part of the civil servants derived any benefit from the fund, and many cases might be stated showing the injustice of the tax. For instance, some time ago a landing-waiter died at Southampton before he had attained the age of 60. His contributions to the fund amounted to £200, and yet neither his widow nor

  101
  any other member of his family received one sixpence. According to the statement of an experienced actuary, if the deceased had laid out the same money on a policy he would have left £350 for his family. In February last year the Government introduced a Bill into the House of Commons which improved the superannuation system, but retained the tax. During the progress of their Bill the Government were met by a petition, and both petition and Bill were referred to a Committee which strongly condemned, in its report, the superannuation impost, A new Bill was brought in, but it was ten times worse than the first. The report laid before the other House abundantly proved that the superannuation pensions had been constantly subjected to revision—five or sixties within the last few years; but Sir Charles Trevelyan, Mr. Bromley, and Mr. Stevenson, the persons employed in the revisions, declared that they never contemplated the inequalities so much and so justly complained of in the tax. He trusted their Lordships would give the petition their most favourable consideration.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEpresented petitions from the Customs Clerks of Devonport Dockyard and Galway to the same purport, and asked whether the Government contemplated an early change of the system. The system upon which the allowances of those persons was regulated was the most unfair, unjust, and unwise that could be well imagined. It was a system which led to improvidence; indeed, he might say it was one which in some cases almost compelled improvidence. The State, he contended, had received a sum totally out of proportion to the money which the civil servants received as superannuation. He submitted that the intention of the Act of 1834 was, not to make money by taxing a certain class of the public officers, but to provide a fund, after the system of insurance offices, by which superannuation allowances should be paid to those who contributed to them. Notwithstanding, it was found on calculation that only one in six, or one in seven, of those who contributed the money really derived any advantage from it. That, he submitted, was of itself a sufficient reason for inquiry into the subject. Surely, if a man was to be taxed to provide a fund for his benefit, he or his family, after a certain length of service on his part, ought to have a certain amount of advantage from that service and that taxation. But it was
  102
  known that there were men who had contributed to the fund in question and who had afterwards at death to be buried at the expense of their widows, and in some cases of the parish. He thought the more their Lordships had regard to the present system, which had arisen partly from imperfections in the existing legislation, and more from inattention to the subject, the more they would find it deserving of their attention.
  Several other noble LORDS presented petitions on the same subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there could be no doubt that the subject in question was one of great importance, affecting as it did the interests of a most important body of men in Her Majesty's service; but their Lordships might recollect that it was taken into consideration last autumn by a Commission of their Lordships' House, and he believed the Report of that Commission would be presented within a week from the present time. Of course, it was not the intention of the Government to act on the subject until they had received that Report, and had had an opportunity of considering it.

  THE QUEEN'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (the Marquess of Breadalbane)said, he had to inform their Lordships that the Address in answer to Her Majesty's gracious Speech was duly presented and was very graciously received, and it pleased Her Majesty to return the following reply:—
  "MY LORDS,
  "I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address, and for your Assurance that you will take into your earnest Consideration the Measures which will be proposed to you. You may rely on My hearty Desire to co-operate with you in promoting the Welfare and Happiness of My People."

  SALE OF POISONS AND POISONOUS PUBLICATIONS—QUESTION.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he wished to ask his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, whether the Government intended to introduce any measure to pre-

  103
  vent the indiscriminate sale of poisons? The Secretary of State for the Home Department, he believed, had actively employed himself in gaining information on the subject, and had obtained a great deal of valuable information; and he (Lord Campbell) hoped some measure would be founded on it. He was happy to say that he believed the administration of poison by design had received a check. But, from a trial which had taken place before him on Saturday, he had learned with horror and alarm that a sale of poison more deadly than prussic acid, strichnine, or arsenic—the sale of obscene publications and indecent books—was openly going on. It was not alone indecent books of a high price, which was a sort of check, that were sold, but periodical papers of the most licentious and disgusting description were coming out week by week, and sold to any person who asked for them, and in any numbers. This was a matter which required, in his opinion, the immediate consideration of the Government. He had ever been an enemy to ex officio informations for libel, and during the seven years that he had held the office of Attorney General he never advised a single information for libel, except one, that was against Mr. Fergus O'Connor, for exciting the people to sedition; and even in that case, he told the jury not to convict, unless they were satisfied that that was the intention of Mr. O'Connor's publication. He trusted that immediate steps would be taken for stopping the sale of publications of so pestilential a character.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that not having read the newspapers of that day he was not aware of the trial which had taken place, and to which his noble and learned Friend referred. But if his noble and learned Friend was right—and he had no doubt he was—in saying that there were places of that depraved character, which gave vent and circulation to publications of that sort, it was quite fitting that the strong arm of the law should be put in motion, and that Government should take steps for that purpose. But he was sure his noble and learned Friend would agree with him that no legislation was necessary, as the law as it stood was quite sufficient to put down publications of that nature; and it was for the Attorney General to enforce that law as he thought fit. It would not be becoming in him to say more on the matter, which was now brought to his attention for the
  104
  first time. With regard to the sale of poisons, he could assure his noble and learned Friend that the subject had received not only the most careful investigation from his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey), but that a Bill had actually been prepared, and would, he believed, in a few days be introduced in the other House, for the purpose of putting down that offence. His noble and learned Friend must be well aware that the difficulties of that subject were very great. However extensive might be the enumeration of poisons, the ingenuity of chemists would speedily introduce others. Then the line which separated poisons from medicines was extremely difficult to define. The whole subject was one of extreme difficulty. The Bill to be brought in would guard not only against the evil of selling poison to persons who intended to make a bad use of them, but there was also a clause guarding, as far as possible, against the sale of poisons incautiously. If the Bill was not likely to remove altogether, he hoped it would materially mitigate, the evil to which his noble and learned Friend referred.

PROBATES AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION BILL.

  DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORpresented a Bill to amend the Law relating to Probates and Letters of Administration in England; also a Bill to amend the Law relating to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England; and moved that they be read a first time. The noble and learned Lord said, that as these Bills were substantially the same as those of last Session, although a few alterations had been introduced in deference to the suggestions of some of their Lordships, he should not trouble the House by entering into any detailed description of their provisions.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that if persons who had to take out probate were to be subjected to a Chancery suit, he should feel it to be his duty to oppose the Bill; and, with regard to the Divorce Bill, if it contained the same clauses as that of last year, permitting the parties to have a voluntary separation at any time they pleased, he should feel it to be his duty to oppose that Bill also.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he felt obliged to his noble and learned Friend for giving him an opportunity of explaining

  105
  what he meant by "a few alterations." The Bills were substantially the same as the Bills of last Session, but several amendments had been made. Amongst others, with regard to the Testamentary Bill he made an alteration, not that he was convinced of the propriety of the observations, but out of deference to the opinion of the House. He therefore separated the proposed Court of Probate in every way, not only from the Court of Chancery, but from every Judge in the Court of Chancery. During the discussion a great many suggestions had been made, some of which he adopted in the Bill. With regard to the Divorce Bill, he had struck out the clauses to which his noble and learned Friend objected, as they met with no great concurrence in any part of their Lordships' House.
  Bills severally read 1a; and to be read 2a on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a (Quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.