Lords Sitting of 5 June 1866

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Lord Conyers. PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Indian Prize Money * (140); Marriages (Sydmonton) * (141); Rights of dramatizing Works of Fiction * (142).
Second Reading—Burials in Burghs (Scotland) * (112).
Committee—Public Schools (110); Pensions (47).
Report—Hop Trade * (135).
Third Reading—Ecclesiastical Leases (Isle of Man) * [134], and passed.

THE CONGRESS OF PARIS—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have to ask a few minutes' indulgence at the hands of your Lordships, while I refer to a matter personal to myself. I know it is very irregular to make any allusion to what has occurred in "another place," and as a rule such allusions ought not to be permitted; but your Lordships will probably have seen in the newspapers this morning, that several charges were made against me last evening, in a spirit and in a tone which I cannot help thinking were entirely uncalled for, and which I hope your Lordships will condemn. The incorrectness of the statements made on that occasion must, I think, be manifest to all acquainted with the subject to which they relate, and if I had followed my own inclination I should have passed them by altogether without notice; but there is one charge to which I desire to refer, inasmuch as my personal character is involved in a direct and unqualified manner. I read in the newspapers of this morning that at the Congress of 1856, I entered into a conspiracy to put down the free Press of Europe. Now, if I know anything of myself, I may affirm that I am not likely to enter into any conspiracy at all; still less should I feel disposed to enter into any conspiracy against the Press, of the substantial benefits and absolute necessity of which I defy any man to have a stronger opinion. I should hope, therefore, that my simple but unqualified denial would be sufficient to satisfy your Lordships of the groundlessness of the charge. But I have other evidence upon which to rest the question. My Lords, the subject of the press was mentioned once, and once only, at the Congress of
1922
Paris. On that single occasion it was referred to by Count Walewski, the President of the Congress, under the following circumstances:—One day, after all the duties of the Congress were over, he stated that the manner in which a certain portion of the Press in Belgium was conducted created some danger to the friendly relations that then existed between France and that country. It was not of that portion of the Press edited and established by Belgian subjects, and circulating among the Belgian people, that he complained, but it was of certain newspapers published in Belgium by French exiles with the intention of their being smuggled over the frontier and disseminated among the lower classes and the army of France, and preaching not only revolutionary doctrines, but the assassination of the Emperor. Count Walewski thought—I can scarcely say upon what grounds—that some expression of opinion on the part of the Plenipotentiaries there assembled would strengthen the hands of the Belgian Government, and would enable them to put an end to a state of things which endangered the friendly relations between the two countries. My reply to that proposition of the President of the Congress was reported in the Protocol of that day, and, with the permission of your Lordships, I will read it. It is as follows:—
"As regards the observations offered by Count Walewski on the excesses of the Belgian Press and the dangers which result therefrom for the adjoining countries, the Plenipotentiaries of England admit their importance; but, as the representatives of a country in which a free and independent Press is, so to say, one of the fundamental institutions, they cannot associate themselves to measures of coercion against the Press of another State."
That, my Lords, is the only part I have taken in this general conspiracy against the freedom of the Press in Europe. The Protocol goes on to state—
"The first Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, while deploring the violence in which certain organs of the Belgian Press indulge, does not hesitate to declare that the authors of the execrable doctrines to which Count Walewski alludes, the men who preach assassination as the means of attaining a political object, are undeserving of the protection which guarantees to the Press its liberty and its independence."
My Lords, if the right hon. Gentleman who made the charge against me had been present upon that occasion, I do not think he would have held different language— at least I am sure that there is not one of your Lordships present who would not

1923
have expressed in the strongest manner his disapproval of the doctrines of assassination preached in the journals to which I have alluded. The right hon. Gentleman either knew or did not know of the Protocol from which I have quoted, when he made the charge against me. If he did know of it, then I should be prepared to characterize the charge he brought against me as it deserves; but, if he did not know of what I said or did upon that occasion, I scarcely think that your Lordships will believe the declaration I have made to be altogether unnecessary.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL—(No. 110.)
(The Earl of Clarendon.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
LORD HOUGHTONgave notice that at the proper time he should move that the name of some gentleman eminent for scientific attainments should be added to the Commission appointed to inquire into this subject. He had not inserted any name in his Notice of Motion, as he desired to leave Her Majesty's Government free to select the gentleman whom they might think most fit to give advice to the Commission upon the subject into which they had to inquire; and it was only in the event of Her Majesty's Government declining to interfere in the matter that he should submit for their Lordships' approval the name of a gentleman distinguished for scientific attainments to be added to the Commission.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHdesired to know, whether the noble Lord had any objection to state the name of the gentleman whom he was desirous of adding to the Commission?
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that the nobleman he had in his mind was Lord Wrottesley.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: It seemed to him that if no other subjects than those already named should be required, the boys would have quite enough to learn. It was supposed by many that a boy's education ended when he left school; but in reality it was only beginning; and he thought scientific studies might be postponed till he had left school. It would be hard upon the boys to make them describe all the different grasses in their cricket field before they were permitted to play upon it.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 (Definition of "Boys on the Foundation").
THE EARL OF DERBYproposed an Amendment for the purpose of preserving the rights of the inhabitants of Pinner, which was formerly included in the ecclesiastical parish of Harrow, but which now constituted a separate parish.
THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, he did not think the alteration necessary for the object in view, but would make inquiries on the subject.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Governing Body to make Statutes, under Restrictions).
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHrose to move the addition of the following Proviso:—
"Provided always that no such Statutes shall take away or impair the Rights of Boys entitled to be admitted on the Foundation of the several Schools."
The noble Earl said, it was no doubt true that no provision of the Bill directly impaired those rights, but there was no doubt that they were greatly menaced, and it was probable that, under the Bill as it stood, a competitive examination would be substituted for the free admission now enjoyed by boys resident in the different localities. These rights were of great value:—for instance, in Rugby the value of the education given to a boy who went early to the School, and remained there the usual period, was not much less than £600. He knew a gentleman living in that town who had several sons, all of whom enjoyed the advantage of being educated on the foundation, and the cost of each boy during the six years was not much more than £100. If testators bequeathed their property to their own families or any other persons, their descendants, however they might misconduct themselves, retained undisturbed enjoyment of it; and he would appeal to their Lordships whether there was anything in the circumstance of a man having adopted the people of Rugby and the vicinity as his family, and having devoted the whole of his property to educational purposes, for the advantage of Rugby and its neighbourhood, to justify Parliament in disposing of that property, not for the benefit of the residents in Rugby and the neighbourhood, but for that of the country at large. Such a step was not indeed actually proposed by

1925
the terms of the Bill, but it was certainly empowered to be taken; and he thought that whenever Parliament delegated authority to any persons, it was their duty to take full security that no measure should be adopted by those persons which Parliament would not itself adopt. Now, he was sure that if it was distinctly proposed to destroy or materially impair the rights of the residents in Rugby and these other parishes—rights which had been in existence for several centuries—their Lordships would unhesitatingly reject such a proposition. No doubt there might in some cases be a larger number of boys entitled to admission on the foundation than there were vacancies to be filled up, and there must then, of course, be some mode of selection. The best mode, however, as he believed, was to place the power in the hands of the Governing Body; and he much preferred this to a competitive examination, which gave a very unfair advantage to the sons of rich tradesmen. The rich tradesman might employ his money in over-educating his boy, and might then send him to a "crammer," and with the advantage of that crammer might send him to compete with the son of the widow of a half-pay officer, who was utterly unable to obtain such facilities. How was the widow to give her son the advantages the son of the rich tradesman thus obtains? The unfortunate widows of officers who had served their country had not the means of giving a superior education to their sons, so as to enable them to make a creditable appearance at a competitive examination; but if such boys were freely admitted they became subject to all the rules of the school, they could only gain prizes by competition, which was the universal practice, and their success or failure depended entirely on themselves. If the admission of the boys to the foundation was to be decided by competitive examination, the examiners, however enlightened they might be, could only decide upon what was before them—namely, the actual attainments of the boys, and could not take into account what was of much more importance, the home education the different candidates had received. Now, what was the education of a boy who had the misfortune to be the orphan of a British officer? He was taught from his earliest years to respect the truth, and to regard honour and usefulness to society as the only object of his life. What, on the other hand, was the instruction received
1926
by the son of a rich tradesman? That the great object of life was to make
money. That was the lesson by which he was always profiting, and the difference between the two lads was infinite. Which, he would ask, would make the best public servant? He cared nothing for mere proficiency in learning; but he wished to see these schools produce good public servants—men who would serve their country not only in the army and navy, but in the Church and in public life; and he was convinced that the Governors, if they made the selection, would choose boys more likely to be eminent in the public service, better than a competitive examination would do. He felt anxious, he confessed, upon this subject, for he could not but recollect the circumstances of his own family. His grandfather, though he afterwards became a bishop, was a poor clergyman with a very large family, and he obtained free admission to the Charterhouse for several of his sons. Had there been a competitive examination he did not believe any one of these boys would have passed; indeed, he did not believe that we had had a Minister for the last hundred years who could have passed the examinations now so much in vogue, and the consequence was that appointments fell into the hands of professors and scholars rather than into those of public servants. His grandfather, however, being able to obtain this gratuitous education for his sons, at the Charterhouse, three out of the six ultimately raised themselves to seats in their Lordships' House. He felt grateful to a system which had conferred such advantages, and he felt that it was, at least, his duty, if not that of others, to endeavour to preserve intact privileges which enabled the sons of poor gentlemen to qualify themselves for the service of their country.
An Amendment moved, After ("Matters") to insert ("Provided always, that no such Statutes shall take away or impair the Rights of Boys entitled to be admitted on the Foundation of the several Schools."—(The Earl of Ellenborough.)
THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, he did not feel it necessary to reply to the criticisms of the noble Earl on competitive examinations, which were now, he thought, regarded as one of the settled institutions of the country. He could not agree with the noble Earl that it was only the sons of officers who were edu-

1927
cated in the principles of truth and honour, and that the sons of the middle classes were trained merely for the purpose of getting money. The distinction that had been drawn between the children of military parents and those of the middle classes seemed to him an extremely invidious one, and he thought their Lordships would be of the same opinion. He could not accept the Amendment of the noble Earl. The state of things had entirely changed since the time of the Founder, who had certain objects in view to which he devoted his property. A great number of people migrated to the neighbourhood for the purpose of getting the benefit of the foundation. It was quite beside the question to say that what the noble Earl proposed would be following out the intention of the Founder. It would be no such thing. He believed it would very greatly prejudice the School. He should be extremely glad that the sons of officers and those to whom the noble Earl had referred should have the benefit of a cheap and good education; but that was not the question. The question was how the funds left to the School should be employed in the best way without departing from the wishes and objects of the Founder. The noble Earl appeared to think that, if left to the discretion of the Governing Body, they would be sure to select the best boys. It would be very invidious, or he could state cases in which the power of selection was jobbed; the favoured individual was chosen without any reference whatever either to his present fitness or future career. The Amendment of the noble Earl, if adopted, would do away with the whole spirit and object of the Bill; he hoped, therefore, their Lordships would not agree to it.
On Question? their Lordships divided: —Contents 38; Not-Contents 58: Majority 20.

CONTENTS.

Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Clane-boye.)

Devonshire, D.

Dartrey, L. (L, Cremorne.)

Somerset, D.

Ebury, L.

Normanby, M.

Foley, L. [Teller.]

Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

Airlie, E.

Chichester, E.

Harris, L.

Clarendon, E.

Houghton, L. [Teller.]

De Grey, E.

Lyttelton, L.

Devon, E.

Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

Granville, E.

Russell, E.

Mostyn, L.

Northbrook, L.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

Halifax, V.

Romilly, L.

Hardinge, V.

Saye and Sele, L.

Powerscourt, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Sydney, V.

Stratheden, L.

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

Aveland, L.

Belper, L.

Taunton, L.

Camoys, L.

Wentworth, L.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cleveland, D.

Denbigh, E.

Derby, E.

Abercorn, M.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.) [Teller.]

Bath, M. [Teller.]

Bristol, M.

Effingham, E.

Amherst, E.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Bandon, E.

Bantry, E.

Lucan, E.

Belmore, E.

Manvers, E.

Cadogan, E.

Powis, E,

1932

Romney, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Stanhope, E.

Denman, L.

Verulam, E.

Feversham, L.

Wilton, E.

Kilmaine, L.

Northwick, L.

De Vesci, V.

Overstone, L.

Eversley, V.

Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Hawarden, V.

Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

Gloucester and Bristol Bp.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Oxford, Bp.

Southampton, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Abinger, L.

Bolton, L.

Walsingham, L.

Castlemaine, L.

Wynford, L.

Chelmsford, L.

On Motion of The Earl of DEVON, words inserted giving the Governing Body to regulate by Statute the number of the Masters.
On Question that the Clause, as amended, stand Part of the Bill,
THE EARL OF POWISsuggested, that as several of the Public Schools possessed a number of small livings, it might be desirable that the Governing Body should have power, if they thought it desirable, to part with some of them, the proceeds to be applied either in improving their other livings, increasing their exhibitions, or extending their means of teaching.
THE EARL OF CLARENDONthought the proposal of the noble Earl might pos-

1929
sibly be advantageous. Some of these livings were very small, and yet they might have their value in the market. The precedent of disposing of some of the livings in the gift of the Lord Chancellor was in point; and if the noble Earl would at a later stage of the Bill put his suggestion in the shape of a clause or proviso, he should be glad to give it his favourable consideration.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand Part of the Bill.
Clause 14 (Candidates for College at Eton), and Clause 15 (Election of King's College at Eton) struck out.
Clause 16 (Scheme for Harrow and Rugby).
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that he presented a petition yesterday from persons interested in the foundation of Rugby, representing that it would be a great grievance to them to be compelled to go to the Privy Council, which they knew would be an expensive operation, in order to state their objections to any scheme prepared by the Governing Body, and they asked that for two months before the scheme was submitted by the Governing Body to the Special Commissioners named in the Bill it should be deposited in some public place where it could be seen and considered by persons interested, so that they might be able to communicate with the Governing Body on the subject. He moved an Amendment to this effect, having reference both to Harrow and Rugby.
THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, that there was no disposition to adhere invariably to the ipsissima verba of the Bill, and he deemed the proposed Amendment reasonable. He would suggest that the noble Earl should defer it until the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 17 (Appointment of Commissioners).
LORD HOUGHTON LORD HOUGHTON moved that Lord Wrottesley be added to the Special Commissioners named in the Bill. He considered it highly desirable that there should be some gentleman of scientific attainments on the Commission.
Moved, to insert ("The Right Honourable John Baron Wrottesley.")—(The Lord Houghton.)
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE RED-CLIFFEsaid, that the prosecution of the study of Natural Science must be regarded as somewhat of an innovation in the course of instruction given at our Public Schools. He thought it inexpedient that that particular branch of study should be too zealously pressed upon them for their adoption. It would be better that there should be as little deviation from the wills of Founders as the change of times permitted.
THE EARL OF CLARENDONreplied that the great bulk of the evidence which had been taken before the Commission tended to demonstrate the advisability that some provision for scientific instruction in our Public Schools should be made.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, that while he held the attainments of Lord Wrottesley in the highest respect, he did not think he was taking a course inconsistent with that respect in objecting to the addition of his name to the list of Commissioners. It would not, in his opinion, be attended with advantage that a particular study should be forced upon our Public Schools by one who might deem it to be part of his duty to advocate its adoption at all times and seasons. What was required rather was the advice of men of good sense and general accomplishments not wedded to any special course of instruction. He hoped the House would be content with the high character possessed by the Commissioners as now named.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, that one of the most important points connected with the instruction given in our Public Schools was the teaching of the English language. At Eton and other Schools, in which great attention was paid to classical attainments, the English language was comparatively neglected, many of the boys not being able to spell correctly a letter written in English. It would, in his opnion, be well if their Lordships, while advocating the claims of science, would take into consideration the propriety of appointing a teacher of spelling.
EARL RUSSELLsaid, that his noble Friend (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe) thought that the study of Natural Science would be an innovation in our Public Schools. It would, however, not be an innovation in all Schools, for at present at Harrow instruction was given in Natural Science and prizes were awarded as he knew; for his own son had recently been awarded a prize of that kind. He

1931
would add that he regretted that more attention was not paid to the study of English in Public Schools.
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he did not attach much importance to the proposed Amendment, although he should be sorry to be obliged to vote against it. For his part he thought that seven Commissioners was the number which would be found most convenient. He believed that there was a general agreement that Science should to a certain degree be admitted into Public Schools.
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that he could not be suspected of undervaluing the advantages of classical culture; but he thought that the Bill would hardly be regarded as satisfactory in respect of the completeness of its educational system, unless some man of scientific attainments were placed on the Commission.
On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 39; Non-Contents 44: Majority 5.
THE EARL OF CLARENDONthen moved the insertion of the name of Thomas Dyke Acland, esquire, as one of the Commissioners.
Motion agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand Part of the Bill.
Clauses 18, 19, and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 (Powers of Special Commissioners).
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, there was one point connected with this clause to which he wished to call his noble Friend's attention. He had not given notice of any Amendment with reference to it, but the point was one that deserved consideration. It was proposed to give the Governing Bodies of these Schools the power of altering their own constitution; but if these Bodies did not choose or deem it necessary to alter their own constitution, the Bill empowered the Special Commissioners, of their own authority, entirely to remodel the constitution of any Governing Body in any manner which they thought fit. He would much prefer that the power of altering the constitution of the Governing Bodies of these Schools should be vested in Parliament. If it were left absolutely in the hands of the Commissioners there would be no means of having the ease heard or argued, or of opposing any arbitrary exercise of authority on the part of the Commissioners. He desired that the Commissioners should have extensive powers, but there ought to be some limit placed upon them. He would suggest that in line 37, after the words giving the Commissioners power to make regulations and to propose any scheme relating to any school to which the Bill applied, there should be inserted the words, "save and except the power of

1933
passing a statute for the alteration of the constitution of the Governing Bodies."
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that all statutes altering the constitution of the Governing Bodies were referred to be laid before Parliament.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the noble Lord rather mistook his point. The Governing Bodies had the power of altering their own constitution, subject to the approval of Her Majesty in Council, But if they did not choose to do so the Commissioners could step in and alter their constitution for them without the Governing Bodies having any voice in the matter.
THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, he was sorry his noble Friend had raised that objection. He did not see why the Commissioners should not possess the power in question as well as the other powers to be vested in them, nor did he think there was any danger of its abuse. It was not to be supposed that the Governing Bodies would ever propose to reform themselves very much.
THE EARL OF DERBYthen gave notice that on the Report he would move the insertion of words to carry out his suggestion.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Further Amendments made: The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 143.)

MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCESS MARY OF CAMBRIDGE—MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
Message from THE QUEEN—Delivered by The Earl Russell; and read by The Lord Chancellor as follows:—
"VICTORIA R.
"Her Majesty having agreed to a Marriage proposed between Her Royal Highness the Princess Mary Adelaide Wilhelmina Elizabeth, youngest Daughter of His late Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge, and His Serene Highness Francis Paul Charles Louis Alexander Prince of Teck, has thought fit to communicate it to the House of Lords. The many Proofs which the House of Lords has afforded of their affectionate Attachment to Her Majesty's Person and Family leave Her Majesty no Doubt of their Readiness to concur in enabling Her Majesty to make a further Provision for Her Royal Highness."
Ordered, That the said Message be taken into Consideration on Thursday next; and the LORDS SUMMONED.

PENSIONS BILL—(No. 47)
(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
LORD ROMILLYsaid, he was desirous of making a few observations upon the subject of the retiring pensions in the Court of Chancery, which by a clause in this Bill were to be granted upon the system adopted with the ordinary Civil servants. He had presented a petition against the clause from the Incorporated Society of Solicitors in London, and he was also authorized to state that the three learned Vice Chancellors fully concurred in the opinion expressed in the petition that the plan would act prejudicially to the interest of the public. This was also the opinion of a late Lord Chancellor (Lord St. Leonards). As the Bill now stood, a man taking office at forty or fifty would be placed in the same position as the man who took office at the age of twenty. The distinction between those classes of persons who would not take office until about the ages of forty or fifty, and those who usually entered upon the performance of their duties at twenty, had been clearly pointed out in the Report of the Commission appointed in 1857. Upon that Commission Sir James Graham and Mr. Henley were selected to serve at the instance of Sir John Stuart, and the result proved that if they were desirous of making a reform in the law, nothing was more expedient than to seek the aid of great good sense and intellectual capacity, even unaccompanied by technical knowledge. The result of the Commission was to give the Judges of original jurisdiction the aid of two Chief Clerks in the room of the Masters, who were required to be solicitors often years' standing in actual business. This proved a very beneficial change. Their Lordships would probably remember that the Court of Chancery had been completely altered within the last few years, and that changes of a most beneficial character had been introduced. It was true that the present system had not been much praised,

1935
but it should be remembered that people were slow to praise, though they were easily induced to impute blame. The litigious business had somewhat diminished, while the administrative business had increased to an enormous extent, and the result of the working of the present system could only have been attained by the most zealous and painstaking performance of duty on the part of the officials. The salary of the Chief Clerks was originally fixed at £1,200, with yearly increase up to £1,500; but, finding this too small, Parliament subsequently fixed the income in the first instance at £1,500. In case of permanent disability the Lord Chancellor was empowered to grant these officers retiring pensions equal to two-thirds of their salaries, and after serving fifteen or twenty years they were entitled to retire on pensions of a similar amount. But by the effect of the present Bill it would be almost impossible for these officers to obtain such a retiring pension before the age of eighty. It was true the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Treasury, was enabled to add a certain number of years to the period served by those gentlemen, the number of years was not determined, but it was not to exceed ten. But by allowing ten years to a gentleman entering upon the performance of his duties at fifty he would at the age of seventy be entitled to a retiring pension equal only to one-third of his salary. It was true the Bill would not apply to those who at present held office; but the hope of making a suitable provision for their families and their old age was the chief inducement to gentlemen to fill these offices. Considerable difficulty, indeed, was experienced in obtaining candidates. Of the three gentlemen who assisted him (Lord Romilly) not one had been a candidate for the office; the offices had been offered to them on their being pointed out as men who would be likely to accept them if offered, and to perform their duties efficiently and satisfactorily. If this measure passed into law, when vacancies occurred and new appointments were to be made it would be extremely difficult to get as good men as they had now, and if the work was not equally well done the system must come to a close. He trusted that the Chief Clerks, the Taxing Masters, and the Examiners—though, perhaps, in the case of the latter the subject was not so important—the present scale of retiring allowances would be retained. He should not divide the House upon the
1936
question, but should rest contented with entering his protest and the protest of his learned colleagues against the proposed alteration.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he entirely concurred in the remarks which had fallen from his noble and learned Friend. He thought that the alteration proposed by the Bill would be extremely prejudicial, because, as his noble and learned Friend had pointed out, it was very difficult to obtain good and suitable men to fill these offices. Taxing masters, examiners, masters in lunacy, and other officers to whom this Bill would apply, they were generally in receipt of good professional incomes before being selected to fill such offices. It would be unreasonable, therefore, to expect to obtain the services of suitable gentlemen unless proper remuneration were offered and prospects of good retiring allowances were held out. At the time these offices were created, all the circumstances to which he had referred were taken into consideration, and it was provided that in cases where the officers were disabled, the Lord Chancellor should have the power to grant them retiring allowances not exceeding two-thirds of their salaries. Of course, as the noble and learned Lord did not intend to divide the House upon the question, it was hopeless to endeavour to carry the matter further; but he could not sit down without expressing his deep regret that the Bill should propose to take away the discretion of the Lord Chancellor with regard to granting of these pensions. By the terms of the Bill that discretion was to be transferred to the Lords of the Treasury, who would send a certificate to the Lord Chancellor stating that a satisfactory claim for a pension had been made out, and directing him to pay such sum as they might think fit out of the fund under his control.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he felt compelled to take a totally different view of the provisions of the Bill from both of his noble and learned Friends. If he thought the Bill really would interfere with the efficiency of those most valuable public servants to whom allusion had been made —namely, the Chief Clerks, he should have been the last to introduce it. It was impossible to over-estimate the merits of those officers, or the benefits they had conferred upon the public. Notwithstanding their designation these gentlemen really performed the duties of the old masters in Chancery; and if it were

1937
made out that the salaries were insufficient to secure the best men for these clerkships, he should not be slack in urging upon the Treasury that their salaries should be raised. But he objected to the principle of remunerating officers by a sort of prospective assurance that when their health failed they would have a certain retiring pension. The correct principle was to remunerate persons adequately during their period of active service, so that they might to a certain extent provide for the future out of their salaries; but it was quite right with regard to all officers in the public service that provision should be made for superannuation allowances when they had served a length of time or had become in other ways incapacitated for the discharge of their duties. It was always difficult to determine upon what principle superannuation allowances should be calculated; but that difficulty had been met by the elaborate Report of the Committee appointed when Lord Derby was at the head of the Government, which now governed the pensions of all Civil servants. The Committee assumed that a person entering the public service at the age of twenty might go on serving in the ordinary course of life till sixty, and their proposition was that an officer with a salary of £600 a year should have the right of retiring after ten years' service with a pension of £100 a year or at the rate of one-sixth of the salary for every ten years; so if the public servant held his office for twenty years, he would have a pension of £200; if thirty years a pension of £300; and if he went on to sixty years of age, he would be entitled to £400 a year, which was two-thirds of his salary. Nothing could be fairer than this system. There was, however, the difficulty that there were certain public servants, and those to whom his noble and learned Friends had alluded came within the category, who could not commence their period of service at anything like so early an age as twenty; and to meet their case it was provided that in calculating the retiring pension an addition not exceeding twenty years might be made to the term of service. Thus a man who entered the service at forty might be calculated, when he arrived at fifty, not as having served ten years only, but thirty; if he served until he was sixty, his term of service might be computed at forty years. That was the principle of this Bill, and its object was prospectively to put all the
1938
officers in the Courts of Law upon the same footing as officers in other branches of the public service. This provision would not apply to the Judges because they had a statutory right to their pensions. But the Bill had another object. Nothing could have been more inexpedient than the system which prevailed in the Court of Chancery, by which, with regard to a great number of officers, it rested with the Lord Chancellor to say whether they should retire, and to a great extent to determine what the amount of their pensions should be. It was an unfit thing that the right of discharging an officer or authorizing him to retire, and fixing his pension, should rest entirely with the same individual. It was fitting that the Lord Chancellor should see whether the person was entitled to a pension; but there ought to be some extraneous jurisdiction to look into the question and see whether ho had complied with the requirements of the law. The second object of the Bill, therefore, was to take away from the Lord Chancellor the absolute right which at present rested with him, and to give to the Treasury the power of determining upon the report of the Lord Chancellor the amount of pension to which the person retiring was entitled under the Act of Parliament. A more just and reasonable arrangement could not, in his opinion, be suggested, and he trusted their Lordships would have no difficulty in passing the Bill.
Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly; Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 144.)

RIGHTS OF DRAMATIZING WORKS OF FICTION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for amending the Law relating to Copyright in Works of Fiction, and for securing the full Benefit of such Works to the Authors—Was presented by The LORD LYTTELTON; read 1a. (No. 142.)
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.