§ Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if, in the case of Joseph Smyth, who was given a gratuity of one week s pay for each year of service after having been in the employment of the Office of Public Works, Dublin, for upwards of twenty-eight years, consideration has been given to the circumstances that Smyth entered the service before the passing of the Superannuation Act of 1887, under which the gratuity was awarded; is he aware that Smyth alleges that he was assured by the architect when he joined that if he remained in the service of the Board long enough he would receive a pension; that Mr. F. V. Clarendon informed him several years ago that he would be entitled to a pension on retirement, as the Superannuation Act of 1887 did not apply 168W in his case; was it the practice to give pensions at the time Smyth joined the service; if so, why has it been refused in Smyth's case; and have all workmen engaged prior to but retiring subsequent to the date of that Act been similarly treated?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe answer to the first question is in the affirmative. I am not aware that any assurances of the kind stated were given to Smyth. It has not been the practice to give pensions to workmen appointed at the time he joined the service, and his case has been treated in the same way as the cases of other workmen engaged prior to, but retiring subsequently to the Superannuation Act, 1887.