next.

UNION OFFICERS (IRELAND) SUPER-
ANNUATION BILL-(No. 52.)

SECOND READING.

that these officers should have the security
of getting their superannuations from the
Central Board according to fixed and defi-
nite rules.

Amendment moved, to leave out

THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS moved
the second reading of this Bill, the object
of which, he said, was to extend to Ire-
land the principle adopted in England with
reference to the granting of superannua-
tion allowances to certain Poor Law officers.
For this purpose the guardians of any union
were empowered to grant superannuation
allowances in certain cases, under certain
conditions. These were that the officers
who were to receive pensions must be sixty
years of age, and have devoted the whole
of their time for at least twenty years to
the business of the union; the amount to
be granted was not to exceed two-thirds of
their salary, and the allowance was first to
be sanctioned and approved by the Poor
Law Commissioners. He regretted that
the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of
Donoughmore) had given notice of his in-
tention to move that the Bill be read a
second time that day six months, as the
Bill only proposed to carry out, as re-
garded those officers, the principle that
had been for some time adopted of grant
ing superannuation allowances to civil ser-
vants who had spent the best part of their
lives in the service of the public.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2
(The Lord Steward.)

-

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE rose
to move that the Bill be read a second
time that day six months. He was of
opinion that if superannuation allowances
were to be granted certain definite and
fixed rules of superannuation should be
laid down. Now the result of the pro-
visions of the Bill, which left the matter
to the discretion of the Board of Guardians
or other local authorities, would be that
if an officer was popular he would probably
get some retiring allowance; but a man
who might be an excellent officer and have
served a long time might be forced to go
without one if he had no friends in the
district. The grant or refusal of super-
annuations should not be allowed to be
swayed by local interest. He suggested
that there should be a small annual con-
The Bishop of Oxford

THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS said,
that the best authorities on the subject in
Ireland had represented to him that the
measure would prove most beneficial. The
arguments of the noble Earl opposite (the
Earl of Donoughmore) were not so much
against the Bill as in favour of some mea-
sure that was not yet in existence.

THE EARL OF ENNISKILLEN fully
coincided in the objections to the Bill urged
by his noble Friend who moved the Amend-
ment. It appeared to him that the grant-
ing of pensions should be placed in the
hands of some central authority instead of
the Boards of Guardians.

THE EARL OF LEITRIM also opposed
the Bill, believing that it would have the
effect of increasing still more the taxation
of Ireland, the weight of which was the
principal cause of the great emigration that
was going on from that country. He con-
sidered the Bill as objectionable in every
shape and form, and if passed it would
bring additional odium on the Boards of
Guardians.

THE EARL OF DERBY confessed he was
not a very good judge of the merits of this
particular case, but it appeared to him
somewhat significant that the second read-
ing of the Bill was not supported as yet
by any one of the Irish Members of their
Lordships' House, whilst three noble Lords
from the sister country had expressed the
strongest opinions against the measure,
and in favour of placing the authority in
question in the hands of the Central Board
of Commissioners instead of the Boards of
Guardians. The difficulty in which they
were placed was this, that they could not
maintain their views without voting for the
rejection of the Bill. If the measure were
rejected, the Government would have the
power of introducing another Bill adopting
the proposition of his noble Friend, or so
modifying it as to remove the objection
entertained against the present measure
in respect to placing the authority in the
hands of the local Boards instead of in
those of the Poor Law Commissioners.
Upon the whole, if the question went to a

casion from entering in any degree into Mr. Edmunds' case, and to confine himself entirely to what related to the proceedings of the Committee. He hoped noble Lords would follow his example in that respect, and that they would remember that notice of another Motion had been given which would come on afterwards, and upon which an opportunity would be presented, if it were desired, of entering more fully into the case of Mr. Edmunds. The question which he had to bring before their Lordships was one of great importance to the House in many respects, because it involved the question of the duty of their Committees, and that was one reason why he had felt it his duty to call attention to the subject. A part of the question related personally to himself, and the rest related to the Committee. The paragraph in the Report to which he referred commenced by giving a statement of what was said to be his opinion as to the knowledge of the Committee upon certain subjects which then came before them. It was as follows:

"The Committee have examined the Chairman of Committees as to the knowledge by the Members of the Select Committee (which he attended) of any circumstances which might disentitle Mr. Edmunds to a pension. He stated that there was 'a general knowledge or a general impression on the part of most of the Members of the Committee that, in consequence of certain pecuniary transactions in which Mr. Edmunds had been concerned in the Patent Office, he had resigned his appointment in it.'"

Now, he certainly had no reason to suppose that any Member of the Committee had any wish to say or to do anything which was not perfectly fair to him in the matter; they were all old acquaintances of his, and many of them personal friends. However, he must say that the words which were there put into his mouth were not his words -they were the words of a question which was put by the noble Lord the Postmaster General, and if their Lordships would look to the Question 1,808 in the Minutes of Evidence they would see such was the case. That noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) asked

"I think you stated, also, that there was a general knowledge or a general impression on the part of most of the Members of the Committee that, in consequence of certain pecuniary transactions in which Mr. Edmunds had been con

cerned in the Patent Office, he had been obliged to quit that office and resign his appointment in it."

His (Lord Redesdale's) answer was "that he had resigned it-I do not know that I Lord Redesdale

His answer was

"No, I should not call it any discussion upon the subject. As I say, there were certain things talked of; but the impression upon the minds of the Members of the Committee present was that a Report had been made which called upon Mr. Edmunds to make a payment of money which had not been accounted for by him in his office, and that he had not only paid that, but that he had paid a larger sum than that which he conceived was due from him to the office. As regards the question whether the fact of his having been behind in his payments had anything to do with the question relating to his resignation of the office in the House of Lords, we may, more or less, have thought that it had something to do with it; but certainly the impression upon the minds of the Committee at the time was that he had satisfied the claim that had been made against him with respect to the money payment." That was his impression not only then, but for a considerable time afterwards. answer to Question 1,799, which was

In

"Then, it would have occurred to you that it must have been in consequence of his being bewished to retire from the office he held in the hind in his payments in another office that he House of Lords" He said

"I should say that it was my own impression that that was the motive, but at the same time

I

must add that, although I do not know what the result of the inquiry before the Committee may be, still, considering what I had known of Mr. Edmunds, and imagining that he had made a full taken that step. I thought that it would have payment, I was rather surprised at his having been better not to have taken that step with regard to his office in the House of Lords if he could have discharged his duties."

That opinion bore upon the point how far a man who had done something objectionable in one office should be precluded from remaining in another. Their Lordships would find a similar opinion expressed by a noble and learned Lord whom he saw opposite (Lord Cranworth), at page 10 of the Report. In a letter to the Lord Chancellor dated the 3rd August