in the grant of pension, as to the Commissionership being an office within the

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL-[BILL 212.] Act.

CONSIDERATION.

Bill, as amended, considered.

In order, therefore, to prevent Clause 13 from having a retrospective effect in respect of the superannuation allowance, he was now about to propose certain verbal Amendments. The clause provided

"That if any Commissioner or any officer who is removed from office as aforesaid is at the commencement of this Act in receipt of any superannuation allowance in respect of any former employment in the civil service of the ceive, in addition to such annuity as aforesaid, Crown, he shall be entitled to continue to rethe amount of superannuation allowance of which he is at the commencement of this Act in receipt, and no more.'

He proposed to leave out the words "in where it first occurred, and inreceipt,'

entitled to in addition to the Commis

sionership of Greenwich Hospital he would still be entitled to receive after the vacaHe begged to move

tion of that office.

the first of these Amendments.

MR. CHILDERS said, he had an Amendment to propose in Clause 13, which he believed took precedence of the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington). In 1862 Sir Richard Bromley, now one of the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, held the office of Accountant General of the Navy, with a salary of £1,000 a year, and an allowance of £300 a year for a house, making £1,300. He also held the important office of Auditor of Prize Accounts, with a salary of £300 a year, which brought his official income up to £1,600. His health having become somewhat impaired from the la-sert "entitled to receive in addition to the bours of his office in which he had con- salary of his office," to leave out the word ducted himself to the satisfaction of all "of" after "allowance," and in the last who had been officially connected with part of the clause to leave out "in rehim, in the early part of 1863 he acceipt," and insert "so entitled to receive." cepted the office of Commissioner of So that whatever amount of superannuaGreenwich Hospital, at a salary of £600 tion allowances Sir Richard Bromley was a year, with allowances of different kinds, amounting to something more than £200 a year. On his thus vacating the office of Accountant General of the Navy he received a special retiring allowance of £1,000 a year, being about £300 a year more than he was strictly entitled to, and it was declared that the Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital must be treated as a public office within the meaning of the Act. His salary as Commissioner, with his superannuation allowance, amounted accordingly to £1,300 a year, and he still continued by leave of the First Lord of the Admiralty to enjoy the emolument of £300 a year as Auditor of Prize Accounts. Under this Bill it was proposed that the Commissionership should cease, and the effect would be, as the clause stood, that Sir Richard Bromley would continue to receive £1,600 a year so long as he held his office of auditor of Prize Accounts. That appeared to the Government to be a fair arrangement; but it had been stated that he was entitled to receive morenamely, £715 in respect of his former appointment of Accountant General, and £800 in respect of the Commissionership, or between £1,500 or £1,600 a year, besides his salary of £300 a year as Auditor of Prize Money. This idea was founded on a supposed illegality in the condition,

Amendment agreed to, as were also the two other Amendments which were subsequently proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he rose to move that the clause be struck out, and submitted that the Treasury had deprived Sir Richard Bromley-a most able and distinguished public servant-of £233 a year, to which he had an absolute legal claim. He asked the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether this was not so. He could not help remarking upon the extraordinary and unexpected course which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had just taken. He was sorry to see that the Government had inserted in a Bill placed before that House a clause which he could describe in no other terms than as a shameful clause. The Bill was introduced many weeks ago, and the omission of this clause was moved by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto). The Government resisted the Motion, and had persistently adhered to the clause. The clause in the Bill, as it originally stood, had for its object to debar a meritorious

and distinguished public servant from seek- allowed a long leave of absence, and his ing a remedy in the Courts of Law. The health was restored; he returned to his Government must have introduced this duties and continued to act for two or clause under an erroneous impression, for three years as Accountant General until the House would not have tolerated such his health again broke down from the mul treatment of any subject of Her Majesty. tifarious duties which for a long series However, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chil- of years he had performed. In 1862 ders) had seen right to change his course, he asked the Duke of Somerset to inand this change must be attributed to a crease his salary by £500 a year for conversation which he (Sir John Paking- additional duties placed upon him, and ton) had with the Attorney General on the Duke of Somerset replied that he Thursday last. He felt so clearly the na- wished him to go to Greenwich Hospital ture and mischief of the clause that he with a view to reform it, and that this would drew the attention of the Attorney General be his reward. In October, 1862, Sir to it, and asked him if he were conversant Richard Bromley expressed to the Duke of with the facts of the case, as he could Somerset that if it was his Grace's pleasure not believe the House would tolerate such to appoint him a Civil Commissioner of the an injustice as was sought to be effected Hospital he should be happy to accept it, by this clause. After this conversation as he could hold it with his pension. In the clause which had stood for weeks in December, 1862, Mr. Whitbread, the Lord the unjust shape was changed so as to of the Admiralty, by the direction of the leave Sir Richard Bromley open to sue the Duke of Somerset, again asked Sir Richard Government in a Court of Justice. It was Bromley if he would go to Greenwich evident that the Attorney General saw the Hospital, and Sir Richard Bromley, on unreasonableness of the original clause. the 9th December, replied that he was But the House had a right to be informed willing, as he felt the work of his present of the nature of Sir Richard Bromley's office too harrassing to go on with after case. A Minute of the Treasury was thirty-three years of service, and he could passed in 1854 by the present Chancellor hold the Commissionership, with his penof the Exchequer at the time when Sir sion, as others had done. In this he Richard Bromley was appointed to the alluded to Lord Auckland and Sir Thomas office of Accountant General of the Navy, Thompson, both of whom held the office in which the right hon. Gentleman the with an untouched pension. In February, Chancellor of the Exchequer recognized 1863, Captain Drummond and Lord Clathe services of Sir Richard Bromley during rence Paget spoke to him on the subject, the Irish famine, and mentioned eleven in- and on the 19th of March, Captain Ryder, stances in which that gentleman had per- the Private Secretary of the Duke of formed essential service to the country, Somerset, wrote that he was directed to apart from his official duties, and gratui-inform him that it was the pleasure of the tously. The Minute went on to say that Queen to approve of his being appointed those services ought to establish his claim to a Commissionership of Greenwich Hosto a special reward, and ought to be taken pital. Thus this office was offered to Sir into consideration when the amount of his Richard Bromley without conditions, and retiring allowance came to be settled. He was accepted by him on the principle that (Sir John Pakington) in 1858 found Sir he was entitled to hold his full pension. Richard Bromley as Accountant General In April, 1863, Sir Richard Bromley wrote of the Navy, and about this time his health to the Secretary of the Admiralty resigngave way, and it became so impaired that it was necessary to give him a long leave of absence. On that occasion a Minute was drawn up at the Admiralty in which he (Sir John Pakington) thought it due to Sir Richard Bromley to express his sense of the manner in which this able officer had discharged his duties, and that such a series of special services established a claim to special acknowledgment and reward and the highest superannuation allowance consistent with the existing regulations. Sir Richard Bromley was then

ing his office of Accountant General, applying for his pension to be granted him, and the Board of Admiralty passed a Minute recommending his pension to be fixed at the largest amount consistent with the law, which would be £1,300 a year. At the moment the Board of Admiralty recommended the highest amount of pension to Sir Richard Bromley he was in possession of his appointment at Greenwich Hospital. In their Minute of July, 1863, the Treasury said that under the Superannuation Act he was entitled to

was.

£715 a year, but added that with a view | sufficient security for perfect justice being to mark the sense entertained of Sir done to the gentleman whose name he had Richard Bromley's eminent and special mentioned. It was not at any time the services, and with the understanding that the Superannuation Act applied to his appointment in Greenwich Hospital, his allowance would be fixed at £1,000 per annum. Now, was Greenwich Hospital under the Superannuation Act? He (Sir John Pakington) did not think any Member of the Treasury Bench would say it The Government had unjustly and illegally endeavoured to override the Act of Parliament by introducing a condition of this kind, and to set up their own decision in opposition to the Superannuation Act. Professing to give Sir Richard Bromley £1,000 a year they had practically reduced his pension to £481, although he had a positive legal right under the Superannuation Act to £715 a year. He admitted that Sir Richard Bromley had no absolute right to the £1,000 promised him, and that to give him that sum would be an act of grace and favour on the part of the Treasury for which he would be grateful; but if he applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus the Treasury might be compelled to pay him the £715 a year, to which he was entitled under the Superannuation Act. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Childers) had consented to alter the clause so as no longer to preclude Sir Richard Bromley from asserting his right in a court of law; and he therefore appealed to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, whether it was not better that a claim of that kind, on the part of a distinguished public servant, should be met by the generosity and good feeling of the Government rather than that he should be driven to establish it against them in a Court of Justice. The clause applied to Sir Richard Bromley and to him only, and its sole effect had been to keep him out of a court of law. The words having that effect being, however, now abandoned, he asked what was the object of retaining the clause at all? He hoped the House would support him in his endeavour to have the clause struck out altogether, as a record against an attempt to deprive a distinguished officer of his rights. He moved the rejection of

the clause.

intention of the Government to interfere with any legal right which Sir Richard Bromley might be able to establish, and he did not believe that the original words of the clause would have been construed in a court as having that effect; but the moment they found that those words were thought to be in the least degree ambiguous they had endeavoured to amend them, so as to obviate the possibility of any such construction being put upon them, and to leave Sir Richard Bromley with all his legal rights entirely untouched. If that gentleman was able to satisfy the Govern ment that he had the rights which he claimed without having recourse to a Court of Law, they would admit them; but if he was unable to satisfy them on that point, or to establish his claim in a Court of Law, surely the House would not go out of its way to give him that to which, upon that hypothesis, he was not legally entitled. The whole circumstances of the arrangement had not, he believed, been fully stated by the right hon. Gentleman. As far as his (the Attorney General's) information went, he believed that the arrangement for giving the appointment of Greenwich Hospital, and the pension, were parts of the same transaction. no transaction. With regard to the question of law, having done his best to make himself master of it, he must say he thought that question was by no means so clear as it appeared to be to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Putting aside all questions of form, the question was whether the Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital was an office in a Public Department within the meaning of the 20th section of the Superannuation Act. He had looked into that Act, but did not feel competent, without further consideration, to pronounce a decided opinion. If he looked at the list of Public Departments mentioned in the Act, he agreed that Greenwich Hospital was not one of those Public Departments, but it would be erroneous to decide upon the meaning of the words “ public department with reference to that clause only. No doubt Greenwich Hospital was not mentioned in the Act. No doubt the 14th section said that superannuation allowances were to extend to all civil offices and Departments of State set forth and enumerated in the schedule. But it did not stop there, for the same section gave power to the Lords of the Treasury

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he was at a loss to understand what object the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) could have in objecting to a clause which he himself acknowledged afforded

This was

to add to the list of Departments any | Richard Bromley resigned the office of others which then existed or should there- Accountant General, he was entitled by after exist, and to place them under the law to a permanent retiring pension of provisions of the Act. Therefore, those £715 a year; and, upon accepting the enumerated in the Act did not exhaust office of Commissioner, he became legally the list of Public Departments. The entitled to £818 a year more, making his question required examination whether total income £1,533 a year. Greenwich Hospital had or had not been undisputed. treated as a Public Department. He was not prepared to say decidedly whether the Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital had been treated as a public office. Seeing that the payment on account of the office was not voted by Parliament, nor did it come out of the Consolidated Fund, he thought those were, at first sight, arguments in favour of the view of the right hon. Gentleman. But he did not think that these arguments were of necessity conclusive, and the House would be ill-advised if it were to come to a vote upon an assumption of the question when the rights of Sir Richard Bromley had been strictly preserved to him by the clause in the Bill.

SIR FITZROY KELLY said, he was sure that the Government had acted under some misapprehension in this matter. He agreed that they ought not there to discuss a question of law; but he was also sure that when the hon. and learned gentleman (the Attorney General) had considered the terms of the statute of William IV. he would at once see that the Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital was not within that Act. He would state shortly the facts. When Sir Richard Bromley, after thirty-two years' service, was desirous of retiring from the office of Accountant General of the Navy, his services had been recorded in successive Minutes of the Admiralty and of the Treasury, and it was said that those services entitled him to the highest pension consistent with existing regulations whenever he should retire. He had performed many gratuitous services, and the Government had expressed a desire to reward him for them, and it was a question whether he should receive a considerable increase of salary; but instead of this course being acted on, he, at the suggestion of the Duke of Somerset, accepted the office of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital. Sir Richard Bromley had accepted the office of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital on the understanding that he was to receive £1,000 a year, or £285 more than he was legally entitled to as retiring Accountant General. On 1st April, 1863, when Sir

But the Government had offered him £1,000 a year, or £285 more than the £715 to which he was legally entitled. Such were his legal rights on the 1st April, 1863, when he resigned his office. He applied for his pension, and he hoped in addition to receive something from the grace and favour of the Government for his meritorious services. He applied, and then the Treasury made this Minute. It recited his services, and the records of those services by the Treasury and the Admiralty, and then it recited that his permanent retiring allowance had been fixed at the highest amount. It went on

My Lords therefore feel that the case is eminently one to be dealt with under the 9th section of the Superannuation Act of 1859." The question he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government was, whether or not they intended to give Sir Richard Bromley £285 per annum, according to the recommendation of the Admiralty, beyond what he was strictly entitled to? Unfortunately, the Government had annexed the condition that the office was to be deemed to be within the Act of William IV., and by so doing, instead of giving Sir Richard Bromley the £285 per annum, for his extraordinary services, in addition to the £1,533 to which he was legally entitled, they had actually despoiled him of £235 per annum, out of the £1,533 per annum to which he was legally entitled. As the office was not within the Act of William IV., let the Government grant him a pension of £1,000 a year according to the statute, without more, and Sir Richard Bromley would receive the reward they professed to give him of £285 a year in addition to that to which he was legally entitled. If the office was within the Act, which cannot be seriously contended, the Minute was superfluous, and unnecessary.

MR. CHILDERS said, he would explain why the clause had been inserted. It was the principle of the Superannuation Act that an officer receiving superannua tion and appointed to another office, should not draw more of his superannuation allowance than would make up the salary of his new office to his former salary. But it

was necessary to provide that, on being a of the Navy on his superannuation allowsecond time removed from office, the an-ance, and had afterwards been appointed nuity should stand in the same position as to the Commissionership of Greenwich the second salary. If the clause was not Hospital and superannuated or pensioned inserted in the Bill, Sir Richard Brom- on the abolition of that office, he would be ley would, apparently, be able to claim to in a better position than if the Minute have no deduction made from his super- which had been referred to had not been annuation, whatever deduction was legally made. The Minute intended to make a made from it while he held office. Thus liberal arrangement for Sir Richard Bromhe would, receive more for doing nothing, ley, but it was rather an injury to him than while in office; a state of things than a favour. He hoped, after what had which he felt the House would be indisposed fallen from the Attorney General and the to tolerate. Sir Richard Bromley was at hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers), the case present in receipt of a total sum of £1,600, would be fairly considered by the Governand that income, so long as he is Auditor ment, and that the House would be spared of Prize Accounts, he would still retain. the necessity of dividing on the clause, on With respect to the supposed hardship of the understanding that Sir Richard Bromthe Treasury decision, he was obliged to ley's legal rights, whatever they were, explain to the House that at Sir Richard would be preserved to him. Bromley's request, the Duke of Somerset had already made up to him all he could claim. On the 12th of June, 1863, and subsequently to his acceptance of the office of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital, Sir Richard Bromley wrote to the Duke of Somerset stating that he understood that a pension had been granted to him of £1,000 a year, calculated upon his salary of £1,300 a year. Sir Richard Bromley complained of the condition which was insisted on-that his salary as Commissioner of the Hospital and his pension together should not exceed the £1,300 a year which he had previously enjoyed as Accountant General of the Navy. He then requested to be allowed. to retain his £300 as Auditor of Prize Accounts, an office which he regarded as PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT

having been conferred upon him personally, and not in his capacity of Accountant General. In accordance with this request he was allowed to retain the office of Auditor, which till then had been combined with that of Accountant General, and it enabled him to receive the £1,600 which he had before received. He (Mr. Childers) asked whether that proposal of Sir Richard Bromley-in consequence of the decision of the Treasury-and the acceptance of the proposal by the Duke of Somerset to allow him to receive £1,600 per annum up to this time, as provided in the Bill, did not do justice to that officer.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he hoped after what had fallen from the Attorney General, who had dealt very fairly with the case, that the Government would concede to Sir Richard Bromley whatever was due to him in point of law.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he was not prepared to enter into any condition.

Question put, "That Clause 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided :-Ayes 124; Noes 67: Majority 57.

Bill to be read 3° To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

(1856) AMENDMENT BILL-[BILL 219.]

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Sir Robert Peel.)

MR. BAGWELL said, he opposed the Motion. If it were really necessary at this late period of the Session to pass a measure on the subject it ought only to be a continuance Bill for a single year. Let a Bill for the registration of arms be separately introduced; and let them no longer be compelled, as they had been at the Tipperary assizes, to convict lads simply for having percussion caps or bullets in their pocket.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, he wished to say a few words, as the justice of Her Majesty's Government had been called into question. With regard to MR. BRADY said, he opposed this Bill, the liberality of the Government, he might as he had constantly done for years, believ state that if Sir Richard Bromley had re-ing that it degraded the people of Ireland. tired from the office of Accountant General Originally this had been called a Crime