can they consent to do so. v. 1884. In addressing their awards to the THE JUSTICES Home Office, and not to the late prison authorities, my Lords OF MIDDLESEX have believed themselves to be complying with the view of the THE QUEEN. Secretary of State;" and so on. That I think seems to show that the view upon which the Treasury have acted, and all officers have acted, upon which pensions have actually been Prisons Act, paid and the payment passed through the Audit Office, has 1877-Superbeen this, that, except when an exceptional reason has required annuation. information to be given to Parliament, the ordinary procedure should be followed in all respects, and that this ordinary procedure amounts to a grant and an award of a pension, and I cannot but think that, when we bear that in mind, as we properly may in connection with the language of the clause, we can see our way to distinguish between that which operates as a grant to the pensioner and that which ought to be done by the granting authority for the purpose of giving information to Parliament in certain cases. The clause begins with the words, "It shall be lawful for the Commissioners of the Treasury to grant to any person retiring or removed from the public service in consequence of the abolition of his office," and so forth, "such special annual allowance by way of compensation" as they consider proper. I need not follow the terms of the clause at this moment. Now we must consider the question as between the Treasury and the grantee. It would be a most serious thing if he should suffer for any neglect of those things which are to be done in any particular case by the Commissioners of the Treasury, of which he has no knowledge, for which he has no responsibility, and over which he can have no control. The correspondence which I have read shows distinctly that as a general rule the uniform practice of all the Government Departments is to consider the grants or the awards of pensions as made in the manner in which they have been made in this particular case, and I cannot but ask the question in those cases in which the Treasury ought to make a special minute for the purpose of being laid before Parliament, assuming, as I suppose we must assume, that the words "special minute" have some technical meaning, and that such letters as those which I have read do not come within it-I would ask, I say, the question, How is it possible that the title of an officer to his pension can be held to depend upon a thing resting with the Commissioners of the Treasury alone, upon minutes to be made by them in their own proper minute-books in their own department, to which the Acts of Parliament do not give the pensioner, as far as I can see, any right of access, and which they do not even require to be communicated to the pensioner, because they only require that they shall be laid before Parliament? With those preliminary considerations we have to approach the words which relate to this special minute: "If the compensation shall exceed" a certain sum-I need not enter into the details-" such allowance shall be granted by special minute stating the special grounds for v. 1884. annuation. THE JUSTICES granting such allowance, which minute shall be laid before OF MIDDLESEX Parliament." It seems to me that the object of that is to THE QUEEN. account for the excess, and to account for it by reasons to be communicated to Parliament, and that in the nature of the case it is not intended to affect the validity of the grant, at all events Prisons Act, as far as relates to that which is not in excess, and which, if 1877-Super- granted alone, would not require any special minute at all. But I do not shrink from going further than that, nor from saying that if that which is granted might properly be granted, and if the grant or the award is made, as far as the officer is concerned, in the usual manner, and communicated to him in the usual manner, I do not think that the neglect of the Treasury, or of their proper officer, to record in their proper books a special minute, or their neglect to lay that special minute before Parliament, need be construed as nullifying what otherwise would be a valid grant and award of a pension made and announced to the pensioner in a form which is sufficient in all other cases. Therefore I think that your Lordships, without doing any real violence either to the spirit or to the language of the Act of Parliament, may dispose of that argument in a manner which certainly would avoid consequences in the last degree inconvenient, and I may add unjust, which otherwise might possibly result. That argument being out of the way, it appears to me that the rest of the case may be disposed of without much difficulty. I will first refer to the arguments raised upon the clauses of the Act of 1877. Clause 36 of that Act in its first paragraph speaks of a case of superannuation after a certain length of service, or after a certain age has been attained, but it also applies that very term "superannuation allowance " to other cases which do not come within the natural and proper idea of the mere word "" superannuation," namely, cases of incapacity from "sickness, age, or infirmity, or injury received in the actual execution of duty," all of which are contingencies independent of mere age, independent of mere length of service, and therefore to which the term "superannuation allowance" can only be applied in a secondary and not strictly etymological sense. That of itself seems to me to go a considerable way towards destroying the foundation of the main argument advanced at your Lordships' bar, which was this, that the term "superannuation" or superannuation allowance" is used throughout this and other Acts in a technical sense inapplicable to the case in which an officer is retired and put upon a pension for the reason that his office is abolished, or that his retirement will facilitate improvements in the organisation of the department. I confess I can see no reason in the nature of things, or in the original meaning of the term, why what is granted upon compulsory retirement, or upon a retirement with the consent of the officer because it is desirable to abolish his office or to reorganise his department, should not be called a superannuation allowance, as much as in a case in which he retires not because he has v. 1884. attained a certain age or has served for a certain number of years, THE JUSTICES but because he has suffered accidental injury in the service, or OF MIDDLESEX has fallen into sickness or other infirmity. Then the next section THE QUEEN. of clause 36 is this, and this is the section which I think is applicable to the present case: "If any office in any prison to which this Act applies is abolished, or any officer is retired or Prisons Act, removed, any existing officer of a prison who by reason of such 1877-Superabolition, retirement, or removal is deprived of any salary or annuation. emoluments, shall be dealt with in manner provided by the Superannuation Act, 1859, with respect to a person retiring or removed from the public service in consequence of the abolition of his office, or for the purpose of facilitating improvements in the organisation of the department to which he belongs." That in effect means that such a case as that with which we are now dealing should be dealt with under sect. 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1859. Paragraph 3 of clause 36 in the Act of 1877 deals with "prison service," which is there defined, and we then come to the particular words upon which so much argument was offered to your Lordships: "Any annuity by way of superannuation allowance or gratuity granted under this section shall be apportioned between the period of service before the commencement of this Act and the period of service after the commencement of this Act, and so much of such annuity or allowance as is payable in respect of service before the commencement of this Act, regard being had to the amount of salary then paid, but without taking into account any number of years added to the officer's service on account of abolition of office, or for facilitating the organisation of the department, shall be paid by the prison authority of the prison in which the officer to whom such annuity or allowance is granted was serving at the date of the commencement of this Act, out of rates which at or immediately before the commencement of this Act were applicable to the payment of the salary of such officer, and the residue shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament." Now it was insisted, as I understood the argument, that because that portion of the clause begins with the words "any annuity by way of superannuation allowance or gratuity granted under this section," the apportionment provided for would only be applicable to a case in which the retirement is after a certain length of service or a certain age, or from incapacity by reason of sickness, age, infirmity, or injury received in the execution of the office, as to which it is indeed true that in the first paragraph of the section there are the words "an annuity by way of superannuation allowance, or a gratuity," the same words which we have in this fourth paragraph. The argument was, that those words occurring in both those places mean the same thing in both, and therefore that they mean in the second place neither more nor less than they mean in the first, and are inapplicable to any of the cases mentioned in the second paragraph of the section, and therefore to the case now before your Lordships' House. Now I cannot but think v. THE QUEEN. annuation. THE JUSTICES that that argument sticks to the letter, and loses sight entirely of OF MIDDLESEX the spirit and substance of the clause. I am not sure whether I should have been able to say so if there had been nothing in the context of the paragraph itself to make the matter clear, because 1884. then undoubtedly there would have been force in the observation Prisons Act, that the words "any annuity by way of superannuation allowance 1877-Super- or gratuity" are the very same words which occur in the first paragraph of the section, and do not occur in the section elsewhere. I confess that that is the only argument which would have had much weight with me, even if the context had not made, as it does to my mind make, the matter perfectly clear, because, although it may be very true that on account of the natural and original meaning of the word " superannuation " there may be particular clauses in some of the Acts upon this subject which give a more limited meaning to that word than others, on the other hand there are some clauses which appear to me to justify, and even to require, a larger meaning, and I cannot but say that the mere fact that the Act of Parliament which is expressly here referred to as the Act by which the grant of a pension in such a case as that now before your Lordships is to be regulated is called "The Superannuation Act of 1859," and is referred to here by title, goes a very long way to repel the narrow and technical interpretation which the argument of the appellant seems to put upon that word "superannuation." The Legislature thought that all the cases of pensions provided for by the Act came within the sense of the word " superannuation," as conveniently and popularly used, sufficiently to make that short title a good general description of all that was done by the Act. But I need not dwell upon that point, because it seems to me that upon the very face of this clause the Legislature has manifested in the most unequivocal manner possible an intention to include in these words "any annuity by way of superannuation allowance or gratuity" the particular case provided for by the second paragraph with which your Lordships have now to deal. The words "without taking into account any number of years added to the officer's service on account of abolition of office, or for facilitating the organisation of the department," are applicable to that case, and inapplicable to any other, and the fact that that is not to be taken into account shows plainly that but for that exclusion it might have been taken into account in the view of the Legislature, and therefore those are cases within the purview and intent of this particular paragraph. That argument of the appellants therefore appears to me entirely to fail. I now come to the remaining arguments. The argument upon sect. 53 was this: that this particular officer would not have been entitled to such an allowance as that which has been awarded him under the Prison Act, 1865. The section is: "Nothing in this Act contained shall entitle any existing officer of a prison to any superannuation or other allowance, the conditions of whose office would not have entitled him to superannuation or other v. 1884. annuation. allowance under the Prison Act, 1865." But the conditions of THE JUSTICES such an office as this would have entitled this officer to a super- OF MIDDLESEX annuation or other allowance under the Prison Act, 1865; that is THE QUEEN. to say, would have entitled him in the only sense in which anybody could have been entitled; it would have been in the power of the proper authorities to give it to him. And the Prisons Act, section does not say that he shall not be entitled to any other or 1877-Supergreater superannuation allowance than he could have obtained. under the Prison Act, 1865, but that unless he is an officer holding such an office as would have brought him within the superannuation provisions of the Act of 1865, he shall not be brought within those provisions of the Act. But Col. Colvill was an officer who would have been within those provisions, and being such an officer he gets the full benefit of the provisions of this Act. That argument, therefore, entirely fails. Then we come to the argument upon the Act of 1859. Now I do not think it advisable without necessity to enter into a question upon which possibly some of your Lordships may not take the same view as I do. I have certainly formed a pretty clear and decided opinion as to what is the meaning of the hypothesis in sect. 7 of the Act of 1859, upon which the necessity for a special warrant depends, and I certainly do think that contemplates this case, that there is an amount ascertained which it is proposed to award by way of compensation to the officer under that section, which would exceed the amount to which he would be entitled calculated upon the principles of sect. 2 with ten years added to his actual period of service, and it does not appear to me I confess, at present, though I do not think it at all necessary for your Lordships to decide the question, that that can be expanded into anything more than ten years by anything which is done, or by any right or title derived by the officer under sect. 4. But that point your Lordships, in my opinion, need not determine, because it is admitted here as a matter of fact that nothing has been apportioned against the justices of the annuity granted to Col. Colvill excepting the amount to which he would be entitled in respect of length of service computed upon the principles of sect. 2 of the Act of 1859, and the additions made, if properly made, under sect. 4 of the same Act; and the question is whether those are matters which, according to the true interpretation of the Act of 1877, can properly be chargeable upon the county by way of apportionment. No question arises as to the amount computed upon the actual length of service under sect. 2; it is admitted, upon the assumption of there being a valid grant of pension at all, that it was apportionable as it has been apportioned against the county. But the question arises under sect. 4. Now sect. 4 of the Act of 1859 provided this, that by a general order or warrant the Treasury might direct that when any person now holding an office coming within any of certain classes should retire from the public service, a number of years not exceeding twenty, to be specified in the |