8.—17.

The law details the nature and limit of certain privileges of officers, the mode in which they accrue, and the circumstances under which compensation may be obtained for their loss. It is nevertheless maintained peremptorily by the Legal Advisor of the Crown that the rights which the law has thus expressly invested in certain officers can be utterly lost by the strained interpretation of an Act, which no one for a moment supposes was intended to deprive them of a legal right. Tho opinion of a legal adviser has only the weight that is duo to his knowledge and genius, while common logic dictates that, where words bind, express words are required to loosen, and, without them, that the obligation continues. Besides, a privilege should be interpreted very liberally. On tho other hand, a disability which does not arise out of any act or default of an officer himself, but out of the Act of law, must be restricted to the plain intention of the Legislature. But in the cases under consideration tho practice is reversed. The sanctioned privileges are capriciously challenged as of no consideration, and are circumscribed by the sharpest limitation; while the supposed disability is strained by the advocate to its utmost, and thus the rights of thirty years' growth are dismissed without any expression of doubt. Cuaiiles KuiGHT, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary. Commissioner of Audit. Befeeeed to the Solicitor-General. —G-. S. Cooper.—23rd September, 1876. Seen.— "VV. S. Eeid.—2nd October, 187 G. Kefebbed to the Solicitor-General.—C. T. Batkin. —26th October, 1876. I have given this matter very careful consideration, and have come to the conclusion that retiring allowances can only, be claimed under the Acts of 1858 and 1801 in respect of offices held prior to the passing of the Act of 18GC. So long as a person holds the office he held at the time of the passing of the Act of 1866, he would be entitled to the privileges by that Act preserved to him; but, where subsequently to that Act such person accepts a new office, I think he cannot, in respect of the new office, claim the privileges of the Acts of 1858 and 1861. Our colonial Statutes have no such provisions as are to be found in many of the Imperial Statutes relating to superannuation allowances, where provision is made for giving allowances where the service has been continued in various offices and various departments (vide 22 Viet., cap. 26, sec. 12, 23 and 24 Viet., cap. 89; 32 and 33 Viet., cap. GO and 35, and 35 and 36 Viet., cap. 12.) My former opinion, referred to by Dr. Knight, was to the effect I have stated above, although there were other circumstances in that case which affected my opinion. lam quite aware that, in giving this opinion, lam dealing with a question which materially concerns the Civil Service as a whole, and probably departing from what has hitherto been the general opinion and practice; but, in such a matter, I conceive it to be my duty to give an opinion on tho strict legal aspect of the matter as it presents itself to me. It is not my function to interpret the law in accordance with tho equitable or moral rights of parties concerned; and it will be a matter for the Executive Government to consider what measures should be taken to obviate the difficulty which has arisen.—W. S. Keid.—3rd November, 1876. I am of opinion that, in its legal aspect, as a matter of interpretation of Statutes, the above opinion of the Solicitor-General is correct in stating the law as it stands at present. At the same time I feel quite certain that Mr. Gisborne, and other officers similarly situated, have a clear moral claim which the Legislature, or the Act of 18G6 and subsequent Acts, have inadvertently overlooked and not provided for. Had the matter been specially brought under notice, I have no doubt the usual provision would have been made, enabling officers to count all their years of service, though continuity of office might have been broken by the abolition of one office and tho creation of another, the officer holding the former being appointed to the latter. Such, no doubt, was the intention of the Legislature, though it has failed to express it. The only remedy, it appears to me, is a declaratory Act of the Assembly; I think that should be prepared, as soon as tho Assembly meets again.—Peed. "VViiitakee. —6th November, 1876. Me. McGowAJf.—Will you please tell me the amounts Mr. Gisborno has been drawing since he left the Ministry in 1872 and took charge of the Government Insurance Office: e.r/., 1872-73, £700 per annum ; 1873-74, £800 per annum ; 1874-75, £800 per annum ?—II. Williamson. Feom 11th September, 1872, to 30th June, 1873, at £700, £563 17s. lOd.; from Ist July, 1873, to 30th June, 1874, at £700, £700; from Ist July, 1874, to 30th June, 1875, at £800, £800; from Ist July, 1875, to 30th June, 1876, at £800, £800; from Ist July, 1876, to 30th September, 1876, at £800 per annum, £200: total, £3,063 17s. 10d.—J. McGowax.—lsth November, 1876. The papers in the case of Mr. Gisborne's pension have been referred to me for the first time. I have no hesitation in deciding that Mr. Gisborne holds, for the purpose under consideration, the same office to which he was originally appointed. By the third section of " The Government Insurance Act, 1874," " the title of the office of Government Annuities Commissioner "is changed. If the title of an office is changed it follows that the offiVe in not abolished. Further, the Act requires that the Governor shall appoint the Commissioner by warrant, but that Mr. Gisborne should continue Commissioner " without further appointment." I am unable to construe these words in any other sense than that it was the clear intention of Parliament that the officer in question should be deemed to hold a continuous appointment. It is desirable that it should bo distinctly stated what are the duties of the Commissioners of Audit in the matter of pensions. Pensions are granted by the Governor on tho advice of his Ministers, limited by law. The sole duty of the Commissioners is to say whether they will refuse to issue a pension so granted, on the grounds that the issue is not in accordance with law. It is usual to refer the claims to the Commissioners of Audit before the pension is granted, but this is

13