The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-24 00:00:00

Sir NV. FOLLETT would certainly object to a'y
clause to restrain Masters in Chancery from sittirg in
Parliament.

Mr. E WART supported the clause.
Mr. C. BULLER said that his only objection to the
speech of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter,
was that it had not been delivered last Session, when the
motion was made with respect to the Learned Judge of the
Admiralty Court.--( Hear, hear.)
Sir W. FOLLE rT replied that he was not present on
that occasion, but bad he been in the House he should
certainly have voted against the motion.—( Hear, hear, )
After a few words from Mr. HUME, the clause gas
agreed to.
On clause 52 being proposed, -
Mr. HUME said be would take this opportunity of
suggesting to the Noble Lord the propriety of laying
before the House an annual account of the Suitor's Fund.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the Hon. Gen-
tleman might easily attain his object' by moving for the
return. He had no objection to lay before the House an
annual account of the fund in question.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 56 was struck out, and a new one in lieu thereof
proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, empower-
ing the Lord Chief Baron and the Treasury to grant com-
pensation to officers of the Court of Exchequer, super-
seded by the present Bill, who held their offices prior to
14th of March, 1840, and who the Right Hon. Gentle-
man stated had paid money for their situations.
Sir W. FOLLETT opposed the clause. He thought
the officers of the Court of Exchequer were entitled to
compensation. It would be a most unfair thing to intro-
duce a precedent of this kind in the present instance. He
hoped the House would feel this was a case without prece-
dent, and that the House would deal here as in every similar
case in which persons were deprived of compensation by
the Legislature. It would be most unwise to introduce
such a precedent as it would excite opposition ;to Bills of
this nature. He should therefor.: move that the date
should be omitted in the clause, and that all officers in
the Court of Exchequer, affected by the Act should be
entitled to compensation.
The CHANCELLORof the EXCHEQUER said it
would be a dangerous principle to adopt, that any person
in possession of an office at the passing of an Act affect-
ing it, should be as much entitled to compensation as any
person who had held that office for 40 or 50 years. He
had nc personal feelings on the subject one way or the
other. He only wished the question to be settled, and
whatever might be the decision of the House, he should be
satisfied.

Mr. G OUL BURN said he objected to this proposition
upon the principle it involved. There was a suspicion of
collusion in this case, and a person appointed to a necessary
office was not to be precluded from the rights and emolu-
ments attached to it, because in some antecedent session no-
tice had been given that a Bill would be brought in by
which the office wd'uld be abolished.

Sir ROBERT PEEL also objected to the clause. The
persons who bad purchased their offices in the Court of Ex-
chequer had a vested right in them, and were therefore
entitled to compensation if they were abolished.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER,

Lord J. RUSSELL supported the clause. It was a
question on which different opinions might naturally be
entertained, but ho quite agreed in that taken by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. PEMBERTON did not think that any barrister of
any years' standing *onld have been got to accept the office
upon the terms indicated by the R'ght Hon. the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer. If the clause were not amended
now, it must lead to the throwing out of the measure.
The other House could not make any altration in a money
clause, and they most undoubtedly would not agree to
the Bill if it contained the clause as it now stood.
They were not dealing with the Chief Baron in the same
manner as they did by the Lord Chancellor, when they
abolished the patronage of that office ; if they persisted in
the clause, most undoubtedly the gentleman who now filled
the office would fill it for yet one year and, probably many
more.

Lord J. RUSSELL said the House a Commons could
not agree in the doctrine laid down by the Hon. and
Learned Member ; if they could, then it would amount to a
full transfer to the House of Lords of all power to grant
a compensation ; it was telling them that they were to
have no great remedial measures unless they gave up
their poster of granting and regulating compensation.—
( Cheers.) That was a course which he was not prepared
to take.

Sir E. SUG DEN said the Noble Lord had entirely
forgotten what was the course of proceeilings with respect
to this Bill during the last session. The House of Lcrds
lastyear consented to abolish the Court of Exchequer with.
out inserting any compensation clauser.
Mr. J. JERVIS would vote for the amendment,
on the ground that the Chief Baron had a right to
make the appointment, therefore the person appointed
had a right to compensation.

Mr. C. BULLER also supported the amendment.
They ought to reward liberally those whose appointments
were ablished by the progress of Reform. The officers of
the Exchequer hal acted nobly in respect to this Bill, and
Mr. Scarlet was entitled to compensation, because Lord
Abinger had a clear right to take advantage of what had
befallen him.

Mr. HUME recapitulated the circumstances under
which
,Mr. Scarlett was appointed, and contended that he
was clearly not entitled to any compensation.
Mr. CRESSWELL supported the amendment on the
same ground as the Hon. Member for Chester.

Mr..' HAWES hoped the Noble Lord would persevere
in dividing the Committee in support of the clause.
Mr. V. STUART said he believed Mr. Scarlett had
given up a situation of 5001. per annum to take the ap-
pointment in question.
Major SCA RLETT said the gentleman in question
had given up the situations of Counsel to the Mint and the
Post-office, and was certainly entitled to compensation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
perhaps it might be as well to leave a discretionary power
with the Treasury, to grant a limited compensation to
Mr. Scarlett.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared—

For the clause ..
70
For the amendment 73
Majority for the amendment

Mr. IIAYTE it said, as the clause then stood, a com-
pensation amounting to three-fourths of the salary and
emoluments was to be granted to the party during his life.
Now, it might happen that, in the case of Mr. Scarlett he
might be cared to the Home of Lords, and in such a case
it would be proper that the compensation should cease.
He proposed, therefore, that the time during which the
compensation than to be paid be discretionary with the
Treasury.

After somo discussion the amendment was withdrawn.
The House then resumed, the Chairman reported pro-
gress, and asked leave to sit again on Monday next.
THE HULKS.

Lord MAHON begged to put a question to the Noble
Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies relative to
the number of convicts confined in the Hulks. The House
would recollect that on the 23d March last a resolution
was passed by the House of Comrrions on that subject, and
he wished to know from the Noble Lord whether the Go-
vernment had taken any steps for the purpose of carrying
that resolution into effeeP. He need not remind the
House that the number of convicts had increased since
the Ist of February, 1838, from 1,700 to upwards of 3,000,
and he wished to know whether it was intended to reduce
that number?

Lord J. RUSSELL having on the occasion deferred to
epee(' with the Noble Lord that the large increase in the
number of convicts was detrimental to them, did not at-
tempt to meet the resolution with a direct negative, but
had moved the previous question, and in a rather thinly
attended House, the Noble Lord had succeded in carry-
ing his motion. The Noble Lord in his speech on a
former occasion, had intimated that he thought it desirable
to found a new settlement in New Holland, expressly fur
the purpose of transportation. That opinion did not ac-
cord with the Report of the Transportation Committee ;
they bad given so such recommendation, and the Govern-
ment would feel the strongest repugnance to such a
course. There were three modes of punishment which
should come under consideration in discussing this ques-
tion—transportation, confinement in the hulks, and con-
finement in penitentiaries. The first had been condemned
by the Committee ; with regard to confinement in
penitentiaries, it was impossible to carry that to
any extent, until buildings for that purpose
had been erected. It seemed necessary therefore fur the
present to increase the number in the hulks. If, however,
the Noble Lord would bring forward a definite motion,
for the purpose of improving the system of transportation,
he would be prepared to give it an attentive consideration.
Lord MAHON said he understood, then, that, there was
to be no alteration in the present system.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it appeared to him desirable
that a certain number, smaller than hitherto, should still
continue to be transported, and that an increased number
should be confined in the hulks, until a better system of
prison discipline should have been devised. He could not
express his views more definitively at present.
Sir R PE EL said the subject before the House,
though always of great importance, was peculiarly so at a
time when there was a great disposition prevailing to
abolish capital punishments. At such a time it was de-
sirable that the system of punishment which was retained
should be the most effective that could be adopted. In
the Committee on this subject, of which he (Sir R. Peel)
was a member, it was proposed entirely and immediately
to abolish the present system of transportation. In that
proposal he did not concur, believing that in the present
state of the country it would be attended with injurious
effucts. He hoped her Majesty's Government, in any
measures which they might propose on this subject,
would consider the possibility of combining severe
punishment with expatriation from this country.
Transportation was a just and legitimate punish-
ment, and was open to none of those objections
which applied to capital punishment. In his (Sir
R. Peel's opinion, if capital punishment was abolished,
it would be necessary, in some form or other, to continue
transportation. He had been as sensible as any of the
Committee of the evils existing in New South Wales, and
he had therefore acceded to the resolution for moderating
and restricting transportation. Still he was afraid if
the Noble Lord relied upon the Hulks or
.the
Penitentiary as a substitute for capital punish-
ments he would be disappointed in the result.
He thought two evils were to be apprehended from the
abolition of transportation, either that the criminal popula-
tion of this country would be led to entertain hopes that
intervention
of an appeal to the Government, through the
of their friends, they would obtain a release, or that being
on the spot they would effect their escape. Belsfidteesnnob
laer
jections would raised to the punis.
in.
ing effepunishmentet of the
crlfl
Peni-
tentiary even under the soundest
the s reforming dl
twelve cases of alienation of intellect should arise from the
system, it would meet with great objections. Neither
did lie place any reliance upon
the best system of prison discipline that could be adopted.
Prisoners might, in the hope of obtaining indulgence,
behave with decorum during their confinement ; and yet
from their inability to obtain employment in consequence
of their imprisonment, they might afterwards return to
their old practices, That was in his opinion a strong ob.