The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-25 00:00:00

one introduced in the last Session, in which it was pro-
vided that Mr. Scarlet should received the compensation
proposed. The Hon. Gentleman was not correct in
stating that there was any compromise. It was neces-
sary to make the appointment. Lord Abinger was in
possession of all the legal rights to enable him to make
that apointment, and he appointed a member of his own
family, who, upon receiving that appointment, relin-
quished certain valuable rights. Parliament was nc-w
about to extinguish the office,'and in doing so he thought
it ought to uct upon the same principle that regulated
the abolition of other offices. He thought Mr. Scarlett
had just claims to compensation, and that it would be a
dangerous thing to say that the notice of the intention
of the House to abolish an office should deprive a party
appointed to it aof any compensation.
Mr. AGLIONBY said nothing could be more just
than the request of the Right Hon. Baronet that
they would put aside all political considerations, but
were the Hon. Gentleman opposite his dearest friend he
hoped and trusted .he should vote then as now against
him. If personal considerations had any weight he
feared it would • be to induce Hon, Members to vote
out of their respect and kindness for the individual.
He would, therefore, warn Hon. Gentlemen on both sides
against allowing their personal feelings to bias their
judgment on this question, which was not only im-
portant in a pecuniary point of view, but in principle.—
(Hear, hear.) It was said Mr. Scarlett had given up
offices to take this appointment, but no one had deigned
to inform the House what those offices were, and what
was the pecuniary emolument derived from them.—
(I-fear, hear.) Let not the Committee be misled, but
require that some Hon. Member should state the nature
of those offices to the Committee. One of them (which
could scarcely be called an office) was that of Counsel
to the Mint. There was no reason to suppose that any
Gentleman had performed his duty better than did the
Honourable Gentleman, but he had always un-
derstood that the Honourable Gentleman took
the appointment, believing that the office would not
exist for many years, and he must therefore have done
so upon a calculation of profit and loss. If that were so
there could be no claim for compensation. The Solicitor-
General had alluded to some understanding on account
of the loss of the emolument of the former ()likes, but if
compensation were to be given on this account, it would
be more reasonable to give compensation for that loss
than for the loss sustained by the abolition of this office,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the Hon. Gentle-
man had misunderstood him. He was mistaken in sup.
posing that he said that the offices previously held by
Mr. Scarlett were any reason for giving him compensa-
tion in that Bill. He (the Solicitor-General) had said
that Mr. Scarlett was in justice entitled to the compen-
sation, because he held an office in the Court of Ex-
chequer which was abolished by the Bill. The Hon.
Member for Sheffield said that the Lord Chief Baron
ought not to have filled the office up, but by the Act of
Parliament the Lord Chief -Baron was bound to do so.
If, then, he took a practising barrister, whether he held
the situation of Counsel to the Mint or not, he must give
up some practice and emolument, and he should therefore
like to know if such a person were not as much entitled
to compensation for the loss of his office as any other
person. With regard to the nature of the offices he
held, he (the Solicitor-General) had never laid any
stress upon them at all, but he held the appointment of
counsel to several public bodies, which he neces-
sarily gave up upon his appointment to this
office. With respect to the 58th clause, it was stated to
him by Major Scarlett that it had been acceded to by
the friends of his brother, on the ground that, as a Peer of
the realm, he could not hold the office. He could not pro=
perly be entitled to compensation after lie became one.
After this explanation he trusted the Hon. Gentleman
would not press a division.
Mr. HAWES said did he did not doubt the clause
would be carried by a large majority, but that was no
reason why Hon. Gentlemen who disapproved of it
should not have an opportunity of recording their votes
against it. lie wished the Right Hon. Gentleman had
stated whether the Lord Chief Baron might not have a
temporary appointmeut.—(llear, hear.) Of that he (Mr.
Hawes) believed there was no doubt. The Right Hon.
Geetlem:.n had spoken of the appointment as merely
the exercise of the patronage belonging to the head of
the Court, but he thought this patronage should not be
considered as part of the emolument of the office, and
that they should know whether 7,0001. a year was or
was not sufficient for the salary of the Lord Chief
Baron.—(Hear, hear.) If this principle of the right to
appoint relatives were admitted, what became of the ar-
gument about professional skill and knowledge.—(Hear,
hear.) He trusted the House would uphold the prin-
ciples of economy, and second the amendment.—(Hear.)
Mr. WATSON said, that .when the Bill was first
brought in. and before the appointment, there was a
general understanding that the office would be abolished.
The proper mode of making the appointment, therefore,
would have been to have made it for and during the
exi,tence of the office.—(Hear.) This was done in
1830, in the case of the Welsh Judicature ; for by that
Act the judges and officers subsequently appointed were
not entitled to compensation, but the others were.—
(Ikar.) The arguments used, if followed out, would
amount to this, that if an appointment was made that
evening, the person appointed would have a claim for
compensation.—(Hear.)
The CHANCELLO.3 of the EXCHEQUER said
the Bill, as originally. introduced, had no clause on the
subject, but a clause was introduced in Committee by the
late Chancellor of the Exchequer, limiting the compensa-
tion in the scanner that had been suggested.
Sir R. PEEL said the doctrine he had held was not
novel. That on the abolition of patronage attached to a
,judicial office, it was but right to consider that patronage
in granting compensation. This doctrine was not move:
but recognised by statute.

Sir Gr:GßEY'said the offices recognised by the sta-
tote were distinctly- saleable ones.—(Hear.)
Mr. WARD asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether he was willing to accede to the limitation of
compensation assented to by the late Chancellor of the
Exchequer?,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that was not the point.--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. WOOD said, on the last debate the late Chan-
cellur of the Exchequer had voted against the amend-
meat of the present Solicitor-General, because the So-
licitor-General would not accede to the suggestion to
limit the compensations according to his suggestion.
Lord PALMERSTON said he thought it would be
satisfactory to the House to have a distinct answer to the
.question just put by the Hon. Member fur Sheffield.
- The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said lie
was quite ready to answer that question, because he did
not vote for the clause without having satisfied himself
as .to the grounds on which he did so. He was not pre-
pared to vote against it to suit any temporary purpose.
—(Hear, hear.) Ho believed the Lord Chief Baron had
a perfect legal right to appoint to the office, and he be-
lieved Mr. Scarlett was properly appointed. No person
had been induced to resign in his favour, the office hav-
ing become vacant by death, and having been so ap-
pointed, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought
that, in conformity with all precedent, he had a right to
compensation.—(Hear, hear.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause
For the amendment Bl
Majority for the clause 59
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The remaing clauses were then agreed to, and the Re-
port was ordered to be received on Monday next.
STATE OF THE COUNTRY.
Sir G. CLERIC having moved that the House should
resolve itself into a Committee of Supply;
Mr. P. STEWART rose pursuant to 'notice to call the
attention of the House to the petition presented on the
olst of September from the Provost, Magistrates'' 'and
Town Council of Paisley, on the present distressed con-
dition of the manufacturers of the county of Renfrew.
He believed that the inhabitants of Paisley had not made
the complaints which the petition contained upon slight
grounds. The manufacturers of Renfrewshire had
signed three memorials on the subject of the grievances
which they suffered. The first of these memorials had
been forwarded to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty
might not be pleased to prorogue parliament until some
remedy were devised by the Legislature for their dis-
tressed condition ; the second had been forwarded to the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Depart-
ment, as well as to the Government to which
he belonged ; and the third, was the petition
which had been laid on the table of the Hon's%
on Tuesday last. The petition described in plane
and unexaggerated language a scene of distress
and suffering, which in his (Mr. Stewart's) opinion was
entitled to the favourable consideration of the Legisla-
ture. He might add, that the petition spoke the senti-
ments of the entire county of Renfrew. It stated that
tha failure of manufacturers in the district., within the
last few months, involved a sum of 700,0001. They
ascribed that state of things to the fact of foreign mar-
lets having been closed on them, while the remedy which
had been hold out to them had bean refused by Parlia-
ment. They stated that 650 heads of families were now
oat of employment, which, of course, arose from a want of
laboar. they further stated, that disease, and suffering,
and death were increasing to an appalling extent, while
medical men attributed that either to a want of food, or
to the interior quality of food consumed.- It appeared
that hundreds of retail shops were closed, and one thou-
sand two hundred looms were standing still. Private
sources of relief had been frequently applied to, and had
been as frequently exhausted ; so that no course was now
left to the starving operatives, but to entreat the Legis-
lature of the country to take their case into its considera-
tion. lie had himself received communications from in-
habitants of Paisley and Johnstone, well-informed on
the subject, which confirmed the statements of the peti-
tion. They alleged that such a state of things as that
under which they were suffering could hardly be sup-
posed to arise from any other cause than war or pesti-
lence, and they attributed the evil to the monopolies in
tide to which the country was subject. The fact
was, that the best tradesmen in the country had trans-
ported theirselves to America or other countries, while
a large portion of the houses and shops were unoccu-
pied. The funds of the Friendly Societies were now
exlnaisted, and nothing remained for the operatlyes buto_
to. sink to the condition of paupers.--(Criesaree.t.
" liter.") In the town of Johnstone,
that
tappuet of 1 t 6
from another communication he had received, a
e thanc: cotton-mills, nf mu
four
hundred, one-fourth
fourwu
rtandi:
10. no°po
pmtiore
tion, were at present employed..
('re
of operation,
)thse labouring
at 'a fearful rate amongst th4,:sun
_ciency
on the inferior
attrilutable solely to the
ihiabiietat'isits°,‘6asadsptWantdwinags
such a state of things w.
nity and religion An mina
And 1
quality of their food. No,w,,,:snahriesp(riVolacr.hSttomavacrth'sr)ist:ipat
co; ntry.—(hear, e
ibneoivi o
thatnp tl
massyand
ofeffi efficiently
:;(,, (flied rbe3d,.tthhea t
6vernmfonr our industrious artisans. The
by opening markets
Gsometlhiinaegr.ts)htooulrcel
titioners from Paisley stated that they would be want-
n their duty if they did not lay their case before
l' g l
iirliament, in order that it might be taken into imme-
diate consideration. They prayed the House not to ad-
journ until they 4ensidered the subject with a view to