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

BILL.

On the order of the day being read for receiving the
P.eport on this Bill,
Colonel SIBTHOHr rose- and said, that the proposed
annuity of 3,5001. appeared to him exorbitant. He
would not, however, divide the House on the subject, as
he felt assured it would be useiltehsstthoedoHsoon..
and Gallant
Mr. EWART coincided with
Colonel in thinking the proposed anonocuitisthooonlladrghe sub-
stituted and
he would propose that the sum of 3
for 3,500/.
Mr. WILLIAMS seconded the proposition.
Mr. EWART moved as an amendment
instead of 3,5001, be the retiring pension
otfhatht.
the Vice-
Chancellor.
Chancellor.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER con-
ceived the duties of the Vice-Chancellor to be equally
arduous and important as those of the other Judges,
to whom a retiring pension of thesame amount
as that now proposed to be given to the Vice-Chancellor
was granted. It Was nut fitting that any difference should
_oes
be made between the emoluments of the inferior Judges
and thus(' of the Judge who filled the important office of
Vice-Chancellor.
Mr. WAKLEY said he should like to know where
they would begin to practise economy. According to the
argument uf the. Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, a necessity would always arise for such
extravagant expenditure. Now, considering the state of
the finances of this country, considering that there was
no money to bestow, but that, in fact, they had got money
to borrow, be thought the sum proposed was preposte-
rously hig`i. Ho Was.sorry that his Hon. Friend opposite
(Mr. Ewwat) had not proposed a lesser sum. He (Mr. W.)
thought that 2,000 t. a- year would be enough for a retiring
pension. it would, indeed, be a profuse sum, considering the
bankrupt state of our finances. Ile was sorry the pre-
sent Administration had not made. a beginning on the
subject. The last Session they were all committed to
the stub, and in, blame was du,
to the present Adminis-
tration then nt least. But if the two parties would thus
go in couples, the public would begin to ask which of the
two was the worst? It was said if they did not hold
out high er2ectations they would command zreat talent.
Prom has Wakley's) experience he must say that he
found gTeat difficulty in meeting with a barrister who made
three o r :lair thousand pounds a year by his profession.
He was. iii:."avour of rewarding the Judges amply for their

services, but he thought the sum proposed, considering the
amount of their salary, was too high for a retiring pension
The Lord Chancellor's salary was 14,0001., and his re-.
tiring allowance was 5,0001. a year. Why, such a suns
was really preposterous, considering the miserable con-
dition of the working classes. The necessaries they eat
were taxed to pay those enormous salaries, which
was a reflection upon Parliament. Their bread,
their sugar—all that they consumed, was taxed,
to make up these enormous salaries. He did ho e,
although he did not expect, the House would adopt the
suggestion, trifling as it was, as an indication of some-
thing to be done in future. _ _

Sir R. PEEL said the House was well aware of the
' circumstances under which the Bill was proposed
by the late Administration, for the purpose of pro-
viding some remedy for the enormous evils
arising from the accumulation of business in the
Court of Chancery—evils accompanying the denial
of justice, and arising not from the neglect of the judicial
authorities. for they were admitted to be most competent
in the discharge of their duties, but from the impossibility
of their transacting the extensive and complicated busi-
' ness of the Court of Chancery. He was quite sure that
it would be the worst economy to make incompetent officers.
Unless they procured from the bar two men of great
eminence for the discharge of these duties, they would
not be properly performed. The Hon. Gentleman said he
never knew a lawyer who was worth 3,0001. or 4,0001. a
year to the public ; but, at the same time, he ad-
mitted the importance, of procuring men of high talent
and great professional learning to fill these offices.
It was on the second point this proposal was made by
the late Government, for if the Judges were inferior to
the Advocates, their decisions would not carry weight
with them, and the consequence would be a temptation
to appeal, and the procrastination of justice. This re-
retiring allowance was the same as that of the Puisne
Judges. He (SirR.P.) had often heard complaint made
of Judges retaining their seats after they became in-
competent to discharge their duties, and he had heard
it frequently stated that it would be a safer economy to
fix such an amount of salary as would induce
Judges voluntartly to retire from the bench before
they became incompetent. It was difficult of
course on a proposal for the reduction of
3001. or 4001. a year to reason upon principle ; but, on
the whole, he believed this subject had been well consi-
dered. He had heard it stated that the salary was hardly
sufficient to insure men of the first eminence, but still
he had positively refused to make any increase to the sa-
lary proposed by the late Administration, since he believed
it to be a just one, and he trusted it would be found
sufficiently liberal to effect this object. It was on thes:a
grounds, and not because it had been proposed by the
late Government, that he had adopted it.—(Hear.)
Sir J. EASTHOPE said that no person could feel
more deeply for the distresses of the people than he did,
and as the representative of constituents who were suf-
fering from the most intense distress, he felt he should
not be doing his duty if he did not insist upon the most
rigid economy. But he was convinced that his constituents,
notwithstanding the intensity of their sufferings—not-
withstanding the depth of their distress—would despise
such paltry economy as that, and would never seek to
remedy their own distresses by rendering less efficient
the administration of justice. That was not a proper
system of economy. It was not of those expenses that
the people complained. What they complained of was,
that they had not the free use of their industry.—(Hear.)
It was of another species of taxation that they com-
plained—a taxation levied not for any services perform-
ed to the State—from which they derived no benefit, and
which, while it fettered their industry, deprived them of
their daily bread.—(Cheers.) The reduction proposed
was one which, while it could do no good in alleviating
the distresses of the country, might do mischief by in-
terfering with the administration of justice. The true
economy was to repeal those laws which tended to im-
poverish the people and which produced distress and
dismay.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it

Majority against it..,

150

-94

The House -then scent into Committee on the Ad-
ministration of Justice Bill ; Mr. GREEN in the Chair.
Clauses up to 16 were agreed to with a few verbal
amendments.

On clause 17 being put,
Mr. NV ATSON wished to know whether any altera-
tion was to be made in the appellant jurisdiction of
the Court of Chancery. As it at present existed,
it was extremely inconvenient, as the appeal was
now from one Judge to the Lord Chancellor.
Snbjects of appeal were now decided by one Judge. He
(Mr. Watson) thought that three out of the five Equity
Judges should be constituted a court of appeal, to which
decisions would be from time to time referred. The
great expense consequent on appeals to the House d
Lords would be thus put an end to, or at least dimi-
nished. He trusted that his Learned Friend (the Attor-
ney-General) would introduce a clause to that effect in
the present Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was not prepared to
deny that there was room for important improvements
in the appeal department of the House of Lords, but he
begged to state distinctly that he had no intention
whatever to introduce any clause of the nature men-
tioned by the Hon. Gentleman opposite into the Bill.
It would be hasty of him to attempt, at present, to legis-
late on the subject..

The clause was then agreed to.
The clauses up to 54 were agreed to.
Clause 54 was struck out.
On Clause 55 (the Compensation Clause to the Hon.
Mr. Scarlett) being read;

Mr. WARD said that the present, he thought, was the
time for making his amendment. He felt hurt at moving.
the amendment in consequence of an Hon. Member
of that House being personally concerned, but the cir-
cumstances of the case were so peculiar that he felt
himself imperatively called on to do so. 'l'he House
would perceive that it bore upon the case of the Honour-
able Member for Horsham, who had been ap-
pointed to an office in the Court of Exchequer.
In consequence of the officer who held the situation be-
fore his appointment having died, that situation was
filled up, by, he believed, Lord Abinger, who gave it to
his son after March 14, when it might be understood that
no compensation was to be bestowed,. notice having
been given that the situation was to be abolished.
It appeared by this clause that it was to the same Chief
Baron, the father of the Hon. Gentleman, in conjunction
with the Commissioners of the Treasury, that the ques-
tion of compensation was to be referred, and sup-
posing the emoluments of office to be from
2,00(1. to 3,00C1., which he understood they
were, the annual charge upon the country would
be from 1,2001. to 1,4001. Now, with a laudable
care of the public interests, they had just
come to a division upon the propriety of reducing,
the salary of the Vice-Chancellor, but here was a ques-
tion involving a much larger sum, and a much higher
principle. This office was conferred after due notice
had been given that changes were to be made in the'
Court, and if they would look at the 58th clause,
where it was provided that it should cease after
the Honourable Member succeeded his father, he
thought it would be found to tell its own story, and that
the charge could not he imposed on the country on fair
grounds. The 58th clause was a very remarkable one,
because if the Hon. Member was entitled to com-
pensation at all, he would be entitled to it after
he became a Peer. He had been told that
there was a tacit understanding with the
former House of Commons, but with that they had no-
thing to do ; and he denied that there had been
any understarding or compromise on the subjecct.
If the Hon. Gentleman were entitled to the compensa-
tion, in God's name let him have it; hut he believed he
was not, and with this conviction he would propose to
insert a proviso that the compensation clause in this
Bill should only apply to those officers who were ap.
pointed to their office prior to the 14th of March, 1840.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Sir F. POLLOCK, after a few words, which were
A-host inaudible in the gallery, said, it was a
mistake to suppose that it was with the entire
concurrence of all parties concerned that the Court of
Exchequer was abolished. Certainly Lord Abinger
was very much disposed to resist it ; and he
believed there were many members of the 'pro-
fession with whom it was a subject of much regret
that there had been such a complete severance
of law and equity. What was the duty of
Lord Abinger when any vacancy occurred ?
The office was one of considerable importance,
requiring much professional skill and knowledge, and
the person who should fill it could not be expected
to take the office for a short or limited period.
Lord Abinger considered that he hadi a right, nay,
that in justice to the public service it was his duty,
to appoint to the situation, and there was no reason
under such circumstances why he should not appoint his
own son, who was eminently qualified to fill it with
honour and credit. That gentleman was then in the
profession and held two appointments of considerable
value, which he had to give up in order to accept the
situation. Suppose the Bill had been abandoned or not
passed, in what situation would Lord Abinger have been
had he not made the appointment ? He (the Attorney
General) considered that he did right, and that Mr.
Scarlett was entitled to compensation the same as any
other officer. He trusted, therefore, the House would
not agree to the amendment of the lion. Gentleman.
Mr. WARD thought the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man went too far when he said the Noble Lord was
under no moral obligation to refrain from appointing.—
(Cheers) In his opinion the office could have been as
well filled tt mporarily as permanently. He thought
this was an inauspicious beginning of the career of the
Right Hon. Baronet, from whom so much was expected.
Sir R. PEEL—If he recollected properly the Noble
Lord late at the heat'. of her Majesty's Government in
that House, although he had some doubts at first, gave
his assent to the clause. The Noble Lord had certainly
stated that, if he had been aware elan the circumstances
of the case, lie would not have objected to compensation.
Sir G. GREY assured the Right Hon. Baronet that
his Noble Friend's (Lord J. Russell) opinion was against
any compensation ; but the House affirmed the clause,
and at that time there was nothing said about the period.
Member
After that division an Hon. suggested that the
compensation should only b
and Learneddurmgthe Member lifetimee of Mr.
for
Scarlett's father, and the Hon.
aExetergreed ttoh
lovui gt
hhototth aat
dairveisaisoonn.ablHe piiroplioin.sihttionlioann.dFitrilevnaas
tehqouseerushedad
by
xtphreesuseodn.himself
it nh the
nearlyChncseilmloirl
similar
rf
words
Mem-
ber for Sheffield.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the
the close of the debate Major Scarlett statedEXCHEQIiER
that
brother had given up other offices, and then the Noble
said
his
at
Lord the Secretary for the Coloniessa
said, if he had been
aware of the circumstances at the time, he would have
admitted his right to compensation to the value of these
offices.

After a few words from the SOLICITOR-GE.NEAL,
Sir R. PEEL said that it was his intention that the.
Bill brought in now, should be exactly the-same as the

one introduced in the last Session, in which it was pro- 1
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 ....Ibinzer 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 Tic w
about to extinguish the office, and in doing so he thought
it ought to act 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 tl!em.—
(Hear, 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 offices, but if
compensation were to be given on this account, it would
be more reasonable to give compensation for that Joss
than for the loss sustained by the abolition of this office.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said tile Hon. Gentle•
man had miserceratood 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 hcld 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, hecould not hold the office. He could not pro-
perly be entitled to compensation after he became one.
After this explanation he trusted the Hon. Gentleman
would not press a division.
Mr. HAWES said. o
did he did not doubt the claus
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. He wished the Right Hun. Gentleman had
stated whether the Lord Chief Baron might not have a
temporary appointmeut.—(Hear, hear.) Of that he (Mr.
Hawes) believed there was no doubt. The Right Hon.
Gentleman 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.—
(Hear.) 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 CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the Bill, as originally introduced, had no clause on the
subject, but n clause was introduced in Committee by the
late Chancellor of the Exchequer, limiting the compensa-
tion in the manner that had been suggested.
Sir It. 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 novel,
but recognised by statute.
Sir G. GREY said the offices recognised by the stn-
trite 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-
cellor of the Exchequer had voted against the amend-
ment 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 for Sheffield.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
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.) Ha 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 remain clauses were then agreed to, and the Re-
port was ordered to be received on Monday next.
STATE OF THE COUNTRY.

Sir G. CLERK 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
21st 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 tatale of the House
on Tuesday last. The petition described in plain
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
the 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-
kets having been closed on them, while the remedy which
had been held out to them had been refused by Parlia-
ment. They stated that 650 heads of families were now
out of employment, which, of course. arose from a want of'
labour. 'I hey 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 inferior 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. He had himself received communications from in-
habitants of Paisley and Johnstone, well-informed on
the subject, which confirmed the statereents 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
trade to which the country was subject. The fact
was, that the best tradesmen in the country had trans-
ported themselves 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
exhausted, and nothing remained for the operatives but
to sink to the condition of paupers.--(Cries of
" Hear, hear.") In the town of Johnstone, it appeared,
from another communication he had received, that out of 16
cotton-mills, only four were in operation, and no more
than four hundred, one-fourth of the labouring popula-
tion, were at present employed. Disease was spreading
at a fearful rate amongst the inhabitants, and that was
attributable solely to the insufficiency on the inferior
quality of their food. Now, in his (Mr. Stewart's) opi-
nion, such a state of things wasa reproach to a Christian
country.—(Hear, hear.)- And humanity and religion
required that something should be promptly and efficiently
clone by the Government to remove that mass of misery
by opening markets for our industrious artisans. The
petitioners from Paisley stated that they would be want-
ing in their duty if they did not lay their case before
Parliament, in order that it might be taken into imme-
diate consideration. They prayed the House not to ad-
journ until they considered the subject with a view to