The Sun.
London, England, 1832-08-10 00:00:00

LORD CHANCELLOR'S SALARY.

The report on the Lord Chancellor's Salary Bill being
brought up,
Mr. HU3IE again complained of the extravagance of
the amount,. and observed that the whole of the sums
received by Lord Lyndhurst (luring the time he was
Chancellor, only averazed fourteen thousand some bun-
tlrells a year, while lie had at the same time to discharge
all the onerous ar d oppressive duties of the Bankruptcy
Court, from which his successor was now wholly relieved.
The present Lord Chancellor had only half the duties of
his predecessor to discharge, and yet he was to receive the
same salary. He thought twelve thousand a year more
than enough.

Lord ALTHORP &fended the Government, and ob-
served that the amount of the salary was regulated by the
recommendation of a Committee.
The report was then received, and the Bill ordered to
be read a third time t.i.morrunt.

WEST INDIA ISLANDS' RELIEF BILL.
On the motion of Lord ALTHORP, the House resolved
itself into a Committee on the West India IslAnds' Re-
lief Bill.

A desultory conversation took place on the various
clauses, in the course of which,
Mr. HUME ui ged the necessity of obtaining acme
greater security for the re-payment of the money. to the
public, than that of West India property.
Mr. S. RICE observed that the object would be to obtain
sufficient security. If sufficient security were nut tendered
the money would not be lent.
Mr. F. BUXTON was desirous to know whether, if
the pledges of the borrowers were not redeemed, the slaves
nn their mortgaged estates would become the property of
Government ?

Lou] ALTHORP replied in tl:e affirmative.
Mr. F. BUXTON asked vbether, in that case, Go-
vernmont, as in former instances, would liberate thoSe
slaves?

Lord ALTHORP said tLdt he tr.s nut at present pre-
par.,d to insw.r that question.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FiVNE and lir, DIXON objected to the preamble

•
. ' •

of the Bill as uniktelligible, and wished to have the object
specified for which the grant was made to the Crown
Colonies.

Lord ALTHORP
.resisted any alteration to this effect,
and a discussion ensued as to the propriety of a verbal
amendment in the preamble, in which the above-named
Hon. Members, Mr. WILKs, Mr. BURGE, and Colonel
EVANS, took part.
The preamble, as originally proposed, was then agreed to.
The House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be
brought up to-morrow.
CHANCERY SINECURES BILL.

The House went into Committee on this Bill, with an
instruction to the Committee to consider the Resolution of
the House, dated July 31, with respect to the Lord Chan-
cellor's Retiring Salary.
Lord ALTHORP moved a clause, to the effect that the
Lord Chancellor's retiring salary be 5,000/. a year.
Mr. HU3IE wished to know why this salary should be
tixed at 5,0001. a year? He saw nothing which should
prevent it from being 6,0001. or 7,000/. as well as 5,000/.
He thought, therefore, that the Noble Chancellor of the
Exchequer was bound to bring forward the calculation
which hmi led him to the result of 5,0001. a year as a fit-
ting reward for the Lord Chancellor's services and sacrifices.

Lord ALT HORP stated, that Lord Brougham had given
up offices to which the Lord Chancellor had the appoint-
ment, which were worth 24,0001. These, it was true,
might not fall to hie patronage, but at least there was a
place of 2 000/. a year to which he might have perma-
nently appointed his younger brother. Thi. he had given
up, and therefore the public would lose nothing by the ad-
ditional 1,000/. to his retiring salary.
Mr. HUME recalled to the Noble Lord opposite the
pledges which the Government had given that they would
abolish all sinecures ; yet they proposed to pay an addi-
tional sum in consequence of having abolished some sine-
cures in his Court. Surely that was not performing their
pledge.

- Lord ALTHORP was not aware that the Government
had given any pledge not to give retiring allowances. The
principle on which he should act was, that the salary and
retiring allowance of any officer should be such as to secure
to the public the filling of offices with men who were fit
to discharge their duties. Patronage had always been
granted to the Chancellor, in order to provide for his
family, and when that patronage was taken away, as was
now about to be done in the case of the present Chancellor,
he put it to the House whether they thought they should
be able to secure for his high office any man of first-rate
eminence at the bar, unless in some measure they made
up for the loss of those profits which had hitherto been
invariably attached to the Chancellor's office.
Mr. HUNT sail the Noble Lord's manner showed he
felt the difficulty of defending this grant. He (Mr. Hunt)
had lately been in a distant part of the country, and had
been called to account for having voted 4,0001. a year fur
the retiring allowance of their excellent Speaker, and for
having said he would have voted for it had the sum been
larger, but he felt himself quite competent to account to
the satisfaction of the multitude who questioned him for
what he had then done.—( Hear, hear.) He feared, if he
voted for the present Grant, he should not be so competent
to justify himself, especially a; this was to be an increased
retiring allowance. He should move that the Grant be
reduced to 4,0001. a year.
Lord ALTHORP observed, that the Noble and Learned
Lord had abolished no less than twelve sinecure offices
which had hitherto been part of the patronage of the
Chancellor, and that that circumstance ought to be taken
into account as a justification for this increase in the retir-
ing allowance.

Mr. C. WYNN thought the sum now proposed was
only a fair compensation for the patronage which other
Chancellors had enjoyed, and of which the present Chan-
cellor was deprived. They should recollect, too, that the
Lord Chancellor had to sustain with becoming dignity the
honours of the Peerage. That a Chancellor should ac-
cept the Peerage was hardly a matter of choice, for it was
necessary for the due execution of many of the daties of
his office that he should do so, and that circumstance
ought also to be taken into account. He should suppoit
the grant.

Lord INGESTRIE in like manner defended the grant,
and expressed his conviction of the great abilities possessed
by the present Chancellor for the discharge of the duties
g his office.

.ricolonel SIBTHORPE thought 4,0001. a year enough
largretiring allowance, but would gladly have voted a
as he-Ilary than he now had to the Noble Lord, so long
Mr. ftvgd in office:, tb.at o' cures
in his Courtvt.obsec7fve the present Chancellor a lithe tr;..
a larger retiringlmwanee, the principle of compernia.,,,
for sinecures woM be established, and then no sineetee
could be abolishevwithout giving the holder a compensation.
Mr. P. COU.rENAY defended the grant, and referred
to the fact thatle Chancellor was almost necessarily com-
pelled to accq the peerage, and if he had had a son to
whom that akinity was to have been transmitted, the
House ml's` bass done more than they were called on to
do at p,eten t.
Commit divided, when there appeared....
For the gran,
.......................
Against it
-14Sority —sB
• The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be
received tO-morrollt.
`The Greek Convention Bili went through a Committee,
and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time La,'
-morrow.
STAGE COACH REGINATION'BILL.
OrfAhe motion of Mr. S. RICE, the House went into a
C°..i.itteei.on this Bill.
On tiii.,elattse defining what was a stecoach,
Mr. DIXON protested against imposing any duty what-
ever on steam pottier, and,ifioved that the words imposing
.5 duty upon carriages-'prouelled by steam and travelling
along common roads should be omitted.
Mr. S. RICE opposed this amendment. lie was not
called on to defend taxes on loeomotiorti for he admitted
them to he evils in themselves, but they were in existence
with respect to ecrtain carriages, and the Government
could not now dispense with them. Under these circum-
stances, it was but fair to put steam carriages, now about
to come into competition with carriages that were alt ady
taxed, upon a footing with those carriages in that respet.
The pul,lie revenue, for want of this equality, had cuff-red
a lass of 8,3844. upon the transport of goods by the Man-
chetster and Liverpool railway. They bad gained a sum
of 1,297/. inclrectly from that cause, but upon the whole
account they were losers to the amount of 7,0871.. The
Public Revenue, therefore, and fair play to those already
engaged in the business of carrying, called for Cr is tax,
and the Treasury might be trusted not to allow it to press
too heavily ou any infant speculation.
Lord G. BENTICK and Mr. WILKS supported the
Bill.

After a protract4conversation, the Committee divided

Ayes -
4S
Noes

Majority —I6.

Clause agreed te.

The other clauses were then agreed to after a short dis-
cussion. The preamble being also agreed to, the House
resumed, and the Report was ordered to he received this

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. STANLEY having moved that the Report of the
Coinnsittee on this Bill be brought up.
Colonel SIBTHORPE moved that the Report be
brought up on that day six months.
The motion was not seconded.
On the original question being put,
Mr. SHAW said he should not continue a❑ unavail-
ing opposition to the Bill, nor should he have gone so far
as he did last night but that he believed the Government
was violating an implied agreement with the Members for
Deland when they brought forward such a measure at
such a late period of the session, and in tie abselace of
nearly all those who were interested in its provisions.
The report was then received, and the Bill ordered to be
read a third time this day.