The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-26 00:00:00

Lord Chit f Justice rf the Common Pleau, when the
Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) intended to move for n
Committee to arrange the salaries of all the judges, and
also the salaries of the executive cf the lower judicials,
and the diplotrzaic officers, which he hoped would be
embraced in this inquiry, and which, he falt assured,
would be porfectly satiifuetAT.
Mr. TUBNER, said that he believed that the words
of the Act, '• that it shall be lawful for the Crown to
,give this sum," are discretionary, and not compulsory,
and he felt assured that Lot d Denman would very soon
regulate the 2 0001. per annum due for the last eighteen
years, if called on to do so. He should dissent ft ora the
Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), when he ex-
pressed it as his opinion that the suitors' fund should be
reduced to the Treasury, for such he considered would
be not only an act of injustice to the judges, but would
be of no service whatever t 3 the public. He should add
that he considered that the Committee, when appointed,
would have very great difficulty in apportioning
proper salaries to the judges respectively, according to
their rank.

Lord J. RUSSELL sail that the inquiry of the Com-
mittee would bt of a prJspntive character relative to
the rAuction of salaries, nod that Lord Campbell and
other judges would not be exempted from the con-
sideration of the Committee, notwithstanding the pas-
ing of this Bill, and he should therefore press the
subject.
Mr. HENLEY did not know how to account for such
a mistake exitt.ng for eighteen years, without any notice
of it whatever being taken by the Government. He
wondered that they could lie on their oars so long, and
a matter fraught with such danger and hazard being
under their Nary eyes, and that only now Goverment
brought in a Bill to prevent the mischief thst might arise
from such neglect. He thought that the Noble Lord
should not press this matter.
_ _ .

Sir G. GREY said that the puisne judges would be
as well protected by this measure as any of the judges,
and it was for that renson that the Noble Lord wished
to establish all the salaries by an Act of Parliament.
Mr. BRIGHT said that he considered that the case
of the Lord Chief Justice was a most important feature,
and should not, therefore, be omitted from the Bill. He
hoped that the Committee would be a searching one, and
that the salaries would be either raised or lowered, ac-
cording as it might be deem fit, but he feared that this
Bill did not empower the Committee to regulate all
salaries, as was expressed by the Hon. Member for
Montrose.

Mr. B. DENISON said that he felt highly gratified
that the Noble Lord had resolved to appoint a Committee
to regulate the salaries of all the judges, no matter of
what class or grate. As Lord Campbell had taken the
office of Lord Chief Justice at 8,000/. per annum, he cer-
tainly should vot•3 for going on with the Bill.
Sir BENJAMIN HALL thought it would be hardly,
fair that Lord Campbell should be the only person ex-
cluded from the consideration of the Committee. Under
all the circumstances he should vote for the motion of
the Honourable Member against proceeding with the
Bill at present.
Colonel SIBTHORP deprecated the reckless haste
with which Lord Campbell had been appointed to the
Lord Chancellorship of Ireland, and the similar joblike
velocity with which he had been transferred to the Chief
Justiceship of the Queen's Bench. They should, in his
opinion, await the result of the Committee proposed by
the Noble Lord to be appointed before they proceeded
with the consideration of the Bill introduced by the
Government.

Mr. SI'OONER was not prepared to say that Lord
Campbell should have a salary of 8,0001. a year. The
amount of his salary ought to form a portion of the con-
sideration of the Committee. Without the report of
that Committee they should not proceed with the Bill.
It would be worse than a mockery, and the country
would reedy° it as such, to occlude Lord Campbell's
salary from the consideration of the Committee. For
the purpose cf carrying out his views he moved that the
Bill should be committed on Friday, the 12th of April.
Mr. FORBES seconded the amendment.
. _

Lord JOHN RUSSELL apprehended that the Hon.
Gentleman who opposed the progress of the Bill did not
understand the state of the question. They seemed to be
ignorant of the fact, that the salary cf the Lord Chief
Justice of the Queen's Bench was fixed by Act of Parlia-
ment in the year 1832 at 10,000/. per annum. Lord Den-
man, however, accepted the appointment and held it at
8,0001. a year.—(llcar, hear.) Lord Campbell un-
dertook the office at a similar salary, and, in
order that the r( (laced amount should be re-
cognised by Act of Parliament, he (Lord John Rus-
sell) had brought forward the Bill which he was now
anxious should he considered in Committee. Former
Governments were blamed for not legalising the reduc•'
tion, and he was blamed for doing that which previous
Ministers were censured for neglecting. Lord Camp-
bell's appointment was not as the Hon. Baronet for
Marylebone had snpposed—a prospective appointment.
If the Committee which he proposed to have appointed
considered 8,0001. a year was too large a salary for the
Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, he did not
believe that they would recommend a reduction of Lord
Campbell's salary, but of the salaries of future lord chief
justices, considering that Lord Campbell had accepted
the appointment at 8,000/. per annum; and even if they
did make such a recommendation, he believed the House
would not sanction so manifest a departure from princi-
ple. Any prospective reduction would be fair and just.
What the present Bill proposed was to reduce the legal
salary of the Lord Chier Justice from 10,0001. a year to
8,0001., and if any farther reduction were recommended
by the Committee, it should be of a prospective cha-
racter.

Sir B. HALL wished to explain that he had not
stated Lord Campbell's appointment was prospective, but
what be wished to convey was, that it should be consi-
dered prospective, inasmuch as the Noble Lord contem-
plated the appointment of the Select Committee at the
very time that Lord Campbell accepted the chief jus-
ticeship.
After a few words from Mr. BUCK and Mr. SANDFORD
amid manifestations of impatience,
Mr. MULLINGS said ho understood the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government to say the other night,
when this subject was before the House, that Lord
Campbell had agreed to accept the office of Chief Justice
at a salary of 8,0001. a year, and if that was the case,
such would be a regular agreement between Lord Camp-
bell and the Government, and he could not, in conse-
quence, claim the additional 2,0001. which was stated in
the Act of Parliament. That being the case, he could
not see what use there was for pressing on the Bill with
so much haste. Should Government persist in pressing
the Bill into Committee, he must say that he would feel
himself called on to move a still further reduction, and
that ho would rather not do until the proposed Committee
had reported, and until that time he trusted the Noble
Lord would suspend the present measure.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee ..• ... 100
Against it ... 51
Majority for going into Committee —49
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
Oa clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. MULLINGS moved an amendment to the effect,
that the salary of the present Chief Justice should be
7,0001. a year, instead of 8,0001., as proposed in the
clause, and that upon the next vacancy in the Chief
Justiceship, the salary should be further reduced to
6,0001. a year.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER said he felt placed in a difficult
position in respect to the amendment of his Hon. Friend,
because if he voted that the salary of the Chief Justice
should be 8,0001., he would be voting against his convic-
tions previously formed on the subject; and while, there-
fore, he must vote for the sum of 7,0004, ho must say
he would rather that the Noble Lord would withdraw
the Bill until tae report of the Committee on the subject
was laid upon the table. As the case now stood, how-
ever, he would with deference suggest that his Hon.
Friend should postpone his motion until the third read-
ing of the Bill, when there would perhaps be more Mem-
bers in the house, and when an amendment could bo put
for delaying all further proceedings in reference to it till
the Committee had reported.
Mr. HUME thought it would be better at once to take
the sense of the House as to the amount of salary, and
leave any reference to Lord Denman's salary out of
view, as a receipt from that Noble Lord would at once
and for ever settle the matter betaeen him and the
Government.

Lord J. RUSSELL could not see how any reference
to Lord Denman's salary could be left out of the me &-
sure, as that Noble Lord bad been paid during his term
of office 2,0001. less than the Act of Parliament entitled
h m to.

Mr. FORBES contended f.ir a reduction ; but
Mr. MULLINGS having signified his intention to
withdraw his amendment,
Mr. HENLEY said in order to take the sense of the
House as to whether the present Chief Justice's salary
should be 8,0001. or 7,0001 a year, he would move that
after the words "sha'l be," the words "seven thousand
pounds" be insert( d.
Mr. SCUOLEFIELD asked if they were going to vote
for the salary of the present Lord Chi( f Justice, or for
those who should in future fill it ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Committee after
Easter would consider the salaries of all the judges, but
for the existing Chief Justice he did think the sum pro-
posed was not too much.
Mr. HUME was under the impression, that the pre.
sent Lord Chief Justice was to take the office at a re-
duce-1 salary.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that 8,0001. a year
was to be paid the present Lord Chief Justice, but after
that the question would be open to further reduction.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said he should support the motion
of the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire, because that
party ought to be encouraged, and because Minis-
ters did not deal with the question as they ought to
have done. He conceived that 5,0001. a year was
enough for the Chief Justice, for that was the sum paid
the first Minister of the Crown, who had greater and
more arduous duties to perform. The gentleman who
took the office was no doubt a man of honour and pro-
bity, but he understood he was an individual fully as old
as the Chief Justice who retired—(A laugh)—and yet
a merit was made in appointing him.
Colonel THOMPSON was surprised at the ground
taken by the opposite party for the reduction of the
salaries, namely, that the country was in a state of pros-
perity, although their principal arguments previously
were that free trade would destroy the country. He
(Col. Thompson) should leave the question in the hands
of the Government, and therefore oppose the motion.
Mr. SPOONER was surprised at the announcement
made, that a Committee was to be appointed after
Easter to inquire into salaries, and yet in the present
instance, the salary paid seventeen years ago was to be
given to the Lord Chief Justice.
Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL would not support the
-reposition of the Hon• Member for Oxfordshire, until
he hoard from some members of the bar that they would
be satisfied with that curtailment made in the salary of
the Lord Chief Justice.
Mr. HUME would test the question in the manner
proposed by the Hon. Member for Tralee—and believ-
ing that 7,0001 a year was sufficient, he should Tote for