The Sun.
London, England, 1850-09-03 00:00:00

•
p.,41 As.. •
,44 IA-e4
• gr.': • •;'
/<"?'"

A A.POVik
01;10f*
• ei),.):•,•••:,..10:f_r 0-) (4%,
• • • •
• . r , ,-/
t ,)
L •
_ 01- Lie

NO
.1 c) 9•

DIS,MYTED ZIPZ POLICIES.

" A trial of considerable interest to Life Assurance Offices and the
public was concluded yesterday in the Court of Exchequer. The
Eagle Company held a policy tor an assurance of 539/. in the Alhian
Company as security for an advance, the payment of which policy
was now disouted by the Albion, on the ground that at the time it
was effected the feet of the assured party having horn a man of in-
temperate habits was concealed from the office. he chief evidence
turtle upon the question no to the decree of intemperance that had
been exhibited, and the resift was, that a verdict wile given against
the resisting office, not enty fir the amount or the policy, but &so for
401 interest fr,,m the slat, when it becam, due. The circumstance
of the action bein4 brought by one office agniust another presents a
striking illustration of the uncertainty whirls may attach to all po-
licies utrier the present, systeir, and shoes that the only mode by
wh'ch absolute security tan b obtained by the public mast lie in the
general adoption by Assurance Offices of the plan of prote ning them-
selves in cvcry cf,se by du tstq tirics iseltire the grantini. f each po-
licy, and of afterwards assuming the full responsibility et the com-
pleteness or such inquiries by Sodding thnnseives precluded from
raising any future question. In the protest case two offices are
found to he diametrically opposed Its their opinions as is what can
properly invalidate a and yet the public are expected to be
able to glare themselves against such contingences. Siiqilar cases
have occurred before, and even if they were snore rare, they would
seriously injure the progress of life assurance. The very principle
upon which the business is founded is the removal of uncertainty,
and whenever that principle is connte-acted in the slightest degree,
the people who would he the first to resort to its advantages are the
first to be deterred."—Times, July 11, 1350.

cREMORNE GARDENS,
On the Banks of the Thames at Chelsea.
Open Daily at Three o'clock.
SHILLING ADYISSION.
Children,
Sundays at Half-past Four. N charge for admission except by
rtefreshment Card—Sixpence. Children under Six years of age tree.
Director, Mr. T. B. Simpson, Albion, Great Russell-street, Co-
vent garden.

Lord Lyndhurst; in Ireland, Sir Edward Sugden and
Lord Plunkett. If I am correct in the enumeration,
there must ho four at least.
Is there any itisurteountable objection to the separa-
tion of these elfi ;es, the judicial and political, so that the
frequent possession of a retiring allowance by an ex-
Chancellor might be avoided ?—I do not know that there
is any insuperable obstacle. It is a matter which has
fen been taken into consideratien, but I think the
general result of ;he censideratien has been in favour of
retaining the political and the judicial functions united.
There hs,s been so much advantage to the Cabinet from
having the assistants of the highest equity judge, teat
objections have always been nestle to tee separation ut
the two offices.
You do not imagine that the frequent change of the
highest judge in the realm, a change arising from poli-
ticel considerations alone, is prejuicial to the interests
of justice on the whole?—l have not sufficient proles-
sioeal knowledge to answer very positively. I have no
proof before me of ally Ectual injury sustained by it.
It is a very complicated and extensive subject, to which
it would be difficult to do justice in an answer to a
queatioe.
Mr. Evans—Are you of opinion that even if the
judges' retiring allowance were more than it is, they
would retire any sooner than the state of their health
obliged them to retire?—l think there is great unwil-
lingness on the part of a judge to abandon his office
until he is really disabled from performing the duties ofit.
Mr. Bright—Havo you any information with regard to
the number and the labours of the judges in Ireland?—
No; it is very long since I held office in Ireland. My
impression is, that comparing the duties of the judges in
Ireland with those of the judges in England, the judicial
establishment in Ireland is large.
Are you aware that there have been alterations in the
system in Ireland by the establishment and extension of
Assistant Barristers Courts, by which the labours of
the assizes have been very much diminished, and thet,
in some cases!, the progress of the judge is rather a pro-
gress, of observation than of labour?—l have that gene-
ral opinion; but the Committee would get much better
information respecting the amount of the judicial busi-
ness in Ireland from other sources. It has not come
particularly under my review, and any estimate that I
can form must be a very vague one. The Committee
can get information as to the amount of business done
by the Irish courts, and' as to the diminution of it, if
any, more full and complete than any that I can give.
Mr. Ricardo—With regard to the retiring pensions
of the judges, do you know what the reason is of a
different principle being adopted with respect to the
Lord Chacellor, as distinguished from the other judges,
with reference to the period of service which en-
titles him to a pension?—The Lord Chancellor holds
his office by a much more precarious tenure than the
other judges. He is not independent of the pleasure of
the Crown; he is subject to the loss of office from
a change in the Government; and that, I apprehend, is
the rcasoa for the power to grant to the Lord Chan-
eel or a retiring allowance after a very limited period of
service. [n the case of a judge in one of the superior
courts in Westminster-ball, you require a considerable
number of years' service before the grant of a pension.
l'hose judges are entirely independent of the Crown, and
hold their offices during life.
Do you consider the Lord Chancellor in the light of a
political person, or of a judicial person?—The retiring
elision is considered part of the inducement to a man of
the highest reputation at the bar to leave the profession,
and to embark in political life, being subject to the con-
tingency of a sudden loss of power.
Do you think it impossible to estimate the retiring
pensions in the salaries of the judges and of the Lord
Chancellor?—l think you are liberty, in calculating the
t eat emoluments of the judge, to consider the retire•
meet which he has in prospect, us well as the amount of
actual salary which is paid to him during his tenure of
office; it is a fair element in considering the amount of
salary to be enjoyed by him.
Could it not all be put into the salary; could not you
give him a certain salary, and leave it to the individual
tt mself to provide for the future?—You would propose
that the salary of the judge should be increased to, say
6,0001. a year, or any other given sum, instead of 5,000/.,
and that there should be no retiring allowance. That
the contingent interest in the retiring allowance should
be merged in actual salary, as the judge would of course
remain entirely independent of the will of the Crown,
and hold his office subject only to removal on an address
of either House of Parliament, I think you would find
that the judges would retain their offices a very long
period.
Your objection to the judge being left to himself to
provide for the future is that he would retiin his office
longer than he would be capable of exercising the func-
tions of it properly?--There would be a tendency to that
in the case of al ( Mom entirely independent of the
Crown, and from which the holder is removable only on
an address of either House of Parliament. If you
allotted to the office a high salary and no retiring al-
lowance, there would be a tendency in the judge to retain
the office and the high salary to the latest moment, in-
stead of retiring into privacy, there being no provision
on retirement; I think that would be the result.
That is an argument for retiring pensions generally, in
all cases, is it not?—No, not in cases where the person
holds office subject to the pleasure of the Crown; but in
the case of offices held for life, or quamdiu se belle yes-
suit, there is an advantage in holding out the prospect of
a retiring allowance after long and faithful service rather
than increasing the salary of the office.
Mr. Cobden—Might not the objection be partly met
by fixing a certain period of life beyond which the judge
wu
eno
should not occupy the bench ?—lt you advert to the his-
tory of the judges, you will find it a very delicate and
difficult matter to limit the period of their service; you
will find several judges who have attained the greatest
eminence, have rendered the greatest ;service, and have
performed their duties most actively and usefully at very
advanced periods of life. Some cases there certainly
have been, cases which must be familier to you all, in
which complaint has been made of a judge retaining his
office much too long; but still I think any precise limi-
tation of age would be found very difficult. A rule that
a judge should not remain in office after 65 or 70 years
of age, might deprive the public of the advantage of the
learning and experience of judges
competent for public service.
Mr. Bright—ls not the inconvenience to which you
have alluded found to arise frequently who might
the bench of bishops; do not they often retain office
beyond the period at which they are capable of per-
forming their duties?--I do not know an instance of
resignation by a bishop,
Mr. Cobden—Do not you think that public opinion
would very much tend to correct any tendency on the
part of judges to remain upon the bench after their fa-
culties were no longer equal to the duties of the office?
—lt has not done so in some remarkable cases.
Mr. Bicardo—lf a judge would remain in office be-
cause he had no retiring pension, may he not also re-
main in office in order to get the difference between his
retiring pension and actual salary?—That certainly is
possible; but the judges are influenced in retaining office
by higher motives. There is an unwillingness on their
patt to retire from the discharge of active duties, and
to receive retiring pensions, While they feel themselves
able to render public service.
Chairman—lnstances of judges retiring are not very
numerous, even with the temptation now held out?—Not
very.

THIS DAY, September 3,
Immense Success of Denlin's new Fairy Rallet. " The Origin of
Harlequin." New Groupings from the Antique. Dancing to
liorim's Band of Fifty Instrumentalists. Madame • Antonio
will make her m•;rvelluus Ascent and Descent on the Rope
hurric al es of Chevalier Mor tram's gor,Nous Fireworks. Chattaway's
celebrated Brass Band.

In active preparat:cn, a Grand Chinese Fete.
On Saturd ty, for the future, the usual entertainments will be pre-
sented, instead of the Bal al Fresco, and the usual charge for admis-
sion restored, vie., Is.

Ladies and gentlemen can here enjoy the health-promoting elegant
exercise of the graceful bow, with the advantage of proper instruc-
t in, gratis l Shooting three dozen arrows, Is. Matches fir Dinner,
Wine, and a Prize Bow are alway 4 open. Tickets, 10s. 6d. each, to
be had of Mr. Teetgen, Archery Manufactory, 161, Bishopsgate-
street.

The Magic Cave—The Shooting Gallery—Burns's Cottage,
with Groups of Figures illustrative of his Works—Summer and
Winter in the Arctic Regions—The Maze—Statuary of the finest
Classical descripti•n, &c., &c.
Be it recollected, on Sundays, admission by Refreshment Ticket,
Sixpence.

'HE LONDON INDISPUTABLE LIFE
POLICY COMPANY

No. 72, LOMBARD-S MEET, LONDON.
TRUSTEES.
r. Campbell Renton, Esq., M.P. I Richard Spooner, Esq., M.P,
Richard Malins, Esq., Q.C. James Fuller Madox, Esq.
William Wilberforce, Esq.
DIRECTORS.
Robert Henry Forman, Esq.
John Hamilton, Esq.
fames Fuller Madox, Esq.
, John Matthews, Esq.
C. Octavius Parnell, Esq.
AUDITORS.
J•Vin c-S Turner, Esq.
!David Henry Stone, Esq.

Never were these delightful grounds in such high perfection
as at the present moment. Visitors to London should not omit a
stroll 'neath the shade of the lofty trees and amongst the variegated
beds of flowers at Cremorne. Everything has been done to render
this magnificent place of amusement worthy the most extensive
patronage.

William Adams, Esq.
John Atkins, Esq.
Henry Augu4us Bevan, Esq.
J. Thompson Bramwell, Esq.
John Danger&ld, Esq.

The attention of the French in London is particularly requested to
this metropolitan ducosse.

The grand Bowling Saloon of this establishment is open free to the
Public.

N.B. The Mammoth Sycamore, the Largest Tree in the World,
in the River Esplanade.

George Cumming, Esq.
William D. Starling, Esq.

A Table ,Filote on Sundays at Six o'clock—Half-a-Crown.
Creniorne can be reached by road or river for 3d.
A Boat leaves Battersea-bridge every sight after the Fireworks.

SEcurrAßY—David Alison, Esq.
BANsEas— gessrs. Spooner, Attwoods. and CO.
PADDINGTON LOCAL BOARD.
24, Connaught-terrace, Edgeware -road.
Rev. James Sherbold Boone, Stanhope-street, Hyde-park,
Captain Creed, lorfolk•crescent, Oxford-square.

SIR R. PEEL ON OFFICIAL SALARIES.

The following is extracted from the evidence an-
nexed to the House of Commons' Report on Official
Salaries :
Sir Robert Peel, Baronet, a Member of the House,
examined :
You have filled a great number of most important
offices in the Government of this country, will you be
kind enough to enumerate them?—l held the office of
Udder Secretary of State in the War and Colonial de-
partment from 1810 to 1812. From that office I was
removed to the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland in
August 1810, and remained Chief Secretary with three
Lord Lieutenants, from 1812 to 1818; with the Duke
of Richmond, during a portion of his lieutenancy;
with Lord Whitworth during the whole period of his
lieutenancy; and with Lord Talbot, during a por-
tion of his lieutenancy. At the commencement of 1822,
I was Secretary of State for the Home Department, and
remained in that office till the spring of 1827. when Mr.
Canning's Government was appointed. In December,
1828, I again accepted the same office, that of Secre-
tary of State for the Home Department, and retained
it ut:til November, 1830, when on the meeting of Par-
liament the Duke of Wellington's Government re-
signed, and Lord Grey became First Minister. In
Dect inner, 1834, I accepted the office of First Lord of
this Treasury, together with that of Chancellor of
the Exchequer, and remained in office holding those two
appointments until April, 1835, not more than four or
five months. In September, 1841, I accepted the office
of First Lerd of tt-,e Treasury, without the office of
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and remained in office till
Jull, 1846.
From th general experience you must have had in
those diff •rent public offices, the Committee are anxious
that you should afford them any assistance in your
power in coming to a right opinion as to whether
any, and if any, what reductions are capable of
being male, without injury to the public service, in
a=ny of those different departments which have been
referred to them for consideration; I could first place
in your hands a paper which has been delivered
in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, containing a
list of the offices referred to in the first part of the
reference, namely, those held during the pleasure of
the Crown by Members of either House of Parlia-
ment voted in the annual estimates?—l will take the
refereece to the Committee. The Cornmite eis ap-
pointed "To inquire into the salaries and emolu-
ments of offices held during the pleasure of the
Crown by Members of either House of Parliament voted
in the annual estimates ; and also into the salaries and
emolume=nts of judicial offices in the superior courts of
law and equity in the United Kingdom, and into the re.
tiring pensions allotted to the judges, and also into
the expense of diplomatic establishments charged on the
Consolidated Fund." I will first mention those branches
of inquiry with respect to which the Committee can obtain
from other quarters more full and more recent information
than that which lean give. With respect for instance to the
diplomatic establishments, it is scarcely necessary, on
that account, for me to give an opinion upon therm I will
however, take the liberty of referring the Committee to a
return which was presented in. 1830, showing the charge
of his Majesty's diplomatic service abroad, from 1822 to
'IE29, both inclusive ; distinguishing the several heads
of charge. At that period the charge fur the diplo-
matic service did not come under the annual notice
of Parliament ; it was provided from the Civil List,
not by vote of Parliament. In the year 1828-29, Lord
Aberdeen took a general review of the expenses of the
diplomatic establishments, and after that review so un-
dertaken by him, there were considerable reductions in
the amount of charge. The paper gives the expenses
from the sth of January, 1822, to the sth of January,
1830, both inclusive. It distinguishes the various mis-
sions from the Consuls and other heads of charge, and
the total charge of every kind under the heads of extra-
ordinary and incidental expenses, commissions under the
treaties with foreign powers, missions to the new
States of America, consular establishments, pensions
to retired ministers, superannuation allowances to
consuls. It embraces, therefore, every charge of every
kind on account of diplomatic and consular service.
Taking the account from 1825, I find that the following
are the charges for the several years from 1825 to
1829. In 1825, the total charge was 418,637/.; in 1826,
459,5381.; in 1827, 412,8591.; in 1828, 407,117/.; and in
1829, it was reduced to 366,0041. There may have been
causes accounting in part for that reduction, as, for in-
stance, the discontinuance of some missions. I do not
bear in mind the details, but I know that Lord Aberdeen,
being then Secretary of State for the Foreign Depart-
ment, undertook the consideration of the whole expendi-
ture, and I consider that the saving which took place in
1829 was mainly attributable to the measures which he
took to revise the diplomatic establishment. I believe
that in subsequent years the reductions made by him
were fully adopted by the Government which succeeded,
and were carried in some instances still further. The
progress of reduction was continued. I think that is the
whole information I can give with respect to diplomatic
service of any importance. With respect to judicial
offices, I cannot give the Committee any information
upon them so good as that which they can derive from
other sources.

Charles Pemberton, Esq., Eastbourne-terrace, Hyde-park, and Lin•

coin's Inn-fields.
Thomas Jervis Amos, Esq., York-street, Portman-square.
George Y. Robson, Esq., Eastbourne-terrace, Hyde-park, and New.
square, Lincoln's Inn.

Secretary, Chas. Hog ton, Esq.

The POLICIES of this Company, being form
Family Provisions and Negotiable Securities, for their validity is not
dependent, as in the case of ordinary Policies, upon the import of
previous reports and other documents. . .

Owing to this important improvement in the practice of Life As•
urance, the progress of this Company has been ra.lid from the corn•
mencement of its business, and is steadily advancing.
Copies of the Report of the last Annual Meeting will he forwarded,
on application, to Solicitors, to whom Commission is allowed.
ALEXANDER ROBERTSON. Manager.

ATHOLIC LAW AND GENERAL LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY,
8, NEW COVENTRY -STREET, LEICESTER-SQUARE, LONDON.
The FOURTH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING of the Proprie-
tors of this Company took place on the 25th instant, at the Head
Office, at One o'clock precisely. The following is extracted from the
report, which is too lengthy for publication :
During the past year no claims have arisen from deaths in England,
and but two in Ireland—one for 5001. and the other for 3601.—making
together 7001., which have been paid. This is far below the expected
mortality, and is especially favourable, when it is remembered how
severely the life offices generally suffered from the epidemic of last
year.
The number of lives assured between the Ist of June, 1849, and
the 31st of 'lay, 1850, was more than double the number issued in
the twelve mouths preceding.
Prop •sa.!s were made for 135 Pe'icies, amounting to 52,9631.25. td.:
of these 121, comt rising 106 lives, were accepted for 45,1251. 6s.
sixteen Policies lapsed, representing 6,048 i., upon which 3201. 3s.
was received by the Company in the shape of premiums
Since the c mmencement of the Company to the Ist of June last,
assuran es were effected to the extent of 110,972/. 12s 6d., pro-
ducing in annual premiums 3.7321. I Is. 6d. Of these 54 lapsed,
amounting to 23,9501. 16s. 6d., of which the annual premiums were
7411. Is., leaving the yearly income on the Ist of June last equal to
2,991/. 15s. lid.
,iftee last meeting loans were applied for to the extent of 17,7001.,
but 1,183/. I Is. lthl. only was advanced.
The Directors were also highly gratified to report that within the
last four m-nths hey had considerably extended their business on
the Continent, having appointed, as Head Agent in France, Monsieur
de l'Etang, a gentleman of high standing' in Paris, distinguished for
his integrity and ability in financial and in all assurance matters,
who under the sanction and patrona.,e of the Archbishop of Paris,
the Cardinal Archbish 'p of Lyons, and Monseigneur Parisis, Eveque
8e Langres, has already within the last three months effected a con.
siderab'e amount of business, not only in Life Assurances, but in Au-
nuitles both Immediate and Deferred. .

After various resolutions, approving of the Report, and returning
thanks to the Right Reverend Chairman, Bishop Morris, the Vice-
Chairman, Actuary, Secretary, and Medical Officers of the establish-
ment, the meeting separated, highly gratified at its present results
and future prosrects.

You were fur a long time Secretary of State for the
Home Department; is it Sour opicir,n, looking at the
general scale of allowances to the judges, that any dimi-
nution can be made in th-m without detriment to the
public service?—During the period when I was Secre-
tary of State, there was an increase made both to the
salaries of the judges and to their retiring allowances;
and I em sure that that increase was founded at the time
upon the difficulty of inducing men of the highest cha-
racter at the bar, possessing the qualifications most re-
quired for the judicial office, to accept it.
In what year was that?—lt was in 1826, during Lord
Liverpool's Government.
Are you of opinion that any reductions might now be
made without profaning inconvenience with respect to
finding fit and adequate persons to undertake those
offices?—My attention has not been much directed to
the subject. I have a doubt whether the retiring allow-
ance of the judge does not bear an undue proportion to
the amount of his salary, and whether that allowance
might not admit of some reduction.
Have you considered the proportion which those sa-
laries bear to one another with reference to one or two
of the offices of which the salaries are the largest, for
instance, that of the Master of the Rolls?—I have not
given any particular attention to that subject.
Mr. Walter—Are you aware of any particular occa-
sion on which tee difficulty to which you have alluded
was experienced. of inducing suitable men to accept the
judicial office?-1 am speaking now with respect to a
period more than twenty years ago; I do no; bear in
mind the names of any particular members of the bar
who declined judicial office; the increase of salary was
made in the year 1825, and I think the ground of the
increase was a representation from the Lord Chancellor
as to the difficulty of inducing men, of the highest qua-
lifications for judicial office, to abandon the profession.
That was the general ground; the particular cases to
which that statement may have referred I do not bear in
mind. _ _ _

ngeenmtirineleynce in the profession. A
kr. Bright—With regard :to the office of Lord
Chancellor, when the judicial and political offices are
united as they are at present, is there not danger
that the Government, sceking for a very serviceable
man as a political character, may in some degree over-
ino f tah eLoCourtrd
Chancellor
hoafn
oe
iChancery?lor
look that which is required for the highest judge
to
relinquished if he sere
i—Gi
I❑nooTttvhaeheremn
pmaonel realm,inottifewould
the
t ei
uplr de
highest
advantagesib
Government which adopted an inferior man as Lord
Chancellor for the purpose of receiving aid from him, in
a political capacity, distinct from professional service,
would lose immensely in the estimation of the profes-
sion. It would be their manifest interest to take a man
of the highest eminence in the profession as Lord Chan-
cellor.

Mr. Cobden—Have there not been instances within
your recollection of men being called to the office of
Lord Chancellor purely on political grounds, and who
have notoriously not been suited to the office in respect
of legal attainments?—Political considerations must ne-
cessarily influence, to a certain extent, the appointment
of the Lord Chancellor, because, as the office is a poli-
tical as well as a judicial one, it is necessary that the
person accepting the office should concur in political
sentiments generally with the administration with which
he acte. To that extent, therefore, political considera-
tions du influence the appointment. But a Government
would naturally select for the office of Lord Chancellor
the lawyer of the highest eminence generally concurring
with them in political opinion.
Cnairtnan—We will now go on with the list before
you of offices held during the pleasure of the Crown,
usually filled by Members of either House of Parliament.
Looking at the reductions which were made in 1830
upon the salaries in 1780, as stated here, are you of
opinion that in any of those departments in th e list be-
fore you, further reductions can be made without detri-
ment to the public service?—lt would be impossible for
me to prove that a salary of 5,0001. a year is exactly
the sum which ought to be assigned to a particular
office. The Committee will see that this is a matter in-
cap
ts at present
thweoupludblibceSsetrainivteic:e. I
able of demonstration. One cannot prove that
4,8001. might not be sufficient in future, wihipeonnsp,uoboloi/c.
has been sufficient; I can only state that my opinion, the
greesouulntdso,ftoexap,d,riimeninceu,tioisn sotfrotnhgelyemaodlvuemrseen,
received by those who fill the chief offices of the State;oltihtiec
I have a strong impression that the scale of emolument
is not more than is just, so far as
hairrideFiaviirdsoutfaLlsoradreofcothne-
cweirttnierde;fearnednothat o at
he
interests reduction of o
of
t
think that, upon the whole, the comparative scale is not
an unfair one; It I recollect rightly, the chief officers of
antnion in the
a lower
CthheanGe(e)vileorrnomfentht,etEhexehthereitueee,S:inc,riett
Treasury, receive now 5,000/, a year; the First Lord of
the Admiralty, an office of equal importance. receives
4,5001. a year, but thin he has a house attached to his
office; the President of the Board of Control, I believe,
ardovffiisceeasnyaraelluerp
hscaasle3;sllLanyoet aprr;eptiroedotthoe
comparative scale.
Mr. Welter—There are cases in which the offices al

Mr. Deedes—Supposing that professional incomes now
were on the average less tha❑ at the time you hare al-
luded to, perhaps that difficulty would not exist to the
same amount at the present time?-0f course, so far as
that was the ground of the increase; but I have no in-
formation upon the fact, whether they do make less or
not.

Chairman—During the time that you were First Lord
of the Treasury, from 1841 to 1846, was any difficulty
experienced in securing the greatest talent at the bar to
fill the office of judge?—l do not recollect any instance
during that period.
Mr. Ellice—Are you aware of any distinction between
the duties of the Master of the Rolls and those of the
other judges in the Court of Chancery below the Great
Seal, which would render it necessary or expedient to
pay a larger salary to the Master of the Rolls than to
either of the Vice-Chancellors, for instance?—No; I am
not aware of any; I have not paid much attentiun to
that subject.
Mr. Bright—Will you state whether the union of ju-
dici.l and political 'tikes in the Lord Chancellor is not
the occasion of increasing the expenses in the retiring
allowancti department, inasmuch as on a change of Go-
vernment there i 4 a ci.anwo of Cll'anctAlors, and the Lord
Chancellor after his elevation not going hack to his pro-
fessien becomes entitled to a large retiring allowance;
and is it not the fact, in consequence, that there are three
or four ex-Chancellors receiving large pensions at the
same time?—l apprehend that the E ersons receiving re-
tiring allowances are, in England, Lord BrouLhara and

LONDON TUESDAY
,
v a AV; $ 4-4 • .
44`
5 4 /
7,
k; SEPTEMBER
9 3 1850.

Chancellor of the Exchequer and First Lord of the
Treasury have been held by the same person; has it
teen usual that such person should receive the emolu-
ments Attached to each office?—ln 1830 it was proposed
by the Committee of that year that where the two
offices were united there should be a saving in the double
salary to the amount of 2,500/. a year; that is to say,
the person holding the two offices together should re-
ceive 7,5001. a year. I believe that mine has been the
only else in which a person sicce that period has held
the two offices together ; and in consequence of that
suggestion of the Committee I r ,ceive.l a salary at the
rate of 7.500/ a year during the few months I held the
teo offices. In former periods, I believe, when Lord
North held the offices, he received the double salary,
and I think Mc. Pitt did. Ido not know Whether the
double salary amounted then to as much as it does at
present;
but I think theta was no abatement from the
salary assigned to the two offices when held by one
person.
Is not such a combination of offices unlikely to occur
again, in consequence of the great increase in the bee-
nes..? —Judging from the labour to be perf mned, I
think it not likely to be undertaken again ; when re-
appointed to office in 1841, I determined not to under-
take the double duties, after my experience of them in
1834-5.
Chairman—With regard to the Secretaries of State,
is there anything in the nature of the duties attached to
either of those offices which you think would entitle it
to a higher salary than the others?—The Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs is subject, perhaps, to some
expenses to which the others are not liable; but he has
the privilege of an official house, if he chooses to avail
himself of it.
There are several other offices which the Committee
have been informed have no very onerous duties attached
to them; for instance, the Lord Privy Seal, the Pay-
master-General, and the Master of the Mint; will you
favour the Committee with your opinion as to how far
it is desirable that those offices should be maintained a
their present salary ?—I think it would be desirable that
the Committee should advert to the progress which has
been made of late years in reducing the emoluments re-
ceived by persons tilling high offices in the State. It is
because that progress has been made, because the
tendency has been to increrve the labour and to reduce
the advantages and emoluments of office—(l speak now
of pecuniary advantages and emoluments)—that I come
to the conclusion that it would not be advantageous for
the public iuterests to carry the reduction further.
Mr. Bright—l presume you do not apply that spe-
cially to any particular office, but speak generally ?
Speaking generally. I will take the period when I en-
tered public life, the year 1810. I find that since that
period there has been a progressive reduction in official
advantages and emoluments, and an increase in thee,la-
hour imposed on public men. The conjoint operation of
diminished emolument and increased labour leads me to
think that it would not be wise, having regard only to
the public interest, to diminish much further the induce-
ments to enter the public service. To a man who has
independent means, to a considerable extent it may not
make any material difference ; but to a person who has
not the advantage of hereditary wealth, a man of very
great abilities and of great capacity for rendering public
service, but of comparatively limited means, the amount
of salary may be a serious consideration. Those who
obeerve with satisfaction a departure from the rule
acted upon in former times, of confining high public
offices to the great families of the aristocracy, or to per-
sons of great wealth, who rejoice in seeing the dis-
tinction and advantage of office opened to persons of
superior attainments, but of no great wealth or high
family connexions, ought to meint.in the policy of at-
taching liberal salaries to the highest official employ-
ments.
Mr. Cobden—ls it not the fact that that exclusive
class to which you refer, do monopolise appointments to
those highest situations to which large salaries are as•
signed?—l think not.
Take the succession of Cabinet Ministers for the last
twenty years, do you not find that nine-tenths of them,
or at all events four-fifths of them belong to the aris-
tocracy?—l think Cabinet offices of late years have been
appropriated very much according to the Parliamentary
ability displayed by those who were candidates for
them; I cannot say of late years I recollect the case of
any eminently distinguished man attached to a party,
to whom (when that party came into power) a man of
mere wealth, but of inferior attainments, has been pre-
ferred,
Chairman—Will you state to the Committee what the
advantages of patronage were at the period when you
first entered office, and what they are at present?—ln
the advantages and emoluments of office I include the
opportunities of a Minister to benefit himself and the
members of his family; and I will compare the extent
of advantages and emoluments of that kind in the
year 1810 with their present extent. First, let me
take the state of sinecure offices in 1810. In that
year a Committee was appointed which had duties to
perform very similar to those which are entrusted to this
Committee. There was a subs( quent Committee on sine-
cures in 1834, which in its report said, " On consulting
the Report of the Select Committee on Sinecure Offices
appointei in 1840, they find that in that year, according
to the papers referred to that Committee, there were in
existence throughout his Majesty's dominions 242 offices,
which, according to the opinion of that Committee, came
under the denomination of sinecures, and of which the
total net income amounted to 297,095/, per annum. By
the return of the sinecure offices now in existence, re-
ferred to your Committee, it appears that there remain
100 offices of a similar description, the total net emolu-
ments of which amounts to 97,803/. Now those sine-
cure offices were offices which the Ministers of the
Crown had the power in many cases of appropriating
either to themselves or to their immediate relatives. In
1782, in the memorable speech made by Mr. Burke upon
economical reform, he expressly refers:to some of these
sinecures. He says that, the nature of those profits
which grow out of the public distress is in itself invi-
dious and grievous; and he proposes to regulate the
offices and to diminish the salaries, but still to retain
them as sinecure offices available for the reward of
public service. Those sinecure offices thus applied as
the reward of public service were among the advantages
of office. They were left untouched in 1782, being con-
sidered the legitimate means of making a provision for
the descendants of Ministers.
Are you aware how many of those sinecures which
you state to have existed in 1834 are now iu existence?
—I presume there are none. There may some remain
in which the existing life interest was protected; but the
intention of Parliament was to abolish those offices alto-
gether as a means of reward; if there are any that now
exist, they would be subject to reduction on the termina-
tion of the life interest.
L )oking at those offices as part of the advantages con-
nected with holding high officer in the State in 1810, you
are of opinion that the circumstances of their abolition
must be taken into consideration in estimating the in-
ducements to men to take part in the public business of
the country ?—I think the view of the Committee would
he an imperfect one if they did not consider those things.
Ido not mean to contend that because those sinecures
have been abolished, you must necessarily maintain the
existing salaries at their present amount; but I think that
you ought to compare the inducements which there were
at a comparatively recent period to enter into public life,
with the inducements that exist at present. Such com-
parison is one element in the consideration, and the
review will be an imperfect one if it be omitted. I show
you that in 1810 there were sinecures to the amount of
295,0301. that have been swept away. Some of those
offices were applied to the increase of the official emolu-
ments. Lord North when Prime. Minister of this
country held also the office of Lord Warden of the
Cinque Ports. Mr. Pitt when First Lord of the Trea-
sury held the office of Lord Warden. Lord Liverpool,
when First Lord of the Treasury, also held the office of
Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. I apprehend that
there was attached to that office not only considerable
patronage and a residence by the seaside, but a salary of
4,0001. or 5,0001. a year, which salary was enjoyed by
those Ministers, in addition to the salary of the First
Lord of the Treasury. I believe that in 1780 the emo-
luments of Lord North, as Prime Minister, derived from
all those sources, were not less than 10,400/. a 3ear.
Here is a case, therefore, in which sinecure offices were
among the emoluments and advantages of high office.
Those emoluments and advantages have ceased; not, in-
deed, altogether, because, upon the abolition of sinecure
offices many of which had been applied to the increase
of official income, and to the reward of public service,
Parliament granted to the Crown the means of making
some provision for retired Ministers. This report to
which I have been referring alludes at the conclusion of
it to that provision, in the following terms: —" Your Com-
mittee, in presenting this statement of the amount of
saving which will ultimately accrue to the public from
the abolition of sinecure offices, have not overlooked the
circumstance, that by the Act of 1817 the Crown was
empowered to grant pensions as rewards for official ser-
vices in lieu of these sinecures which were formerly ap-
plied, to a certain extent, for such purposes. The
amount of annual charge which, according to the 57
Geo. 111. c. 65, might be incurred by the public, was
limited to 45,0001." Now, the system of retrenchment,
has beet here also progressive, because that amount of
45,0001. which was allotted to the Crown on the aboli-
tion of sinecures in the year 1817, was further reduced
by the Act which passed in the year 1834, from 45,000/.
to 21,600/., "of which," this report says, " according to
thelast return, pensions to the amount of 16,5001.0n1y were
actually granted and in existence." The result is that
there is now no power of attaching any sinecure office
as an increase to the emoluments of a Minister ; that
the amount which now can be appropriated by the Crown
as retiring allowances to those who have held the highest
offices in the State cannot exceed 21,6001., and that
practically, it is never likely to reach that a
there can be only a certain number ofpensions mount'since
granted
for the tenure of certain offices.
Mr. Ellice—By the Act of 1834, is not there another
limitation with respect to the means of a person apply-
ing for a pension after filling a public office?—There is.
No person can now hold one of those pensions with-
out a declaration that his private means are such as to
require an addition to his income?—That is quite true;
I believe the highest amount of pension is now limited
to 2,0001. a year; and the holders of iour offices only can
receive that largest amount of peneion • that is to say, a
pension of 2,000/. cannot be held at the same time by
more than four persons who have filled certain specified
offices, being the highest offices of the State.
Do you know to how many persons it is now paid ?--I

/, 72
4 /1 14
I 4:14-,, t4.•-.'it;',77-77-4, 41 , , ~.. ....r: •
./...-,
~--.1)/‘,,r; ~,,,,,,,,,,... —=- —,s, •, _ . , .-, ~ \.,,,
.i i
1,
. %.' , ~ 1-,,,,
4
, ..-
„.-+-

,

-

-

/

[PRICE SD,

_______ew,„.„.
think there is one pension of 3,0001. a year, to which
the existing Act does not apply. Lord Bexley, I ba-
liere, receives 3,0001. a year. Ido not know how many
other pensions there are.
Mr. Cobden—ln speaking of those sinecures, and of
the advantage they afford to Ministers of State, do you
mean that they were advantageous as furnishing the
opportunity of their appropriating one of those sinecures
to themselves, or as patronage which they had to distri-
bute?—Mr, Burke, is speaking of the great offices of
the Exchequer, says, " Efficient Ministers have been
their own paymasters. It is true; but their very par-
tiality has operated as a kind of justice; it was service
that was paid. When we look over this Exchequer
list, we find it filled with the descendants of the Wal-
poles, of the Pelhame, of the Townshends." I appre-
hend he meant that long after the death of the Ministers
to whom he referred, he found their desendants occupy-
ing some of these sinecure offices in the Exchequer. A
Minister, therefore, had, or might have had, it he were
so inclined, a double advantage from those sinecure
offices; he might, as in the case of one of the best of
these offices, the Wardenship of the Cioque Ports, ap-
propriate it to himself, and he had also the means of
providing for his relations and connexions by the grant
of other sinecure offices. In 1810, the Crown bad also
the power of granting offices in reversion; the Minister
of the Crown had the power, up to the year 1809, of
conferring the reversion of one of those great offices
upon some friend or relative of his own. That oppor-
tunity of rewarding service, which existed in 1809, exists
no longer.
Mr. Walter—With reference to the question put by
Mr. Cobden, whether as a matter of fact the highest of-
fices of the State have not generally been filled by mem-
bers of the aristocracy and persons of ample means, are
you not of opinion that the salaries attached to those offices
should be so regulated as to admit of persons taking
them whose private means would not be adequate to the
discharge of these duties in a suitable manner without
the aid of these salaries?—l think it is of the greatest
public advantage that men of ability without large here-
ditary fortunes should be enabled to accept office. ' If
you consider the men who within the last hundred years
nave exercised the chief influence upon the march of
political events, and upon legislation, you will find that
those persons exercising that influence have not been
the possessors of large hereditary fortune. In that class
will be found the two William Pitts, Mr. Fox, Mr.
Burke, Mr. Canning, and Mr. Iluskisson. Of the first
William Pitt, Lord Chesterfield says, that the whole of
the fortune that he inherited was 1001. a year. He en-
tered life as a cornet of horse, with a fortune certainly
not exceeding 4,0001. lie did not accumulate money in
office, fOr on his death Parliament paid his debts to the
amount of 20,0001. The second William Pitt must, there-
fore, have entered public life without any independent
fortune. He held office for a long period; but the
means which it afforded to meet the expenditure to
which he was subject were so inadequate that on his
death Parliament paid his debts, to the amount, I think,
of 40,000/, there being no imputation of extravagance.
Mr. Ellice—During that time he held the offices of
First Lord of the Treasury, Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, and Chief Warden of the Cinqud Ports?—Yes.
Then take the case of Mr. Burke. Mr. Burke was pri-
vate secretary to Mr. Hamilton, the secretary to the
Lord-Lieutenant; he was afterwards private secretary to
Lord Rockingham. Mr. Fox entered life without the
advantage of hereditary fortune. Mr. Canning had
none. Mr. Huskisson's means must probably have been
very small, when he entered public life as private secre-
tary to Lord Stafford. Whatever was the time for which
those eminent men held office, the emoluments of it in
no case enabled them to make a provision for their
families. It is surely a great public advantage that men
of those eminent qualifications for rendering public ser-
vice should have some inducement for entering into the
public service, rather than into professions. If they do
enter it, it would be most unfair to allot to them any
amount of salary which places them in an inferior posi-
tion to that of colleagues who may have, from the acci-
dent of birth, larger means of supporting the expenses
of office.

Chairman--Will you be kind enough to state whether,
independently of those sinecures to which you have re-
ferred, any other advantages attached to the office ofPrime Minister, or any of the other principal offices, in
1820, which they do not now enjoy?—l have stated
what has been the reduction made in sinecure offices. I
will now call the attention of the Committee to the pen-
sion list of the three kingdoms, as it existed in the year
1810. I will take first the pension list on the Civil List
of Englard. In 1782 an Act passed (the 22d of Geo.
111., c. 82) for the regulation of the Civil List and the
control of the grant of pensions. By that Act the Eng-
lish pension list was limited to 95,0001. a year, and until
reduced to that sum the power of the Crown to grant
pensions was limited to 6001. per annum. It was then
provided that no greater sum than 1,2001. should be
granted to any one person, except members of the royal
family. With respect to pensions on the Irish Civil
List, in 1793 an Act was passed, with the consent of
the Government, placing restrictions on the power of the
Crown as to the grant of pensions on the Irish Civil
List. In 1793, when the pensions on the Irish Civil
List amounted to 124,0004 an Act was passed restrain-
ing the Crown from granting pensions in any one year
exceeding altogether the sum of 1,2002, until the whole
pension list should be reduced to 80,000/. a year.
The Irish pension list was net reduced below 80,0001.
until the year 1813. As to pensions on the Scotch
Civil List it appears that before 1810 there
was no check whatever upon the power of the Crown in
respect to the grant of Scotch pensions, except the
amount of the revenue from which those pensions were
derived. In 1810 the Scotch Civil List pensions
amounted to 39,3791., and that year au Act was
passed, providing that until the total annual amount was
reduced to 25,0001., no larger pension than
300/. should be granted to any one person from the
Scotch hereditary revenues. Besides those several
pension lists, there were pensions charged on the 4f
per cent. duties. That was the state of the Pension List
in the three countries on the Ist of January, 1810.
Can you state the amount of the pensions on the 4i
per cent, duties?—l do not know that. The Committee
will find in the report which was made in the
year 1838 (Paper No. 621 of 1838), a full
account of the Scotch pensions, the Irish per, ions, and the English pensions. That report, speak-
ing of the pensions charged on the 4 per cent, duties,
says, " Over the 4 per cent. duties the Crown exercised
a right of full dominion. Till the year 1830 these re-
venues had not formed any part of the Civil List ar-
rangements, but had continued vested in the Crown.
No new grants have been made subsequent to the year
1826, and the original charges are in progress towards
ultimate extinction."
What is the amount of pensions at the present moment
as compared with the amount in 1810—At a much
liter period than 1810, the total amount of pensions was
not less 145,000/. In the report of the Committee of
1831, on Civil Government Charges, there is this:passage:
" The pension list, formerly charged on the Civil List
of England and Ireland and the hereditary revenues of
Scotland, and which amounted to 145,7501., is now re-
duced to a sum of 75,000/. charged on the Civil List."
But that sum of 145,7501., wss the amount of the pension
list as it existed in the reign of George IV. The pen-
sion list which existed in 1810, in the reign of George
111., was of much larger amount.
(TO BE CONTINUED.)

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.
TA TTERSALL'S —YESTERDAY.
THE LEAMINGTON STAKES (WARWICK, THIS DAY.)
5 to 1 agst Mr. Gains's Kennington—taken aEd
afterwards offered
7 to 1 agst Mr. Meeson's Doubt—taken and after-
wards offered
8 to 1 agat Mr. Dawson's Priestess—taken and
afterwards offered
8 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Tophana—take 10 to 1
109 ttoo alsggs Mr.
itt
mr..
EMry M
iewre,,
s's
Feirsns An—
hinn—taktaekne 13 to 1
andafter.
wards offered
16 to 1 agst Mr. Payne's Glauca—take 20 to 1
20 to 1 agst Mr. Fowler's Ribaldry—taken freely
abut showed a great
T2hoe tboe
tlt
ianggs to
nM
thisr. W
even
vl ke inn; swas
a nflgatto,
improvement in Kennington, and a strong feeling against
Priestess, Tophana, and Langton. Minimum is scratched
COUNTY STAKES (WARWICK, WEDNESDAY.)
othe
O rff
,ers
but to lay
low struc2 to 1 agst and 5 to 1 agst any
no bk.
GREAT YORKSHIRE HANDICAP.
5 to 1 agst Captain Hervey's Strongbow—taken
CAMBRIDGESHIRE STAKES.
1,000 to 15 agst Mr. Hobson's Rhedycina—taken
ST. LEGER.
Even on Lord Zetland's Voltigeur—field for choice
5 to 1 agat Mr. H. Hill's Pitsford
6 to 1 agat Capt. Archdall's Windisehgratz-7 to 1
taken freely
8 to 1 agat
af
L Mr.eLro afterwards
ssncoofifftetel,s edr'sdßee-hunter taken and
16 to 1 agat
Cyprus
20 to 1 agst Mr. W. Edwards na Bolingbroke—taken
33 to 1 agst Mr. Murphy's Cruiskeen colt—taken
and afterwards offered
Several hundreds laid at even between one and the
field, the field always having the call; 9 to 1 taken freely
about Beehtinter; 20 to 1, to 200 L, or 300/., about Boling-
broke; and I,ooo's to 30 and 20 about the Cruiskeen colt.
DERBY.
20 to 1 agst Mr. J. Powney's Lamartine—taken and
afterwards offered
25 to 1 agst Mr. A. Nichols's Newminster—taken
sfcerwards offered
25 to 1 agst Lord Eglinton's Hippolytus—taken and
and afterwards offered
30 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Phiegathon—taken
33 to 1 agat Lord Stanley's Storm
40 to 1 egst Mr. Hslford's Prime Minister—t freely
40 to 1 agst Lord Caledon's Aaron Smith—taken
3,000 to 60 agst Mr. Liley's Old Ralph Barns—taken

COPPER COINAGE.—The town-council of Sheffield
recently memorialized the Treasury for a new issue of copper
coinage; and, last Friday, they received rather a curt reply.
" I Liu commanded," says Sir Charles Trevelyan to the
mayor, " to inform you that as there is a superabundance of
copper coin in London, of which parties at Sheffield, or other
towns, experiencing a deficiency, can avail themselves throagh
a banker or other agent, my Lords do not consider it expo
dient to comply with the prayer of the memorial."