APPOINTMENT OF A VICE-CHANCELLOR BILL. (Hansard, 27 March 1851)

§ SIR H. WILLOUGHBY

said: The Motion I have to propose is that the retiring pension of the office to be created under this Bill shall be an annuity not exceeding 3,000l., and not 3,500l. as proposed in the Bill. The Committee on Official Salaries last year did not report on this office, but state, p. 7, paragraph 4, "that it was understood it was an office that was not to renewed." Under the Bill the salary is 5,000l. per annum; the retiring pension is 3,500l. per annum. On some unintelligible principle of finance the salary is fixed on the suitors' fund, the pension on the Consolidated Fund. I contend that the retiring pension of 3,500l., that is, 7–10ths of the salary, exceeds in proportion all other classes of pensions whatever. In no other department is there anything like it. Search the diplomatic, the civil, the military, and even the judicial services, and, with the exception of this one class, there is hardly a pension that exceeds 2,000l. per annum. The highest services—whether diplomatic, civil, or military—are repaid by pensions from 800l. to 2,000l. per annum. In the military service there is one great exception, but that is for services unparalleled, which, consequently, confirms the rule. Take the diplomatic service (2nd and 3rd Wm. c. 116)—first-class, 1,750l.; second-class, 1,300l.; third-class, 900l.; fourth-class, 700l. I am not aware that the most eminent services as a statesman would obtain a higher pension than 2,000l. per annum; and in all departments of the State, Excise, Customs, or such as are placed on the Consolidated Fund, it is rare to find any retiring pension beyond 2,000l. Now as to pensions for judicial services. It is true that ex-Lord Chancellors receive retiring pensions of 5,000l. per annum, or something about one-third of the salary. The Irish ex-Chancellors receive only 3,692l., and in the time of Lord Eldon the retiring pension was 4,000l. per annum. But what is the history of the class of retiring pensions that include the Puisne Judges and the Vice-Chancellors. Up to 1813 the retiring pension of this class was 2,000l. per annum. In 1813 it was increased to 2,600l., and in 1825, the salaries of the Puisne Judges having been raised to 5,500l.—a year commencing with alleged prosperity, but ending in a disastrous panic—the retiring pension was raised to 3,500l. But what was the proposition of the Government of that day? First, that the retiring pension should be only 2,300l.; then adding the 713 500l. taken off the salary, which was proposed to be 6,000l., which made the retiring pension 2,800l; but finally, after a faint and coy resistance to the legal opposition of that day, the Government gave way, and the retiring pension was fixed at 3,500l. Mr. Secretary Peel, however, had announced previously the principle on which such pensions should be enacted—viz., in a fixed proportion to the salary. Adopt that principle, and look cither to the pensions of the highest officers of the law, or any other class of officers in the law, and a retiring pension of 3,500l., or seven-tenths of the salary, cannot be maintained. But in 1832 the salaries of all Puisne Judges since 1828 were reduced from 5,500l. to 5,000l. per annum. Reduce the retiring pensions in the same proportion, or one-eleventh, you arrive nearly at the proposition for which I contend—viz., a retiring pension of 3,000l. per annum. The Amendment I wish to propose is so moderate and so just that I trust the hon. and learned Attorney General will have no difficulty in adopting it.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

dissented from the views of the hon. Baronet, for several reasons. In the first place, when settling the salary of a Judge, and his retiring pension, they should inquire what was the sum which would secure the efficient discharge of the duties of the office. No gentleman, he ventured to say, had accepted the office of Vice-Chancellor without a very great diminution of income, and in some cases to a larger amount than the House would think probable if he named it. He thought the amount of salary at present given to the Vice-Chancellors was no more than sufficient to secure high judicial ability. Indeed it was said, and he believed truly, that there were instances in which the highest judicial services had been lost to the country because of the lowness of the sum fixed as salary. The reason why they obtained Judges at the cost of reduction of their incomes was mainly by reason of the certainty and security against calamity which was afforded by the retiring allowance. If that allowance were diminished or taken away, they would either be obliged to pay higher salaries, or, what would be a great injury to the public, they would lose the service of persons the most efficient to discharge judicial duties. Another con- 714 sideration was, that Judges should retain their offices no longer than they were capable efficiently to perform their duties; and if a great difference were made between the salary and the pension, there would be a great temptation to remain on the bench after the powers of the mind were enfeebled by age and infirmity. But he would call the attention of the House to what had really happened. The first Vice-Chancellor was Sir Thomas Plumer, who died Master of the Rolls in 1825, after ten years' service, without a retiring allowance. The next was Sir John Leech, who died in 1833 Master of the Rolls, without a retiring allowance, after sixteen years' service. The next was Sir Launcelot Shadwell, who died in 1850 on the bench, after twenty-two years' service, and of course he had no retiring allowance. If he had addressed the House a year ago, he could have said that there was no instance on record, in the experience of thirty-five years, in which a retiring allowance had been made; but the unexpected calamity which had befallen one of the most efficient and conscientious Judges that ever sat upon the bench, Sir James Wigram, had rendered him unable to remain, or he would undoubtedly have preferred continuing to devote himself to the service of his country than retiring in idleness. This was the first instance which had ever yet occurred of a retiring pension; and the only way, and the cheaper way, to obtain first-rate efficiency was, he believed, to give a good retiring pension. It would have been easy for the Government to acquire a little popularity by agreeing to this reduction; but believing it a matter of vital importance to the public interest, he must call upon the House to reject the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.