ANNUITIES TO SCOTCH JUDGES. (Hansard, 4 May 1808)

Mr. Abercromby
was unwilling, even in that early stage of the business, to let the present question pass without stating his objection to the principle. In the first place, there was no analogy whatever between those Judges and the Judges in England or Ireland, as the latter went circuit, and had, after discharging the business in their respective courts in the metropolis, to go through a weighty provincial duty; whereas, the former had not employment for two thirds of the year, and had no circuits to attend; the duties of the barons of the exchequer were not only very easy, and such as almost any man might perform, but also very light. He could not, under such circumstances, consent to any addition to the burthens of the people, so much burdened already, by compensation so unmerited and uncalled for.

The Lord Advocate
of Scotland, though be admitted that the duties of the exchequer barons was not heavy, still thought that Scotland had a right to expect that the liberality of this country would not deny to a supreme court of judicature in Scotland what they had already given to their own. He thought too, that the less the barons had to do, the less temptation they would have to retire from such light duty, and that consequently the public money would be the less encroached upon.

§ Mr. H. Martin
was anxious, that those who should have properly executed the laborious and important duty of administering justice should be liberally rewarded; and if the like laborious duties attached to the barons of the exchequer in Scotland as to those of England, there could be no reason why they should not have the same advantages of retirement. But the point was, that the judicial duties of the barons of the exchequer in Scotland were nothing; and their ministerial duties 118 consisted merely in signing their names to the warrants sent from this country.

The Solicitor-General
of Scotland supported the proposed provision generally. The paucity of the causes that were tried by the barons of the exchequer, was a proof of their beneficial arrangements in the collection of the revenue. The act of union, and subsequent acts, guaranteed and sanctioned that court; why, then, should it be excluded from the benefit of the general arrangement, the principle of which was universally approved of. Why should this exclusion be made at a time when, from the increase of the revenue, the business of the court of exchequer was every day extending, and when the court of exchequer passed all the public accounts of Scotland, even to those of the militia?

§ Mr. Whitbread
allowed there was no principle better than that of rewarding meritorious public servants, and particularly those concerned in the administration of justice. But a balance should always be held, in order that the public should pay neither too much nor too little. He thought it would be best in this case to await the returns, which by shewing the service done by the court of Exchequer in Scotland, would best direct the house, as to the proper extent of recompense. If this should not be done, he must oppose the provision, so far as regarded the barons of the Scotch Exchequer.

Mr. Rose
thought it would have an injurious effect on the characters of the present barons of the Exchequer of Scotland, and that it would prevent persons of respectable professional character from coming into that court in future, if an invidious exclusion should be made in the arrangement of the general provision. The extensive nature of their general functions, and their able external administration of the revenue, compensated for the paucity of the causes tried by them, of which paucity, the ability of their external administration of the revenue was, in fact, the cause.

§ Mr. Macdonald
contended, that it was not unfair to apportion public remuneration to the amount of public service, and for that purpose, to examine the particular nature and extent of the service was not invidious. It was proper to pause and inquire, before those who did much service and those who did little, were lumped in one general provision.

§ Mr. R. Dundas
enlarged on the extensive duties performed by the Barons of the 119 Exchequer, and the injustice, impolicy, and impropriety, of singling them out for exclusion from a general provision.

Sir F. Burdett
thought it impossible for the house, after what had passed, not to hesitate before it granted pensions to persons in the situation of the Barons of Exchequer in Scotland, who, it appeared, were not men who had quitted great professional practice and emolument to become Judges, but were, generally speaking, men to whom it would, from their former habits of life, be an object, on account even of the emolument, to be appointed to such an office. But still, he could not agree with the doctrine that it was expedient that Judges should be allowed to retire on their salaries, or rather with pensions, after a certain number of years service. Why was not a Judge sufficiently recompenced for the discharge of his judicial functions at the time he performed them? If he was not so, he wished to know why that was not the case, and why adequate provisions against the ordinary chances of declining years or health were not made in their annual salary? He could easily see how, from the adoption of a contrary practice, abuses might creep in. If at one time, a good ground for granting a pension of this kind chanced to occur, that would, on every future occasion, be esteemed sufficient, even where there was no propriety whatever in the grant. He often heard gentlemen on the ministerial side of the house call upon those on the side on which he sat for parliamentary grounds, for any proposition submitted by them. He did not see that there was any such ground for the proposed measure, and he should not do his duty if he did not oppose it. He protested against the idea of liberality, when such liberality was to be shewn by grants out of other people's pockets.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
supported the motion for going into a committee, and Dr. Laurence opposed it; when the house divided,

§ Mr. Bankes
objected that the crown had already a sufficiency of funds in its hands for carrying into execution the measure now proposed. He thought it would have the effect of liberating too great a fund of patronage to the crown, independant of the pensions which already existed. Perhaps it was not generally known, that in Scotland, during his present majesty's reign, the pension-list had been increased eight-fold. There was no limit to it as there was to the pension-list in England. It was, indeed, unlimited, and was only bounded by the surplus revenue. He was, therefore, of opinion, that the house should stop till it saw whether this additional power was required to be granted to the crown. As to the barons of exchequer, they seemed to him to be rather a board of revenue than of justice, and for the remuneration of revenue officers, there were unquestionably already sufficient funds in the hands of the crown. The honourable member stated afterwards the amount of pensions in Scotland to be at present upwards of 40,000l. whereas, at the commencement of his majesty's reign, they did not exceed 5000l.—After a pretty long discussion, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Dundas, the Lord Advocate, and Solicitor General for Scotland, supported the motion; and Dr. Laurence, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Windham, &c. opposed it;