HC Deb 19 June 1815 vol 31 cc882-3

On the motion that the Report of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland Salary Bill be brought up,

Mr. Horner

urged again his objections against this measure. He observed, that even if the Master of the Rolls in Ireland was an officer equal in dignity to the same officer in England, the difference between the places of residence, the one the capital, the other a provincial town, would justify the present difference of salaries. The same reason which was adduced in favour of the present Bill, would justify a similar increase of salary to the judges in Scotland. He should therefore move that the Report be received that day three months.

Mr. Rose

observed, that in this country the Master of the Rolls was underpaid, as he had refused an increase of salary which had been offered him.

Mr. Abercrombie

opposed the Bill. The return to the House of the business done by the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, was such that no criterion could be formed of the real extent and laboriousness of it. In Ireland there had been no arrear of consequence in the Equity Courts. The business in Ireland, he thought, stood in no need of assistance from Parliament. The Master of the Rolls in England was underpaid, if his salary was compared with the extent of business done by him, and with the great talents which he possessed; but this excellent judge had himself determined that the salary of his office did cot need increase.

Mr. M. A. Taylor

said, that the office of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, was executed in perfection; but on the death of the present Master of the Rolls, it would be necessary to fill his office with some person of eminence at the bar, to whom the present salary was not a sufficient remuneration. It would not be worth while to have the office ill filled, for the sake of a few hundreds a year.

Mr. Peel

said, that the House had acted upon the principle of equalizing the salaries of the judges in both countries, and the Master of the Rolls was the only judicial officer who had received no increase since 1801. The retiring pension of the Master of the Rolls was now less than the puisne judges, and his salary not more than 150l. above those judges. Since the appointment of the present officer, in 1814, there had been 2,206 debated orders. The Bill would not, he said, equalize the salaries of the Masters of the Rolls in England and in Ireland. The Master of the Rolls in England had 4,500l. per annum, and an official residence; but that officer in Ireland would have less than 4,000l. per annum in British currency. The conclusion of the want of business from the absence of arrears was fallacious.

Sir F. Flood

supported the Bill. Sir S. Romilly said a few words against it. After which, the House divided: For the bringing up the Report, 58: Against it, 24;—Majority, 34. The Report was accordingly brought up, and agreed to.

List of the Minority.
Abercrombie, hon. J. North, Dudley
Bankes, Henry Onslow, A.
Bennet, hon. H. G. Powlett, hon. W. V.
Bernard, Viscount Parnell, Sir H.
Cavendish, Lord G. Ridley, Sir M. W.
Calvert, N. Romilly, Sir. S.
Duncannon, Visc. Smith, Robert
Finlay, Kirkman Smith, W.
Frank, Admiral Wynn, Charles
Gordon, R. Western, C. C.
Lascelles, Lord TELLERS.
Moore, Peter
Martin, John Francis Homer.
Martin, Henry Lord A. Hamilton.