The report being recommitted, with an instruction to make provision for retired allowances, the chancellor of the Exchequer moved the first resolution, "That the several nett annual salaries herinafter mentioned shall be granted to the undermentioned justices of his majesty's courts at Westminster, in lieu of all salaries, fees, and emoluments, now received by them; and that there be issued and paid out of the consolidated fund of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, such sums as, with the sums now payable to the said justices respectively out of his majesty's civil list revenues, will make up to each of the said justices the sum hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, to the chief justice of the court of King's-bench, the nett annual salary of 928 10,000l. to the chief justice of the court of Common Pleas, the nett annual salary of 8,000l. to the chief baron of the court of Exchequer the nett annual salary of 7,000l. and to each of the puisne justices of the courts of King's-bench or Common Pleas, or barons of the Coif of the court of Exchequer, the nett annual salary of 6,000l."
§ Mr. Scarlettsaid, that, in his opinion, the House ought not to accede to the proposition because it was connected with a proposition for taking away the fees attached to the office of chief justice. The offices out of which those fees grew were incidental to the situation of chief justice, and had existed for centuries. It was from these that he derived the greater portion of his recompense, and of the legitimate reward of his labours. Chief justices had as much a vested right in these offices as any archbishop of Canterbury could have in the see which he had not yet become absolutely possessed of. If it were proposed, for instance, to make an alteration in the leases of that see, and to give the present possessor a smaller sum in lieu of the loss he might sustain, how much would it excite the disapprobation of that sacred profession. If an alteration were proposed, there should at least be a fair average of the loss sustained by it, and compensation to dint amount. But, what did they now propose to do? To increase the salaries of the puisne judges from 4, to 6,000l. a-year, and while on the average of the last thirty or forty years, the salary and fee; of the chief justice amounted to between 14, and 15,000l. a-year, to add only 1,000l. to the lowest sum he received during any one of these years. This might be an advantage to the present chief justice, because it would give him a small increase to his present salary, he not being in a situation to participate in all the advantages derived from the disposal of the incidental offices; but, though he had had no communication with that respectable individual on this subject, he was sure that he was incapable of bartering any of the rights of his successors. It was unjust towards the chief justice to take away from him his fees, in order to Create a fund for the payment of the puisne judges. It was an admitted principle, that the chief justiceship of the court of King's-bench ought to be a place of great elevation, and dignity. Such was the feeling of the profession. To make it such, it should 929 be a situation of considerable emolument. The profession of the law was like a lottery. Its expenses always exceeded its profits just as the expenses of the tickets exceeded the value of the prizes. To make these situations the object of high spirit and ambition, they should be ones of emolument and dignity. Any step to degrade the high offices of chancellor or chief justice, was a step towards the degradation of the whole profession. Men of very considerable eminence would not be induced to give up a leading practice at the bar, for a salary barely equal, perhaps inferior, to the profits of their practice. The style of living must also be taken into the account. The profession lived very much together, and were rigorous critics towards each other, as to the rate and style of expense. A man of good practice might live in his own way, and make a very good figure with half his earnings. Not so with the chief justice, who was looked up to not only as head of the common law, but as one possessed of dignities and advantages becoming his high station. A man could accumulate less for his family as chief justice with 10,000l. a-year, than a barrister could with the same sum acquired by practice. He was free to do as he liked in the latter case; in the former, he would be chained to hard labour for life; he would be condemned to tug at an iron oar, or if that were considered too harsh a description, at a gilded one. He would advise government by all means, if they wished to induce independent men of the best intellect and acquirements to accept that situation, not to reduce its consequence or pecuniary advantages, but to do every thing in their power to uphold the dignity of it. With that view he would take it out of the influence of the lord chancellor, whoever might happen to take that office. For his own part he did not see any disadvantage to the public on the promotion of the chief justice to the chancellorship. It was the duty of government to provide as many competitors of capability as they could, and the chief justice ought to be et liberty to offer himself. But, for that reason, the appointment of the chief justice should not lie with the lord chancellor. He could easily conceive a case—though, of course, it never yet did happen—of a lord chancellor taking care not to promote any persons to the bench except such as were notoriously too inferior to him- 930 self to threaten him with the danger of rivalry. To prevent this, the government ought to secure the appointment of the chief justice to themselves, taking care to bestow it on the very best man of their own party. The dignity and importance of the chief-justiceship could not be over, rated in this country so long as it was a land of liberty; and every measure that was adopted to lower its consequence, was a degradation to the profession. Upon these grounds he felt it his duty to propose, as an amendment—"That the sum of 12,000l. be inserted, instead of 10,000l." as he was well informed that the average of salary exceeded that sum.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer fully concurred in what had fallen from the learned gentleman, as to the inexpediency of any measure that went to diminish the importance of the chief-justiceship; and if his proposition could possibly lead to such a consequence, he would at once abandon it. But it appeared to him that the opinions of the learned gentleman rested on a fallacy; for he had argued as if there were some abstract rights attached to the office itself. He could easily understand the abstract rights of an individual in possession of the office, but he could not comprehend the nature of any supposed rights attaching to any future holder of the office. It appeared to him that we should look at no rights except those of the holder of the office, and then we should merely have to consider whether 10,000l. a year would not be an adequate salary. With respect to the eminent individual now holding the office, his average salary, after all deductions, might be computed at 8,500l., and he proposed to him an addition of 1,500l. a year, which he considered an adequate compensation. He agreed in the propriety of having the first men in the profession to fill the office; and it was but reasonable to suppose that such men, previous to the attainment of that period when they would be qualified for the office, had acquired a considerable fortune. In addition to this, there was the honour, the distinction, and, he would add, the glory attendant upon the discharge of those high functions, which would operate as a much higher inducement to elevated minds than 2,000l. a year. He, therefore, could not see how this proposition was shutting the door against eminent lawyers to fill the high judicial offices of the state.
§ Mr. Scarlettsaid, in answer to the argument respecting abstract rights, he would ask this question :—Take the case of the revenues of a bishop, and imagine it to be proposed, that the income of the successor of the present bishop should be diminished by 2,000l. a year, would not a cry be immediately raised? If his opinion were asked what other mode ought to be adopted for increasing the importance of the chief justice, he would answer, by making him a peer. As the House of Lords had to decide in the last resort on our lives and liberties, it would not be amiss to have some good lawyers amongst them; and this would add considerably to his dignity. There was a period when chancellors and judges held their levees, and maintained their station with the highest splendor. Lord Mansfield invariably held levees; but, if a lord chief-justice could be found to ride down to court, or to travel, in a hackney-coach, with his train-bearer and another; or the lord chancellor with his mace in a hackney-coach, then, indeed, some saving might be made out of 10,000l. a year. He would have the office of so high importance, that the first nobleman in the land would feel his son honoured by his elevation to it. But, he should infinitely prefer leaving the income of chief-justice as it was, to adopting the proposed arrangement.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that his mind was relieved when he found it admitted that they were not dealing harshly with the present chief-justice, for the main consideration when dealing with vested interests should be a provision for the losses the individual might sustain. It therefore appeared to him that they were now at perfect liberty to consider what ought to be the proper salary of future judges. He differed from the learned gentleman in thinking that this measure was objectionable in principle. He thought it better that the judges should have a fixed salary out of a fixed fund, than an uncertain salary out of uncertain and fluctuating fees. It was upon the same principle that the salaries of the offices of state had been fixed.
The amendment was negatived, and the resolution agreed to.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he would not discuss the question of the salaries of the puisne judges, until the report was presented.
§ Mr. Humeasked, whether it was in- 932 tended to abolish all the fees of inferior offices?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that one of his hon. and learned friends had prepared a bill upon the subject, founded on a report of the commissioners.
§ Mr. Humealso begged to know, whether it was intended to give the lord chancellor a fixed salary, instead of allowing him all his enormous and abominable fees? He saw no reason why the lord chancellor should form the only exception in this new and wholesome arrangement. His lordship derived pecuniary advantages from the very delays which he himself occasioned.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that it was not possible to undertake such a task before a report had been made on that part of the pending inquiry. He would take the liberty of stating, that the notions entertained regarding the amount fees and salary of the lord chancellor, were exaggerated to a most strange degree. His salary, charged upon the Post-office, was only 5,000l. per annum, while the average yearly amount of his fees did not exceed 7,000l., making an income of 12,000l. in the whole. The opinion abroad was, that the chancellor had a nett income of more than 20,000l. a year; but, how much did the hon. gentleman suppose the lord chancellor actually put into his pocket? The salary of 5,000l. was liable, first, to a reduction for the land-tax, and beyond that 2,500l. was payable out of it to the vice-chancellor. The lord chancellor had himself disinterestedly suggested this mode of paying the vice-chancellor, In the whole, therefore, he did not put into his pocket more than 9,000l. for the discharge of his laborious duties in Chancery. His fees., as Speaker of the House of Lords, might be between 3,000l. and 1,000l. a year, and his total income could not be more than 12,000l. or 13,000l. per annum. He did not apprehend that even the hon. gentleman would think the lord chancellor of England overpaid by such a sum. It might be very well to talk of delays and postponements; but thus much he would say for the present lord chancellor, that, as far as related to devotion of time and mind, and exertion of body, it was impossible for any man to exceed him. He said this, because it was a bare act of justice. When it was represented, over and over again, that the 933 lord chancellor was wallowing in wealth extracted from suitors, and derived in part from an inadequate discharge of duty, it became necessary to step forward to rescue so distinguished an individual from a most unmerited imputation [hear, hear!].
§ Mr. Humesaid, he would rather give the lord chancellor 15,000l. a-year fixed salary, than allow him to be paid in the present absurd and objectionable manner. If a delusion existed as to the amount of the learned lord's emoluments (of which, by-the-by, he should require evidence before he believed it), the very way to keep it up was to allow the fees to remain unascertained. He was satisfied that he was not misinformed as to the enormous amount of the learned lord's emoluments. If mistakes of so gross a kind really existed, wily had not some means been taken effectually to remove them? It was supposed that the pecuniary advantages of the lord chancellor were not less than 18,000l. a-year. He was not aware whether the fees on bankrupt commissions were or were not included in that amount; he believed that they were not, but the uncertainty skewed the necessity of inquiry. In some cases he had been informed that the lord chancellor regulated fees as he pleased, and thus incidentally was enabled to put money into his own pocket. Why then, when government were making this very proper reform in the other courts, was the court of Chancery to be omitted?
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that nothing could be more unfounded than the charge, that the lord chancellor had it in his power to regulate fees as he pleased, and thus put money into his own pocket. The accusation, that he derived pecuniary advantages from the postponement of causes was most calumnious. A more calumnious or groundless statement had never been hazarded. What pretence was there for it? Whence could the hon. member have derived his information?
§ Mr. Hume .—So far from the attack being calumnious and groundless, I challenge the Solicitor-general to lay upon the table a return of the fees and emoluments of the lord chancellor, and I will prove the whole of what. I have asserted.
§ Mr. Twisshad no doubt that the hon. gentleman would be disappointed in the result, if the return were produced. He only rose to add one fact, of some import- 934 ance. The other side of the House delighted to dwell on the delays supposed to be occasioned by the lord chancellor; but his lordship, so far from desiring postponements, had some time since, to the diminution of his own salary, made a regulation to prevent them. The holidays formerly allowed in the offices of Chancery occasioned considerable delay; and his lordship had ordered that, with the exception of a very few days, they should be abolished: giving at the same time, out of his own funds, a remuneration to the officers thus injured. Thus his income was liable to a still further reduction, from his anxiety that no impediment should unnecessarily be thrown in the way of justice.
After some further conversation, the Chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.