Commons Sitting of 6 October 1831

MINUTES.
New Writs ordered. On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, for Drogheda, in the room of JOHN HENRY NORTH, Esq., deceased.
Bills brought in. By Mr. ELLICE, to Repeal an Act, 52nd George 3rd, and to provide for the more Speedy Auditing Military Accounts in Ireland. Read a second time; Consolidated Fund (1,800,000 l.)
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. POULETT THOMSON, for an Account of all British and Foreign Manufactured Silks exported during the year 1828:—On the Motion of Mr. WILKES, for an Account of all the Friendly Societies existing in Great Britain and Ireland.
Petitions presented. By Lord INGESTRIE, from Farmers and Occupiers of Land, Roxburgh, against the use of Molasses in Breweries and Distilleries:—By Mr. ESTCOURT, from Magistrates, Clergy, and Inhabitants of Lechdale, Fairford, and adjoining Villages, against the Sale of Beer on the premises of Licensed Beer Houses:—By Mr. HUNT, from John Russell, of Wigmore Street, complaining of the conduct of Mr. Hoskins, one of the Marylebone Magistrates.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
Mr. Wilks Mr. Wilks rose to present a Petition, which he considered well worthy the attention of the House; it was from the members of certain Friendly Societies, complaining of the laws by which such societies were regulated. One point of it had made some considerable impression on his mind; it was, that by the Act passed in 1829, all such societies were compelled to enrol themselves within three years: now, it, appeared that 10,000 such institutions existed at that time, and, although they had been previously enrolled, they were, compelled to repeat, their enrolment, which was attended with considerable expense and inconvenience, for the Magistrates of various counties would not tolerate the enrolment until the provisions, besides being approved by a barrister, had been examined by actuaries, whose fees were 5l. each. The Act directed that the Clerk of the Peace should

133
file the rules of these societies without any expense, but, by the decision of the Magistrates, counsel and attornies were obliged to be employed, which subjected each society to an expense of about 25 l. This expense was paid out, of the pockets of the poorer classes of the people, and the societies to which they belonged were compelled to incur this trouble and expense to obtain the advantage of placing their funds in Savings' Banks, and of being recognized by Parliament as communities worthy of its attention. He, therefore, thought that it was probable in the next Session of Parliament he should bring in a bill to remedy these defects.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, he had much experience in the affairs of these societies, und as he knew that many of their funds were not in the most flourishing state, he thought they ought not to be subject to the expense mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, which could never have been contemplated by the framers of the Act. He believed the expense arose principally from the misconstruction of the Act by Magistrates at the Sessions. He did not believe the practice was general of requiring the rules to be submitted to the inspection of an actuary. It was of the utmost importance, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman should make himself thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances before he attempted to legislate upon the subject.
Mr. Wilks Mr. Wilks moved that the petition be printed, and on that occasion he begged to be permitted to make some few further remarks, which struck him as being of some importance. According to the last, returns it appeared that nearly 1,000,000 persons were associated in friendly societies; he had, therefore, endeavoured to make himself acquainted with the law and practice on the subject, and he could say, that, some county Magistrates, and he would instance those of Cheshire and Warwickshire, required the rules to be examined by actuaries; other practices also prevailed, which increased the expenses improperly. It was, therefore, important that those hon. Members who attended Sessions, should make themselves fully acquainted with the subject, that the House might have the benefit of their advice in any future proceedings it might be necessary to institute.
Petition to be printed.

THE COMMON PLEAS.
Mr. Hunt 134
presented a Petition from J. J. Stockdale, complaining of the difficulty he found in obtaining the consent of any hon. Member to present his petition against the late Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, which he (Mr. Hunt) supposed was owing to their being prejudiced against that person himself.
Mr. Humesaid, he had been applied to to present this petition, but because it would be an interference with the proceedings of a Court of Justice, he declined presenting it. He was as ready as any man to punish acts of oppression; but he would never take any proceedings upon unauthenticated statements. This petition was offered to him for presentation nearly eighteen months ago, and it was now, he thought, too late in the day to attack the conduct of the learned Judge, the present Lord Wynford.
Mr. Burgesaid, that no earthly object could be gained by the presentation of this petition, and he regretted that the hon. member for Preston had not acted with the same caution as the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. Huntsaid, he should never follow the example of the hon. member for Middlesex, of not presenting a petition, unless it were of that nature that a future motion could be grounded on it if necessary. He, however, had not presented this petition without first communicating it to Lord Wynford.
Petition laid on the Table.

TITHES—IRELAND.
Lord Ingestriepresented a Petition from forty beneficed Clergymen of the diocese of Leighlin and Ferns, complaining of the difficulty they felt, in the collection of their Tithes, and praying that some redress might be afforded them. The right of the clergy to their tithes was as strong and as well-founded as that of the right of any gentleman to his landed property. There was a combination in some parts of Ireland against the payment of tithe, and although he knew the difficulty attending the general question of tithes, still he thought, that the Government were bound to provide for the execution of the law with respect to their collection. He did not mean to detract from the merits of the Catholic clergy; but he must say, that, the recent attack of the hon. Member (Mr. Sheil) upon the Protestant Clergy of Ireland was undeserved and unjust. The Protestant clergy

135
discharged their spiritual duties in the most exemplary manner, and all the petitioners required was, that they should be supported in the maintenance of their just and lawful rights.
Colonel Conollyhad been requested to support the prayer of this petition, and he did so with the utmost cordiality. These respectable petitioners would gladly forego a considerable portion of their legal rights in order to secure the remainder; but in consequence of the combination to resist the payment of tithes, the petitioner, were reduced to the greatest difficulty and distress. That this system prevailed in the county of Kilkenny he could state of his own knowledge. The conduct of the Protestant clergy was marked with the most Christian forbearance, and yet they were stigmatized by a party in such language as must shock the ears of decency and humanity. The system of combination was rapidly extending in Ireland, and if the landed proprietors stood quietly by, while the property of the Church was spoliated, he could assure them that their own properties would be no longer safe. He attributed much of this combination to the writings of Dr. Doyle, which had almost sanctified it. He asked if such a state of things could last? They had now a most abundant harvest in Ireland, and yet the Protestant clergy could not obtain their rights, nor even a moderate portion of them: in fact, they could not go upon the farms to ascertain what portion of income they might derive for their sustenance.
Sir John Newportsaid, as the difficulty was complained of by the hon. Member, why did he not suggest some remedy? The clergy had the power of distraining for non-payment of tithes, and they exercised it; but there was no law to compel the purchase of such cattle or corn as might be distrained. The great objectors to tithe were Protestants of rank and station, and not the poorer Catholics, so that the blame should attach to the high in station and wealth rather than to the Catholic tenants, who paid rack-rents. It was well known that on potatoes in the north of Ireland tithes were not paid, while the people were compelled to pay them in the south. And it should not be forgotten that a public meeting was held in the north-west of Ireland some time ago, at which it was determined by the gentry to resist the payment of the tithe upon hay. However, he would in no degree justify any thing in the
136
shape of combination, while he feared that the conduct of many of the clergy, in strictly insisting upon their rights, had excited a considerable feeling of hostility against them. He sincerely felt for the privations of the clergy; at the same time he was convinced, that if the Tithe Composition Act had been more generally agreed to, much of these inconveniences would have been obviated.
Mr. William Peelsaid, that if Church property was not protected in Ireland every other species of property would be insecure. He had been but a short time in Ireland, but while he was there he could bear testimony to the exemplary conduct of the Protestant clergy.
Mr. Blackneywas of opinion, that the Government was not called upon to entertain the prayer of this petition, on the ground that the clergy, by their own conduct, incurred the ill-will of the people, and drove them to resist the payment of their tithes. The system of collecting the tithes by means of their proctors was most vexatious and oppressive; and the conduct of many of the clergy, and more especially of many of those holding his Majesty's commission of the peace, was derogatory to their sacred calling, and calculated to destroy all respect towards them in the minds of the people. Many of the people were unable—utterly unable as was well known—to pay the full amount of tithes; yet they were willing to pay as much as was in their power, and frequently made overtures to the clergy to make abatements in their tithes, but, with very few exceptions, those overtures were spurned by the clergy, and their dues exacted to the uttermost. Instead of showing any kindly feeling towards the people, they not unfrequently did every thing to excite them to discontent and opposition.
Mr. James E. Gordonconsidered that the non-payment of tithes could be traced to the influential writings of Dr. Doyle, who expressed a hope 'that the hatred of the people to tithes would be as lasting as their love of justice.' The Catholic clergy under Dr. Doyle acted upon his advice, and told their flocks to swear their children against the payment of tithes. These appeals produced the combination against the Protestant clergy; and it was high time for the Government, and for that House, to interfere for the protection of the oppressed, and he would say—severely oppressed Protestant clergy.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, he would not prolong this discussion, but he must state, that the poor farmers in Ireland felt greatly aggrieved by the payment of tidies. He knew many instances of persons being put to considerable expense for the recovery of very small sums. The Protestant clergy had, in the south of Ireland, little or nothing to do except on the Sundays; and under such circumstances they should not be too strict in their exactions. He wished that the Tithe Composition Act was more generally called into use, for he knew that whatever charges might be made against the Catholics for not paying tithes, they had less reluctance to pay them than many influential Protestants, at least in his part of the country.
Mr. Lefroyregretted to say, that a strong combination had for a long time been getting up against, the payment of tithes. It was not set on foot by the tenants, but by those who had an object in view, and who, looking to their own advantage, made such statements and disseminated so many malicious and plausible doctrines, that the poor peasantry fell a prey to their designs, and refused to pay their tithes. Amongst the numerous publications which were calculated to cause great injury and dissension, and were of the most reprehensible nature, was a letter addressed by a distinguished Irish prelate to a member of his Majesty's Government, in which the peasants were almost encouraged to resist the law enacting the payment of tithes in Ireland. That Prelate said, 'The Irish people, since their first conversion to the Christian faith, always understood rightly the gospel dispensation. They were always too rational and too acute to submit willingly to an unreasonable—I might add an unjust—imposition; and the law of tithe, whether civil or ecclesiastical, has never had, either in Catholic or Protestant times—no not to the present hour—the assent or consent of the Irish nation; they have been always at war with it, and I trust in God they will never cheerfully submit to it. It was imputed to them as a crime by Giraldus Cambrensis, that they had never paid tithe, and would not pay tithe, notwithstanding the laws which enjoined such payment; and now, at the end of 600 years, they are found to persevere with increased obstinacy in their struggles to cast off this most obnoxious impost. There
138
are many noble traits in the Irish character, mixed with failings which have always raised obstacles to their own well-being; but an innate love of justice, and an indomitable hatred of oppression, which no darkness can obscure. To this fine quality I trace their hatred of tithe; may it be lasting as their love of justice.' He could not but say, that the connection of the Ministers in this way with a person who was a decided partisan, did not go far to add to the respect due to their station. He should have thought that Government would have taken the case of the petitioners, and others similarly situated, in to hand, and by a prompt arrangement, prevented such an example as some parishes had given, being generally followed.
Mr. George Dawsonwas sorry to say, that a combination existed amongst a large body of persons in Ireland, and that the parishioners, in many places, were afraid to pay their tithes. They were perfectly willing to do so—they acknowledged the right that was entailed upon them to comply with the law; but they were too much intimidated to act up to what they acknowledged was right. He had known instances in which the tenants had paid tithes in secret to the clergyman, and begged of him, as the greatest favour which he could grant, not to mention the circumstance, for fear it should reach the ears of parties who would take care to vent their vengeance upon them. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland would deem it his duty to stand up in his place and declare that the Government was inimical to the illegal proceedings which took place in Ireland. He must declare that the characters of the Protestant clergy had been most unjustly assailed; and as to the exorbitant exaction of which they had been accused, he must say, that 2s. 6d. an acre was in general the sum, and not 3s. 6d., which was the maximum. Supposing it were 3s. 6d., how many tithe-payers would be content to pay that sum in England, where he believed, in general, tithes were twice that amount.
Sir John Sebrightconsidered that 2s. 6d. an acre was no great sum to pay as tithes to the clergy of the Church to which a man himself was attached; but if the Catholic clergy were to make such a demand upon him, he should not approve of it any more than the Catholics did to pay the Protestant clergy.
Mr. Spencer Percevalsaid, the question was not whether they liked it, or not, but whether they were not bound by law to pay it.
Mr. Sheilwondered what hon. Gentlemen who sat opposite required the House or the Government to do. The petitioners complained that they could not obtain the payment of their tithes. Perhaps so; but then they could resort to measures to enforce the payment, either by proceedings in the Courts of law, or by distress. They might rest assured that there would be objections to the payment of tithes, as long as the Catholics remained Catholics, and the clergymen Protestants. The only measure that he could recommend, was to convert the Catholics into Protestants.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he should not have addressed the House, had it not been for the direct appeal which was made to him by the right hon. member for Harwich. It was, in his opinion, unnecessary for any individual holding a responsible situation in the Government, to signify his disapprobation of proceedings, which went to disturb the peace of the country, and resist the authority and execution of the laws of the land. The right hon. Gentleman well knew, and it was agreed on all hands, that as far as the assistance of Government could be given, it had been afforded. It had stretched the power it possessed to the fullest extent; it had even gone beyond that power in some instances, by employing that constabulary force which was not intended to levy tithes, whenever the least violence or disturbance was threatened. In all such cases the Government would make use of the powers with which it was invested. But what was it that the petitioners required? They came forward, and after stating a case, the hardship of which he did not wish to underrate, asked the Government to do that which was not in its power, without the assistance of the Legislature. The petitioners requested the Government to make the Tithe Composition Act compulsory on all parishes which refused to pay tithes. It was possible the Legislature might at length deem it proper to take that step, but he thought it would be better not to do so until the last moment, as agreements and arrangements between the parties concerned were far preferable to compulsory Acts of Parliament. The next prayer of the peti ioners was one which certainly was not in the power of the Go-
140
vernment. It required Government to pass an Act whereby landlords should be obliged to pay the tithes, which they could afterwards obtain from the tenants, by making an addition to the rent. He did not say, that it would not be a better way to avoid, if possible, all collision between the tenants and clergymen, but he must say, that such an arrangement would not be relished by the Irish landowners; and without the consent of the Irish Members such an arrangement could not be made. He concluded by expressing the readiness with which Government would always assist those who demanded its aid, and its conviction that so important a measure as the introduction of the extended operation of the Tithe Composition Act, which was in force in some places, would require more consideration than could be given to it on a discussion arising from the presenting a petition.
Mr. Walkersaid, he must, deny, that up to the present meeting of Parliament, when he had left Ireland, there was any illegal combination or opposition to the payment of tithes. He knew there was a strong and natural repugnance in the minds of many Catholics to pay them, and he knew there were frequent extortions on the other side. He also knew, that the costs attending the recovery of tithes were the source of much ill feeling. In many instances the Protestant clergy resorted to the most expensive Courts for their recovery, and by that means terrified the unfortunate payers into submission to their demands. As to the amount of tithes on land that must depend entirely upon its quality, the manner of its tillage, and the amount of its produce.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, there were among those who had signed the petition men of the most respectable character in the country, and the statement was, therefore, entitled to the most serious consideration. The subject should be fairly discussed, in order that some measure might be devised in order to put an end to the disgraceful scenes which had recently taken place.
Lord Ingestrie, in moving, that the petition be printed, took occasion to observe, that the Courts of Law were of little use to the petitioners, in consequence of the expense attendant on all proceedings for the recovery of tithes, and some of the machinery belonging to the Tithe Composition Act would not work.
Colonel Trenchsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Walker) had brought vague charges of

141
oppression against the Protestant clergy relating to the payment of tithes, and he also affirmed that there was no combination to resist their payment in that part of the country to which he belonged; in opposition to which he (Colonel Trench) must say, that he also knew the state of that part of Ireland, and could affirm, that many of the clergy had abstained from having recourse to the law, although they had two years arrears of tithes due, and he also knew other instances where they were paid in secret.
Mr. Walkersaid, one case of fact he would mention in justification of his remark. The gentlemen of Wexford had advertised a premium for the best crop of mangel wurzel; a farmer in the parish of Clonmore, which paid rectorial tithes to the Bishop of Ferns, tried the experiment of a crop, and the Bishop immediately demanded tithe for it. The farmer remonstrated, and his Lordship instead of citing him before the Magistrates, where the costs would be only 6d. or before the Ecclesiastical Courts of the, diocese, where the costs would have been also small comparatively, determined to institute a process in the Court of Exchequer, and the unfortunate farmer, for fear of being ruined by the enormous costs, was compelled to abandon his rights. But before he did so, the costs had amounted to upward of 60 l. Now this manner of enforcing payment, even allowing the claim to be just, he called extortion and oppression. Thus was seen the landlords coming forward with premiums to encourage agriculture, and the Church instantly endeavouring to crush improvements by taxing them.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, hon. Members must, indeed, be badly off for arguments when they alluded lo the letter which had been written to him by Dr. Doyle. He could not conceive how those Gentlemen could make him the link between the right reverend Prelate's opinions and the conduct, of the Government to which he had the honour to belong. Was this the first letter that Dr. Doyle had written? Had he not addressed letters to the Earl of Liverpool and the Duke of Wellington respecting the Catholic Emancipation? but no one then insinuated, that because a letter was addressed to an individual, that individual must coincide with the opinions contained in it. He could not refrain from saying, that the late Government had been ap
142
pealed to, day after day, and week after week, for the introduction of that measure, which, if it had been passed in time, would have prevented the evils which were now so much the source of complaint. They had, indeed, the credit of passing that measure, but it was passed too late; he meant too late to enable the unfortunate country to reap those benefits which otherwise it would have reaped.
Petition to be printed.

JUDGE OF THE ADMIRALTY COURT (IRELAND).
Colonel Percevalinquired of the hon. Secretary for Ireland, whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to fill up the office of Judge of the Admiralty Court in Ireland?
Mr. Stanleysaid, that if it were filled up, it would be in such a way as not to prevent such reductions being made as might appear fitting to the Government.

LORD LIEUTENANTS OF COUNTIES (IRELAND).
Colonel Perceval Colonel Perceval rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of the newly appointed Lord Lieutenants of Counties in Ireland, and to ask its support for a motion with which he meant to conclude. He must first observe, that it was essentially necessary that, some persons should reside in the county with whom the Government could communicate, and what person was more fitting for this than the Lord-lieutenant? It had been thought that no one would have been appointed Lord-lieutenant under the bill but one who resided in the county. This, however, was far from being the case. Lord Duncannon was appointed a Lord-lieutenant. He was a Commissioner of the Woods and Forests, and it was impossible for him to perform both duties. The Marquis of Hertford, an absentee, had been appointed to the county of Cavan, although Lord Farnham, who possessed an estate in the county, was generally there, and universally respected. He considered that this was a great insult to the noble Lord. The noble Marquis appointed to the Lord-lieutenant-ship of Donegal lived at Belfast, which, was seventy miles distant. It was impossible that he could perform the duties of his office in the manner that was required. The noble Earl (Leitrim) had never resided in Kildare, but was generally fifty weeks out of the fifty-two in the year in Cumberland-place. He next came

143
to the counties of Waterford and Wexford, and he must say, that the appointment to the county of Waterford really excited his great surprise. The gentleman appointed was a most respectable person (Mr. Villiers Stuart), but he understood that he had let his house, and had no residence in that county. He knew that a most respectable young nobleman (the Marquis of Waterford) had a very large property in that county, and would have been the most proper person to fill that office. True, he was as yet a minor; but the same course should have been followed here as had been adopted in the cases of the Duke of Buccleugh and Lord Hopetoun, who, while they were minors, had the Lord-lieutenancies of the Lothians placed in commission until they became of age. Why was that most respectable gentleman, Mr. Wynne, not appointed to the lieutenancy of Sligo? Why should the Government have gone to another county to look for a Peer for such an honour? This objection equally extended to the appointment of the Lord-lieutenant for Wexford, believing him at the same time to be a most respectable Gentleman. He had been assured by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, that it would be a principle, that residents only should be appointed to the office of Lord-lieutenant, and there were not less than eight exceptions to this rule. He should, therefore, conclude by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be pleased to direct the removal of those Lord-lieutenants recently appointed, who are nonresidents in the respective counties to which they were appointed."
Mr. Youngdid not think it was just, as a principle, to depart from the original pledge of the Government, that residents only should be appointed Lord-lieutenants, for the purpose of appointing those who were politically connected with the Government,
The question being put by the Speaker,
Mr. Stanleydefended the appointments which the Government had made. The hon. Gentleman had first made a general charge of dereliction of duty against the Irish Government, and then referred to one case, in which the Government declined appointing the individual which the hon. Gentleman had recommended. He did not expect, from the motion of the hon. Gentleman that it was intended to charge the
144
Government with doing that which they had not yet done. In the first place, no Lord-lieutenant was appointed for the county of Sligo. In the next place, the rule laid down for the selection of Lords-lieutenant was, to appoint the most respectable persons, whether noblemen or gentlemen, connected with a county by fortune and respectability. The object of the Government in bringing in the bill had been, to appoint persons residing in or contiguous to the counties, who by their influence with the particular district, and by their residence, would be better able to attend to the interest of Ireland. It was certainly said, that the preference should be given to Peers, because they wished to select persons of the highest rank, that there might be an avoidance of jealousies which would have been created if Commoners were appointed when there were so many in one county of equal rank. But in no case was it stated that residence in a county was absolutely necessary; and the principle acted upon was the same as was pursued in England. In Clare, Roscommon, Longford, Tyrone, and Wicklow the appointments were unpopular, and the Lord-lieutenants actually opposed the views of the present Administration. So much for the love of patronage which Ministers had exhibited, and of which so much complaint was made. In the selection which the Government had made they had sought for those who were of the highest rank and influence in the several counties, without adopting a system of exclusion on account of the political opinions of the parties. He thought it was somewhat invidious on the part of the hon. Gentleman to demand the reasons why the Government made such and such appointments, though he (Mr. Stanley) did not deny, that in any extreme case of unfitness the appointment was open to objection. He repudiated the idea that those only were to be appointed who lived in the county; the Bill gave the power to the Vice-lieutenants to act and to receive all patronage during the absence of Lord-lieutenants for Ireland—but not when absent from the county merely. It was considered a very bad precedent to appoint young noblemen under age to the situation of Lord-lieutenant, as it was well known they had most important business to perform during the first six months after the appointment. It was objected that they had appointed Lord Duncannon, whereas there was no man

145
more popular in the county, or more fitted for the important office. In England, in some instances, one individual was Lord-lieutenant of several counties. For instance, the Duke of Beaufort was Lord-lieutenant of three counties—Lord Lansdown for two—and the Duke of Wellington was Lord-lieutenant of Hampshire as well as Prime Minister—offices which might be considered incompatible with each other. The Duke of Manchester did not think it incompatible with his duty to fill the office of Lord-lieutenant when he was governor of Jamaica. With regard to the non-appointment of Lord Farnham, so much complained of, all he had to say was, that that noble Lord, had a strong political bias, and considering the opinions which he held upon many irritating subjects, the Government did not think they could confide in his judgment and discretion. The hon. Member when he charged it on the Government that they had insulted Lord Farnham by appointing another individual to the Lord-lieutenancy of Cavan, might have left it to the noble Lord to complain, if he had any cause of complaint, which did not appear to be the case, judging from the noble Lord's silence on the subject. When Lord Darnley was appointed to Meath, he pledged himself not to dissever his connexion with that county; and the same observation would apply to Mr. Stuart, with whom it was a sine qua non that he should make Ireland his principal residence. In the appointment of Lord Leitrim, it was understood he had a residence in the county; and notwithstanding the charge of favouritism in the appointments, it turned out that in the thirty-two counties there were only six that were non-residents; and he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman, without any grounds whatever, should have taken the course he had done, by moving an Address to the Crown. He was ready at all times to defend the whole of the appointments, and lamented that the hon. Gentleman, from party feeling, or from the disappointment of himself or friends, should have brought forward the Motion. There had been no breach of faith on the part of the Government, and no departure from the principle of the Bill, and he should decidedly oppose the Motion as altogether unprecedented.
Captain Maxwellsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had instanced five or six counties in which he said persons had been appointed
146
who were not attached to the present Government, but he wholly overlooked the contrary cases. In Sligo, the people, knowing to whom the office had been offered, felt themselves offended, and he was of opinion, that in the case of Water-ford, the Lieutenancy should have been put into Commission for a few months, till the Marquis of Waterford was of age.
Mr. Blackneycondemned the appointments when they were in opposition to the general feeling and interests of the people of Ireland. The appointments of the Beresfords for years was not pleasing nor palatable in that kingdom. When he asserted that absentees ought not to be appointed, he meant absentees from Ireland, and not non-residents in counties. In the present state of Ireland, he should consider the appointment of a minor as highly objectionable. The only appointments he found fault with were those where the parties were politically opposed to the Government.
Lord Ingestriesaid, that there was just ground of complaint that the Marquis of Waterford had not been appointed to the county of the same name, in which he constantly resided. The appointment of a commoner as Lord-lieutenant, instead of the noble Lord, was very impolitic, and an act of injustice to that noble family.
Sir George Warrenderwished only to express his firm opinion of the impropriety of an interference on the part of the House with the exercise of the important prerogative of the Crown in the appointment of Lord-lieutenants. He was prepared to justify the appointments on the principle which had been usually followed, of only nominating persons connected with the existing Administration, and as he believed, on the whole a fair selection had been made, he should resist the Motion. He rose principally, however, to state, that both the Duke of Buccleugh and the Earl of Hopetoun were endeared to all Scotsmen, and as these young noblemen only wanted a few months of being of age when they were appointed, to have appointed any other persons would have been felt as an insult by every inhabitant of those counties in which those Peers possessed by far the largest landed property of any person in the county.
Sir John Newportsaid, that the Crown was perfectly justified in the appointment for Waterford. Mr. Villiers Stuart, in point of estates, ranked with any man in

147
the county. In the case of Wexford, too, the person appointed, Mr. Carew, possessed a princely property there, and was in all respects qualified for the station.
Lord Tullamoredecidedly condemned many of the appointments, and observed, that in Callow the principal nobility and gentry felt aggrieved and insulted that they should have been passed over, and an absentee, who was never for a week in the county, should have been appointed. Why Lord Downes should have been passed over he knew not, or Sir Thomas Butler, Mr. Rochford, or Mr. Kavanagh. The appointment of the latter gentleman, who was a descendant from the Kings of Ireland, would have afforded the highest satisfaction to the people. In Wexford why should the Government, have overlooked the resident Peers, who had large estates in the county, and have appointed a Commoner who was a Member of Parliament for the county? Lord Courtown would have been a proper person for the office. The Nobleman appointed Lord-lieutenant of Tipperary was bed-ridden, and, though a most respectable nobleman, was quite incapable of performing the duties of his new office. It was an indictable offence for a Lord-lieutenant to influence elections for Members of Parliament, and how could it be possible for that gentleman to avoid it, he being sure to exercise his influence in his own favour. In King's County they had overlooked five Peers—who possessed most extensive property—and had appointed a Commoner.
Mr. Stanleyobserved, that there were not five Peers in the county.
Lord Tullamoresaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had proved to the House, by that assertion, how very improper the appointments were, by displaying such ignorance of the residences of the Peers in that county. He thanked the gallant Colonel for having brought forward this Motion, as it had given him the opportunity of expressing his surprise and disgust at many of the appointments.
Mr. Lambertwas of opinion, the appointments in every instance were most wise and politic; and he would declare that, in his opinion, the Government would have acted most injudiciously and censurably if they had appointed Lord Courtown, with his political feelings, to preside over Wexford. The best proof of the fitness of Mr. Carew for the office was, his universal popularity.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, that when the Bill was brought, into the House he gave it his support, because he understood it was bottomed on the principle of encouraging the residence of the Lord-lieutenant in each county, and he considered non-residence or absenteeism to be the bane and curse of Ireland. The residence of the Lord-lieutenant in each county would be sure to secure the residence of a numerous and important class of persons. Ministers were palpably inconsistent. Their assertions when the Bill was brought into that House were, that there would be no exclusion on the ground of political opinions, yet, in spite of this, the Marquis of Water-ford was rejected for his political opinions.
Colonel Conollysaid, that he had supported the Bill because it was declared that the Lord-lieutenants would be an effective organ of communication with the Government—a connecting link between the county Magistrates and the Castle of Dublin. But he had been deceived. He deprecated the appointment of absentees, and he particularly condemned the appointment which had taken place for the county which he had the honour of being connected with. He saw that the objects of the country had been lost sight of by the appointment of favoured individuals, who resided as far from the county to which they had been appointed, as the county itself was from Dublin Castle. In alluding to the noble individual who had been overlooked in the county of Cavan (Lord Farnham) he must say, that his Majesty's Ministers should not take credit for impartiality on this occasion, as they had only appointed one Nobleman who was as violent in one extreme of politics as they charged Lord Farnham with being on the other. He would describe this from Horace: "Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt." He did not mean to apply the stulti to his Majesty's Ministers, but he could not forego his quotation merely out of courtesy to them.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, they had recently heard so much of the rights of the people, that he was glad to be refreshed by hearing of the prerogatives of the Crown, which he began to fear were likely to be wholly lost sight of. He had no doubt that many of these appointments had been made from political views, and therefore he should support the motion of the gallant Colonel.
Sir john Millay Doylewas happy to see the Government paying; attention to the interests and wishes of the people of Ireland, which had been particularly displayed by their appointment of the Lord-lieutenant for Carlow. He declared it impossible for the Government to have found residents in the different counties, who, if appointed Lord-lieutenants, would have given satisfaction to the people.
Mr. Anthony Lefroysaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made a display of liberality by appointing Lord Lorton to the Lieutenancy of Roscommon, but who else could they appoint with decency? His Lordship was a constant resident, and was surrounded by a most thriving and industrious tenantry.
Mr. O'Connorsaid, that the appointment of the Lord-lieutenant for Roscommon was most objectionable to the county, from his being actuated by a spirit of proselytism. He was ready to allow that he was an excellent landlord, and a man of high moral character, but this unfortunate spirit rendered him very obnoxious.
Mr. Lefroysaid, the charge made in this case against the Government was, that they departed from the principles upon which these appointments had been originally agreed to. He contended that, in many cases, most respectable residents were passed over, and strangers called in from other counties, to insult the Nobility and gentry who were residents. This was particularly the case in Cavan, Leitrim, Limerick, Watorford, and several other counties. Why, he would ask, was Lord Courtown passed over in the selection for the county of Wexford? That noble-Lord was a resident, a man of large fortune and liberal principles, and when he made application to obtain the Lord-lieutenancy, the only answer he received from the head of the Irish Government was, that the state of Ireland required the appointment of Mr. Carew. This was an indignity which should not have been offered to so respectable a Nobleman as Lord Courtown. He (Mr. Lefroy) denied that the appointment of the Lord-lieutenant for Roscommon was unpopular, for no Nobleman was held in greater respect by, or deserved more regard from, the people.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, that every species of material had been resorted to to give, colour to this Motion—books, extracts from speeches, and private letters, and
150
private conversations. But he would not say anything which could savour of personal observation to the hon. Member who introduced this Motion. He would, however, assert, that there was no instance in winch Ministers had departed from their original intentions when bringing in the Bill; that the appointments had been made under circumstances totally disinterested, and the selection was strictly impartial. The Act gave power to the Government to select for the appointment whoever it chose, and there was no direction whatever as to residence in the county, beyond that possessed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who had the power of ordering such residence in those instances where he might consider it expedient. At the time of the Bill passing, he supported the appointment of Vice-lieutenants, assuming the duties in the absence of the Lords-lieutenant of counties, because he considered it would insure the residence of the latter persons in the county; but no pledge had been given to impose their constant residence by Government. Out of the thirty-four Lieutenants of counties, only four were non-resident. This was the whole amount of the charge against the Government; and he was sure, if the appointment to Sligo had been made upon the recommendation of the hon. Member, the House would never have heard anything of this Motion. Many applications had been made to the Government by the hon. Member (Colonel Perceval) and many other Gentlemen who supported his Motion. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, however, in making the appointment for the county of Sligo, had exercised the power he possessed, and used a proper discretion, and he saw no ground for objection. He must, therefore, defend the appointments which had been made, and express his opinion, that the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion, appeared to consider that no one was fit to hold office in Ireland, unless he were of Tory principles.
Mr. Callaghanwas sorry, at that late hour, that the time of the House should be taken up with the discussion of this question, but he was glad to see the cause of the people of Ireland attended to. The question was, whether the power and patronage should be in the hands of a few who formerly enjoyed it, or whether it was not better that it should be taken out of their hands, and given to those who

151
would exert their influence for the good of the people? He heartily approved of the appointments, and he believed the reason the House was troubled with this Motion was, because those who brought it forward had been disappointed that neither themselves nor their friends had been made Lord-lieutenants. He felt gratified by the appointment of Mr. Fitzgibbon to Limerick, as he was a gentleman of great respectability, of large property, and Custos Rotulorum of that county.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellsaid, the measure had been canvassed, and the great objection made by hon. Gentlemen in the Opposition, was founded upon the rejection of those friends they had recommended to his Majesty's Ministers. It was, after all, but natural and reasonable that the Government in its appointments should prefer their own friends, but he believed the appointments had been grateful to the country. With respect to the first appointment (Lord Duncannon) every hon. Member must allow there could not be a more honourable, upright, and straightforward man than that noble Lord. The appointment for the county of Waterford, also, that was objected to, was equally honourable and upright. In some instances, however, he must say, that he thought the Government had overlooked its best friends.
Mr. Walkerapproved of the appointment for Waterford.
Colonel Perceval, in reply, expressed a hope that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland would not suppose he had the arrogance to point out any individual to his Majesty's Government for appointment. He had only discharged his duty in recommending Mr. Wynne. He disclaimed all party feeling in bringing forward the Motion. He should, however, always contend, that non-resident appointments were bad. He begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER (SCOTLAND).
The Order of the Day was read for the second reading of the Court of Exchequer (Scotland) Bill.
Mr. Kennedytrusted the House would bear with him, as the task of explaining the provisions of this Bill had been confided to him, in consequence of the absence of the learned Lord Advocate for Scotland, while he made a few observations. The
152
Bill had been in the Order-book for a long time, without the possibility of having it discussed; and he regretted to observe on the other side of the House, something like a suspicion that it was the wish of the Government to pass the Bill without discussion. That was not the case; on the contrary, those who supported the Bill desired nothing so much as that its merits should be well understood. The Court to which this Bill referred—the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, had, for a long period, and up to a very short time since, been composed of five Barons—one Chief Baron, and four Puisne Barons. A Committee, which was appointed some time since, on the motion of his right hon. friend, the member for Waterford, recommended that the number should be reduced to four; a struggle to avoid this reduction took place, but in course of time the number of Judges was reduced to four, namely, one Chief and three Puisne Barons; and subsequently, at a much more recent period, in the year 1830, the total number of Judges was to be reduced to two, namely, one Chief and one Puisne Baron; that was to say, when vacancies occurred they were not to be filled up, and they would not make the Judges of the Court above that number. Such seemed to have been the progress of opinion as to the propriety of reducing the number of Barons composing this Court, and now another era in its history arose, when it was justly conceived, that the business brought before it was not of sufficient magnitude to justify its continuance even on these principles. He would state what was the object, and what were the leading provisions of this Bill; the Court at present consisted of a Chief Baron and two Puisne Barons, because, owing to the unfortunate decease of a member of that Court, a vacancy had taken place, which, by the Act of 1830, could not be filled up. When another vacancy occurred, the number of Judges in the Court would be reduced to the amount fixed by the Statute of 1830. The Bill now on the Table of the House proposed that it should be in the power of all or any of the members of the Court to discharge the duties now vested in the whole Court. But in the event of the death or retirement of the Chief Baron and remaining Puisne Baron, it was provided that the duties of the Court should, in all respects, be performed by a Judge of the Court of Session, who should be appointed

153
to discharge all the functions of the Court as it now existed. The effect, therefore, of this measure, would not be to produce a large saving to the public in the first instance, as well as in the result, which would be the abolition of the Court, and the consequent saving of the expenses of the Chief Baron and the one remaining Puisne Baron. He would now briefly state the duties of the Court, and the amount and nature of the business which had recently been performed. The duties of the Court of Exchequer might be divided into two parts, the first consisted of the official duties belonging to the Court, and which related to the revenue of the country. Most of these were questions more of form than of substance, being chiefly undefended causes. From Returns which he held in his hand, and which might be relied upon, he would state to the House the number of cases which were tried in the Court of Exchequer, during the years 1827, 1828, and 1829, those being the three last years of the time during which the late Chief Baron presided in that Court. There were three Terms in the Court—in Candlemas Term there were no defended causes, and five undefended; in the next Term none defended, and nine undefended, in the summer Term one defended and eight undefended. In the course of the next year there were one defended and eighteen undefended; and in 1829 there were two defended, and thirteen undefended; so that, in the course of these three years, there were four defended, and fifty-three undefended causes, making a total of fifty-seven causes. And during the period which had elapsed since the retirement of the late Lord Chief Baron, and during the time that his right hon. friend, Baron Abercromby, had presided in that Court, which, might be stated at eighteen months, there had been one defended cause. So much, therefore, as to the extent of judicial business; he did not mean to say, that these undefended causes did not come into Court—on the contrary, one or two witnesses were generally examined on the part of the Crown; but what he meant to say was, that no party came to resist the decision of the Court, which was founded on the evidence which it was absolutely necessary for it to take. There was another department of the business of the Court, which consisted in hearing the arguments of counsel on points of law, when they arose: within the last eighteen
154
months there had been one of these arguments, which occupied about an hour. This was all the judicial business of this Court—the remaining part of its duties consisted of Treasury business, connected with the taxes in various departments. These suits were, as in England, frequently settled out of Court; but there were some appeals brought before the Barons of the Exchequer, which were despatched by them with great facility, and therefore did not require any material consideration. An Act was passed at the instance of an hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House, in relation to the corporation rights, with a view to enable trustees to bring their cases before the Court of Exchequer, but which had not had the effect of preventing the existence of many abuses and great malversation. He did not mean to say, that the jurisdiction was not properly exercised; he merely stated the advantages which were taken of it. Indeed, it was not necessary that this expensive Court should be preserved on that ground. Another part of the business of the Court, related to deeds connected with charters, rights of property in Scotland, and superiorities, of which they had heard so much in that House: this jurisdiction must be exercised somewhere or other, undoubtedly. Now this department of the business had, for some time past, occupied the Court of Exchequer about six hours in each Term. Of course, every reform which had altered these privileges had greatly diminished the extent of this branch of the business; and there could be no difficulty, therefore, in this part of the duty being performed by Judges in whom it was proposed to vest the duties of the Court of Exchequer. The expenditure in Scotland by the Sheriffs, had been hitherto discharged from the revenue of Scotland, and supplied from the general revenue of the country. It was now settled that this sum—about 6,000 l. a-year—should be voted by Parliament on the estimates, and it certainly would be a very unfit thing that individuals, sitting as Judges, should be called upon to determine matters connected with a sum of money which was afterwards to receive the consideration of this House; and, therefore, this expenditure would not again be brought under the consideration of the Court of Exchequer. The Treasury business was, in the first instance, substantially conducted by the King's Remembrancer. Under this es-

155
tablishment the amount of the expense that was incurred was known. The establishment was very efficient, but still there were irremediable evils arising from the present system, and the whole of the superintending duty, whether the Court were abolished or not, ought to be put under the direction of the Board of Treasury in London; there surely could be no necessity, when that Board existed, for sustaining the expense of this establishment. The judicial business of this Court had been managed according to the English law. Until lately, there had been four solicitors, or attornies practising in this Court, but in consequence of the death of one of these individuals, the number was reduced to three, and there was no individual rising to succeed these three gentlemen, who, in the ordinary course of nature, must soon cease to practise. Such was the state of this Court as it was left by the Act which was passed in the year 1830. Two courses were left open for the adoption of his Majesty's late Government with respect to this establishment; either to super add to it such functions as seemed to accord well with the character of the individuals placed in it for life, as no doubt they were, like any other Judges; or if it was thought unfit to do so, it was for Parliament to decide whether the Court ought not to be put an end to. He did not mean to disparage the individuals presiding in this Court, but if the Court of Session could discharge the whole of the duties of the Court of Exchequer, and if the Judges of that Court were to retire, there might be a saving of the whole expense of the Court. Various objections to this measure would be brought forward; it had been thought necessary to have an English Baron to interpret British Acts of Parliament, which Scotch lawyers were not supposed to understand; but by the sixth report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into this subject, it was declared, that it was no longer necessary or requisite to keep up the office of the English Baron. Their report contained this recommendation:—'With the exception of one of 'our members we concur in thinking five 'Barons are entirely unnecessary, and 'that the business might be conducted by 'four, as it is in the Court of Exchequer in England, without adding to the labour of the Judges.' In the year 1820, my Lord Sid mouth had been desirous of ascertaining
156
whether it was possible to comply with this recommendation, and, accordingly an inquiry was directed to be made as to the propriety of carrying this recommendation into effect; arid in 1820 a report was made, stating that it was deemed by the heads of all the Courts in Scotland, quite impossible to conduct the business of the Court of Exchequer without five Barons: this was stated in the strongest and most decisive terms. No reduction in the number of the Judges, therefore, was made for some time afterwards, but in the year 1830—he would call the attention of the House to this circumstance, in reference to the charge which had been made against the present Government, of acting without inquiry—in the year 1830, up came the right hon. Baronet, and, contrary to this strong recommendation, proposed to the House a measure by which one half of the Court would be lopped off at once, and without inquiry. He did not mean to say that the matter was not maturely considered, but merely mentioned the fact, because it afforded a complete answer to any charge that might be made against his Majesty's Government, on the ground of proceeding without inquiry. He hoped hon. Members would not endeavour to excite any sympathy in the mind of the House in favour of this Court, on the ground of its being one of the ancient institutions of Scotland, because it was an English Court, for which the Scotch had never had any peculiar love; and its constitution was changed in the year 1830 without inquiry, which was a strong argument to shew that his Majesty's Government might have considered the effect of this measure before bringing it forward. When a member of this Court chose to resign, an individual would be selected from the jurisdiction to which he had adverted, who would be called upon, by a special commission, to discharge the duties of the office. This Bill originated in the other House of Parliament, in which bills for amending the judicial establishment were wont to originate: it had passed the House of Lords without objection, alteration, or comment, and it was now recommended to this House for its consideration.
Question put that the Bill be now read a second time.
Sir William Raewas aware that another opportunity would be afforded for a more ample discussion of this measure; but he would take this opportunity

157
of saying, that he Lad no fault to find with the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, as far as it went: because, as far as he had explained the objects of the Bill, he had done so fairly and satisfactorily; but there were some words in the preamble of the Bill which certainly had excited his attention, and which would not have been inserted there unless they referred to something not now in the Bill, or to something hereafter to take place. The words were, That it is expedient that provisions should be made for facilitating the retirement of the Barons. He did not exactly understand what was meant by these words; no doubt the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be able to give some explanation of this passage. Before they proceeded to discuss the principle of the Bill, it was important that the meaning of these words should be correctly understood.
Lord Althorpsaid, the right hon. Gentleman having asked the meaning of these words, he would beg to give him the information which he desired —under; the existing law, any Baron of the Court of Exchequer, who had held his office for fifteen years, was entitled to a certain proportion of his emoluments, by way of retiring pension. The object of this Bill was, entirely to do away with this. The Judges who at present presided in that Court had their pensions taken away, and therefore, until they chose to retire, they would have a right to the whole of the salary attached to their office. With respect to the Senior Barons, who had for a very considerable time held these offices, it was proposed to give them the option of retiring on three-fourths of their salary. With regard to the Lord Chief Baron, however, who had been a much shorter time in office, it was proposed, by way of holding out an inducement to him to retire, that he should have the option of receiving one- half of his salary, as a retiring pension. Thus the saving to the country would be one-half of the Lord Chief Baron's income, and one-fourth of the salaries of each of the other Barons. It was true the present Lord Chief Baron had been in office but a very short time; but as the office was granted to him for life, he would of course retain it, if he should not consent to his arrangement. With respect to his appointment in the first instance, he should not do justice to
158
his own feelings, or to those of the Lord Chief Baron himself, if he did not say that the appointment of his right hon. friend to that office did great credit to his Majesty's Ministers, and that it had been fully justified by his conduct and talent. It was certainly very much owing to his representations, that the existing state of the Court of Exchequer had been taken into consideration; and, therefore, it would be quite contrary to all the principles on which the Government of this country proceeded, to deprive a Judge of his office, without giving him some compensation for the loss of it. This was the state of the case; and he trusted the House would think that the circumstances warranted this proceeding.
Mr. Humesaid, the principle on which they were proceeding was the most extraordinary he had ever heard of in his life. His hon. and learned friend had given quite sufficient reason to justify the abolition of this Court three years ago; he had stated, that during the three last years there were only four causes, and yet when he (Mr. Hume) strongly urged that on the House two years ago, he was met by assertions that the Court could not be done away with. What did they do only one year ago? They increased this Court, by placing in it a very fit and competent man, no doubt, but so far from his Majesty's Government receiving any credit for that appointment, which the noble Lord appeared to think they deserved, he (Mr. Hume) condemned it at once, and called it a job, a rank job, for some purpose or other, and if it were done for the purpose of obtaining the support of any nobleman for the Ministry, it was an abominable proceeding, it had been held that, a Judge who was appointed for life should not be removed so long; as he conducted himself properly, and while no complaint was made of him; but were the people of England to be told, that, a Judge who had been one year and a-half in office was to receive, a pension of 2,000 l. a-year? This gentleman had not been in office more than a year and a-half, and yet he was to be put down in the Pension list for 2,000 l. a-year, at a time, too, when they ought to economise. This was a most objectionable proceeding; this Bill came down from the House of Lords without explanation, and they were to be told now at the last moment—at the eleventh hour—what it proposed to do. Why was not this Court abolished at

159
once? Why were they to have any of these half-and-half measures? Why go beating about the bush in this way? There were now two legal Bills in progress; one had for its object the abolition of a Court, the other the establishment of one: why should not the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer preside at the head of the new Bankruptcy Court? Surely, it would be no degradation to him? He would take the office after the Lord Chancellor: and, upon principle, this would be the most likely way of doing justice to all parties. What was there in the Bankruptcy Court for four Judges to do? Why could not three be dispensed with, and the Lord Chief Baron of Scotland preside in the Court? He could not be incompetent to fill the office; for he was for many years a Commissioner of Bankrupts, and was well acquainted with English law. Why, the office was just fitted for him. It would be much better to bring in a Bill to abolish the Court of Exchequer at once. With regard to the other Judges, if they could not be made useful, let them have the retired allowance in consequence of their long-services; but the idea that the Chief Baron, who had been only fifteen months in office, should receive a pension of 2,000 l. a-year, was monstrous, and he hoped the proposition was one which the House of Commons would never consent to. Some alteration, therefore, should be made in this Bill in Committee, and the services of the Judges should be made available elsewhere, instead of placing them on the Pension-list. If the Chief Baron were made the Judge in bankruptcy, the country would save 1,000 l. a-year, or, if desirable, give him 4,000 l. a-year; but really, to talk of four Judges in bankruptcy appeared to him to be quite absurd.
Mr. Robert Fergusonexpected nothing but opposition from the hon. member for Middlesex in questions of this nature; yet he was surprised at the observations he had made. How could he call the saving of 2,000 l. a-year in one instance a job? If there was a man in England who would scorn the insinuation of jobbing, it was the present Lord Chief Baron of Scotland. During the last Administration, his right hon. friend, the member for Bute, obtained the appointment of a Committee to inquire into this subject, but it was ultimately agreed that the Court of Exchequer should remain as it was. In progress of time, however, it had been reduced to a Chief
160
Baron, and one Puisne Baron, His hon. and learned friend, in agreeing to this arrangement, acted with the greatest honour and propriety, because he cut down that which his long services and high station so justly entitled him to. During the former Administration there occurred a vacancy, and he had always viewed with the greatest satisfaction the course adopted by the noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Government at that time. He well knew the merits of the right hon. Gentleman in question—he recollected the political events which had thrown him out of public life—he remembered well his merits, and he sent to him and offered him the appointment. This was a most honourable trait in the character of his Grace the Duke of Wellington. The present Lord Chief Baron accepted the office, and he went down to Scotland, considering it as a permanent situation, with 4,000 l. a-year; of course he had ascertained that, before he consented to fill the office. Upon that conviction he expended a considerable sum in purchasing a house, and furnishing it from top to bottom. He soon discovered that the Court afforded him hardly anything to do, and then, instead of contentedly receiving this large salary, and doing nothing for it, he was the first to give an opinion in favour of merging that Court in the Court of Session. He knew that it was sacrificing 4,000 l. a-year, but his virtuous mind could not brook the idea of its being kept up as a separate Court, merely on account of his personal interest, and, therefore, he gave the advice he did with respect to it. There was no man to whose acts the term jobbing was less applicable. He was almost inclined to beg the Government not to propose giving him a farthing, but to appeal to a vote of the House on his conduct.
Sir George Warrenderhad not made up his mind as to whether the Court was not useful, or might not be made so, by having additional business thrown into it. He had suggested, on a former occasion, that the duties of the Admiralty Court, and of the Commissary Court, should be transferred to the Court now proposed to be abolished, which would have been much better than transferring them to the Court of Session. These suggestions arose out of a correspondence he had, not only with lawyers in Scotland, well acquainted with the practice of the different Courts, but with high authorities there, and, had those

161
suggestions been adopted, there would have been an ample share of duty allotted to that Court. Undoubtedly, at present, its duties were chiefly executed by the King's Remembrancer, a most active and intelligent Officer, who, he expected, would be continued in the exercise of his functions. They ought not, however, at once to abolish this Court without inquiry into the possibility of making it efficient, and thus save the public the payment of a pension of this magnitude. He fully concurred in what was said by the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright, with regard to the right hon. Baronet below him.
Sir William Raewas a little surprised when he heard of the bringing in of this Bill, and recollected that it was not more than a year since the appointment now proposed to be done away with was made; and still more was he surprised when he found that this was a Bill relating merely to one Court; and that its preamble did not even profess to improve the Administration of Justice, but merely to save expense. He should have expected, too, that a Bill of this kind would have been brought forward by the Lord Advocate. His absence was to be regretted as they should have heard from him the nature of the inquiries he made previous to deciding upon the abolition of this Court. He (Sir William Rae) had made inquiries before him, when the question was simply as to a reduction in the number of the Judges. Now this was a much more important question, for it related to the entire abolition of the whole Court, He doubted the Lord Advocate's having made inquiries similar to his; but, at any rate, they ought to have had some information upon which to go, so that they might have been satisfied, first, that the Court ought to be abolished; and secondly, that its duties would be advantageously discharged by their being allotted in the manner proposed by the Bill. His hon. friend opposite represented the Court of Exchequer as one of very recent origin; but the fact was, that the report of the Commissioners who investigated the Courts of Justice in Scotland, stated that it was not known at what period it was established. It was obvious, that some Court of the kind must have existed from the beginning of the Monarchy, and there were documents extant in the Court of Exchequer, bearing date 1300. From that period, up to the time of the Union, the Court of Exchequer
162
continued to be a useful Court; and to shew the regard our ancestors had for it, the nineteenth article of the Union provided that it should have the same powers as the Court of Exchequer in England. From the time of the Union to the present day, no one had ever dreamt of its abolition. With respect to its Juries, they were set forth at great length in the report to which he alluded, but they were briefly these. The Court tried at the bar all cases of offences against the revenue by a Jury; it decided all questions of law arising out of a special verdict, besides which, all questions in which the revenue was concerned were liable to come from the other Courts; and all cases of dispute with regard to the assessed taxes, the appeal went to the Barons of the Exchequer; they examined Sheriffs' accounts, and performed a variety of other duties of that description. The number of cases on the paper of the Court of Exchequer in 1815 was 103; in 1816, ninety-seven; and in 1817, 100. The number of cases tried at bar in 1816, were forty-three; in 1817, sixty-six; and so they went on increasing for several years, till they reached an average of ninety-eight. He should like to have had returns of the other duties performed by the Court of Exchequer, for it appeared extraordinary that this Court, which, at the Union, was declared to be necessary when the whole receipt of Customs did not exceed 35,000 l., should now be declared unnecessary, when the revenue of Scotland was above 5,000,000 l. The hon. member for Middlesex thought it his duty, several years ago, to call for various returns connected with the Court of Exchequer. His motion created alarm in the Commissioners of the Revenue, and the result was, a complete change in their arrangements; and, among other things, it put an end to the system of compounding for offences, which had led to great abuses. Having no interest in this question, he hoped the noble Lord would not put him in the situation of a party opposed to the Lord Chancellor; he opposed this Bill purely because he did not think that an ancient Court should be so unceremoniously abolished without inquiry, and because he was confident that, were proper means taken, an abundant share of business might be found for it. There was one practice of this Court which would meet with the approbation of the House. Where men were too poor to employ counsel, the Judge, with the greatest

163
anxiety, acted the part of counsel for them, watched every part of the proceedings, and if the evidence was not complete against the defendants, directed the Jury to find for them. But if a Chief Baron of the Exchequer was not wanted in Scotland, why was one wanted in England? Why was not the Chief Baron set aside here? Because every one felt that the Court of Exchequer ought to be confided to the ablest and most dignified hands. Whatever might be said to the contrary, he was quite satisfied that the people of Scotland were attached to the ancient Exchequer Court of that country; and would regard its demolition in any other than a favourable light. It was necessary for the Government to institute further inquiries before they proceeded to take a step which would be unpopular in Scotland. A bill for making some alterations in the practice of the Scotch Court of Exchequer, was introduced into this House in June, 1830. He regretted that the hon. member for Middlesex did not make it his duty to attend at that time, and state his objections to the Court. The constitution of the Court was then brought fully under the consideration of Parliament; and the opportunity would have been a proper and a convenient one for the hon. Member to have raised his objections, but he was silent. The present Lord Chancellor, however, at that time a Member of this House, went through all the clauses of the Bill then proposed, and discussed every part of it. Having done so, he (Sir W. Rae) appealed to the House to say whether he did not pronounce the measure then under the consideration of Parliament perfectly satisfactory. It would be remembered, that the Bill was passed in July, 1830; in the November following he left office; but he had previously been at the pains to communicate with the present Lord Chief Baron of Scotland, upon the subject of the Exchequer Court; and, in reply, he received a letter from him, in which he did not throw out one single suggestion as to the propriety of abolishing that Court. The present Chief Baron of England, too, at that time Lord Chancellor, approved of the Bill introduced in 1830, and lent his aid to carry it through Parliament as a proper measure. All these persons, as well as the majority of the Members of this House who were present during the discussion of the measure of 1830, concurred in the
164
statements which were made, and were of opinion that the Courts of Scotland would, by that measure, be placed upon their proper footing. He felt bound to make these observations, to explain the course which he took while he was in office. The Government of that day chose to place confidence in him as their officer. No bills upon the subject of the Scotch law or the Scotch Courts of Justice were brought into this or the other House of Parliament without his knowledge. Whatever he proposed as an amendment of that law, or as a judicious reform of those Courts, was accepted by the Government, and measures were introduced accordingly. Thus he abolished the Jury Court, the Court of Admiralty, and the Consistorial Court, imposed heavier duties on the Court of Session, yet deprived it, as well as the Court of Exchequer, of two Judges each, effecting by all these measures a saving to the public of 23,000 l, a-year. Such a course of proceeding on his part, during the short time that he was in office, might satisfy the House, that if he thought the abolition of the Court of Exchequer would have done good, he should not have hesitated to have come down to Parliament with a Bill to abolish it. The day for patronage was gone by, and the late Government had certainly no greater regard for it than the present. If they abolished the Court of Exchequer, in what way were its various and important duties to be performed? It was proposed to vest them all in one Puisne Judge of the Court of Session. That was a most objectionable proposition. At this moment there was not in the Court of Session a single Judge who ever was present at a trial in the Court of Exchequer, or ever saw any part of the proceedings there. It was vain to suppose, then, that a Judge from the Court of Session could properly be appointed to perform the duties of the Court of Exchequer. Would he be able to direct a Jury? Where Juries were impanelled, it was necessary that they should be properly charged. A Judge from the Court of Session would be utterly incapable of performing that important duty. There was not at this moment in that Court a single Judge who would undertake to do it. It was true, that where money was in the case, men would undertake to do anything; but certainly no man of character and reputation in the Court of Session would undertake the perform-

165
ance of this duty. But, putting this out of the question, how would the Court of Session be able to spare one of its Judges to attend to the business of the Court of Exchequer? By the measures which he introduced and carried through Parliament, the whole of the business of the Admiralty and Consistorial Courts had been thrown upon the Court of Session, the number of whose Judges had, at the same time, been reduced. The result of all this was, that, that Court had now so much business pressing upon it, as to render it perfectly incapable of performing more. Were they then to take away one of its Judges, and to impose upon him the performance of duties of which he knew nothing? As far as he was at present informed, therefore, and as far as his own experience of the practice of the Courts of Law in Scotland enabled him to form an opinion, he was decidedly opposed to the provisions of this Bill. If it could be shewn that expense would be saved, and the administration of justice equally well administered, by the abolition of the Court of Exchequer, he should be perfectly ready to acquiesce in it, but further inquiry was necessary to bring anything like conviction to his mind upon that point. At present the Court of Exchequer was highly useful. It had existed in Scotland from the earliest ages, and had always performed its duties in a satisfactory manner. Was this Court then to be abolished? He felt the more anxious upon this point, because he expected if this measure were carried, that other changes in the judicial establishment would be proposed. He had heard that certain changes were in contemplation with respect to the Court of Session, and the Sheriff's Court, which every Scotchman would admit were most valuable. When these things were attempted, it was necessary that the friends of existing institutions, which, after long experience, had been found to work well, should make a stand and demand of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should not abolish these old institutions until they had first ascertained that their duties could be more satisfactorily performed in a different manner. In all other instances in which changes had been proposed in the judicature of Scotland, commissions had been appointed to ascertain how far they could be made with propriety. In 1808, 1826, and 1827, Commissions composed of the most emi-
166
nent lawyers of the day, were sent clown to institute inquiries before changes were made. In short the practice had been universal. Why, then, should it be departed from in this instance? If the noble Lord pressed this measure, without inquiry, he would be acting most disrespectully towards Scotland, and at the same time holding the former practice of this House in utter derision.
Mr. John Campbellheartily approved of this measure in all its parts. He was totally unconnected with the Government, and acted in the exercise of his independent judgment. His vote upon this occasion would certainly be disinterested, because the office of Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland was one which he was by law competent to hold, and the duties of which, perhaps, without overweening confidence, he might consider himself not unqualified to discharge; and it would undoubtedly be very agreeable if, in his old age, he should be appointed to an office which, with a salary of 4,000 l. a-year, would impose upon him no further trouble than to dispose of five cases in four years. That would indeed be otium cum dignitate. The Bill had been opposed by the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House upon very inconsistent grounds. The hon. member for Middlesex said, that the Court of Exchequer of Scotland ought to be abolished, not by gradual measures, but immediately and at once; and he maintained, that the allowing it to remain by the bill of 1830 was a gross job. With that point, however, the House had now nothing to do. They must consider, not what ought to have been done in 1830, but what they were bound to do in 1831. In reference, however, to what the hon. member for Middlesex had said, against the impolicy of a gradual abolition of this Court, when it was possible to get rid of it at once, he would merely observe, that on financial grounds, its gradual would be better than its immediate abolition—for if they abolished it at once, they must be at the expense of retiring salaries to the Judges, in addition to the salary of the new Judge whom they would appoint. The right hon. Baronet who had addressed the House in opposition to this measure, had mistaken several material points. Undoubtedly, he had strong Scottish prejudices—they had been particularly manifested by the manner in which he had alluded to the Attorney

167
General, whom he suspected of having swollen the number of informations, for the purpose of increasing his own fees. Had the right hon. Gentleman been more aware of the practice in England, such an idea would never have entered into his honourable mind. The right hon. Gentleman had said much about an insult to Scotland, and a violation of the Articles of the Act of Union, by the abolition of the Court of Exchequer. If there was any truth in that argument, the right hon. Gentleman had himself been guilty of both the crimes which he now seemed to view with so patriotic a horror. By the 19th Article of the Act of Union it was expressly enacted, that the Court of Admiralty should remain, yet the right hon. Gentleman himself brought in a bill to abolish that ancient Court. That he was guilty of a violation of the Act of Union, therefore, could not be doubted; and, according to his own argument, he at the same time grossly insulted his native country. He (Mr. John Campbell), however, was grateful to him for the beneficial measures which he proposed and carried in the year 1830; and he only regretted that among them was not included the abolition of the Court of Exchequer. But the right hon. Gentleman said that the people of Scotland were attached to that Court. They were strongly attached to its offices and salaries, but to nothing more; and when the right hon. Gentleman was introducing so many sweeping measures with respect to other branches of the Scotch judicature, he might very reasonably have found courage to lop off this its most useless limb. My Lord Tenterden, in half an hour at Guildhall, disposed of more business than the five Barons of the Scotch Court of Exchequer did in four years. It was an insult to the country to continue such a Court. Its offices were mere sinecures. It was not very probable that the business of the Court would increase, and there was not sufficient now to give moderate occupation to one of the Judges of the Court; therefore, it ought to be entirely abolished. The right hon. Baronet (Sir William Rae) said, that this Court had existed from time immemorial, and therefore ought to continue to exist. The Court was established to meet certain exigencies, but if these no longer existed, and it could, without detriment to the public service, be taken away, he saw no possible reason why it should be kept up. The right hon.
168
Baronet said, that the Court of Exchequer in England did very little business, and ought, on the same ground, to have been abolished. But the cases were essentially different. The House was aware, that formerly most actions were tried in the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas, and but comparatively few in the Court of Exchequer: since, however, Lord Lyndhurst had become the Lord Chief Baron of that Court, and the right to practise in it had been thrown open to all attornies, instead of being confined to six, it had become one of the most efficient Courts in Westminster Hall. But in the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, the business never could be increased, for private actions could not be tried in it. Nor was there any occasion to transfer to it a share of the business of any other Court. There were no arrears in the Court of Session, which, with its two Chambers, was amply sufficient to transact all the civil business of Scotland. The right hon. Baronet alluded to the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, but that was not merely a Court of Revenue, but it was the greatest Common-law Court in that country, for more actions were tried there than in the King's Bench and Common Pleas together; there was also nearly as much Equity business as there was before the Lord Chancellor. This Scotch Court of Exchequer reminded him of Mr. Burke's description of the Board of Trade—a place in which uninterrupted tranquillity prevailed. The hon. member for Middlesex thought that it was most unreasonable that Mr. Abercromby should have a retiring salary. Now, surely nobody would deny that that gentleman had a freehold in his office, and no one could blame him for receiving his salary, for the office was now his as long as he chose to continue to discharge the duties of it. If the hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to censure, he ought to blame the late Government, who bestowed the office on Mr. Abercromby, when perhaps they ought to have abolished it. It must be recollected that Mr. Abercromby gave up all his practice at the English Bar when he accepted this office, and to which there was a salary annexed of 4,000 l. a-year, and it was absurd to suppose that they could, without doing an act of injustice, abolish his office without giving him compensation. If this Bill were thrown out, they would do the public no good, but they had

169
an opportunity of making a considerable saving by passing it. In this instance it was proposed to give the Chief Baron one-half, and the Puisne Baron two-thirds of their salaries; but when the Welsh Judgeships were abolished, the whole of their salaries were allowed to them for life, and no opposition was made to that arrangement. Two of these gentlemen did not receive compensation, in consequence of having entered into an understanding when they accepted office, that compensation should not be given them. This case was, however, essentially different; and as it was obvious that Mr. Abercromby never could return to the Bar, he was entitled to an ample retiring salary. He could not be blamed for renouncing a sinecure with 4,000 l. a year for a sinecure with 2,000 l. But what weighed most with the hon. Member was, that by this Bill Scotland would be freed from the mockery and the scandal of Judges, in their flowing robes and great wigs, taking their seats daily on the bench of justice, and immediately rising because they had nothing to do. An avowed sinecure might be endured; but the holder of an office with ostensible and no actual duties, obtained money on false pretences, and was in danger of incurring odium himself, and of bringing into discredit the institutions of the country.
Sir George Clerkmust protest against this measure for abolishing one of the most ancient Courts of Judicature in Scotland. He was quite at a loss to understand how the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down could have fallen into such incomprehensible mistakes on the question before the House. His surprise was the greater when he recollected the deservedly high character the hon. and learned Gentleman bore for his great legal attainments and extensive knowledge. Considering these circumstances, he ought to have made himself better acquainted with the duties performed by the Judges of these Courts. He was ready to admit that the Court of Exchequer in Scotland was confined to the adjudication of revenue cases, and not, as the same Courts in England and Ireland, open to the trial of all other cases. He did not know what authority the hon. member for Ayr had for making the assertions he had that night made, relative to the administration of justice in this Court, and in support of this measure, which was to make most important alterations in the constitution of
170
one of the most ancient Courts of Justice in Scotland. He protested against being called upon to assent, to any measure of such importance, without ample time being given for its consideration, both by the public and Parliament. The hon. and learned Member said, that he spoke from authority, in declaring that not more than a very few unimportant trials took place in this Court in the course of the year. This was not the case, but the question was whether the Court was advantageous for the administration of justice? This Bill was brought forward by the Lord Chancellor in another place, and it was supported by the Government, but not a single member of the Administration, except that noble and learned Lord, seemed to know anything about the matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last seemed to be in the same predicament, and to know just as little of this Bill. His right hon. friend, with his usual ability, had made apparent the very great difficulties that might arise from adopting the course now pointed out. It was clear, too, that, the account given by his right hon. friend of the business of the Court was so very different from that made by the hon. Member, that they must have been obtained from different sources; this, at least, was a proof of the necessity of further information before they proceeded to legislate upon a subject of such importance. Hon. Gentlemen might attach little consequence to revenue cases, but did they remember what a vast variety of suits they comprised, and what important results depended upon them? The hon. Member said, "that the Court, was not mentioned in the Act of Union with Scotland;" and that, therefore, there could be no objection on this ground to make any alterations in its constitution, and that this was not the case with the Court of Admiralty, which was abolished on the recommendation of his right hon. friend now near him. But the hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that all the duties performed by the Admiralty Court were transferred to the Sheriffs' Court, where the questions could be decided with equal satisfaction to the parties, and at less cost. The noble Lord said that evening, that this measure was of a pressing nature, and therefore must come on before the West-India Question. He was at a loss to understand what there could, by any possibility, be of a pressing nature in this

171
Bill; he recollected that the Lord Chief Baron was to be one of the departmental Gentlemen for the Reform Bill. It was, therefore desirable to relieve that learned and able Judge from his other duties, and also to settle a comfortable salary upon him, before they sent him on his riding commission over the country. Considerable discretionary power was allowed to this Court in the administration of the revenue laws, and it was obviously a power upon which it was necessary to exercise great judgment; before, therefore, they abolished the Court, they ought to take effectual steps to prevent the administration of the law being affected by it. The noble Lord must recollect the celebrated motion of the present Lord Chancellor, then Mr. Brougham, with reference to the administration of the revenue laws which would go a considerable way in opposition to the present measure. He perfectly agreed that one of the Judges might be taken from the Court of Session to try these cases, but he denied the expediency of doing so. His decided opinion was, that the present measure was nothing but a job, and he would point out some few particulars to the House, which would induce them to agree with him. The case of the Welsh Judges had been referred to, but it must be remembered that that was a decided improvement in the administration of the law, which the country absolutely called for; and those Judges recently appointed were not pensioned off. In this case, however, without any apparent reason, a reduction was to be made nominally, but the public were to be charged with three-fourths of the retiring salaries of the Judges. The Chief Baron was to have half his salary, although he had been scarcely eighteen months in office. Thus with a salary of 2,000 l. a-year, the learned Judge would be enabled to travel about as a Parliamentary Commissioner. He did not know whether provision was to be made in the Scotch Reform Bill for the two Puisne Barons of the Scotch Exchequer. If they were not to be inserted in the Scotch Reform Bill, doubtless there was some other snug job in petto for them. The retiring salary, however, of 2,000 l. a-year, with nothing to do, would satisfy them doubtless, and especially when accompanied with a hope that they would be partakers in some of the good things bestowed so liberally by the present Government. All that had been said
172
on the other side of the House had had reference to the salaries—the suitors had not been consulted as to the abolition of this Court—and not a word had been said as to the questions of importance decided in this Court. These, however, were considerations of at least equal importance, when they were discussing a measure as to the constitution of a Court of Justice. The noble Lord proposed to throw all the additional duties on the Judges of the Court of Session in Scotland; but it was not more than an act of justice to them if they gave to them additional duties to perform, to give them increased salaries; and he would here take the opportunity of referring to a subject not immediately before the House. In 1825 an increase was made to the salaries of the Judges in England, but nothing was done for the Scotch Judges. In 1827, on the motion of Lord Goderich, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, relative to the abolition of the Scotch Jury Court, some allusion was made to this subject, but the matter was not persisted in. The question was deferred in consequence of some slight difficulties, and was not afterwards taken up. He trusted, however, that the noble Lord would take the subject into consideration, and would, on an early day, bring forward a motion for the purpose of increasing the salaries of the Scotch Judges. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the House could not refuse to give Mr. Abercromby a retiring salary of 2,000 l. a-year for abandoning his professional business, for he could not as a Privy Councillor, return to the Bar. He was not aware that Mr. Abercromby had an extensive business at the bar, and did not object to his having a retiring salary; but he protested against the mode in which this measure had been brought forward and was persisted in. He well recollected the outcry hon. Gentlemen opposite made to the pensions allowed to Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst, when they retired from the Victualling and Navy Board, for the purpose of an important reduction being made in their departments, although there was a positive understanding that they should be called upon to supply the first vacancies that occurred in these Boards. And yet hon. Gentlemen, who cried out so loudly against this clause, voted half his salary to the Lord Chief Baron of Scotland, although he had not been eighteen months

173
in office, With what pretence could the noble Lord censure former Administrations with having been guilty of jobs, and making changes purely for the purpose of giving places? He was quite at a loss to see how this conduct could be justified; and nothing had been said on this subject in the least degree approaching to a justification. Whatever was to be done, he hoped that the House would not dwell on a mere statement of the number of causes tried in so many years, and proceed to abolish this Court, without taking into consideration the important duties which it had to perform, more especially when a large majority of the Gentlemen present had not even read the Bill, and very few had stopped to inquire what was the nature of that Court. It had been said, that, the situation was irksome to the Lord Chief Baron, on account of the trifling duties he had to perform; but the question was, whether it was better to have 4,000 l. a-year for doing something, or to have 2,000 l. a-year for doing nothing at all. He trusted that the House would have some inquiry instituted before it proceeded to abolish an ancient Court, and that it would not rest, on the statement which had been made at that hour of the night; and at the very conclusion of the Session pass a measure of such very great importance.
The Attorney Generalthought, that it was a very singular charge to make against his Majesty's Government, that this Bill had been hurried. It had been in the hands of hon. Members ever since the 15th of August, and the learned Lord Advocate of Scotland had always been able and willing to give every information which might be required of him. Hon. Gentlemen talked of inquiry: this subject had been inquired into, and had been put off for the very purpose of inquiry. Nobody had ventured to deny the facts which they had asserted; it certainly would be most extraordinary, if they had mis-stated the quantity of business in this Court, that some Gentlemen did not produce returns to shew their mistake. If the right hon. Baronet had stated to the House, last year, the facts which were now brought forward, it would have been quite impossible to have preserved this Court. Talk of the abolition of this Court being a job; really he never heard such abusive language. A job!—why, if the Lord Chief Baron of Scotland wanted a job, could he have better one than
174
4,000 l. a-year for doing nothing? Imputations were cast forth in general terms, and they would always catch a ready cheer from some parts of the House; but when hon. Gentlemen talked of a job, he would beg them to recollect, that if the Lord Chief Baron had chosen, he might have gone on pocketing 4,000 l. a-year for his life, The Reform Bill had been brought into this discussion; really, there was no subject that could be introduced to the Mouse with which the Reform Bill was not, mixed up, and on which the Representatives of schedule A were not ready to set up a hearty cheer against some one connected with the Reform Bill. So it was on this occasion—because the Chief Baron of Scotland was one of the Commissioners named in the Reform Bill, hon. Gentlemen believed that this Bill was brought, in for the purpose of enabling him, the Lord Chief Baron, to travel about the country to execute the duties imposed upon him by that Bill. Could any one seriously pretend to say that this Bill was necessary, even if such a purpose was in contemplation, which it was almost unnecessary to deny? The Lord Chief Baron might, if he had chosen, have transacted the whole of his duties under the Reform Bill, and still have kept his office, and pocketed the whole of his salary. His late right hon. friend, Sir Samuel Shepherd, a most excellent and much-esteemed man, was not prevented, by his duties as Lord Chief Baron, from attending here; bur, on the contrary they had the pleasure of seeing him here in London ten months out of the year? The Lord Chief Baron Abercromby might have pursued just the same course with regard to his duties as a Commissioner under the Reform Bill. His right hon. friend was looking at a document he held in his hand; he might refer to that Report, but he would recollect that that Report stated that all the five Judges were necessary, of the correctness of which, by-the-bye, they had now some means of judging. A subsequent Commission of Inquiry thought that four would do, and, particularly, that English Barons were not necessary. That was the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into jobs; but, instead of the "job" being put down, it was said, even at that time of day, "Why, really it is quite impossible to do with less than five; we must have five: to abolish them would lead the lieges of Scotland to think

175
that their interests were to be neglected, and that their institutions were to be cut down." The hon. member for Middlesex said that one Court was to be established, and one was to be abolished; "Well, then," said he, "let the Judge who presided in the Court which is to be abolished, preside in the new one which is to be established. The Judge who is appointed certainly must have no other duties to attend to, because the proposed Bankruptcy Court will be always sitting, and always employed." This might be a very good suggestion. It might be remembered that when he (the Attorney General) stated that a learned Judge in Westminster-hall, of great experience and ability, might be prevailed upon to preside in the new Court, he did not say that the fact was certain; he merely held out a hope that he might be induced to do so. He might be disappointed, and, in that case, he quite agreed with his hon. friend, that no better individual could be appointed as the head of that Court than the Lord Chief Baron, and he should be most happy to effect a saving of 2,000 l. a-year. With regard to what was stated as to compounding penalties, it was quite certain that the people of England could not endure it if these penalties were to be enforced to anything like the extent of the power which was placed in the hands of the Crown. He trusted that they should see the revenue cases in England very much reduced in number. The right hon. Baronet condemned the Board being allowed a fixed salary instead of their being paid in proportion to the duties they discharged. In answer to that observation he would beg to say, that the Solicitor to the Customs was paid by a fixed salary. The Solicitor to the Excise was, until within a year or two, paid in that way, but it had latterly been found that the business of the Court of Exchequer had diminished to a very considerable extent. Indeed, they had heard a great deal of the judicial duties of the Court of Exchequer, but they were nowhere to be found. With regard to the antiquity of the Court, that certainly could be no argument in its favour, because they could not refer much further back than the Union. He was quite ready to admit that Judges in Scotland had aright to be placed on the same footing as English Judges, but let not a Court be continued for no purpose, when it was evident that, in the ordinary course, it could not
176
exist for any length of time. The arguments which had been used on the other side went absolutely in favour of proceeding with this Bill.
Mr. Pringle Mr. Pringle moved that the Debate be adjourned. There were many Scotch Members anxious to express their opinions upon this subject, and the discussion could not be conducted in a satisfactory manner at that hour of the night.
Debate adjourned.

WEST INDIA INTEREST.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that in rising to move for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of the West-India Colonies, it would not be necessary for him to trespass for more than a very few moments on the attention of the House, in stating very briefly the object of that Committee. Although that Committee would have for its object an inquiry into the cause of the present distress, his Majesty's Government could not propose it with the view presumed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, because, if his Majesty's Ministers supposed they could give relief, it would not have been their duty to move for the appointment of this Committee at all, but to have been prepared to offer some specific remedy for the distress. The Ministers, however, had not been able, from the consideration they had given this subject, to suggest any plan by which that relief could be afforded. It would be in the recollection of the House, that at the end of the last Session of Parliament, a Committee was talked of in that House, but, at the request of the West-India body, was not appointed. Ministers felt it their duty to institute an inquiry, and the result of it was communicated to the West-India body, and to this House, but it was not such as to place it in their power to offer any specific measure to the consideration of the House. At that time, at meetings which took place with the West-India body, it was proposed to them on the part of the Government, that they should consent to the appointment of a Committee to take into consideration the general causes of the distress which existed; that proposal was rejected by them, and they distinctly admitted that they did not wish to have any such Committee appointed. At a subsequent period, however, a Committee was moved for by the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, with the view of inquiring into the statement of

177
facts made on the part of the West Indies. On a late occasion, however, it was proposed that a Committee should be appointed for the purpose of taking into consideration the commercial state of the West-India body; no opinion was offered on the part of the West-India body, but it certainly did appear to him to meet with a great deal of favour from several hon. Gentlemen who spoke on the subject, who appeared anxious that that course should be adopted, and it consequently became his duty to give notice of the intention of his Majesty's Government in this respect. It was proposed that this Committee should inquire—if the House would consent to its appointment—simply into the commercial state of the West Indies, keeping entirely distinct from that inquiry, the whole question relating to the political state of the West Indies, and the relation between master and slave. The cause of the distress which existed had been too much noticed, and too fully discussed, to require any further observations now. By making every possible inquiry, they had ascertained one of the causes of that distress, without, however, being able to suggest a remedy. Complaints were constantly made on the part of the West-India body, that no further steps were taken for their relief, and as Ministers could suggest none which would not involve general interests, which they were bound to respect and consider, they came before the House to ask for the appointment of a Committee. This step must necessarily satisfy all parties, inasmuch as it must either go far to prove that the view of Ministers was correct, and that no remedy could be found, or be the means of discovering some hitherto unknown mode of relief, at which no one would more sincerely rejoice than his Majesty's Ministers. He should confine the objects of the Committee, as formerly, to an inquiry into the commercial state of the West Indies, and being quite sure that on the part of those connected with the West-India interest no objection would be made, he hoped that Gentlemen unconnected with the colonies would not throw any difficulties in his way. He begged to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the commercial state of the West-India colonies, and to report their observations and opinion thereupon to the House.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, this discussion was one of great moment, and the consequences
178
to which it might lead were of great importance; and, though he felt most anxious in respect of the subject before the House, he was so fatigued, both in body and mind, as to be utterly unable to enter into the question. He could not, however, conceal his surprise at the circumstance of the right hon. Gentleman having thought it right, after repeated postponements, evening after evening, to bring forward, at that hour of the night, a question which, whatever might be its results to the interests of a large body of this country, must deeply and materially affect their comforts and feelings, In the first instance, they had been called upon to decide a measure with respect to the sugar-refiners. Great doubts were entertained by several parties interested as to the working of that measure, and he should have stated some doubts of that description, if he could have found an opportunity of presenting to the House a petition with which he had been intrusted by a most respectable body of merchants in the great and important town of Liverpool; other subjects, however, which had occupied the attention of the House had prevented him from doing so. But would this Committee be efficient to answer the purposes for which it was intended? It would not; because the delay that would be occasioned by such an inquiry would be so great, that it would be impossible to take any measure for some time after that Committee had been appointed. He would not say what motives had actuated the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in refusing the appointment of a Committee when it was applied for, and might have been effective. It was said, that his Majesty's Government were willing to grant an inquiry into the commercial state of the West-India colonies. Could any man believe, that at this period of the Session there could be time to effect an adjustment between two contending interests to make any useful inquiry into the general state of the commercial interests of the West-India colonies, or to adopt any measure for their relief? The right hon. Gentleman could not suppose it possible; he must know, that before that Committee could have before it the evidence on which it would be necessary to make up its mind, the period would arrive at which the House would have adjourned. The Committee would have met once or twice; and that would have been the only progress made in the inquiry into

179
West-Indian affairs. This Motion was either an absolute delusion, or Government must have some object in view in adopting this course of proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman said, that if he were prepared to suggest a mode of relief, he would not now ask for the appointment of a Committee. Very likely not; but he did not come down to that House to move for a Committee of this kind, unprepared with a general view of the course which the inquiry was to take, and what was, in his opinion, likely to be the result of it. On a motion like this, they had a right to hear some grounds of justification, and a general view of the case. Whatever might be the views of the right hon. Gentleman, this would be considered by all parties interested as a gross delusion, and as a mode of getting rid, for the moment, of the troublesome and embarrassing questions attending an investigation of the case of this suffering part of the community, who would now add to all those feelings of mental anxiety to which the commercial part of this country must be exposed, the greater disappointment to find, that instead of a fair and honest compliance upon points in which they were deeply interested, the House was about to proceed in this way, without inquiry, and upon party interests. He would oppose any motion that his Majesty's Government might think necessary for the relief of this portion of the community, brought forward at that hour of the morning.
Mr. Keith Douglaswished to state, that the opposition he made was grounded on this fact—that the subject had not been fully argued with regard to the causes of the distress under which the West-India interests laboured. No man who had looked into this subject with any degree of attention, could fail to be conscious of the difficulties under which those interests laboured. What he proposed to do was this—when that House resolved itself into a Committee—to move certain resolutions indicative of the state of distress which existed. He could not refrain from saying, that a subject of this importance ought not to be brought forward at a time like this, when every indication had been given of an approaching termination of the Session; and when, in point of fact, it would seem as if this inquiry were to be instituted by Government, without any serious intention of applying a remedy.
180
It was true there were great difficulties in this case, and there might be every disposition to meet them fairly and honestly. It was extremely difficult for the former Government to bring forward this question, and so it was for the present; not so much in respect of removing the distress, as in removing those party feelings which interposed and mixed themselves up with the question. The late Government were disposed to accede to a proposition that was made to them to refer to the House of Lords the question of the whole state of society in the West Indies, in order that the public might be informed of the real situation of these colonies—information which might have the effect of doing away with a great deal of the existing feeling on the subject. The matter had been postponed by his Majesty's Government from time to time; but he would put it to the hon. Gentleman, whether, if he really wished to improve the condition of these interests, the Government had not better allow the question to come before the House of Lords, where unfair prejudices might, by investigation, be removed, and this House be placed in a situation to meet fairly the commercial difficulties that attended the question?
Lord Althorpsaid, the hon. Gentleman assumed, that because they were anxious to proceed with this subject to-night, therefore the Session was near a close. He hoped it was not. But even supposing the hon. Gentleman to be right, his experience of the business of Parliament must convince him of the advantage which would arise from the appointment of this Committee. Therefore, in proposing it, and pressing it upon the adoption of the House that night, they were not guilty of the delusion which the honurable Gentleman attributed to them. Every body must admit the distress of the West-India colonies. The hon. Gentleman said, that the reason why they had not proposed a remedy was, because they were actuated by party feeling. Such an accusation ought not to come from the other side of the House. When he proposed this Committee he did so with the most sincere views of doing good.
Mr. Irvingsaid, that supposing this Committee to be appointed, its proceedings could not, by possibility, give rise to any benefit to the colonies this year. He agreed, however, with the noble Lord, that its inquiries might ultimately prove advantageous; and therefore, in opposition

181
to many hon. Members on that side of the House, with whom he had usually acted, he should give his vote for the appointment of this Committee.
Mr. Burgecould not be a party to the final adjustment of this question at such an hour as the present. If the noble Lord was right in his supposition that, the Session would yet continue for some time, where was the necessity of pressing for the appointment of this Committee at such an hour as three o'clock in the morning. He begged to move that the Debate be adjourned till the next day.
Mr. Bernalregretted extremely the light in which his hon. and learned friend viewed the proposition for the appointment of this Committee. He regretted also, that an incidental discussion of this kind should have arisen upon the question, because it was calculated to convey any other than a favourable impression to the minds of the parties interested. He could not perceive the policy of resisting the present proposition of the Government, although he certainly agreed with those who thought that the best means of eliciting the causes of the West-India distress, would be by a Committee appointed by the House of Lords, because a Committee selected from that body would investigate the subject with greater calmness and temper than could possibly be expected from any body of Members selected from that Mouse, However, as information upon the subject was necessary, and as a means of acquiring it was now offered, the West-India colonies would not entertain a very favourable opinion of the sincerity of that House to remedy the evils under which they were suffering, if that, offer were rejected. He would not inquire whether the Committee was likely to sit for a month or for much longer; but he saw no earthly reason why the question of its appointment should be postponed. As for discussion, he himself could speak for five hours upon the question, and many others could do the same; but this was quite unnecessary. As to the assertion that the members of the Government had this night deliberately stood up in their places to submit a proposition for the purpose of deluding such great interests as those of the West. Indies, he would refute it as unfounded, and as utterly unworthy of those who had advanced it. Knowing his noble friend, in pressing for the appointment of this Committee to be actuated by no other than an honest sincerity
182
of purpose, he trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.
Mr. Humedid not understand his hon. and learned friend to object to the Motion for the appointment of the Committee, but merely to its being brought forward at this hour of the night. He wished to know whether it was intended that this Committee should take into its consideration the propriety of sending out certain Orders in Council to the West-India colonies? What he complained of was, that the Government, by their interference, instead of doing those colonies any good, were, in point of fact, bringing about their ruin; therefore, he wished to know, whether certain Orders in Council, which his Majesty's Government had in contemplation to issue, would be delayed until the appointment of this Committee? As to the noble Lord's sincerity, he did not doubt it for a moment; he believed him to be as anxious as any man living to relieve the distresses of the colonies.
Mr. Courtenaysupported the motion of the hon. and learned member for Eye, for the adjournment of this Debate; at the same time, he perfectly agreed with the hon. member for Bramber in the propriety of appointing the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman had moved for, even if this Session should very soon terminate. His reason for supporting the Motion of his hon. and learned friend behind him, was, that in all his experience he never know a Committee of that House, appointed without previous debate, which did not fail of attaining the object for which it was appointed. This was the result of the experience of many year; therefore, without the slightest hostility to the noble Lord, or to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman had submitted, he concurred in the propriety of postponing the further consideration of the subject till next day.
Mr. Burgevindicated himself from a charge which he thought extremely unjust— namely, that, in proposing the adjournment of the Debate upon this question, he was not acting with fairness towards the Government. He never accused the noble Lord of delusion; but understanding that it was his intention to bring forward this Motion to-night, he had intimated to him the inconvenience of doing so, in consequence of the absence of many who were anxious to make some observations upon

183
it. He did not object to the appointment of the Committee, but to the Motion being pressed forward at that late hour.
Lord Althorpsaid, that when he thought of the appointment of this Committee, it undoubtedly did not occur to him, as a desireable course, that they should previously have a long debate on the affairs of the West Indies. All that could be advanced in such a debate would be much better reserved for the consideration of the Committee, by whom it would be treated with greater calmness and temper. It was upon that ground that he postponed the Motion for the appointment of the Committee till that evening; it was upon that ground that he persevered in the Motion now. In answer to the question which was put by the hon. member for Middlesex, he would state, that it certainly was not his intention to enter into the question between master and slave in this Committee. That was a separate question, and demanded a separate consideration. Therefore, as the Order in Council to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, applied principally to that question, it ought not to come under the consideration of this Committee.
Sir Charles Forbes, as a friend to the West-India interests, could only say, that he should be grad to see this Committee appointed. It would be a pity that any means of inquiry, particularly when offered by the Government, should be resisted.
Mr. Ewartexpressed his full concurrence in the propriety of the Motion for the appointment of this Committee. It was highly desirable that an inquiry should take place.
Mr. Irvingasked the noble Lord, whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to send out to the West Indies the Order in Council which had been lately prepared, either now or in the course of some short time? He asked, because he was convinced that, whenever it might be sent, the colonies would not submit to it.
Lord Howickthought this no convenient time to discuss an Order in Council which had not yet been prepared. It was the intention of Government, with the shortest possible delay, to pass that Order in Council, with such alterations and improvements as might seem necessary, and then to recommend it to the adoption of the colonies.
Mr. Humesaid, if the Government were anxious to excite a civil war between the
184
colonies and the mother country, they could not do better than adopt this Order in Council. He had not seen one individual connected with the West Indies who did not protest against such an Order being sent out. With respect to the question more immediately before the House, in his opinion it was most improper to press so important a matter forward after three o'clock in the morning. He joined with those, therefore, who wished to postpone the further debate upon the question.
Mr. Burgesaid, if he had abstained from entering into the question of thi Order in Council, it was not because he was insensible to its importance, and to its impropriety, but because he thought that the present was not the most convenient opportunity for discussing it. His only object in rising now was, to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the Debate upon the question of the appointment of the Committee proposed by the noble Lord. His sole object in doing so was to prevent the possibility of its being supposed that he would stand in the way of any inquiry being made into the state of the West Indies.
Amendment withdrawn.—Main Question agreed to, and Select Committee appointed.