Commons Sitting of 7 October 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time; Hop Duties; Military Accounts (Ireland.) Read a third time; Arms (Ireland.)
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Colonel EVANS, an Account of the Customs levied in Rye, Nuthaven, and Shoreham, between January, 1814, and December 1851; and an Account of the Tonnage entered inwards and outwards from the said Ports; and an account of the number of the recruiting districts in the United Kingdom, with the number of Officers attached thereto, and an account of the Expenses:—On the Motion of Colonel TRENCH, of all the Houses now rented or employed as Public Offices in the different departments of the State:—On the Motion of Mr. GEORGE LAMB, an account of the Expenses of the Office of Secretary of Bankrupts, on an average of three years, ending March, 1830; and an Estimate of the Annual Amount received by the Commissioners of Bankrupts, with all the Expenses attached to their department;—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, an account of the Surplus of the Sinking Fund to be applied for the reduction of the National Debt during the last eight quarters; of the Amounts voted by Parliament for Supply, under the several heads of Service, for each of the three years, 1829, 1830, and 1831; an abstract account of the Receipts and Disbursements of the Sheriffs and Stewards of Scotland, on account of the Public Service, as passed before the Barons of Exchequer for each of the three years, 1793, 1816, and 1819; for a Copy of all new regulations between 1793, and 1829, authorizing the Payment of Fees to Sheriffs, and relating to the administration of Criminal Justice in Scotland; an account of all Colleges and places for Education; the number of Printing Presses Licensed, and the number of Periodical Publications published under License, or sanctioned in the Territories of the East India Company in the East Indies:—On the Motion of Sir JOHN HAY, of Sums due to the Excise under 4th and 6th George 4th, for Spirits produced being short of the charge by quantity, &c.
Petitions presented. By Colonel EVANS, from the Finsbury Union, for a Repeal of the Duties upon Newspapers:— By Mr. HUNT, from George Hewitt and Francis Watt, praying that Persons who sought for admission to the Office of Justice of the Peace, might be previously examined as to their ability; from the Union of Bloomsbury, for the Repeal of the Tax upon Newspapers:—By Mr. KEARSLEY, from Wigan, praying that Beer-shops should be closed at nine o'clock at night:—By Sir ROBERT INGLIS, from the Clergy of Southampton, for an Amendment of the Beer Act.

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.
Mr. Huntpresented a Petition from Mr. Robert Taylor, complaining of ill-treatment in the Gaol of Horsemonger-lane; that he was denied the use of his books, and was confined under the greatest privations, under which his health had suffered, and was still suffering, to the imminent danger of his life. The petitioner affirmed that the Chairman of the Sessions was drunk at the time of the sentence, and from the inquiries he (Mr. Hunt) had made, he had reasons to believe there was some foundation for the charge. The petitioner concluded by praying for further inquiry into his case.
Mr. Trevorsaid, that Mr. Taylor was only suffering under the sentence of a legal tribunal, and he regretted that any hon.
346
Member could be found who was constantly obtruding his petitions on the House. If ever a man deserved punishment it was Mr. Taylor, who had used every effort to destroy religion and subvert the morality of the public. The hon. Member might have selected some better object for his sympathy.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the hon. member for Preston had asserted, that the Chairman of the Court of Sessions was drunk when his sentence was pronounced. He, as a Magistrate of Surrey, denied the truth of the assertion, but if there was any foundation whatever for it, the matter ought to have been referred to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Briscoesaid, he had presented a petition from Clapham in reference to Mr. Taylor, but he now understood that petition was not acknowledged by, and did not express the sentiments of the inhabitants. It therefore could only be received as the petition of the persons who had signed it, and he regretted to understand some of them had been threatened with loss of custom in consequence of their having put their name to the petition; which he considered an unjust and cruel persecution. With respect to the assertion of the hon. member for Preston, that the Chairman of the Sessions was drunk when the sentence was pronounced, he most solemnly assured the House there was no foundation whatever for the assertion.
Petition to lie on the Table.

LICENSED BEER HOUSES.
Mr. John Woodpresented a Petition from the Retail Brewers and Inhabitants of Preston, praying that Beer-shops should be open during the same hours as Public-houses. The most mischievous consequences would result from allowing Public-houses to be kept open at later hours than Beer-shops. People who were compelled to depart from the one went to the other, and drank spirits instead of Beer. He would, therefore, exert every effort in his power to prevent this partiality being continued by the Bill about to be brought before them for the amendment of the former Act. He knew instances where gin had been sold with impunity at particular hours on Sunday, while the owner of a beer-shop was fined for selling beer about the same time. He knew that, according to the strict letter of the law, the Magistrates were compelled to inflict the fine, but that

347
only showed the law was absurd; though the House was about to commit the still greater absurdity of increasing the distinctions between gin and beer-shops, to the advantage of the former. Several of the clauses in the new Bill were a farago of nonsense and absurdity, and were remarkable as an instance of the haste and cobbling with which Bills were concocted. He fully concurred with the prayer of the petitioners.
Mr. Briscoesaid, it was absolutely necessary to have some restraint in rural districts; but wherever there was a gin-shop the beer-house ought to be allowed to keep open the longest, as the least evil of the two.
Mr. Huntsaid, he had been requested to support the prayer of the petition; and he most fully concurred with those who considered it a most erroneous principle, that gin should be allowed to be sold at hours when the beer-shops were closed. He should, therefore, resist the Bill by which such distinctions were to be en forced, by all the means in his power; and would assist his hon. colleague in opposing it, by moving an adjournment whenever it was brought forward.
Petition to be printed.

SUGAR REFINING BILL.
Mr. Goulburnpresented a Petition from the West-India Planters and Merchants of Liverpool, praying inquiry into the propriety of admitting foreign sugar for the purpose of being refined in this country. The petitioners asserted that it was well known that the quantity of foreign sugar exported was by no means so great as the quantity imported, although the law only allowed it to be imported in consideration that an equal quantity was exported. This caused some competition against our own colonial sugar in the market, with the monopoly of which our own planters had been flattered, but which there was now strong reason for believing was a delusion, in consequence of a new discovery having been made by the means of which molasses could be manufactured into refined sugar of an inferior quality. This was sent abroad, and the foreign sugar refined was retained for home consumption. He had seen the article manufactured from molasses, which had removed all his doubts upon the subject. He therefore considered the matter well deserving the attention of Government.
Mr. John Woodadmitted the great wealth and respectability of the petitioners, but he believed they were deceived by a cast-off clerk from the establishment of a sugar-refiner. They had no means at present of verifying the fact. These bastard sugars had been tried, but it did not appear that any of them had been entered for the purpose of cancelling the bonds of the refiner. The main allegation of the petition fell to the ground. He knew it would be said that molasses with an undue quantity of sugar within it, was imported to evade the law, as was set forth in this petition, but he believed the truth was, such an article was imported only to avoid the duty on sugar. Complaints had been frequently made against the large drawbacks that were made, but he believed the West-India planters benefitted most by these drawbacks. To refine sugar was the work of several months, and he trusted the House would feel it highly inexpedient to throw difficulties in the way of an advantageous branch of manufacture.
Mr. Goulburnwas glad to hear the observations of the hon. Member. The question was simply, whether the present refining system cut up the monopoly which the planters claimed as a right, by allowing bastard sugar to be made from molasses by persons who had no bonds to cancel. The present petition brought that question completely to issue between the refiners and the West-India planters, and the sooner inquiry was instituted into the subject the better, for without such inquiry neither of the parties would be satisfied.
Sir John Newportinquired how it was the petitioners had not brought their statement forward at an earlier stage of the Bill?
Mr. Goulburnhad no doubt he should be able to give the right hon. Baronet an answer on the second reading of the Bill.
Petition to be printed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND—HALF PAY OF THE ARMY.
Mr. Spring Rice Mr. Spring Rice moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Order read. On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair, Mr. Spring Rice moved an instruction to the Committee to receive a clause of Appropriation.
House in Committee.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that there was a most invidious clause in the Appropriation

349
Act, which prevented officers in the army receiving their half-pay if they accepted any civil appointments; while officers in the navy were exempted from such regulation. He did not blame the right hon. Baronet, the first Lord of the Admiralty, for introducing a clause allowing officers holding civil situations about his Majesty to receive their half-pay, but he wished to see the same indulgence extended to officers of the army. He was confident, both as a matter of economy and policy, it would be right to allow half-pay officers in the army to fill civil offices without mulcting them of their pay. Before the year 1828, officers in the army were not obliged to give up their half-pay if they filled civil offices; but in that year the Finance Committee recommended that course to be adopted, and an Act was passed for that purpose. He knew it was the opinion of Mr. Huskisson and Lord Palmerston, that an exception ought to have been made in favour of officers of the army holding civil offices in the colonies. If a Captain in the army, with 7s. a day for half-pay, was appointed a Barrack-master abroad, at a salary of 7s. 6d. a day, he was compelled to give up his half-pay; and many officers had refused to accept of employment, in consequence of which the service had been greatly injured. He should move that officers in the army on half-pay be allowed to fill the office of Magistrates, or any other civil office, without being deprived of their half-pay. He asked the House whether there was anything like a semblance of justice in allowing the officers of the navy to have their half-pay, and to fill civil situations, while the officers of the army were precluded from doing so? Such a course could but be the means of creating unfounded jealousies in the minds of the members of the two services. Why, he would ask, should a Captain in the navy receive his pay, and also his salary, if he was appointed to an office in the King's household, while the officer in the army must give up his half-pay? From 1806 to 1828, there was no such limitation, and the Finance Committee had recommended the stopping of the half-pay of officers in the army on their obtaining civil situations, without hearing evidence on the subject, and to make the distinction in the two services was most invidious. Why should the civil service be treated with great liberality while the officers of the army,
350
whose services appeared to have been almost forgotten, were neglected, and why should a Commissioner of Bankrupts, who had only been appointed a few weeks, retire for life on a pension of 200 l. a year?
Sir Henry Parnellsaid, that, simple as these propositions appeared to be, it involved the consideration of no less a sum than 73,000 l. a year. Up to 1820, the law had actually deprived officers in the receipt of any civil salary of their half-pay. The Act then passed was an innovation, and the Finance Committee of 1828 recommended that the old law should be revived. The members of that Committee were satisfied, from documents laid before them, that the consequence of acting upon the indulgence of 1820 had been, to put the public to the additional expense he had mentioned. The question did not turn upon the merits of the officers, but upon the principle of economy. The report had been drawn up by a Cabinet Minister, and had been agreed to by all the Committee, with one exception; it said, with reference to this question 'The half-pay cannot properly be considered as a remuneration for past services, for the service of a single day gives a claim to it as complete as the service of twenty years. That they feel themselves called upon to express the strongest objection to the changes which have of late been made in the rules and conditions under which half-pay has been received, and that they are decidedly of opinion, that the abandonment of the restrictions was an ill-advised measure, and that it was not more at variance with a due regard to economy than opposed to the very principle upon which military half-pay was established.' The Committee then added that the increased charge by altering the law in 1820 had been, 73,000 l. a year for the army and navy, and they further say, When military men adopt the civil service, the Committee conceive they should receive the same remuneration for it as civil servants would receive, and no more.' Although he admitted that individual hardships would result from acting upon that recommendation, yet it must be clear, that as a question of economy the rule laid down should not be departed from. The opinion of Mr. Huskisson would be at all times of value, but it should not govern the House in a matter of the saving or expenditure of 73,000 l. His right hon. friend had been fully heard before the

351
Committee of Salaries, and with every disposition to attach weight to his authority, it had come to the determination that it was inexpedient to alter the decision of the previous Committee which had sat in 1828. He had felt it his duty to recommend the fulfilment of the recommendation of that Committee, and he trusted the present Committee would agree with him in sustaining the views which he had stated.
Sir Henry Hardingedenied that any such sum as 73,000 l. would be saved to the public by the adoption of the proposition. Quite the reverse. If army officers were not employed in the civil service, other gentlemen would be, who would receive the same or higher salaries. There were about 300 officers on half-pay who held civil appointments, and as it was probable two-thirds of these would give up their offices if deprived of their half-pay, how, in such circumstances, could any saving be effected? By a regulation which he had introduced on finding there were abuses relating to the receipt of half-pay, the country was saved no less a sum than 32,000 l. a year. The indulgence of 1820 had been granted inadvertently by the House of Commons, but then the services of the army were fresh in their remembrance.
Sir Henry Parnellsaid, he made no mistake; he had only repeated the Report of the Finance Committee, which said, there would be an annual saving of 41,682 l. on the army half-pay, and 31,370 l. on the navy, making together about 73,000 l.
Sir Henry Hardingeasked how it could be explained that half-pay officers holding civil situations would cost the country more than civilians holding such offices? For it was clear, that if officers were to forfeit their half-pay they would not accept such situations.
Sir Henry Parnellsaid, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was, that the officers now holding civil situations should receive among them 73,000 l. more than they had at present.
General Phippssaid, the question here was, why should any distinction be made in case of holding civil offices between the army and the navy?
Sir James Grahamsaid, that there was a different arrangement as to the half-pay between the officers of the army and the navy, and in granting a favour to naval officers it would merely apply to those in the service of his Majesty's household.
352
But this favour cost the public nothing, for the expense was defrayed out of his Majesty's Civil List. It did so happen, that in the case of a Vice-Admiral receiving the post of Equerry to his Majesty, his half-pay exceeded the salary attached to his office, so that he gave up his salary and took his half-pay, by which he received no remuneration for his services about the King; an absurdity so glaring gave rise to the arrangement alluded to. The restriction in the Appropriation Act of 1828, then, would be a saving of some 73,000 l. a-year, and for this reason, that naval and military officers upon half-pay now held civil situations amounting to such a sum as that: if they were to receive their half-pay in addition to their civil offices, the country would be burthened for that amount in addition.
Mr. Maberlyadmitted, that Military Officers who had purchased their commissions were certainly entitled to very great consideration, and that the right hon. and gallant Officer had made out a strong case in their favour. He knew that civil servants had retired pensions for abrogated offices while they held situations, particularly in the Treasury, to the amount of hundreds and thousands a-year. He would mention one, that of Mr. F. Brooks-banks, who held three offices, the united salaries of which was 2,100 l. per annum—and who, at the same time, received a retired allowance of 500 l. a-year from another office. Why then not allow the military men to hold civil offices while they continued to enjoy their half pay? He thought that the whole question deserved to go to a Committee for inquiry, in order that substantial justice should be done. Such a Committee should examine into the superannuation and retired allowances of all departments, in order as much as possible to lessen that enormous dead weight to which no other country but this was subject.
Mr. Humeadmitted, that no distinction should be made between Naval and Military Officers as to holding civil situations while they also received half-pay; but the object of the Finance Committee was, to reduce the public expenditure as much as they could without any detriment to the public service. The facts that had been submitted to the Finance Committee were these: that the Navy, Army, and Ordnance cost 13,500,000 l.; and the dead weight upon them was 4,794,000 l.; making,

353
with the Civil dead weight of 484,000 l., a total dead weight of 5,400,000 l.—while the whole amount of the charges for all these services amounted in the year 1792 to 5,000,000 l. only, being no more than the present annual amount of dead weight. In recommending retrenchment on these points, and on every other, the Committee had reference alone to bringing the expense down to the scale of that period, as near as circumstances would permit. Hence they agreed, that half-pay officers should not hold civil situations at the same time, although, upon surrendering their half-pay, their civil appointments would not be disturbed. He often thought of the hardships which military men endured, but it should be recollected, that at the close of the war in 1814, the half-pay of Military Officers was increased, upon the ground that they could not hold civil offices. It would be a departure from the principles of economy laid down by the Finance Committee, if they were to agree to the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Hardinge). Indeed, he also objected to that of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), although it was less objectionable than that, of the gallant Officer, inasmuch as the country would not have to pay the salaries of Naval Officers holding situations in the household of his Majesty; but, nevertheless, it might so happen that some of the officers holding such situations might be in the receipt of full pay.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, he thought this resolution would be as injurious to the public service as it would bear hard upon individuals. A half-pay officer well calculated to fill an office of trust and confidence with a small salary, was unable to accept of it because he would have to give up his half-pay, so that the office, instead of being held by men of honour and education, went to some person of an inferior description, to the great injury of the public service. Justice was as strongly opposed to the rule as policy. If a person was qualified to discharge the duties of an office, and did discharge them, he ought to receive the emoluments attached to it, without the consideration of any other funds he might be in the receipt of; 73,000 l. was certainly a large sum; but the public service might be injured by such economy.
Mr. Humesaid, that he would relieve the half-pay officers by placing them in active
354
service, in preference to young boys, who knew nothing of the hardships of war. If they had pursued such a system since 1815, all the old officers would by this time have been absorbed by the public service.
Sir George Clerksaid, he had heard with great satisfaction the opinion delivered by the hon. member for Kirkcudbright. It was true, that since 1828 about 7,000 l. per annum had been saved to the public in the half-pay of officers holding civil situations; but if the regulation had prevailed previous to that time, few such officers would have accepted situations. Several of the Chief Constables of Ireland were half-pay officers, but none of them would have taken such employments if they must have resigned their half-pay. Why should officers not be capable of holding civil situations as well as other persons? Why should they have no reward for their toils in foreign countries beside a scanty and miserable half-pay? If Naval Officers in the household of his Majesty were also to hold half-pay at the same time, why should not the same privilege be extended to officers in the Board of Ordnance, and other public establishments? Why should the Lords of the Admiralty receive half-pay together with the salaries attached to their civil situations? All he sought was, justice to the different classes of Naval and Military Officers, and he hoped this Committee would not fail to perform their duty.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, he would give one instance of the hardship of the regulation now proposed to be enforced. Sir H. Fane held the office of Surveyor-General of the Ordnance, with a salary of 1,200 l. a-year; that officer had served upwards of forty years, and had spent 10,000 l. upon his commissions, and had received as a reward for his services and his expenses a regiment, which was worth about 1,000 l. a-year. This, however, he had to give up on taking a civil situation, and he went through all the drudgery of office for 200 l. a-year. It seemed that while the services of the officers of the army were fresh in the recollection of the House, it was willing to grant this indulgence, but in a season of peace the officers were to be deprived of it. He was most anxious to press his opinion upon the Committee, although he would not divide upon the subject.
Colonel Foxsaid, he considered that the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the

355
Admiralty, had made a most invidious distinction between the two services.
Sir James Grahamsaid, the whole of the Naval half-pay was regulated by the King in Council; that of the Army was subjected to Parliamentary restrictions. He must again repeat, that Naval Officers in the household of his Majesty would cost the public nothing, as they would be paid out of the Civil List; but under the Appropriation Act they could not receive their half-pay, which it was the object of his clause to remedy. If the income of the Civil Office were to fall upon the country he would be one of the first persons to oppose it.
Sir George Clerksaid, it was for the benefit of Naval Officers that this clause was introduced into the Appropriation Act.
Sir Henry Parnellsaid, his great principle was, never to take money out of the pockets of the public without an evident necessity. He thought in the case before them that necessity did not exist.
Mr. Humesaid, no information had been afforded on this subject. The clause itself had not been printed. He thought that if his Majesty employed half-pay officers he ought to pay them out of the Civil List. He hoped the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, proposed to put both services on the same footing.
Sir James Grahamsaid, in reply to his hon. friend, that in 1822 an alteration was made in the Appropriation Act, in consequence of an opinion delivered by a Committee, that all officers in the receipt of half-pay should be permitted to hold civil situations with two exceptions, which were staff appointments and civil situations in the Colonies. The existing regulations, however, operated only upon the Army, the Naval half-pay not being regulated by Act of Parliament. The object now proposed was, to extend to the Navy the exception of which the Army had had the advantage, so far as regarded official situations in his Majesty's household.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, he entirely approved of the hon. Baronet's regulation with regard to the Navy; but what he desired was, that the Army should be placed on the same footing as it was between 1822 and 1828. It was the opinion of the Committee appointed in that year, that it should be so restored, but in consequence of the early prorogation, the Committee had made no Report. When this
356
clause was brought up, he should move an amendment to effect that object.
Mr. Maberlywished the gallant Officer would not propose any such amendment, because he was sure at no distant day the superannuations to the different branches of the public service must come specifically before the notice of this House.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that the country was equally indebted to the Naval and Army services, and he would be one of the last men to make any invidious distinction between them.
Mr. Humesaid, he would divide the House rather than allow that any particular favour should be granted to officers, merely because they happened to be in his Majesty's household. Why was not the Appropriation Act, or clause, or by whatever other name it was called, printed like every other which was submitted to the House?
Sir George Murraysaid, that during the time he presided over the Colonial Department, great inconvenience was felt in the Colonies in consequence of Army and Navy Officers being restricted from taking civil offices. They were the class of persons best qualified to fill them, but they in general refused when they found their half-pay must be relinquished. It was a mistaken notion to suppose such a regulation produced any saving to the public service, because, in every instance in which half-pay officers had declined to accept civil offices in the Colonies, other persons must, of course, be appointed, and thus the public had to pay their salaries as well as the officers' half-pay. He wished the defect to be remedied as soon as possible.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, any officer would prefer receiving 6s. 6d. half-pay in England, to 7s. 6d. as Barrack-master in the West-Indies. The Government, therefore, had been compelled to appoint persons who were ignorant of the duties, and they could have no security for the honesty of such persons; but with a half-pay officer, if he was guilty of any default, you could appropriate his half pay, or sell his commission if necessary.
Several clauses agreed to. The House resumed, and the Report brought up.

BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he should move that the House should go into Committee, pro formâ, on this Bill; and the discussion of the principle of the Bill might be resumed

357
upon the bringing up of the Report. The noble Lord then said, that he should take this opportunity of correcting some misrepresentations which had gone forth to the public with reference to this Bill, and with regard to the noble and learned Lord who had introduced the measure into the other House of Parliament. It had been supposed in that House, that the Bill was to contain a clause providing a retiring pension for his noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, and upon that supposition some strong observations had been made upon that topic in this House. His noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, was at the time absent from town, but, learning the matter through the daily papers, his Lordship immediately wrote to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to deny positively that it ever had been his intention that any such clause should be introduced into the Bill; and, indeed, no such clause was to be found in the Bill. He should say, in justice to his noble and learned friend, that there existed no man who cared less about money matters. His noble and learned friend certainly was ambitious; but it was an ambition to exert his splendid and powerful talents and abilities for the good of his country. His noble and learned friend had considered that such a clause in this Bill would be inconsistent with its nature, and he had felt hurt that such a statement should have been made. Although this Bill would curtail the emoluments of the Lord Chancellor to the extent of 7,000 l. or 8,000 l. a-year, yet his noble and learned friend was anxious that it should be carried.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that the observations first made by the noble Lord were quite satisfactory to the Gentlemen at his side of the House. Any observations which had been made at his side of the House were dictated by duty, and that fearlessness which he hoped would always be displayed by Gentlemen at both sides of the House when stating their opinions. If the noble and learned Lord felt annoyed, the blame did not rest with his side of the House—the blame rested with his injudicious friends at the other side of the House by their suggestions. He (Sir E. Sugden) had no means of knowing the noble and learned Lord's pecuniary motives; but this he would do him the justice to say, that, from his great public services, and his great anxiety to give the public the
358
benefit of his splendid talents, he believed him to be altogether incapable of entertaining a base or sordid motive. Such a clause in such a Bill would have been a most improper thing. When the subject of the emolument to be given to the Lord Chancellor came under the consideration of the House, he would be found to be one of the foremost in support of the just dignity of so high an office. With respect to the Bill itself he would repeat, that he had many and decided objections to it. He admitted that the Bankrupt-laws must be revised, and their administration put upon a different footing, but this Bill would create an expensive and unnecessary office. He had no doubt, that the whole administration of the Bankrupt-laws might be carried on at an expense of less than 10,000 l. a-year.
The Bill went through a Committee pro formâ.

SUGAR REFINING BILL.
Mr. Poulett Thomson Mr. Poulett Thomson moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Sugar Refining Bill.
Mr. Keith Douglasregretted that this Bill was persevered in at this period of the Session, and when the sufferings of the West-India planters had been so lamentably increased within the last few weeks. The use of the foreign sugar for refining, by the returns on the Table, showed a tendency to increase rapidly in substitution of the British plantation sugar. It was not right, therefore, to allow it to go to greater extent, before being assured that it was acting fairly, to give this preference to produce which was raised under circumstances so favourable, as to place it beyond the power of our colonists to raise sugar at an equally low rate. The noble Lord had said, that this sugar refinery had long existed, and that, therefore, it could not be attended with any greater inconvenience now than formerly, and that until lately no serious complaints had been made on the subject. The fact was not so; the law had been experimental for two or three years, enacted from year to year, and the constantly increasing importation of foreign sugar now demanded inquiry. The West-Indians, however, asserted that the foreign sugar was brought into the same market, and that by the competition thus created, serious injury was done to them. They stated that an unfair advantage was now given to the cultivator of foreign sugar, and thus an encouragement was held out

359
to the continuation of the foreign Slave-trade. The noble Lord and the Treasury, in conjunction with the Board of Customs, had taken means to institute inquiries into frauds that were practised under that system, and which had been matter of complaint. Experimental inquiries were now being carried on in London and Liverpool with this view, and this circumstance alone, independent of the appointment of the Select Committee on the affairs of the colonies last night, should induce the noble Lord to postpone this Bill till he could legislate on satisfactory grounds. He was convinced that the Committee would be able to come to a determination on the subject in the course of a fortnight; and, under these circumstances, he saw nothing unreasonable in the proposition he was about to submit to the House. All he wished to ask at present was, that the second reading of the Bill should be postponed for a fortnight. This Bill would, even if passed, be but a petty mode of legislation, which could lead to no good, and might produce considerable mischief. He would move as an amendment, that this Bill be read a second time this day fortnight.
Mr. John Woodwas anxious for inquiry, because he was sure that that inquiry would confirm the views which he had already entertained upon this subject. He had no hostility to the West-India interests, but he could not consent to their keeping possession of the monopoly which they had for years enjoyed in the shape of drawbacks. He believed that the West-India planters were, in many cases, suffering great distress, and he would do all he could to alleviate it. That arose, however, in many instances, from the heavy mortgages they had to pay, for sums of money borrowed in bad years of the merchants who purchased the sugar and other crops; and the interest being suffered to accumulate until the debt became large, the merchant then pressed the poor planter for payment at a time when he knew that he was unable to help himself, and compelled him to enter into ruinous bargains for the sale of his produce: by this means the real exporter shipped his goods home to the English market, and pressed the poor planter to the earth. He was anxious to afford relief to the West-Indians, but hardly anything that could be proposed would be adequate to the effectual amelioration of their condition. No inquiry
360
on the subject of the sugar refinery could by any possibility be satisfactory, unless the quantity of sugar necessary to produce a certain quantity of refined sugar could be ascertained, that is, the proportion lost in undergoing the process of refining. By this means they might be able to know by the quantity of sugar in a refined state exported, what quantity of foreign sugar was used in the manufacture of it, and comparing this with the quantity imported, be able to arrive at something like a correct result. It was clear, however, that a large capital must be employed in the experiment; and a large sugar-house must be taken for that purpose, and it was impossible that any fair experiment could be made in less than six or twelve months. The public generally were not interested in this question, nevertheless, a great act of injustice would be done to many persons if this Bill was not suffered to pass. A great number of merchants trading to Brazil and other places, had sent out directions that cargoes of sugar should be sent to this country, in the full expectation that they would be able to refine in this country for the foreign market. The sugar refiners had embarked capital in a way which would be entirely unproductive if the Bill was not passed into a law. His Majesty's Government gave no pledge to renew this Bill; but the Board of Trade, and also the Treasury, told these people that there appeared no reason against renewing this Act on its expiration on the 5th of July, as no intimation had been given by the West-Indian body of their opposition to it. The object of the sugar refiners was, to obtain the permission of the Legislature that the foreign sugar brought to this country, on the faith of this understanding, should be refined. The first bill for allowing foreign sugar to be refined in this country was brought in by Mr. Huskisson, and had been renewed, year after year, without opposition; and it was certainly strange that, although the late Government supported and carried this measure several times, yet that some of the members of the late Cabinet should join the ranks of opposition to this Bill, and support any scheme to retard its progress and defeat it. No opposition to this measure would ever have been manifested had there not been a change of Government, for it was not discovered that it could affect the West-Indians until the present Ministers came into office. The hon. Member

361
for Dumfries said, that the competition of the West-India sugar with that produced in the foreign slave colonies, had brought down the price in the English market; and that this was one of the chief causes of the great distress felt in the colonies. The hon. Member forgot that if a hogshead or a case of foreign sugar had never been refined in this country, the competition would still have existed. The price of sugar in this country not only depended on the competition in the home market, but upon the price of sugar in the foreign market. Our colonies produced more sugar than this country could consume, and, therefore, the surplus must be sent to the foreign market; and, upon the selling price of that surplus would depend the price at home, for the competition to sell, even at a fraction more than the price in the continental markets, would always keep prices level. Thus the prices of sugar produced at the Havannah and the Brazils, and sent to Hamburgh and Trieste or St. Petersburgh, would come into competition with the English colonial sugar, and the selling price of the former, as it was produced at less cost, would generally determine the price of the latter. The West-Indians imputed all their distress to the merely obtaining sugar, the produce of foreign colonies, to be refined here, and therefore, called upon the House, without regard to other interests, to put a stop to it. It had always been the custom with the West-Indians to make a great outcry in case of any measure which they imagined might affect them in the slightest degree, and at the same time they always attached a greater importance to their interests and their trade than to that of all the rest of the empire. The manufacturing, the mercantile, and the shipping interests, and even the rest of the colonies, were to be disregarded when they were in question. He would venture to say, that the trade to the Brazils had as much capital embarked in it as the trade to Jamaica. From the returns which had been recently printed, it appeared, that the exports to the Brazils for the last five years had amounted to no less than 21,500,000 l., while the imports were 7,000,000 l., thus leaving a clear balance of upwards of 14,000,000 l. They had compelled the foreign sugar producer to have foreign ships to convey it to the foreign market, in consequence of the impediments that had been thrown in the way of the English merchant or shipowner
362
having anything to do with an article which came into competition with the principal article of West-Indian produce. During the last year, 63,000 cases of sugar were shipped at Bahia for Hamburgh, and of these 17,000 were in British ships, 27,000 in American, and 19,000 in Danish, Swedish, Hanse Town, and other foreign ships. By giving encouragement to the refining of foreign sugar in this country, our own shipping would be benefited, and it the same time no injury to the West-India interest would be done. As the law stood at present, no sugar could be refined in this country which had not been imported in British ships, so that, if the renewal of this Act was refused, an injury to the shipping interest would be done. But it had been urged, that by encouraging the sugar trade with the Brazils and Cuba, a premium was held out to those colonies to continue the atrocious traffic in slaves, now unhappily so extensively carried on. To render, however, this argument of any avail, it ought to be further extended, and we ought to refuse to take cotton, indigo, dye-stuffs, and everything else that was the produce of the Brazils. But if such a proposition were acceded to, what would become of our cotton manufacturers? As long as we sent goods to the Brazils, and that country was an extensive market for our commodities, we must bring goods back. It was said, that our trade had enabled us to carry on the late war, and would the House, to gratify monopolists, consent to ruin our future resources? The object ought to be, to make England the dépôt for all the sugar of the world, that England might refine for all the continent. He admitted something was due to the West-Indians, but before the House could come to any just decision, large experiments should be tried, with a view to ascertain what quantity of raw sugar would be necessary to give a certain quantity of refined sugar; and these large experiments should be continued for six or twelve months, or else they could not get at the truth. No doubt the West-India interest should be considered, but so should the shipping and manufacturing interests of this country, which were very much concerned in this question. It was very well known that we seldom or never had more than three weeks' or a month's consumption of sugar on hand, and the result was, that a few rich merchants could keep it out of the market until it reached

363
an extravagant price. He could see no real or solid objection against the Bill. It caused the employment of large capital—it employed a portion of our shipping, employed machinery, and a considerable amount of manual labour; beside which, there was no country in Europe which had so many facilities for refining as England. We owed many of them to the great skill of Mr. Howard, the eminent chemist, the brother to the Duke of Norfolk, who had employed his leisure and fortune in improving the arts, and, he was happy to add, had found in the result an increase both of reputation and of wealth. He had formerly been a refiner himself, though he had no longer any interest in the business, and was, therefore, so practically acquainted with the subject as to enable him to venture an opinion upon it. Again he contended, that the foreign sugar being used in refining prevented the adulteration of West-India sugar, and at the same time had a tendency to keep its price within a moderate compass. In fact, too, it was well-known that one species of West-India sugar would not refine unless mixed with Brazilian sugar, and then it refined extremely well. To withhold that supply would, therefore, injure the West-Indians themselves. If this Bill were delayed for a fortnight, it might as well be delayed for six months, to which he could not consent.
Mr. Burgesaid, he was well aware that there was a great difference of opinion upon this subject, and he was glad that a Committee had been appointed to inquire, because he was satisfied the erroneous views of the hon. Member (Mr. J. Wood) would be clearly established before that Committee. It was not denied, that the West-Indians were now suffering great distress, which must more or less affect the trade and manufactures as well as the shipping interest of this country. But besides a regard for our own colonies and their aggravated sufferings, we should not forget, that by encouraging the growth of foreign sugar we should be positively encouraging the slave-trade. All other governments encouraged their colonies: but our Government followed a different policy. He was satisfied, that foreign sugar yielded more refined sugar than the produce of our old colonies, and this Bill must, therefore, injure, if it did not ruin them. He entreated the Government and this House, therefore, not to persevere
364
in this Bill, which would aggravate the distress under which the West-India planters were now suffering.
Mr. Warburtoncould by no means concur with the hon. Gentleman, and as to the delay which was called for, he considered it would be utterly nugatory. It would be unjust to the parties if the renewal of the Act was postponed. Until the Government had correct information, and until it was clearly proved that frauds were practised, this Bill ought to be reenacted.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamwould not, for the sake of one party, support an interest opposed to the interest of another class. Sugar was better cultivated in the West-Indies than any part of the world, yet it was said they ought to encourage East India sugar. He thought the West-India colonies ought to be protected.
Mr. Poulett Thomsondid not feel himself called on to go over his former calculations, which proved that the West-India interest could not suffer by the Bill before the House. In the observations which had been made by the Gentlemen who opposed the measure, they had confined themselves to the re-assertion of facts which had repeatedly been urged on the same side. He would confine himself to merely expressing his opinion, that the West-India interests could not be in the slightest degree affected by the measure before the House, and that delay could tend to no possible beneficial result to the West-India proprietors or sugar-refiners. The hon. Gentleman had contended that a greater quantity of refined sugar would be produced from East-India sugar than from West-India sugar. That he denied. In fact, the arguments and propositions he had heard for inquiry could have no other object than the defeat of the Bill. By passing the Bill to continue six months, to which, certainly, he would consent, the experiment might, in the mean time, go on, and before the Bill was again renewed, they would be able to ascertain how far it would answer the object. He made that offer, and would commence the inquiry immediately.
Mr. Humethought the hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw his Motion. If the Motion was persisted in he should vote against it.
Mr. Keith Douglasconsidered that the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) had no right to dictate to him any such course. He had

365
brought forward what he considered to be a just and fair motion, and he would take the sense of the House upon it.
Alderman Thompsoncould not, after the offer made by his Majesty's Government, support the motion for a Committee.
Mr. Huntthought, that the hon. Alderman was disposed to legislate first and inquire afterwards. He would inquire first, and, therefore, he would support the amendment.
The House divided on the Original Motion:—Ayes 130; Noes 96;—Majority 34.
The Bill read a second time.

EXCHEQUER COURT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. Pringle Mr. Pringle rose to move the Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the second reading of the Bill to abolish the Court of Exchequer in Scotland. The question had not been done justice to, having been brought on at an advanced period of the session, when it could not be thoroughly inquired into. The Bill passed the Lords without discussion, and, therefore, now, in its latest stage, that circumstance increased the responsibility imposed upon this House. In Scotland there was great jealousy felt at the subversion of an ancient jurisdiction, which had always worked for the advantage of the country. It was suspected to be part of a series of changes by which the peculiar institutions of the nation were to be destroyed, and Scotland rendered a mere subordinate province of England. In discussing this Bill there were two subjects to be inquired into; first, whether a case could be made out to justify the suppression of the Court; and secondly, whether, in that event, the mode of providing for the despatch of its business was likely to answer. With regard to the first question, but little could be added to the powerful statement of his right hon. friend, the member for Portarlington. He regretted that the House was so thin when he made that speech, which was so well calculated to attract attention to the subject, and leave a strong impression of the impolicy of passing this Bill. They were called upon to legislate on very slight grounds and imperfect information. They had only the statements of the member for Ayr, without any reference to reports or returns in support of his facts. His Majesty's Ministers ought to have made much more inquiry into the subject before they began to legislate in so destructive a manner. Had they consulted
366
the right hon. member for Portarlington they must have derived benefit from his advice, which he would have given frankly and unreservedly, and some of the statements which he made last night would surely have induced them to consider the subject more thoroughly than they appeared to have done. The only person whose opinion had been quoted by the other side, was the learned Judge who presided in that Court: but his experience had been very short. Last year, when he was consulted on the same subject by his (Mr. Pringle's) right hon. friend it appeared that he gave his sanction and concurrence to the arrangement then adopted, of which the continuation of this Court formed a part. But he had changed his opinion since, upon ten months additional experience. Whom else had the Ministers consulted? Any of the other Judges of that Court, all of whom had had much longer experience than the Lord Chief Baron? Or the lamented Judge whom the country lately lost there? Or Sir Patrick Murray, whose aquaintance with the business of that Court had been of such long standing, first when he filled the office of King's Remembrancer, and afterwards as one of the Judges? or did they consult Baron Hume, whose varied knowedge of our laws, intimate acquaintance with all our institutions, and acknowledged talent and wisdom, would give such peculiar weight to his opinion, that any measure which had his sanction would be likely, on that account alone, to be favourably received? It was to be remarked, that while they refused to take the mere statements of hon. Members opposite as a sufficient ground for legislation, so neither did his right hon. friend rely on his mere statement. He suggested an inquiry before a Select Committee of the House; surely, nothing could be more fair. Various questions would require to be investigated by that Committee, but especially the causes of the great decline of judicial business in that Court. The practice of compounding for the penalties was the main cause. This system had been defended by the learned Attorney General, and the hon. and learned member for Stafford. But the practice as they represented it in England was very different from the abuse of it lately introduced into Scotland. The question was not whether compounding for penalties should not occasionally, and under peculiar circumstances, be admitted,

367
but whether it was expedient to allow it universally, as had of late been the system in Scotland. Not whether it should be conducted by the wisdom and discretion of the first law officer of the Crown—the Attorney General—but whether such a power should be vested in a mere subordinate officer, like the Solicitors of Excise and Customs. If it could be justified in one case, why might not the practice be extended to others? This would render nugatory Courts of any kind for the trial and punishment of offences. If the Court of Exchequer had not sufficient business, more might be added to it. This was in the contemplation of his right hon. friend, as he had himself stated, before he went out of office, and would have formed part of the great measure which he carried through the Legislature last year. There were many subjects which might be more fitly placed under the jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer than any other Court. The duties of the Commission of Wines were generally considered as of this description, and there seemed to be an expectation in Scotland that these would sooner or later be transferred to the Exchequer Court. Another branch of business which they might fitly manage was, the department of bankruptcy concerns, and the trusts arising out of them. A third, the guardianship of the affairs of minors and lunatics, which in England belonged to the Court of Chancery, but in Scotland was vested in the Court of Session. This could never be properly discharged by a Court absorbed in judicial duties, but belonged more properly to the analogous administrative duties of the Court of Exchequer. The want of a system of regular and constant superintendence in these cases had long been considered a defect in Scotland; and a much better system than the present could easily be devised. If such duties as these were devolved upon the Court of Exchequer, in addition to its other administrative duties, it would then have quite enough of business to transact. The question then was, whether this Bill ought to be proceeded in without much more ample inquiry. The measure contemplated had never received the approbation of any one of the many Commissioners who had investigated and reported on the judicial establishments of Scotland. And it would, therefore, not be doing justice to so important a measure, to deny a thorough investigation
368
before taking so important and irrevocable a step as this. With regard to the means provided by the Bill for discharging the duties of this Court, the information was very imperfect. The hon. and learned member for Stafford found all the information he wanted in the Bill itself—reasons for the abolition of the Court, and a satisfactory provision for the discharge of its functions. He had contrived to discover more than he (Mr. Pringle) or any Gentleman who was conversant with the subject, could. All that they were told was, that the whole of the present duties were to be transferred to a single Judge of the Court of Session. But as to the manner in which such Judge was expected to discharge these duties they were kept quite in the dark. They were left in doubt, too, if all the various duties of the Barons of the Exchequer were really meant to be transferred to this Judge of the Court of Session. If this was to be the case, it was certainly very inexpedient; for there were many of these duties very foreign to the pursuits of a Judge constantly engrossed with his judicial functions. But from some explanations of the hon. member for Ayr, they might infer that the Treasury duties were to be an exception. But by whom were these duties to be discharged? By some inferior officers in Scotland? or had Government any lurking design of transferring all the Treasury business at once to London? If so, the sooner they spoke out the better. He could tell them, that in Scotland such an attempt would not be very patiently submitted to. It was a point which was struggled with very hard during the Union discussion, and the retention of the Treasury functions in Scotland was very anxiously stipulated for. He could not, therefore, conceive a more violent infraction of that treaty than such an attempt. But to come back to the arrangement for transferring the business to a Judge of the Court of Session. He need not go over the very strong objections pointed out by the right hon. Baronet, to investing any single Judge, not bred to English law, with the duty of trying causes by that law. It might be doubtful whether, even in the whole Court, this might be safely vested, but confiding it to a single Scotch Judge would be infinitely more objectionable. But before proceeding further with this Bill, it was of essential importance to inquire whether this duty could be transferred to the Court

369
of Session at all, without materially impeding its other business. The Court of Session was already overburthened with business, and ought rather to be relieved of a part than have an additional load of duty imposed upon it. Last year two Judges were cut off from that Court. But the bill of 1830 was still an experiment. It had not been a twelvemonth in operation; and so long as its success was doubtful, it would, surely, be extremely unwise to meddle with it, especially by transferring to it new duties. But in Scotland there was nothing so much dreaded as fresh changes and innovations. For more than twenty years they had been vexed and harassed with constant changes in the judicial establishments. On the whole, great improvements had been made; but the perpetual change had itself been a serious evil, and most harassing to all practitioners. After the bill of last year, an end of these alterations was expected; but now they had a new Ministry, and were, therefore, destined to undergo a new series of innovations. But if the Ministry would not allow time to make all those inquiries, it was impossible to do justice to such a question. What harm could result from allowing the Bill to lie over till next Session of Parliament, when they might have more time to do it justice? The only reason he had heard for such haste was one which the hon. and learned Attorney General rather hinted than spoke out upon. He seemed to connect this Bill in some way with the Bankruptcy Bill, which was running a similar course. For some reason unexplained, it would be convenient for Government to carry these two Bills through the Legislature pari passu. But he deprecated this indecent haste. If the measure were really expedient in itself, let them take time to convince the people of Scotland that it was so. If not expedient, they would feel not only that a serious injury had been inflicted on them, but that it had been done with a marked indifference to their interests and feelings. As a Scotch Member, he was compelled by duty to oppose this Bill, and should do so in all its stages.
Mr. Macleodspoke to the following effect:—Mr. Speaker; As the question before the House concerns the interests of the people of Scotland, and representing, as I do, a county in that part of the United Kingdom, I beg to make a few observations on it. In the first place, I
370
must apply myself to an observation, with which the right hon. and learned Baronet (Sir William Rae) concluded his speech last night. He said "it would neither be consistent, nor respectful to the people of Scotland, to pass this Bill without a parliamentary inquiry." In what, however, the disrespect to the people of Scotland can consist, if we pass this Bill without further inquiry, I own I am at a loss to conceive. To what degree the people of Scotland are interested in maintaining a superfluous court of justice, it is not in my power to discover. Nothing can be more preposterous than to imagine, that the people of that country feel the least anxiety to preserve this useless jurisdiction. Almost all the Gentlemen on the opposite side used the phrase "ancient jurisdiction," at the end of most of their periods, as if they thought that phrase an admirable termination. But what does the antiquity of the jurisdiction signify, if it be confessedly useless? and what grounds for a parliamentary investigation has the hon. and learned Baronet laid, which would not have existed previous to the passing of the Act 1st Will. 4th, cap. 69? In that Act we have his authority for making pretty free with our ancient jurisdictions. By it, the number of the Judges of the Court of Session, a number which it used to be reckoned almost sacrilege to interfere with, was reduced from fifteen to thirteen—a pretty large innovation—and which, had it come from Gentlemen on this side of the House, would have been visited with no small wrath. By this Act the High Court of Admiralty was abolished—a jurisdiction, even in its late form, confessedly more ancient than the Court of Exchequer (for it had existed in its latest form considerably previous to the Union) was abolished by the right hon. and learned Baronet; yet there was no previous parliamentary inquiry. The Commissary Court also was abolished—a jurisdiction nearly as ancient as the Court of Session itself—no parliamentary inquiry preceding its abolition. And all this was done by the right hon. and learned Baronet and his friends, who now have so many scruples in abolishing the ancient jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer. Why, Sir, this very Court of Exchequer, this peculiar favourite of the right hon. Gentleman, was, at the same time, reduced from four Barons to two; though, in 1820, five Barons, including

371
a Chief Baron, were maintained by the right hon. and learned Baronet, and decided by this House, though by a small majority, to be the number which were necessary to discharge the high, laborious, and responsible duties of this Court. With these facts before us, and with the confessed truth, that in the last year only two defended causes were brought into Court; when it is notorious that the Court has little or nothing to do, can the House hesitate to read this Bill a second time?—a Bill which adequately and cheaply provides for the discharge of the scanty duties which remain to be performed. "But," says the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Pringle), "although the Court of Exchequer have but little to do at present, cannot an arrangement be made, by which it can have some tolerable share of duty? cannot the Tiend causes be transferred from the Court of Session?" If, Sir, there were no other objections, into which I shall not detain the House by entering, this proposal would be manifestly inadequate to give employment to the Court. The time occupied in deciding all the Tiend cases which arise, would be about three hours once a fortnight. As to the project of taking a way the jurisdiction vested in the Court of Session, with respect to minors—something similar to that invested in the Keeper of the Great Seal—that would, I believe, be objectionable in many respects. I never, I confess, heard any complaint made of the manner in which that high and delicate jurisdiction is exercised by the Court of Session; and some much better reason must be given to justify its transfer, than merely to give some shadow of pretence for maintaining the Court of Exchequer. But, says the hon. and learned Baronet, the cause of the apparently little business in the Court of Exchequer is the system of compounding offences—and of course, were this evil corrected, a considerable accession of business would be the result. As to the reasons, the solid reasons which exist for resorting to those compositions, they have been so ably and convincingly stated by the hon. and learned Attorney General, that it is needless for me to repeat them. I was much astonished, however, that the hon. and learned Baronet did not state one cause, and the chief one, for the diminution of business in the Exchequer, namely, the great decrease of
372
smuggling—a cause, for contributing to which I thought he would have taken credit to himself, and have demanded some praise for preceding Governments, in which I should have readily and cordially concurred. As to investigation, my principal objection to it is, that it is quite useless; it would stay the progress of a beneficial measure, and could lead to no result to justify the delay, or which would prove the case of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Is it not notorious that the Court, as a court of justice, is a nest of sinecurists? Can any Gentleman deny, that in Scotland, when a political partisan, of a certain standing and good interest, was to be provided for, but whose attainments rendered it impossible that he should be placed on the bench of the Court of Session, he was made a Baron of Exchequer, as soon as a vacancy occurred? Whatever may be thought in this House, I make this assertion without any fear of its meeting with contradiction. One reason for inquiring by a Committee, which was stated by the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) appears to me rather remarkable, viz. that the Bill passed the House of Peers nearly sub silentio—that is, because the case is so clear, the Court is so indefensible, that none of those noble Lords—and many they are—who combine knowledge of Scotch legal proceeding, with sufficient veneration for antiquity, to say the least, attempted to arrest its progress—we, of the House of Commons, ought to make the certainty of the evils felt by the other House, the ground of our doubt. Such an argument is not a little whimsical. That the measure has been introduced by the great man at the head of the law, and who, it is well known, is intimately acquainted with Scotch legal questions, is, to my mind, no small recommendation. That it has received the sanction of my right hon. and learned friend, the Lord Advocate, is an additional recommendation to those who look for authority to support their decision of this question. Indeed, no man, from the splendor of his talents, from the length of his experience, and from the extent of his legal practice, can know more intimately the wants and wishes of the people of Scotland, than the right hon. and learned Lord; and, however respectable may be the character of the right hon. and learned Baronet, I must be excused from considering him so good an authority, or so safe a guide,

373
on a question of this kind, as my right hon. and learned friend (the Lord Advocate). I feel, indeed, the great disadvantage under which we discuss this question in his absence. But, notwithstanding this, I am clearly of opinion, that the Bill should be read a second time.
Mr. George Dawsondisclaimed all knowledge of the nature of the function of the Scotch Exchequer Court; he thought the proposition of the right hon. member for Portarlington, for an inquiry into this subject, so reasonable, that he should vote against that course which the House was called upon so precipitately to adopt. On that part of the subject which he did understand, and which related to granting the retiring pensions, he considered that it would be a gross and flagrant job to saddle the country with a retiring allowance of 2,000 l. a year to Mr. Abercromby, the Chief Baron, who had been but eighteen months in office, and was in the prime of life. He considered this proceeding totally inconsistent with the economical professions of the Ministry. The Government which could thus sacrifice the public money, was unworthy of the confidence of the country. It was astonishing that the first Lord of the Admiralty, after making a speech upon economy and retrenchment, should sanction this pension to the Lord Chief Baron of Scotland. If the Government had been sincere in their desire not to create new offices, they, instead of fixing upon the country 2,000 l. a-year, would have called upon Mr. Abercromby to execute the office of Judge in Bankruptcy. If the Government thought proper to persevere in giving Mr. Abercromby 2,000 l. a-year, he should move an Address to the Crown, requesting, if the Bankruptcy Bill should pass, that Mr. Abercromby might fill the office of Chief Commissioner in the Bankruptcy Court. If the noble Lord said the intention was to appoint Mr. Abercromby he should be satisfied.
Lord Althorpsaid, their want of economy was, that they converted a place for life of 4,000 l. a year to a pension of 2,000 l. Then it was said, why was not Mr. Abercromby appointed to the vacant office of Commissioner of Bankruptcy? The fact was, it was desirable to place a proper person in that Court. If Mr. Abercromby was a fit person he might be appointed, but he did not think the practice of Mr. Abercromby had made him fit for a Jury Court. It would have been unjust to
374
deprive Mr. Abercromby of his office without some compensation.
Mr. Goulburnhaving been joined in the inquiry into the Courts of Scotland in 1830, and having then found that there was no reason for the abolition of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, he should say there was no ground for reversing that decision. He thought further inquiry was at least necessary before they legislated. The bill for regulating the Court passed in July, 1830, and he really thought the right hon. Gentleman should not effect a change without inquiry, and thereby convincing the country that Parliament acted, not upon the principle of jobbing, but the public interest.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, it was a mistake to say this measure would reflect any disgrace upon Scotland. Not one of the Gentlemen who opposed the Bill had said there was any business in the Court. Before 1794, the Court consisted of five Judges, which by an Act, the 1st of the King, they cut down to two Judges. It was clear upon the facts, that the Act to which he alluded passed without inquiry, and, if so, on what ground were hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House to be charged with smuggling a bill through the House without inquiry? Consistently with their own conduct, the Gentlemen who opposed the Government on such grounds could not be sincere.
Sir Charles Wetherellconcurred in what had fallen from the noble Lord, who said when an office was to be abolished the officer was entitled to compensation; but still he could not admire this Bill. It had been said this Scotch Exchequer Bill and the Bankruptcy Courts Bill were to run in couples. It did not appear at first sight how those Bills could run together, one being a measure of destruction, and the other of construction, but, taken jointly, both produced a job. In the abolition of former Courts, and the construction of new Courts, they had always proceeded on parliamentary inquiry. It was not enough for any Member to say there was ground for the abolition of a Court. No papers had been laid on the Table. There had been no parliamentary inquiry. Upon the mere dictum of a noble and learned Lord this Court was to be abolished. According to the Solicitor General's argument, the reduction of the Judges of the Court of Exchequer was the extinction of that Court. To whom was the business of the

375
Court to be transferred? It was said the Court of Session could do it; but he might ask, whether it would not have been advisable to do with the Exchequer in Scotland as they did with the Exchequer in England, namely, to give the Judges more to do? The Bill was false in its title. It was in fact a Bill to give the right hon. James Abercromby 2,000 l. a-year. The preamble of the Bill was to provide for the despatch of business, and it would appear from these words that the business was oppressive; yet they were told the Court was to be abolished in consequence of the want of something to do. The Court of Exchequer in Scotland was to be demolished because it pleased the Government to put Mr. Abercromby in the office of a Commissioner to execute the purposes of the Parliamentary Reform Bill, which he believed would never pass into a law. It was at that moment in extremis in another place. The two Bills were co-equal and similar; they were co-companions; and his hope was, that both might meet the same fate. He should join in supporting the motion, he understood his hon. friend intended to move, that the further proceedings on this Bill should be adjourned to this day six months.
Mr. Serjeant Wildesaid, the Bill did not propose to do away with the Court of Exchequer, but to transfer its functions to the Judges of another Court, who would perform its duties without expense. It had been established at the Union only, and could, therefore, lay no claim to remote antiquity. If it was intended to establish a new Court there might be some ground for inquiry before the House, but certainly that necessity did not exist when an old and useless one was to be dispensed with. The Bill, however, did not abolish the Court, it merely provided that the vacancies of the Judges as they occurred should not be filled up, and the business should be transferred to the Court of Session. The Judges of the Exchequer Court could not be forced to retire, but they might be induced to do so by a pension which was less than their salaries, and all the difference between the two would be a real saving to the public.
Sir William Raeopposed the Bill, and gave notice, if it should be read a second time, it was his intention to move it be referred to a Select Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman moved the Debate be adjourned to Monday.
On the question being put,
Sir George Warrendersaid, that the Court of Exchequer of Scotland was one in which the rights of property were involved, and the abolition would be a violence to the feelings of many persons in Scotland.
Sir Charles Forbesthought this Bill might give them a tolerable idea of the nature of the Scotch Reform Bill; it would go to destroy all the ancient institutions of the country "at one fell swoop." He was afraid the end of all these alterations would be, that the name of Scotland itself would be abolished, and it would ultimately come to be a department of the United Kingdom.
Sir William Raewithdrew his Amendment, and the House divided on the motion that the Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 95; Noes 31;—Majority 64.
Bill read a second time.