Commons Sitting of 10 April 1832

MINUTES.
Bills brought in. By Mr. KENYON, for Encouraging and Facilitating the Employment of Labourers in Agriculture.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BURGE, Copies of all Communications made to the Government by Lord Belmore, relative to the Rebellion in Jamaica, received subsequently to those already presented to the House:—On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, of the Sums charged by the Excise under 4 Gm. 4th, cap. 94, for Spirits produced, being short of the Charge by Gravity, of Worts, Attenution, or Charge from the Low Wines in Ireland; and if any, or what part of these Charges remain unpaid, by whom, and Sums by each, at 5th April, 1832; of the Sums, if any remaining unpaid to Excise in Ireland and Scotland, for additional Duties of 2d. and 4d. per Gallon on Spirits, under 1 William 4th, cap. 49, by whom, and Sums by each, at 5th April, 1832:—On the Motion of Mr. James E. GORDON, of the Number of Applications to the Board of Education in Ireland for New Schools on their System, or on behalf of Schools already Established, and the Number of Applications complied with, the Place where situated, the Number of Scholars, &c.:—On the Motion of Mr. SHAW, of any Treasury Minute made in pursuance of 1 William 4th, determining the Remuneration to be made for the renewal of Commissions of the Peace in Ireland; of all Pensions paid to the Officers of the Chancery Court Ireland, the Amount of Stamp Duties called the Chancery Fund, and all Orders and Regulations made for the practice of that Court, from May, 1819, to January, 1832, distinguishing each year:—On the Motion of Mr. LAMBERT, of all Sums received by the Board of First Fruits in Ireland from the Union of St. Mary New Ross, during the last twenty years, distinguishing the Amount received in each year.
Petitions presented. By Mr. LAMBERT, from the Inhabitants of Killigney, Chaple, and Rower:—By Mr. WISE, from the Landholders and Inhabitants of Killsheelan, Killaloan, Tipperary, Killenaule, Borris, Multyfarnham, Leary, Laeken Street, Tacamslaine, Enniscorthy, Templeshannon, Gorey, Kilkevan, Clone, Barony of Forth, Barrow, Ballynaslaney, Edermine, Clonmore, Kilrush, Taghmere, Carnew, Lea, Syddam, Mitchelstown, Killeavey, Ennisworth, and Cruisetown, for the Abolition of

193
Tithes in Ireland:—By Mr. WYSE, from the Inhabitants of Enniscorthy, and Templeshannon, to Suspend the Bill on the Irish Tithes until after the Reform Bills are passed:—By Lord KILLEEN, from the Inhabitants of Dunsany, Killeen, and Waterford, for an increased Number of Representatives for Ireland; and from Carrabrown, for Equalizing Civil Rights in Galway:—By Mr. FYSHE PALMER, from Reading and Leighton Buzzard, in favour of the Factories Bill:—By Lord GEORGE LENNOX, from Wisborough Green, Sussex, for a more equitable mode of Apportioning Labours among the Occupiers of Land; and for Levying a Rate upon those refusing to find Employment for their due proportion of Labourers:—By Mr. CHAPMAN, from Bally-James-Duff, against the New System of Education in Ireland.

GRAVESEND PIER.
Mr. Calvertpresented a Petition from the shipowners and others interested in the free navigation of the river Thames, against the Gravesend Pier Bill. The petitioners complained of the great injury which would arise to the navigation by the erection of the pier, which was proposed to extend 215 feet into the bed of the river, and that a great injustice would be done to the watermen of Gravesend, 1,200 of whom would be thrown out of employment. The petitioners concluded by praying that the Bill might not pass into a law.
Laid on the Table.
The Order of the Day for the third reading of this Bill having been read,
Mr. Hodgesmoved, that the Bill be now read a third time. He supported the Bill, as a great convenience to the public, who, in a short space of time, would have the pier free from all tolls. With respect to the alleged injury to the navigation of the river, he could only say, that the plan had been investigated by the officers of the Board of Admiralty, the Custom House, Trinity House, and the Corporation of the city of London, and the select Committee had been informed by those several officers that the plan was neither objectionable, nor could any inconvenience arise from it. The inconvenience of the present pier was sufficiently proved by the fact that 40,000 persons had landed at a temporary pier at Northfleet, one mile from Gravesend, during the last year. He begged hon. Members to reflect that Gravesend was the Brighton of the lower orders of the metropolis, of whom 120,000 visited it during the last year, and, therefore, the subject was well worthy the consideration of the House.
Sir Byam Martinobjected to the Bill, under the conviction that the navigation of the river would be injured, for he knew that erections of this description tended
194
much to create dangerous shoals. He should, therefore, move, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a third time this day six months.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, he had some reason to believe the hon. and gallant Admiral's remark was correct, and, therefore, he felt bound to support the Amendment.
Mr. Hodgesobserved, that the gallant Admiral's objection, would, in this instance, be obviated by the manner in which the work in question would be constructed.
Mr. Briscoesupported the Bill. He had been on the Committee, and, he considered the intended pier of so much importance to the people who resorted to Gravesend from town, that he would give the Bill his fullest concurrence.
Mr. Wilksconcurred in what had been advanced in support of the Bill. The public would by it be relieved from the exorbitant demands of the Gravesend watermen for landing passengers, although, he considered, that the Bill ought not to compel persons who did not land at the jetty to pay the dues for the pier.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that unless a provision was introduced into the Bill, to give the public the option of choosing their landing place, he should support the Amendment.
Mr. Hodgessaid, the payment of the pier dues would be only compulsory on those who passed from steam vessels, regularly employed in the conveyance of passengers. There was no such obligation on other vessels.
Mr. Huntsaid, it appeared from the hon. Member's statement, that those who travelled by hired vessels, were to pay the pier dues while those who sailed in their own were to be exempt. This was hardly fair, particularly when it was said it would throw several hundred watermen out of employment, whose charge for landing passengers was now 4d., while the pier dues were 3d., and this it seemed was to be paid whether they used the pier or not. A division took place on the Amendment: Ayes 26; Noes 41—Majority 15.
The Bill read a third time.
Two clauses having been added on the Motion of Mr. Hodges by way of rider,
Mr. Humethen moved an Amendment on one of the clauses, to the effect that passengers might have the option of landing either above or below the pier without

195
being liable to the dues, which ought only to be payable by those actually making use of the pier.
The House divided on the Amendment; Ayes 45; Noes 21—Majority 24.
The Bill, with the Amendment, passed.

MR. HUTCHINSON'S CLAIMS.
Mr. William Broughammoved for a Select Committee to take into consideration the claim of Mr. Bury Hutchinson on the East-India Company. The hon. Member said, this was one of those cases in which a private individual with the knowledge and concurrence of the Indian Government, made a loan to one of the native princes of that country. The uncle of the petitioner, Mr. John Hutchinson, in 1784, when the Rajah of Travancore was under considerable pecuniary embarrassments, lent him a sum of money, to enable him to fulfil certain engagements into which he had entered with the East-India Company. That loan, however, was made with the concurrence and assent of the then Governor General, and had subsequently, been sanctioned by succeeding Governors General. The loan also was made before the passing of the 37th of George 3rd, which prohibited all private loans to the native princes of India. Therefore, the transaction was entirely free from any imputation of illegality, the loan having been made in 1784, and that Act not having passed till 1797. Up to the year 1795, no portion of the nine lacs of rupees, which was the amount of Mr. Hutchinson's loan, had been repaid. In that year, however, the government of India paid to Mr. Hutchinson, four lacs out of certain balances that were due from them to the Rajah. This was clearly, sufficient to show that Mr. Hutchinson's debt had been recognized by the East India Company. In the year 1797, Mr. Hutchinson died, and shortly after the Rajah died too, being succeeded by his nephew. Under these circumstances, it became necessary, that an inquiry should be made into the conditions of the loan, in order that it might be seen whether it was advisable that the Rajah's territory should be taxed for its payment. For this purpose certain persons were appointed on behalf of the Rajah, and a gentleman was appointed on the part of Mr. Hutchinson's brother, in whom the property of the loan vested on the death of Mr. Hutchinson. These
196
gentlemen reported that there remained due to Mr. Hutchinson 490,000 rupees—another corroboration of the correctness of the original loan of nine lacs. Between the year 1795 and 1800, a part of the debt, to nearly the amount of three lacs, was paid off; so that here was a third acknowledgment of the legality of the debt. In consequence of two lacs still being owing, Mr. Hutchinson sent a remonstrance to the Indian government, which induced the Marquis of Wellesley, then Governor General, to cause an inquiry to be made, the result of which was, that in 1804, the original debt was fully recognized, and it was stated that seven lacs, out of the nine, had been paid. This fully corresponded with Mr. Hutchinson's demand, and the Marquis of Wellesley consequently instructed the Resident at Travancore to assist Mr. Hutchinson in recovering the remainder. After this, no more difficulty was apprehended, but, it appeared, however, that the Company, by its private direction to the Resident, undermined the intentions of the Governor General, and Mr. Hutchinson sought in vain for his money from 1804 to 1806. In that year another inquiry took place, but again the Company interfered to prevent the payment. Lord Minto then took the matter up, but in September 1808, the Directors of the East-India Company wrote a letter, prohibiting the Rajah and and the Resident from recognizing the debt, by which a complete extinguisher was put on Mr. Hutchinson's claim. From the year 1809 to 1824, Mr. Hutchinson wearied the Company with letter on letter, application on application, and remonstrance on remonstrance, entreating them, at least, to explain why they objected to the order of their own Governor General. The Company's only answer, however, was, that they had not obtained a satisfactory account from Travancore; and yet during this very time, the revenues of Travancore were in the hands of the East-India Company, owing to the Rajah's tribute to them being in arrear. The revenue of Travancore amounted to thirty lacs a year; out of this the Company paid themselves, and set apart a portion for the maintenance of the young Rajah; after which there were twenty lacs remaining for the liquidation of the debts of the state; and yet, in spite of this, Mr. Hutchinson's claim still remained unpaid. In 1824 Mr. Hutchinson applied to the Board of Con-

197
trol, which made a report thereon; and the consequence was, that the Company sent a despatch to India, recommending that their own prohibitory edict of 1808 should be repealed, and that Mr. Hutchinson should be allowed to recover. The Company, however, took care to accompany this despatch with such instructions to their resident as rendered it impossible for Mr. Hutchinson to obtain payment; for in that despatch they spoke of his demand as a pretended debt, and forbade their Resident to afford any assistance. It was, therefore, not possible for Mr. Hutchinson to obtain justice on such instructions as those? It very naturally was convenient to the Rajah not to admit the debt; and there was a direct inducement held out to him to say, "I know nothing of it, except that it is a pretended debt, and entirely without foundation." These, were the short circumstances of the case; and, he thought they were fully borne out by the documents he held in his hand, and, he therefore, begged leave to move that they be referred to a Select Committee.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, he had last Session presented a petition from Mr. Hutchinson on the subject of this claim, and, he was, therefore, well able to say that the statement of the hon. and learned Member, was fully borne out by the facts of the case, as founded in documents which had been exhibited to him. It was also most important that the question should be taken into consideration without delay, as it rested in a great degree on the testimony of persons now living, but who were of a very great age, he, therefore, begged leave to second the Motion.
Sir John Malcolmsaid, he had no intention to oppose this petition, but he rose to protest against the mode in which it was desired to introduce it. He had little further knowledge of the merits of Mr. Hutchinson's claim, than what had been just now stated by the hon. and learned Member by whom the case was opened, and from that, there certainly appeared grounds for investigation; but the question was, should a claim from India, relative to a large money concern, which took place forty-seven years ago, between a Company's servant and the Rajah of Travancore, be sent to a Committee up stairs, without even the notice of the Indian minister, or any one responsible for the good administration of Indian affairs? A bill, not unlike the present, relative to a concern of
198
more than fifty years' date (he alluded to the loan to the Rajah of Nozeed) was introduced in a similar manner to this House, and was now in progress through the House of Lords. If this course of proceeding was permitted, the House would have five hundred claims, of the same character to investigate, and the result might be as injurious to the finances as to the reputation of the Indian government. On this ground he entreated the attention of Ministers to the subject, and the proceedings were important, because the information in the hands of Government, connected with the Indian records could alone enable the House to judge whether a Committee should be granted or not. Without this, such Committees would be very incompetent to the task assigned them, and they could not have the means of deciding the merits of complicated concerns of such remote dates, and the items of which embraced such a variety of matter; nor, generally speaking, could they have that knowledge which was necessary to decide upon such questions. He did not impugn their desire to do justice; but the mode in which such petitions from a remote country like India, were investigated in a Committee, was not, in his opinion the best, for doing justice to both parties. In presenting such claims to the attention of the House, the person intrusted with them naturally tried to impress the House with a favourable opinion of their merits. In the present instance, it was asserted, by the hon. and learned Member, that Mr. Bury Hutchinson's loan to the Rajah was sanctioned, on its occurrence, by the Governor General, but he had seen no proof of that, and he had some reason to believe, that the first notice taken of it was by Mr. Duncan, the Governor of Bombay, eleven years after the money was said to have been advanced. What other authorities had sanctioned it, he had no means of knowing, but it was assumed that the Court of Directors had acted throughout in an unjust and oppressive manner, and, it was declared, they had carried on a private correspondence with the Resident at Travancore, which, if proved, amounted to a plot against the claimant. He never could believe, they had been guilty of such acts, although, he begged to state, that he was fully convinced the hon. and learned Member, considered himself authorized to make the statement from the documents

199
which had been laid before him. The fact, however, could not be so, for the Residents at native courts, had no means of corresponding directly with the Court of Directors, all their communications went through the Governors of the different presidencies to which they were attached. Again the hon. and learned Member, had laid much stress upon the fact of the money having been lent before the 37th of George the 3rd which prohibited such transactions, but, it must be remembered, that the Company in the exercise of their sovereign authority in India, had directed their servants not to make loans to the native princes long before 1784, when this money was advanced.
Sir Charles Forbessaid, that ever since he had first heard of this case, he had always thought, that, of all the cruel acts of the government of India, this was one of the worst. It so happened, that he had been in India from almost the very commencement of this transaction, or at least as far back as forty-three years; so that he might take it upon himself to say, that he knew something about the matter. It was quite true, that the loan made by Mr. Hutchinson to the Rajah was a benefit to the East-India Company; and the arrear of tribute was entirely owing to the Company's own conduct; for, in the first instance, they agreed to take the Rajah's subsidy in pepper; but when Buonaparte interfered with the trade of all Europe, the Company became frightened, and sent out orders that no more pepper should be taken, but money in its place. The Rajah's answer to this was, "I cannot pay in money, for I have none;" and thus a large arrear of subsidy became due, which ultimately led to the Company taking possession of his territory. With respect to what had fallen from his hon. and gallant friend, he should be extremely glad if Ministers would give themselves the trouble to look into this case; and he could affirm, moreover, that nothing was more desired by Mr. Hutchinson than that its merits should be sifted by competent men of business. His hon. and gallant friend did not make a very handsome argument for the Court of Directors, when he said, that nothing could be more inconvenient than for that House to give its sanction to the admission of such claims as this. Why, such a declaration might be set up by any man who refused to pay his just debts. But with respect to this particular case, he would
200
venture to say, that there never was one which more strongly called for the interference of Parliament; for Mr. Hutchinson now had no other means by which he could obtain justice. It should be remembered also, that this Rajah was once an independent prince, and would still, probably, have continued so, if he had not unfortunately applied to the East-India Company for protection against Tippoo Sahib. The Company prevented that Sultan from devouring the Rajah, in order that they might feast upon him themselves. It was an actual fact, that, though they withdrew the troops granted for his protection, they refused to give up one single farthing of the subsidy. The revenues of Travancore amounted to forty lacs of rupees: the expenses of the State, including the subsidy, to thirty-seven; so that there were three lacs to spare, out of which Mr. Hutchinson might be paid. But, in addition to this, the debt was contracted before the Rajah's debt to the Indian government, and, therefore, it clearly had a claim to prior settlement. No doubt, as his hon. and gallant friend had observed, these claims were very inconvenient; and he remembered that Mr. Canning, when he thought that he was going out as Governor General, wanted to carry an Act in his pocket to bar all claims whatever. He (Sir Charles Forbes), however, would sit down, saying, that when a man could get redress no where else, it was the peculiar business of that House to afford it him.
Mr. William Broughamsaid, the hon. and gallant Officer had told the House, that if they entertained the case before them, it would open the door to many other applications of a similar character; he, therefore, wished to remark, that he had no doubt each case would be judged of according to its individual merits; and if another transaction as strong as the present should be introduced to their notice, all he could say was, he should be ready to advocate an inquiry into its circumstances.
Sir John Malcolmbegged, in explanation, to be permitted to say, that he had never made use of the word "inconvenient," nor did at all wish to discourage individuals from prosecuting what they considered fair claims. As for his having not made a very good argument in favour of the Court of Directors, as alluded to by his hon. friend, the member for Malmes-

201
bury, all he meant to convey by his statement was, his anxiety to see justice done them, by having such claims properly investigated; and he must again express his surprise there was no Member connected with the Indian government present to take a part in the proceedings.
Mr. Humesaid, he felt himself compelled to reiterate the complaint of the hon. and gallant Member. It was quite an anomaly in the proceedings of the House, that, when a petition of so much importance as this of Mr. Bury Hutchinson was brought forward, there should be no one on the part of Government competent to give any explanation. It certainly plainly showed, that one-half, at least, of the Members of the India Board might be dispensed with. He did not know whether there could be any objection to the present appointment of a Committee, and he should wish to be informed what was the intention of Government with respect to other petitioners who had similar claims to the one in question to bring forward?
Lord Althorpobserved, that he was not aware that there could be any objection to the present Motion being agreed to. As to the question of his hon. friend, he could, at present, give no answer to it.
The Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed.

EXCHEQUER COURT (SCOTLAND).
The Lord Advocatemoved, that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Scotch Courts Compensation Bill.
Mr. Goulburnwished that the Committee might be deferred, as there were so few Members present to take a part in the proceedings.
Mr. Dawsonobjected to a Motion of so much importance as the present, which gave away a sum of 2,000 l. per annum of the public money, being brought forward when the House was so thinly attended. He believed there were not more than twenty-two members then present, although there was a much greater number drawn from curiosity to an adjoining spot, and who, no doubt, would readily attend, on a message being sent to them from the Treasury benches. He deprecated this system of voting upon questions, without hearing any portion of the argument urged against them. He put it ad verecundiam to the shame and the sense of decency of the learned Lord, whether this measure for granting 2,000 l. to Mr. Abercromby,
202
out of the public money, after serving only two years as Chief Baron of the Exchequer—one of the grossest jobs which ever came before Parliament—was fit for discussion in such a House?
Mr. Humeconcurred in all that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, with reference to the manner of voting; but he was surprised to hear that right hon. Gentleman complain of it, as it was no novelty: and he must have known that a similar reprehensible system prevailed when he was connected with the Treasury. At the same time, he could not but admire the new-born ardour of the right hon. Gentleman in the cause of economy. He (Mr. Hume) had formerly objected to the measure; but, after attending to the arguments addressed to the Committee, he was now equally ready to support it; and he hoped the learned Lord would go into his explanation, to show, to the satisfaction of the House and the country, that the measure would be beneficial to the public, without injuring the cause of justice. It might be a job, certainly, but it was to get rid of a much greater job of the Right hon. Gentleman, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his colleagues, who gave Mr. Abercromby 4,000 l. per annum for life, for doing almost nothing.
Mr. John Campbell: So far from the country losing 2,000 l. a-year, as the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Harwich (Mr. Dawson) seemed to insinuate, by this Bill, the fact was, the public would gain that sum, for Mr. Abercromby was at present receiving 4,000 l. a-year.
Sir Chares Forbessaid, he would take that opportunity to observe, that Government were hound, when they increased the duties of the Judges of the Court of Session, to make an increase in their salaries. The allowances to the English Judges had been increased, but the same justice was not dealt out to the Scotch. He was sure they performed equally as onerous duties; and he, therefore, exhorted the Scotch Members to stand up for their country, and not suffer the injustice to continue.
Mr. Dawsonfelt very much surprised at the course pursued by the hon. member for Middlesex, who had observed, that he had been convinced in the Committee, that the amount of 2,000 l. a-year ought to be given to Mr. Abercromby. The

203
proceedings in that Committee had had a very different effect upon him. But the question now was with respect to the propriety of voting money in so thin a House. In former days, the hon. Member would have made an immense outcry at the very proposition; but he appeared now to have overcome all his scruples, and was ready to support anything Ministers proposed. There might have been some excuse for such a course when the Reform Bill was in the House; but that measure had now passed, and it seemed to have carried the hon. Member's economy with it; for he was now earnest in upholding all the jobs of Government.
Mr. Humesaid, it had already been shown to every hon. Member in the House, that this, at all events, was but a little job, rendered necessary by the great job of the right hon. Member and his friends. With regard to the reflections of the right hon. Member as to his conduct, considering the quarter from whence they proceeded, he trusted the House would not expect him to notice them.
Mr. Dixonsaid, after all, he thought the 2,000 l. a-year might have been saved by appointing Mr. Abercromby to some other office; for a man of his distinguished talent was equal to any other duties in the public service.
The House in Committee.
The Lord Advocatesaid, he had listened with surprise to the objections made to this Bill:—First, that it was an extravagant and improvident waste of the public money; and secondly, that it was a job. With respect to the first, it was a grant which could not be made except on a contingency of saving at least double the amount; and as to its being a job, it was an extraordinary job which exchanged a sinbcure salary of 4,000 l. for a sinecure salary of 2,000 l. The principle of the Bill was, that the Court of Exchequer in Scotland should be prospectively abolished, because there was no business in that Court; and if so, the House had a right to abolish it, but not to take away the salary of those who held offices in it for life. The Bill, therefore, made a tender of these annuities as a consideration for the voluntary surrender of the salaries, and thus effected an immediate reduction. When a superior Judge received a life-interest, was it consistent with justice to take that interest from him? All that the Legislature had ever presumed to do was,
204
to declare it should not be renewed at the expiration of the existing life. If any Gentleman objected to the amount of the bribe, he might propose its reduction hereafter; but he believed many would think it not enough. It was perfectly within the power of the learned personages of the Court not to take the hint offered to them by the Bill, and refuse to retire: he (the Lord Advocate) should not blame them. How any person could consider this arrangement as an improvident grant of the public money, or as a job, which bought off 4,000 l. by 2,000 l., he was at a loss to conceive. He looked upon it as a device skilfully contrived to economize the public money, and to accelerate the diminution of expenditure. The learned Lord then moved his Resolution for granting to the Lord Chief Baron the sum of 2,000 l. per annum on the resignation of his office, 1,500 l. to such of the two other Barons as should first retire, and 600 l. to the Judge of the Court of Session, who should execute the duties of the Court of Exchequer, after their retirement.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the learned Lord had defended this grant on the plea that Mr. Abercromby had been appointed to an office which had no duty attached to it. But the learned Lord and his colleagues had made no objection to that appointment; on the contrary, the present Lord Chancellor had declared that it was an appointment which did credit to the Government, and had applauded and approved it. But his (Mr. Goulburn's) objections were unanswered. It would have been better to transfer business to a Court that was little occupied, than to abolish it. But when the new Bankruptcy Court was established, why was not Mr. Abercromby appointed to the Chief Justiceship of that Court, which was placed on an equality with the other Judges, and which his experience as a Commissioner of Bankrupts, and as Chancery Barrister qualified him for? Instead of which, a pension of 2,000 l. a-year was to be given to him, which was a real loss to the country. Notice of this was given to the Gentlemen opposite at the time; but, notwithstanding their great zeal for economy, they refused to listen to the argument.
Lord Althorpsaid, there was a question of much greater importance than the saving of 2,000 l. in the appointment of a Judge, namely, whether the individual was qualified. The right hon. Gentleman

205
must be aware, that when Mr. Abercromby was appointed Chief Baron, he asked whether it was intended to add any Nisi Prius business to the Court, because, if so, he was not competent to discharge its duties. Now, in the Bankruptcy Court, Nisi Prius business would come, and, therefore, by his own admission, Mr. Abercromby was not competent to preside in it. It had been said, that they (Ministers) had approved, when on the other side, of the appointment. Undoubtedly they thought it creditable to the Government to make such a selection. The present Bill would not preclude the appointment of Mr. Abercromby to any office for which he was competent, when his pension would merge in the salary. With regard to the hard terms which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) had applied to this arrangement, he was so much in the habit of using strong terms, that they made but little impression. He could not see that the application of the term job, in its usual acceptation to this arrangement, was at all warranted; but, he supposed, in the right hon. Gentleman's understanding of it, it meant the saving to the public of 2,000 l. a-year.
Mr. Dawsonreplied. The noble Lord opposite had attacked his (Mr. Dawson's) phraseology; but he begged to say he should continue to use, with respect to public matters, such language, whether strong or mild, as nature dictated to him. Mr. Abercromby had it not in his power to urge that he had left, two years ago, a lucrative profession to accept this office, and it would, therefore, have been but right for an economical Whig Administration, as they called themselves, to have put it to the honour and feeling of Mr. Abercromby to give up the salary as well as the pension. At least, if they wished to abolish the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, they might have appointed him to the then vacant office of Chief Commissioner of the Bankruptcy Court. He did not hesitate to say this proposed compensation was a job; and the defence used, that Mr. Abercromby could not fill the last-named office because he was not competent to charge a Jury, was a mere quibble, because the Court of Exchequer, in which he had presided, was also a Jury Court. The noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Exchequer was perfectly callous to any proposition of retrenchment emanating from his side of the House:
206
every suggestion emanating from that quarter he considered as originating in a faction. Mr. Abercromby was not more than fifty years of age, and, in the ordinary course of nature, might expect to hold his pension for twenty years. Here, therefore, was 40,000 l. of the public money disposed of, exclusive of interest, for two years' service in the Court of Exchequer. He regretted he had not the talents of the First Lord of the Admiralty for calculations of this kind. He remembered when the right hon. Bart. moved for a return of the sums received by the Members of the Privy Council, how ingeniously he heaped sum upon sum; if he would but indulge in the same calculations upon this case, he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman could show how much Mr. Abercromby had to receive for every time he put on his gown and wig at simple and compound interest. He had been accused of using strong language, but he had only followed the example of the right hon. Baronet, who had, upon that occasion, held up every Privy Councillor as a "bird of prey." He hoped Mr. Abercromby, by refusing the pension, would not allow such a name to be fixed upon him. After all, he had no scruple in repeating, that this was a job, as well as the Court of Bankruptcy itself, to which it was proposed to transfer Mr. Abercromby. He had opposed the establishment of that Court, and, therefore, he was glad to find its proceedings were about to come before the House, when an opportunity would be afforded to again discuss that subject.
Lord Althorp, in answer to the observation that the Government ought to have offered Mr. Abercromby another situation in the stead of that they sought to abolish, begged to say Mr. Abercromby was offered a situation much more lucrative than the proposed compensation, and which Mr. Abercromby refused.
Mr. Goulburncould easily imagine, that an individual who had filled a high judicial situation would not consent to accept a subordinate office, whatever might be the emoluments of that station. The Chief Commissionership of the Bankruptcy Court, one of equal rank with that from which he was to be removed, ought to have been offered to Mr. Abercromby.
Mr. Cutler Fergussonsaid, the only question before the Committee was, whether, in case it should be hereafter de-

207
cided that the Court of Exchequer ought to be abolished, Mr. Abercromby should receive compensation. He would not enter now into any consideration of the propriety of abolishing his office; but, as Mr. Abercromby held it for life, and could not be removed from it but by his own default, the compensation of half his salary was not more than he could reasonably expect to obtain. As to this being a job, he did not see how the interest of Mr. Abercromby was advanced thereby. It was allowed he held an appointment which almost amounted to a sinecure, with 4,000 l. a-year, and he gave it up for a pension of 2,000 l. a-year; and, if it was indeed true, that the Court of Exchequer might be dispensed with, it was unfortunate that it was not discovered two years ago, when the Government appointed Mr. Abercromby to the office he now held. At the same time, be felt bound to say, that he thought the Government, relying upon the Report of the Committee of 1825, made the appointment, believing it would be useful to the public. He must take the opportunity to call the attention of the Committee to the present condition of the learned persons who filled the situation of Judges of the Supreme Court of Scotland. The salaries of these Judges had generally been raised when those of the Judges of England had been increased though not in so great a degree. In 1819, the salaries of the English Judges were increased; in 1820, so were those of the Scotch. The Act which so raised them recited, that it had been usual to raise the salaries of the Judges of the two countries at the same time; and so strong was the feeling of Parliament upon the subject, that it was provided in that Bill, that the increase in the salaries of the Scotch Judges should date back from the period when that of the English Judges took place. In 1825 the salaries of the English Judges were again raised, and the right hon. member for Tamworth, he trusted, would allow that it was in contemplation also to raise the salaries of the Scotch Judges, and that it was only delayed till certain alterations in the Scotch Court were effected. Two years afterwards, a Bill was brought in to regulate the business of the Court of Session, by which the number of Judges was reduced; subsequently its business was increased by the addition of that of the Consistorial and Admiralty Courts, which
208
were suppressed; but the salaries of the Judges were not increased, although a Bill for that purpose was brought in. A period of five years had now elapsed, without justice having been done to those learned and meritorious individuals. He was certain, that, had the question related to the Judges of England, no such delay would have taken place. But the fact was, that the business of Scotland was not attended to in that House. The Judges of England had their salaries fixed, in 1825, at 5,500 l. a-year, a sum which had been more recently reduced to 5,000 l. He asked the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was unreasonable that the salaries of the Scotch Judges should be raised to half that sum? Their conduct had been most exemplary; for they had taken the additional duty thrown upon them with cheerfulness, and without offering a word about further remuneration; but surely that was only an additional reason to consider their case—he would not say with favour, for he wanted none—but with justice; and he trusted the noble Lord would give some intimation that it was his intention to render them justice. Such an intimation would give great satisfaction to all gentlemen of property in Scotland—to all interested in the administration of justice—to the whole people of that country. It should be recollected, that the emoluments which were made at the Bar, were far greater than those assigned to the Judges.
Sir Robert Peelhad no hesitation in saying that, had he remained in office, pursuant to the pledge given by the late Government, he should have felt it his duty to bring before the House of Commons a proposition for the increase of the salaries of the Scotch Judges. Indeed, a proposition to that effect had been made, but was withdrawn in consequence of the opposition it met with from several hon. Members, and the late Government had not an opportunity of again bringing it forward before their removal from office. He certainly did think that 2,000 l. a-year was not sufficient for the becoming maintenance of the judicial dignity in Scotland. The public were interested in the proper maintenance of these dignities, and that the proper forms of ceremony should be sustained, not to gratify personal vanity but to raise a proper respect for the high station. Whenever the proposition might

209
be brought forward, it should have his warmest support. It was manifest that there was nothing like justice in granting a retiring Chief Baron, who had had nothing to do, 2,000 l. per annum, and that 2,000 l. was to be considered sufficient remuneration for a Judge actively discharging the high duties of his office.
Mr. Humeconcurred in the sentiment that the Scotch Judges and their present condition were well deserving of the attention of the Government. But he thought if there was one class of men in England who were overpaid it was the Judges of the land, of whom the puisne Judges received more than the salary of the President of the United States of America, while the Chief Justice received upwards of 10,000 l. per annum. These salaries ought to be decreased, and those of the Scotch Judges increased: for it was monstrous that a Master in Chancery should have above 3,000 l. per annum, a Register of Deeds in Ireland 1,500 l. per annum, while the Scotch Judges had but 2,000 l. a-year.
Sir Willam Raesaid, that he would never have introduced the measure which it had been his duty to promote two years ago, by which offices in Scotland to the amount of 22,000 l. per annum were abolished, and the duties of the Scotch Judges increased, had it not been in the anticipation of the fulfilment of the pledge that they should be proportionably compensated. The proposed compensation to Mr. Abercromby for the loss of a situation in which he had undoubtedly a vested right, he (Sir William Rae) should feel it his duty to support.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, the hon. member for Middlesex had compared the Judge's salaries with that of the President of the United States, and had said they were much over-paid. But the comparison was of no use, unless it was considered whether proper persons to perform the duties could be had for less money, and, he apprehended that was not the case even in England, and in Scotland it was notorious no first rate advocate would give up his practice at the Bar for the sake of a Judgeship.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, that taking the relative population of England and Scotland the latter was not entitled to more than three Judges, in proportion to the number of people in both countries, whereas there was thirteen in the Court of Session, and
210
three in the Court of Exchequer. Whenever therefore, they again heard of an increase of the salaries of the Scotch Judges, he hoped it would be taken as an earnest that their numbers were to be reduced.
Sir George Clerksaid, that the duties imposed on the Judges of the Court of Session were as great as those imposed on the Judges of any other Court; and, considering the high station they filled, the salaries were inadequate to support these gentlemen with becoming dignity. In Scotland a general feeling prevailed that their salaries ought to be advanced in a similar proportion to that recently allowed to the English Judges.
Mr. Huntsaid, he was heartily opposed to this sum of 2,000 l. being taken out of the pockets of the people, who he was sure would be indignant at the attempt. He should, therefore, oppose the grant. It was a strange system of retrenchment, to give a sum of 2,000 l. as a retiring allowance to a Judge who for two years had held a sinecure, while the active Judges only received the same sum. The people would think so, if it came to their knowledge, which he doubted, for he was certain a portion of the public Press would not publish much of that which fell from him and other hon. Members sitting on his side of the House. He would move that the amount of the proposed compensation should be reduced form 2,000 l. to 1,000 l.
Mr. John Campbellhad heard no argument used against the Resolution before the House. Mr. Abercromby had consented to receive half the salary as a retiring compensation, and he saw no reason to object to it, particularly when Mr. Jervis, Mr. Cashberd, and the other Welsh Judges had received the full retiring allowance.
The Attorney Generalconsidered that no reasonable objection had been or could be offered to the Resolution before the House. He must corroborate the statement of his hon. and learned friend who had just spoken with respect to the Welsh Judges, and he begged to mention two exceptions only, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Serjeant Goulburn, who had not received the retiring allowance, because both those gentlemen had accepted the office after it was in contemplation to abolish the Welsh Judgeships, a fact which was communicated to them, and also that they would not be entitled to retiring compensation. In addition to the offer of the situation of

211
Accountant General of the Court of Chancery, alluded to by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a communication had taken place with respect to the Court of Bankruptcy, which was declined by Mr. Abercromby, who alleged he did not feel himself competent to discharge the duties of a Jury Court.
The Resolutions agreed to, the House resumed.