HC Deb 02 August 1832 vol 14 cc1071-7
Lord Althorp

rose for the purpose of making the Motion, of which he had given notice, respecting the salary and retiring pension of the Lord Chancellor. With regard to the pension, however, although sinecure places were to be abolished, from which former Lord Chancellors had derived great emolument, his noble and learned friend had declared, that he would not agree to any increase of that pension, and even that he would give to any proposition for such an increase, his decided opposition, until Parliament had considered the subject, and had disposed of those places, as appeared to them to be fitting. His (Lord Althorp's) present proposition was, that the salary of the Lord Chancellor, as Lord Chancellor, should be 10,000l. charged on the Suitors' Fund. The Committee, to whom the subject had been referred, bad recommended that his noble and learned friend's salary, as Lord Chancellor, and Speaker of the House of Lords, should be 14,000l. The average annual amount of the emoluments enjoyed by the Lord Chancellor, as Speaker of the House of Lords, was 4,000l. His proposition, therefore, strictly accorded with the recommendation of the Committee. From all the inquiries which he had made on the subject, it appeared, that, although for the last few years the salary and emoluments of the Lord Chancellor, and Speaker of the House of Lords, had not much exceeded 14,500/., yet that sum was much below what had been the general produce of those offices. The proposition, therefore, of 14,000l., was a considerable reduction. Let this salary of a Judge, who was removable at pleasure, be compared with the salary of the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, who held his office for life, and who, although his salary was nominally but 10,000l., had a sinecure place in his gift, which was equivalent to an additional 3,000l.; and he (Lord Althorp) did not think that his proposition would be considered extravagant or improper. His noble and learned friend had lately been attacked, and most unjustly attacked. Having stated, that it was his full intention to abolish places of considerable emolument belonging to his office, the reward his noble and learned friend had received was, to be attacked as if, on the contrary, he had intended to reserve those places. How inconsistent was the conduct, thus unjustly imputed to his noble and learned friend, with the conduct which his noble and learned friend had actually pursued with reference to the Bankruptcy Bill. In that case his noble and learned friend had sacrificed 6,000l. a-year; leaving it entirely to Parliament to make whatever arrangement it might think proper on the subject; although no arrangement had yet been made. After such a sacrifice, it certainly was not too much to claim for his noble and learned friend, the admission that he did not act from corrupt motives. It being distinctly understood in the House, when this subject came under discussion before last Christmas, that his noble and learned friend should not suffer from the abandonment of salary which he had made in the case of the Bankruptcy Bill, he (Lord Althorp) should now propose, and was persuaded that the House would perfectly agree with him in the propriety of the proposition, that the salary about to be settled by the House should bear date from the time at which the Bankruptcy Bill came into operation. The only objection which he could at all anticipate from his Motion was, to the fund upon which it was proposed to charge this salary. Upon deliberate consideration, it had been determined to make it chargeable on the accumulations of the Suitors' Fund; introducing a provision in the Bill, to guard against any injury to the claims of the suitors. The noble Lord concluded, by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to make provision for salaries to the Lord High Chancellor of England, and to the Vice-Chancellor of England, in lieu of fees heretofore payable to the former.

Mr. Hume

said that, when the noble Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had been attacked for having appointed his brother to the places vacated by the death of Mr. Scott, the declaration of his renewed intentions with respect to their ultimate abolition had been perfectly satisfactory to him, and had convinced him of the sincerity of the noble Lord's former expressions on this subject. It was nine years since he had proposed for the first time in that House, that a fixed annual sum should be paid to the Lord Chancellor, in lieu of the fees by which that functionary was principally remunerated. His motive for proposing this change in the mode of paying that officer for his labour was founded on the belief, that the system of fees actually gave the Lord Chancellor an interest in maintaining the abuses of his; Court. With respect to the salary now proposed by the noble Lord opposite, as a remuneration for the Chancellor, he was of opinion, that in common with all the salaries attached to the high State offices, it was pitched too high, and, in his opinion, the present condition of the finances did not warrant the continuance of such high salaries. When the sum of 12,000l. nett annual salary, was compared with the annual income of many of the landed proprietors, he did consider that no man ought to have more. He was one of those who had voted for the sum of 12,000l. in the Committee on these salaries, because he was of opinion that the sum of 14,000l. was taken from too high an average—namely, solely from the three years of Lord Lyndhurst's official receipts. When the salary of the Lord Chief Justice was brought forward in justification of the amount proposed by the present Bill for the Chancellor, it ought not to be forgotten, that that amount was given to him because he personally suffered by the abolition of several offices and fees, which he had theretofore enjoyed, and it was never understood that such an amount of salary was to be permanently attached to the office of Lord Chief Justice. He looked upon the amount of the proposed retiring pension for the Lord Chancellor, to be much too high. When it was recollected, that the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Eldon) retired from office, after having received more than half a million of money, with a pension of 4,000l. a year, and that there was a possibility of three Ex-Chancellors receiving at the same time each his retiring pension of 4,000l. a year, he thought the House would agree with him in saying, that the finances of the country were not able to support such an accumulation of charges. At all events, when the subject of the Lord Chancellor's retiring pension was to be settled, he hoped the noble Lord opposite would not propose that it should be more than 4,000l. a-year. With respect to the fund out of which it was proposed to make the payments of this salary, the noble Lord had misstated the sources from which this fund was derived. The fact was, that it was an accumulation of money which had been got together partly by a want of justice towards those whose property it was, and partly also by a process similar to that, by which the unclaimed dividends had been produced. He was of opinion, that the Suitors' Fund ought to be appropriated 10 the same purposes as the unclaimed dividends—namely, carried to the public credit contingently, and that the salaries now proposed to be charged on it, ought to come annually before Parliament, and to be defrayed by a vote of that House. He could not forbear from pressing on the noble Lord the propriety of charging these salaries on the Consolidated Fund instead of meeting them by an out-of-the-way payment, which escaped observation altogether.

Mr. Hunt

concurred in the opinion of the hon. Member who had just sat down, that 12,000l. paid in gold was quite sufficient salary for any public officer, and that a retiring salary of 4,000l. paid also in gold was equal to 5,000l. in paper. If the present proposal was to be looked upon as an act of retrenchment on the part of Government, he must confess his hopes on that score were disappointed. It had been urged in support of the amount of salary to the Chancellor, that he had sacrificed 6,000l. a-year in giving up the bankruptcy business; but in giving up his fees he had also got released from the duties annexed to their receipt; and as to the sacrifice of patronage, why, the sacrifice amounted only to this, that the noble Lord had obtained in lieu of his former patronage, the gift of the several appointments and offices established by the Bankruptcy Bill, and by which he had been enabled to provide for a greater number of his friends, than any preceding Chancellor had ever had the power of doing.

The Attorney General

observed, that it was true, that in relinquishing the fees of the jurisdiction in bankruptcy, his noble and learned friend had also relinquished the duties of the office; but still there was not the least portion of his time unemployed; and no man could do more. His noble and learned friend had relinquished 7,000l. or 8,000l. a-year, without making the slightest bargain or provision. It was true, that he had obtained the appointment of four Judges and six Commissioners; but was that to be compared to the appointment of seventy Commissioners—officers distributed among persons of family and interest, which he had relinquished? The patronage arising from the appointment of the four Judges and six Commissioners, was infinitely less than the patronage arising from the appointment of seventy Commissioners; although the former did the business infinitely better than the latter. The hon. member for Preston, when he charged his Majesty's present Government with not having evinced any spirit of retrenchment, seemed to forget that they had reduced 2,100,000?. of the public expenditure. The fund on which it was proposed to charge the Lord Chancellor's salary, consisted of large accumulations in the hands of the Accountant General. No suitor could possibly lose anything by the arrangement. His noble friend near him had fallen into one little mistake. The Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench had no such sinecure now in his gift, as his noble friend supposed. Formerly there was one of enormous value, but it had been felt to be inexpedient and unjust to leave, by this means, to one Lord Chief Justice, the chance of becoming enormously rich, while his successor was stripped of the adequate reward for his services; and a fixed salary had, therefore, been substituted. The only places which the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench now had in his gift, were those of Marshall and Associate. When it was considered, that his noble and learned friend, the present Lord Chancellor, had left a business at the Bar, much larger than the average of that which was relinquished by Lord Chancellors, he thought it would appear to the House, that the proposed salary was exceedingly moderate.

Lord George Bentinck

did not believe that the people of this country wished to see the salaries attached to high and official offices reduced. What they wanted, was to see useless places and sinecures abolished. He would support the proposition for giving the Lord Chancellor a salary of 14,000l

In answer to a question from Mr. Hudson Gurney,

The Attorney-General

stated, that what was called the Dead Fund, being the accumulated interest already realized, was that on which it was proposed to charge the salary; leaving the principal and interest of the Suitors' Fund untouched for the suitor.

Mr. Wilks

agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, that the salary ought to be charged upon the Consolidated Fund, rather than upon the Suitors' Fund.

Mr. Sheil

observed, that his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney-General, had stated, that the Lord Chancellor had deprived himself of the appointments of the Commissioners of Bankrupts; but this was not an accurate representation of the case. He had only sacrificed the contingency of these appointments if he kept office. Instead of which, he had the appointments in the New Court of Bankrupts. But he did not think this was otherwise than it ought to be. The noble and learned Lord deserved great credit for his Bankruptcy Bill. The House must look to the sacrifice of patronage, which Lord Brougham had surrendered, which would have enabled him, in the event of his keeping office, to give his family valuable sinecures. That was a reason why a large pension should be given to the present Lord Chancellor. But he wished to ask, whether it was intended to continue the same salary and pension to future Chancellors?

Lord Althorp

, in reply to the hon. member for Newport, said, that it was intended to make the payment out of the interest of the Suitors' Fund. In reply to the question, whether it was intended to limit these allowances to the present Chancellor, he stated, that it was not intended to limit the arrangement to Lord Brougham, but to continue the same to future Chancellors. He thought 14,000l. a-year not too much for the salary of a Lord Chancellor. Undoubtedly, good and sound lawyers might be got for Judges, who made no great sacrifice of profits, by giving up their profession; but a Lord Chancellor was selected from persons of the greatest eminence at the Bar, and who would give up a large income for the office. If the salary was reduced too low, there might be a chance of persons of less eminence at the Bar filling the office of Chancellor.

Colonel Sibthorp

complained, that the present Ministers, though they had promised much in respect to economy, had done nothing at all.

Leave given—Bill brought in and read a first time.