THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S SALARY BILL. (Hansard, 8 August 1832)

§ Lord Althorp
moved the Reading of the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Salary Bill.

§ Mr. Sadler
said, that though it was very possible his observations on this subject might lay him open to remarks which would not be at ail agreeable, still he thought his duty and his regard for consistency called on him to express his sentiments, and that in justice to his own opinions he could not adopt any other course. When the right hon. Baronet opposite was out of office, and proposed certain Resolutions relating to the salaries of the higher officers of State, he (Mr. Sadler) had supported those Resolutions, as he had done all recommendations that had for their effect to diminish the public burthens. He saw no reason to depart from that principle of conduct on the present occasion. He thought that the office, the salary of which was now under consideration, was one that ought to be maintained with becoming dignity, and certainly he should not stand forward to refuse the necessary allowance for that purpose. He must, however, say, that he objected to granting the salary now required. It had been found necessary to diminish the duties which the Chancellor was called on to perform, and he had been accordingly relieved from a part of his labours. Those labours were thrown upon the shoulders of others, but those who were called on to perform them received a compensation from the public purse. That fact ought to be taken into consideration in settling the amount of this salary. It was alleged that much valuable patronage had been taken away from the Lord Chancellor. That might be; but still, in his opinion, enough remained to satisfy any reasonable person. It had been stated, in 1824, that the average income of the Lord Chancellor amounted to 12,000l. a-year—a sum which was occasionally much increased by the emoluments derived from his acting in the Court of Bankruptcy when bankruptcies 1261 occurred in great numbers; but surely a time of more than ordinary distress, which produced an increase of the emoluments of the Chancellor's office, ought not to be taken as the standard by which the usual profits of that office ought to be ascertained. The circumstances of the time, the alteration in the value of money, were things that showed the salary ought not to be kept at the same amount as before. In February, 1822, Mr. Brougham proposed a resolution, declaring, 'That it is the bounden duty of this House, well considering the pressure of public burthens upon all, but especially the agricultural classes, to obtain for the suffering people of these realms such a reduction of the taxes as may be suited to the change in the value of money, and may afford an immediate relief to the distresses of the country.'^* In his speech on that occasion the present Lord Chancellor said—'That the only measure of mitigating the great evil which at present oppressed society, was to reduce by every expedient the burthens of taxation. This was to be done by real and efficient retrenchment, not by lopping off the salaries of petty clerks, and by little jobs of that kind, such as consolidating a few clerkships in one, to serve the dependant of some great man. It was not by petty unjust savings of this kind that real retrenchment was to be effected, but by beginning at the highest and going down to the lowest salaries, till every class of the State was included. He hoped they would not be any longer told that public men were not to be borne hard upon, when it was the fact that they were the only class that had not suffered enormously. He would not say whether they ought to be reduced fifteen or twenty per cent but they ought to be reduced in such a proportion as would be likely to give efficient relief to the suffering classes of the community.'† At that time the Home Secretary stated, that the salary of the Lord Chancellor did not exceed on the average 12,000l. a-year. It was with surprise, after all this, that he heard such a sum as 14,000l. a-year proposed for the salary of the present Lord Chancellor. He was fully convinced that there was no individual who was less influenced by a love of sordid gain than the ^* Hansard, (new series) vol. vi. p. 259. † Ibid. p. 255. 1262 noble and learned Lord, and he was sure that the present proposal was not submitted to the House in that spirit. Indeed, he believed that the noble and learned Lord would not have fixed the salary at so high a sum, had the settling of its amount been left to him. Still, however, he believed that the sum itself would be thought extravagant by the people, and he, therefore, called on that House to do what public duty required in reducing the amount of it.

§ Lord Althorp
must say, that he was himself a little surprised when he heard the hon. Member talk of surprise on being informed of the amount of the salary now proposed. One of the first acts of the present Government had been to refer to a Committee the salaries of the higher officers of the State, and that Committee received instructions to declare in what manner and by what amount they could be reduced. When was it that this surprise had come upon the hon. Member? That Committee had recommended the sum of 14,000l. a-year as the amount to be fixed for the salary of the Lord Chancellor, so that that sum was not now proposed for the first time to take the hon. Member by surprise. He had no doubt that the country would approve of the present proposal, which, so far from being an increase of the salary of the Lord Chancellor, was a positive reduction. In the year in which the present Lord Chancellor had been paid according to the old system, his income had amounted to 14,600l., after all deductions had been made; but the income was generally higher, and in several instances it had exceeded 18,000l. or 20,000l. a-year. It was said that the sum which ought to be taken as the proper standard for the amount of a salary was that at which the services of a man fit to fill the office could be obtained. Taking that as the rule, he did not think the present amount too high; for at a less sum it would be impossible to hope to obtain in this office the services of a leading man at the bar, who could never return to the practice of his profession, and who must take the chances of a short tenure of office. He should now only say one word as to the retiring pension. He thought that that pension ought not to take effect till all the sinecure offices attached to the Great Seal were abolished, and when the proper time came, he should propose a clause to that effect.

Mr. Hume
said, it was certainly true that the sum of 14,000l. a-year had been recommended by a large majority of the Committee to which the noble Lord had referred—by a majority in fact of fourteen to two. He was, however, one of the two, and he still preserved his opinion. It was true, also, that when Lord Eldon was Chancellor, the emoluments of the office had exceeded 17,000l., 18,000l., and even 20,000l. a-year; but the Committee did not found their calculations on that income. They took the income of Lord Lyndhurst, which had averaged 14,000l. and a few hundreds a-year. But part of that salary had arisen from the fees in Bankruptcy. Now the Bankruptcy jurisdiction had been taken from the Lord Chancellor, and along with the fees went the labour. It therefore did not appear to him fair that the Chancellor should receive the full amount of fees which he would have received had the duties of the Bankruptcy jurisdiction been continued. This was the only office that had not been reduced: and, he thought, it ought not longer to form the exception. He wished too, that the duties might be further diminished, and that the Speakership of the House of Lords should be divided from the Chancellorship, and that a portion of the salary should be reduced on that account. He should be ready to support any proposition for reducing the salary to 12,000l. a-year.

§ Mr. Sadler
moved, as an Amendment, a reduction of 2,000l. a-year on the Chancellor's salary.