CHANCERY SINECURES. (Hansard, 9 August 1832)

§ Lord Althorp
brought up a Clause, increasing the Lord Chancellor's retiring allowance to 5,000l

Mr. Hume
strongly objected to the Chancellor receiving an additional 1,000l. a-year on account of retiring salary more than any of his predecessors. He did not, as yet, comprehend why that retiring allowance should be fixed at 5,000l. a-year. The Chancellor might, for aught he knew, be able to prove he was entitled to 6,000l. or 7,000l. a-year, as well as this lesser allowance. He should be glad to hear on what scale of remuneration, or upon what calculation, this estimate of the Lord Chancellor's services above others was founded.

§ Lord Althorp
said, the reason of the proposed increase was, that the Lord Chancellor had consented to give up these sinecures, amounting to 24,000l., when they all fell in, of which he possessed the patronage, which was generally considered as the means of providing for the Lord Chancellor's family. Not only had he done this as to future patronage, but having already appointed his younger brother to a post of 2,000l. a-year, that gentleman was to give it up as soon as this Bill was brought into operation. In respect, therefore, of this 2,000l., the public would find a saving of one-half by giving to the noble Lord the additional 1,000l. a-year on retiring, which sum he (Lord Althorp) thought would be about an equivalent to what the noble and learned Lord gave up.

Mr. Hume
was sorry to find the pledge given to Parliament and the country, that these very obnoxious places and sinecures should be all abolished, without suffering the possessors to raise thereupon a claim for compensation, was not redeemed. These were sinecures which, by a vote of the House, and by general concurrence, it was admitted ought to be abolished; and the more especially was he sorry the pledge was not redeemed, as this Government was avowedly a retrenching Government. On 1297 what ground stood this claim of the Lord Chancellor, which might not be advanced by the actual possessors of any other of these sinecures proposed to be abolished; or were they to mete out one measure of justice towards these parties, and another more indulgent one to the Lord Chancellor, when he lost only the chance of having a sinecure to dispose of? If this Ministry thought it right to recommend such a sum, by way of compensation, in despite of their distinct pledges as to the abolition of sinecures, he was satisfied that the people would not put a similar construction on those pledges, and would not hold them guiltless in voting compensation to the Lord Chancellor. He must, on principle, resist the increase of allowance in this case, because, in the first instance, it was understood, when this Government took office, it was not to be a Government of patronage; and next, because he thought they could not increase the retiring allowance to the Lord Chancellor without violating their solemn pledge to the country.

§ Lord Althorp
had no recollection of ever having given a pledge that the retiring pension of the Lord Chancellor, or any other officer, should not be increased. The Lord Chancellor's income had always hitherto consisted of salary and patronage. Both were the inducements held out to the profession, in order to get the best and highest men in law to fill the situation. If patronage were to be taken away, it was only fair and just that some addition should be made to the retiring allowance, or else the country would lose the chance hereafter of securing the first-rate talent in the profession to preside in the Court of Chancery. He, on the whole, could not consider the allowance to be made for the future Chancellor extravagant.

§ Mr. Hunt
had never heard the noble Lord labour so as he had done in attempting to justify this grant. As a retrenching Government, and coming into office on that pledge, it was monstrous to see them set this example of profuse waste of the public money. Had the Tories done so while in office, how loudly would that noble Lord have denounced it as an act of shameful extravagance! He had been lately chidden in the country, at a public meeting, for having voted 4,000l. a-year to the Speaker on his retirement; but that he had no difficulty in defending, to the satisfaction of those who heard him. 1298 This grant he never could defend; and therefore he was opposed to it. The surrender of these sinecures was the result of a pledge given before Lord Brougham came into office. Had the noble Lord himself not been an active instrument in obtaining that pledge? He had, and the noble Lord had accepted office, knowing right well that these sinecures were to continue no longer part of his patronage. But they were said to be given to him to provide for his family. Now, the present Chancellor had no family. This was a strong reason against giving any increase in this instance. Indeed, it might be wise that, in order to avoid that plea hereafter, Chancellors should be chosen only who were not likely to have any family. He would, under these circumstances, though he entertained a high respect for the noble and learned Lord's talents and virtues, move as an Amendment, that the usual sum of 4,000l. be inserted, instead of 5,000l., in the Bill.

§ Lord Althorp
observed, that the noble and learned Lord had abolished no less than twelve sinecure offices which had hitherto been part of the patronage of the Chancellor, and that that circumstance ought to be taken into account as a justification for this increase in the retiring allowance.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
thought the sum now proposed was only a fair compensation for the patronage which other Chancellors had enjoyed, and of which the present Chancellor was deprived. They should recollect, too, that the Lord Chancellor had to sustain with becoming dignity the honours of the Peerage. That the Lord Chancellor should accept the Peerage was not a matter of choice; for it was necessary, for the due execution of many of the duties of his office, that he should be a Peer, and that circumstance ought also to be taken into account. He should support the grant.

Lord Ingestre
defended the grant, and expressed his conviction that the great abilities possessed by the present Chancellor for the discharge of the duties of his office entitled him to the reward.

§ Colonel Sibthorp
thought 4,000l. a-year enough for a retiring allowance, but would gladly have voted a larger salary than he now had to the noble Lord, so long as he continued in office.

Mr. Hume
observed, that if the abolition of sinecures in his Court was to give the 1299 present Chancellor a right to a larger retiring allowance, the principle of compensation for sinecures would be established, and then no sinecure could be abolished without giving the holder a compensation. He highly respected the noble Lord whose office was in question; but, looking to the Resolution of that House in 1810, that all sinecures performed by deputy should be abolished; and looking to the Act of 57th Geo. 3rd, which stated, "That whereas the abolition of sinecures will take from his Majesty the power of rewarding important services; it is therefore enacted, that he shall have the power to grant pensions to the amount of 35,000l;" and looking to the fact that the pensions granted in consequence of that Resolution and that Act now amounted to, he believed, 17,000l., he could not consent to the Motion. He was extremely unwilling to divide on a measure of this kind; but, in accordance with the principles on which he had always acted, he must support the Amendment.

§ Mr. Courtenay
could give an answer to the hon. Gentleman out of the document to which he had referred. The hon. Gentleman quoted the resolution of 1810, which was embodied in the Bill of 1812, and that Bill was afterwards rejected by the House. The opinion then of one Parliament, quoted by the hon. Member as an authority, was rejected, after further consideration. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Act of 1817, which also abolishes sinecures in the gift of the Crown, and gives the King the power of granting pensions in lieu of them. That Act, however, did not abolish all sinecures. Quite the contrary, because, while it expressly took away those which were in the gift of the Crown, it left untouched those belonging to the Lord Chancellor. It must be admitted, that the proposed compensation, as compared with the amount of patronage given up by the Lord Chancellor, was extremely inadequate. There was no Lord chancellor for many years back, who had not been enabled to provide for his family. Lord Thurlow provided for his family handsomely, and so had other Chancellors; whereas Lord Brougham gave up all these sinecures, one of which, worth 2,000l. a-year, had actually already fallen in, for which he was to get as a compensation 1,000l. a-year for life. The compensation was so inadequate, that it might hereafter become necessary to 1300 make some provision for the descendants of future Lord Chancellors.