HC Deb 14 May 1835 vol 27 cc1112-7
Mr. Hume

, pursuant to notice, rose to move for Returns of the Number of Chancellors for England and Ireland at present receiving Pensions, and the amount of the Pensions so received. He thought this Motion the more necessary from the present state of the Court of Chancery. There were at present five Chancellors paid by the country large Pensions, without there being any Chancellor at all giving his services to the country, in England at least; and as matters were going on, it was not improbable but in a few years we should have five more. It was impossible that things could go on in this way. By the production of these Returns, the people of England would learn for what they were paying between 24,000l. and 25,000l. a-year, and yet not possessing the advantage of having a Lord Chancellor. Some doubt existed as to whether the Lord Chancellor for Ireland was about to receive a pension of between 4,000l. and 5,000l. a-year. The production of these Returns would lead to an explanation, and set such doubts at rest. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a "Return of the several ex-Lord Chancellors of England and Ireland, who now receive, or are entitled to receive pensions, as having been Chancellors; stating the names, the date of appointment, or several appointments as Chancellor, the time each actually held office, the dates of resignation, or loss of office, the dates from which respectively each received, or are entitled to receive their Pensions, the amount of such yearly Pensions, and from what fund paid; stating, also, the Acts of Parliament under which they respectively receive their Pensions."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

had no objection to the production or the Returns moved for by the hon. Member for Middlesex, and, therefore, should not trouble the House with any remarks, except with regard to the payment of the Chancellor's salary, and he must beg leave to observe, that the salary was fixed by Act of Parliament, and was payable to all, whether Lord High Chancellor, or Lords Commissioners, who performed the duties attached to holding the Great Seal. [Mr. Hume: In addition to their other salaries?] Yes, in addition. The Commissioners appointed for administering the duties of the Great Seal, received their proportion of the salary affixed to the office of Lord High Chancellor, but which was not according to the arrangement of the Government, but by the authority of an Act of the Legislature. The arrangement which had been made, was necessary, but he could state explicitly to the House, that it was only provisional.

Mr. Hawes

said, that in a fuller House he should put the question to the Attorney-General, as to whether the measure was intended to be proceeded in for dividing the office of Equity Judge and Speaker of the House of Lords.

Mr. Harvey

said, it was quite true, as had been observed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was by Act of Parliament, that the 10,000l. was paid to the Lord High Chancellor, or whoever held the Great Seal. But he would inquire whether the three learned individuals did not receive their salaries on the supposition that the whole of their time would be devoted to their own peculiar judicial labours. If they had time to bestow on the Court of Chancery, it was evident that they could fulfil their own duties in less time than was generally considered necessary for their due performance. If they had any time to spare, it ought in his opinion to be bestowed on their respective Courts. The Master of the Rolls was in the receipt of a salary of 7,000l. per annum. The Vice-Chancellor received a salary very little less, and the Judges of the Common Pleas received 5,500l., being salaries abundantly adequate to remunerate them for the important duties they performed, and which he considered demanded their whole time, and no ordinary degree of mental and bodily exertion. Now, in addition to this, the country was made to pay 10,000l. or 14,000l. more, in addition to these liberal salaries, which sum was, perhaps, equally divided among these Judges. Another fact ought to be mentioned—namely, that the entire patronage generally exercised by the Lord Chancellor, was by this means placed in the hands of the Commissioners, and one of those, the Master of the Rolls, had, and might again have, a seat in that House, and thus the mighty patronage at the disposition of the Lord High Chancellor of England, would be exercised by an individual holding a seat in that House. This he considered as a most formidable objection to the present arrangement, and he was glad to learn that it was only to be temporary. He felt, as the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes) felt on the subject of the separation of the two offices of Lord Chancellor and Speaker of the House of Lords, and trusted that the plan proposed by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) who lately held the Seals, would be carried into execution. He agreed with that noble and learned Lord, in thinking that the Lord High Chancellor should not be a political Judge, and that his independence should be secured by a permanent appointment. It should not be one of a temporary nature, but placed on the same footing as the other Judges of the land. He should feel it his duty, if this proposed plan were not persevered in, again to recur to the subject. With regard to the present system, it was unsatisfactory to the country, unsatisfactory to the suitors, and, as his hon. Friend opposite (the Solicitor-General) well knew, unsatisfactory to the practitioners in the Court of Chancery.

Mr. George F. Young

was of opinion that some arrangement should have been entered into of a more convenient nature. He should wish to abstain at all times from estimating the services of those who filled high judicial offices, by a mere pecuniary measure. Yet he did think, that the country had a right to expect that men would be found to fill offices so highly honourable as those of the Commissioners, without additional remuneration, they already being in the receipt of competent incomes.

The Solicitor General

said, that the Act unquestionably provided that the salary of the Lord Chancellor, amounting to 10,000l. a-year, should be paid out of the Suitors' Fund. This was clearly the law; and if the Act was an improper one, the proper course to pursue would be to effect an alteration with respect to it. He admitted, however, that if the putting of the Great Seal in commission were anything but a temporary arrangement, the distribution of the salary of the Lord Chancellor amongst the Commissioners might, perhaps, form a fit subject for inquiry. Under existing circumstances he was satisfied that no inconvenience would arise from the appointment of Commissioners; and with respect to the expense which the arrangement would entail upon the public, he had been informed, in a conversation which he lately had with one of the learned Commissioners themselves, that the amount of fees and the other expenses to be defrayed by them upon their instalment would fully compensate for the amount of salary which they should receive during the period for which they might hold the Great Seal. There was another topic introduced in the course of the discussion on which he was anxious to say a few words. It had been thrown out that the time necessarily consumed in discharging the duties of the Lord Chancellor would prevent the Commissioners from sitting in the Courts to which they belonged, for such a time as would enable them to discharge the duties which respectively devolved upon them; and it had been further asserted, that if they were found able to get through the business which belonged to the Court of Chancery as well as that of their own Courts, it might fairly be said, that their ordinary duties did not entitle them to the amount of salary which they received. Now the fact was, that the Vice-Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls sat every day in the week five hours; and he, without any hesitation, left it to any one conversant with the nature of the usual proceedings in these Courts, to say whether it was possible that the human mind could be usefully employed in the investigation of those matters which formed the general subjects of their judicature, for a longer period than that which he had mentioned. The late Vice-Chancellor (Sir John Leach), who was most anxious to devote all the faculties of his powerful mind to the consideration of the questions which were brought under the cognizance of his Court, declared that the mind could not be ad- vantageously kept on a stretch in the discharge of such duties as he had to perform, for a longer space of time than that to which he had referred. The Judges, then, to whom he had referred, usually sat from ten o'clock till three, which, for six days, amounted to thirty hours a week. But although these individuals professed their inability to sit for a longer time than five hours each day for a lengthened period, they declared themselves willing to sit six hours for five days, in pursuance of a temporary arrangement, thereby continuing to transact business in each of their Courts for exactly the same space of time as that during which they sat before their acceptance of office as Commissioners. The House was aware that the former Lord Chancellors sat only two days in the week in the Court of Chancery, and were engaged for the other three days in the House of Lords. The learned Commissioners had (as we understood the hon. Gentleman) sat one day in the week in the Court of Chancery, and were now employed for three or four extra days during the vacation in disposing of the business which had accumulated in consequence of the change which had been effected with reference to the office of Lord Chancellor. He trusted he had shown, that under this temporary arrangement, the minds of the learned Judges who had been appointed his Majesty's Commissioners, were devoted as closely, and with as little loss of time, to the subjects brought under their consideration, as they well could be.

Mr. Pease

remarked that he would content himself with merely calling the attention of the House to a list of the salaries paid to retired Lord Chancellors and Commissioners. It contained the following names, with the sums which each received annexed:—

To Lord Eldon £4,000
Lord Lyndhurst 5,000
Master of the Rolls 7,000
Vice-Chancellor 6,000
Puisne Judge 5,500
Lord Brougham, as Chancellor 10,000
Ex-Chancellor 5,000
Lord Chief Justice 8,000
Speaker of the House of Lords 4,000
Total £54,500
This certainly held out to the country no very cheering prospect of economical reductions.

The Motion agreed to.