REGISTRATION or VOTERS. (Hansard, 4 August 1836)

§ Lord John Russell
, in moving that the Report on this Bill be received, said, that with respect to the subject of the appointment of the Revising Barristers under this Bill, he had consulted the Lord Chancellor, who had suggested to him the names of a certain number of barristers fully qualified for the office. Those names he (Lord John Russell) had given to the Attorney-General, and desired him to consult the hon. and learned Members for Huntingdon and Exeter (Sir F. Pollock and Sir William Follett) on the subject. Those two hon. and learned Gentlemen had considered the subject, and had proposed that a certain number of their suggestions should be placed on a list, amounting to not half, but in the proportion of three to eight, or rather of four to ten. That suggestion had been adopted, and another gentleman had likewise been nominated by the Lord Chancellor, whose politics were supposed to incline to the opinions of hon. Members opposite. The names they proposed to insert were the following:—They proposed the right hon. Thomas Erskine to be chief of this court, receiving under the Bill the same salary as the other Revising Barristers should receive. He had, therefore, to propose the following gentlemen: — The right hon. Thomas Erskine, chief Revising Barrister of England and Wales; and John Farquhar Frazer, Francis Newman Rogers, George Long, Frederick Robinson, Edward Harvey Maltby, William Mackworth Praed, Martin West, Woronzow Greig, Charles Rennell, and William John Alexander, Esqrs., to be the other Revising Barristers of England and Wales.

§ Sir James Graham
had no objection to these names being inserted in the Bill, provided it should be considered that they were inserted without prejudice to any future objections that might be made to them. Let the clause be printed, and the discussion might be taken on the next stage of the Bill.

§ Mr. Maclean
suggested to the noble Lord (Russell) the propriety of re-considering the appointment of Mr. Erskine. That gentleman was at present the Chief Judge of Appeal in Bankruptcy, and if the business of the Insolvent Courts were, as was proposed, to be thrown into the Court of Appeal, it would greatly interfere with Mr. Erskine's discharge of his duties as the chief of the court of the Revising Barristers. He entertained, also, very strong objections to this Bill on another and more important ground—namely, because it placed the appointment of the Revising Barristers entirely in the hands of the Ministers of the Crown. True, the Minister for the time being might consult other persons more competent to make a fair and impartial selection, but this was optional on his part, and virtually these appointments were entirely in the hands of the Government. He suggested that the Bill ought to be postponed till next Session in order that an opportunity might be afforded for its full consideration.

§ Lord John Russell
begged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he had adopted the present scheme at the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. If the House was of opinion that he had not acted fairly and impartially in the selection of the names of the Revising Barristers, undoubtedly they would be of opinion that the consideration of the Bill ought to be postponed; but had he thought that such a proposition would be made, he should have spared himself a very disagreeable task. With respect to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, he (Lord John Russell) thought that the third reading of the Bill would afford a sufficient opportunity for the discussion of the principle of the clause.

§ The Attorney-General
had felt, in common with many other hon. Members, that it was unconstitutional to vest the appointment of these barristers in the Crown, and it was to obviate that objection that it was proposed that the names of the barristers should be inserted in the Bill, The hon. 909 and learned Members for Huntingdon and Exeter, had agreed to the selection which had been made, and he was therefore surprised that it was opposed.

§ Sir Thomas Fremantle
thought, that if to the present Revising Barristers there were added three to sit as a Court of Appeal in London, the present system would be much better than that now proposed by his Majesty's Government. Under the present system, if they had a bad Revising Barrister one year, they had the chance of a good one the next, and thus the electors had a guarantee against any permanent injury being inflicted upon them. Under the system proposed by his Majesty's Governter, if they once got a bad Revising Barrister, they were burthened with him for life. He gave notice that, if this Bill were not very much amended, he should be compelled by a sense of duty to divide the House against it on the third reading.

§ Mr. Hume
said, that the opposition which the other side of the House had made to this clause, which the noble Lord had framed upon their suggestion, ought to teach him not to be too good natured nor to give way too much to his political opponents. He objected, however, to giving 1,000l. a-year as additional salary to a gentleman who had received 3,000l. a-year for some years for filling a judicial office which was almost a sinecure.

Lord Granville
Somerset wished the postponement of the Bill to another Session, as it was too important to be hastily passed at this late period of the Session.

§ The Attorney-General
defended the grant of an additional 1,000l. a year to the right hon. T. Erskine, as chief of this court, as he could not be expected to take upon himself the additional duties of chief of the court of revision without an honorarium quiddam.

§ Sir James Graham
objected to the Bill generally, and regretted that Mr. Erskine had thought it right to demand an additional salary for his duties in this court. It was, however, a matter of feeling with Mr. Erskine whether he would receive it or not. But if Mr. Erskine demanded it, he did not see how the Government could refuse to grant it.