Commons Sitting of 15 February 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Registration of Electors; Poor Relief Amendment (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of DOURO, from
446
Norwich, by Mr. LABOUCHERE, from Taunton, by Mr. BAINES, from Prescot, by Mr. CLAY, from Poplar, etc., by Mr. CHAL.MERS, from Arbroath, by Sir HENRY PARNELL, from Dundee, by Mr. STRUTT, from Derby, by Sir DE LACY EVANS, from the Westminster Reform Society, by Mr. G. WOOD, from Kendall, by Mr. VILLIERS, from Preston, by Lord MORPETH, from Huddersfield, and another place, and by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, from Stroud, for the Immediate and total Abolition of the Corn-laws.—By Sir C. B. VERE, from five places in Suffolk, by Sir E. KNATCHBULL, and Mr. S. LEFEVRE, from two places in Kent, by Mr. FLEMING, from places in Hampshire and Kent, by Mr. G. PALMER, from Stockwell, by Captain BOLDERO, from Chippenham, by Mr. SANDFORD, from Longford, by Mr. DARBY, from Brighton, and Shoreham, and by an hon. MEMBER, from Rutland, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, from the county of Galway, against the system of Education in Ireland.—By Mr. BARNABY, from Hereford, for inquiry into the Management of a Lunatic Asylum in that town.—By Mr. HOUSTOUN, from Paisley, and by Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR, from three places, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. P. HOWARD, from Chelmsford, for the Total Abolition of Churchrates.—By Captain PECHELL, from the Innkeepers of Brighton, against their Liability to make good all property stolen from their Inns.

MR. HARVEY'S CASE.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that in conformity with the notice he had given, he rose to move, that a new writ be issued for the borough of Southwark, in the room of Daniel Whittle Harvey, esq. He felt the less difficulty in submitting this motion to the House, because he trusted, that it would be in no respect considered a party question, but would be regarded, like the motion discussed last night, as one in which the whole House was equally interested in coming to a conclusion, It had been suggested, that he had better move the appointment of a Committee to consider the subject, but he did not know why that should be a preferable course, because the opinion of a Committee could not be binding on the House. Besides, it was desirable, that no more delay than was absolutely necessary should occur in the case. The hon. Member (Mr. Harvey) was sitting opposite, and he had put himself in an awkward situation, if it should be declared, that his appointment came under the Act of Queen Anne, for, in that case, he was liable to a penalty of 500 l. for every vote he gave. Again, if the hon. Member abstained from voting, the borough of Southwark would then virtually be deprived of its representative. If, however, a Committee should be moved for, he certainly should not press the House to come to a decision on a point which other bon. Gentlemen required further time to consider. It appeared to him, that the office to which the hon. Gentlemen had been appointed, came

447
under different disqualifying enactments. In the first place, it came under the Act of Queen Anne, by which any person accepting an office of profit under the Crown vacated his seat. Still more strongly did it come under the Act of the 5th of William and Mary, by which it was declared, that "no Member of the House of Commons shall at any time be concerned, directly or indirectly, or any other in trust for him, in the farming, collecting, or managing any of the sums of money, duties, or other aids granted to their Majesties by this Act, or that shall hereafter be granted by any Act of Parliament." He conceived, that the hon. Gentleman's appointment also came under the Act of the 15th of George 2nd,, which enacted, that no commissioner of the revenue in Ireland, or commissioner of the navy or victualling-offices, or any deputies or clerks in any of the said offices, or in any of the several offices following (among which were mentioned the offices of the Principal Secretaries of State or of the Commissioners of Hackney coaches) should be capable of being elected, or of sitting and voting, as a Member of the House of Commons. Under each of those Acts, it appeared to him, that the hon. Gentleman was disqualified to retain his seat. He would, first of all, consider the question whether the hon. Gentleman had accepted an office of profit under the Crown. The words of the Act of Ann were, that no person who accepted a new place of profit under the Crown, then existing, or thereafter to be created, should be capable of sitting or voting in the House of Commons. It was contended, however, that the office accepted by the hon. Member was not an office of profit under the Crown, as it was an appointment made by the Secretary of State. It, however, made no difference whether the appointment proceeded immediately from the Crown, or was filled up by the Secretary of State, if the appointment was really an office under the Crown. It was well known, that the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds was not granted by the Crown immediately; it was not an appointment under the great seal, but under the hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a salary of 20 l. a-year was attached to it, though the money was never received by any person accepting the office. Still, it was held by invariable custom, that the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds by a
448
Member of Parliament vacated his seat. He was aware, that there were offices, the acceptance of which did not lead to a vacation of seats in Parliament, but they were the subject of special exception from the Act of George 2nd. Such were the office of Secretary of the Treasury, and the office of Secretary of the Admiralty, and the offices of the Under-Secretaries of State, and they were excepted probably because they were considered as being, at the time of the passing the Act of William, in no degree offices under the Crown; for the Secretary of the Treasury was Secretary to the Lord High Treasurer, and the Secretary of the Admiralty was Secretary to the Lord High Admiral. In the instance also of the Secretary of the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India, it was thought fit, that there should be a specific arrangement to meet his case, and it was expressly provided, that a person's acceptance of that office should not vacate his seat in Parliament. He would maintain, that with respect to other offices, whether the appointment rested with the Secretary of State, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or with the Commissioners of the Treasury, they were equally to be considered offices under the Crown, particularly when, as in the present instance, it was directed that the Commissioners of the Treasury should fix and appoint the salaries which were to be paid. It might be contended, that this was not an office of profit, on the ground that no salary had been actually annexed. But the Act of last Session said, that "it shall be lawful for the Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury to fix and appoint such salaries to be paid to such registrar, clerks, and officers as they shall think proper, which salaries, together with such other expenses in and about the execution of this Act as the said Commissioners shall direct, shall be paid by the said Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes out of any monies to arise from any of the duties under their care and management." Now, it seemed to him, that under this clause, a duty was imposed upon the Treasury which they were to discharge by fixing the amount of salary to be enjoyed by the registrar. They all knew that the words "it shall be lawful," were constantly construed as imposing a duty, and he apprehended, that if the hon. Member for Southwark had continued to hold the office which he had resigned, and the

449
Treasury had not fixed a salary, he might have compelled the Commissioners of the Treasury to assign him one. What should be the awount of the salary would indeed be left to their discretion, but it was imperative upon them to fix one. It might further be contended, that no emolument or profit had been received from this office. But the hon. Member, in his letter to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, said, that he should not receive any emolument or profit from the office, if Parliament should be of opinion that its acceptance would oblige him to vacate his seat. The hon. Gentleman's refusal to accept a salary was, therefore, only a qualified refusal, dependent upon the decision of Parliament as to the effect of accepting a salary. This, he contended, did not exempt him from the disqualification created by his original acceptance of the office. Let the House suppose that a change of Administration had taken place, and that the now Ministers did not think it convenient immediately to dissolve Parliament. Would they, supposing them to execute a renunciation of the salaries attached to their offices for a couple of months, be thereby rendered capable of holding their offices, without vacating I their seats in Parliament? He apprehended not. It seemed to him that when Parliament constituted an office, and appointed a salary to be paid, an individual had no right to divest himself of the salary. The office still had all the qualities of an office, and it was wholly immaterial, whether the person holding it accepted a salary or not. There was nothing to prevent an individual accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, whether he claimed the salary attached to the stewardship or not, and he had been told, that it was not the invariable practice to refuse the salary, for one gentleman who had accepted the office did afterwards take the salary of 10 l. for the half-year which had expired before the office was disposed of to another person. It seemed to him, therefore, that this was a new office of profit under the Crown, created since the statute of Anne, and consequently not tenable in conjunction with a seat in Parliament. He now came to the second part of the question, depending upon the effect of the disabling statutes of the 5th of William and Mary and of the 15th of George the 2nd, upon which he should
450
contend, that this being an office for the managing and collecting of duties granted to the Crown by Parliament, and being further an office under the Commissioners of Stamps, the party who accepted it was thereby disqualified from sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons. This would appear, from a perusal of the second section of the Act of last Session, by which it was enacted, that
"There shall be charged upon, and in respect of, every license to be granted under the authority of this Act, as hereinafter provided, a duty of five shillings, and that the same shall be under the care and management of the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, and shall be denominated and deemed to be a stamp duty, and shall be raised, levied, paid, secured, and accounted for, under the provisions of any act or acts in force, or to be in force, for raising, levying, or securing the stamp duties, or any of them; and it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners, and they are hereby required, upon application for that purpose made by the person who for the time being shall be the registrar of metropolitan public carriages, duly appointed under the provisions herein-after contained, to issue to such person vellum, parchment, or paper for such licenses, duly stamped, for denoting the duties charged by this Act, either upon the present payment of the duties payable on such licenses, or upon giving such security for the payment thereof, and upon such terms and subject to such regulations as the said Commissioners shall think proper."
It was provided, by a subsequent clause, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, should appoint a registrar, and, as he had already stated, that it should be lawful to the Commissioners of the Treasury to appoint him a salary. Now, how words could be adopted which brought the case more closely within the Act of William and Mary, which provided, that no Member of the House of Commons should be concerned directly or indirectly in collecting or managing the duties granted by Parliament to the Crown, or, on the other hand, within the statute of George the 2nd, which disqualified persons from sitting or voting in that House, who were deputies to the Commissioners of Stamps, it was difficult to imagine. But, at any rate, if it should be decided, that those Acts had reference only to offices of the kind mentioned which were then in existence, it was then a new office, and came within the statute of Anne. Let the House look at the consequences which might result from the

451
neglect of the provisions in those statutes. If the argument were to prevail, that a person disqualified by accepting office from sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons did not vacate his seat, if he resigned the office before the meeting of Parliament, all these offices might be granted to individuals for six months, and all that they would have to do would be to resign them immediately before the meeting of Parliament, and take the salary of the office up to that time. Besides, the uniform practice since the passing of the Act of Queen Anne had been to issue a new writ immediately on parties accepting a disabling office, exactly in the same way as that which came within the second clause of the statute. It was right that a person incapable of sitting or voting in the House of Commons should be taken to have vacated his seat. He would again beg to call the attention of the House to the case of the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. If, during the recess, a Member accepted that office, he might be re-elected by any constituency in the kingdom, which could not be done unless the seat was thereby vacated. There was an instance of this kind in which Lord Dudley, who was Member for Droitwich, accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and was elected Member for Worcestershire. He believed, also, that his right hon. Friend, the Member for Pembroke, during the recess, vacated in the same way his seat for Carlisle, and was elected Member for Cumberland. It seemed to him, therefore, that by acceptance of the office, the seat was vacated to all intents and purposes. It might be contended, that the statute of William and Mary was only a prohibitory statute without, a penalty and consequently that the Parliament proceeded at first against such Members as accepted offices by expulsion. But since the latter act such conduct had uniformly been treated as vacating the seat. There were, indeed, cases in which, when an office devolved upon a Member by reversion, and the Member executed an immediate surrender, this devolution had been construed not to work a disqualification. But he was not aware of any case in which an individual having once excepted an office was held to be exempted from the disabling operation of the statutes because he had not taken the salary attached to it. These were the grounds
452
upon which he submitted the case to the House. He trusted it would be considered, that he had undertaken the task from a strong feeling of public duty for, supposing the House to be of a different opinion from him, and to resolve, that the seat of the hon. Member for Southwark had not been vacated, it seemed to him to be of great importance, that the House should come to a distinct decision upon the question, and not let it pass sub silentio. He need hardly say, that he had no personal feeling against the hon. Member, nor was he influenced by political feeling, for he believed it was well known, that if a new writ issued for Southwark his present constituents were perfectly disposed to reelect the hon. Member, and therefore no person could suggest, that there was any political object to be attained by the motion with which he should conclude—that a new writ be issued for the borough of Southwark in the room of Daniel Whittle Harvey Esq., who had vacated his seat by aceepting an office of profit under the Crown.
The Attorney-Generalrose to address the House, but observed, that if the hon. Member far Southwark were disposed to offer any remarks, he would willingly give way.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that the rule of the House was, that a Member should withdraw, when any question was about to be discussed touching his seat he having been first heard.
Mr. Prymementioned an instance when a question respecting his own seat was agitated, in which that rule was acted upon.
The Speakerhad no doubt that when any question was discussed involving the conduct of a Member of the House, the rule of the House was as it had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montgomeryshire, but he was not aware, that such was the rule when his seat was affected, no such case having occurred, since he had been placed in the Chair of that House. But the precedent mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge was in point.
Mr. Harveysaid, against the motion placed in the hands of the Speaker, "that a new writ issue for the borough of Southwark," he had nothing to say. On the contrary he was perfectly prepared to second any motion by which the Members of that House should be often obliged to

453
go before their constituents. He was one of those who thought, that this was a very wholesome practice, and who wished, that it occurred more frequently. But he somewhat differed from the interpretation that he was not now called upon to give explanation from any apprehension, that he had committed a very serious offence (and which, to a certain extent, might explain the motion), for the right hon. Gentleman, who, he believed, had an unequalled acquaintance with the rules, practice, and laws of Parliament, would not be able to find a single case in which a Member of that House had given up to the service of the public all the months during which other Members were recruiting their strength, after the severe labours which had just closed without receiving any compensation whatever for the sacrifice. He could not but think, that this was a most alarming precedent; for if it were once established, that Members of that House should labour gratuitously, he apprehended then he should bring down on his head the very severe censure of no inconsiderable portion, and most assuredly of that portion (not a small one) who sat there year after year, receiving very large sums for doing nothing, or a very good fee for their services in what they obtained if they could say, that they had ever done any thing. He deeply regretted, that the course which he had taken, really with the view of not giving the House trouble on the subject, had not been acceptable. When he submitted the facts of the case to eminent counsel, though they were far from agreeing as to the law, and though, as he should presently show, a very considerable lawyer took an entirely different view from that laid down by the right hon. Gentleman yet when he found men of such high rank in their profession (one of the first of them holding a seat in that House) entertain very great doubts on this question, he thought it much better to yield in time and resign the office rather than impose on the House of Commons the duty of entering on the subject. However, it appeared that he was mistaken in that respect; and now that a motion was made on the subject, he owned he was much dissappointed at the narrow ground taken by the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. The right hon. Gentleman had entrenched himself behind a few precedents, more or less as he considered bearing on the sub-
454
ject; but he had never said one word bearing on the great constitutional question of the danger of Members sitting in that House who either expected a reward From Government, or who were put in the receipt of sums which rendered them subservient to the Government. Now, he had hoped, that the right hon. Gentleman would have embraced this occasion for bringing in a bill which should put the whole subject to rest at once, by including in it not only the disqualifying offices, but those which were every day adapted to to the votes, speeches, and silence of a large number of Members, who were never thereby put to the inconvenience of losing their seats. But the right hon. Gentleman had altogether confined this case to a question of law—whether the office referred to came under the declaratory statute of Anne; and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that that statute, being highly penal in its nature, must, like all other penal statutes, be construed strictly. Now, it would be readily conceded, that there must be some difference between a direct grant of an office with which an individual was invested by patent from the Crown, under the sign manual bearing a stamp of considerable amount, adapted to the nature of the instrument, as compared with the mere appointment under the signature of a public functionary, to which another and an inferior stamp was attached. There were grants of the first description, and appointments of the latter; and he would venture to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a return which had been made to that House twelve months after the passing of the act which was referred to. The return was to be found on the journals of the House, and it purported to be one "of all the offices and employments under the Crown, which had been created and granted since the 25th of October, 1705." Now, an office granted by the Crown, was an office to be vacated by the Crown. An office appointed by a public officer, such as the Secretary of State, could be vacated by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State only. He apprehended, that if this appointment or any other proceeded from the Crown by way of grant, under the royal sign manual, that document could only be cancelled by an instrument of similar import, and of the same character; and he should also submit that, if we could anticipate

455
such a proceeding, an instrument from the Crown itself could not vitiate an order or appointment made by the Secretary of State. By the Secretary of State was this appointment made during discretion, and by him alone could that be cancelled or withdrawn; but he submitted it was not competent to any royal or political authority existing to create another power which could cancel it. But it might be said, (and with great weight on constitutional considerations) that it was unfitting that any Member of that House should hold an office at discretion, which a public functionary might continue or take away, as the Member adopted a coerce in compliance with, or adverse to, his wishes. With this feeling strongly in his mind, he did hope that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to put the question on broader and higher grounds. He was not pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman propose an extension of the principle of disqualification. On the contrary, he should wish to see the extinction of all disqualification, provided that the acceptance of any office should vacate the seat of the individual, he being re-eligible, if his constituents chose to continue their confidence in him. It was well known to the noble Lord to whom he was indebted for this appointment, what course he meant to pursue. He had stated from the beginning, that this was not a disqualifying office, and that, therefore, it was competent to him to accept it without vacating his seat; but it was his intention to move, on the first day of the Session, to accept the Chiltern Hundreds on the broad and constitutional grounds, that, as he had accepted office, and as his constituents might conceive that he had thus incurred political obligations, they should have the opportunity of expressing their opinion on the subject. And this was the situation in which, with all submission, he thought every individual ought to be placed by the law, who had any participation whatever in the public funds. When, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman asrured him that this proceeding had no connexion with party or personal politics, he levied a large tax on his (Mr. Harvey's) credence, he drew a large draft on his credulity; because, when he heard on every side in the speeches and papers of the party of the right hon. Gentleman, that there was an universal re-action throughout the country, that the consti-
456
tuents were panting in every borough for an opportunity to record their change of opinion, and that not a vacancy could take place but a Conservative candidate wes prepared to take the field, he was sursurprised that the right hon. Gentleman, when he considered the princely resources at the command of his party, and that the humble individual addressing the House bad not concealed that the emoluments which he received for the duties of his office (however uninviting these might be), were not unacceptable, should now turn round and tell him, with all possible gravity, while the Conservative cry was ringing through the country that at no hustings durst a Reformer or Radical show his face, "You have only to go to the borough of Southwark, and you'll be reelected without trouble, expense, or inconvenience." The praise of the great constituencies which was implied in this recommendation was very just, and his constituents (fully persuaded of the kindness of the right hon. Gentleman) were quite prepared to re-instate him without expense, let who would present himself from the Carlton Club as his opponent. But he ventured to think that this motion was not so divested of personal considerations as the right hon. Gentleman would lead the House to think; for why was it that the vigilance of the right hon. Gentleman had been slumbering for some time? There had been some instances much more suspicious than the present acceptance of an office, where the appointment was known, the individual holding it was known, and the exact amount of his emoluments also known. And though it might be said that the trust of discretion implied the arbitary exercise of that power, he would venture to say, that no leader of a party would dare to dispossess an individual holding this or a similar office, who discharged its duties to the satisfaction of the public, for whose benefit it was created. And he did not hesitate to say, that were he holding this office at the present time, he should give his vote and express his sentiments precisely in the same way as he did before he accepted it. It seemed, however, that he should have thought differently, when he recollected the principles of the party opposite; and that he should have concluded that his office was one which he was bound to give up on the change of an administration, and

457
that if the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) came to that side as rapidly as some of his more eager friends desired, the value of his appointment, when found constantly in opposition, would be but small, and he must remain in continual expectation of receiving a notice from the Home Secretary (whoever he might be) that his services were, in the exercise of a sound discretion, considered to be no longer necessary. This was, indeed, a species of dependence which it was fitting that public men should understand. But he was observing that the right hon. Gentlemen was rather lax in his vigilance, when he contended that the acceptance of this office was of a disqualifying nature, even though all salary was refused. He admitted there was great weight in what the right hon. Gentlemen had stated, that Members ought to be prevented from accepting offices during the recess; hut the right hon. Gentleman forgot to add, that the evil was much greater when a party exercised large patronage, and received indirect emoluments, though without any appointed salary. It was a doctrine most alarming to that portion of politicians called Radicals (a term that was illustrated to a certain extent by the possession of personal property), that gentlemen of large estates should have it in their power to say, "We don't look for emoluments in such an office as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; we don't care any thing for the salary—5,000 l. or 6,000 l. a year is nothing to us—but we have a tribe of cousins, and a large number of subordinate relations, and as we should wish to crowd Somerset-house and Downing-street with some few hundreds of them, this field of family patronage would be extremely acceptable to us." Now this was a dangerous doctrine, against which men of small means were justified in protesting. But there were other offices which the right hon. Gentleman he was surprised to find had thought it consistent with his station as guardian of the technicalities of the house to overlook. He saw by a motion of the gallant officer (Colonel Sibthorp) that thirty or forty commissions had been appointed with salaries attached to them. There were several Members of Parliament in these commissions, to whose names, it was true, the remark was annexed to the return that they had declined salaries. But it should be recollected that there were many temporary commis-
458
sions constantly appointed which stole quietly through the House, and to which attention would never have been directed if a time of peace had not given a military Member an opportunity of exercising unusual vigilance. At all events these commissions were much more silent and stealthy in their passage through that House than the act by which he was appointed, and which was debated clause by clause. In the county-rates commission he found the names of Mr. Law Hodges and Mr. Shaw Lefevre, who it was said "declined to receive salaries." Their declining to receive them rather implied that they could take them if they pleased, and their acceptance of this office worked their disqualification, according to the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman. Why the right hon. Gentleman had suffered such appointments to pass unnoticed he could not conceive unless it was, that as commissions were not found on the Journals of the House, they were a subject beneath his notice. Again, he found that there was a commission on Irish fisheries, and in this case it was laid down that they should receive their salary when they reported. But he saw that Mr. Walker, as one of the commissioners, had from the commencement refused to receive any remuneration. That, no doubt was very creditable to Mr. Walker, but if the doctrine were approved, as agitated by the right hon. Gentleman, that the acceptance of office—such paid offices as these commissionerships—constituted the case provided for by the law and vacated the seat in Parliament, he was a little surprised, giving the right hon. Gentleman credit for not being actuated in the smallest degree by personal feelings or party motives in bringing forward his motion of that evening, that these commissionerships should have altogether escaped his attention. Besides this, many acts of Parliament had been passed with disqualifying clauses. Take, for instance, the act which constituted the charities commission. The charities commission was composed of eighteen or twenty commissioners, appointed by the Crown; that was to say, the commission was appointed by the Crown, but the parties who were to sustain it were appointed by the Treasury. In that bill a clause was inserted, expressly declaring that no charity commissioner should be competent to sit in Parliament. So, again in more recent times, in the

459
Poor-law Amendment Act, a clause was inserted disqualifying the Poor-law commissioners, who were also appointed by the Treasury, from a seat in Parliament. But there was this extraordinary circumstance connected with the Poor-law Amendment Act—that whilst it declared that the three chief commissioners should be disqualified, it made no provision of the same kind with respect to other subordinate officers; so that the secretary, or any other highly paid officer attached to the commissions (and it was to be remembered that the secretary received 1,200 l. a year), would be perfectly competent to hold a seat in that House. The same law obtained with respect to the registrar and deputy-registrar in the Bankrupt Court. Now, if the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman were borne out in law, all these disqualifying clauses were entirely superfluous, because the right hon. Gentleman contended, that the appointment to these offices being in the Treasury, the parties accepting them assumed the character of political functionaries, and were thereby disqualified from sitting in the House. If that were so, why were the disqualifying clauses inserted in the bills to which he had directed the attention of the House, as well as in many more to which he might refer? Why were these disqualifying clauses inserted, except for the purpose of guarding against the construction which he humbly submitted would otherwise have been put upon these offices—namely, that they were not grants from the Crown, but appointments from great offices under the Crown? and this was the distinction he was anxious to press upon the House, not for his own sake—not to maintain any interest of his or to secure any gain to himself (for he had resigned his office and a successor had been appointed), but for the sake of illustrating to the House how necessary it was, that the law upon a point of this kind—important in many respects—should be clearly and distinctly defined. But he was one of those who thought, that the same might be said of this House as of the courts of law, namely, that there was "one law for the rich and another for the poor." He thought, that in that House there was one law for those who were connected with and powerfully sustained by party, and another law for those who were not so connected and not so sustained. He had no doubt, that if the
460
office of registrar of hackney carriages had been given to a second or third class gentleman connected with party and power in that House, no matter by whom the office was conferred, his seat would have been perfectly safe, the question of disqualification would not have been agitated at all, or if it were it would have been passed slightly over, with some such observations as these—"Oh! it is no great matter—the question is not worth mooting—he is doing his duty to the public—he is giving as much labour as he receives salary for, and he is as independent of the Government as the Government is of him." But it was not so when the question related to him, who stood aloof from all party, and whose conduct was governed only by that which his conscience told him to be right. He did not believe, that his case would he worth the tithe of a farthing if submitted to that House merely as a party question; and his experience confirmed that impression, not in one instance, but in many. He would mention only one: the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough, some ten years ago, under the guidance of the same feeling which remained intact in the party to which he belonged to move, that no individual Member of the House should be concerned in the business of the House. Now, although the right hon. Gentleman did not mean anything personal in that motion, it had a personal application; but applying to a Gentleman immediately connected by party with the Gentlemen who now sat on the opposite side of the House, nothing was said about it. It was this impression—this conviction strongly impressed upon his mind, which led him to proclaim to the public what he really and honestly felt—that there was no justice in that House to any man not connected in some way or other with one of the great parties in it. How had the House acted? There was a committee appointed some years ago, of which by the by the right hon. Gentleman was a Member, to inquire into one of the most monstrous usurpations that ever disgraced the country, and which operated most powerfully and most prejudicially against him individually. The committee held its meetings, instituted its inquiries, and finally submitted a report to the House. But was anything ever done in consequence of that report? Again, there was another committee; a committee more recently appointed—a close com-

461
mittee—a committee which came to a resolution expressly excluding the public—a committee which delayed its report, and from which some Gentlemen at last retired, in consequence of the secret manner in which it conducted its inquiries. At length the report was made, and four-and-twenty hours afterwards the gallant individual, the subject of the inquiry, was decorated with orders, clothed with military honours, and promoted in the service to which he belonged. Instances such as these confirmed him in the impression, that there was often great personal feeling and great injustice in the proceedings of that House. It might be asked, "why with this strong sentiment in your mind, did you not retain your office and take the chance of a re-election?" He would tell the House why he did not take that course. If he had retained the office, vacated his seat, and gone to his constituents, some Gentlemen might have stood forward and said, "I know I have no chance in this borough; all I know is, that some fifty or one hundred electors will give me their votes. I shall proclaim upon the hustings, that all votes given to Mr. Harvey are thrown away; he may have thousands of votes whilst I have but a hundred. I shall present a petition to the House stating, that he has accepted a disqualifying office; I shall obtain a committee, and I will take the chance whether that committee will not declare him to be disqualified." It was impossible that he could have taken that course and have allowed his constituency to be thrown into hands which he knew to be most abhorrent to them. It was, therefore, of great importance, that this question should be set at rest; for although, as he had already observed, he had no personal feeling upon it, although he would as soon, that the writ were issued that night as not (for he knew on whom he could rely, and his constituency knew by whom they could be best represented), yet the matter required consideration and ought to receive it. If, therefore, the Attorney-General should move, as he understood he was inclined to do, that the precedents should be searched, and a committee appointed to consider the question, he (Mr. Harvey) should not dissent from such a proposition. He would neither assent nor dissent, but if the House took the matter up at all, let it do so in the fair spirit of inquiry—let it not limit its investigations to mere technicali-
462
ties, but let it come to a distinct and definite resolution as to whether the acceptance of an office paid out of the general revenues of the country should or should not vacate a seat in Parliament? Meanwhile he asked the House not to come to a decision upon the subject until they had given it further attention, unless, indeed, they were prepared to come to an unanimous decision, because the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn) had intimated that the sitting in that House and taking part in its discussions, under the circumstances in which he (Mr. Harvey) sat there, exposed the party so doing to heavy penalties. This was a great matter, although he did not apprehend that it would affect him, even if the right hon. Gentleman's law were correct, because he lid not sit there holding office. But these Wings were sometimes readily seized, and might lead to personal inconveniences, which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to impose upon any Member of that House. He hoped, therefore that a committee of privileges would be appointed to consider and report fully upon the question. If such a committee were appointed, it would be in duty bound to consider not merely whether the circumstances under which he was placed acted as a disqualification, but whether the office itself was a disqualification. He apprehended it was not. He had taken the opinion of an eminent counsel upon the point, and he would state to the House what that opinion was. The counsel whom be had consulted was Mr. Rogers, a gentleman whom he was sure all the members of the legal profession in that House would at once acknowledge as no mean authority upon a question of this kind. Mr. Rogers gave his opinion in these terms:—"I am of opinion that although the registrar of metropolitan public carriages may be and is a new office, yet that it is not under the Crown within the provisions of the statute of Anne, so as to render Mr. Harvey incapable of sitting and voting as a Member of the house of Commons, nor incapable of being elected a Member in case of a dissolution of the present Parliament. Having come to this conclusion, I am still more strongly of opinion that the acceptance of the above office is not under the 26th section of the statute of Anne an acceptance of office which renders the election void." Now, that was rather an

463
unusal opinion for a lawyer to give, from its excessive clearness. There was no ambiguity about it. But it would be asked, "if you had such confidence in Mr. Rogers's opinion, why not act upon it?" He would tell the House why. When he submitted his case to Mr. Rogers, and obtained his opinion upon it, he proposed this additional question, "Supposing Mr. Harvey to vacate his seat, and go his constituency, would you advise a candidate opposing him, but not successful at the poll, to present a petition against his return upon the distinct ground that he holds the office in question?" He felt it necessary to put that additional question, because although he knew he should have many thousand electors in his favour, whilst his opponent might have only a very few, yet if the latter came before the House with a petition—calling to mind what he had so frequently witnessed during the last Session—how the benches of the House were crowded when there was to be a ballot for an Election Committee; with what shouts of delight a favourite name was hailed, and with what shrinking terror a hostile face was viewed—he could not help thinking that his chance of favour was altogether contingent. Mr. Rogers, whose political opinions were opposed to those which he entertained, had had much experience upon such matters, and in reply to the additional question put to him said, "Although I have expressed an opinion rather too elaborately, I am afraid, upon the law of the case, I am not prepared to say that if Mr. Harvey should go to the poll I should advise a candidate not to give notice of his disqualification and take the chance of a committee." He had thus vindicated himself from being too hasty, because, although he had this opinion so decidedly in his favour, he remembered how the great body of Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House could double their numbers on occasion—how, ever ready to be doing mischief and preventing good, they could, when the occasion demanded, come down as one man to secure their object. He remembered, too—it was a thing not to be forgotten—a thing not easily escaping the recess of memory—how many Gentlemen on that (the ministerial) side of the House said to him as they passed him on his seat, "Good God! Harvey, surely it is not true—we hear that Government intend to refuse to place your name upon the pension
464
committee. It never can be true." When the day came, he found that a great many of the Gentlemen whose sympathy and commiseration had thus been poured into his ear, went out into the lobby to vote against his being placed upon the Committee. He was sorry to have troubled the House at so much length. He would now leave the case in the hands of the House—himself he placed in the hands of his constituents. (The hon. Gentleman immediately left his seat and quitted the House.)
The Attorney-General: notwithstanding the taunts and sarcasms in which the hon. Gentleman had indulged, was satisfied that this would not be viewed nor dealt with as a party question. It was a matter upon which it was highly desirable that the House should proceed with great deliberation. There was a difference of opinion upon the question, although the majority of lawyers certainly entertained a strong opinion different from that given by Mr. Rogers. It was the more necessary that the House should not proceed hastily to a decision, because it was a matter which might come before a court of justice; and it was very desirable to guard against the possibility of a collision of opinion between that House and the courts of Westminster Hall. The question was whether the office held by Mr. Harvey was a disqualifying office. In his opinion it was. Another question arose as to whether it made any difference in the case, that no salary was assigned; in his opinion it made no difference; because the party holding the office might go to the minister of the Crown and say, "assign me a salary," and if the minister refused, he could go to the Court of Queen's Bench and procure a mandamus to compel an assignment of salary. There was another point of great importance connected with the case upon which he (the Attorney General) entertained a serious doubt; it was, whether this was an office which de facto vacated a seat in Parliament. If hon. Gentlemen would refer to the statute of Anne and the statute of George III., both of which related to matters of this kind, they would find that there were two classes of cases which were held to be of a disqualifying nature. The first statute declared, that if a member of Parliament accepted an office under the Crown, he should not sit nor vote in the House of Commons; and if he did, that he should be liable to a

465
penalty. But there was another class of offices which were said to be immediately and directly from the Crown. Now, in the 41st George 3rd it was said, that if any person, being a Member of Parliament, should accept any office of profit whatever immediately and directly from the Crown, then his seat should become vacant and a new writ be issued. Now, although the office of Mr. Harvey appeared to him to be an office under the Crown, so as to come within the scope of the statute of Anne, yet, being an office appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he could not say that it was an office held immediately and directly from the Crown. This was a point which deserved great consideration. It was entirely new, and one upon which no decision had yet been given. Under all the circumstances, what he would suggest would be the appointment of a select Committee to investigate the subject and to report upon it; and if he might venture so far, he would farther suggest that the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth (Sir R. Peel), who on all occasions was ready to devote himself to the public service, should be a member of the Committee. He should conclude these few observations, therefore, by moving that the papers relative to the appointment of Mr. Harvey to the office of registrar of hackney coaches be referred to a select Committee, and that the Committee be directed to report its opinion, whether Mr. Harvey had vacated his seat in the House by accepting the said office.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that his advice, or rather his opinion (for he would not presume to give his advice), was, that the proposition of the Attorney-General should be at once adopted. That being his opinion, he would not say one word upon the case; but he was bound to say, in justice to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Wynn), that he intimated to him (Sir R. Peel) before the debate began, that if any other person proposed a select Committee, he should at once accede to the proposition; but that his own opinion upon the case was so strong, that no alternative was left to him but to move the issuing of a new writ. If it were the opinion of the House that a Committee should be appointed for the purpose of searching precedents, it would be much better that all discussions should cease at one, so that the members of the Committee might enter upon the consider-
466
ation of the question with perfectly unprejudiced minds. As far as he was himself concerned, he would much rather that the hon. and learned Attorney-General would excuse him from serving upon the Committee. Original motion withdrawn.
Committee to be appointed.

REGISTERS OF BIRTHS.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved that the Registers of Births Bill be read a second time.
Mr. Cresswellthought it desirable to mention to the noble Lord a circumstance relating to this measure, which had recently come to his knowledge. He found that the registrar did not register births and deaths from his own personal knowledge of the facts, but from information given to him either by the parents of the children born, or by the owners or occupiers of the house in which the births or the death might be alleged to have taken place; and that information was often sent to him in writing by a servant. Now it was quite obvious that the registrar must be liable to be imposed upon, and it had already been discovered that frauds had been practised. In some instances most important and serious consequences might arise from representations being made of the birth of a child which might be altogether factitious; and yet it might be exceedingly difficult, after entries had been made in the register, to trace out the parties committing frauds of that description. In Manchester it had been found that persons had represented children to be dead for the purpose of cheating money-clubs, and one or two prosecutions had already taken place for such offences.
Lord J. Russellwas aware that frauds of the description mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman had been committed. In the cases which had been reported to him he had directed prosecutions to be instituted. He hardly knew how any other remedy than that of prosecuting cases where the law had been violated could be devised to meet the mischief complained of.
Bill read a second time.

AFFIRMATIONS.
Mr. Hawes Mr. Hawes moved, that the General Affirmations' Bill be read a second time. Its object was to extend the benefit of the Bill which was passed last year to those persons who conscientiously felt a repugnance to the taking of an oath, but who did not belong to any

467
of those particular religious sects who at present enjoyed an exemption by law. Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, had long been released from the necessity of taking oaths in courts of justice; and the measure of last Session extended the principle of the law to those persons who seceded from either one of those sects. But there were many conscientious individuals who had never belonged to any of those religious communities, and it was to them that he now sought the same indulgence to be extended. The first Act passed on the subject was in the 13th and 14th of Charles 2nd. The effect of that enactment was to punish most severely all parties who refused to take an oath. The penalties were extended not only to those who refused to take an oath, but to those who persuaded others not to take one; and the penalty of transportation was even enforced. By the 1st of William and Mary, a greater latitude of toleration was allowed. By that Act the Quakers were allowed to give testimony on declaration; but still their testimony was not admitted in criminal cases, nor were they allowed to sit on juries, or to hold offices of emolument. The 7th and 8th of William and Mary, stated the peculiar hardships the Quakers laboured under from those penalties; the penalties were repealed altogether, and a greater degree of indulgence granted to that sect for a limited time. The 1st of George 1st, made those indulgences perpetual. The 8th of George 1st prescribed new forms of declaration, but those forms were considered objectionable. By the 22nd George 2nd, many doubts were remedied; and in this state the law remained for nearly eighty years. By the 9th of George 4th, the Moravians were acknowledged by Parliament as a class of people entitled to this indulgence; and, by that statute, the indulgence to Quakers and Moravians of making an affirmation was extended in all cases, civil as well as criminal; but, nevertheless, the disability to sit on juries or to hold places of emuloment, was continued. By the 3rd and 4th of William 4th, the Quakers and Moravians were put on the same footing, as to their rights, with other persons, and the indulgence was still further extended, so that all persons who could say they had been Quakers were to be entitled to the indulgence and benefits claimed by Quakers, In the last Session, a bill was
468
brought in by his hon. Friend, the Member for Cambridge. A large secession had taken place from the original body of Quakers. Those who had seceded from the original body had been disallowed the privileges of that body; but by this statute all the benefits intended to be conferred on the Quakers were extended to the seceders as well as conferred upon those who had continued to be of the original sect. The whole course of legislation on this subject of late years had been to relax the law in favour of those who conscientiously objected to taking oaths; and it must, he thought, be for the interest of a due administration of justice, and of all parties in the State, that honest and conscientious men should not be excluded from aiding in the enforcement of justice against wrong doers, and be put in a worse situation than more careless individuals. It had been objected, that if persons who were subpœnaed to give evidence in courts of justice were to be permitted to set up at the moment a claim to be exempted from taking an oath, on the ground that they entertained conscientious scruples, the ends of justice might be defeated for want of evidence. To obviate this objection, he had introduced a clause into the bill, by which it was required, that any who conscientiously objected to take an oath should, previously to his having any power to claim an ex-exemption, register his name in a book, to be kept by the officer before whom the oaths of allegiance and supremacy were taken; and the clause declared, that upon payment of a small fee, such person should be entitled to have his name so registered. The House would perceive that this must be a deliberate act on the part of the individual claiming to be registered. As an illustration of the necessity for this bill he would remind the House of the case of Mr. Wedgwood, the late magistrate at the Queen-square police-office, who resigned his situation because he entertained conscientious scruples as to administering oaths. There were many persons actuated by strong religious motives on the subject of oath taking; and he hoped, therefore, that the House would allow the bill to be then read a second time.
Mr. Goulburndid not think it proper, in the present thin state of the House, to enter into a discussion upon this subject, which he should feel it absolutely neces-

469
sary to do in the further progress of the bill. But there necessarily must be very strong objections to a measure, the real purport of which was this—that every individual who chose to make a payment of 3s. 6d., might decide whether he should or should not he put upon oath in the trial of any question that might be brought forward in a court of justice in this country. The hon. Gentleman said, indeed, that the individual must register before he could claim an exemption. That was perfectly true; but then he would be at liberty to take an oath at any subsequent period. An individual, therefore, had an opportunity of saying whether his evidence should be given under circumstances that would destroy its validity in the opinion of many—that of merely making a declaration in court; or should be given under that solemnity which would give it validity in the opinion of almost all—namely, that of his being sworn before the court. In his opinion, this was a most serious innovation upon the proceedings of courts of jussice; an innovation of the most dangerous description, and one, therefore, upon which, in a subsequent stage, and when there should be a fuller attendance of Members, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House.
Mr. Gibsonregretted, that he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the opinion that this was a dangerous innovation upon the proceedings of courts of justice; because Quakers, Moravians, and Separaists, had for many years been exempted from taking oaths, and the principle of the present measure was recognised by the bill which was passed last Session in favour of those persons who had seceded from any one of those denominations of Christians. Having extended the benefit of the exemption to them, they were bound, in common consistency, to extend it to the rest of the community. He could not understand why persons who had seceded from the Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, should be put in a more favourable position than the rest of the community, except the sects from which they had seceded. Nay, they were put in a more favourable position than many who belonged to the Established Church. He thought, this was a very strange way of supporting the Church. It was offering a bonus to dissent, because they were limiting the field in which the members of
470
the Church were at liberty to exercise their consciences. If he were not constrained to offer his opposition to the right hon. Gentleman for the reasons he had already stated, he should feel bound to do so on the general principles of toleration, which he held to be perfectly consistent with a desire to support the principles of the Established Church. It was perfectly monstrous to oblige people to take oaths when they conscientiously declared, that they considered the taking of an oath to be inconsistent with their duty to God. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that if this bill passed, any man on paying 3s. 6d., might avoid the necessity of taking an oath, as if men would be able to foresee that they should obtain some privilege or advantage in not taking an oath, or as if any man could possibly have any private interest in travelling to a public office and declaring, that he felt it inconsistent with his duty towards God to take an oath. On the ground, then, that this bill was only an extension of the bill of last Session, on the ground that it would be a measure favourable, instead of being unfavourable, to the Established Church, and on the ground that it was consistent with the interest of the established religion, he should give his vote in support of the motion for the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Law, on this occasion, should pursue the same course as that adopted by his right hon. Friend, and not enter at any length into the question. He must, however, complain of the Bill as being not so much an innovation on the proceedings of our courts of justice, as an extension of a principle which had already been introduced in those proceedings, and which had been most mischievous in its effects in the administration of justice generally. All those who had been in the habit of attending courts of justice, must have observed with what extreme jealousy juries regarded the evidence of persons who claimed to be exempted from taking an oath. It often happened that jurymen would interrupt the Court, when summing up the evidence, with the observation—"My lord, I believe that witness has not been sworn." He was convinced, if there was a case in which six witnesses should be examined who declared that they entertained conscientious scruples respecting taking oaths, and therefore were allowed to give their testimony upon a

471
mere affirmation, and in which six other witnesses should give their testimony under the solemn obligation of an oath—that, ordinarily speaking, the jury would be disposed to act upon the testimony of those who had taken the oath, rather than upon the evidence of men who had declined, from religious scruples, to give the best security to the public which the law provided against false testimony. It was on the ground, therefore, that the further extension of the principle of dispensing with the obligations of an oath would endanger the security and confidence which the public now felt in the administration of justice, that he should give to this Bill his most strenuous opposition.
Mr. Prymethought, that a jury would receive the testimony of persons who gave their evidence under a solemn declaration before the Deity that they would speak the truth, with quite as much confidence as they would the testimony of men who went through the form of an oath in the hurried and irreverent manlier in which oaths were sometimes administered in courts of justice.
Bill read a second time.

JUDGES' SALARIES (SCOTLAND).
The Order of the Day was read for the House resolving itself into a Committee, on the subject of the Salaries of the Judges (Scotland).
The Lord-Advocate moved, that the Speaker do now leave the chair.
Mr. Gillonshould oppose the Speaker leaving the chair, because he did not conceive that there was any necessity for the present measure. The increase now contemplated in the salaries of the Scotch judges was totally uncalled for and unjustified under the present circumstances of the country. This was a period when the Government and Parliament were called upon to exercise a most rigid economy in all the departments of the State; some urgent necessity, therefore, ought to be established to warrant the learned Lord in making any proposition for an increase of the salaries of the judges in Scotland. The salaries of these judges were increased in 1810. Previous to that year, a Scotch judge received 1,280 l.; in 1810, the salary was raised to 2,000 l., and upon what ground? Why, to enable the judges, as it was alleged, to keep pace with the increased expense of living at that time. The year 1810 was about the most expen-
472
sive year during the whole war; the price of wheat was no less than 116 s. a quarter. Within the last few years, however, wheat had been even as low as 36 s. a quarter; and although the price had become somewhat high in the present year, in consequence of a deficient harvest, yet it was not possible that the present high price could continue; for if the landlords would not grow a cheap loaf in this country, the Chambers of Commerce at Manchester and elsewhere, would take care that the people should get it from abroad. Therefore, upon the score of the dearness of living, there was no ground for the present proposition. Besides, it should be borne in mind, that the Bill of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, for the resumption of cash payments, had come into operation since 1810, by which the value of all fixed incomes had been materially increased, while incomes arising from land had been most materially diminished. He would remind the House, that in 1834, a Committee was appointed to consider this very subject, and it was somewhat extraordinary, if the urgency for raising these salaries were so great, that the Report of that Committee should have been allowed to remain a dead letter up to this moment. If these judges were in such a state of destitution and poverty, why had they been suffered to linger on in this state for five years, and why was the subject only now brought forward? A gentleman of the name of Hamilton, a man of great experience in these matters, was examined before that Committee, and he would direct the attention of the House for a moment to that gentleman's evidence. Among other questions, he was asked—"whether he thought in case of a person who had a fixed income of 2,000 l. a-year, and another who had a landed estate of the same yearly amount, the former would be in an infinitely preferable situation to the latter?" His answer—"Yes, I should certainly consider that he would." He (Mr. Gillon) would contend, that these Scotch judges with their 2,000 l. a-year were upon a par with any landed gentleman of 4,000 l. a-year. If they repealed the Corn-laws, the incomes of the judges would be still further increased. He was prepared, as a landowner, to suffer loss, if the loss really went to benefit the productive power in the country—the working'classes,—but he would not consent to loss for the benefit of the money-

473
mongers or of the public servants paid by fixed salaries. It was stated, as an argument for increase, that the judges could not live on their present salaries. The Lord President had a salary of 4,300 l. a-year, and the Lord Justice Clerk was paid 4,000 l. a-year. Mr. J. Hope stated before the Committee to which he had referred, that his father held for twenty-three years this office, which led to such wretched poverty. Why, some men would be poor with an income of 40,000 l. instead of 4,000 l. The five. puisne judges, the judges of the Court of Justiciary, had salaries of 2,600 l. a-year; one of them had an additional salary of 600 l. a-year for doing the work of the Exchequer Court, whilst another, acting as third judge of the Jury Court, had also an addition of 600 l. He had already stated, that living was cheaper now than it was a few years ago; and there was no city in the empire where they were able to hire houses of the best description at such moderate prices as in the city of Edinburgh. Was the increase claimed on account of the work done? If it were proved that the judges were hard worked, he might vote for an increase, but what was the evidence upon this point? It was proved that they did not work more than four months in the year, and that there were nearly eight months of vacation, and the period of their sitting in 1834 was, on an average, one hour and a-half a-day. It might be said, that some of the courts had been abolished, and that the transfer of work had caused an increase; but Mr. Hay, who was examined before the Committee, stated, that the average of the four years before the Judicature Act passed, was 2,143 cases, and between the 1st of January, 1832, and the 1st of January, 1833, the number of cases stated to have entered the upper House, was only 2,037, so that notwithstanding the transfer of the judicatures, there had been a diminution of business; and from the delay and difficulties in the form of proceeding, it was constantly falling off. He denied that the increase of salary was necessary, because they could not command the services of the best gentlemen at the bar. He was exceedingly glad to hear the other night the encomiums which proceeded from both sides of the House on the efficiency, of the judges, although he had seen a letter which declared that one learned Lord was as deaf as a post, whilst another was
474
greatly afflicted. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, was examined before the Committee, and he laid it down as a principle, that they should not care to provide such an income as might be necessary to cause the acceptance of the office by every member of the bar, but that it was of great importance to give such a salary as would ensure the acceptance of the office by lawyers having the public confidence. It was stated by Mr. Hope that his income had averaged 6,000 l. a-year; but this was an extraordinary case, for Mr. flay stated, that there were not above three members of the Scotch bar making above 3,000 l. a-year, and he (Mr. Gillon) thought, that even here Mr. Hay was overstating the case, for he was informed, that probably there was not one individual, with the exception of the learned gentleman (Mr. Hope) who made 3,000 l. a-year. The diminution of fatigue in discharging the office of judge was so great that a salary of 2,000 l. a-year would be eagerly caught at by a gentleman at the bar making even 3,000 l. a-year. The fact was, however, that they had always in Scotland commanded the best talent at the bar for the bench. The criminal jurisdiction was also highly praised the other evening for its efficiency; and if it deserved the praise, what necessity was there for adding to the judges' salaries? If the judges exercised a proper economy, and lived in a style fitting a magistrate and a judge, the salary was sufficient to maintaid them; but at present they constituted themselves a sort of petty local aristocracy, and sought to lead the fashion in Edinburgh. Again he would direct the attention of the House to the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who was also examined before the Committee. That learned Gentleman declared, that it was an evil for the judges to form any thing like an aristocracy; they ought not to be separated from the middle classes, and ought to maintain a rank suited to their station; and the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say, that the lash judges were higher paid than the Scotch. He (Mr. Gillon) believed, however, that they were rather more worked, and, in the next place, the selection was not fortunate, for the hon. and learned Member stated also, that the judges in Ireland gave anything but satisfaction, Whilst, therefore, the lower salaried judges in Scotland satisfied the

475
people, the higher paid Irish judges were not equally approved of. He (Mr. Gillon) approved, however, of that part of the report which recommended that the judges, after a certain time, should retire upon full salaries. Considering, therefore, that the increase in the salaries was uncalled for by the people of Scotland, considering that they were satisfied with the present system, and that, under this system, they had commanded the best talent at the bar, he would resist it; and he would move, as an amendment, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply that day six months.
Mr. Hume, in seconding the motion, said that the House ought to have had before them the reasons for the increase to induce them to agree to the resolution. The question now came before the House in a very extraordinary manner; they were called upon to make a grant of money without knowing the reason. They ought to have been stated, and the right hon. Gentleman had not stated them. He agreed in the opinion that they ought to have good judges, and that they ought to be adequately paid. The want of an adequate payment for judges he thought a great evil; it was the worst possible economy, but the question he would put was whether the country had experienced any inconvenience from the low salaries of these judges? He would answer no, so far as the evidence he had read and heard proved, and he was, therefore, unwilling to agree to any increase. Sir William Rae had been Lord Advocate for fifteen years, and when he was asked whether he recollected any instances of the judgeships being refused on account of the low salaries, he answered, "Yes; one or two;" but these two cases might be put under the principle so well laid down by Sir Robert Peel in his evidence, that they ought not to be taken as a standard of the highest income which any gentleman at the bar might acquire, but the average of the good lawyers. On that ground, therefore, he would not consent to increase the burdens of the country. Another objection which he entertained, was the existence of great abuses and of antiquated forms in these courts, and further that the judges did not work as the judges in England did. They had seen that the court sat only 105 days in the year, and that on an average their time of sitting each day did not amount to two
476
hours. They had, therefore, seven months vacation. He further objected, therefore, to any increase of salaries till the abuses were remedied, till the antiquated forms were done away, and till they ensured the devotion of the whole time of the judges to the business of their courts. He knew that they were told the judges took the papers home to read and deliberate upon, but how did the public know what the judges then did? They knew very well what the judges did on the bench, but when they saw the judges retire for months to their country houses, the public had just ground of complaint. Was the country in a peculiarly favourable position for this grant of money? He found by the returns, that the courts of justiciary in Scotland last year received 78,443 l.; he believed that 40,000 l. of this sum went to the supreme court, and if it were properly applied, and the number of the judges were reduced it would be quite sufficient for all purposes. He would especially ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, after five years had elapsed since the presentation of the report, they ought now to proceed upon it? Let them look too at the expenditure and revenue of the country. He held in his hand a balance-sheet, signed E. J. Stanley, and dated 3rd May, 1838, by which it appeared that the excess of expenditure over income amounted to no less than 1,480,000 l. Ought they, then, to be so very liberal with the public money? He had been favoured with the amount of the increase proposed, and he would state it to the House. It was proposed to add 700 l. a-year to the income of the Lord President, raising it from 4,300 l. to 5,000 l. a-year; to add 600 l. a-year to the income of the Lord Justice Clerk, raising it from 4,000 l. to 4,600 l.; and there was to be added to the incomes of all the others, who received only 2,000 l. a-year, the sum of 600 l. It was one of the anomalies of that Court that the judges who ought to have the same duties to perform had different salaries. In his opinion that was not right, and before they gave a vote for money they ought to have the plan of the Government before them, so that they might know in what way they intended to remedy the evils complained of. It was a mere gratuitous waste of the public money, the more especially at a time when the expenditure of the country so much exceeded the income. He was not, as some people foolishly believed opposed to

477
the payment of adequate salaries; but he said that if there were ten men at the bar equal to the station, and if one of those ten men would go to the bench on the present salaries, the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the learned Lord ought not to pledge the House to an increase of the salaries. He was only discharging his duty, therefore, when he opposed the profusion contemplated by the learned Lord.
The Lord-Advocate, having already expressed his views upon this question, and having an opportunity of speaking in Committee, would not at that stage trouble the House with a new statement.
Mr. Edward Ellice, jun., (St. Andrews) was one of those who thought that the judges were not sufficiently paid in Scotland. He was prepared, therefore, to vote for an increase of their salaries, and that they should retire, on their full salaries, after a certain period; but, after what he stated the other night, he could not vote for the present motion without receiving an assurance from the Lord Advocate that there should be a reduction in the number of judges, that the courts should be rendered efficient, and that all necessary improvements should take place in the system. He had come down to that House to vote for the motion, expecting the necessary information and pledges to be given; that information and those pledges had not been afforded, and he would now vote for the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. He wished also to take that opportunity of stating, with reference to what had fallen from him the other night, that he was desirous of expressing his regret that he had used a phrase unintentionally, and which was not warranted by the circumstances. He deeply regretted that he had given pain to some who were present, and probably to others whom it had by this time reached. He hoped that the House would give him credit for not intentionally using a phrase that would give pain to any one; he assured them that it fell from him in the hurry of a debate. The learned Lord, however, to whom he had referred, was 80 years of age, and had been subject for some years to an utter prostration of strength. He had read somewhere in history, which accorded with his views, and which, with the permission of the House, he would give as his own.
"A time, too, would, sooner or later, come when these judges would begin to suffer under
478
the infirmities of age. There would be a feeling that they were honourable men—that they were men of intellect; and yet there would be a conviction that their powers were failing. Who, then, would have to determine whether they ought or ought not to retire? He took for granted that the House would not allow the Crown to dismiss a judge of its appointment, What authority, then, must give him the hint to retire? The judge might possess integrity, impartiality, independence, learning, competency; but when his powers began to decay the painful question would arise as to who should suggest to him the propriety of retirement,"
He assured the House that he made the statement unintentionally, He thought the country owed those learned Lords a debt of gratitude for their past services, but still he was bound to state their present condition, which was undermining that confidence which it was necessary should be confirmed as much as possible in the minds of the people of Scotland.
Mr. Aglionbyhad read carefully the evdience which had been given, and after he had heard the statements of the hon. Members who had moved and seconded the present Amendment, he had come to a conclusion, that they ought to give an increase in the salaries of the judges in Scotland. The evidence which had been taken before the Committee clearly showed the salaries of the judges to be insufficient, for several of the witnesses examined had distinctly stated, that in consequence of the inadequate remuneration, many barristers of standing, to whom, only of course, such situations would be offered, had refused to accept seats on the judicial bench. The opinions expressed by the witnesses were, in many instances, extremely strong, and the inference drawn by some of them was, that the public were deprived of the full benefit of the assistance of those members of the bar who had reached the top of their profession, in consequence of the attraction presented to them being insufficient to tempt them to enter upon the laborious duties which they would have to perform. He quite agreed with the opinion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that it was the worst economy to employ inferior talent, and to pay the jndges inadequately. It was not satisfactory to the country or the suitors in the courts, that such a course should be pursued, at least in the administration of justice, and he begged to ask, whether the salaries which were paid to the Scottish judges were sufficient to avoid the possi-

479
bility of such a conclusion being arrived at? It was certain, that while the salaries remained in their present state, there was but little hope, that men of talent and acquirements, who were well employed at the bar, would quit their professional occupations, when, by the exercise of mere ordinary talent and industry, they might make a better provision for their children than they could hope to do by accepting a judicial seat. The refusal, then, to provide the judges with a proper remuneration for their labour and for the exercise of their talents—a remuneration which would enable them to support the dignity of the situations which they held in a manner becoming their ranks, so far from its being extravagant was econemical, and was, indeed, necessary to secure the satisfaction of the people. It was upon these grounds, that he begged to support the motion of the learned Lord.
Mr. Wallacewas one of those who had wished to give his vote in favour of this motion, but he found himfelf compelled to adopt a different course. From the report of the last Session he had taken an account of the money expended yearly in the payment of the judges of Scotland and their clerks, and he found that it amounted to no less a sum than 40,000 l. Any one who had made himself acquainted with the system and its abuses, would be perfectly well aware, that, in reality, there was no necessity for the employment of these clerks; but, in spite of their entire uselessness, the country was saddled with their support at an annual cost of 4,000 l. On dividing the charges for the judges among those functionaries, he found, that the amount paid to each was 3,800 l., and he thought the House, with this fact before their eyes, ought to consider well the necessity of a giving them 4,600 l. more before they went to a division. He begged to remind hon. Members, and more particularly her Majesty's Government, that of late years almost all the speeches from the Throne, whether of King's, or of her Majesty the Queen, had referred to the administration of justice, and had expressed a desire that it should be improved, and he begged to inquire whether the wishes expressed in those speeches had been fulfilled? If they had, as regarded England and Ireland, he was bound to say, that such was not the case with reference to Scotland, for there had of late years beep no improvement whatever in the system
480
of administering the law in that country. What did the judges do there? They attended in Edinburgh during four or five months in the year, and after that, instead of their being employed in the performance of their duties, they were not in Edinburgh at all, but at their country seats engaged as country gentlemen might be. The suitors, however important their interests might be, were dispersed three times in the course of the year in consequence of the system which prevailed, under which the judges went to look after their amusement or their business in the country. The result of this was, that when the Scotch judges might be supposed to be engaged in the transaction of the duties of their office, they were very possibly seen on the Continent making the grand tour, while many of them might also be seen enjoying the gaities of the English metropolis. He found that the duties of the judges consisted in their sitting on 104 days in the course of the year for two hours each day. Their salaries, it was true, might be smaller than those paid to persons filling the same situations in England; but if they were, their labours were also less, for the English courts usually sat during six hours each day, while the period of their sittings usually extended to ten months out of the twelve. Let the Scotch judges perform their duties like the English judges, and let them be subjected to an amount of labour greater than that which they now performed, and he should be glad to remunerate them commensurately. But what was now to be done? The same old jog-trot method was to be insisted upon; the seven months' holidays were still to be persisted in. He was governed by facts in what he was stating, but he knew that a countervailing power existed in Edinburgh, which would overthrow that of the learned Lord, and even of the Home-office too. He did not take any mean or miserable views upon this subject; but he asked for justice, and he said, that the whole time of the judges should be bought by the country, and that they ought not to be allowed to have the power of going away into the country during so great a portion of the year. This was his complaint, and it was the same which he had often made in this House before, and he was sure, that when he reminded the House of the admission which had been made the other night, that there were four of the fourteen judges

481
(one of whom was the Lord Chief Commissioner) unable, from infirmity, to perform their duties, they would agree with him in saying that it was a just one. [The Lord Advocate: The Lord Chief Commissioner has resigned]. He was told, that the Lord Chief Commissioner had resigned; but that altered the case in a very slight degree, for that left three in the position he had described. He should not, however, trespass further upon the time of the House; but conclude by expressing his intention to vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk.
The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 56; Noes 27;—Majority 26.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Humphery, J.

Acland, T. D.

Ingham, R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Liddell, hon. H.

Arbuthnott, H.

Litton, E.

Bannerman, A.

Lockhart, A. M.

Baring, F. T.

Mackenzie, T.

Barnard, E. G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Murray, A.

Bernal, R.

Nichol, J.

Blakemore, R.

Parker, J.

Burr, H

Praed, W. M.

Chalmers, P.

Pringle, A.

Clerk, Sir G.

Pryme, G.

Clive, Lord

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Collier, J.

Rushbrooke, R.

Craig, W. G.

Russell, Lord J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Sinclair, Sir G.

Duke, Sir G.

Tancred, H. W.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Turner, E.

Gordon, Captain

Williams, W. A.

Hastie, A.

Wilshere, W.

Hinde, J. H.

Winnington, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wood, C.

Hodgson, R.

Wood, Sir M.

Hope, hon. C.

Wynn, rt. hon. C.

Hope, G. W.

Horsman, E.

TELLERS.

Howard, P. H.

Lord Advocate

Hughes, W. B.

Maule, F.

List of the NOES.

Blewitt, R. J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Brotherton, J.

Lushington, C.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Morris, D.

Butler, hon. col.

Parker, R. T.

Davis, Colonel

Rundle, J.

Divett, E,

Salway, Colonel

Ellice, E.

Stanley, W. O.

Evans, W.

Stansfield, W. R.

Finch, F.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hawes, B.

Style, Sir C.

Heathcote, J.

Wakley, T.

Hindley, C.

Wallace, R.

482

Warburton, H.

TELLERS.

White, A.

Gillon, W.

Yates, J. A.

Hume, J.

House in Committee.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that he had been most willing and most desirous on the one hand to submit the propositions, which he intended to make, to the consideration of the House before the question came on for discussion; and on the other, to enter into a statement of his views before the House went into Committee; but upon his making inquiry upon the subject, he had been assured by those who were best acquainted with the forms of the House, that his doing so would be inconsistent with the course usually pursued. Having been assured, that the rule was one from which there could not be any deviation, he thought it rather hard that it should be made a matter of complaint against him, that he had not laid those matters before the House, when he had been most anxious to do so. He was not desirous now of stating more than his general views upon the subject under discussion, and he was not anxious that those opinions which he professed should be finally adopted by either side of the House, and he should therefore propose nothing more than a general resolution; but at the same time he felt bound to state such circumstances as would satisfy hon. Members, that they were proceeding on safe ground in acceding to that resolution. He must first express his utter astonishment at the statement made by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that there had been no reduction in the judicial establishment; and also at the allegation of another hon. Gentleman, that a disposition existed to adhere to antiquated forms. As to the first point, he must say, that no ground whatever existed for the statement. There had been a great reduction in the number of judges. The five judges of the Court of Exchequer had been removed, and their duties were performed by a judge of the Court of Session, with a salary of only 600 l. a-year additional, which was infinitely smaller than the amount paid to the original judges; the Court of Admiralty had been abolished, and four commissioners had been taken away, and even a reduction of the Court of Session had been made by the removal of two of its Members. From these reductions a saving was effected, of

483
the amount of which apparently most of the hon. Members who had voted against his motion were unaware, but which, in fact, amounted to 54,000 l. per annum. The hon. Member for Greenock had said, that the expenses of the judicial establishment amounted to 40,000 l. a year now; but how that sum could be paid, under the Act of the 10th Geo. 3rd, he was at a loss to know; but even if that statement were correct, the saving effected was much greater in amount than the sum which it was stated was now annually paid, and certainly greater than had ever been effected in any other judicial establishment in England or Ireland. There certainly had been an incongruity pointed out in some of the judges enjoying a salary of 2,000 l. only, while others were in the annual receipt of 2,600 l., and all that he proposed to do, and all that was ever stated to have been proposed, was to equalize the salaries of the judges. With regard to the retiring allowance to be made to judges of the age of seventy years, and of fifteen years standing as judges, he was willing that they should receive their full salaries on their retirement, and he thought that hon. Members who had voted against going into Committee, without being acquainted with his views upon this subject, or on that to which he had last referred, did not at least act either wisely or candidly towards him. He would ask, however, how was the existing system to be altered better than by an equalization of the salaries? That was the chief, and, indeed, almost the only point on which he intended to suggest any change; a small addition to the salary of the Lord President being the only other matter of importance on which he proposed that any new arrangement should be made. It had been asked what had been done in the way of amending the system? He begged to remind the hon. Member for Kilkenny of one point—that of reducing the fees of court to the amount, as it was calculated, of 14,000 l. a year. The hon. Member, when that was done, said, that it was beginning at the right end, and he did not see that anything that had since taken place could lead to the conclusion that any error or neglect had been committed. He apprehended that no further reduction in the salaries of the judges could be made, because to any proposal of that kind, it might be objected on the other side that
484
the provision made, fell far short of an establishment suitable to Scotland, more especially in comparison with the salaries paid to the judges in England. In making the proposition, therefore, which he now. laid before the Committee, he was carrying to the utmost extent the views of many hon. Members whose, opinions were in favour of the establishment being supported in a liberal and ample manner. Having stated this, he did not think it necessary to occupy the time of the House; but he must express his surprise that he had received no approbation for those measures shish had been carried for the improvement of the constitution of the courts, and for the advantage of suitors. He felt bound, however, to trespass further upon the attention of the House to allude to one subject, to which reference had been made. It had been said; that the number of judges should be reduced, or that further duties ought to be imposed upon them. With regard to the first point, the expediency of the adoption of the suggestion might be very easily brought before the House, and the evidence of practical men having been already obtained upon this matter, the possibility of a reduction might be easily decided. The judges were acknowledged to be of great ability, and he must say, that their time was fully employed. It was quite a mistake of the hon. Member for Kilkenny when he said, that they were not in the habit of sitting more than two hours on each day. They frequently sat until two or three o'clock, and the most laborious duties were performed as well in court as out of it. The hon. Member had said, that the judges should perform all their duties in court, but he would mention one case to show how utterly impossible it was, that such a plan could in all instances be pursued. One of the judges was occupied for a very considerable time in the consideration of cases of accounts, involving many very difficult questions. He should not exaggerate if he said, that they amounted to 150. There was one of these cases on which an accountant had been occupied during a period of three years. The learned judge had to consider the case at home—out of court, and he had to read no fewer than 2,000 documents the asked, then, could such a case be disposed of in court? Could it be disposed of in court in England? He would venture to say, that it

485
could not; and besides he would be borne out by many hon. Members who belonged to the legal profession, in stating, that where such causes arose instead of their being openly tried, they were decided by arbitrators appointed by an order of court or by masters of chancery. The duties, however, which were thus thrown off the shoulders of the judges in England, in Scotland were performed by the members of the court of session. How then, could the number of judges be decreased? Was not their time fully occupied? There were two chambers each composed of four judges; but would the hon. Member for Greenock propose, that either of these should be diminished in number? All were agreed that four judges was the smallest number, and at the same time the most suitable that could be selected. It could not be said, that both should be reduced; and then he supposed, that the hon. Member would propose to reduce one only. It might be his opinion, that such a course would be advisable, but be believed, that no other Member of that House concurred in that belief, for if the House were to divest the judicature of Scotland of these courts, acting as they did as courts of appeal, he must say, that he thought that the administration of justice there, would be in a most dangerous position. It would be a most alarming change, and he thought, that the person who would propose such no alteration would incur a responsibility of a most weighty character. With regard to any changes which had been hitherto made, he was hound to say, that he had never been subjected to control, either from the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), or in any other quarter, and he must admit, that so far from any mischief having arisen from the want of changes, the frequent alterations, that had been made were more likely to produce that effect. The learned Lord concluded by moving a resolution to the effect, that the judges be allowed to retire after fifteen years' service, on the full salary attached to their office.
Mr. Humehad no objection to this resolution, which went only to provide for the retiring allowances of the judges, and not to increase their salaries.
Resolution agreed to.
The Lord Advocatethen moved a second resolution:—"That it is the opinion of this committee, that provision should be made by law to allow her Majesty to in-
486
crease the salaries and retiring allowances of the five puisne judges of the court of session."
Mr. Gillonopposed the resolution. Considering what was the amount of the labour actually called for from the judges and looking at the remuneration given, he was of opinion, that the present salaries were amply sufficient. It appeared by the evidence of Lord Jeffery before the committee of 1834, that the average time occupied in the daily session of the court was one hour and a half only. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cockermouth as to getting persons of eminence at the bar to accept the office of Judge, he contended, that a salary of 2,000 l. a-year would enable them at all times to have a sufficient number of candidates for the office. Considering the business that these judges had to do, and that the average duration of each sitting was not more than an hour and a half, the remuneration appeared to him extremely ample. He, therefore, should move an amendment, that—
"While that House was desirous that every judge of the land should be adequately remunerated, they were of opinion, that the whole time of those Judges should be devoted to the public service, and that although the salaries of the judges of Scotland were less in amount than the salaries of the judges in England, it was sufficient to maintain the dignity of the office, and to promote the due administration of justice, which would never be endangered by the want of first-rate talent at the bar to accept the office."
Sir G. Sinclairrose to tender his acknowledgement to her Majesty's Ministers, with whom he had seldom had the good fortune to agree, for the measure which they had just proposed, and which he could assure them would create great satisfaction throughout Scotland, a satisfaction, however, which he felt was not without some alloy; for he had hoped that his learned Friend would have announced that he intended to ground his motion, and determine the amount of the increase to be granted to the Scotch judges, on the terms of the report of the Committeee of 1834, of which he had enjoyed the honour of being chairman, and of which the third resolution was, that the sum of 1,000 l. should be added to each of the salaries of the Lord President, and the Lord Justice Clerk, and that the salaries of the other judges should be fixed at 3,000 l. a year

487
each. That was the arrangement which the circumstances of the case required, and which, he again repeated, would give satisfaction to the great majority of the people of Scotland. There never had been a committee more fairly formed than the Committee of 1834. Lord Althorp was at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had revised with great me the names put upon the list. It had conducted its operations with great diligence and caution, and he took shame to himself that its recommendations had been suffered to sleep so long in abeyance. The facts stated in its report were supported by witnesses of the highest character. The Committee had had before them Sir William Rae, Lord Jeffrey, Lord Brougham, Sir S. Shepherd, and other eminent characters, and these witnesses had one and all agreed that the salaries now proposed to be granted to the judges of Scotland were not commensurate with the justice of the case. It had been stated in the course of the discussion, that you could get men of talent at the Scottish bar to act as judges for 2,600 l. a-year. But it was notorious, that there had been instances of men of eminence at the Scotch bar refusing seats upon the bench until they found their health to be declining, and their strength gradually failing them. He might mention the case of the Lord President Blair, who was past sixty years of age before he accepted his high situation, also Sir Matthew Ross, and two or three other persons, were in a similar situation. He confessed, that he was not a little astounded at perceiving the hon. Member for Falkirk now come forward with so much acrimony to oppose these resolutions, when he recollected that the same hon. Member in the last Session of Parliament had publicly avowed that an income eleven times the amount of that of those judges was too little to support the rank of his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex. His Royal Highness had as much as eleven judges, he had no taxes to pay, and yet it was stated that he was in embarrassment and could not afford to continue President of the Royal Society. Nay, more, the hon. Member for Falkirk, who told them that 3,000 l. a year was too much for a Scotch judge came down to propose that a considerable addition should be made to his Royal Highness's income. He (Sir G. Sinclair) contended that it was not right for the House to calculate how little a
488
man of eminence would condescend to take to perform certain services; the House ought rather to consider how much it was its duty to give. It was not right for the House to calculate on what sum a judge could barely subsist; the House ought rather to consider what salary would enable him to support his rank in comfort, and to make a provision afterwards for his family. He assured her Majesty's Ministers that unless they adopted the resolutions of the Committee of 1834 they would not attain the object which they professed, and he believed truly, to have in view. He spoke on this subject as a witness; for, if he might form a judgment from his own expenditure whilst a resident in Edinburgh, he should say that on the salaries which the Scotch judges now received, that it was quite impossible they could live as became their rank, and still make a provision for their families. He was glad to hear the merits of the judges now on the bench in Scotland so warmly acknowledged by the hon. Members opposite. Never were men so eminent before on the bench. They were the very best men that Scotland could produce; and he mentioned that fact to do honour to the Administration of his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, who had elevated to the bench many individuals who were distinguished as much by their opposition to him as by their general talent and high character. He appealed with confidence to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and thought that the Scotch Members in particular would acknowledge with him that the object of the Government would be most effectually obtained if the learned Lord would make the report of the committee of 1834 the groundwork of his resolutions. He (Sir G. Sinclair) should be ready to take his share of any obloquy which might arise from such a grant, although he candidly confessed that he did not expect that any obloquy would arise from it. There would be other stages of the Bill at which it would be competent for him to make further observations on this subject. He would, therefore, not trespass further upon their indulgence at present.
Mr. Humethought it very singular that his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness should not he aware that he had advanced in his speech the very strongest argument against his own recommendation. His hon. Friend had stated, that every Gen-

489
tleman who had yet spoken had admitted the great talents and eminent attainments of the learned judges who now sat upon the bench in Scotland, and had wound up his climax by affirming that they were the very best men that Scotland could produce. Now, if that were really the case, if they had already got upon the bench, the best men that Scotland could produce, what more did the Gentlemen opposite want? His hon. Friend was pleased to intimate that the House ought not to be guided by the principle of ordinary life—namely, that of getting the best servants on the cheapest terms, but that it ought to act upon the principle of a generous liberality. Who were to be the judges of what was meant by that species of liberality? His hon. Friends, the Members for Scotland, and he had never heard any one of them object to get as much as he possibly could? His ground of opposition to the present resolution was, that the House had not a grain of evidence to vote an additional shilling to the salaries of these learned personages. Some gentlemen talked of liberality, but they had nothing to do with liberality in that House. As private men, hon. Members opposite might be liberal; but as public men, it behoved them to be just. Who were the parties for whom hon. Gentlemen appeared in that House? The people of England and Ireland, not the judges of Scotland. Why should the people of those two countries be taxed for the benefit of the Scotch judges? If Scotland had already on the bench the very best men she produced, what was there she could ask for more? He would now say a few words to the Lord-Advocate. That learned Lord seemed very sore, that any question should be made about voting money for such a purpose as that for which he then asked it. Now, the objection which he and his Friends made to vote away the public money without a single reason being assigned for it, ought not to have surprised the noble and learned Lord. This was the very first time within his experience, that a proposition had ever been made for the Speaker to leave the chair, in order to get a grant of money in Committee without any reasons being assigned for it. The evidence attached to the Report of the Committee, afforded no reason for this proposed increase of salary. The labours of the Scotch judges did not exceed an hour and a half a-day. [The
490
Lord Advocate intimated his dissent.] Did the learned Lord mean to deny the truth of the evidence attached to the Report? No such thing. The evidence of Lord Jeffrey had been read. Was that to be credited? Yes; and why? because his testimony went to demonstrate the necessity of increasing the salaries of the judges, and therefore it was, of course, to be held good. Now, he asked the House to recollect in what situation Lord Jeffrey stood when he gave that testimony. Lord Jeffrey was then a judge in expectancy, and had the prospect of the bench before him. Was the learned Lord to be allowed to characterize one part of the evidence as worthy of credit, because it favoured his view of the subject, and to stigmatize another part of it as unworthy of credit, because it was opposed to his opinions? The opposition to his resolutions, which seemed to trouble the learned Lord so much, was not raised to give him individually trouble, but to get several necessary changes made in the judicial system of Scotland before this money was granted. He wished to strengthen the hands of the learned Lord. All he wanted was, that while the judges were amply remunerated, the abuses of their courts should be effectually remedied. He had not heard a single fact stated, why the salaries of the Scotch judges should be increased, and he, therefore, thought that it would be a waste of public money to grant any additional income to them at present, especially as they had already the best men in Scotland to throw the public money on.
Sir G. Clerk, instead of thinking that the Scotch Members displayed any eagerness to obtain increased allowances for their own countrymen, as the hon. Member for Kilkenny had insinuated, thought they were rather liable to blame for having allowed this question to remain so long unsettled. This question, as to the propriety of increasing the salaries of the judges of Scotland, was first brought forward so long back as the year 1825: but the House declined to interfere with it at that time, because it was stated that great changes in the constitution of the Scotch courts were in contemplation, and because it was argued that until those changes were made, it would be premature to increase the salaries of those who presided in those courts, In the years 1829 and 1830, his learned Friend Sir W. Rae, who was then Lord-Advocate, brought forward

491
a series of measures to improve the judicature of Scotland, and to carry into effect certain reductions in its courts. He brought in a measure to abolish the Admiralty Court and also the Commissary Court, and to reduce the number of Barons in the Court of Exchequer, and of the judges in the other courts. If the hon. Member for Kilkenny would read the evidence given by Sir R. Peel to the Committee of 1834, he would see that Sir R. Peel had avowed, that it was his intention to have increased the salaries of the judges when that reduction was made in the number of them. He considered, that great merit was due to his hon. Friend, the Member for Caithness, for having obtained the appointment of the Committee of 1834. The result of the careful inquiries it instituted was, that it came to the unanimous vote that the, salaries of the Scotch judges ought to be increased. He regretted to learn from what had just fallen from the Lord-Advocate, that his proposition would not go so far as the recommendations of that Committee. The resolution in the hands of the Chairman was only to the effect that it was expedient that some increase should be made in the salaries of the Scotch judges. The Committee would have to determine on another occasion what the amount of that increase ought to he, and, as such was the case, it would be better for him to defer to that time the observations which he had to make on that part of the subject. He fully concurred in the resolution, that some increase of salary ought to be made. Some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite might be inclined to ask where was the necessity of it. If they would only read the evidence given before the Committee, they would find in it proofs far more convincing than any which had been urged in that House by hon. Members, who of necessity could not be so conversant with the expense of residing in Edinburgh as those persons who lived there. He was, indeed, surprised at the insinuation which the hon. Member for Kilkenny had made against the evidence of Lord Jeffrey. He believed, that there was no man who had been more constantly opposed to Lord Jeffrey in politics than he had been; but everybody who had the slightest acquaintance with that learned Judge, must be aware that he was the last mall in the world to be influenced in any evidence which he had to give on the salaries of the
492
Scotch judges, by a prospect of what would be his own emoluments when elevated to the judicial bench. The name and character of Lord Jeffrey were a sufficient answer to such a low-spirited insinuation. His hon. Friend, the Member for Caithness, had said, that never were there on the Scotch bench, lawyers of greater eminence than those who now occupied the seats upon it. That was very true. The judges of Scotland commanded the universal respect of the country; but the observation was not less true, that they were generally of an advanced re when they first ascended the seat of judgment. In fact, the Government could not get the most eminent lawyers to abandon their professional emoluments for the reduced salaries paid to the judges, till they had arrived at a time of life when ease became preferable to large emoluments. He could say, from his own knowledge, that years ago offers of a seat on the bench had been made to several advocates, which, from motives of prudence, they had declined. Such prudential reasons operated on the mind of the Lord President Blair, who was sixty-seven years of age, before he would consent to become a judge. It was, therefore, clear, that so long as they awarded their present small and inadequate salaries to the Scotch judges, they would not be able to command the services of the most eminent pleaders at the bar, until they arrived at that period of life when their personal strength began to fail them, and they began to feel that it would be a convenience to them to be upon the bench. It was also equally clear, that if larger salaries were given to the judges, Government would be able to obtain the services of distinguished advocates when they were in possession of their full bodily strength and all their mental faculties. He believed, that most of the Scottish judges were unable to keep up that station in society which the high dignity of their office required. Most of them were unable to keep private carriages; and he asked the noble Lord, if it was consistent with the dignity of a judge to travel in a hired vehicle? All the necessaries of life were as expensive in Edinburgh as in London; and he would appeal to the experience of those Members of the House who belonged to the legal profession, whether they could keep that station in society which they were expected to fill on so small an amount of salary as was allowed

493
to the judges? He was sure, that an augmentation of the judicial salaries would be hailed with great satisfaction by the people of Scotland; and he trusted the House would pass the measure without opposition. He hoped, that Government would go still further, and adopt the recommendations of the Committee of 1834. The present resolution merely affirmed, that an increase of salary was expedient; and he would reserve any observations he might have to make as to the manner in which the grant should he distributed for a future stage of the question. He would reserve also his observations on the point, whether it was expedient that the judges in Scotland should have jurisdiction equally in civil and criminal matters. Many very competent judges, he knew, were of opinion, that great advantages resulted from the present system.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that if the House had granted him a Committee the other night, he would have proved that one hour and a-half a-day was the full time occupied by the Court of Session in deciding cases. The learned Lord had misled the House by saying, that the duties of Lords Ordinary were the duties of the Court of Session. When the proper time came, he would show that the ditties of the Lords Ordinary should be separated from those of the Lords of Session; and he would also move, that it was expedient to have fewer judges in Scotland. So far from an increase of salary being agreeable to the people of Scotland, he was convinced that almost the whole people of Scotland, properly so called, would condole with the Government on being congratulated by the hon. Baronet at the other side of the House.
Sir G. Sinclairwished to state, as the evidence of Lord Jeffrey had been alluded to—that Lord Jeffrey, at the time of giving it, was considerably biassed by the prospect of coming to the bench—Lord Jeffrey gave his evidence with such a degree of bias, and with such delicacy, as might have been expected from a man possessed of a discriminating mind and refined feeling. He would take this opportunity also of saying, that looking to the knowledge and legal science displayed by Lord Jeffrey since he had been called on to occupy a situation on the bench of the Court of Session, he did not believe there ever had been a judge who had given more general satisfaction.
The House divided on the original motion: Ayes 67; Noes 20: Majority 47.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Howard, P. H.

Acland, T. D.

Hughes, W. B.

Aglionhy, H. A.

Ingham, R.

Aglionby, Major

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Arbuthnott, H.

Johnstone, H.

Baillie, Colonel

Knox, hon. T.

Bannerman, A.

Law, hon. C. E.

Baring, F. T.

Lockhart, A. M.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Mackenzie, T.

Bewes, T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Broadley, H.

Master, T. W. C.

Bruce, Lord E.

Maule, hon. F.

Burr, H.

Melgund, Lord

Chalmers, P.

Murray, A.

Clerk, Sir G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Clive, Lord

Parker, J.

Collier, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Craig, W. G.

Praed, W. M.

Dalmeney, Lord

Pringle, A.

Dick, Q.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Duke, Sir J.

Rushbrooke, R.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Rushout, G.

Dundas, hon. T.

Russell, Lord J.

Dungannon, Lord

Smith, R. V.

Feilden, W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Steuart, R.

Gordon, Captain

Tancred, H. W.

Hawkes, T.

Williams, W.

Hinde, J. H.

Wilshere, W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Winnington, T.

Hodgson, R.

Winnington, H.

Holmes, W.

Hope, hon. C.

TELLERS.

Hope, G. W.

Lord Advocate

Horsman, E.

Sinclair, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Blewitt, R. J.

Stanley, W. O.

Brotherton, J.

Style, Sir C.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Wakley, T.

Davies, Colonel

Wallace, R.

Evans, W.

Warburton, H.

Finch, F.

White, A.

Hindley, C.

Williams, W.

Hollond, R.

Yates, J. A.

Morris, D.

Parker, R. T.

TELLERS.

Rundle, J.

Gillon, W.

Salwey, Colonel

Hume, J.

Resolution agreed to. House resumed.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES BILL
Lord J. Russellrose to move for leave to bring in a bill to carry into effect with certain modifications the Fourth Report of the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues. The Bill was nearly the same as that introduced by him last year, which had been

495
dropped only in consequence of the pressure of public business. He should therefore best perform his duty by merely moving to bring in the Bill, and he should be ready to enter into its provisions upon moving the second reading.
Sir R. Inglisdid not mean to divide the House on the introduction of the Bill, but he objected to bringing in a Bill for the distribution of the ecclesiastical property of the Church of England at this hour of the night (ten o'clock) as if it were a mere turnpike Bill, when it was in reality a Bill to alter the Constitution of England. He could hardly have believed it possible that his noble Friend would have proposed such a Bill in a manner so comparatively easy. Of the general principle of the Bill he had had so many opportunities of stating his opinion, that he would not now occupy the attention of the House. It was one of serious importance, and calculated to produce the greatest mischief to the Church. He justified himself in not dividing the House, solely on the reason that the House was not prepared for it, and that during the last Session the House had assented to receiving the Bill.
Viscount Duncannonhad heard with great satisfaction what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, and could not help hoping that the most determined opposition would be given to the Bill. He agreed in thinking that its introduction at this late hour of the night was not in accordance with the extreme importance of the Bill and the interests involved in it. It might be well intended, by its promoters, but he was fully alive to its consequences, and believed it to be not only dangerous to the Church Establishment, but to the dearest of the community as Englishmen and as Christians. He hoped the right hon. Baronet who occupied the proudest station to which an English Gentleman could aspire—the representation of one of our Universities—would adhere to his resolution of opposing the Bill in every stage. The right hon. Baronet would find in him a humble but most energetic follower, and he hoped the division would be such as to afford to the country a striking example that there did yet exist a strong attachment to that Established Church, by whose blessed influence this country had arrived at a pinnacle of unrivalled greatness.
The Chancellor of the Exchequernever felt more surprised in his life than that that hon. Gentlemen should complain of a
496
measure like this, which had already been entertained by Parliament, and that a measure proceeding from the highest authorities of the Church of England should be dealt with in this way. The Bill came recommended by the dignitaries of the Church—it was recommended by the reports of a Commission of which the highest ecclesiastics were members; and he did think that it would have been dealt with a little more gently.—It was material for the House and the public to bear this in mind, when they judged of the manner in which measures were dealt with by hon. Gentlemen opposite.—The hon. Member for the University of Oxford had acted with perfect consistency; but when he and the noble Lord attacked this Bill as a measure of spoliation, subverting or leading to the utter destruction of the Church of England, and when this attack was pointed, not against the Government only, but against the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, and three of the Rev. Prelates of the Church, the inference which he wished the House and the public to draw, was, that hard words were not always arguments, and that they did not carry weight or justification with them. The misfortune was, that it was impossible to approach any of these subjects without the risk of exciting exaggeration. This Bill professed to abolish a certain number of Church sinecures—and to apply the income of those Church sinecures to make a more adequate provision for the religious instruction of the community. Let it not be said that this Bill was calculated to destroy the Church of England. It was intended to apply what could be spared of its revenues to the immediate objects of religious instruction. He could scarely reconcile the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their professed intention to increase the efficiency of the Church.
Sir Thomas Aclandbelieved, that a very valuable end was intended to be arrived at by this Commission. He could not for a moment suffer himself to believe they could have any other end than that of improving the Church to which they belonged—of rendering that institution more effective—preserving its efficiency, and not impairing it. He acknowledged that he looked to the Bill with great anxiety. When authorities were quoted on the subject, be must take the liberty to remind the House that though the Members of the Church belonging to that commission had

497
given their sanction to the measure, those Prelates had not met the approbation of the great body of the Clergy. On the contrary, they had met the disapprobation of almost every one of those bodies whose interests were concerned—almost every Chapter and Dean in the country had made strong complaints against it. There were strong objections to the measure and the authorities were divided, but even if they were all arranged on the one side, he apprehended that when the report of the Committee assumed the shape of a Bill, each Member of this House should act for himself, and judge for himself, and therefore the measure ought to be as much considered as if it came on the simple recommendation of her Majesty's Government. This was a bill of detail, and it could not be fairly examined without giving an opportunity to the House, and to those who were affected by it, of considering the measure in all its bearings.
Mr. Humesaid, the Gentlemen opposite appeared to him to take a most extraordinary course, and it only showed the noble Lord, that if he gave the minimum of reform, he would get the maximum of abuse. If the noble Lord were to propose extensive and efficient reforms, he might, then, perhaps, give hon. Gentlemen opposite just grounds for complaint. The necessity of having an efficient Church was so frequently admitted, that he was surprised that any measure of the sort should be quarrelled with. If the bill to be introduced this Session were to be similar to that introduced last Session, it would go to put an end to a certain number of sinecures. The public money, which was granted with a view to promote religious instruction, was scandalously wasted. The object of the present bill, he believed, was not to take away that money. He wished it was—he would take the money away and apply it to other purposes. But when the Government proposed to apply the money in a proper mode, hon. Gentlemen opposite came down and stated they would object to that, because forsooth it was interfering with the Establishment! Why, it was the duty of Parliament to dispose of the public funds to the greatest possible advantage. On a former occasion he had objected to the bill introduced by the noble Lord, because he did not go far enough, and he told the noble Lord, that he might as well be abused for going the whole way as for only going half way.
498
Half measures of that kind did the Government no good. The hon. Baronet who had last addressed the House had said, this was a bill of details. He contended it was a bill of principle; and the principle was, to put down sinecures and secure efficient service. He could only conclude, that money, money, money, was the object sought by the Church, and not religious instruction; and the reason why the measure was opposed was, because those funds were to be taken from the idle, the lazy, and the useless, as all sinecurists were. Those who wished to promote the best interests of the Church ought not to oppose the measure for putting an end to that which was declared by the heads of the Church to be a scandal and a disgrace to it. If hon. Gentlemen desired that which they pretended, the welfare of the institution, they ought not to come forward and protest against the abolition of sinecures.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that, with respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Devonshire, he had no doubt, that the hon. Member was very sincere in the opinions which he bad expressed upon the measures proposed to be carried into effect by this bill. On a future occasion he should certainly be prepared to meet the objections of the hon. Member. He should show, that the measure had solely in view to increase the efficiency of the Established Church. With respect to the allusion made by the hon. Member to the chapters of the cathedrals, he would only observe, that the members of those bodies were naturally, and by the inevitable prejudices of their situation, led to consider the chapter to which they belonged as one of the most invaluable parts of the ecclesiastical institution. As he had said, the extension of religious instruction was the object of this bill; and it was proposed to effect it by means of the establishment of additional churches, and the appointment of additional ministers to serve in those churches. But on these points he should have to address the House more in detail on a future occasion, when he would maintain, that whatever ends the chapters of cathedrals might have been intended to fulfil as originally instituted, there was no source from which they could look to find means for materially increasing the efficiency of the Established Church except those chapters; nor were there any other means which had received the assent of the

499
Church commission. There were, no doubt, some points in the bill to which the members of the Church commission did not assent in full. These points it would be his duty to point out, when he laid the details of the measure before the House. He would only then observe, that these points which had not the full assent of the Church commissioners were of minor importance. But with respect to the most important points of the bill, he had the satisfaction of thinking, that if he incurred the reproof of the hon. Member for Oxford University, be incurred it in common with the highly eminent Prelate, the Primate of England, who was so deservedly respected for his conduct in the high place which he filled.
Leave given.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mr. Blewittthen rose to move for "Returns of the number of bills filed in her Majesty's High Court of Chancery in the years 1835, 1836, 1837, and 1831; of the number of answers filed in the several years of 1750 to 1754, inclusive; also, for the several years 1760 to 1764, inclusive; also, for the several years 1770 to 1774, inclusive; also, for the several years 1780 to 1784, inclusive; also, for the several years 1800 to 1804, inclusive; also for the year 1808, and each succeeding year to the 31st day of December, 1838; also, of the total number of folios contained in the bills, and of the total number of folios contained in the answers filed in each of the years above specified. From the said Court, of the number of causes, exceptions, and further directions, pleas, and demurrers set down to be heard in and for the years 1836, 1837, and 1838, and the number of decrees and orders made on the hearing of the same, of the number of causes, exceptions, further directions, pleas, and demurrers ready for hearing on the first day of each term, and also at the close of the sittings after each term, in each of the above years, of the number of re hearings, and appeals before the Lord Chancellor set down in each of the same years, and standing for hearing on the first day of each term, and also on the last day of the sittings after each term, in each of the above years, specifying when the first five of such re hearings and appeals (except such as appear to have been called on and adjourned), had been set down at each of such times, Of the number of cause
500
petitions presented and answered by the Lord, Chancellor in each of the said years 1836, 1837, and 1838. Of the number of petitions answered and set down for hearing at the Rolls." He had understood from the Attorney-General, that this motion would not be opposed, but neither the Attorney-General nor Solicitor-General were in their places.
Mr. Pembertonwas sorry that neither the Attorney-General nor the Solicitor-General were present, as they would have been better able than he could be to inform the House as to the subject of these returns. He would only observe, that the returns moved for by the Solicitor-General in 1836 were returns of the Bills, but not the answers; and he must say he could not discover the probability of the usefulness of the answers, while to make them out would cause great labour on the part of the officers of the courts, and be attended with very considerable expense. But he rose principally to inquire of the noble Lord whether the Government had it in contemplation to lay before the House in the course of the present Session any measure for the improvement of the administration of justice in the courts of Chancery and higher tribunals of the country. With respect to the state of business in the courts of Chancery, he believed that, except on one occasion, when, owing to the absence from illness, of one of the judges, his court was wholly shut up, there never was a larger amount of arrears in those courts than at present. He believed there were, at that moment, not less than 700 causes set down for hearing. He believed that during the last term not one single case, standing on what is called the general paper, in the Vice Chancellor's court, came on to be heard. The number of causes on the general paper in the Rolls Court, disposed of during the same period, was one and-a-half. Was this owing to the noble Judge who presided in that court? He felt the utmost confidence that it was not. No man could exhibit greater assiduity in the discharge of his duties; no man could more completely confine himself to doing that which he thinks is substantial justice, than his noble Friend. It remained to be asked, then, what was the remedy? The remedies hitherto tried had turned out anything but remedies. It would be in the recollection of many hon. Members present, with what a loud obloquy it was

501
customary for some persons to assail the late Lord Eldon when presiding in Chancery, on the ground of his indecision and delay of justice. Now let the House consider that the business of that Court was not divided then; Lord Eldon had to bear the whole weight of the business in bankruptcy, which, as well as other business, had since been removed from the Court. In short, the business at that time was at least double its present amount. Yet now, although as far as he was aware, the ordinary business of the court had not increased to any considerable degree above what it was when Lord Eldon discharged it, with the additions he had referred to, the amount of arrears was greater than ever it was when Lord Eldon held the seals, and when he was daily abused for delays of justice. If it was the intention of the Government, as he hoped it was, to introduce a measure on the subject this Session, he trusted they would abolish altogether that miserable abortion of a court, which had become quite a bye word in the profession; the Court of Review, in which four judges had been appointed with large salaries, to do the business which the Lord Chancellor had formerly accomplished in a month or so, with all the Chancery business in addition. Then, again, with respect to the Exchequer Court, which, as the House were aware, was partially a court of Chancery, that is, a court for the administration of business in equity; how was justice administered? By judges who had not practised in equity; and by a bar who did not attend regularly. In fact it was a kind of bastard court, and certainly did not give satisfaction to the country. There was another court, that of the judicial committee of the Privy Council, which he believed had not worked well. It was, in his mind, a great objection to that court, that it should be presided over by a judge who was not filling any judicial station or fettered with any judicial responsibilities and obligations; it was an objection, too, that as the amount of business before the court was too trifling to secure the attendance of a regular bar, its sittings were in some degree dependent upon the possibility of obtaining the attendance of counsel. These were objections not undeserving of consideration, when it was remembered that this was a court of ultimate appeal. In the House of Lords, again, he believed there never before were
502
more judgments in arrear than at present. Having repeatedly, Session after Session, given notice of a motion on this subject, he was determined not to neglect that opportunity without calling the attention of the House to these enormous evils. It was his intention of speedily bringing some plan of reform before the House.
Lord J. Russellcertainly had no conception, till about a quarter of an hour before, that there was to be any question to arise with respect to the court of Chancery that evening, because, certainly if he had thought so, if his hon. and learned had bean present, he should have taken pains to inform himself more particularly as to the exact state of the question. It had been frequently a matter of deliberation and consideration what steps should be taken, and when they should be taken, with respect to the court of Chancery. But, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, there had been a measure mooted by the Lord Chancellor, which, as he said, had entirely failed in the House of Lords, and failed because there was a total difference of opinion amongst those who were aware what the evil was, as to what should be the proper remedy for that evil. He remembered when this subject had been under consideration, at the time when the present Lord Chancellor had been appointed, he was anxious to learn, as he was sure all the Members of the Government were, what were the measures which would be most satisfactory in the profession, and the hon. and learned Gentleman and himself had conferred as to those measures of reform which would be useful; but when, after that consideration of the various opinions and suggestions of learned persons in the profession, the Lord Chancellor had proposed a bill founded upon the best opinion which he and those who acted with him could give on this subject, it was found that there was the widest difference of opinion; and be believed the Lord Chancellor proposed a measure which the hon. and learned Gentleman would call a half measure on this subject, which certainly went to remedy certain evils in the Court of Chancery, going to diminish the number of appeals; because, if he recollected aright, one of the provisions was, a party might appeal to either the Lord Chancellor or the House of Lords, but having done so, he was not afterwards to be at liberty to

503
appeal to the House of Lords. That was one of the provisions to diminish the number of appeals; but, there were various other provisions to provide for the despatch of business in the Court of Chancery. But when this question came to be discussed, there was the widest difference of opinion. The noble and learned Lord Langdale stated, that such an office as that of the present Lord Chancellor should be abolished altogether; that there should be no such person as a political judge sitting in the Cabinet; that on the contrary, there should be one person placed at the head of the Court of Equity, let them call him by what title they liked; and another person sitting in the Cabinet without judicial functions, but only as the adviser, as it were, of all measures of legislation to be introduced from time to time by the Government. That was a total and absolute change of the institutions of this country so far as the office of Lord Chancellor was concerned. Lord Lyndhurst, who was another great authority on this subject—and certainly none more deserving to be listened to—was of a totally different opinion: that noble Lord thought the measure of the Lord Chancellor went too far, and he was rather for increasing the number of the judges in the Court of Chancery than for making an additional court, or two additional courts, he did not remember exactly which. Lord Lyndhurst was for keeping the institution as it was, with some provision which he recommended for facilitating the administration of the law. When there was this great difference of opinion amongst the most learned persons, and amongst those most competent to give an opinion on the subject, the natural conclusion was, that any measure must fail that might be brought forward, and it became for some time totally hopeless to introduce any measure on the subject; and therefore whenever the subject had been under deliberation, it had been generally agreed by the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues that a measure of improvement might very well be framed, but one that could be carried was not one of which they had very sanguine hopes that it would be useful. Ministers had always had a wish to bring in some measure on the subject, but rather waited for some favourable opening by which improvement was likely to be successfully carried in Parliament, rather than bring in any measure which would be at once met with a va-
504
riety of opinions, some wishing to differ one way and some another, but all agreeing in condemning the particular measure brought forward. He was happy to find, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had found that it was not necessary to conjoin with his condemnation of the system any censure of the noble and learned persons who presided in the Court of Chancery. He believed on his own part that if any one were to say, that the present Lord Chancellor was not qualified by legal knowledge—that he was not qualified by his perception of the various points of law, and was not qualified by habits of decision to fill the office of Lord Chancellor, he believed such an opinion would be at once contradicted by the unanimous voice of the bar. He believed the hon. and learned gentlemen who sat in that court would be of that opinion. His condemnation was not, therefore intended to advance others to the disparagement of the persons who now filled those offices. He did think that when the hon. and learned Member had the returns, it would be found that the hon. and learned Gentleman had somewhat diminished the quantity of business which, as he said, was now to be daily performed. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to attacks made on Lord Eldon when he had the sole business of the court, but at that time the business was less than half that which now had to be performed. Of course he yielded to the authority of the learned Gentleman if he said it was not so; but that learned Gentleman would hardly deny, that from 1809 to 1810, at the time when Lord Eldon was acting without a Vice-Chancellor—[Mr. Pemberton.—"to 1813"]—to 1813—he thought since that time the business of the Lord Chancellor had very greatly increased, at least that certainly was his present impression on the subject. [Mr. Blewitt: it was so.] He thought that much information might be given by the Solicitor-General without going to the expense of those returns. If it were not absolutely necessary that the motion should be made that night, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would reconsider the terms of the motion, and perhaps he might move it in a rather less cumbrous form. He had no doubt that he had very imperfectly answered the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he was unprepared for the discussion, and his learned Colleagues not being in the House, he

505
could not take the advantage of their counsel.
Mr. Blewittsaid, that the three years before the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor the average number of causes amounted to 540; in the years 1834 and 1835 they amounted to 1,300.
With regard to moving for the return of the number of folios, he believed, that if that return was got, it would prove that the pleadings had increased in length and prolixity. Every pleading was charged according to the number of folios, and therefore in making the returns there was nothing to do, but add up the amount of charges to get the return.
Motion agreed to.

HEARING EVIDENCE AT THE BAR.
Mr. Hindley Mr. Hindley moved, that the journals of the House relating to the cases after mentioned, in which counsel was ordered to be heard, and evidence was taken at the Bar, or in Committees of the whole House, in support of Petitions complaining of existing Laws, be read by the Clerk, and be entered in the Votes, viz., the Journals relating to that part of the Act for uniting the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, which regulated the election of Members for Scotland, the 25th day of November, and the 1st and 3rd days of December, 1708. The journals relating to the duties on the importation of copper and brass, the 8th, 13th, 15th, 16th, and 20th days of Jan. and the 2d day of February, 1721. The journals relating to the duties on cotton stuffs, bleached or dyed, the 16th, 18th, and 21st days of March, and 5th, 6th, 8th, 12th, 13th, 20th, and 21st days of April 1785. The journals relating to the shop tax, the 6th, 15th, 22d and 23d days of February, and the 2d, 6th, and 7th days of March, 1786. The journals relating to the slave trade, the 9th day of May, 1783; the 23d day of March, the 21st, 26th, and 27th days of May, and the 9th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 22d, and 23d days of June, 1789; the 25th, and 27th days of January, the 13th, and 23d days of April, and the 9th day of June 1790. The journals relating to the duties on licences to deal in spirituous liquors, the 5th, and 31st days of March, the 22d day of April, and the 7th day of May, 1790. The journals relating to certain orders in council, the 10th, 11th, 14th, 18th, 22d, 23d, and 24th days of March; the 1st, 4th, and 13th days
506
of April; the 4th, and 26th days of May; and the 9th day of June 1808. When proceedings had been read, they had generally been read on the day that the motion was brought forward; but he thought it would tend more to the calm discussion of this question, if they were able to do it when they saw they were warranted by precedents. He had no other view, than to let the Members see whether the precedents of the House would allow them to grant the prayer of the petitioners.
The Speakersaid, it was always advisable not to differ from the usages of Parliament. The objection which occurred to him to the moving of the hon. Gentleman's motion was this—the hon. Member proposed to send forth, under the sanction of the House, those precedents as he had explained the matter. He had not the least doubt, that every one of these precedents was to he found on the journals according to the statements of the hon. Member, but it did not follow, that there were no others. The usual course had been to appoint a Committee to take the proper means of proceeding, and then they came forward with more sanction of authority than they otherwise could do. When the thing was set forth under the sanction of the House, the greatest care should be taken, that it was as accurate as possible, and the usual course had been to appoint a Committee.
The hon. Member then gave notice, that on Monday he should move for such a Committee.

NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCES.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved for the return of the revenues received in Lower Canada in each of the years 1833, 1814, 1835, 1836, 1837, and 1838. He said, that he was not aware at the time he had given the notice, that the Under-Secretary for the colonies would he absent from the House, because he intended to arraign the conduct of that officer, which had not been correct. He wished to know whether there would be any objection to the production of the papers he had moved for.
Mr. F. Baringwas understood not to object to the production of the return of the revenues, but to object to the granting the other information sought by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Humesaid, that in January 1838, he had stated in that House, that the in-

507
habitants of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward's island, and Newfoundland, were as dissatisfied with the condition of their governments, as the inhabitants of the Canadas. This statement had been immediately contradicted from the Treasury bench, and he had the next day moved for these returns to prove the truth of his assertion, and they had not yet been laid before the House. The information they contained could be procured from the newspapers; in fact, everybody could get information on these subjects except Members of this House.
Mr. F. Baringwas understood to say, that he was not prepared to account for the delay, but it must have been occasioned by great carelessness somewhere.
Mr. Hume: Yes, so it appears, gross carelessness somewhere. He would merely renew his motion for the production of the Address.
House counted out.