HC Deb 15 February 1839 vol 45 cc471-94

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. Gillon

should 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 1,280l.; in 1810, the salary was raised to 2,000l., 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- sive year during the whole war; the price of wheat was no less than 116s. a quarter. Within the last few years, however, wheat had been even as low as 36s. 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 2,000l. 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 2,000l. a-year were upon a par with any landed gentleman of 4,000l. 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- 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 4,300l. a-year, and the Lord Justice Clerk was paid 4,000l. 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 40,000l. instead of 4,000l. The five. puisne judges, the judges of the Court of Justiciary, had salaries of 2,600l. a-year; one of them had an additional salary of 600l. 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 600l. 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 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 6,000l. 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 3,000l. 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 3,000l. a-year. The diminution of fatigue in discharging the office of judge was so great that a salary of 2,000l. a-year would be eagerly caught at by a gentleman at the bar making even 3,000l. 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 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 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 78,443l.; he believed that 40,000l. 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 1,480,000l. 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 700l. a-year to the income of the Lord President, raising it from 4,300l. to 5,000l. a-year; to add 600l. a-year to the income of the Lord Justice Clerk, raising it from 4,000l. to 4,600l.; and there was to be added to the incomes of all the others, who received only 2,000l. a-year, the sum of 600l. 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 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 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. Aglionby

had 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- 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. Wallace

was 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 40,000l. 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 4,000l. On dividing the charges for the judges among those functionaries, he found, that the amount paid to each was 3,800l., and he thought the House, with this fact before their eyes, ought to consider well the necessity of a giving them 4,600l. 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 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 (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.
Warburton, H. TELLERS.
White, A. Gillon, W.
Yates, J. A. Hume, J.

House in Committee.

The Lord Advocate

said, 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 600l. 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 the amount of which apparently most of the hon. Members who had voted against his motion were unaware, but which, in fact, amounted to 54,000l. per annum. The hon. Member for Greenock had said, that the expenses of the judicial establishment amounted to 40,000l. 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 2,000l. only, while others were in the annual receipt of 2,600l., 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 14,000l. 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 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 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. Hume

had 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 Advocate

then 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- crease the salaries and retiring allowances of the five puisne judges of the court of session."

Mr. Gillon

opposed 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 2,000l. 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. Sinclair

rose 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 1,000l. 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 3,000l. a year 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 2,600l. 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 3,000l. 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 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. Hume

thought 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- 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 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 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 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 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. Wallace

said, 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. Sinclair

wished 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.