The Lord Chancellorsaid, he held in his hand another Bill which he was about to recommend to the adoption of their Lordships. In the course of the last Session of Parliament, on introducing a particular measure upon the subject of Chancery regulations, he detailed the outline of a Bill upon the same subject as that to which he was now about to call the attention of the House—he meant to a Bill for establishing 614 a Court of Appeal in the Court of Chancery for the suitors in Equity, whether in that Court, of the Court of Exchequer. He proposed, that the Lord Chancellor and an Equity Baron should be two of the Judges constituting that Court of Appeal. The present Lord Chief Baron, it was highly desirable should continue in that Court, in order that his undivided attention might be given to the duties which he performed so well. That noble and learned Lord was not now present; but, whether present or absent, he (the Lord Chancellor) should always consider him as having executed the duties of a Judge in that Court to the entire satisfaction of its suitors. The Lord Chancellor and an Equity Baron would form a part of the Court of Appeal; it was proposed to join with them the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellor. These Judges would thus constitute a Court of Appeal, to sit at all convenient times to be appointed; so that, instead of there being only an appeal from one Judge to one Judge, as was now the case, and after an appeal from the decision of the same person in one Court to the same individual in another, there would be, as in common sense ought to be the case, an appeal from the decision of one Judge to three or four Judges. With respect to the appointment of the fifth Judge, which the Bill contemplated, he was to preside in the Court of Chancery, and be the Chief Judge in Equity. By this appointment would be reserved to the Lord Chancellor his political functions, his Ministerial functions, and, above all, his functions as a Judge of Appeal, from the Court of Chancery to the House of Lords; also his functions as a Judge to sit in Privy Council, and also his judicial functions in the Appeal Court of Chancery, as often as he was required to sit in that Appeal Court. It was proposed, moreover, that the Lord Chancellor should still continue his jurisdiction in all cases of lunacy, for various reasons not necessary now to be stated. It was highly expedient that this responsible office should not be burthened with the ordinary jurisdiction which he now possessed, but that it should be transferred to the other Judge of the Court of Chancery, whose appointment was embraced in the Bill. Notwithstanding the removal from the Lord Chancellor of the ordinary jurisdiction, his duties would be ample; his 615 time would be fully occupied with the jurisdictions left to him. He proposed, that the salary of the Lord Chancellor should be 8,000l. per annum. He had stated last year, that 10,000l. a-year would be an ample sum; but considering the alteration which had been made in the salaries of the Puisne Judges, considering also the reduction of the salary of the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench from 10,000l. to 8,000l., he thought 8,000l. a sufficient sum for the Lord Chancellor. With respect to the Judge to be appointed, he proposed a sum of 7,000l. a-year. He also proposed another alteration in the salary of the Master of the Rolls, on the death of resignation of his Honour the present Master of the Rolls. It was proposed that the salary of that Judge, on the event named taking place, should be reduced to the same amount as the salary given to the Vice-Chancellor, there being no reason on earth why the Master of the Rolls should receive more for the performance of his duties than the Vice-Chancellor. In the course of the last Session he (the Lord Chancellor) had stated, when the emoluments of the Lord Chancellor were stated to be 14,000l. a-year, that 10,000l. per annum, as he had already remarked, was more than sufficient, even when there was no diminution of duties, which the present Bill pointed out; and now that these duties were diminished, he considered the sum of 8,000l. a-year ample remuneration.
Lord Ellenboroughreminded their Lordships, that the incomes of Barristers were much larger at present than formerly, and that they should therefore be careful how they reduced the salaries of the Judges. He thought, that no measure could be more fatal than one which would deprive the country of the services of the first men in the profession. The loss of such men was not to be estimated in money. He hoped that the Government would give the subject much consideration before they passed such a measure.
The Lord Chancelloradmitted the necessity of consideration, still he thought that a difference was to be drawn between the salary given to a Judge who was removable at pleasure, and a Judge who could not be removed. A Judge who was removable, if he did not perform his duty, might be removed. But it was of consequence that those Judges who were irremovable should have an adequate 616 salary, for, if once appointed, he could not be removed; but it was different with the Keeper of the Great Seal. They ought to observe a medium between under paying and over paying the Judges. Bill read a first time.