Sitting of 19 June 1815

MASTER OF THE ROLLS IN IRELAND.
On the motion that the Report of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland Salary Bill be brought up,
Mr. Hornerurged again his objections against this measure. He observed, that even if the Master of the Rolls in Ireland was an officer equal in dignity to the same officer in England, the difference between the places of residence, the one the capital, the other a provincial town, would justify the present difference of salaries. The same reason which was adduced in favour of the present Bill, would justify a similar increase of salary to the judges in Scotland. He should therefore move that the Report be received that day three months.
Mr. Roseobserved, that in this country the Master of the Rolls was underpaid, as he had refused an increase of salary which had been offered him.
Mr. Abercrombieopposed the Bill. The return to the House of the business done by the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, was such that no criterion could be formed of the real extent and laboriousness of it. In Ireland there had been no arrear of consequence in the Equity Courts. The business in Ireland, he thought, stood in no need of assistance from Parliament. The Master of the Rolls in England was underpaid, if his salary was compared with the extent of business done by him, and with the great talents which he possessed; but this excellent judge had himself determined that the salary of his office did cot need increase.
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid, that the office of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, was executed in perfection; but on the death of the present Master of the Rolls, it would be necessary to fill his office with some person of eminence at the bar, to whom the present salary was not a sufficient remuneration. It would not be worth while to have the office ill filled, for the sake of a few hundreds a year.
Mr. Peelsaid, that the House had acted upon the principle of equalizing the salaries of the judges in both countries, and the Master of the Rolls was the only judicial officer who had received no increase since 1801. The retiring pension of the Master of the Rolls was now less than the puisne judges, and his salary not more than 150 l. above those judges. Since the appointment of the present officer, in 1814, there had been 2,206 debated orders. The Bill would not, he said, equalize the salaries of the Masters of the Rolls in England and in Ireland. The Master of the Rolls in England had 4,500 l. per annum, and an official residence; but that officer in Ireland would have less than 4,000 l. per annum in British currency. The conclusion of the want of business from the absence of arrears was fallacious.
Sir F. Floodsupported the Bill. Sir S. Romilly said a few words against it. After which, the House divided: For the bringing up the Report, 58: Against it, 24;—Majority, 34. The Report was accordingly brought up, and agreed to.

List of the Minority.

Abercrombie, hon. J.

North, Dudley

Bankes, Henry

Onslow, A.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Powlett, hon. W. V.

Bernard, Viscount

Parnell, Sir H.

Cavendish, Lord G.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Calvert, N.

Romilly, Sir. S.

Duncannon, Visc.

Smith, Robert

Finlay, Kirkman

Smith, W.

Frank, Admiral

Wynn, Charles

Gordon, R.

Western, C. C.

Lascelles, Lord

TELLERS.

Moore, Peter

Martin, John

Francis Homer.

Martin, Henry

Lord A. Hamilton.

PETITION OF CHARLES HILL.
Mr. Bennetpresented a Petition from Charles Hill, a prisoner for debt in the gaol of IlChester, complaining of various hardships in the mode of his confinement. The hon. gentleman moved that the Petition should lie on the table.
Sir S. Romillysaid, it was very desirable that some inquiry should be made into
[884
the case. The facts, as stated in the Petition, were, that the prisoner, 68 years old, had been confined for debt in the felons' condemned cell, and that all his letters had been opened. Perhaps the members for the county of Somerset knew nothing of the matter, but it would be desirable that they should state as much.
Mr. Dickensonobserved, that he could almost venture to say, that the petitioner had never been confined in the gaol in question, as the utmost vigilance was exercised to prevent the abuse of solitary confinement.
Mr. Hornersaid, that from his knowledge of a Somersetshire magistrate, who was remarkably active in his endeavours to inquire into the conduct of the gaol of Ilchester, he was disposed to believe that that prison was well attended to. But yet this circumstance furnished no reason against the institution of an inquiry upon the subject of the Petition; for the vigilance of the worthy magistrate, to whom he referred, might have been evaded.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he presented the Petition, because he felt it his duty to do so; but he could not vouch for the accuracy of the statement it contained.
After a few further remarks by sir S. Romilly, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. W. Smith, and Mr. Dickenson, all of whom strongly recommended inquiry into the circumstances stated in the Petition, it was ordered to lie on the table.

REPORT ON THE PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF IRELAND.
MR. Davies Giddyreported from the Select Committee, to whom the several Reports from the Committees on the Public Income and Expenditure of Ireland, and the several Accounts and Papers presented to the House in 1813, 1814, and 1815, relating to the Public Income and Expenditure of Ireland, were referred; and who were directed to inquire and report to the House what has been, during the last 24 years ended the 5th Jan. 1815, the increase and redemption of the Public Funded Debt of Ireland, and what was the state and amount thereof on the said day, what has been the progress of the permanent revenue of Ireland during the same period, and what may be the expected future annual produce of the taxes now existing in that country; what has been the total expenditure of Ireland in each year of the same period, distinguishing the amount expended on account of the joint expend-

885]
diture of Great Britain and Ireland, or which may appear to be still due on that account, and what was the amount of the unfunded debt and demands outstanding and unprovided for in Ireland on the 5th January 1815; and likewise to take into their consideration the accounts relating to the trade and navigation of Ireland during the same period; and to report the same to the House, together with their observations upon the whole matters referred to them; and who were empowered to report their opinion thereupon to the House; that they had examined the various matters submittted to their consideration; and had directed him to make a report thereof to the House, with a resolution thereupon, and an Appendix; and the Report was read, and the Resolution of the Committee is as followeth:
Resolved, "That it is the opinion of this Committee, That it is now become expedient that Parliament should take into consideration so much of the seventh Article of the Act of Union as respects the competence of Parliament, under certain circumstances therein stated, to declare that all future expenditure of the United Kingdom, together with all interest and charges of the joint debt incurred previous to such declaration, shall be defrayed indiscriminately by equal taxation imposed on the same articles in each, subject to such particular exemptions or abatements in Ireland, and that part of Great Britain called Scotland, as circumstances may appear from time to time to demand."
The Report was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.