would exert their influence for the good of the people? He heartily approved of the appointments, and he believed the reason the House was troubled with this Motion was, because those who brought it forward had been disappointed that neither themselves nor their friends had been made Lord-lieutenants. He felt gratified by the appointment of Mr. Fitzgibbon to Limerick, as he was a gentleman of great respectability, of large property, and Custos Rotulorum of that county. Mr. Maurice O'Connell said, the measure had been canvassed, and the great objection made by hon. Gentlemen in the Opposition, was founded upon the rejection of those friends they had recommended to his Majesty's Ministers. It was, after all, but natural and reasonable that the Government in its appointments should prefer their own friends, but he believed the appointments had been grateful to the country. With respect to the first appointment (Lord Duncannon) every hon. Member must allow there could not be a more honourable, upright, and straightforward man than that noble Lord. The appointment for the county of Waterford, also, that was objected to, was equally honourable and upright. In some instances, however, he must say, that he thought the Government had overlooked its best friends. Mr. Walker approved of the appointment for Waterford. Colonel Perceval, in reply, expressed a hope that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland would not suppose he had the arrogance to point out any individual to his Majesty's Government for appointment. He had only discharged his duty in recommending Mr. Wynne. He disclaimed all party feeling in bringing forward the Motion. He should, however, always contend, that non-resident appointments were bad. He begged leave to withdraw his Motion. Motion withdrawn. COURT OF EXCHEQUER (SCOTLAND).] The Order of the Day was read for the second reading of the Court of Exchequer (Scotland) Bill. Mr. Kennedy trusted the House would bear with him, as the task of explaining the provisions of this Bill had been confided to him, in consequence of the absence of the learned Lord Advocate for Scotland, while he made a few observations, The Bill had been in the Order-book for a long time, without the possibility of having it discussed; and he regretted to observe on the other side of the House, something like a suspicion that it was the wish of the Government to pass the Bill without discussion. That was not the case; on the contrary, those who supported the Bill desired nothing so much as that its merits should be well understood. The Court to which this Bill referred-the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, had, for a long period, and up to a very short time since, been composed of five Barons—one Chief Baron, and four Puisne Barons. A Committee, which was appointed some time since, on the motion of his right hon. friend, the member for Waterford, recommended that the number should be reduced to four; a struggle to avoid this reduction took place, but in course of time the number of Judges was reduced to four, namely, one Chief and three Puisne Barons; and subsequently, at a much more recent period, in the year 1830, the total number of Judges was to be reduced to two, namely, one Chief and one Puisne Baron; that was to say, when vacancies occurred they were not to be filled up, and they would not make the Judges of the Court above that number. Such seemed to have been the progress of opinion as to the propriety of reducing the number of Barous composing this Court, and now another era in its history arose, when it was justly conceived, that the business brought before it was not of sufficient magnitude to justify its continuance even on these principles. He would state what was the object, and what were the leading provisions of this Bill; the Court at present consisted of a Chief Baron and two Puisne Barons, because, owing to the unfortunate decease of a member of that Court, a vacancy had taken place, which, by the Act of 1830, could not be filled up. When another vacancy occurred, the number of Judges in the Court would be reduced to the amount fixed by the Statute of 1830. The Bill now on the Table of the House proposed that it should be in the power of all or any of the members of the Court to discharge the duties now vested in the whole Court. But in the event of the death or retirement of the Chief Baron and remaining Puisne Baron, it was provided that the duties of the Court should, in all respects, be performed by a Judge of the Court of Session, who should be appointed to discharge all the functions of the Court | months there had been one of these arguas it now existed. The effect, therefore, ments, which occupied about an hour. of this measure, would not be to produce This was all the judicial business of this a large saving to the public in the first in- Court-the remaining part of its duties stance, as well as in the result, which would consisted of Treasury business, connected be the abolition of the Court, and the conse- with the taxes in various departments. quent saving of the expenses of the Chief These suits were, as in England, frequently Baron and the one remaining Puisne settled out of Court; but there were some Baron. He would now briefly state the appeals brought before the Barons of the duties of the Court, and the amount and Exchequer, which were despatched by nature of the business which had recently them with great facility, and therefore did been performed. The duties of the Court not require any material consideration. of Exchequer might be divided into two An Act was passed at the instance of an parts, the first consisted of the official duties hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of belonging to the Court, and which related the House, in relation to the corporation to the revenue of the country. Most of rights, with a view to enable trustees to these were questions more of form than of bring their cases before the Court of Exsubstance, being chiefly undefended causes. chequer, but which had not had the effect From Returns which he held in his hand, of preventing the existence of many abuses and which might be relied upon, he would and great malversation. He did not mean state to the House the number of cases to say, that the jurisdiction was not prowhich were tried in the Court of Exchequer, perly exercised; he merely stated the adduring the years 1827, 1828, and 1829, vantages which were taken of it. Indeed, it those being the three last years of the time was not necessary that this expensive Court during which the late Chief Baron pre- should be preserved on thatground. Another sided in that Court. There were three part of the business of the Court, related Terms in the Court-in Candlemas Term to deeds connected with charters, rights there were no defended causes, and five of property in Scotland, and superiorities, undefended; in the next Term none de- of which they had heard so much in that fended, and nine undefended; in the House: this jurisdiction must be exercised summer Term one defended and eight un- somewhere or other, undoubtedly. Now defended. In the course of the next year this department of the business had, for there were one defended and eighteen un- some time past, occupied the Court of Exdefended; and in 1829 there were two chequer about six hours in each Term. defended, and thirteen undefended; so Of course, every reform which had altered that, in the course of these three years, these privileges had greatly diminished there were four defended, and fifty-three the extent of this branch of the business; undefended causes, making a total of fifty- and there could be no difficulty, therefore, seven causes. And during the period in this part of the duty being performed which had elapsed since the retirement of by Judges in whom it was proposed to the late Lord Chief Baron, and during the vest the duties of the Court of Exchequer. time that his right hon. friend, Baron The expenditure in Scotland by the SheAbercromby, had presided in that Court, riffs, had been hitherto discharged from which might be stated at eighteen months, the revenue of Scotland, and supplied there had been one defended cause. So from the general revenue of the country. much, therefore, as to the extent of judicial It was now settled that this sum-about business; he did not mean to say, that 6,000l. a-year-should be voted by Parliathese undefended causes did not come into ment on the estimates, and it certainly Court-on the contrary, one or two wit- would be a very unfit thing that indivinesses were generally examined on the duals, sitting as Judges, should be called part of the Crown; but what he meant to upon to determine matters connected with say was, that no party came to resist the a sum of money which was afterwards to decision of the Court, which was founded receive the consideration of this House; on the evidence which it was absolutely and, therefore, this expenditure would necessary for it to take. There was not again be brought under the conanother department of the business of the sideration of the Court of Exchequer. Court, which consisted in hearing the ar- The Treasury business was, in the first inguments of counsel on points of law, stance, substantially conducted by the when they arose within the last eighteen King's Remembrancer. Under this es tablishment the amount of the expense | taining whether it was possible to comply with this recommendation, and, accordingly an inquiry was directed to be made as to the propriety of carrying this recommendation into effect; and in 1820 a report was made, stating that it was deemed by the heads of all the Courts in Scotland, quite impossible to conduct the business of the Court of Exchequer without five Barons: this was stated in the strongest and most decisive terms. No reduction in the number of the Judges, therefore, was made for some time afterwards, but in the year 1830-he would call the attention of the House to this circumstance, in reference to the charge which had been made against the present Government, of acting without inquiry-in the year 1830, up came the right hon. Baronet, and, contrary to this strong recommendation, proposed to the House a measure by which one half of the Court would be lopped off at once, and without inquiry. He did not mean to say that the matter was not maturely considered, but merely mentioned the fact, because it afforded a complete answer to that was incurred was known. The establishment was very efficient, but still there were irremediable evils arising from the present system, and the whole of the superintending duty, whether the Court were abolished or not, ought to be put under the direction of the Board of Treasury in London; there surely could be no necessity, when that Board existed, for sustaining the expense of this establishment. The judicial business of this Court had been managed according to the English law. Until lately, there had been four solicitors, or attornies practising in this Court, but in consequence of the death of one of these individuals, the number was reduced to three, and there was no individual rising to succeed these three gentlemen, who, in the ordinary course of nature, must soon cease to practise. Such was the state of this Court as it was left by the Act which was passed in the year 1830. Two courses were left open for the adoption of his Majesty's late Government with respect to this establishment; either to superadd to it such func-any charge that might be made against his tions as seemed to accord well with the character of the individuals placed in it for life, as no doubt they were, like any other Judges; or if it was thought unfit to do so, it was for Parliament to decide whether the Court ought not to be put an end to. He did not mean to disparage the individuals presiding in this Court, but if the Court of Session could discharge the whole of the duties of the Court of Exchequer, and if the Judges of that Court were to retire, there might be a saving of the whole expense of the Court. Various objections to this measure would be brought forward; it had been thought necessary to have an English Baron to interpret British Acts of Parliament, which Scotch lawyers were not supposed to understand; but by the sixth report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into this subject, it was declared, that it was no longer necessary or requisite to keep up the office of the English Baron. Their report contained this recommendation:With the exception of one of our members we concur in thinking five Barons are entirely unnecessary, and 'that the business might be conducted by four, as it is in the Court of Exchequer in England, without adding to the labour of the Judges. In the year 1820, my Lord Sidmouth had been desirous of ascer Majesty's Government, on the ground of proceeding without inquiry. He hoped hon. Members would not endeavour to excite any sympathy in the mind. of the House in favour of this Court, on the ground of its being one of the ancient institutions of Scotland, because it was an English Court, for which the Scotch had never had any peculiar love; and its constitution was changed in the year 1830 without inquiry, which was a strong argument to shew that his Majesty's Government might have considered the effect of this measure before bringing it forward. When a member of this Court chose to resign, an individual would be selected from the jurisdiction to which he had adverted, who would be called upon, by a special commission, to discharge the duties of the office. This Bill originated in the other House of Parliament, in which bills for amending the judicial establishment were wont to originate: it had passed the House of Lords without objection, alteration, or comment, and it was now recommended to this House for its consideration. Question put that the Bill be now read a second time. Sir William Rae was aware that another opportunity would be afforded for a more ample discussion of this measure; but he would take this opportunity of saying, that he had no fault to find with the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, as far as it went because, as far as he had explained the objects of the Bill, he had done so fairly and satisfactorily; but there were some words in the preamble of the Bill which certainly had excited his attention, and which would not have been inserted there unless they referred to something not now in the Bill, or to something hereafter to take place. The words were, That it is expedient that provisions should be made for facilitating the retirement of the 'Barons.' He did not exactly understand what was meant by these words; no doubt the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be able to give some explanation of this passage. Before they proceeded to discuss the principle of the Bill, it was important that the meaning of these words should be correctly understood. Lord Althorp said, the right hon. Gentleman having asked the meaning of these words, he would beg to give him the information which he desired under the existing law, any Baron of the Court of Exchequer, who had held his office for fifteen years, was entitled to a certain proportion of his emoluments, by way of retiring pension. The object of this Bill was, entirely to do away with this. The Judges who at present presided in that Court had their pensions taken away, and therefore, until they chose to retire, they would have a right to the whole of the salary attached to their office. With respect to the Senior Barons, who had for a very considerable time held these offices, it was proposed to give them the option of retiring on three-fourths of their salary. With regard to the Lord Chief Baron, however, who had been a much shorter time in office, it was proposed, by way of holding out an inducement to him to retire, that he should have the option of receiving one-half of his salary, as a retiring pension. Thus the saving to the country would be one-half of the Lord Chief Baron's income, and one-fourth of the salaries of each of the other Barons. It was true the present Lord Chief Baron had been in office but a very short time; but as the office was granted to him for life, he would of course retain it, if he should not consent to this arrangement. With respect to his appointment in the first instance, he should not do justice to his own feelings, or to those of the Lord Chief Baron himself, if he did not say that the appointment of his right hon. friend to that office did great credit to his Majesty's Ministers, and that it had been fully justified by his conduct and talent. It was certainly very much owing to his representations, that the existing state of the Court of Exchequer had been taken into consideration; and, therefore, it would be quite contrary to all the principles on which the Government of this country proceeded, to deprive a Judge of his office, without giving him some compensation for the loss of it. This was the state of the case; and he trusted the House would think that the circumstances warranted this proceeding. Mr. Hume said, the principle on which they were proceeding was the most extraordinary he had ever heard of in his life. His hon. and learned friend had given quite sufficient reason to justify the abolition of this Court three years ago; he had stated, that during the three last years there were only four causes, and yet when he (Mr. Hume) strongly urged that on the House two years ago, he was met by assertions that the Court could not be done away with. What did they do only one year ago? They increased this Court, by placing in it a very fit and competent man, no doubt, but so far from his Majesty's Government receiving any credit for that appointment, which the noble Lord appeared to think they deserved, he (Mr. Hume) condemned it at once, and called it a job, a rank job, for some purpose or other, and if it were done for the purpose of obtaining the support of any nobleman for the Ministry, it was an abominable proceeding. It had been held that a Judge who was appointed for life should not be removed so long as he conducted himself properly, and while no complaint was made of him; but were the people of England to be told, that a Judge who had been one year and a-half in office was to receive a pension of 2,000l. a-year? This gentleman had not been in office more than a year and a-half, and yet he was to be put down in the Pension-list for 2,0007. a-year, at a time, too, when they ought to economise. This was a most objectionable proceeding; this Bill came down from the House of Lords without explanation, and they were to be told now at the last moment--at the eleventh hour-what it proposed to do. Why was not this Court abolished at once? Why were they to have any of these half-and-half measures? Why go beating about the bush in this way? There were now two legal Bills in progress; one had for its object the abolition of a Court, the other the establishment of one; why should not the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer preside at the head of the new Bankruptcy Court? Surely, it would be no degradation to him? He would take the office after the Lord Chancellor and, upon principle, this would be the most likely way of doing justice to all parties. What was there in the Bankruptcy Court for four Judges to do? Why could not three be dispensed with, and the Lord Chief Baron of Scotland preside in the Court? He could not be incompetent to fill the office; for he was for many years a Commissioner of Bankrupts, and was well acquainted with English law. Why, the office was just fitted for him. It would be much better to bring in a Bill to abolish the Court of Exchequer at once. With regard to the other Judges, if they could not be made useful, let them have the retired allowance in consequence of their long services; but the idea that the Chief Baron, who had been only fifteen months in office, should receive a pension of 2,000l. a-year, was monstrous, and he hoped the proposition was one which the House of Commons would never consent to. Some alteration, therefore, should be made in this Bill in Committee, and the services of the Judges should be made available elsewhere, instead of placing them on the Pension-list. If the Chief Baron were made the Judge in bankruptcy, the country would save 1,0007. a-year, or, if desirable, give him 4,000l. a-year; but really, to talk of four Judges in bankruptcy appeared to him to be quite absurd. Mr. Robert Ferguson expected nothing but opposition from the hon. member for Middlesex in questions of this nature; yet he was surprised at the observations he had made. How could he call the saving of 2,000l. a-year in one instance a job? If there was a man in England who would scorn the insinuation of jobbing, it was the present Lord Chief Baron of Scotland. During the last Administration, his right hon. friend, the member for Bute, obtained the appointment of a Committee to inquire into this subject, but it was ultimately agreed that the Court of Exchequer should remain as it was. In progress of time, however, it had been reduced to a Chief Baron, and one Puisne Baron. His hon. and learned friend, in agreeing to this arrangement, acted with the greatest honour and propriety, because he cut down that which his long services and high station so justly entitled him to. During the former Administration there occurred a vacancy, and he had always viewed with the greatest satisfaction the course adopted by the noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Government at that time. He well knew the merits of the right hon. Gentleman in question--he recollected the political events which had thrown him out of public life-he remembered well his. merits, and he sent to him and offered him the appointment. This was a most honourable trait in the character of his Grace the Duke of Wellington. The present Lord Chief Baron accepted the office, and he went down to Scotland, considering it as a permanent situation, with 4,000l. a-year; of course he had ascertained that before he consented to fill the office. Upon that conviction he expended a considerable sum in purchasing a house, and furnishing it from top to bottom. He soon discovered that the Court afforded him hardly anything to do, and then, instead of contentedly receiving this large salary, and doing nothing for it, he was the first to give an opinion in favour of merging that Court in the Court of Session. knew that it was sacrificing 4,000l. a-year, but his virtuous mind could not brook the idea of its being kept up as a separate Court, merely on account of his personal interest, and, therefore, he gave the advice he did with respect to it. There was no man to whose acts the term jobbing was less applicable. He was almost inclined to beg the Government not to propose giving him a farthing, but to appeal to a vote of the House on his conduct. He Sir George Warrender had not made up his mind as to whether the Court was not useful, or might not be made so, by having additional business thrown into it. He had suggested, on a former occasion, that the duties of the Admiralty Court, and of the Commissary Court, should be transferred to the Court now proposed to be abolished, which would have been much better than transferring them to the Court of Session. These suggestions arose out of a correspondence he had, not only with lawyers in Scotland, well acquainted with the practice of the different Courts, but with high authorities there, and, had those |