Mr. J. P. Grant said, he would not support the amendment, if he thought it implied any doubt in the sincerity of the ministers; but he should like to know what security the House had, that the pre-of parliament. If he left England, the sent administration would keep their places, or that their successors would follow in their footsteps? If some future House should be disposed to act upon this subject, where in the journals would they find any record of the assurances of the present administration? If the amendment was not carried, the pledge now given to the House would not be recorded at all, and could not in future be acted upon, if the present administration should be dissolved. He should therefore support the amendment.

and of the duke 25,000l. But was not the duke quite as well able to educate his son on the 19,000l. as the duchess of Kent her daughter on 12,000l., and this child nearer the throne than the duke's son? The duke might not return to the country where he drew his breath, and whence he draws his revenue. It was probable that he wished to remain abroad; and he (Dr. L.) would not give one shil. ling to bring him back. He would vote for the grant, if it secured the education of the prince in Great Britain.

Mr. T. Wilson thought it ought to be fixed determinately how the money was to be spent, and where, or they would stultify their votes in 1815 and 1818. He must support the amendment.

Dr. Lushington said, he was prepared | have obtained the sanction of parliament. to give his confidence to the present To shew that it was really intended for chancellor of the Exchequer; but as the him, he begged the House to observe, right hon. gentleman could not pledge that the duke had now 19,000l. a-year; the himself that six-months hence a "no-po- duchess of Kent only 6,000l., and they pery" administration might not be in exist- were both to have an additional 6,000, ence, and as he would never place the slight-making the income of the duchess 12,000l., est confidence in such an administration, he must look for some stronger security than the word of a minister liable to removal, that the prince of Cumberland should be educated in England. A new minister might say, "It is for the interest of the Crown to have this boy educated abroad. I know nothing of any pledge which my predecessors have given. I go by the letter of the act." The leader of a "nopopery" administration might, out of mere gratitude to the duke of Cumberland, be anxious to take such a course, if it were true, that he had been formerly instrumental in ousting an administration favourable to the Catholics. He must, therefore, to guard against such consequences, vote for the amendment: for, a "no-popery" administration he would trust with nothing. The object of the resolution was, not to vote a sum of money to the sovereign to educate the prince, but to vote it to the sovereign to enable the duke of Cumberland to do so. He would vote that money with pleasure to the king; but on no account would he vote it to the king for the duke of Cumberland to dole it out as he chose for the education of his son. It was worthy the representatives of a great nation to see how the education of its future princes was conducted; but the present resolution would reduce the Crown into a mere conduit-pipe to supply the duke of Cum-sors. berland with money professedly for the education of his son, but really and truly for his own expenditure. He would trust to a resolution of the House; but he could not, and he would not, trust to the duke of Cumberland. That royal personage had not the confidence either of the House or of the country. He would not go back into any distant recollections of his conduct. The royal duke stood now in the same situation as he did in 1815. He had done nothing to alter the opinion parliament then entertained of him. All the ministers had abstained from saying that he had. They would not give him the money; they gave it for the education of the prince. It was intended, however, for the duke. Had it been asked in his name, ministers knew they would not

Mr. Wynn said, he had opposed the grant in 1815, and in 1818, and as he meant to vote for the present resolution, he wished to show that there was no inconsistency in the two votes. On the former occasions it was stated that the duke had no children, and that a larger income might be necessary if he had any. He thought the House was only redeeming the pledge thus given by now voting a sum for the education of the young prince. He objected to the amendment, as not giving the House one jot more security than they now had. It was not in their power to bind down their succes

He wished to see even the education of princes conducted under the eye of their parents. It was right that the Crown should be intrusted with a power of interference in cases where the parental authority was abused; but the exercise of it on this occasion appeared to him both unwise and unnecessary. After the debate of that night, could any man doubt that the education of this child would take place in England.

Mr. Warre supported the amendment, because there would otherwise be no se curity that this child would receive an English education.

Mr. Secretary Peel suggested, that the object of securing the education of the child in England could be as well secured by inserting a declaratory sentence in the preamble of the bill, as by the proposed

be a situation of considerable emolument. | self to threaten him with the danger of The profession of the law was like a rivalry. To prevent this, the government lottery. Its expenses always exceeded ought to secure the appointment of the its profits just as the expenses of the chief justice to themselves, taking care to tickets exceeded the value of the prizes. bestow it on the very best man of their To make these situations the object of own party. The dignity and importance high spirit and ambition, they should be of the chief-justiceship could not be overones of emolument and dignity. Any step rated in this country so long as it was a to degrade the high offices of chancellor land of liberty; and every measure that or chief justice, was a step towards the was adopted to lower its consequence, degradation of the whole profession. Men was a degradation to the profession. of very considerable eminence would not Upon these grounds he felt it his duty to be induced to give up a leading practice propose, as an amendment-"That the at the bar, for a salary barely equal, per- sum of 12,000l. be inserted, instead of haps inferior, to the profits of their 10,000l." as he was well informed that practice. The style of living must also the average of salary exceeded that sum. be taken into the account. The profession lived very much together, and were rigorous critics towards each other, as to the rate and style of expense. A man of good practice might live in his own way, and make a very good figure with half his earnings. Not so with the chief justice, who was looked up to not only as head of the common law, but as one possessed of dignities and advantages becoming his high station. A man could accumulate less for his family as chief justice with 10,000l. a-year, than a barrister could with the same sum acquired by practice. He was free to do as he liked in the latter case; in the former, he would be chained to hard labour for life; he would be condemned to tug at an iron oar, or if that were considered too harsh a description, at a gilded one. He would advise government by all means, if they wished to induce independent men of the best intellect and acquirements to accept that situation, not to reduce its consequence or pecuniary advantages, but to do every thing in their power to uphold the dignity of it. With that view he would take it out of the influence of the lord chancellor, whoever might happen to take that office. For his own part he did not see any disadvantage to the public on the promotion of the chief justice to the chancellorship. It was the duty of government to provide as many competitors of capability as they could, and the chief justice ought to be at liberty to offer himself. But, for that reason, the appointment of the chief justice should not lie with the lord chancellor. He could easily conceive a case-though, of course, it never yet did happen-of a lord chancellor taking care not to promote any persons to the bench except such as were notoriously too inferior to himVOL. XIII.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer fully concurred in what had fallen from the learned gentleman, as to the inexpediency of any measure that went to diminish the importance of the chief-justiceship; and if his proposition could possibly lead to such a consequence, he would at once abandon it. But it appeared to him that the opinions of the learned gentleman rested on a fallacy; for he had argued as if there were some abstract rights attached to the office itself. He could easily understand the abstract rights of an individual in possession of the office, but he could not comprehend the nature of any supposed rights attaching to any future holder of the office. It appeared to him that we should look at no rights except those of the holder of the office, and then we should merely have to consider whether 10,000l. a year would not be an adequate salary. With respect to the eminent individual now holding the office, his average salary, after all deductions, might be computed at 8,500l., and he proposed to him an addition of 1,500l. a year, which he considered an adequate compensation. He agreed in the propriety of having the first men in the profession to fill the office; and it was but reasonable to suppose that such men, previous to the attainment of that period when they would be qualified for the office, had acquired a considerable for tune. In addition to this, there was the honour, the distinction, and, he would add, the glory attendant upon the discharge of those high functions, which would operate as a much higher inducement to elevated minds than 2,000l. a year. He, therefore, could not see how this proposition was shutting the door against eminent lawyers to fill the high judicial offices of the state.

30

Mr. Scarlett said, in answer to the argument respecting abstract rights, he would ask this question :-Take the case of the revenues of a bishop, and imagine it to be proposed, that the income of the successor of the present bishop should be diminished by 2,000l. a year, would not a cry be immediately raised? If his opinion were asked what other mode ought to be adopted for increasing the importance of the chief justice, he would answer, by making him a peer. As the House of Lords had to decide in the last resort on our lives and liberties, it would not be amiss to have some good lawyers amongst them; and this would add considerably to his dignity. There was a period when chancellors and judges held their levees, and maintained their station with the highest splendor. Lord Mansfield invariably held levees; but, if a lord chiefjustice could be found to ride down to court, or to travel, in a hackney-coach, with his train-bearer and another; or the Jord chancellor with his mace in a hackney-coach, then, indeed, some saving might be made out of 10,000l. a year. He would have the office of so high importance, that the first nobleman in the land would feel his son honoured by his elevation to it. But, he should infinitely prefer leaving the income of chief-justice as it was, to adopting the proposed arrangement.

tended to abolish all the fees of inferior offices?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that one of his hon. and learned friends had prepared a bill upon the subject, founded on a report of the commissioners.

Mr. Hume also begged to know, whether it was intended to give the lord chancellor a fixed salary, instead of allowing him all his enormous and abominable fees? He saw no reason why the lord chancellor should form the only exception in this new and wholesome arrangement. His lordship derived pecuniary advantages from the very delays which he himself occasioned.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that it was not possible to undertake such a task before a report had been made on that part of the pending inquiry. He would take the liberty of stating, that the notions entertained regarding the amount of fees and salary of the lord chancellor, were exaggerated to a most strange degree. His salary, charged upon the Post-office, was only 5,000l. per annum, while the average yearly amount of his fees did not exceed 7,000l., making an income of 12,000l. in the whole. The opinion abroad was, that the chancellor had a nett income of more than 20,000%. a year; but, how much did the hon. gentleman suppose the lord chancellor actuMr. Secretary Peel said, that his mind ally put into his pocket? The salary of was relieved when he found it admitted 5,000l. was liable, first, to a reduction for that they were not dealing harshly with the land-tax, and beyond that 2,500l. the present chief-justice, for the main was payable out of it to the vice-chanconsideration when dealing with vested cellor. The lord chancellor had himself interests should be a provision for the disinterestedly suggested this mode of losses the individual might sustain. It paying the vice-chancellor. In the whole, therefore appeared to him that they were therefore, he did not put into his pocket now at perfect liberty to consider what more than 9,000l. for the discharge of his ought to be the proper salary of future laborious duties in Chancery. His fees, judges. He differed from the learned as Speaker of the House of Lords, might gentleman in thinking that this measure be between 3,000l. and 4,000l. a year, was objectionable in principle. He and his total income could not be more thought it better that the judges should than 12,000l. or 13,000l. per annum. He have a fixed salary out of a fixed fund, did not apprehend. that even the hon. than an uncertain salary out of uncertain gentleman would think the lord chanand fluctuating fees. It was upon the cellor of England overpaid by such same principle that the salaries of the a sum. It might be very well to talk of offices of state had been fixed. delays and postponements; but thus much he would say for the present lord chancellor, that, as far as related to devotion of time and mind, and exertion of body, it was impossible for any man to exceed him. He said this, because it was a bare act of justice. When it was represented, over and over again, that the

The amendment was negatived, and the resolution agreed to..

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he would not discuss the question of the salaries of the puisne judges, until the report was presented..

Mr. Hume asked, whether it was in