I did not hear a good word for this court spoken by anyone in this house. The reason why I would not abolish it last year, and I so declared, was that I wanted to find some way of providing compensation for these men before turning them out on the street. Hardly a member of this house who spoke on the matter did not have something to say about me because I would not immediately, without regard to the consequences, abolish this court. They did not care what I did in the way of giving these people justice.
With respect to the one man to whom my hon. friend refers, there are two ways of looking at this question. Are we to give higher compensation to the man who served the longer time or to the man who has a longer time to serve? Frankly I do not know
whether the man who has served five years and who receives eighteen months' salary by way of compensation is any more entitled to that than the man who has served eight and a half years and who gets the same compensation. Usually we consider that the longer the term of service the greater should be the reward, and it would appear to me that in this, as in every other normal case, salary for a year and a half, amounting to approximately $10,000, is a fairly reasonable amount to pay to those who are being retired. I do not think I could be reasonably asked, or the country could be asked, to pay any more.