The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-04 00:00:00

TUESDAY EVE!

—to oblige those who had the misfortune to be involved I
in litigation to maintain the judicial system"—a
proposition which had the high sanction of the
authority of Lords BROUGHAM and CAMPBELL, of
the late Lord LANGDALE, and indeed of every dis-
tinguished legal reformer whose attention has been
directed to the subject. It will there be seen that
not only did the sums extracted from the suitors of
the Court of Chancery, under the designation of fees,
amount to 180,0001., but it was levied by no less than
330,000 different payments, which would occasion
very considerable additional expense and annoyance
to the sufferers.

It must, however, be borne in mind that this
statement by no means shows the full extent
of the grievance as it was some years since,
when the system flourished in rank luxuriance, and
before the pruning-knife of the legal reformer was
applied to any of the excrescences that had sprung
up in our courts, when the present Earl of ELLEN-
BOROUGH received for a sinecure office in the Queen's
Bench far more than the salary of the Lord Chief
' Justice. Indeed, the Noble Lord is still in receipt
of nearly 11,000/. sterling per annum, as compensa-
tion for the abolition of the office, while Lord CAMP-
BELL only receives 8,000/. per annum, and the other
judges only 5,000/. per annum each, for the devo-
tion of their entire time and ability to the effi-
cient discharge of the duties of their arduous
and important stations. From a Parliamentary
return just published, we find that the four late
sworn clerks of the Court of Chancery, Messrs.
GATTY, BAINES, MILLS, and WAINWRIGHT, have
received between them since the passing of the Act
abolishing the situations (5 and 6 Victoria, cap. 103),
up to and for the 25th day of November last, no less
than 236,2961. lls. 3d., of which 64,1081. 13s. 84.

was for salaries as taxing officers, and 172,1871.
17s. 7d. for compensation, being nearly three times
the amount of the salarieF, which, being about 2,0001.

per annum for each, might be considered fair remu-
neration fur the moderate duties imposed as taxing
officers, and for which we venture to assert that the
services of the most competent persons might be
obtained.

It also appears that the sums to be received by

these fortunate individuals are as follows—viz., by
Mr. GATTY, 5,4241. 14s. 41. for his life, and to his
representatives for seven years after his death (! 11) ;
to Mr. BAINEP, 5,403/. 23. 9d., and for seven years
after his death 2,701/. lls. 5d ! to Mr. MILLS, for his
life 4,937/. 9s. 7d., and for seven years after his
death 2,467/. 149. 10d. ; and to Mr. WAINWRIGHT,
for his life, 4,5001. ss. 11, and for seven years after
his death 2,250/. 2s. 73.! ! These are pretty pay- ,
ments for the country to be saddled with. Already
have these comfortable individuals received far more
than the advertisement duties realise for a year, but,
exorbitant as the compensation may be for their lives,
Messrs. GATTY, BAINES, and MILLS receive
some 8001. between them more for doing nothing
than Vice-Chancellors TURNER, KINDERSLEY, and
PARKE& for their arduous duties. Some excuse may
be made, but we venture to assert that the allowances
for seven years after their deaths to their respective
representatives are utterly unparalleled. They would
surely not have received the fees and emoluments
after they had been removed by death and their suc-
cessors duly appointed. It certainly appears to ex-
hibit the symptoms of a rank job—such as SWIFT
shadowed forth in his tale of " The Old Watch Coat."
We know not whether the matter can now be reme-
died. We would, however, commend it to the no•
tice of all legal reformers as an additional and
powerful illustration of the beauties of " the fee
system," and the mode in which things were managed
in the olden time.