The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-29 00:00:00

WAYS AND MEANS.

The Report of the Committee on Ways and Means
was then brought up and agreed to.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL.

On the Order of the day for the third reading of the
Administration of Justice (No. 2) Bill being moved,
Mr. WARD said that before the House passed the
Bill he was anxious to draw its attention to a case pre-
cisely similar to that bearing on the appointment of
the Hon. Member fbr Horsham, which he had lately
brought before the consideration of that House. Heregret-
ed he was absent last 'night, as that would have been the
proper time to bring itunderthenotice of the House. In
1812 an appointment similar to that made by Lord Abinger
was made in favour of Mr. Brougham, brother to the
then Lord Chancellor. The appointment which had been
conferred upon • him was that of Registrar of Affidavits,
and though Lord Brougham said he would abolish it, no
Bill had been brought in, as in the present ease ;
no overtact had been done to give the public a
right to claim the benefit of its abolition. The
moment the vacancy was filled up by Mr. Brougham,
the late member for Ripon, now Lord Chancel-
lor of Ireland called the attention of the House
to the case, but then that Honourable and Learned
Member had been sitting on the Opposition side of the
House. The lion. and Learned Member protested
against that appointment, and said it was an useless
waste of the public money, but not a single objection
had been made to the case to which he called the
attention of the House. It was singular what
a change had come over Honourable Members
within eight or nine years, and that they
did not see the force of the arguments which they now
used in the case of Mr. Brougham. The Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth said it was impossi-
ble that appointment should be provisional. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, from whom indeed it was
difficult to extract his opinion, yet expressed him-
self the other night in favour of compensation.
Lord Eldon asserted in the House of Lords
that the office filled by that Honourable Member
could not be called a sinecure, which was precisely the
argument oS the Attorney arid Solicitor-General the
other night, who said it would be impossible to find a
competent person to fill the office with the salary of
2,0001. a-year, unless lie had a reward for his services
during the term of natural life. Every argument
in the one ease applied exactly in the other case,
and if he could move for expunging that clause,
without affecting anbther person besides the Bon.
Member for Horsham, he would do so before the Bill
passed, but at all events he could not help calling the
attention of the House to the singular change whicri had
taken place in the sentiments of Hon. Members since
the year 1832. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member
for llorchester—but then that Hon. Gentleman entertained
different sentiments, and sat upon a different side of the
House—expressed his opinion that the appointment in
the case of Mr. Brougham was provisional, and
that the public could not be affected by the legal
right which the Lord Chancellor had to fill
up the vacancy, which he thought ho was
boun3, by a moral obligation, do do. (Hear.)
Lord Brougham did abolish the office in obedience to a
moral obligation ; but that was not the case in the pre-
sent instance, and he was sorry Lord Abinger did not
follow in the footsteps of the other Noble Lord
(Brougham).
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the Hon. Gentleman deserved great credit for the dili-
gence with which he ransacked for the present case,
but he could not give him equal credit for the analogy
which he seemed to think subsisted between the two
cases. The Hon. Gentleman, he was sure, would recol-
lect that Lord Brougham, who was at the time Lord
Chancellor, had given notice, in the House of Lords, of
his intention to abolish the office to which the
Honourable Gentleman referred that he (Lord
Brougham) mooted a measure of abolition himself.
There was therefore no parity in the two cases, for in
the one case a person was appointed by another, at
.a
time when he gave notice that he would himself abolish
the office which he considered to be a sinecure.
Lord Abinger was no party to the arrangement which
was in contemplation, and, therefore, in making the ap-
pointment lie was not violating his sense of duty to tile
public. It was admitted on all hands that the office of
Master of the Court of Exchequer was one which could
not be left vacant ; it was absolutely necessary that it
should be filled up if the business of the Court was
topruceed. The Honourable Gentleman was good enough
to say that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
was not very distinct in stating his opinions. He thought
the Hon. Gentleman must have known that when a qtn
tleman gave his vote in that House, there was a clear
index of his opinions. if the Hon. Gentleman at any
time misunderstood his expressions, he' ,n 1
to refer
hint to his recorded vote.—(Hear.) When.
before the House on a former occasion. he
his
l
some regu-
lationliberty of suggesting the necessity of ht e tookßil was
before
ou
whilstntan tc-
oGrne
neralrof -the Court of Chancery,
with respect to the office of
made for preventing a cor-
respondingtlAiactc,
Exchequer, no provision
penw,tion was awarded toatsie 'officers of the Court of
had been informed that an
the Court of Chancery. Ile
increase in the emoluments emoluments of the office of
' of
opportunity would be afforded to him in the course of
the present Session ,effectina that object, and for the,
present, therefore, ho would not propose any a!teration
in the Bill.

Afr; EWART said the Right lion. Gentleman the
, Cirlncellor of the Exchequer had attempted to draw
a distinction between the case of Lord Brougham and that
of Lord Abinger. With respect to the iOrnAr Noble
Lord, Lord Eldon, a very high authority on such a sub-
jec`, said that the office, so far torn hying a sinecure, was
one of great trust, and requiring much attention. 'Had
the Right Hon. Gentleman heard the ease of the Welsh
judicature ? In that case the Judges interested, although
they did not introduce the Bills, were bound not to till
up the vacancies. He thought the Right Hon. Gentle-
man's argument entirely fell to tEe mewl.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged
to offer a few words in explanation. With the case
of the Welsh Judge he was perfectly well acquainted,
for his brother had filled the office at that time. He
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) being in office at the
time knew perfectly well that the situation would be
abolished. Under those circumstances his brother had
no title to compensation. In the same manner Lord
Brougham had appointed his relative to a particular
office, knowing that it was intended to introduce a Bill to
abolish it. It' an individual Member of the
.Govern-
ment had brought forward a Bill the case would be
widely different.
Mr. PEMBERTON said it was impossible that the
offi:T under consideration could be accepted without
the person who accepted it abandoning his prospects at
the bar. Neither the Welsh Judge, nor Mr. Brougham,
left the bar in order to accept office. He contended,
therefore, that there was no analogy between the cases.
He would take that opportunity of calling the attention
of the Government to the necessity of making still fur-
ther alterations in the Court of Chancery. Whatever
were the merits of this measure it wit.; by no means a
remedy for all the evils which existed. He trusted that
the Government would be prepared next Session to in-
troduce a measure which would afford complete satisfac-
tion to suitors.
Mr. F. T. BARING said that the Right Hon. Gen
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in the
second part of his speech, put the case on the right
footing. The brother of that Right Hon. Gentleman
had adopted the course which every one who knew
him would have expected. When he was appointed
no bargain was made that he was to receive
any compensation. If his recollection served him
with respect to Mr. Scarlett, the second read-
ing of the Bill had passed the House of Lords before the
appointment took place ; indeed he thought the Bill had
been read a third time, and passed that House.=.(Hear.)
He expressed a strong opinion at the time upon the
subject, and nothing had passed since which had in-
&reed him to change that opinion. Ire thought the
present one of the strongest cases of compensation im-
properly granted that he had ever heard of.—(Hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM thought the analogy which had
been referred to between the two cases, entirely failed.
In the case of Lord Brougham, he was Chancellor at the
head of the law, and an officer removable at the pleasure
of the Crown, and at the time of the appointment the in-
tention of abolishing that particular office had been an-
nounced. lie nominated his brother to that office, and the
whole authority of the Government was pledged to the
passing of that measure. The question was, whether
his brother under the circumstances was entitled
to compensation ? Now, it was urged that
the case of Mr. Scarlett was parallel to that,
but he utterly denied it. Lord Abinger was not a party
to the introduction of the measure. Oa the contrary, ho
and Sir Edward Sugden objected to the abolition of the
appellate jurisdiction, and then it resolved itself
into the question of the probability of the measure
passing. Now, in the case of Mr. Brougham, Lord
Brougham was not only a consenting party, but the very
author of the measure ; while, in the case of the- Hon.
Mr. Scarlett, Lord Abinger not only did not originate the
measure, but had objected to it. There was assent
in the one case, dissent in the other. It appeared
to him that there would be the greatest injustice in re- -
fusing compensation in the case of Mr. Scarlett.

_VIE C. BULLER had seen some observations
made with regard to the vote he had given
in supporting the motion for compensation to
Mr. Scarlett ; but he had seen no reason to re-
(rret that vote. He thought Mr. Scarlett was justly
entitled to compensation. The principle on which they
should act in all cases like the present was, that it was a
matter of legal policy as well as jufitice that the House should
take the most liberal view with regard to those whose
vested interests were affected by the proposed changes.
While ho was on his legs he would beg to make one ob-
servation with regard to the Copying Clerks of the Court
of Exchequer. Justice demanded that when compensa-
tion was being awarded to more important persons,
the interests of poorer persons ought not to be over-
looked. The case to which he referred was that of the
Copying Clerks of the Exchequer. Those individuals
had been employed as copyists in that Court some
of them for so lon7 a period as thirty years, and that em-
pl.,yment furnished their sole means of livelihood. Their
income in those situations amounted to but 1001. or 1201. a
year, and that for the performance of duties of a very
laborious nature. The Court of Exchequer was now
about to be abolished, and the claims of those
individuals were not for compensation, but simply
that Government would consider them as having a prior
claim for employment under the new system. Nothing
would be more equitable or fair than such a claim.
They ought to show the public that, whilst they attended
to their interests, they were not unmindful of the vested
interests of individuals, and that those persons who had
hitherto obtained a livelihood in that Court should not
on its abolition be exposed to absolute destitution.

Mr. HAWES had received some communications on
the subject before the House, or he would not trouble
Hm. Members with any remarks upon it. Those clerks
represented to him (Mr. Hawes) that they had been
serving in the Court of Exchequer for twenty or thirty
years, and that their occupation would be swept away
by the change. Why not, he would ask, give
compensation to those poor individuals as well as to Mr.
Scarlett. He saw no one in that House come forward in
behalf of those persons, but in behalf of an individual
who was the son of a Peer there were many to come for-
ward and advocate the justice of compensation.
Air J. GRAHAM agreed with the Hon. Member for
Liskeard that the House onght in all cases of the aboli-
tion of offices to extend a liberal consideration to those
who had claims for compensation.
Mr. HAWES—To poor as well as to rich.
Sir J. GRAHAM—To rich and poor alike. Such
wrs the doctrine of the Hon. Member for Liskeard, but
such was not the doctrine of the Hon. Member for Lam-
beth, for while that Hon. Gentleman would refuse the
claim to compensation of Mr. Scarlett, who had a regular
appointment, he would uphold the right of those gen-
tlemen who had no regular appointment. He had no
wish to underrate their claims, such as they were, but it
was rather singular that they should never have heard
of their claims until the third reading of the Bill in the
present Session. It was certainly remarkable that during
the last Session ,neither of those Hon. Gentlemeiihad
mentioned the case to the late Government ; that Go-
vb-nment would certainly have leant a ready ear to any
recommendation of those Hon. Gentlemen, and if they
had drawn the attention of the Government to the subject
those claims would most probably have been investigated
and found untenable. It appeared that these gentlemen
had been employed as copiers in the Six Clerks' Office of
the Exchequer. Now, although the Equity Exchequer
was a Court to be abolished, yet two new Courts were
to be substituted for it, to give a greater facility for the
transaction of Equity business. He could not, therefore,
doubt that if those gentlemen had established their cha-
racter as efficient copyists, there would be a demand
for their services• in the new courts. He would not, how-
ever, give any pledge on the subject, because he thought
it cruel to raise hopes which might end in disappoint..
ment. At the same time, he entertained a reasonable
expectation that the services of these gentlemen would
not be rejected.
Mr. HAWES explained.
.___

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the rule in law
was that compensation was limited to those persons who
had a legal and vested right in their offices. Those gen-
th'men had not, while Master Scarlett was duly ap-
pointed by the Lord Chief Baron, and' had as good a
freehold right in his office as any gentleman in that
1-louse had in his property.
Sir C. NAPIER had noticed that the House was al-
ways most liberal in dealing with any case where any
gentleman of ,the law was concerned.—(Hear, hear.) It
was not long since they voted 3,5001. as the
retiring pension for a Vice-Chancellor. Now,
the 5001 . would be about the retiring pension
r
which would be given to a Vice-Admiral, after
thirty years' service.—(Hear, hear.) lie would ine'
Li, m a few of the pensions given to officers on the
jl,t,
aboli-
tion of the Navy Board some ten years ago,
lion. Baronet opposite deserved much praise fur its
aboli-
tion. • There was Sir F. Seymour,
a very
0 which,
who had lost an arm ; he had a patent place,being sent, being abolished, he was compenslited by.
__., A „..
out to - India, where he died.--(Laughter.) was
' other officer, who held a patent
Pil-aacn:portation of
abolished, was compensated b anda tanother officer,
three years to South America ;
s, was compensated
and thes it
Gordon, under the same eircumstancc
hoar.) .He was
by five years employment..—(hear,, ,
—(Hear.) He
d that.
Meat wisely and justly
to have his half pay
altfere
Captain Hornly ; he en-
might also mention the case o
/ a year, it was abolished,
jw;ecl a patent place of I,ooofive
years, employment at
and he was compensated y. ,
b -one(' these things to show
Woolwich. He only mentioned these
dealing with gentlemen .of
the di&rence in the
way
of the short jacket.—(Cheers.)
after, but the late Govern-
the long robe, and those
Mr. C. WOOD could
General, with respect to the
the Attorn y
down by
°When Lord Brougham appointed
not understand the law laid
case of Mr. Scarlett.
co
that had been referred to the
wasfr given to it by gentlemen on the
meral's (loc-
o: her side of
that th
persons who had a legal title to a place,
trine was
in possession of that place, were entitled to
House. The Attorney-G.
he wanted to know how Mr. scar-
y his .
and
safestbeing
e i nbrother
gopposition . to .
s o the
oHwo
~Gopensatio!t.
h.tt was • entitled to compensation, and Mr. Brougham.
,s not ?
•
" r .
The Bill was then read a third time And passed.
POPULATION PAYMENTS BILL.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved the further consideration of
the Report on the Population Payments Bill.
Mr. °TWAY CAVE wished to know whether the
attention of the Right lion. Baronet had been called to
tie statement of a Magistrate, in one of the Metropolitan
Districts, with respect to the Irish, when the ease of the
1. isliman had been brought before hint ?
Sir J. GRAHAM had seen the statements adverted to
by the Mon. Member, and had called upon the :Magis-
t..ate to explain them, as he thought such statements
were • calculated to interfere with the " due ad-
ministration of justice.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The
Worthy Magistrate did offer an explanation, stating
that the report was in many, essentials incorrect. Thu
easwer on the whole was satisfactory, and he had no
doubt that if an unguarded expression did fall from the
1•.-irtIty- Magistrate it would not be again repeated.
The Bill was then .further considered in Committee,
and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.
Mr. GREENE brought up the Report of the Expiring
Laws Bill.—Ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.