The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-08 00:00:00

you of
rtthoef
2,3001. per annum at the time it was abolished, a compensationasno of
1822
2he
iotffiweeass wdheiecmhedtheeyxhpeaddievnatcatteod.
ahoAlgisahin,soimne thsieneyeuearer
of '2,700/. per annum was awarded to the sinecurist, who w
less a person than Lord Liverpool. What wasmorewhtoetbheerla
a- officest ionf tteingLaswßCeonueh, rts.
anTdhethoefficdetroeeftporroothf otnhoetaic•
mented was, that it was a poll-tax, and no matter
man sued for 20,000/. or 2,0001., he had toh pay,
six clerks
same e
ffetehse.
vCaoematiinnognthPelieraos ,ffiwhichoffices
receivedoffi cesewomerpeenhsealtdi
obnytonotlohl eemfuelni ,
awntheounin
t
The Bill was to give compenslatnionbteoent
ceonsslidered a public of the value of their situations. It would also be found that
but they were per- by the Act 3 and 4 William IV., sec. 81, cap. 94, and b the
nuisance
eoef
received Chancery, who w ho
enormous
ttloo
ugs
fees,as
sure, for
t2h andusa 8
dGeorge d
sI Vw .a, s c
ao
wmaprednesda t itoon
pteor
stohnes a
wmhoousne t
ooffif e
e severalhad
shebeemwould had received the deliberate consent of the Legislature,and them were in the receipt of between three been abolished. The Act for compensation to the six clerks
afaebnesdloi Ylsuotmeulseye deocisfsi gannodthcinogm.penTshateiyonwewre
he
amount of 30,000!. prive those individuals who ' •compensation under
hardly believe him, when he stated that four of these persons asked if it would be fair to repeal that Act now, and to de-
were receiving
were enjoying amongst them the enormous
and four hundred a year. He was suldrgeiovffitehnceertsH:otuot
a year.—( Hear, hear.) What could, then, be the meaning of its provisions of their incomes. His Hon. and Learned Friend
giving such extravagant compensation? Their business saw that the Lord Chancellor had not fully investigated the
depended solely open connexion, but that connexion justice of these claims. He entirely denied that. The
was like an attorney's, it might not last five amount of the fees had been fully ascertained, and the Lord
days, and it might last for ever; but the business transacted Chancellor had exercised due caution in inquiry into the mat-
was not worth six days' purchase. The country had a right ter. The Lord Chancellor had on every occasion adhered to
to inquire and see how the funds were distributed, and whether the minimum which was allowed for compensation, and
the public money was to be wasted in such an extravagant man- he also required a reduction to be made on account
ner as he had detailed to the House. lie would quote to the of bad debts before he would make any award.
House an authority upon this subject which he was sure would He admitted that the public had paid a large amount for the
have weight with the House, he would quote Mr. Pemberton abolition of the offices, but not more than the justice of the
Leigh, who after vainly, for a length of time, endeavouring to case demanded. These offices were entitled to the remunera-
get a return from these gentlemen of their emoluments, they tion which Parliament had awarded them. The Act of Par-
having refused them for a length of time. had at last given liament had given the Lord Chancellor the power of appoint-
some lump sums without stating name, or time, or place. ing six taxing officers at 1,0001, a year each. The Lord
Mr. Pemberton Leigh designated the fees which these Chancellor had made those appointments, and he (the Atter-
officers received as an iniquitous tax upon the suitors in ney- General) believed that those appointments had been made
Chancery. One gentleman, who was eminent in the Court of with advantage to the public. Those officers were selected
Chancery, had said that when he was doubtful upon a point of from the clerks in court. The Master of the Rolls had power
the practice of the Court, he applied to the sworn clerks, and also, under the Act of Parliament, to appoint four officers in
acted directly the reverse of their advice. One gentleman, in the court, and he also selected those officers from the clerks
his evidence before the commission, had stated that the fees to of the court. Would the House, then,' dispassionately and calmly
the sworn clerks were a great tax upon the suitors in Chan- consider whether they were justified in acceding to the motion
cery, and the services of the clerks were useless, In fact, one of the Hon. Member for Kinsale. These persons respecting
of the officers was a good clerk when he was a lunatic. whom the motion was made had a vested interest in their
He would now call the attention of the House to what was offices, and if they were deprived of those offices, it could
called the compensation clause—a clause by which the Lord only bo done by giving them full and fair competition.
Chancellor was enabled to award compensation to officers in Mr. HUME said it was certainly true that he agreed with
certain cases. At the time of Lord Erskine he had found the the principle of the Bill which gave these compensations, but
fees of those officers so low that he increased them; but in 1829 he never could have supported the details of the Bill which
the fees of those officers had so enormously increased, that they had been alluded to. It would be presumptive in him to at-
were entitled to fees on every item on the paper; and tempt to draw the line of demarcation where compensation
Lord Brougham had seen the enormity of these fees to be se should cease, but he thought the Right Hon. and Learned
glaring in the year 1833 that he told them their days were Attorney-General, having cited the only, though a doubtful
numbered; but they still remained the same to the present precedent, which had occurred in Ireland, in justification of
time. One of those clerks who had been dismissed received these compensations, had failed to make out a good case for
5,424/., and 2,00 W. a-year for attending for a few hours the Lord Chancellor.—( Hear, hear.)
each day in Chancery-lane. Another, who retired, was a The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I could give you many
clerk to a clerk, and he got 4721. a year ; and a third, other precendents. The Irish case is by no means a solitary
a young gentleman, only 28 years of age, received fees to the one.—(Hear, hear.)
amount of 5,204/. per annum, besides a salary of 2,000/., mak- Mr. HUME said it did not matter to him how many prece-
ing a total of 7,204'. per annum. Again, there was an agent dents could be produced, because that would not alter the state
who received for compensation alone 1,778/. per annum ; a of the case ; and he for one was convinced the public generally
waiting clerk received a compensation to the extent of 3441. per looked upon this as one of the grossest jobs that had ever been
annum ; in fact, altogether the compensations amounted to no perpatrated.—( Hear, hear.) It might be urgod, if this case
less than 170,000/, annually. The Lord Chief Justice of England, were to stand good, that if capital punishment were abolished
the highest dignatary of the law, received under 10,0001. per an- the hangmen of the country would be entitled to compensation.
num, and the Noble individual who now held the office refused —( Hear, hear.)—Well, he was not opposed to giving it, but
to receive the whole salary, and only took 8,0001., and yet let the compensation be just. It was alleged, however, that
there were persons, without holding any office, receiving the compensation in the instance now before the House was un-
-7,000/. The First Lord of the Treasury had, on elate occasion, just, and he, therefore, thought there ought to be some inquiry
given to two gallant officers who had distinguished themselves into it, in order that those persons who had awarded it might
in the service of their country, pensions of 2,000/. and 3,000/. be deterred in future from violating the confidence which had
while many persons !who had done nothing for it were been reposed in them, on behalf of the public.—( Hear, hear. )
receiving the large salaries he had mentioned. The House Some of these fees, it must be clear, were manifestly unjust,
ought to come to some resolution, which would submit this and wrongfully imposed on suiters, and this, in his opinion,
matter to the consideration of a Committee.—(Hear, hear.) was an additional reason why his Hon. and Learned Friend
It was the brightest morning that ever dawned in Chancery. should have his Committee.—(Hear, hear.) For it was the
lane, and to all the clerks in a certain law institution there, duty of the parties appointed to take these fees not to take more
for all the flesh and blood, and every human being therein, re- than the old law allowed. It was no use to tell him that they
ceived a good compensation ; and even some of the clerks were had become just from usage. If the law of the land—the sta-
to have one-half of their compensation paid to their friends for tute law of the land—did not sanction them, they had no right
several years after their death, in consequence of the loss of to be taken ; and, still more, the parties taking them had no
the influence and services of those gentlemen to the country. right to compensation on their abolition.--( Hear, hear.) It
The sale of these offices, therefore, was wholly illegal, and was on these grounds that he supported the motion of his Hon.
the persons who held them were not entitled to receive any com- and Learned Friend, and he hoped those who had unjustly taken
pensation. No Bill ever travelled with the same railroad velo- fees and received compensation on their abolition in the pro-
city as the Bill in question did through that House. It came gresses of legal reforms would be held up to the public indig-
down from the Lords on the 29th of July, and was read a first nation.—( Hear, hear.)
time. On the Monday following—the Ist of August— Mr. B. WILLIAMS said there had been a great deal of
it was read a second time. On the 2d of August special pleading on the part of the Hon. and Learned Attorney-
it went through Committee, and on the 3d of General, who had avoided the real question before the House,
August it was reported and ordered to be re-committed. which was simply this—Were these fees taken by those parties
The 9th of August, 1842, was a lucky day for the riding clerk, to whom compensation had been given legal and just ?—and it
the waiting clerk, and the agents of the House of Commons, was the bounden duty of the House to take this question into
for on that day their Compensation Bill passed; and how, let their earnest and serious consideration.—( Hear, hear.) If the
him ask, was this compensation to be calculated? Why, it Lord Chancellor had granted compensation for illegal fees, he
was calculated upon the produce of the three years during which ought to be held up to public indignation. But why was the
there was the most extraordinary amount of business trans- matter left to the Lord Chancellor? Why was it taken out of
acted in the Court of Chancery, and when the equity business the hands of the Tieasury, which was the proper place for de-
of the Exchequer had been transferred to the Court of Chancery. tiding the compensation ? Why, the fact was, the whole affair
The compensation which should be given, according to the was a most palpable job. This was plain enough, for one of
Acts he had cited, was to be only two-thirds of their former the parties, a Mr. Wainwright, who received a portion of this
receipts. The examiner was also to inquire into those re- large compensation, drew up the Bill legalising the compensa-
ceipts. Now he asserted no inquiry had taken place, and how tion, or rather, he ought to call it, the job.—( Hear, hear. )
was this compensation, extravagant as it was, obtained? It But if the compensation were fair and just, why refuse this
was levied from the suitors of the Court of Chancery ; inquiry ? It was all nonsense ; the compensation was grossly
from those who had the misfortune to appear there in order to unjust ; and Government, in refusing the inquiry, were vir-
have justice done them. Why, it was monstrous.—( Hear, tually acknowledging it to be so.—( Hear.) The Hon. and
hear.) Four per cent. was laid upon a Bill, without Learned Attorney-General, however, said the Bill granting the
reference to the amount of the property sought to be compensation passed through the House after it had under-
obtained; after years of anxious and dreary litigation, four gone the most careful and deliberate consideration, but this
per cent. was laid upon the costs of that cause before was not so, and he for one dared to say it was smuggled, in-
they were bound to pay a shilling. When he first stead of cautiously passed through the House.—( Hear, hear.)
brought forward his motion, a reduction of twopence Oh, but (said the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General) if the
a folio took place, which, trivial as it appeared to Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Kinsale had so
be, amounted to 5,000/. out of every 70,0001. One per many objections to the Bill, why did he not on the third reading,
cent. had since been taken off, which also amounted or during its progress through Committee, attend in his place
to one thousand in every seven thousand pounds.—( Hear.) in the House, and state there what his objections to this 'nee-
He asked for a Committee to inquire into those matters, sure was ?—( Hear, bear.) Was it not easy enough to explain
He asked the Government to grant that Committee ; why an Hon. Member who was a member of the learned pro-
and if he was asked, was he ready to be unjust to these indi- fession, could not be in his place on a particular occasion ? His
viduals? he would say, he was ready to be so, sooner than to professional avocations might be the cause of his not being pre-
!)e:
theu Court of Chancery.njusttohundred He wished that this cm-
sandthousandswho would besuioters sent, and they had a remarkable instance of this a few nights
case wd.esn
eunderrai ,
he
mittee would be granted in order to investigate the matter. aHgoon'.whaennda LcoemarpneendsaAtitotn case
Attorney-General,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in answer to the state- favour of, and took a deep interest in the Danish claims, but,
ments of the Hon. Member who had just sat down, said his from a similar cause to the one he had already
Hon. and Learned Friend had had a reat advantage over alluded to, the Hen. and Learned Gentleman was
him, because he was the assaulting party; and there was prevented from being present when they were under dis-
always something exciting in hearing a party making a charge, cussion.—( Hear, hear.) But why need he follow the Hon.
while the arguments of the party in defence generally fell and Learned Gentleman in this train of special pleading, when
upon dull ears. He (the Attorney-General) could not everybody knew that the public had long ago made up their
hope to make what he had to say in answer minds that this case of compensation was a most palpable job ?
to the charges of his Honourable and -Learned In his opinion it would be more becoming her Majesty's
Friend at all interesting, as it applied to matters of dry law, not Government if they were to accede to, instead of refusing, the
by any means interesting ; but still he would make a demand Committee.—(Hear, hear.) At all events, if they persisted in
on the time of the Honae, but he trusted he would be heard with refusing it, he hoped the Right Hen. Gentleman, the Chancel-
patience. His Hon. and Learned Friend proposed a Committee for of the Exchequer, would get up in his place and tell the
on the very same materials upon which the same motion was House whether this enormous compensation agreed with his
refused by the House in 1844. Now he (the Attorney- views or not.—( Hear, hear.) He was sure if the Right Hon.
General) would say that his Hon. and Learned Friend Gentleman spoke conscientiously, it could not, and for this and
called upon the House to do an act of gross injustice. the other reasons he had stated, he should vote for inquiry.
It would be very easy to lead the House to the conclusion that Sir J. GRAHAM was very unwilling to trespass upon the
the compensation awarded to those holding those offices was attention of the House on a question which involved legal
enormous, in order to excite in Hon. Members the notion that technicalities, but after the speeches which had just been ad-
the motion which the Hon. Member for Kinsale proposed dressed to the House by Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite
to make, was well founded, and ought to be granted. He benches, he felt himself bound to make a few observations.
at once took the Hon. Member on that ground, and said There were some observations that had fallen from the Hon.
that the guestion was not whether the existing emoluments Member who bad last addressed the House that particularly
for these offices were or were not abuses. It was rendered it necessary for him (Sir J. Graham) to trespass
quite immaterial whether the emolument :derived from those upon the attention of the House before they went to a division.
offices was in proportion to the services rendered by those who After those observations he was by no means prepared to vote
possessed them. Those offices bad been established a number for a Committee of inquiry of this sort, although he was of
of years ; they were vested interests, and if they desired to re- opinion certainly that an inquiry into the fees received in the
form them, they were bound to give the possessors the fullest courts of law and equity might be very useful.—.( Hear, hear.)
compensation. His Hon. and Learned Friend would not But he was bound to resist the motion after what had fallen
consider it any disparagement if he considered that the opi- from the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and the
nions of a better reformer were against him on this subject, Hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Williams), because
In 1812 a motion was made in that House respecting the sine- they had designated the proceedings under the Act in question
cure offices of tellers of the Exchequer. The object of the as the job of jobs.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for
motion was to call the attention of the House to the Montrose had said that it was impossible, in his opinion, to ask
enormous emoluments which were derived for services for a repeal of the Act of Parliament under which these corn-
performed by deputy ; and what did Mr. Horner say on pensations had been granted, and he went on to say that these
that occasion ? He gave it as his decided opinion that compensations were in his opinion irrevocable. It had been
in such cases the offices were vested interests, and however far openly stated that the objection of the Committee sought for
economy was stretched, vested interests were always sacred, was to inculpate the projectors of the Bill. Now that ex-
and therefore these offices should remain untouched. pression showed that they had prejudged the question; they
In those sentiments Mr. Tierney and Mr. Ponsonby clearly had said that it was " the job of jobs." He (Sir James
concurred, and the motion for the reduction of the enormous Graham) had the greatest possible respect for the Lord Chan-
emoluments in the sinecure offices were rejected. Now he cellos., and he was quite satisfied that his conduct in this
(the Attorney-General) was willing to call for the matter was pure and irreproachable; that had, in fact, been
same principle to be applied to this question. The proved by the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend the At.
offices of these clerks were established in 1592, torney-General. The Hon. Member for Coventry (Mr.
and there had been no diminution in the Williams) had asked what right had the Chancellor of the
fees from the year 1743 down to the time of the abolition of Exchequer, when this Bill was introduced in 1844, to antici-
the offices. It had been said that Lord Lyndhurst had reduced pate that the amount of compensation would be so great as it
the fees before they abolished the fees. That was not so. All turned out to be? He Sir (James Graham) would have given
Lord Lyndhurst did, was to prevent the sworn clerks receiving the same answer as had been given by his Right Hon. Friend,
attendance fees in cases where no attendance was required. viz., that the precise amount of the fees had not been then as-
It was quite true, that at the time of the abolition of these certained. He certainly was not aware at the time that this
offices there were only twenty-five remaining out of sixty Act passed that the amount of compensation would be so large.
clerks, and five or six of these engrossed the greater part of —( Hear, hear.) But he did not think that was the question
the business. In answer to the objection of his Learned before the House when the measure was passed. The ques-
Friend, it was perfectly notorious that the persons who pos- tion for consideration was, were these compensations just in
sensed these offices were in the habit of disposing of their principle ?—(Hear, hear.) This Bill came down from the
business and transferring it to others ; and this was so well un- other House of Parliament with the highest possible authority.
derstood,
that every one looked upon the matter as they would An inquiry in reference to the fees was conducted by the
theupon any other bargain or sale. His Learned Friend said that Master of the Rolls, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr.
thetAbca Act was
s4wia9tl
atewhs
awdosai
frsceaGccatoeet
onrdart
contrary
yageraty:
oni tlstot. tethhubee
tebs
salet
ah n (theda
on
GfdAt
ob6tffittoohcrfensoEef
connected
ewrendcaetrerdvadliV)ld. e
nai ne dd
tPoetmhbaetrbtorannLcheiogfht.heTshuobs
jeecCtor
amnidsshioenwerass gi
informed
vf
oe r ve edr, ya an tdt erne tai ny
with Thatthe
threebelieved,
ttimes
ethat
beforethe it draftea came
ef
dtohwenßfri
from
was h alteredthe
other
House.an and
When
hend
execution and administration of justice ; but these offices were the Bill was introduced, the Lord Chancellor was ill, and could
not of that description. Besides, the offices of the clerks, ac- not attend to his duties in the House of Lords, and he, there-
cording to
rteoeegthneise4dtha,s ssthafeaahnlde. 6thlfotfhWe illeiaamriteldv.bwenertelemdiasn- fßouret,
tlhiaedßniolit
wchasarignetro
Id look to the Ist of Victoria, chap. 30, he would find Langdale, and the. questleot endi nt
obt the other
hoeth erconsideredMaster Houseof taohsfe Pwßaborellltisba,me
whether
Lord
offices much more closely connected with the administration of principle on which those compensations were to be granted was
justice which were saleable. According
to this Act, the seve- Just or unjust. This Bill laid down certain principles. In
ral offices referred to, and which were connected with the the Exchequer case seven-eighths of the fees which had
Court of Queen's ench, were all saleable, Here there been taken for a number of years formed the basis of
were offices more closely connected with the admi- compensation, but in this Bill the minimum was fixed, not at
nistration of justice than those of the six clerks, seven-eighths, but at three-fourths. A discretionary power
which were distinctly stated to be saleable.—( Hear.) was given to the Lord Chancellor to limit, strictly by Act of
(The lion. and Learned Gentleman then quoted from a Pam- Parliament the amount of compensation to three-fourths of the
phlet, in which the doctrine was laid down that these six clerks amount of fees that had been received in the three preceding
had a right to sell their claim for compensation.) The author years. He remembered during the progress of the Bill, and he
had not any interest in making the statement; be wrote the was sure the Hon. Member for Montroae (Mr. Hume) would
without
not
the
work to show the abuse which these sworn clerks were who also well remember, a discussion that took place about a particu-
received an enormous salary for absolutely doing nothing. He lar gentleman whom the Bill would affect.—(Hear, hear.)
stated thatiit was a recognised right among the profession to sell And if he mistook not the lion. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C.
question
tl d. repeat
their good will, they had also a right to compensation.—(Hear, Buller) said a clause should be inserted in the Bill for his pro..
hear.) He understood that cheer, and he was ready to meet tection. The Bill did not pass through theintHo,ouwsaes
it ; he apprehended that fair compensation would be that kind ample discussion and consideration, and he would again say that
which would be commensurate with the former receipts of the there was nothing of novelty inpitalicee,Btilhle, andfees he would
office. Many of these gentlemen had nett incomes of 10,8791., that what the Commissioners had to inquire
8,0001., and 7,0005., and they should net adopt amount of the fees, but the justice of the principle laid down in
an_ arbitrary principle with reserenceno compensation.—( Hear.) the Bill. Assuming, now, for a moment that the fees heretofore
He would wish to call attention to information given to the received were legal fees, he could not conceive anything more
public by the House of Commons, when Lord Lyndhurst en- good than the principle laid down in the Act. Now, this
nsr—r
of
f( Httheoeartichiehnegarsdtoa)mt—and he
deavoured to introduce reform into the Court of Chancery. brought him to the leitghaltihtye
poteofeptshuelarfteeifoee
nnoof were
Upon that occasion, a memorial was presented by the attornies thought that it was on that point that this debate mainly hung.
practising in that Court, praying for reform in thisdepartment, —( Hear.) But, in the first
and the Lord Chancellor appointed a_committee, who reported fixed by the Lord Chancellor ardwicke,H if he mistook
upon the necessity of abolishing these offices of the six clerks and the year 1843. The fees were reviewed by the Lord Chan-
sixtyln clerks, and asked the Law Association to suggest some cellos Erskine in the Theyear .1807, and he believed that some of
practical means of doing so. The most careful andthmiastAurcet tthbeosmewaearaertsrebdaduc,edw.
business
consideration was given to this Act by the learned persons who business of the Courts a Chancery. But the hoesi etee
were appointed on that Commission, and every clause in
received their most careful attention. t was considered ex- increased since that period. The legality of those feeskingdom,
lv desirable that a measure of this description should peered to him to be established in a most remarkable ap-
treme manner.
have the attention of the nobleman who had presided for some They were legal by prescription and usage in the Courts of
• h great distinction in the Lord Chancellor's Chancery from day to day, and their legality was placed
years with beyond
Court. Some correspondence had passed on the sub- all doubt. The Commissioners that had been -
appointed had
to the tellers, and he could come to the determination that the
ject of compensation amount of compensation
House the lastshould be less than three-fourths
not do better than read to the not
two letters which had passed between them on the subject. ceived in the three preceding years. In no case had the Lcrd
He had the sanction of Lord Cottenham, and of the other law Chancellor a discretion by the Bill of fixing the amount
lords in the other House, who had made no objection to the of compensation to a certain extent. In no case did the Lord
Bill. The Bill came down from then,onseaLords w•th the Chancellor give the full amount of the fees received ; in every
unanimous sanction of that House. If there had been anything case, without exception, his award was the minimum sane-
improper in the clauses of the Bill, the Government would tioned by the Act of Pari ameht. When this Act passed, if he
The Hon. Member for mistook not, the fees in question amounted
never have given their consent to it.
Montrose had stated that he approved of the principle and the were rapidly increasing.—(Hear.) The effect
produced by this
to eradicate
details of the measure. Every Member of the House was a Act of Parliament was
niatugdreat abuse—a most for -
party
in its ma
party to that Act of Parliament, The Act expressly provided midable abuse—bothe and extent; and the
77 000/ 40
of fees were reduced from , • 00
that the six clerks should receive compensation to the extent , 0/. per annum. The
and the other clerks amount of compensation was certainly large, but
not less than three-fourths of their income, not too large,
e feeble vested rights
tion to an extent not exceeding two- for the fees wer ,as he believed them to
were to receive remuneration
important that have been. The compensation, as he had clearly •
thirds of their regular income. It was rather said, had been
they sht.uld look a little into the matter for the precedents reduced, and, in the course for greatly
1836 it was first pro- this compensation would be entirely extinguished.
the course they had adopted. In the year
ing these salutary legal reforms, they h
posed to abolish the office of six clerks. The Bill was passed,_
.ould take especial
to violate the just rights (A'
and there was a legislative permission granted for the sale and care not any parties.—( Hear.) He
purchase of these offices. By the 6th and 7th William IV., 's view this •
would not take a lawyer on subject, but he was most
cap. 74, the officers were allowed to dispose of their offices for anxious that law expenses should be diminished. He was,
of however, of opinion, that they could '
a pecuniary consideration, and they received a sum not, consistent
VON, for the reversion of their offices. They were with public
opinion, effect these legalreforms
by
whatever o
pensioned off with the full amount of the annual emoluments inflicting any IntittrYu lunccent parties who

had established rights ; and in this case the parties who were
in the receipt of compensation, were justly entitled to a rea-
sonable compensation. If the fees were large, (and, if they
pleased, exorbitant), it was necessary that the principles of
compensation should he large also. In reference to the itis
quiry of fees generally, upon another occasion, he, for one,
should not object to the Committee.—(Hear, hear.) But
if the declared object of this motion was to inculpate the
conduct of the present holder of the Great Seal—( Cries of
" No, no," )—he was certainly prepared to vote against them.
He (Sir James Graham) denied that the conduct of the Noble
Lord wtis anything but pure and irreproachable in this matter.
He
denied, too, in the most distinct terms that this was a job.
He believed, on the contrary, that it was carried out on sound
and righteous principles. He was of opinion, too, that by
this Act an immense abuse had been removed, and he did not
deprecate
this discussion, because it would, no doubt, tend to
Lo
set the conduct of his Noble Friend the
before the public, although he had been Chancellor right
rd
dealt harshly with on
the present subject. He was certain that the conduct of that
illustrious personage had been perfectly pure and disinterested
throughout the whole matter.—( of the Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. BARING was prepared
to vote for the Committee,
though he did not thereby intend to impeach the conduct of the
Lord Chancellor in the slightest
respect. He conceived that
the argument of the Hon. and LearnedAttorney-General was
perfectly untenable. He had no hesitation in stating that the
Treasury was an efficient check in the framing of that mea-
sure.—( Hear, hear.) He would ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, whether the eighteen compensation clauses had
received the sanction of the Treasury ? ( Hear, hear.) It was
absurd to say that the House was responsible for the passing of
this Bill of eighteen clauses, brought in at the
end ofe the ses-
sion, and passed in a week. The Treasury tsy
sible.— ( Hear, hear.) The public looked at the measure with-
extreme jealousy, and he thought it should be a warning to
the House not to interfere in compensation cases.a
He thought
the most satisfactory course would be to appoint Committee.eas
Sir J. GRAHAM stated, in explanation, that the'r
had no control whatever over the Suitors' Fund; that the wholeury
management rested with the Keeper of the Seals.
Mr. C. BULLER considered it unjust to plunder those per
sons of the compensation which had been awarded to them by
Act of Parliament. Lord Lyndhurst, when he came into
office, acted in the spirit of true reform, and
being desirous of placing the law courts on a bet-
ter footing, he referred the matter to a Committee,
composed of gentlemen who reflected honour on their profes •
sion by their conduct—conduct which he wished to God he
could see imitated by gentlemen of his branch cf the profession
—the common law. They were not actuated by any desire to
benefit themselves—there was no party feeling displayed on the
occasion, and he hoped there would be none upon the present.
The real question for the House to decide was the amount of
compensation to be given. The only course which the Com-
mittee thought they could adopt in discharging their public
duty was to inquire as to the amounts usually given by the
House. They looked over all the Acts of Parliament on the
subject, and they found that the usual ratio of compensation was
three-fourths of the amount of salary received. They could
not, therefore, be considered as acting wrong when they awarded
as a minimum this rate of compensation. This sum was not so
much as had been awarded by Lord Cottenham in compensa-
tion to the clerks in the Court of Exchequer. The Act upon
that occasion stated that the compensation was to be at the rate
of not less than three-fourths of the salary, whereas Lord Cot-
tenham actually awarded seven-eighths ; and in the average of
salaries they threw out of the account altogether bad debts.
The Lord Chancellor, in the instance before the House,
gave three-fourths of net profit, after deducting
bad debts. ( The Honourable Member here entered into
some calculations with respect to confiscations, which he said
thought it would be impossible for him, even though possessed
of all the mathematical knowledge of Newton himself, to make
clearly understood by the Hon. Member (Mr. Watson). He
then went on to say that it was a scandalous thing that those
places should have been allowed to be saleable, and that Govern-
ment should then turn round and attempt to deprive of compen-
sation those parties who had purchased those places under their
sanction. These persons had a perfect right to rely on the
legality of the fees they were allowed by the court, and no one
had ever contested their legality. The sanction of law had
been given to them in as decisive a way as if they had been
embodied in an Act of Parliament. He considered that if
they repealed the Act—if they adopted the resolution of
his Honourable Friand, they would be doing a grievous injustice.
He was certainly of opinion that the levying of these fees upon
the suitors in the court was most burdensome and unjust, and
was a grievance which should hardly be allowed to exist for
him to denounce in 1846. He could not see an argument for
the fee system ; it was introduced first in order to pay the ex-
penses of work and labour, and offer an inducement that it
might be done expeditiously, but as that system was done away
with there could not be any pretence for continuing it longer.
He was sorry ;for trespassing so long upon the House,` but,
differing in his opinions upon the subject from those on his side
of the House, he thought it his duty to come forward and state
his opinions frankly to the House.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted
that the time was coming when these fees would be entirely
done away with, and justice would be rendered cheap and ac-
cessible to the people.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. B. ESCOTT had listened to the debate with the
greatest satisfaction, and especially to the statement of his
Right Hon. Friend, that the Government were determined
not to resist inquiry into these abominable extortions. The
question was one of great public importance, and he could
wish that nothing, of a personal nature would be mixed up in
it. He thought the Right Honourable the Attorney- General
(differing as he did with him in most of his opinions)
had proved one thing, namely, that the Lord Chancellor
had only acted in strict accordance with the Act.
When this Committee was granted the principle under which
compensations were granted must be considered. No one yet
defined the legal principle of compensation. It had been
stated by the Attorney-General and the Member for Lis-
keard that these offices were estates, and for that reason were
offered for sale in the masket. He never heard of such abuses
as were connected with these offices, and if the judges sanc-
tioned the sale of them, it was high time for that House to
put an end to such a system. It was said that the motion must
not be granted, because it would interfere with an Act of Par-
liament. He would vote for it, because it repealed the Act of
Parliament, and because it would have the effect of repealing
many of those abuses which at present existed in the courts of
law. He denied the legality of these fees, and he would like
that question to be tried in a court of law. He would ask the
Attorney-General, if they were legal, why were they reduced?
—( Hear, hear.) The very fact of these officers submitting to
the reduction, proved that they did not rest upon a legal founda-
tion. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said
that it was a novel course to reconsider the question of compen-
sation when it had been already decided upon by that House.
It wasa novel practice he admitted, and it was only a novel pro-
ceeding which would put an end to the abuses which were a
stain on the ermine of the Judges who presided in those courts.
Mr. R. YORKE was now, as on former occasions,of opinion
that the subject was a very fit one for re-consideration. It
came before the House at a period when it was extremely thin,
the Members present varying from 27 to 50, and when the Go-
vernment were hurrying on measures with railroad rapidity.
He himself acquired all the knowledge he then obtained on the
Bill from the gentlemen who were promoting it.—( Laughter.)
Mr. ROMILLY said that the mode of collecting the fees in
the Court of Chancery was one to which no responsibility was
attached ; there was no check whatever upon the persons em-
ployed in their collection. He, therefore, contended that the
system was one which should be inquired into, with a view to
its abolition. With regard to the other part of the motion, he
thought it most impolitic. The House had decided upon it
already, and though it was done hastily and without due consi-
deration, the question could not now with any degree of justice
be re-considered. It would be a monstrous thing, after the
lapse of five years, to reverse that decision, but he must say that
the compensation was excessive. He should, however, vote
for the motion, believing as he did that it would result in alter-
ations with regard to the system of fees which would be benefi-
cial to the courts of law themselves as well as the country at large.
Sir J. HANMER supported the motion.
Sir R. PEEL said it was the wish of the Government that
there should be a full and efficent inquiry into the payment of
those who held such offices, and for also checking abuses in
their payments. He was against that system which gave to
persons a rate of compensation far greater than they were en
titled to. When he was Secretary of State for Ireland, he
was much struck with the very heavy rate of compensation
which was given to those who had held offices, and which were
really sinecures. But he felt that they would be cramping very
much the means of reforming the abuses complained of, if
they were to adopt such a spirit as would make those, from
whom the information was to had, feel that they were about
to be injured by any steps to be taken. This he felt to be the
case, from his acquaintance with such matters while Secretary
of State for Ireland. They received from such persons informa-
tion, which, if they were to understand that they were to suffer
by the inquiry, they would not receive. There was a great
abuse in giving over-compensation to those officers. They were
giving such an amount as the House would not give to the officers
of the Crown—such as they would not give to their own Speaker.
He could assure the House there was no objection on the
part of the Government for a strict and searching inquiry,
and they only had an objection to the mode by which it was
proposed to be made. He could not agree to any inquiry
into those compensations given by the Lord Chancellor, for
he had given them on the gronnd of an Act of Paaliament, and
he ( Sir Robert Peel) had the greatest confidence in his
Noble and Learned Friend's jadgment and impartiality. For
fifty years previous to 1839, there had been given a remunera-
tion far above what the justice of the cases merited ; and the
Hon. Member who brought on this Bill spoke of those great
abuses as if they were chargeable to the Lord Chancellor.
This House recorded by an Act the sale of those professional
offices, or at least passed an Act which made remuneration the
right of the parties ; and this was acted upon.bv one of the
most faultless Lord Chancellors of Ireland—he meant Lord Plun-
kett. The Act of Parliament provided such a compensation as
would allow men of honourable characters and acquirements to
take such offices. They had abolished sinecures where there might
have been some excuse found for continuing them, but they had
allowed abuses to exist where there was no public claim—
where, in fact, there was nothing like a claim to support them.
—(Hear, hear.) When it was recollected that in this case
the Lord Chancellor gave the minimum of what Parliament
allowed, it could not be said that he had acted contrary to
what could be expected. In the year 1840 the Act was
brought in by Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and that Act was not
brought in without notice, and it was not passed by that
House in a partial manner ; and what was it that could be
found fault with in its powers? Let them propose such an in-
quiry in a manner that would not reflect upon the Lord Chan-
cellor, and he would promise, on the part of the Government,
their cordial co-operation in enacting a law for the future.
After a few words from Mr. WATSON, stranger were
ordered to withdraw, when there appeared to be
For the motion
Against it
Majority

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings or the House of Commons.)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 6.
The following Petitions for Railways were reported, and the Bills
ordered to be brought in by the undernamed Hon. Members :
Newcastle and Batlington Junction (Durham and Sunderland Rail-
way and Wearmouth Dock Parchase)—Mr. Liddell, Mr. Hinde, and
Mr. Hudson.
Midland (Leicester and Svrannington Railway vesting)—Mr. Packe,
Mr. Farnham, and Mr. Mundy.
London, Salisbury, and Yeovil Junction (Salisbury to Tetiril)—Sir
W. Heathcote, Mr. J. Benett, and Mr. Seymer.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 6.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
Order for Committee read ; Motion made, and Question proposed,
" That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair:"—Amendment pro-
posed, to leave cut from the word " That" to the end of the Ques-
tion, in order to add the words " this Mouse will, upon this day six
months, resolve itself into the said Committee," Instead thereof:—
Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of
the Question." The House divided :
MAJORITY—AYES, 110.
A'Court, Captain Fitzroy, Henry Neville, Ralph
Archbold, Robert Faster, Matthew O'Connell, Daniel
Armstrong, Sir A. Gore, montagoe O'Conor, Don
Arundel, Earl of Goulburn, Henry Ord, William
Bantle, Colonel Graham, Sir J. Pakington, J. S.
Baring, Henry Granger, T. C. Parker, John
Baring, F. T. Greene, Thomas Pechell, Captain
Baring, W. B. Grey, Sir G. Peel, Sir Robert
Barron, Sir H. Grosvenor, Lord R. Peel, Jonathan
Berkeley, Craven Hall, Sir Benjamin Philips, G. B.
Bernal, Ralph Harcourt, G. Plumridge, Captain
Blake, M. J.
Boldero, H. G. Hatton, Captain V. Powell, Caleb
Bowes, John Herbert, Sidney Pusey, P.
Bowles, Admiral Hindley, Charles Rawdon, Colonel
Bowring, Dr. llorsman, E. Roebuck, J. A.
Bretherton, J. Howard, C. W. Russell, Lord T.
Browne, W. Howard, P. 11. Sheridan, R. B. .
Buller, Charles Hughes, W. B.
JjoalmmessOnS,irOWen.eral S2Smmiomittehhrse: jVt.e,ArnL.oornd G.
Busfeild, William
31_311.1 Kelly, Sir
dj
.t:Sh:a;csrE: .
a. Feaaps,irttl
Captain
rofuoi k
if y 0 r Somerville,
Butler, P. S.
Cardwell, Edward
Carnegie, Captain Lambton, H. Strutt, Edward
r,yB3, : :
,S w
.Tjir.
J. S.
Fs
Thomas . .
Christie, IV. D. Lascelles, W. S. Sutton, 11. M.
Collett, John
Williams,
vITTM: ir,
ja
keel° slirialinaeliwi
neyenl
Coote, Sir C. M. Leader, J. T.
Macaulay,Walker, Richard
Cowper, W. F.
T.
n.exander
Craig, W. G.
Crawford, W. S.
.11VVvy°(oLde,1,1:Cuhhsoaemr' Charles
E.
Cripps, W. Wall,. C. B.
Denison, J. E. M'Geachy, F. A.
Dennistoun, John Mahon, Viscount
Maitland, Thomas
Duncan, Viscount
Duncan, George Marsland, Henry Young, John,
Dundas, David Martin, J.
Escott, Bick ham Wines R. Monekton TELLERS.
Esmonde, Sir T. Mitchell, T. A. Watson, Henry
Ewart, William Morpeth, Viscount Manners, Lord J.

MR. SMITH O'BRIEN.
The Hon. PIERCE BUTLER said, that he had given
notice of a motion to the same effect as that upon the paper
from his Hon. Friend the Member for Galway ; but he could
assure the House that he would not have done so had he been
aware that the Hon. Baronet had given notice of such a
motion. He was sorry for the error he had committed, and
begged to apologise for it; but had he been able to bring it on,
he could assure the House he was fully prepared to discuss it.
He would, however, bring on a motion to an effect somewhat
similar on an early day.
Sir C. NAPIER wished to know if the returns he had
moved for in the early part of the session would be laid upon the
table of the House ?
Mr. CORRY said that the returns were in course of prepa-
ration, and would be ready in a few days.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
The Leith Petty Customs Bill, and the Railway Companys
Bill, were ordered to be read a second time.
Mr. AGLION BY wished to know vilLat course was intended
to be pursued with respect to the Salmon Fisheries Bill. It
was of considerable importance to the owners of fisheries in the
country to know.
Mr. FORSTER wished to have a similar question answered.
The Bill had already been two sessions before Parliament and
nothing had been done.
An HON. MEMBER said that he believed that the Bill would
be proceeded with; its object was to give better protection
and facilities to our salmon fisheries.
The 13111 was then read a second time, and the report ordered
to be received; to be read a third time to-morrow.
Act
The second reading of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency
was postponed.
The Committee on the Danish claims was postponed until
the 22d.
The Election Notices (Ireland) Bill was read a second time,
and the report ordered to be received'.
The Reuse adjourned at Eleven