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

CHANNEL ISLANDS.

In reply to a question from Mr. ROEBUCK
Sir J. GRA HAM said that a commission had been issued for
the purpose of making inquiries into the administration of
law in the Channel Islands, and that he should have no objec-
tion to lay the Commissioners' report upon the table of the
House.

Dr. BOWRING said there was another island to which he
wished to call the attention of the Right Hon. Baronet, and
he wished to know whether he was prepared to de the same
thing with regard to the Isle of Man?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM.—No.
_ _

Mr. AGLIONI3Y said that in the absence of the Hon.
Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller), he would give notice
that that Hon. Member would, on Thursday fortnight, move
for copies of correspondence relating to New Zealand.

THE NELSON MONUMENT.
Mr. J. COLLETT said he asked a question in the early
part of the session of the Noble Lord opposite relative to the
state of the Nelson monument, and when it was likely to be
finished, and he was then told that a satifactory answer might
be expected in about three months. Since that period three
months and a half had elapsed, but the boarding of the
monument still remained in the same state.
The Earl of LINCOLN answered the question in so low a
tone as to be scarcely audible in the gallery ; but he was ut der-
stood to say, that at the time he gave the answer alluded to, he
did expect a satisfactory answer to the question would be given
at the time stated, but since then he had not been able to as-
certain what had been done ; but he had reason to expect
that the work would have been completed within the time
stated.

TAXATION OF SUITORS.
Mr. WATSON moved for a Select Committee to inquire
into the nature and extent of the taxation of suitors by the col-
lection of fees in the courts of law and equity, and the applica-
tion of such fees, and the compensations paid to retired officers
of these courts, and into the propriety of the continuance
thereof ; and particularly to inquire into the orders for com-

pensation made by the Lord Chancellor to the persons filling
a'
oerthe offices of clerk of the enrolment, comptrollers of han
riding clerk, six clerks, sworn clerks, waiting clerks, and
others, under the Act 5 and 6 Vic. c. 103, and to inquire into
the nature, duties, and emoluments of those officers before
the passing of that Act, and their right to compensation dur-
ing life and for seven years after the death of such person.
In making this motion, he said he did so in consideration of
the manner in which suitors in the courts of justice
were so enormously taxed, and in which the most
outrageous compromises often took place. Now, contrary
to every principle of justice, there was no suitor in the Court
of Chancery and no suitor in any other of the Courts who was
not subjected to very heavy taxation. There were no less
than from 300 to 400 persons who were employed in collecting
fees in the Courts of Equity. Some of these fees went to the
consolidation fund and some to the officers in the
Courts, but no step whatever could be taken unless
the fees were paid, and it was impossible to
obtain redress otherwise. The House would be surprised also
to learn that there was no check or control, or scarcely any,
over the collectors. Some of them were certainly bound by
oath, but there were others who were not. A great many
officers were paid by fees only, and the only guarantee with re-
gard to the collectors of these fees was the honesty of the
persons. What he asked for, therefore, was a Committee to in-
quire into this system, which he considered a most objectionable
one. The next pointhe wished to call attention to was, whether it
was right to tax suitors at all. There might be no fear enter-
tained that by the abolition of these taxes law would become
toot cheap, for in this country there was very little chance of
that. In the year 1843 to 1844 the fund called the Suitors'
Fee
Fund amounted to 97,000/. There was also a sum of
money amounting to 155' 000, , which was paid in taxes into
the Court of Chancery. Altogether there was from 300.0001.
to 400,000/.
0,0001., which went to the salaries to officers connected with
the court, and a sum of 29
Conso-
lidated Fund, amounting alt 410,0001. of which was a o
g
e
ther to upwards of 600,00')/.,
directwh tax upon the suitors,
aitnd
was tchoellectreed by persons
stataz'
over
This was a monstrous su, upon the country at large.
m, but what was still more monstrous,
he asked the House fora em there was no check, and
principle ought not to be Committee,discontinued.—.(
to consider whether this
was one individual in the Court of
mued.—( Hear, hear.) There
sinecure of 7,700/. a year, another who held a sinecure of Queen's Bench who held a
5,4961. a year; and there were
from that sum to 2,000/. a year.
there was formerly a sinecure of .som
office was that of the prothonotary
numerousi others, varying
In the Lancaster Court
annel2,9". a year. The
individual from 1791 up to a very rec'entperiod.its held by one
It
ever, abolished, and although the fees 9 was, how-
mod as,
only
0