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

2,3001. per annum at the time it was abolished, a compensation
of '2,700/. per annum was awarded to the sinecurist, who was no
less a person than Lord Liverpool. What was more to be la-
mented was, that it was a poll-tax, and no matter whether a
man sued for 20,000/. or 2,0001., he had to pay the same fees.
The Bill was to give compensstion to the six clerks of the
Court of Chancery, who had long been considered a public
nuisance; they received enormous fees, but they were per-
fectly useless, and compensation was given to them for
absolutely. dome nothing. They were old officers, to be sure,
and some of tem were in the receipt of between three
and four hundred a year. He was sure the House would
hardly believe him, when he stated that four of these persons
were enjoying amongst them the enormous amount of 30,000/..
a year.—( Hear, hear.) What could, then, be the meaning of
giving such extravagant compensation? Their business
depended solely upon connexion, but that connexion
was like an attorney's, it might not last five
days, and it might last for ever; but the business transacted
was not worth six days' purelase. The country had a right
to inquire and see how the funds were distributed, and whether
the public money was to be wasted in such an extravagant man-
ner as he had detailed to the House. He would quote to the
House an authority upon this subject which he was sure would
have weight with the House, he would quote Mr. Pemberton
Leigh, who after vainly, for a length of time, endeavouring to
get a return front these gentlemen of their emoluments, they
having refused them for a length of time, had at last given
some lump sums without stating name, or time, or place.
Mr. Pemberton Leigh designated the fees which these
officers received as an iniquitous tax upon the suitors in
Chancery. One gentleman, who was eminent in the Court of
Chancery, had said that when he was doubtful upon a point of
the practice of the Court, he applied to the sworn clerks, and
acted directly the reverse of their advice. One gentleman, in
his evidence before the commission, had stated that the fees to
the sworn clerks were a great tax upon the suitors in Chan-
cery. and the services of the clerks were useless. In fact, one
of the officers was a good clerk when he was a lunatic.
He would now call the attention of the House to what was
called the compensation clause—a clause by which the Lord
Chancellor was enabled to award compensation to officers in
certain cases. At the time of Lord Erskine he had found the
fees of those officers so low that he increased them ; but in 1829
the fees of those officers had so enormously increased, that they
were entitled to fees on every item on the paper ; and
Lord Brougham had seen the enormity of these fees to be se
glaring in the year 1833 that he told them their days were
numbered; but they still remained the same to the present
time. One of those clerks who had been dismissed received
5,4241., and 2,00 W. a-year for attending for a few hours
each day in Chancery-lane. Another, who retired, was a
clerk to a clerk, and he got 4721. a year; and a third,
a young gentleman, only 28 years of age, received fees to the
amount of 5,2041. per annum, besides a salary of 2,000/., mak-
ing a total of 7,204. per annum. Again, there was an agent
who received for compensation alone 1,778/. per annum ; a
waiting clerk received a compensation to the extent of 3441. per
annum ; in fact, altogether the compensations amounted to no
less than 170,000/. annually. The Lord Chief Just ice of England,
the highest dignitary of the law, received under 10,0001 per an-
num, and the Noble individual who now held the office refused
to receive the whole salary, and only took 8,030/., and yet
there were persons, without holding any offic, receiving
7,0001. The First Lord of the Treasury had, on elate occasion,
given to two gallant officers who had distinguished themselves
in the service of their country, pensions of 2,0001. and 3,000/.
while many persons !who had done nothing for it were
receiving the large salaries he had mentioned. The House
ought to come to some resolution, which would submit this
matter to the consideration of a Committee.—(Hear, hear. )
It was the brightest morning that ever dawned in Chancery-
lane, and to all the clerks in a certain law institution there,
for all the flesh and blood, and every human being therein, re-
ceived a good compensation ; and even some of the clerks were
to have one-half of their compensation paid to their friends for
several years after their death, in consequence of the loss of
the influence and services of those gentlemen to the country.
The sale of these office=, therefore, was wholly illegal, and
the persons who held them were not entitled to receive any com-
vensation. No Bill ever travelled with the same railroad velo-
city as the Bill in question did through that House. It came
down from the Lords on the 29th of July, and was read a first
time. On the Monday following--the Ist of August—
it was read a . second time. On the 2d of August
it went through Committee, and on the 3d of
August it was reported and ordered to be re-committed.
The 9th of August, 1842, was a lucky day for the riding clerk,
the waiting clerk, and the agents of the House of Commons,
for on that day their Compensation Bill passed; and how, let
him ask, was this compensation to be calculated? Why, it
was calculated upon the produce of the three yearsduring which
there was the most extraordinary amount of business trans.
acted in the Court of Chancery, and when the equity business
of the Exchequer had been transferred to the Court of Chancery.
The compensation which should be given, according to the
Acts he had cited, was to be only two-thirds of their former
receipts. The examiner was also to inquire into those re-
ceipts. Now he asserted no inquiry had taken place, and how
was this compensation, extravagant as it was, obtained? was levied from the suitors of the Court of Chancery ;
from those who had the misfortune to appear there in order to
have justice done them. Why, it was monstreue.--( Hear,
hear.) Four per cent. was laid upon a
_Bill, without
reference to the amount of the property sought to be'`.
obtained ; after years of anxious and dreary litigation, four
per cent. was laid upon the costs of that cause before
they were bound to pay a shilling. When he first
brought forward his motion, a seduction of twopence
.a folio took place, which, trivial as it appeared to
,be, amounted to 5,0001. out of every 70,000/. One per
cent. had since been taken off, which also • amounted
to one thousand in every seven thou and pounds. --( Hears')
He asked for a Committee to inquire into those- mattere.
He asked the Government to . giant 'that Committee ;
and if he-was asked, teas he ready tb be unjust to these iodise.
viduals? he would say, he was ready to:be so, sooner thansto •
:be unjust-to hundreds and' thpusands who would -be suiters
in the Court of Chancery. He wished that 'this' Com:-
mittee would be granted in order to investigate the matter..
The ATTORNEY-CiENERAL, in answer to the state.
meets of the Hon.' Metiaber'whe 'hed.iest seat down, said his
Hon., and. Learned Friend hatbkd great' advantage- Over
him,. because he,:was the, aisitiltiOg' party; and there: Vas
lalways-sornething excitinginleering &party making a ehitrge,
white+thee arguments of-the party in defence genereliy fell :upoti"dult 'ears.t' 'He (the 'Attorney- General). costists not
hope ...to_ _make... what_ hse, had to say, in answerto the charges of his - trOnourable say.
reiined
Friend at all interesting, alit applied to snatters,of dry law, not
by any means interesting ; but still he would make a demand
on the time of the House, hut he trusted he would be heard with
patience. His Hon. and Learned Friend proposed a Committee
on the very same materials upon which the same motion was
refused by the House in 1844.. New he ( the Attorney-
General) would say that his Hon. and Learned Friend
called upon the House to do an act of gross injustice.
It would be very easy to lead the House to the conclusicn that
the compensation awarded to those holding those offices was
enormous, in ordeeto excite in Hon. Members the notion-that
the motion which the Hon. Member for Kimale proposed
to make, was well founded, and ought to be granted. He
at once took the Hon. Member on that ground, and said
that the question was not - whether the existing emoluments
for these offices were or were- not abuses-. - It was
quite immaterial whether the emolurnent derived from those
offices was in proportion to the services rendered by, tbose, who
possessed them. Those offices had been established a number
of years ; they were vested interests, and if they desired to re-
form them, they were bound to give the possessors -the fullest
compensation. His Hon. and Learned Friend would not
consieer it any disparagement if he considered that the opi-
nions of a 'better reformer were against him oh this subject,
In 1812 a motion was made in that House respecting the sine-
cure offices of tellers of the Exchequer. The object of the
motion Was te call• the attention of thee-House Au the
enormous emoluments which were derived for servioea
performed by deputy ; and what did Mr. Horner say On
that occasion ? He gave it as his decided opinion that
in such cases the offices were vested interests, and however far
economy was stretched, vested interests were always sacred,
and therefore these offices should remain untouched.
In those sentiments Mr. Tierney and Mr. Ponsonby clearly
concurred, and the motion for the reduction of the enormous
emoluments in the sinecure offices were rejected. Now he
(the Attorney-General) was willing to call for the
sane principle to be applied to this question. The
offices of these clerks were established in 1592,
and there had been no diminution in the
fees from the year 1743 down to the time of the abolition of
the offices. It had been said that Lord Lyndhurst had reduced
the fees before they abolished the fees. That was not so. All
Lord Lyn-ihurst did, was to prevent the sworn clerks receiving
attendance fees in caves where no attendance was required.
It was quite true, that at the time of the abolition of these
offices there were only twenty-five remaining out of sixty
clerks, and five or six of these engrossed the greater part of
the business. In answer to the objection of his Learned
Friend, it was perfectly notorious that the persons who pos.
sessed these offices were in the habit of disposing of their
business and transferring it to others; and this was so well un- m
derstood, that every one looked upon the matter as they would
upon any other bargain or sale. His Learned Friend said that
the sale was contrary to the sth and 6th of Edward VI. and
the 49th of George 111. He (the Attorney-Get.eral) denied
that it was contrary to the sth and 6th of Edward VI. That
Act was directed against the sale of offices connected with the
execution and administration of justice ; but these offices were
nut of that description. Besides, the offices of the clerks, ac-
cording to the 4th, sth, and 6th of William IV., were die.
tinctly recognised as saleable. If the Learned Gentleman
would look to the Ist of Victoria. chap. 30, he would find
offices much more closely connected with the administration of
justice which were saleable. According to this Act, the aevee

ral offices referred to, and which were connected with the
Court of Queen's Bench, were all saleable. Here there

were offices more closely connected

with the atlmi:

saleable.—( Hear )
which were distinctly setnattleedb. -
to
then quoted from a pain_
(The Hon. and Leearn
doctrinedG was laid down that
psewnosarntio
cill'erkswere who
these six clerks
nistration of justice than thoose
be
ef the six clerks,
phlet, in which the
_.
) The author
• terest in making the statement
had not any in
; he wrote the
LyonsotP,osseeelsi
work to show
received an enormous salary for absolutely doing nothing. Hie
stated thatit;eit
uwnadsearsrteocoodgtnhissetdoriiigoehrt,aamrodnghethweapstorf:asds.
their good will, they had also a right to compensation -( Hear,
had a right
wtothseellatbhuesireewlahimichforthceosme
hear. )
it ; he apprehended that fair compensation vvo"'d be that kind
which would be commensurate with the fn "..
office. Many of these gentlemen had • r.mer receipts of the
nett incomes of 10,879!.,
8,000/., and 7,000/., and they should net adopt
an arbitrary principle with referencel
He would wish to call attention to oe"e"ation.
compensation.—.(Hear.
public by the House of C the information given to t
Jmmons. when Lord Lyndhurst en-
deavoured to introduce reform into the Court of
Upton that occasion Chancery,
2 a memorial was
presented by the attornies
practising in that Uourt, praying for reform in this department,
and the Lord Chancellor
appointed a Committee who reorted
upon the necessity ofabolThof fthe six clerks and
is ing thee o es o
sixty clerks, and asked the Law Association to suggest some
practical means of doing so. The most careful d mature
consideration • •
was given to this Act b learned ersons who
were appointed on that Commission, and ythe
every clause in this Act
received their most careful attention. It was considered ex-
tremely desirable that a measure of this description should
have the attention of the nobleman who had presided for some
years with great distinction in the Lord Chancellor's
Court. Some correspondence had passed on the sub-
ject of compensation to the tellers, and he could
not d,r better than read to the House the last
two letters which had passed between them on the sublect.
He had the sanction of Lord Cottenham, and of the other law
lords in the other House, who had made no objection to the
Bill. The Bill came down- from the House of Lords w.th the
unanimous sanction of that House. If there had been anything
improper in the clauses of the Bill, the Government would
never have given their consent to it. The Hon. Member for
Montrose had stated that he approved of the principle and the
details of the measure. Every Member of
the House was a
party to that Act of Parliament. The Act expressly provided
that the six clerks should receive compensation to the extent of
not less than three-fourths of their income, and the other clerks
were to receive remuneration to an extent not exceeding two-
thirds of the:r regular income. It was rather important that
they sht eld leok a little into the matter for the precedents for
the course they had adopted. In the year 1836 it was first pro-
lerks. The Bill was passed,
posed to abolish the office of six c
and there was a legislative permission granted for the sale and
purchase of thee - offices. By the 6th *and 7th William IV.,
cap. 74, ...
the officers were allowed to dispose of their offices for
a pecuniary
consideration, and they received a sum of
4,000/. for the reversion of their offices. They were
pensioned off with the 1141 %MIMI of the althea emolument&