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

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 tho applica-
tion of such fees, and the compensations paid to retired officers
of those 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 tilling
the offices of clerk of the enrolment, comptrollers of hansper,
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 le-s
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 tie officers in the
Courts, but no step whatever could, be taken unless
till 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 mostobjectienahle
one. The next point he 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
too 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 97,0 T;0/. here 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,t)00/. paid in salaries to officers connected with
the court, and a sum of 293,0001., which went to the Conso-
lidated Fisnd, arnountine. altogetherict re to upwards of 600,00
4'll),(Md
/. of which was a tax upon the suitors,
the
and the rest a tax upon
country at large.
This was a monstrous sum, but what as still more monstrous,
it was collected by persons over whom there was no check, and
he asked tl e House for a Committee, to consider whether this
principle ought not to be discontinued.—( Hear, hear.) There
was one individual in the Court of Queen's Bench who held a
sinecure of 7,700!. a year, another who held a sinecure of
5,4961. a year; and there: were numerous others, varying
from that sum to 2,0001. a year. In the Lancaster Court
there
was formerly a sinecure of some 2.000/. a year. The
office was that of the prothonotary , and it was held by one
) individual from 1791 up to a very recent period. -
ever, abolished, and although the fees collected were only

2,3001. per annum at the time it was abolished, a compensation
of 2,7001. per annum was awarded to the sinecurist, who was no
less a person tban Lord Liverpool. What was more to be la-
mented eras, 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 compensation to the six clerks of the
Court of Chancery, who had long been considered a public
nui-iance ; they received enormous fees, but they were per-
fectly useless, and compensation was given to them for
absolutely doing nothing. They were old officers, to be sure,
and some of them were in the receipt of between three
and four hundred a year. He was sure the Home 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
itepended 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' purel ase. The country had a right
t?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 from these gentlemen of their emoluments, they
having refused them for a lengtn 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, wt a 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 the it advice. One gentleman, in
his evidence before the commission, had stated that the fees to
!he 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 offic,rs was a good clerk when he was a lunatic.
He would now call the attention of the House to what was

called the compensati,n 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 1819
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 as
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
5,424/., and 2.00'. a-year for attending for a few hours
each day in Ch ,ncery-lane. Another, who retired, was a
clerk to a clerk, and he got 472/. 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 170,0001. annually. The Lord Chief Justice of England,
the highest dignatary of the law, received under 10,0001 per an•
num, mid the Noble individual who now held the office refused

to receive the whole salary, and only took 8,°301., and yet
there were persons, without holding any office, receiving
7,000.'. 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/.
whil, 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 heir 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 thi se office., therefore, was wholly illegal, and

the persons who held them were not entitled to receive any come
sensation. No Bill ever travelled with the same railroad veto-
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 Mon lay 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 Augusi, 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 years during 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? It
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 monstrous.-4 Hear,
hear.) Four per cent. was hid upon a Bill, without
reference to 'he amount of the property sought to be
obtained ; after years of anxious and dreary liiigatinn, four
per cent. was laid upon the costa of that cause before
they were bound to pay a shilling. When he first
brought forward his motion, a seduction of twopence
a fells took place, which, trivial as it. appeared to
be, amounted to 5,0001. out of every 70,0001. One per
cent, hail since been taken' off, which also amounted
to one thousand in every seven thousand pounds.—( Hear. )
He asked for a Committee to inquire into those matters.
He asked the Government to grant that Committee;
and if he was asked, was he ready to be unjust to these indi-
viduals? he would say, he was ready to be so, sooner than to
be unjust to hundreds and thousands who would be suiters
in the Court of Chancery. lie wished that this Com-
mittee would be .ranted in order to investigate the matter.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in answer to the state-
ments of the Hon. Member who had just sat down, said his
Hon. and Learned Friend had had a great advantage over
him, because he, was the assaulting party; and there was
always something exciting in hearing a party making a charge,
while the - arguments of the party in defence generally fell
upon dull ears. He (the_ Attorney-General) could not
Lope to make what he had to say in answer
to the charges of his Honourable and Learned
Friend at all interesting, as it applied to matters 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
patieiwe. 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
mot mous, in order to excite in Hon. Members the notion that
the motion which the Hon. Member for Kinsale proposed
to make, was well founded, and ought to be granted. He
at once took the lion. Member on that ground. and said
that the question was nut whether the existing emoluments
for these offices Avere or were not abuses. It was
quite immaterial whether the emolument derived from those
offices was in proportion to the services rendered by those 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 b ,und to give the possessors the fullest
compensation. His Hon. and Learned Friend would not
consit er it any disparagement if he considered that the opi-
nions of a better reformer were against him on this subject,
In 11312 a motion was made in that House respecting the sine-
cure offices of tellers of the Exchequer. The abject of the
motion was to call the attention of the House to the
enormous. emoluments which were derived for services
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
e,noluments in the sinecure offices were rejected. Now he
(the Attorney-General) was willing to call for the
same 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 bad been said that Lord Lyndhurst had reduced
the fees before they abolished the fees. That was not so. All
Lord [este hurst did, was to prevent the sworn clerks receiving
attendance fees in cases 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
.h.. business. In answer to the objection of his Learned
Friend, it was perfectly notorious that the persons who pos.
ses.ed three offices were in the eabit of disposing of their
business and transferring it to others; and this was so well un-
derstoed, 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 Attornev-General) 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
not of that description. Besides, the offices of the clerks, ac-
cording to the 4th, sth, and 6th of William IV., were dis-
tinctly recognised as saleslee. If the Learned Gentleman
sits'ea:teosmarnteininctle?rks were who
would look to the Ist of Victoria, chap. 30, he would find
offices much more closely connected with the administrat:on of
justice which were saleable. According to this Act, the seve-
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 admi-
nistration of justice than those of the six clerks,
which were d.tinctly stated to be saleable Hear.)
(The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then quoted from a
The author
pam-
phlet, in which the doctrine was laid down that these six clerks
he wrote the
gsahhnotywt oi
nttsheeerl
el
sattbh
abuse
inisre cmlwaahikmit fgo rtthhceoesnei
received an enormous salary for absolutely doing nothing.He
stated tha%it was a recognised right among the sell
hhwanddr knaotroti
their good will, they had also a right to compensation.—(profession
hear.) He understood that cheer, he was
Hear,meet
and
it ; he apprehended that fair compensation woausldrlesae tyli to
kin
which would be commensurate with the formerw of the
offise. Many of these gentlemen had receipts
nett incomes of 10,879!,
8,0091., and 7,000/., and they should net adopt
an arbitrary principle with reference t o compensation. Hear. )
---f
He would wish to call att •
on to the information given to the
Commons.
public by the House of
when Lord Lyndhurst en-
deavoured to introduce reform into the Court of Chancery.
Ueen that oceagions a memorial was presented by the attornies
praying for reform practising in that Court, in this dairar tments
and the Lord Chancellor
appointed
t a
Committee, who. reported
upon the necessity of abolishing these offices of the six clerks and
sixty clerks, and asked the Law Association to suggest some
practical means of doing so. The most careful and mature
consideration was given to this Act by the learned persons who
were appointed on that Commission, and every clause in this Act
received their most careful attention. it was considered ev-
tremely desirable that a measure of this description should
have the attention of the nobleman who had presided for some
Sears with great distinction in the Lord Chancellor's
Court. Some correspondence had passed on the sub'
jest of compensation to the tellers, and he could
not do better than read to the House the last
two letters which had passed between them on the subject.
He had the sanction of Lord Cottenham, and of the other 10
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
unanimouskaanction of that House. If there had been anythil
improper in the clauses of the Bill, the Government wet;l's
never have given their consent to it. The Hon. Member
.14'
Montrose had stated that he approved of the principle and
details of the measure. Every Member of the House W”_d
party to that Act of Parliament The Act expressly prevT*.j
that the six clerks should receive compensation to the extentclerks
were less than three-fourths of their income, and the other cl
were to receive remuneration to an extent not exceeding
tbst
two-
thirds of the.r regular income. It was rather important ,
they should look a little into the matter for the precedents !OIL
the course they had adopted. In the year 1836 it was first pro,
posed to abolish
the office of six clerks. The Bill was passed'
and there was a legislative permission granted for the sale and
purchase of these 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 slim 0'
4,0001. for the reversion of their offices. They e gore
pensioned off with the full amount of the tunnel emolument,

of the cffices which they had vacated. Again, in the year
1822 it was deemed expedient to abolish some sinecure
offices in the Law Courts. The office of prothonotary of the
Court of King's Bench, and the director of the Court of
Common Pleas, which offices were held by noblemen, who in
vacating their offices received compensation to the full amount
of the value of their situations. It would also be found that
by the Act 3 and 4 William IV., sec. 81 cap. 94, and by the
2 and 3 George IV., compensation to the amount of several
thousand pounds was awarded to persons whose offices had
been abolished. The Act for compensation to the six clerks
lied received the deliberate consent of the Legislature, and he
asked if it would be fair to repeal that Act now, and to de-
Prive those individuals who were receiving compensation under
Its provisions of their ireeemes. His Hon and Learned Friend
saw that the Lord Chancellor had not fully investigated the
justice of these Claims. He entirely denied that. The
amount of Bee fees had been fully ascerta•ned, and the Lord
Chancellorte. had exercised due caution in inquiry into the mat-
he. The Lord Chancellor had on eery occasion aherd to
Ininimum which was aleiwed ofer compensatd ion, e
and
" also required a reduction to be made on account
bad debts before he would make any award.
He admitted that the public had paid a large amount for the
aloelition of the offices, but not more than the justice of the
sSae demanded. These offices were entitled to the remunera-
te,- which Parliament had awarded them. The Act of Par-
la ment had given the Lord Chancellor the po ver of appeint-
-I,!,'g Six taxing officers at 1,00.1, a year each. The Lord
d-.lianeellor had made these appointments, and he (the Atter-
neY- Oteceral believed that tho e appointments had been made
"ith advantage to the public. Those officers were selected
from 'he clerk.: in court. The Master of the Rolls had power
,also,
s under the Act of Parliament, to appoint four officers in
me court, and he also selected tho-e officers from the clerks
of the court. Would ihe House, then, dispassh nately and calmly
consider whether they were justified in acceding to the motion
of the Hon. Member for Kiesale. These persons respecting
whore the motion was made had a vested interest iu their
"flees. and if they were deprivesl of those offices, it could
°nly be done by giving them full and fair competition.
Mr. HU NIB said it was certainly true that he agreed with
the principle of the Bill which gave these compensations, but
he never could have supported the &rails of the Bill which
had been alluded to. It would be presumptive in him to at-
tempt to draw the line of demarcation where compensation
anould cea,e, but he thought the Right Hon. and Learned
4tMciley-General, having cited the only, though a doubtful
Precedent, which had occurred in Ireland, in justification of
these compensations, had failed to make out a good case for
the Lord Chancellor.--( Hear, hear. )
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I could give you many
other precendents. The Irish case is by no means a solitary
one.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. WINE said it did not matter to him how many prece-
dents could be produced, because that would not alter the state
of the case ; and lie for one was convinced the public generally
looked upon this as one of the grossest jobs that had ever been
teePeArated.—( Hear, hear.) It might be urgod, if this case
,^,ecte to stand good, that if capital punishment. were abolished
inangmen of the country would be entitled to compensation.
( Hear, hear.)—Well, he was not opposed to giving it, but
teht_,the compensation be just. It was alleged, however, that
• ° Compensation in the instance now before the House was un-
its
,~t, and he, therefore, thought there ought to be some inquiry
.set it, in order that those persons who bad awarded it might
e deterred in future from violating the confidence which had
°wen reposed in them, on behalf of the public.—( Hear, hear.)
Some of these fees, it must be clear, were manifestly unjust,
'and wrongfully imposed on suirers,_ and this, in his opinion.
was an additional reason why his Hon. and Learned Friend
should have his Committee.—( Hear, hear.) For it was the
u„uti of the parties appointed to take these fees not to take more
e'nan the old allowed. It was no use to tell him that they
had become just from usage. If the law of the land—the sta-
tute law of the land—did not sanction them, they had no right
to be taken ; and, still more, the parties taking them had no
Light, to compensation on their abolition.--s Hear, hear.) It
was ten these grounds that he supported the motion of his Hon.
ilnd Learned Friend, and he hoped those who had unjustly taken
fees
and received compensation on their abolition in the pro-
gresives of legal reforms would be held up to the public indig-
natib n.—( Hear, hear.)
AS r. B. WILLIAMS said there had been a great deal of
154e'cj ial pleading on the part of the Hon. and Learned Attorney-
(fo eral, who had avoided the real question before the House,
vosii.eh was simply this—Were these fees taken by those parties
t° whom compensation had been given legal and just ?—and it
the the bounden duty of the House to take this question into
111 earnest and serious consideration —( Hear, hear.) If the
trd Chancellor had granted compensation for illegal fees, he
aught to be held up to public indignation. But why was the
!natter left to the Lord Chancellor? Why was it taken out of
!the hands of the Tieasury, which was the proper place for de-
ciding the compensation ? Why, the fact was, the whole affair
was a most palpable job. This was plain enough, for one of
the parties, a Mr. Wainwright, who received a portion of this
large compensation, drew up the Bill legalising the compensa-
tion, or rather, he ought to call it, the job.—( Hear, hear. )
tuti
if the eomeensation were fair and just, why refuse this
Mriuiry ? It was all nonsense ; the compensation was grossly
tm.lest ; and Government, in refusing the inquiry, were vir-
tuallye acknewledging it to'be. so.—( Hear.) The Hon. and
Learned Attorney-General, however, said the Bill granting the
compensation passed through the House after it had under-
gone the most careful and deliberate consideration. hut this
was not so. and he for one dared to say it was smuggled, in-
stead of cautiously passed through the House.—( Hear, hear. )
Oh. but (said the Hon. and Learned Attorney-i,eneral) if the
Rota. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Kinsale had so
Marty objections to the Bill. why did he not on the third reading,
or attiring its progress through Committee, attend in his place
in the House, and state there what his objections to this mea-
sure was ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it not easy enough to explain
why an Hon. Member who was a member of the learned pro-
fession, could not be in his place on a particular occasion ? His
professional avocations might be the cause of his not being pre.
sent, and they had a remaikable instance of this a few nights
ago, when a compensation case was under consideration: 'lhe
Hon. and Learned Attorney-General, he believed, was in
favour of, and took a deep interest in the Danish claims, but,
from a similar cause to the one he had already
alluded to, the Hen. and Learned Gentleman was
prevented from being present when they were under dis-
cussion.—(Hear, hear.) But why need he follow the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman in this train of special pleading, when
everybody knew that the public had-lons ago made up their
minds that this case of compensation was a most palpable job ?
In his opinion it would be mote becoming ber Majesty's
Government if they were to accede to, instead of refusing, the
Committee.—(Heir, hear.) At all events, if they persisted in
refusing it he hoped the Right Hen. Gentleman, the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, would get up in his place and tell the
House whether this enormous compensation agreed with his
views or not.—( Hear, hear.) He was sure if the Right Hon
Gentleman spoke conscientiously, it could net, and for this and
the other reasons he had stated, he should vote for inquiry.
Sir J. GRAHAM was very unwilling to trespass upon the
attention of the House on a question which involved legal
technicalettVet, tuif after the speeches which had jest been ad.
dressed°t& ittPtilouse by Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite
benches, he felt himself bound to make a few observations.
There were some observations that had fallen from the Hon.
Member who had last addressed the House that particularly
rendered it necessary for him (Sir J. Graham) to trespass
Upon the attention of the House before they went to a division.
After those observations he was by no means prepared to vote
for a Committee of inquiry of this sort, although he was of
opinion certainly that an inquiry into the fees received in the
courts of law and equity might be very useful.--( Hear, hear.)
But he was bound to resist the motion after what had fallen
from the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and the
Ron. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Williams), because
they had designated the proceedings under the Act in question
as the job of jobs.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for
Aontrose had said that it was impossible, in his opinion, to ask
f l
or a repeal of the Act of Parliament under which these com-
pensations had been granted, and he went on to say that these
compensations were in his opinion irrevocable. It had been
Openly stated that the objection of the Ceminittee sought for
was to inculpate the projectors of the Bill.. Now that ex-
pression showed that they had prejudged the question;_ they
had said that it was " the job of jobs." He (Sir James
Graham) had the greatest possible respect for the Lord Chan-
cellor, and he was quite satisfied that his conduct in this
matter was pure and irreproachable; that had, in fact, been
proved by the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend the At.
torney-General. The Hon. Member for Coventry (Mr.
Williams) had asked what right bed the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, when this Bill was introduced in 1844, to antici-
pate that the amount of compensate in would be so great as it
turned out to be ? He Sir (James Grah •m) would have given
the same answer as had been given by his Right Hon. Friend.
viz., that the precise amount of the fees hail not been then as-
certained. He certainly was not aware at the time that this
Ant passed that the amount of compensation would be so large.
—i. Hear, hear.) But he did not think that was the question
before the House when the measure was passed. The ques-
tion for consideration was. were these compen sattons just
io
principle ?—( Hear, hear.) This Bill came down. from the
other House of Parliament with the highest po-sib le authority.
An incuiry in reference to the fees was conducted by
Mr.y
Master of the Rolls, the Chancellor of the Excheqber, and
Pemberton Leigh. Those Commissioners gave every attentioni
to that branch of the subject ; and he was informed, and real
believed, that the draft of the Bill was altered and reprinted
three times before it came down from the other House. When
the Bill was introduced, the Lord Chancellor was ill, and could
not attend to his duties in the douse of Lords, and he, there-
fore, had not charge of it in the other House of Parliament.
But the Bill was introduced by the Maser of the Rolls, Lord
Langdale. and the question to be considered was whether the
principle on which those compensations were to be granted was
just or unjust. This Bill laid down certain principles. In
the Exchequer case seven. eighths of the fees which had
been taken for a number of years formed the basis of
compensation, but in this Bill the minimum was fixed, not at
seven-eighths, but at three-fourths. A discretionary power
was given to the Lord Chancellor to limit strictly by Act of
Parliament the amount of compensation to three-:ourths of the
amount of fees that hail been received in the three preceding
Years. He remembered during the progress of the Bill, and he
was sure the Hon. Member for Montrose ( Mr. Hume) would
also well remember, a discussion that took place about a particu-
lar gentleman whom the Bill would effect.—( Hear, hear. )
And if he mistook not the Hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C.
Buller) said a clause should be inserted in the Bill for his pro-
tection. The Bill did not pass through the House without
ampletee wasr discussionnothing
and consideration, and he would again say that
of novelty in the Bill, and he would repeat
that what the Commiss.ers hail to inquire into, was not the
Choamount of the fees, but thei justice of the principle laid down in
u Assumingienees7
,h he could
a moment that the fees heretofore
received were legal
laidoudld not conceive anything more
good than the principle
brought him to the legality of thenef.en in
the
Act. Now, this
Hear, hear)—and he
thought that it was on that point that this debate mainly hung.
Hear.) But, in the first the fees in question were'
fixed by the Lord Chancellor Hardwickeee,dlf he mistook not, in
and he by the Lord Chan-
the year 1843. The fees were review
believed that some of
cellor Erskine in the year 1807,
tothe state of the
them were reduced. The fees reoeterrrye.d
kingdomßet, greatly
those courts had,
increased since that period. The legal.ty
Courtsanne rof
p_eared to him to be established ie a most remarkable fees
ap.
They were legal by prescription and usage in the
Chancery from day to day, and their legality was placed beyond
all doubt. The Commissioners that had been apeointecihad
come to the determination that the amount of compensation
should not be less than three-fourths of the fees that were e
ceived in the three preceding years. In no case had the Lerrd.
Chancellor a discretion by the Bill of fixing the amount
of compensation to a certain extent. Ia no case did the Lord
Chancellor give the full amount of the fees received ; in every
case, without exception, his award was the minimum sanc-
tioned by the Act of Parlament. When this Act passed, if he
mistook not, the fees in question amounted to 771. per year, and
were rapidly increasing.—( Hear.) The effect produced by this
Act of Parliament was to eradicate a great abuse—a most for•
rnidable abuse—both in its magnitude and extent; and the
fees were reduced trom 77,0101. to 40,l 001. per annum. The
amount of compensation was certainly large, but not too large,
for the fees were feeble vested rights, as he believed them to
have been. The compensation, as he had clearly said, had been
greatly reduced, and, in. the course of the next twenty years,
thus compensation would be entirely extinguished. In effect-
s{ these salutary legal reforms, they should take especial
care
.
not to violate the just rights of any parties.—( Hear.) He
would not take a lawyer's view on this subject, but he was most
anxious that law expenses should be diminished. He was,
however, of nie:eon, that they could not, consistent
With ' •
ooteitie ukticting effect these legal reforms by
114tirY whitrrit an imam partive

had established rights ; and in this else the parties who were l
in the receipt of compensation, were justly entitled to a reit.
sonable comeensation. If the fees were large, (and, if they
pleased, exorbitant), it was necessary that the principles of
compensation should tie large also. In reference to the in-
quiry of fees generally, upon another occasion, he, for one,
i 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 was 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. Be was of opinion, ton, that by
this Act an immense abuse had been removed, and he did not
deprecate this discussion, because it would, no doubt, tend to
set the conduct of his Noble Friend the Lard rightChancellorithon
before the public, although he had been dealt harshly with
the present subject. He was certain that theancdonr
illustrious personaee had been perfectly pure_ear
hear.)
throughout the whole of the matter.—( Hdisinterestedn ewe f
th at
though he did not thereby intend to
He conceived that
Ir. F. BARING was prepared temvpoetaechfo:rhethceonduc
Lord Chancellor in the slightest respect. to f Committee,th
perfectly untenable statingG en e rthatal wasthe
Hecheck in the framing of that mea-
the argument of the Hon. and Learnedohe,i hesitation tAi Attorney-General
Treasury was an efficient
whether the eighteen compensation had clauses
Exchequer,
sure.—( Hear, hear.) He would ask the Chancellor of the
received-the sanction of the Treasus
ry
for the passing of
this Bill of eighteen clauses, brought
absurd to say that the House waTreasury?—( Hear, hear.) It was
'on and passed in a week. The Treasury should be respon-
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. He thought
the most satisfactory course would be to appoint a Committee.
Sir J. GRAHAM stated, in explanation, that the Treasury
had no control whatever over the Suitors' Fund; that the whole
management rested with the K, eper 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 6sirous 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 conirnon law. They were nor 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 cf
compensation to be given. The only course which the Com
mittee thought they could adopt in discharging their publie
duty was to inquire as to the amounts usually given by tle
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 coule
not, therefore, be considered as acting wrong when they awarder
as a minimum this rate of compensation. This sum was not n
much as had been awarded by Lord Cottenham in compensa-
tion to the clerks in the Court of Exchequer. The Act tipot
that occaiinn stated that the compensation was to be at the rat.-
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
he Lord Chancellor, in the instance before the House.
gave three- fourths of net profit, after deducting
bad debts. ( The Honourable Merneer here entered into
-ome calculations with respect to confiscations, which he 'sale
thought it would be impossible for him, even though possesse
of all the. mathematical knowledge of Newton himself, to mak►
clearly understood by the Hon. Member (Mr. Watson ).
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., Theie persons had a perfect right to rely on the
legality of the fees they were allo•ved 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 Friend, 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, ant,
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 bad listened to the debate with the
greatest satisfaction, and esoeeially to the statement of hie
Right Hon. Friend, that the Government were determined
not to resist inquiry into these abominable extortions. The
questiori was one of great publie importance, and he coule
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
hod only acted in strict accordance with the Act
When this Committee was granted the principle under which
compensations were granted must be considered. Na 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 market HP 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 most
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. lie denied the legality of there fees, and he would like
'hat 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-
eation when it had been already decided upon by that House.
It was a novel practice he admitted, and it was only a novel pro-
ceeding which would put an end to the at.iuses which were a
stain on the erm;ne of the Judges who presided in those courts.
Mr. R. YORKE was now, as on former occastons,of opinion
'hat 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-
vernmont 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. HONIILLY 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-
ploeed 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 wi bout 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. HA N HER. supported the motion.
Sir R. PEEL said it was the wish of the Government that
there should be a full and efficient inquiry into the payment of
those who held such offices. an 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
wt icily was given to those who had leeld offices, and which were
tahinoese d , offr, if
froth
mthuecyh were the o
really sinecures. But he felt that they would be cramping very
. meansadopot of
suchreforminga
s spirit
tthe s abuse
would make
complained
whom the
information was to had, feel that they were b a out
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 Stat 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 net receive.
There was a great
abuse in giving over-compensation to those efficers They were
givingeuch an amount as the House
of the. would not give to the officers
,rewn —such as they would not give to their
own Speaker.
He could assure the House there
part of the Governm was no objection on the
ent tor a strict
and
se irch.ng inquiry,
end they only had an e ohj &eon 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
tie bad given them on eth d
he (Sir Robert Peel)
lugiirontt of an Act of Parliament, and
theui greatest. confidence in his
Noble and Learned Friend's
fifty years previous to 1839 therej'"nent
and
nni2"rtialitY.
Fur
had been given a reustmera-
tion far above what the justice of the e merited ; and the
Hon. Member who brought on this Billie:
abuses as if they were chargeable to tldoLeorodf those,,n great
This House recorded by ar. Act the sale of those professionalcellor
offices, or at least passed an Act which made remuneration the
right of the parties ; and this was acted upon by 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 hadabolished sinecures where there might
have been some excuse found for continuing them, but they had
allowed abuses to exist where there was no public him
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
iin-
quiry
n 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 wards from Mr. WATSON, strangecs were
ordered to withdraw, when there appeared to be
For the motion

65

.1. •-•• • BO
Against it
—l5
Majority
MR. SMITH O'IEN.
The Hon. PIERCE BUI'LER said, he had given
notice of a motion to the same
effect as thatBR
that u
pon the paper
from his Hon. Friend
assure the House that he would not a
notice of such a
aware that the Hon. Baronet had Riven heh
ecboeuel could
the Member for Galway;
have
veadonaye
committed, and
motion. He was sorry for the error he had ;sobuhtad
begged to apologise for it; but had he been able to bring it on,
discuss it.
he could assure the House he was fully prepared to
somewhat
He would, however, bring on a motion to an effect
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. AGLIONBY wished to know what 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 Hort% Meatisaa said that be believed that the Bill would
be proceeded with; its object was to give better protection
and facilities to our salmon fisheries.
The Bill was then read a second time, and the report ordered
to be received ; to be read a third time to-morrow.
The second reading of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Aot
was postponed.
The Committee on the Danish claims was postponed until
the 22d.
The Election Notices (Ireland) Bill was read a teoond time,
and tlikr,a2,o,ordered to bo rwcivei . .i. . _
Tito idolia slorned it Flinn (Mu*