The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-01 00:00:00

MASTERS IN CHANCERY.
(From the Chronicle.)
We have for some weeks abstained from further
allusion to the notoriously scandalous state of the
offices of the Master in Chancery, caused by the
extreme age and physical infirmities of two of the
existing Masters, because no duty of the public press
is so painful as censure upon the incapacity of the
i
aged and infirm public officer. lnfluenced t
also by
this feeling, we have refused insertion to several
letters sent to us for publicati▪
on from legal practi-
tioners of eminence, detailing cases of grievous wrong
to their clients caused by this crying abuse of the
tenure of judicial office. It is, however, no secret
now, indeed it is a matter of gossip. in the robing-rooms
of Westminster Hall, that one of tne Masters in ques-
tisn is meditating an immediate resignation ; and
rumour is equally rife on the chances of candidates
for the vacant office when the octogenarian shall
have actually retired. Mr. Aglionby, before the
adjournment of the House of Commons, gave
notice of motion for a return, " Showing the date
of the appointment of each of the present Masters in
Ordinary in Chancery, with the annual amount of
each of their respective salaries, and when paid ;
also, stating whether any and which of such pre-
sent masters are under any and what Act or Acts of
Parliament entitled, upon rethement, to any and
what retiring pension ; and also, stating whether any
and what Masters in Ordinary have, since the year
1830,. retired upon any and what retiring pension,
and for what periods the same were respectively paid
and received." This significant intimation that Par-
liament is about to be called upon to apply a remedy
to a great public evil in the administration of the law
will doubtless have a salutary effect. We have al-
ways advocated the important principle of giving
adequate and full compensation to public officers
affected by reforms, and sufficient retiring pensions to
old public servants entitled by age or infirmity to
superannuation allowance. In the case of the dis-
qualified Masters in Chancery above alluded to there
can, however, be no pretence for their declining to re-
lax their hold upon the judicial office when their capa-
city for official duties is lessened, if not whollyi
an-
nihilated, by the weight of years and physi▪
cal infir-
mities.
The Masters appointed since Lord Brough-
ham's Act of 1833 (3 and 4 Will. IV., c. 94) are not
entitled to claim the fixed retiring allowance pre-
viously enjoyed by masters after a service of twenty
years. The former class can only now claim a pen-
sion in the case of permanent infirmity, under circum-
stances and in amount specified by that Act and
subsequent statutes. But, if we mistake not, the two
present Masters whose retirement the solicitors of the
equity courts are so anxiously and properly seeking,
are entitled to fixed and ample annual allowances
when they shall choose to resign their offices. Sir
Giffin Wilson and Mr. Wingfield were appointed
Masters in Chancery before the act of 1833; and the
statute 46 Geo. 111., chap. 128, entitles them,
aftir 20 years' judicial service (or when
afflicted by any permanent infirmity and " desirous
of retiring"), to the ample pension of 1,500/. per
annum on the order of the Lord Chancellor. More-
over, these two Masters have enjoyed, since 183.3,
750/. yearly as " compensation money, in addition
to their salaries of 2,500/. per annum, whereas:all the
masters appointed since Master Brougham receive
only salaries of 2,500/. This " compensation money,"
in lieu of abolished fees, may have tempted the two
worn-out Masters to ",hold on" to office, despite infir-
anities, from a natural preference of their salaries of
3,220/. a year to retiring pensions of 1,5001. Their
long enjoyment, however, of an annual extra 750/. is
in truth a reason why they can better afford " resig-
nation" on pensions of 1,500/. than other Masters ; and
certainly it is farcical that two judges disqualified
by physical infirmities should persist in sticking to
office, while younger and well qualified masters re-
ceive lesser gross salaries, and are not assured of
any such adequate or certain retiring pensions. We
trust that we shall not be again compelled, by a
sense of public duty, to comment on these palpable
cases of unjustifiable retention of judicial office. It
is certainly the duty of a Government, or of the
highest functionary of the law, to put an end to such
a public scandal. Either the retiring allowances of
the Masters in Chancery are sufficient, or they are
not. If sufficient, the incapacitated judge ought
voluntarily to resign, or to be induced to resign ; if
inadequate, the Parliament ought to interfere, and
increase the pension. We understand that the mem-
bers of the Law Institution are contemplating a
movement on this subject, so important to the
interests of their clients, and they will cer-
tainly be justified in a strong appeal to
Parliament for the remedy of a gross abuse.
It is generally reported that the Commons'
Select Committee for inquiry into the fees in courts of
law. and equity, originating in Mr. Watson's motion
last year, and most expediently revived this session by
Mr. John Romilly, has during its sittings in the
present recess brought to light some minor abuses in
the masters' offices which must also compel ulterior
proceedings for a thorough legislative remedy. The
whole remaining system of fee gathering and fee
funding must be reformed. Much has been done
within the last fifteen years for the abolition of law
sinecure offices, and in the substitution of salaries for
fees in the remuneration of legal functionaries; but
far more good remains to be effected. The cost of
our judicial establishments—part paid cut of the con-
solidated fund, and part provided from the suitors'
and fee funds—is an unnecessary and a mischievous
complexity. The State, when it receives tributary reve-
nue for such specific appropriation, usually cheats the
contributor. We desire to see a sweeping and real reform
in this important and growing department of admi-
nistration. All fees in courts of law ought to be
carried to one account, distinct from the civil revenue
of the State. The scale of feel should be large enough
to defray the proper and full cost of our whole judicial
establishments. We have reason to believe that, if
kept out of the hands of the " State," and not partly
mixed with the " consolidated fund," the means exist
for an increase of judicial offices, and for a material
ultimate reduction of fees. The " hop, skip, and
jump" of our judges and our bar from Westminster
to Lincoln's Inn and Guildhall, and thence to and
fro half a dozen times in the year, is a most absurd
and evil " remanet" of our old judicial reg,inie. The
rotary motion of the metropolitan courts of law
ought to be put an end to, and the courts ought to
he permanently fixed in some central part of London.
Some of our correspondents state to us that in
" term time," and when the courts of equity sit in
Westminster, half !the warrants of the Masters in
Chancery, on which counsel ought to attend the
master, are " postponed " and unattended because
counsel and solicitors are occupied in Westminster-
hall. If the courts were fixed on one common and
central site, such as Lincoln's Inn-fields or its neigh-
bourhood, and as designed by Mr. Barry, and ap-
proved by former Commons' Committees, and if they
were constructed sufficiently large and commodious,
many existing and abominable abuses would at once
be remedied. Among others, the Masters in Chan-
cery would really sit in public, with the unquestion-
able benefits of publicity; the Masters would he
under the eye of the public and of superior judges,
instead of enduring their often solitary confinement
in the dark and cramped dungeons of Southampton-
buildings, and we should be saved the duty of com-
menting on ithe unjustifiable retention of judicial
office by octogenarians. We are glad to ]earn that
the trustees of Lincoln's Inn-fields are now likely to
assist in the provision of a sufficient site for the erec-
tion of new courts of law, and that successful exer-
tions are likely to provide not only an ample room for
every court, but also a fee fund, " the ways and
means" of meeting the cost of the buildings. We
are confident that such a consolidation of the courts,
as to locality and neighbourhood, will be an invalua-
ble approach towards " Law Reform."
(From the Weekly Dispatch.)
Mr. Editor,—An eminent solicitor of considerable
practice was once asked what he considered the
greatest abuse connected with the Court of Chancery,
and he replied " the Master's Office." It is there
that the delays take place of which the suitors have
so long and so justly complai,ned. It is bad enough
to have a suit in Chancery at all, but once let it be
" referred to the Master" to ascertain a something
which might be ascertained in five minutes, and the
chances are that it takes twice that number of years
to enable the A leiter to make a report thereon. There
the case remains as long as a single shilling can be
extracted from the pockets of the unfortunate suitor
in the shape of fees, legal or illegal. There are at pre-
sent, I believe no less than 11 Masters of the Court of
Chancery, to whom are referred all those matters aris-
ing in the course of a C . hancerysuit, which cannot con-
veniently be settled public court, such as the
appointment of guardians for i▪
nfants, settling allow-
ances and schemes for their education, considering
proposals for the marriage of infant wards, and pro-
posals for settlements, &c., and generally all matters
which require the exercise of personal discreti▪
on. For
the performance of every one of these duties, what is
called a warrant is taken out by the solicitor on one
side, a copy of which is served on his opponent, and
for which, of course, a fee is payable to the illaster.
For the performance of this duty, whatever it may
be, and however urgent it may be, one hour only in
each day is allotted in any case. When that time has
expired the parties leave, and another warrant is
taken, one for the next or some following day. The
number of warrants so taken out in the progress of
a Chancery suit is beyond all belief. The charge
for each warrant is 35., and I find that in the office
of one of the Masters (Ferrer) the total amount re-
ceived for such warrants, during the year ending the
sth of April, 1846, was 9411. 17s. This, be it re-
membered, was in the office of one Master only—the
next in amount was 8381. 10s. The total amount of
fees taken in the above year in the office of the Mas-
ter above mentioned was 4,3691.85. 4d. The salaries
of the Masters are now settled' by Act of Parliament
at 2,5001. each ; but the old Masters, by the Chancery
Regulation Act, have, in addition, a compensation of