The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-12 00:00:00

THE SUN; LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 12, 1868

. .
been &On to different colonels of regiments, and great eon_
fusion httd oonsegnontly prevailed. To Ireland orders had
sent to disembody the militia as they found work, and

Sadleir for conspiring with his deceased brother to com-
mit a fraud ; the absurd state of the law rendering the
conspiracy punishable, while the fraud itself was not.
Mr. CARDWELL had.lived on terms of too close in-
timacy with the learned judge to remain silent while
his conduct was aspersed. The Attorney. General was
perfectly entitled to expect the Master of tte Boils
would shrink from nothing he had said,
b:ut would be
prepared at the proper time to subs',
antiate it. The
right hen, gentleman had not, he.:vrever,
self to rebutting a charge agaie,st himself, butn hae
on to make the followine oilndd gone
on charges against the learned
judge, He said that
one Master of the Rolls bad dese•
crated a court of
astice ; shat he was guilty of a ghOss
defau-t ; that I'. had made observations of so lriettilrr a
character
eat
she had tinged with apolitidal laspect the ju-
dicial
etn gs in his Courts ;that he had caused
a f;
ure of justice) and led to the escape of James
cAdleir ; that he had converted his court into a political
re
roo,.
arena; that he had been guilty of a great outrage on
je-tice, and had abused his position on the bench, to
charge the Attorney-General and the Irish Goveennient
with a great dereliction of duty. (Heat, hear.) He
gathered from that cheer that he (Mr. Cardwell) had cor-
rectly repeated the right hoe, gentleman's charges.
(Hear, hear.) Then they had issue joined in the pre-
sence of the House of Commons ; and he thought the
right hon. gentlem'an (Mr. Fitzgerald) was himself bound
to take care that there was a full and searching inquiry
into the truth of those allegations. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. MOORE said this was a matter in which the
house and the public could allow no compromise.
(Cheers.) It was a matter which involved something
of more weight than even the characters of the two
gentlemen involved ; because either the Master of the
Rolls had been guilty of a groundless calumny on
the Irish Government, or else the Irish execu-
tive had been guilty of a dereliction of duty, the
grossest of which a government had ever been guilty.
(Hear.) The right hon. gentleman the Attorney-General
said that he (Mr. Moore) had spoken as if he believed
he had connived at the escape of James Sadleir. The
right hon. gentleman was quite right—he did believe
just that. (Laughter.) The Master of the Rolls, in re-
ference to this case, said, " I do not obtrude any advice
or information on the Irish Government—first, because
it was no part of my duty ; and secondly, because I be-
lieved then, and believe now, that if I bad done so it,
would have received no attention whatever from the Go-
vernment, for reasons which the public very well know."
(Hear.) There could be no mistake whatever as to what
the learned judge meant. He meant that the Irish Go
vernment did not interfere to prevent James Sadleir's
escape, because they did not desire the disclosures to be
made public, which must necessarily result if he was put
upon his trial. This, at least, was what was believed in
Ireland. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman said that
when steps were taken to arrest Sadleir it was found he
had fled. But there was a converse to that proposition ; the
Government might not have taken any steps till they
were sure that the criminal was out of the country.
(Laughter.) Which of these statements was the truth
was the question which must be cleared up. (Cheers.)
Mr. WHITESIDE thought the Attorney• General had
acted most unwisely in so unnecessarily calling attention
to the duties of the Master of the Rolls imposed en him
by his oath as a Privy Councillor. He (Mr. Whiteside)
had at the time almost felt it his duty to remonstrate ;
but it was deemed better first to communicate with the
learned judge. The Master of the Rolls had an undoubted
right to characterise the action before him as a scanda-
lous fraud ; and he had also a right to express his
opinion that the Government ought to have inteifered.
That was what the judges in England constantly did
when a case appeared to them to afford materials for a
prosecution. Sir John Paul was in this country vigo-
rously proceeded against and was punished, but he bad
not been guilty of half so great a crime as the Sadleirs.
(Hear.) It was quite true that the Attorney-General
had a high character in the profession ; but he was
mistaken if he thought his character in that house would
stand higher if he thought it his duty to indulge in the
observations he had made on men whom they were all
bound to respect. (Cheers.)
The SECRETARYfor IREL&NDsaid the Attorney-
General for Ireland had kept him constantly informed of
all the steps he had taken ; and if there had been any de-
feat of justice, he (Mr. Horsman) must share the responsi-
bility. (Hear.) He did not think it was worthy of the
right hon. gentleman opposite, having in his possession,
as the house had not, the distinct charges which the
Master of the Rolls bad made against the Irish Govern-
ment that morning, to bring on the question in the man-
ner he had. He wished to know whether the hon. gentle.
man was prepared to submit a substantive motion to the
house ; whether he would endorse the charges which bad
been made against his hon. and learned friend, and
whether he would dare to ask the house to come to an
opinion upon them I (Cheers.)
Mr. NAPIER said he would hand the statement which
had been furnished to him to the Attorney-General. It
merely contained facts, however, not charges. If the
Government did not institute a full inquiry into the
matter, he would undertake to see it sifted to the bot-
tom. (Cheers.)
THE NAWAB OF SURA.T.

thls had been found to be very successful where it had been
carried out. In the regiment he commanded ,many of the

men had gone away without employment, and with only a
few halfpence iu their pocket. The Timrary Militia were
ordered to give up their clothing, and a mutiny ensued.
Nov ho maid the War Department was responsible for all this,
for if they had sent over elothes for the men, and giVen them
a little money tO hit* kept them front starving, all this would
not lid oemited. Such a state of things Would always pre-
Vail While the Conduct Of military Affairs Were entflistid td
Men WhO kneW tiOthing ab6ut
061 oriel EPENdIi believed that there was a general feeling
thYoughout IreLnd that these regiments had not been pro-

perly treated. A promise was held out that they should re-
ceive a certaiu amount of bounty, but that promise had not
been fulfilled. He regretted to hear the rumour that in

order to avenge the outbreak of the Tipperary Militia, the
noble lord intended forthwith to clisliftml_ eVery otherlrish
regiment. He hepeel thd disembodiment of the various regi-
i+Aents ik.'ettld take place at a time when they might have au
. .

_
opportunity of obtaining work.
The motion for the adjournment of the house at its rising
until Mondly was then agreed. to.
COUNTY COURTS BILL.

to their distinct functions. The judicial bench in Westtnitistet
Hall was recruited, from one branch of the profession, and
they should not break down the distinction which had been '
hithcrt ) observed.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that it was natural that barristers
should oppose the admission of solicitors to these courts, but
many of the best judges had commenced practice as soli.
citors.

Mr. Craufurd's amendment was then withdrawn.
Mr. HENLEY objected, en the clause itself, to the power
Lt gave to the judges, in case of absence, to allow another

,itiagc to act for them,
thei ATTCHtNEY-CIENtHAL said thst the clause did not
increase the powers already exitting hi this respect. It only
prescribed the mode in which they were to be used.
Mr. HENLEY said that it would seem to sanction the no:

ion that these judges had so much of• their time unoccupied

that they couldsuPply the conveniendo of other judges, and

do their work.

The clause was then agreed to.
Claus.e3 ;; to 41 was agreed to.
On clause 15,

Mr. NYILKESON proposed to insert words enabling ser-

vice of process to be made not only personally or at a per-
son's place of business, but also where a defendant was em-
ployed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his only objection to
the amendment was that if inserted in ti ,e present clause it
would be confined to the metropolis, instead of being ex-
tended to the whole kingdom.
Mr. HENLEY hoped that if the Attorney-General was in-
clined to legislate in this sense, he would be good enough t•
define what was employment. (A laugh.)
The amendment was negatived and the clause agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 19 were agreed to.
On clause 20, _

Oft the Order for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. GLADSTONE said he did not wish to oppose the prin-
ciple of the bill, and the resolution he should propose would
only affect the financial condition of the courts. The finan-
cial charges proposed in the bill were dispersed thy ugh vari-
ous clauses, and he bad attempted to gather them together,
so that they Might be understood at one view. His resolu-
tion was founded on a return as to the charge of these courts.
He found that by the return that had been made, that the
additional charge upon the Consolidated Fund would amount
to at least 170,e01/., which would be tantamount to granting
several millions of money out of the public purse. It was a
permanent charge, and wheu once it got into the Consolidated
Fund people would think no more about it, although they
would have to bear the enormous expenses. The addition of
170,000/. to the Consolidated Fund was rather a grave finan-
cial question, and although it was undoubtedly right to pro-
ceed with questions of law reform, the mere fact of being eu-
gaged in that work of reform must not blind them to the
enormous expenses they might incur. At present he thought
the house had no clear idea of the manner in which this mo-
ney was about to be expended, or how the Government pro-
posed to arrange matters between the public and the suitors.
Altogether, it was a matter which called for deliberate con-
sideration, founded not only on a careful review of the sub-
seet, but also on a review of the general judicature of the coun-
try. There was a doctrine which was held by a great number
of persons, that the public ought to bear the expenses of
litigation. To that doctrine he demurred, because he
believed it would fo,ter litigation. In many suits both
parties were unreasonable ; in most cases one of the par-
ties was unreasonable. By fixing these charges upon the
country ordinary prudence would be checked, and litigation
would no doubt be greatly extended. The doctrine, he held,
Vail full of danger to the peace of the community, and the
character of Euglishmen. No doubt the present state of
the county courts called for amendment. It was urged that
we paid the judges in Westminster-hall, but then the suitors
had to pay the costs of their actions. But there was no ana-
logy between the judges of Westminster-hall and the county
courts. The judges of Westminster-hall had to be maintained
for many great constitutional points, and to carry en the
whole criminal business of the country. So with reg rd to
the equity judges, they had to conduct appeals of the highest
importance. Then the judges of the small courts in Scotland
were dicers paid by the State, but they had to discharge
many of the duties which in England were performed by
country gentlemen, and therefore the analogy between them
and county court judges failed. He thought it was but fair,
before they proceeded to make this charge upon the public
purse, that they should consider what was the state of the
judicial establishments in Westminster-hall. There was an
impression abroad that they were a great deal tee large. The
judges were well paid, and were backed up with liberal pen-
sions, but that was no reason why the judges should not be
fairly worked. Those judges had been greatly relieved by the
appointment of tiO county court judges, and before they im-
posed the heavy charge proposed, the establishments in West-
minster-hall should be revised, so that they might be reformed
in accordance with the requirements of the public. These
expenses were to be paid out of the earnings of the people,
and it was the duty of the house to see that no new changes
were imposed upon the Consolidated Fund, until they had as-
certained whether or not the establishments in Westminster-
hall were too large. By county courts a great boon had been
conferred upon the suitors, but that was no reason why they
should not confer others, and upon these grounds he thought
they should take time to consider the question in connection
with other matters, which stood in immediate relation to
it. He would suggest that during the recess the Govern-
ment should consider the whole ctiostion, and that next
session *ay should state what they considered should be
the number of county coart judges, and what should be
their salaries. The bill under consideration did not at all
imply such a course. The right hon. gentleman concluded by
moving the following resolution as an amendment :—" That
it is not expedient to impose at the present time upon the
State a charge so heavy as 170,0001. per annum, towards the
maintenance of the county courts."
Sir G. GREY said that the bill was founded upon the re-
port of the commissioners specially appointed to inquire into
the changes which might be introduced into the county
courts, and whether there could be any reduction made in the
fees paid by suitors iu those courts. He read a passage from
page 42 of the report, on the question as to what amount of
fees could be properly realised, and whether the court could
be self-supporting. The opinion of the commissioners was
that it could not, and that it would he unjust to compel
suitors to pay fees sufficient to support the establishment.
Tuey recommended that the fees should be continued for the
remuneration of the clerks, bailiffs, and inferior officers of the
court, but that the salaries of the judges, and the general ex-
penses of stationery and the buildings should fall upon the
public. His right hon. f iend had said that the principle of
the higher courts could not be acted on in the county courts.
However this might be, he could not see how further inquiry
would enable them to settle the question. The county courts
were for that class of suitors least able to pay fees, while the
suitors in the higher courts were better able to pay them.
His right hon. friend complained that the bill caused a great
charge upon the public. He (Sir G. Grey) agreed that the
measure involved such a charge, but he did not see how they
could remove this at a future session, His right hon. friend,
too, said that there were special reasons why the higher courts
should be paid at the public expense, because they transacted
all the cr,reinal business of the country. But judges in equity
sat also in Westminster-hall. They had nothing to do with
criminal business, and the business decided in such courts re-
lated to the property of persons of considerable wealth. What-
ever, therefore, might be said of the 15 judges in common law,
they could not make any distinction between the judges in
equity and those of the county courts. His right hon.
friend said that there were more judges in Westminster Hall
than was necessary. Whether this were so or not would not
affect the judges of the ceuuty courts. They could not con-
sider the propriety of reducing the number of the judges till
they had gone into the whole course of business in Westmin-
ster Hall ; theymight then say what reduction could be made.
There might be changes proposed in committee when they
came to the table of fees— then would be the time to consider
them. He hoped the house would not agree to the principle
that the court should be self-supporting then, and not allow
the whole burden of maintaining them to fall upon the suitors.
Mr. E. BALL hoped the Gov(innesst would not yield on
the bill. Of all the means to give relief to the oppressed, none
was done at so little expense as by the County Courts Act.
Mr. BOWYER thought it an entirely false principle that
the expenses of the county courts should be paid by the suit-
ors. They should be looked upon as parts of the public ser-
vice and paid fur like other parts of such service. As for the
money, it was really shocking, when they looked at the reck-
lessness with which vast sums had been voted, that they
should hesitate on a small sum for public justice. He cer-
tainly should vote against such economy.
Mr. VANSITTART supported the reso'ution. He approved
of the reasonings of the right hon, gentleman the member for
the University of Oxford, and thought that by acting upon
the report of the commissioners the house would place itself
in a false position. It was, he believed, dangerous to make
justice too cheap.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that it had been asserted
that the suitors iu those courts ought to pay the expenses of
the courts. But it was not only those who gained their causes
in the courts who received benefit from them, but all persons
of the community who were in the same position benefitted
equally. If this doctrine spplied to ale ,urts, it applied more
especially to courts where poor persons came to ask for their
rights. ram right hon. gentleman had told them that they
ought to reconsider the courts in Westminster-hall, whether
the staff of judges was not too large. This was a very impor-
tant matter, but he could not see how it was mixed up with
the present question. It was important that the county
courts should be kept distinct from the courts of common
law. It was desirable that there should be courts for persons
of small means to resort to, and he hoped the house would
not refuse to go into committee on the bill, on account of
matters that had no connection with it.
Mr. BECKETT DENISON approved of the resolution.
They were called on to pay 170,000/. a-year, and if the right
hon. gentleman divided the house upon the propriety of con-
sidering the county courts without pledging themselves to
pay the sum, Ile would go with him. After so much money
had been voted, it was more than ever important to consider
such a sum as 170,0001. Ile objected to it as a guardian of
the public purse.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that, from the speech of the hon,
gentleman, it would be supposed that the 170,0001. was to be
taken from the pockets of the people. This was not the pro-
position. The proposition was to limit the power of grant-
ing money to the county courts to 170,0001.- They should
consider that in these courts was transacted the greater part
of the litigation of the country. The amount in each case
was small, but the aggregate was enormous. The courts
were courts of litigation for the poor. The resolution made
a difference between courts for the rich and courts for the
poor, and gave the favour to the court for the rich, (No, no.)
This, he repeated, was the effect of the resolution.
After a few words from Sirs J. WALSH, Mr, J. G. Pines
LIMORE Mr. BASS, and Mr. SriwTT, the amendment was then
put and negatived without a division, and the house went
into committee on the hill.
Clauses 1 to 4 were agreed int
On clause 5,
Mr. HADFIELD moved, as an amendment, at the com-
mencement, to insert " any special pleader of ten years'
standing may be appointed a judge of a county court, and."
Some of our ablest lawyers had been taken from special
pleaders, who were especially versed in the law of evidence.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the amendment.
Special pleadere would introduce technicalities, and not act
on the principles of the bill. There was a provision in the
former act that they should be qualified for the office after
they had been called to the bar for a limited period.
Mr. HADFIELD would add to the amendment a proviso ,1
that they should be called first to the bar.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had no objection to fix a par-
ticular time after their call to the bar.
Sergeant SHEE did not think it was desirable to introduce
special pleaders in any way. They were only persons who
undersold the barristers, and their very existence was of re-
cent date.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thattetid
were ownreefeelrirgiiebgletaofttletre
existing act he found that special pleaders
they had been called to the bar for seven years, He hoped
that this would satisfy the hon. member.
Mr. CRAUFURD asked whether the learned gentleman
would have any objection to another principle, which was not
to exclude attorneys and solicitors. These were admitted in
Scotland ; and one of the ablestojnuly a dgessionlictiht:ottr. H country,
should
move Sheriff Barclay, of Perth, was
move that a solicitor or attorney of ten years 'standing might
be qualified to be judge of a county court.
Mr. HADFIELD'S amendment having been withdrawn,
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE rebutted the attack of the learned
Sergeant (Shee) on the special pleaders. One of the most
eminent men in the profession, Mr. Dodson, was a special
pleader. As for the attorneys, they had quite power enough
already. A single instance like the one cited was not enough
to establish a general rule.
Mr. HADFIELD hoped that the amendment would be
adopted. He denied that solicitors had too much power.
They had little power beyond that of delivering briefs to bar-
risters. Solicitors knew the rule of evidence boater than the
majority of barristers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the efficiency of
both ljrancles of the profession was preserved by atteutiou.

Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know why county courts should
not try actions for criminal conversation, and why the con-
sent of both parties should be required in order to extend the
jurisdiction of the county courts to actions of contract above
501., and of tort above 201.

Mr. BASS moved to omit the words requiring the consent
of both parties in order to the trial of certain actions.

The ATTORNEY•GENERAL said that these courts were
not established to try such cases as those of criminal conver-
sation. They were instituted to furnish a cheap and easy mode
of recovering small debts, and he feared that object would be
defeated if the jurisdiction was extended in the manner pro-
posed.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought that these courts should be made
the means of administering cheap and easy justice in all cases
where a man had a right to it.
Mr. HEN LEY did not see why, if parties could by consent
take into the county courts actions of seduction and libel,
they should not, with similar consent, try actions for criminal
conversation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that there was a danger
of collusion between plaintiff and defendant in cases of crimi-
nal conversation ; but there was no danger of collusion be-
tween the plaintiff and the defendant in cases of seduction.
He thought it would be better not to allow cases of this kind
to be tried in the county courts.
Mr. BASS having repeated his motion,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the motion, for,
as he observed, if it was agreed to, the house might just as
well abolish the superior courts at Westminster at once.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE said that the county court com-
missioners were strongly opposed to the proposition of the

hon. member for Derby. -
Mr. CR AUFURD trusted that the committee would strike
out the clause, as it would clash with a clause which he pro-
posed to bring up. (A laugh.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the commissioners
were unanimous in recommending that in the cases which
would be affected by the 29th clause the jurisdiction should
not be extended without the consent of the parties. He,
therefore, hoped that the committee would adopt this
clause.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but ultimately the
clause was agreed to without a division.
On clause 21,
Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said that if this clause
were passed it would do away with the utility of the county
courts in nearly all cases in which there were accounts cur-
rent of any magnitude, by reason of the limit placed upon the
amount of the claim.
After a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
The clause was agreed to.
Clauses up to 56 were then agreed to.
Clauses up to 73 inclusive were agreed to.
On the proposition for fixing the salaries of the judges,
Sir J.. PAKINGTON proposed that the salaries should be
equalised, and fixed at 1,5001., instead of 1,200/. as proposed
by the bill. The house ought to take every precaution to se-
cure properly qualified judges for the county courts, and he
considered it most desirable that the salaries should be uniform.
He objected to a discretionary power being allowed to the
Treasury to fix the salaries. The question now to be decided
was whether the salaries were to be equalised at the highest
amount fixed by a bill of 1852, or at the amount fixed by
the present bill. Since the original act was passed, the
duties of the county court judges had been considerably in •
creased, and they ought to receive an adequate remunera-
tion for their services. In the year 1851. the number of
cases before the courts was 411,090, involving claims to the
extent of £1,651,960. The amount of business had since
that time considerably increased, and he thought a salary
of £1,500 by no means too large, especially when they com-
pared them with those paid to the Commissioners in Bank-
ruptcy and Insolvency. He had no doubt there were many
gentlemen in Westminbter-hall who would find themselves
astonished at receiving £1,200 a-year from their practice,
but that was no argament why gentlemen possessing the
necessary qualification, and who abandoned their profes-
sional practice at being appointed county court judges
should not be paid £1,500 a-year salary. He moved an
amendment to the clause to that effect.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
committee, before deciding the amount of salary, should
decide whether the judges should be paid out of the Con-
solidated Fund or by fees. The Government were of
opinion that £1,200 per annum was an adequate remune-
ration for the services rendered, and that was tested and
confirmed by the numerous applications made for the office
by gentlemen of ability, and capable of discharging their
duties. This was also the opinion of the Lord Chan-
cellor, who drew the bill. In addition to the salary,
these judges were allowed travelling expenses. Should
the committee be of opinion that the salaries of
the judges should be £1,500 per annum, there were
many circumstances to be first considered, and one
was, that if the proposition were carried out, the aggre-
gate cost of the county courts would greatly exceed those
of the Euperior law courts, and a question would arise
whether the districts should not be revised. Should,
however, additional duties be thrown on them beyond the
present, a question would arise whether they should not
be extra-remunerated, and also whether on a revision of
the districts they might not be allowed to hold other offices.
The hon. gentleman proceeded to contrast the salary paid
to, and the position held by, county court judges and police
magistrates, which he contended was in favour of the
former. He next referred to the additional charges on the
t ixation of the county. 100,0001. a year was to be added
by the police, and the proposed income and salary to the
clerks and the judges under this act would make nearly
250,0001., the two together making, in round numbers,
350,0001.; and, unless the extra amount required for the
County court was not paid out of the Consolidated Fand,
the poor suitors would be the sufferers.
After some remarks from Mr. CAYLEY,
Mr. WILLIAMS regretted the Chancellor of the Ex-
elequer had not offered a more decided opposition to the
amendment of the right hon. baronet.
Mr. IVHITESIDE objected to any increase of salary,
Mr. MALINS contended that as the principle of giving
1,,--,00/. a year to the county court judges had been ad-
mitted, ought to be made general. He most decidedly
object. d to the unequal salaries which were paid, and con-
sidered that the minimum amount of salaries of 1,2001. a
year was not a sufficient remuneration.
After a few words from Mr. KENDALL, in favour of
the amendment,
Mr. GLADSTONE trusted that the Government would
give a decided opposition to the proposal, and expressed
his disappointment that the right honourable the Chancel-
lor if the Exchequer had not expressed himself more
strongly against the proposal made by the honourable mem-
ber. He thought that the House of Commons was ex-
ceeding its functions in thus interfering with the duties of
the Government with respect to the increase of the expen-
diture of the country. The present bid was prepared and
brought in by the noble lord the Lord Chancellor, as the
head of the law, and that noble and learned lord had con-
siare 1 that a salary of 1,2001. a year was sufficient, and in
his opinion the Government would do wisely to take their
stand upon the opinion of that noble and learned lord. lie
denied that the salary of 1,2001. was insufficient, and the
fact of the eagerness with which these judgeship, were
sought after, afforded a sufficient proof that the offices
were valued, and were considered to be sufficiently remu•
nerative to the holders.
Sir G GREY said that the Government were of opinion,
on the authority of the Lord Chancellor, that a salary of
1,200'. a year, with a liberal allowance or travelling ex-
penses, was amply sufficient for the county court judges.
In the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, the most compe-
tent members of the law of Westminster Hall were candi-
dates for the vacant judgeships. The fact that the right
honourable gentleman the member for the University of
Oxford had when in office sanctioned an increase of the
salary from 1,2 P/. to 1,5001., formed the greatest difficulty
in his (Sir George Grey's) mind in dealing with the ques-
tion before the house.
Mr. GLADSTONE explained that in raising the sala-
ries of some of the judges, he had only acted in the minis-
terial capacity of Chancellor of the Exchequer, in carrying
out the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
Mr. HENLEY said that when the salaries of the county
court judges were first fixed, their duties were consider-
ably less than they were at present; and every session had
added something to the labours of those judges. After
the declaration of the Government that plenty of suitable
candidates could be found to fill the office, ho could not
take upon himself the responsibility of forcing an increased
expenditure on the Government in this matter. (Hear.)
The committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the Amendment
Against it lB5
Majority
The amendment was consequently lost, and the clause
was agreed to.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved that the chairman do re-
port-progress.
The motion was negatived without a division.
In the clause " Registers to be paid by salaries,"
Mr. KENDALL proposed as an amendment to leave out
the whole of the clause after salaries, and insert "and the
principles on which the said salaries of the registrars shall
be fixed and regulated, shall be the registrar of each court
in which the plaints entered do not exceed the number of
200 in a year, shall have an annual salary of "W. ; and
that in courts where the plaints exceeel
the salaries shall be increased by sums r
additional plaints up to 1,000 plaints inc,
by sums of 41. for every 25 additional
such salaries shall be confined to proceeuange warm toe
ordinary and common law jurisdiction of the court ; pro-
vided that no registrar shall be paid a less salary than
127'. per annum."
Mr. J. B. STANHOPE said that however advisable it
might be to have cheap law, if the law were administered by
improper people it was the dearest law that could bo had.
He thought that all officers of the county courts should be
properly paid.
Tao CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected to the
amendment, inasmuch as it would entail upon the country an
additional expense of 60,0001. a year.
Mr. BENTINCK thought it was quite right to adopt all
possible means for economising the public funds, but this was
an exceptional case. It would, in his opinion, be very unad-
visable to reduce the salaries of the officers of the courts, if
such a course were likely to render the courts inefficient.
Mr. CAYLEY sepported the amendment.
Mr. MULLINGS (as a member of the committee appointed
to inquire into the matter) protested against the existing
salaries, which were quite inadequate to secure proper per-
sons for the performance of the duties.
Mr. SPOONER also advocated an increased rate of fees.
Many clerks received sums not exceeding 401. a year. Ho
did not understand how any ono could object to the amend-
ment.
Mr. WILSON said he had put an amendment on the paper

Sir F. KELLY inquired whether it was the intention
of her Majesty's Government to take the opinion of th
law officers of the Crown (including the Qieen's Advo-
cate) as to the true meaning and effect of the treaty of
1800 between the Hon. East India Company and the then
Nawab of Surat ? And in the event of such law officer
advising that under the said treaty the East India Com-
pany were bound to pay to the heirs of the said Nawab
the annuity therein mentioned, whether it was the inten-
tion of her Majesty's Government or the Board of Control
to order or direct such payment to be made by the said
Honourable East India Company accordingly. The hon.
and learned member recapitulated thefacts of the case
which had been brought forward in the course of the recent
debate o❑ the bill passed in the House of Commons and
rejected by the House of Lords. Under the present cir-
cumstances of the case, he contended that there was but
one course open for the Government, and that was to
direct the order for the payment of the money in accerd-
ance with the terms of his question. The hon. and
learned gentleman said that there never was a case that
he had felt more strongly upon throughout his long ex-
perience, and he hoped that the house would refer the
case to the law officers of the Crown, and see that pas-
tics would be done.
Mr. VERNON SMITH complained very strongly of Sir
Fitzroy Kelly for bringing this question on upon the motion
for the adjournment of the house, and charged the hon. and
learned member with having taken a " one-sided view of the
case," and made some " monstrous" assertions about the facts.
[The right hon. gentleman was ultimately called to order by
the Speaker.] At all events he would say that the question
of Meer Jaffier's claim had been considered over and over
again, both by the Government at home and in India. He
did not think that it was altogether a proper case for the
consideration of the law officers of the Crown, seeing that it
involved questions of Mahomedan law, but lie would admit
that there was a deficiency of tribunals for the settlement of
claims of this kind. He should suggest that a petition be
presented to her Majesty, under the 41st section of the 3d
and 4th Wm. IV., which authorised the Government to refer
the whole matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council.