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

TILE !MN, LONDON, SATURDA-r,,TITRNINO) JULY 12, 1866

Sadleir for courApiring with his deceased brother to com-
mit a fraud ; the absurd state of the law renderin4 the
conspiracy punishable, while the fraud itself was not
Mr. Ci',RDWELL had lived on terms of too close in-
timacy with the learned judge to remain silent while
his coriduct was aspersed. The Attorney-General was
perfe ctl3 entitled to expect the • Master of the Rolls

wor.fd shrink from nothing he had said, but would be
pr epared at the proper time to substantiate it. The
right hen. gentleman had not, however, confined him-
self to rebutting a charge against himself, but had gone
on to make the following charges'against the learned
judge. He said that the Master of the Rolls bad fese•
crated a court of justice; shat he was guilty of a gross
defau-t ; that he had made observations of so irregilrr a
character that he had Singed with apolitical aspect the ju-
dicial proceedings in his court ; that he had raised
a failure of justice, and led to the escape of Jimes
Sadleir ; that he had converted his court into a political
arena ; that he had been guilty of a great outrage on
jwstice., and had abused his position on the bench, to
charge the Attorney-General and the Irish Government
with a great dereliction of duty. (Hear, hear.) He
gathered from that cheer that he (Mr. Cardwell) had cor-
rectly repeated the right hon. 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. gentleman (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 comprothise.
(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, wh:ch 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 those 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)
bad 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 theltollshad 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 interfered.
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 had
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 SECRET IR Y for IRELAND said 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 had made against the Irish Govern-
ment that morning, to bring on 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 had
been made against his hon. and learned friend, and
whether he would dare to ask the house to come to an
opinion upon them ? (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 SURAT.

Sir F. KELLY. inquired whether it was the intention
of her Majesty's Government to take the opinion of the
law officers of the Crown (including the Queen's Advo-
cate) as to the true meaning and effect of the treaty of
1800 between the Hon. East India Company and the then
Nawali of Surat ? And in the event of such law officers
advising that under the said treaty the East India Com.
parry were bound to pay to the heirs of the said Nawab
the annuity therein mentioned, whether it was the intea-
Con 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 on 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 accord-
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 jus-
tice 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 somo " monstrous" assertions about the facts.
[The right hon. gentleman was ultimately called to order by
the Speaker.] At all events ho 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 he: 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.

been given 'co different colonels of regiments, and great con.
rUsion had consequently prevailed. To Ireland orders had
been sent to disembody the militia as they found work, and
this had been found to be very successful where it had been
carried out. Iu the regiment he commanded ,many of the
men had gone away without employment, and with only a
few halfpence in their pocket. The Tip ,erary Militia were
ordered to give up their clothing, and a mutiny ensued.
Now he said the War Department was responsible for all this,
for if they had sent over clothes for the men, and given them

a little money to have kept them from starving, all this would
not havo occurred. Stich a state of things would always pre-
vail while the eonduct of military affairs were entrusted to

men who knew nothing about them.
Colonel FRENCH believed that there was a general feeling

;broughout Ireland that these regiments had not been pro-

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

order to avenge the outbreak of the Tipperary Militia, the
noble lord intended forthwith to disband every other Irish

regiment. Ile hoped the disembodiment of the various regi-
ments would take place at a time when they might have an
opportunity of obtaining work.
The motion for the adjournment of the house at its rising
until Monday was then agreed to.
COUNTY COURTS BILL.

On the order for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. GLADSTONE said ho 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 through vari-
ous clauses, and he had attempted to gather them to;rethcr,
so that they might be understood at one view. His reselu-

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 170,901/., 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 en-
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-
ject, but also on a review of the general judicaturo of the coin-
, try.lThere 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 foiter litigation. In many suits both
parties were unreasonable ; in most cases ono 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,
was full of dauger to the peace of the community, and the
character of Englishmen. 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 coats 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 peg ,rd to
itihnep
wereoe
rcit io y
ee
ee .s judges,Tpha ei
nd theytbh h
ye judges
t deg
essot
State,
tfo: conductappeals
the
bu uctt
smallhethey
h uao t
courts
f oi
de
Scotland
sdischarge
highestarg o
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 thii 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 too 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 60 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 imposedupon 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 ne 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 question, and that next
session they should state what they considered should be
the number of county court 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 'pen 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 tho
fees paid by suitors in those courts. He read a passage from
I page 42 of the report, en 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 be nujust to compel
suitors to pay fees sufficient to support the establishment.
They 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 'spin the
public. His right hon. friend had said that the principle of
the higher courts cold 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 net 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 criminal business of die 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 tb 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 county 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; they might 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 net 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 Government would net 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 for 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 resolution. 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 in 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 applied to all c )urts, it applied more
especially to courts where poor persons came to ask for their
rights. The right hon. gentleman had told them that they
ought to reconsider the courts in Westminster-hall, whether
the staff of judges was not too largo. 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 170,0001. 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, he 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. He 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 tho 170,0001.•
was to be
taken from the pockets of the people. This was not the pro-
position. Tho proposition was to limit the power of grant-
,,inognsmidoernetyhattointltrhe'esceocuonutrythe owuartsstrtaouls.7 0
of the litigation of the country. The amount in each case
cte,("cl tlh.e gTriel:ettyerslipoaurliti
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 SIR J. WALSH, Mr. J. G. PHIL.
LIMORE, Mr. BASS, and Mr. STRUM the amendment was then
put and negatived without a division, anti the house went
into committee on the bill.
et,
to insert "ay
Clauses 1 to 4 were agreed lit;
On
neeclausem n
5
Mr. HADFIELD moved, as an amendment, at the com-
mencement,judgespeal c
of
countyea d e ofc tuertenSome of our ablest lawyers had been taken from special
years'and
may be appoint
pleaders, who were especially versed in the law of evidence.
ain a
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the amendment,
Special pleaders 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
that they should be called first to the bar.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had ne 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 said that en referring to the
existing act he found that special pleaders were eligible after
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 ablest judges in that country, Mr.
Sheriff Barclay, of Perth, was only a solicitor. He should
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 (dice) en 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 briefslo bar-
risters. Solicitors knew the rule of evidence better than the
majority of barristers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the efficiency of
both branches of the profession was preserved by attention

1 to their distinct functions. The judicial bench in Westminster
Hall was recruited, from one branch of the ;.rofession, and
they should not break. down the distinction which had been
hitherto 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, on the clause itself, to the power
it gave to the judges, in case of absence, to allow another
judge to act for them.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause did not
increase the powers already existing in 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-
tion that these judges had so much of their time unoccupied
that they could supply the convenience of other judges, and
do their work.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses to 44 was agreed to.
On clause 15,
Mr. WILKINSON 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 the 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 to
define what was employment. ( laugh.)
The amendment was negatived aid the clause agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 19 were agreed to.
On clause 20,
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.
Tho 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, mad he feared that object would be
defeated if the jurisdiction was extended iu 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. HENLEY 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. CRAUFURD 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 iu which there were accounts cur-
rent of any magnitude, by reason of the limit played 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 1,2001. 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 1854 or at the amount axed by
the present bill. Since the original act wad
.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 441,000, involving claims to the
extent of £1,654,960. 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 Westminster-hall who would find themselves
astonished at receiving £1,200 a-year from their practice,
but that was no argument 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-
oellor, 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 superior 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
farmer. He next referred to the additional charges on the
taxation 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
230,0001., the two together making, in round nuinbers,
350,0001.; and, unless the extra amount required for the
county court was not paid out of the Cceisolidated Fund,
the poor suitors would be the sufferers.
After some remarks from Mr. CAYLEY,
Mr. WILLIAMS regretted the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had not offered a more decided 'opposition to the
amendment of the right hon. baronet.
Mr. WHITESIDE objected t 3 any increase of salary.
Mr. MALINS contended that as the principle of giving
1,5001. a year to the county court judges had been ad-
mitted, it ought to be made general. He most decidedly
objected 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 of 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 bill 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-
sider° I 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. He
denied that the salary of 1,2001. was insufficient, and the
fact of the eagerness with which these judgeshipi 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 sail 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 for travelling ex-
penses, was
.amply safficient 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 1,2J01. 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 loss 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, he 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. BB,OTHERTON 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 1201. ; and
that in courts where the plaints exceed 200 in the year,
the salaries shall be increased by sums of Si. for every 25
additional plaints up to 1,000 plaints inclusive, and then
by sums of 41. for every 23 additional plaints, and, that
such salaries shall be confined to proceedings within the
ordinary and common law jurisdiction of the court ; pro-
vided that no registrar shall be paid a less salary than
120'. 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 be had.
He 'thought that all officers of the county courts should bo
properly paid.
The 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, bo 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 supported 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 one could object to the amend-
ment. - -
Mr. WILSON -said he had Put an amendi4ent ou the paper