The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-15 00:00:00

who got 7,0002 a-year by the Bill, should be allowed to
draw it up. It was said that it was hard to see men
who held good situations turned out of their offices and
walk through the streets in poverty ; but was the public
to suffer for that ? Were those who were entitled to no
compensation to obtain large sums from the public
purse?—(Hear, hear.) The public had a right to com-
plain that they received this compensation without any
inquiry. How was the Act of Parliament introduced ?
It was said to be approved of by the Law Association
in London, which was composed of attorneys, who
must at least be -supposed to have an interest in the
matter. It for the first time introduced a new principle.—
(Hear, hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend had even
gone to Ireland for a precedent. But he failed; for in
the case he instanced thl officers compensated were
officers under patent, and their offices were saleable
by law.—(Hear, hear.) There were six clerks, and not
sixty clerks.—(Hear, hear.) He said whether this Bill
had been in the House for months instead of hours, it
was the duty of those who brought it in to read it, and
if they read it they must see that a new principle had
been for the first time introduced. He was quite sure
that the present Chief Baron of the Exchequer would
say, on introducing the Bill, that it introduced a new
principle of compensation if he was aware of it ; but
the Bill was hurried on through the House with inde-
cent haste. It was brought into the House on the 29th
of July, and it was read a first time on the same day.
It was read a second time before the Bill was printed.
On the 2d of August it was committed, when, for the
first time, the compensation clauses were adde&--(Hear,
hear)—and it was not till the third reading that those
clauses were made known. He had, therefore, a right
to say that the Bill was passed in indecent haste ; and he
was quite sure that if the new principle intro-
duced had been pointed ont to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, or to the Right
Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government,
they would not have sanctioned it.—(Hear, hear.) If it
had been said to them that it was desirable to abolish
those offices, they would not, looking to the interest of
the public, have allowed such a Bill to pass in such a
manner.—(Hear, hear.) All his Hon. and Learned
Friend wanted now was an inquiry. They did not want
to alter the Bill altogether. All they wanted to see was,
whether it was good. The six clerks were entitled to
compensation, but there was no provision for pensions
after, death. But who were the sworn clerks ?
(Hear hear.) Was the nature of their office inquired
into ? Was that an office that could be sold ? It never
had been sold, unless by some evasion of the statute.
Had they inquired into the amount of their fees ? What
had been done with regard to those fees ? When equity
business was transacted in the Court of Exchequer, all
the officers of that court were paid from the public funds,
and now, after their business was transferred to the side
clerks in the Court of Chancery, the public was to pay
again—(Hear)----that was, the public was to pay twice
for the abolition of the same office.—(Hear, hear.) By
the 12th section of the sth and 6th Victoria, chap. 103,
the Lord Chancellor was empowered to inquire who
were entitled to receive compensation. Did the Lord
Chancellor do so ? Let them inquire if it was so. That
was all they wanted.—(Hear.) His Hon. and Learned
Friend the Solicitor-General said the Lord Chancel-
lor was fettered, and that he could not give less than
three-fourths. Who were to blame for this ? Was it
not the Legislature who passed such an Act?—(Hear,
hear.) Upon what principle were the agents to be com-
pensated ? If they were justly entitled to it, what a
crying injustice had been done to the clerks in the Court
of Exchequer. He defied any person to say that there
was a legal claim for compensation. But it was said that
it was but an act of justice towards those persons to pay
them, and that it would be very hard if they were not
paid. Perhaps he (Mr. Jervis) also thought it would be
hard, but was this a ground on which those who were
responsible for the public purse should act ?—(Hear,
hear.) He would ask, therefore, whether they were
prepared to say that any man, who was a mere writing
clerk, liable to dismissal at a moment's notice at the will
of his master, should be entitled to compensation by an
annuity for life.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that this
was a subject which called for inquiry in the House of
Commons. If there had been inquiry in this case, the
compensation would not have exceeded 20,0001. instead
of 46,0001., which was now paid. In the meantime, the
fees which were abolished, or to be abolished, were in-
creased in amount, even though they might be
changed in form and in name. Were they to be
surprised that the solicitors who had to charge
these fees in the costs, should complain and
require that the system should be altered, and that
the fees should not be so heavily increased to pay
these compensations ? The cost of passing the Act was
charged to the Suitors' Fund. Had not the suitors a
right to complain of that?—(Hear, hear.) Was it just
of the Lord Chancellor and the Government to put the
expenses of the Act of Parliament for granting that com-
pensation to the charge of the Suitors' Fund ?—(Hear,
hear.) To say the least f it, he would insist that this
was at least a subject for inquiry, and unless it were
granted the public would not be satisfied.
Mr. R. YORKE had been a Member of the House of
Commons when this Bill was passed, and he cordially
supported the motion, of his Hon Friend, the Member
for Kinsale.

- Sir J. GRAHAM was obliged to state to the House
the reason why he opposed this motion. He admitted
that time did not sanctify an abuse. But it was to
be recollected that these offices had been held for a time
ttating as far back as Charles the First ; and when Mr.
Pemberton Leigh spoke from the other side of tha
House, in 1840, which had been alluded to by the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman who now introduced the subject
to the House, he (Mr. Pemberton Leigh) admitted that
the officers to be displaced were entitled to large and libe-
ral compensation. When the Bill, which was prepared by
Mr. Wainwright, was introduced, his Noble and Learned
Friend now on the woolsack, acquiescing in all
the statements of Mr. P. Leigh, laid it down that the
officers were entitled to compensation. The Bill passed
through the House of Lords, having received the appro-
bation of Lord Langdale, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and
Mr. Sharpe, and was sent down to this House. The Hon.
and Learned Member for Chester had said that, in the
Bill there were provisions quite unexampled—that it
gave compensation for the sale of offices in the adminis-
tration of justice. But, on referring to the Bill itself,
it would be seen, from the fourteenth clause, that the
object of the Bill was to put an end to the sale of offices,
and the fact was that it had done so. The sums awarded
to the six clerks in Ireland, under the sanction of Lord
Cottenham, were expressly declared to be as compensa-
tion for the privilege which they bad enjoyed of the
transfer or sale of office during life. The Act
had not been unfairly obtained, or smuggled through
Parliament. On the contrary, it had been pre-
pared and examined with the greatest care.
It could not be said truly that this measure was smug-
gled through Parliament or surreptitiously obtained. The
next question was, had the provisions of the Bill boon
properly carried into execution ? The Lord Chancellor,
on making the award of compensation to be given,
called to his assistance the Master of of the Rolls and
Vice-Chancellor Wigram, and all the compensations that
had been given received their sanction, and were, inva-
riably, the minimum of the Act of Parliament. 6,0001.
a-year had already been remitted from the Suitors' Fund,
and in the course of 20 years 45,0001. would be re-
mitted. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by hoping
that the House would not accede to the motion.

Mr. WILLIAMS announced the whole matter (as a
scandalous job. It had been. said that his Hon. Friend
the Member for Montrose had supported the Bill. He
(Mr. Williams) was sure he would never. have done so
had he been properly made acquainted with the provi-
sions of the measure. Unless there was a new system
of management of the public business, it would be
impossible, he was afraid, to prevent jobs of this kind.
The public were entitled to protection from this system,
and her Majesty's Government, in defence of the Act,
ought to allow inquiry into it.
Mr. C. BULLER was prepared to defend the vote he
should give to her Majesty's Ministers against the first
part of the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Kinsale. The House, in looking to the great question
of law reform ought not to be illiberal in compensation' •
pecuniary consideration ought never to interfere with.
great practical good—(Hear)—and acting upon that prin-
ciple, he should vote against the motion. This measure
had been denounced as a job ; now he knew the whole
•f this measure proceeded from gentlemen who were
among some of the most sincere law reformers in the
country.—(Hear, hear.) Upon this Act no ques-
tion had arisen as to its working, while
upon other Acts the greatest question had arisen.
The latter part of the motion he thought was well worthy
of the consideration of the House. That part of the
motion which proposed an inquiry into the subject of
fees in the courts of law and equity was entitled to sup-
port. In those courts one hundred persons had the
control of 300,0001. Ninety-one of those were in the
law courts, and they were subject to no check whatever
with respect to that money. In the courts of equity
the persons appointed to receive the fees were required
to make an affidavit with respect to them. Many of the
fee-takers in the law courts were small salaried men, and
therefore there were great temptations before them.
Another very important question was the necessity of
taking fees at all in the courts of law.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought the whole system required inquiry and re-
vision, and he thought the Government would do well
to institute an inquiry into the subject.
Mr. WARBURTON said he recollected reading in
the memoirs of the Duke de St. Simon, that when a
proposition was submitted to him for law reform, he said
that it could never be accomplished, inasmuch as there
were so many persons whose livelihood depended upon
those law institutions. Thus was law reform frustated
in the time of Louis XIV. Now his Hon. Friend the
Member for Liskeard had fallen into this kind of tender-
heartedness, and would not give his consent to law
reform unless an unlimited compensation accompanied it.
In that respect he (Mr. Warburton) could not agree
with his Hon. Friend. Why, if they gave this immense
compensation to parties, whether they were entitled to it
or not, it would only have the effect of disgusting the public
with respect to all attempts at law reform. Now, with
respect to these fees, about which there had been so
much discussion. It must be recollected that these fees
had been, on seven.' occasions, altered and interfered
with by several of the late Lord Chancellors, and yet
the compenstion for these fees had been fixed at the
highest point. This was a course of law reform which
would disgust the public. No one would object to com-
pensation being given, provided that compensation was
fair and just ; and, therefore, he thought the Govern-
ment ought to support a proposition for inquiry into the
subject.
Mr. WATSON, in reply, said that the Solicitor-
General had stated that be (Mr. Watson) had no right
to interfere in this subject. Now he was prepared to
show that he had this right, inasmuch as the Act of
Parliament provided that the returns of these compen-
sations should be laid on the table of the House. Why
was that provision made, if it was not to give the House
the power of investigation? It now appeared that Mr.
Wainwright--for..his. name appeared at last—bad re-
ceived 3,0001. for preparing the Bill for giving compen-
sation. They might as well make the felon pay for the