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

been fixed by various Lord Chancellors. There was a
scale of fees fixed in the reign of George the Second by
Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, which was remodelled in
1807, and from that time to the period of the passing of
the Act the fees remained the same. He admitted
those fees were very high, and that the whole of the
arrangement in reference to those offices consti-
tuted a great abuse, and that it was necessary
to do away with them before any reform could
be effected. In the year 1840, Mr. Field, a solicitor, in
a series of tables, called the attention of the public to
this abuse, and he believed it was in consequence of the
information presented in that gentleman's pamphlet
that the Hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby)
obtained a return of the fees and emoluments of the six
clerks, and the sworn clerks, from which it appeared
that one of them a Mr. Getty, received between
10,0001. and 11,0001, others 9,0001, 6,000 L, and so on ;
some received so small an amount as 201. a year. The
subject was then brought before a Commission, consist-
ing of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Langdale, Vice-
Chancellor Wigram, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and the late
Mr. Sutton Sharpe. The clerks, on being con-
sulted with, stated their readiness to enter into
any views of reform, on the understanding that they
should get compensation. A Bill was accordingly
drawn up by one of the sworn clerks, Mr. Wainwright,
which was submitted to a Committee at the Law Insti-
tution. The Bill, after their supervision, was intro-
duced by Lord Langdale into the House of Lords, and
before its third reading Mr. Wainwright went through
its various clauses with Lord Cottenham ; and as those
compensation clauses were passed without any oppo-
sition on the part of the Noble and Learned Lord, he
(the Solicitor-General) supposed he approved of them. It
then came down to that House at, he admitted, elate period
of the session, but still at a time when there were
several Honourable Members in attendance who
would have opposed it if it contained any pro-
visions that were considered objectionable. The
Bill did not pass through the House sub silentio.
The le
-eon- and Learned Member for Sheffield made a
comparison between the remuneration for political and
Professional services. The Honourable Member
for Montrose stated that he had examined the Bill, and
found that it was perfectly correct in its principles and
rofictiirdseptroplao-sedThyo Hon. and Learned Member for Lis-
howeve in
t compensate the agents of certain
the Court of Exchequer. That proposal,
into the' was
tr not agreed to. The Bill found its way
the sa„s ,;'°use of Lords, not clandestinely, but under
quearein-t4'" and auspices of persons who were well ae-
with all the circumstances of the case, but who
Fore not wining,
eprive the sation b to d ' parties of their compen-
, e.
ecause it was larger than was consistent with
the i
dutes they had to perform. If there were any
blarne fl the matter, it attached to the whole Le-
gieslature there was no individual exempt. What
wre the grounds of objection on the part
of his lion. and Learned Friend? ln the first place he
thought the principle of compensation would be admitted
fby all ; there could not be a doubt as to the justice and
onriety of compensating officers for offices legally held
11' 8° long a period. His Hon. and Learned Friend ob.-
ected to the amount of compensation, stating that sausf.
cient caution was not maintained for the purpose.ef
fisted the proper sums. If that were so, the blame
4");''(1 with those who passed the Bill. The grounds of
~,,-"e different charges, and the nature of the emoluments
i',.!re Perfectly well known in the profession. There was
r"'" necessity, therefore, for guarding the return by any
trlicular sanction. No discretion was left by the Act of
(*parliament to the individual who was to administer the
Fr„.lllPtensation. The rate of compensation was to be—
e: tne six clerks, three-fourths ; and 'for the clerks in
+
'.lrt and agents, two-thirds. In one case—that of Mr. itfordthe salary had been made the subject of trust
tsettlement, and that was at the time particularly im-
essed on the attention of the House. It had
e..!,11 stated that there were a great number of
rAs ° 11°n debts. He believed that on that subject
e 1 • Learned Friend was mistaken.
e debtsand did not amount to moreentirel than y a thousand
rt.inds, and that amount was deducted. His Hon.
1311)!!ld Was, perhaps, not aware of what was done by the
Six Clerks
by Lord Plunket in 1836, abolishing the
n'3rix Clerks' Office in Dublin. That Bill was founded on
ree eeisel the same principle as the Bill under considera-
eesse
600/ The emoluments of the office were not more than
p Per annum.
They had 4,000/. paid to them as a
-°°lPensation for the abolition of their office ; and upon
au averagesure dmof three years they received an additional
of ee ing their life. This was a much stronger case
the`44lPensation; and it afforded a complete precedent for
1.. coarse adopted on this occasion. His Hon. and
Zarned Friend had endeavoured to excite the compas-
;,.`"..° of the House by speaking of the poor suitors' fund.
!u std that fund was burdened to the extent of a mil-
Zfli for these compensations. The only fund they had
_ eal with was the Suitor's Fee Fund. That fund was
0111 to eh, e
amount of 77,0001., received by the six
*lir s' he ►
fee clerks, and the other clerks,
u°se offices were abolished. Unless the Legis-
lbeetire had interposed, the fees could not have
werea abolished. The compensations, he admitted,
It being extended to between 46,000/. and 47,000/.
he /7" agreed that it was just some compensation should
knowthat
tw that many
to the persons who held those offices, and he
Hon. Members opposite would agree
to b the expense of defraying those compensations ought
T.() a borne by the Consolidated Fund, and not by the
(143: suitors, and the object of the present Bill was to
/V ease the charges which 110 W pressed upon the suitors.
twee„,, Ilin awarded for compensation amounted to be-
eetdown for teial those clerks were entitled to a fee of
also " which brought in a sum of 15,009./. There was
tion,a similar fee to be paid upon every warrant of taxa •
abolizehich amounted to 8,0001. These fees had been
Fi of 23,000/.
se 4hY the Lord Chancellor, and therefore the
SictehroefePaeicihcef-nlic c
had to beprovided for and in lieu of that the
half:011"w Under the old system the
copy as raised from three-halfpence
79°,0°17eirer centage .svas-47'.7,319/., under the. present it was
was another
- or 2481. in favour of the suitors. But there
Tiestion of
-as another point to be considered with respect to tins
aei)eventy compensation, and that was that before
n. years had elapsed the necessity for this com-
theatlon would be at an end, and the dividend upon
tee suitors' fund would give a further reduction of other
*l, ep: Had his Hon. and Learned Friend opposite, or
tha" the House, more information upon this subject
this those excellent persons who recommended
expo„; re, and who had such extensive
aure,ence? If it were necessary to pass such a mea-
jesta ue trusted no person in the House would for an
aotis tit refuse allowing fair compensation to those per-
'thoutWhOse
future prospects and hopes in life were
Inent. beingllls injured by the repeal of an Act of Parlia-
a gun liis Hon. and Learned Friend in his speech left
Withl behind, because he said there was some motive
it esstee parties who brought in this measure to pass
offiee ''Y and clandestinely But let them see how the
lien! had been bestowed. *His (the Solicitor-General's)
1e,5,...,nd Learned Friend was right in saying that the
tied 7 of the Rolls had the appointment of the six clerks,
cords clerks clerks of the writs and the clerks of the re-
ete,7;vthe latter of whom, when appointed under this
were
aieuld get salaries of 1,2001. per annum each. There
vilth tir six taxing officers, whose appointment lay
That rightc Lord Chancellor ; but instead of exercising
Chancey, the Noble and Learned Lord vested it in the
told )! Commissioners, who selected three solicitors
synod ree op
e, clerks of the Court. Had his Hon. and
this il, -r riend satisfied the House that the framers of
(Loud t had used no proper caution in the matter ?
thee cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition)—or
fair
Furtht°l4ifdt:ll:the repeal of the former laws, it was improper
e compensation? He should trespass no
exprell?°n the attention of the House than merely to
sstie ls hope that he had stated enough to induce'
his %us° to Come to the conclusion that the motion of
that tb°' and Learned Friend was perfectly useless, and
kr. el Would oppose it.
co tripee.RVlS said with respect to the nature of the
Isis eie"•'ation to be given to the claimants and its amount
added n* and Learned Friend who just sat down had
*belt nothing
new,
but had informed the House by
br and tin , OUght i der what circumstances the Bill had been
7 the 011,1, and had also stated the construction given
charge ancellor to the Act. There certainly was no
l'ord, but Commission against the Noble and Learned
act For :l. rather of omission, for he allowed others to
self*, hit and to construe the Act, which, being him-
All teciallY authorised to do, he was bound to look to.
to es, e Profession knew that their clients were bound
ter 3' at least fi f th s fees and what his
allied pper cent.
fliliey, Friend near him wanted was to have an in-
pee .to lull the suspicionand distrust which he
veil
that nonegainst that measure, but they were told
ash re„ of the parties had the slighest
Nei -- concealmentand yet they refused any
alike,
(Inch I°n• He felt the House would not allow
; asure
anteoduprecedent as this Bill would afford, to be now
titte for the first •
d• "tercels.time. It would truly be a most
iaes precedent, if
fe °f tile ~. the officers, who were the guar
:trt iireestiPu?lic purse, were to be allowed impunity
4158 new proga_tt°etl• He thought those offices, which it
seance swept
aP:: c.I toTehbolish, ought to have been long
tents :veil° had byeen sixclerks originallyvnethreaPear-
a -• °Mee, and admitted
to those courts. '
P
'e it car • all solicitors who had business should
the ,iv_i. ried on in their name although they did all
ei•
the o.lt themselves Each'generally,•
. in consequence
~ lncrease of business, ete„
1,.. Hies as many as
had ten assistants, and some-
son, an fifteen or twenty were allowed. His
set ei._ -Learned Friend opposite had said, that those
ap____erks had the • htof selling their (M
rig
it'ils) denied that, because by III
0., was declar * a statute of Edward •
Those
eon ea penal for any person to sell
fleeted with the administration of justice.
am t, sixty clerks had clients amongst the attorneys,
profits made bargains with them for a share in their
‘4.• •
or -The waning clerks were mere common clerks
t''us„2°o sixy clerks, and they had
aatttion than any law stationer employednwohomworaesrttocoileal-
allowee°ll,l.7.—(llear hear.) The sixty s3' °very 'es on the taxation of costs and got 6/ 8
n cause that , .s. for
eoiaestood on the a er, though it did not
the. °c•—(l-lear, hear.) In P P• '
Le I, the time of Lord Eldon
Ive: , sed to be a great number of
causes, for each of
cell they received es•Bd if
4Per? But what • . *, they only stood on the
, dti-eie
show at did Lord Lyndhurst do? What did
clerks
1348 were supposed to have? llactually,before
slng or th' Ae the
to . is ct, made an order b • •
, 6s. 8d 6) y which they were
was tried, thus d. r a cause only on the:da.y on which it
.'s(4lear, h depriving them at once of 10,0001. a-year.
te__
*1(.., ear.) Would he do this if he considered
nsh I vested rights ?—(Hear, hear)—or would the
eex:it have endured it?—(Hear hear •) Yet it
;:iiii grounds that claims for , • . was on
log to 1,300 00 1 compensation were made
;alting clerks were ' 0 --(Cheers.) The agents or
qc they were .paiedeolvinagf clerks of the sixty clerks,
v 1 i h the . folio out of the 10d.- a folio
sixty clerks recei
they
to • yid. Why what right had
,this? It was a
bat more right had mere monopoly?—(Hear.)
any Copying they to receive this money than
.....(Rt*al. clerk who was able to do his business?—
/vh° had' Was it right that the attorneys in London,
set.,_interest in the matter sh ld be allowed to
ou
" with the sixty clerks, and that Mr. Wainwright,