Star.
London, England, 1822-02-19 00:00:00

ever, abstracted the Bill altogether from the Ifouse.
Be (Lord A. Hamilton) had never been able to learn
the true reason why that Bill was abandoned, but the
pretext was, that another Bill had been prepared for
the same purpose by an Honourable Friend of his.—
A new Report, in 1818, had made it more impera-
tive than ever on Ministers to abolish the offices in
question. The Bill of which he had spoken, was not
only to abolish the offices in que3tion, but it was also
to put an end to the sale of offices in the Commissary
Courts. He would now proceed to state the reasons
which induced him to ask for leave to bring in a
Bill to accomplish these objects. Ile proceeded to
thew that the practices complained of in the Reports,
were in full activity in 1818. Great abuses appeared
to exist with respect to the exaction of fees, and in
some instances he had been given to understand fees
*bad been exacted to an enormous amount, for the
purpose of giving the parties a larger claim for com-
pensation. He hoped this would be remembered by
use Learned Lord when they came to be abolished,
as he trusted they would be shortly. lle proposed
to move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish them,
and inadequate as he might be to frame a measure
himself, as he had before him the Bill formerly intro-
duced on this subject by a Learned Lord, he hoped
he should not greatly err. He would admit that
some few of the parties whose situations would be
done away by this Bill, might be entitled to corns.
pensation, but the great bulk of them he was of opi-
nion were entitled .to no compensation at all. He
was at a loss to guess on what grounds these offices
could be defended. They had been reported as fit
to be ai)olished fourteen years ago. Five or six years
afterwards a Bill was brought into the House for that
purpose,
.and three or four years after that, a new
Commission reported on them in the same way.—
Why offices should be kept up in times like these
which had been so repeatedly recommended for abo-
lition, he could not conjecture. The Noble Lord, after
some further comments, concluded my moving

" For leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the Inferior Commis-
sary Courts in Scotland."

The LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND con-
sidered the subject now before the House to be of
some importance to the country to which hi belonged.
Had the Noble Lord done him the honour to ask him
what he purposed to do with respect to the offices in
question, he should have told him, that before leaving
Scotland, he bad been in correspondence with the
heads of the Courts on this subject ; and further, that
h ::ad considered it to be his duty to propose a Bill,
vllich he should bring forward in the course of the
present Session of Parliament. Such being his avowed
intentions, he would put it to the Noble Lord, whether
i: might not be advisable fur him to withdraw the
present rnotion6 and leave him (the Lord Advocate)
to introduce the measure which he had framed to
meet this evil? The Noble Lord bad thrown great
Lame on Ministers for not attending to this subject
sooner. He knew not what censure might be me-
riteJ elsewhere, but be was confident that no blame
could, in fairness, attach to himself. When he came
.into office two years ago, he found eight Reports, re-
commending the abolition of offices. It was hardly
possible for any individual, in one Session, to attend
to all of these. He bad taken two of them last year,
those relatinglo the Court of Session and the Court
of Admiralty. lie was prepared to take two more
this year, and thus he intended to proceed, seriatim,
with the whole. He admitted that some of the of-
ficers were entitled to no compensation, but others
were placed in a different situation, and would cer-
tainly claim compensation. The total amount of the
emoluments of those persons came to not less than
lour or five thousand pounds per annum. This had
been shewn by the persons themselves at a time when
they were desirous of making their gains appear as
low as possible. It was a very serious question for Mi-
nisters to determine, whether they should abolish offices
which were not paid for out of the public purse, and
charge the Public with that compensation which
would be expected by those who at present held them,
when they were abolished. He was of opinion that
it would be better to abolish them gradually. To
the officers connected with the Courti that could only
ecover debts to the amount of £3.65. Bd. he should
propose to give no compensation. In other cases
some corn pensa: ion might be given. Here the Learned
Lord proceeded to shew the advantage of abolishing
the offices in question gradually, and appealed to the
Noble whether he could be acquainted with all
the details connected with this subject, so as to be
able to proceed with his Bill to advantage, seeing it
was tLe intention of Government to take it up in the
course of the present Session? lie had only further
to say, that no office in these Courts had been re-
cently
given to any, but on the express understand-
ing that should a Bill like that now in contemplation
pass, no compensation would be allowed to those
taking office.
Sir J. NEWPORT supported the motion, and
hoped, in what might be hereafter done, no impro-
per compensation would be granted.
Sir W. DUNDAS expressed his conviction, that
those who had stepped beyond their duty to get tip
a claim to large compe.tsations, would not be coun-
tenanced or protected.

Lord A. HAMILTON, in reply, said, he could
bye no objection to surrender this business to the
Learned Lord, if he had a reasonable prospect that
there would be a promptitude of action. He therefore
wished the Learned Lord to let the present motion
be carried, he (the Lord Advocate) taking upon him-
self to bring in the Bill. He (Lord A. Hamilton)
would not again interfere, if he saw the matter likely
to be attended to in earnest by the Learned Lord.—
He insisted on the necessity of his having some pledge
given to him on this subject, after the delays which
had already taken place. He was glad to hear the
Learned Lord say, that he considered it to be his duty
to proceed to abolish these offices, but wished to ask
how it happened that Ministers had not sooner disco-
vered that it was their duty to frame such a measure?
The LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND re-
peated what be had previously stated on the subject.
He had a Bill in a forward state of preparation, which
he pledged to bring in before the Easter recess. He
thought the more regular way would be for him to
move for leave to bring in this Bill when he was ready.
Mr. PEEL begged to say, that•there-was one office
which it might be necessary. to fill up, but if skis
'were done, it would be on condition, and the same
condition would be attached to any other office
granted in thaw Courts, that in the event of abolition

3


. .

no contpeemtlos shodi I be allowed, even for the le,
gal fees of *Sett.
The SPEAKER tai f, no debate could then take
place, in conformity with the strict rules of the House;
but, if there was any misunderstandiat about the
question now to be put, it might be fidlillte itmveni-
ence of the Hoase tha; explanation should be asked
and given.
Mr. BROUGHAM did not understand the ebjec-5 of the Noble Lord to the proposition made by
his Noble Friend. The Learned Lord seemed to think
it would not be regular for the motion of the Noble
Loro, for leave to bring in a Bill, to be carried. But
in that House they had no Lord; of the Articles, as
they formerly had in Scotland, whose duty it was to
prepare all Bills. It might be more expedient, but it
would not be more regular for the Learned Lord to
bring in a Bill, than it would for his Noble Friend to
do so. Sot his Noble Friend said, if the Learned
Lord chose to bring it in, he would not interfere, un-
less he should see him relapsing into the inaction of
his predecessor ;in that case he hoped he would interfere.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, it struck
him that die course proposed by the Noble Lord was
not that which was usual in that House, It was
better that the Bill should be brought in by those
who had opportunities of consulting together, than
by those who were not very likely to concur in their
views. He thought it might be better that the Noble
Lord should Withdraw his motion ; but this was asked
as a matter of courtesy, and not claimed as a light.
Lord A. HAMILTON said, he had no objection
to his name being left out. He did not wish to be
connected with the bringing in of the Bill. -All that
he wanted was, that the Learned Lord should let the
present motion be carried, and take upon himself to
bring in tree Bill if the House consented to it.
Mr. TIERNEY remarked, his Noble Friend desired
but a pledge that the subject should be promptly at-
tended to by the Lord Advocate, on the House giving
him leave to bring in the Bill. The Gentlemen oppo-
site answered this by saying—" No, no; what you
ask cannot be agreed to—you are on the wroug side
of the House. If you" come over here and make your
motion, it will be all very well."—ln fact, the case
was this. The measure was admitted on all hands to
be a good one, but it was not to be allowed to be
brought in, because the proposition had originated
with his Noble Friend:

Mr. PEEL submitted to the House that the regu-
lar course was for the party who introduces a Bill,
to move for leave to bring it in. This Bill,which the
Learned Lord hael in preparation, might not follow
the title of the Noble Lord. In the conversation
which had passed, some little difference had appeared
between them—the one wished for an immediate—
the other, for a gradual abolition of the offices in
question. When his Learned Friend said he would
introduce a Bill, was it fair to throw that suspicion
on him which agreeing to this motion would con-
vey ? The point was one of little importance, but
he could not see any reason for deviating from the
usual course.

The SPEAKER remarked, the rules of the House
were so wisely framed, that a departure from them
for convenience generally produced a greater incon-
venience than i. had ben attempted to avoid. This
was experienced in the present case, from the length
to which the conversation had extended. He was
now obliged to interfere. His apology to the House
for letting it go so far was this—he supposed the ques-
tion put by the Noble Lord had been misunderstood.'
Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON said, he would
not divide the House, but he would let the motion
be negatived.
Mr. BROUGHAM suggested that a negative on
the present motion might throw a difficulty in the
way of the bringing in of the Learned Lord's Bill.
The SPEAKER remarked, if the present motion
were negatived, it could not prevent a similar motion
from being offered when the House next assembled.
A Bill once introduced and thrown out could not be
brought in again that Session, but the question now
before the House was only as to time, and the motion
might be repeated.—The motion was then negatived.