Star.
London, England, 1821-05-10 00:00:00

COURTS OF JUSTICE.

Sir JOHN NEWPORT then rose to call the atten-
tion of the House to a subject which .had been ire-•
grimly before them already—namely, the system of
fees taken in the Court of Chancery, &c. It was re-
commended
by the Commissioners, that because cer-
tain fees were paid in the Court of King's Bench,
they should therefore be continued in the Court of
Chancery. In another -case, the continuance of the
fees was justified, on the ground that the money was
not to be regarded as a fee, but a gratuity. The.
Commissioners, since 1815, had only made three
Reports, and a su. plemental one. The money paid
to the Commissioners, in all, had amounted to forty
thousand pounds, and the fruit to the Public had
been four Reports. No answer had, in many cases,
been returned to the inquiries of the Commissioners;
and in that, though armed with rower s to enforce
compliance, the Commissioners had acquiesced. He
h•td to complain of the Appointment of two Masters
in Chancery among► the Commissioners; and now, at
the end of five years, the Lord Chancellor proposed
to submit the Reports to further consideration. Al-
ready £ 6,000 had been paid, and when the sum
amounted to £200,000, the Lord Chancellor might
be ready to give an opinion. By a letter from the
' Chief Justices of the King's Bench and Common
Pleas, to the Secretary of State, it appeared that no
communication had been made to them of the lie-
ports. He should place on the Journals certain Re-
solutions relative to the subject, and should move,
" Ist, That it appeared to the House that the Commission
appointed in ICS had been compostt of five persons; two of
them were Masters in Lliancery ; and had, on one occasion, tu-
ceived 150,000 as a remuneration for their services, at the rate
of Z 1,200 a-year each; and, subsequently, £6.000 enure.
" Vally, That it appeared that the Lord Chanctilor had adop-
ted come of the recommendations, but had thought that others
required mute Consideration; and that it appeared no communi-
cation had been made to the Chief Justices of the Klug's Bench
and Common Pleas.

" That this House saw, with extreme regret, the delay
that had taken place as to the object of the Commission' and
that no conumanication on the subji et had been made to the Chief
Justices of the king's Bench and Common Plrai, whose duty it
was to have carried the recommendation of the Commissioners
into effect."

The AT contended, that
no persons could be so proper to be appointed as
those best acquainted with the practice of the respec-
tive Courts. The fees in the emit of Chancery had
been sanctioned from the time of Lord Hardwicke,
in the year 17-1.3. Upon compaling the labours of
the English and Lich Comniissioneis. it appeared
that much more had been done by the former, whose
Reports amounted.to five hundred folio pages, while
those of the Irish were only four hundred. The Com-
missioners had uo compulsory power to enforce obe-
dience. When the House looked to the Court of
Chancery, they would find, that over many of the
fees the Lord Chancellor bad no controul; but he
had done all in his power—and, in the case of; the
Officers holding .situations at pleasure, and over
whom the Chancellor had controul, the recommen-
dation of the Commissioners had. been carried into
effect. Over the others the Chancellor had no con-
troul, as maoy of them had purchased their situa-
tions. He-conceived the complaint against the Lord
Chancellor was wholly unfounded. It was not the
duty of the SeCretary of State to communicate the
Reports, as they had been seta ned to the Petty Bag
Office, and thence the communication should have
been made. Had it been deemed necessary, there
would have been no disinclination on the part of any
of the members of Government to have made the
necessary communications. He should move the
previous question, as no case had been made out
[against the Commissional.
Mr. ABERCROMRY observed,. that a more se.
vere charge could not be made against a Govern-
ment collectively than had been made now. After
a long delay, the Report had been laid before the
Judges by the Secretary of State. The Public had
a right to expect that the Government should see
that some benefit should. be received from the money
expended. He lamented that individuals having
, other important duties to perform should be
ap-
pointed Commissioners, as they, could not bestow
undivided attention on .the business committed to
them. He thought that in the Returns made to the
House, the Lord Chancellor lAki not done himself
justice, as he, believed he carried the recommenda-
tion of the Commissioners into effect to his own dis-
advantage, as would have appeared had he chosen
to enter into details.

Mr. BATHURST defended the conduct of Go-'
vernmedt, and•contended, that the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet was mistaken as to his facts. It was hard to
blame the Government for the expense, as Govern-
ment had opposed the appointment of the Commis-
sion, aware that no rood could re,ult from an in-
quiry into the English Courts, however much it
might have been wanted in Ireland. He believed,
as to the Courts in Westminster-Hall, that the whole
inquiry would be wound up in the course of the 'ne-
wt summer.
_ _ • _

Mr. BARING said, that it would appear, from
the language of the Right Hon. Gentlemtn, that it
was the duty. of no one to attend to the Rgports. If
it was not the Secretary of State's duty to attend to

. -