The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-05-21 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved in the House of
Commons for leave to bring in a bill, having for its object
to extend the parliamentary suffrage, and secure the free
representation of the people.
Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion, and the house di-
vived without any reply being made to the speeches of the
honourable gentlemen, and the motion was negatived by
a majority of 97 to 31.
Mr. WATSON moved for a committee to inquire into
the compensations awarded to the persons filling certain
lately abolished offices in Chancery. The annual sum
which was now to be paid for compensations and salaries,
and which was to come out of the pockets of the suitors,
was £73,000 a-year. 'He referred most-particularly to the
clerks in court, some of whom were now receiving £7,0?0
a year. They had had no fixed interest in the fees for the
abolition of which large compensation was given ; these
were fees which the Chancellor had power to alter from
time to time. Mr. Watson showed that no duties were
done for them, and quoted a speech of Mr. Pemberton
Leigh, condemning them as an enormity and an iniquity.
The gentlemen in Chancery-lane received more than the
First Lord of the Treasury or the Speaker or the House
of Commons. The bill giving these strange compensa-
tions had been hurried with remarkable celerity through
parliament, taking some of its stages after 12 o'clock at
night, in the month of August, when the house was very
thinly attended, and most of the lawyers were on the cir-
cuit. Compensations ought not to fall on the suitor's
pocket or the suitor's fund ; so much as ought to be paid
at all should be paid out of the consolidated fund.
The SOLICITCR-GENERAL (Mr. Thesiger) in opposing
this motion, admitted that the state of things in the Six
Clerks'•office at the date of this bill had been a state of
abuse. The office of the Six Clerks was then little more
than a sinecure. Each had power to appoint ten persons,
who were called the 60 or sworn clerks. They did only
part of the duties, and employed agents under them, who,
though they had no vested interest in their employments,
were practically officers for life. The abuses connected
with the establishment of the Six Clerks and GO clerks
were generally felt, and it was judged to be necessary that,
in order to make way for a remedy, the then existing in-
terests should be cleared away. The clerks, whose offices
it was thus proposed to abolish, lent their aid to the whole
scheme of Chancery reform, on the distinct understand-
ing that they were to receive a full and fair compensation.
This was done under the supervision of a commission
composed of very distinguished men—Lord Langdale,
Vice Chanceller Wigrarn, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and the
late Mr. Sutton Sharp. The interest of the sworn clerks,
though it had originated in abuse, was a vested interest,
and had long been recognized as a matter of purchase and
sale, of succession and of family arrangement. The atten-
tion of Lord Cottenham was specially called by Mr.
Wainwright, the sworn clerk who prepared the bill, to the
compensation clauses, while the measure was in progress
through the House of Lords ; and Lord Cottenham saw
no ground of objection. The bill did not pass sub silentio
through the House of Commons, where Mr. Ward made
the same observation which had been repeated to-night
about the disparity between political and professional re-
muneration, and Mr. Hume stated that he had examined
the bill, and had found it quite correct both in principle and
in detail. Thus fairly and carefully was the act of parlia-
ment passed ; and if there was any blame, which he did
not, however, admit, it was the blame of the whole legis-
lature. He quoted previous compensation acts, to show
that the act now cothplained of proceeded upon precedent.
It was a mistake to suppose that these compensations
were thrown upon the suitors' fund ; it was only from the
suitors' fee fund that they were to be taken. The suitors
would equally have borne this burden if the reform had
not been made ; with this difference—that then the bur-
dens would have been permanent, whereas now it would
pass away as the lives should fall in ; but, at all events,
there was no reason why it should be shifted front the
suitors who were liable to it all along, upon the consoli-
dated fund, or, in other words, upon the public who had
nothing to do with it. He explained the liberal way in
which the Chancellor had waved his own patronage in the
new appointments under this bill, for the sake of a saving
to the suitors. He concluded by appealing to the justice
of the house whether it was reasonable, when a settle-
ment had been fairly made, and the arrangements of a do-
mestic life completed On the faith of it, that a committee
should be appointed to seek fresh grounds for the repeal
of the act of Parliament.
Mr. JERVIS said that the Solicitor-General had fur-
nished additional reasons for inquiry, by showing that the
bill had been prepared by interested persons. If there
was so good a case, why resist inquiry? He mentioned
instances in which the Chancellor had, of his own autho-
rity, abolished fees taken by the 60 olerks, and argued
thence that their interest was not a vested one. There
was no vested interest but that of the Six Clerks, whose
offices were patent ones; to the case of the sworn clerks
the principle of compensation was inapplicable. But still
looser was the way in which the amount of it was calcu-
lated ; for the new judges were appointed who cleared
away the arrears; and there was consequently an end to
all those profits which the arrears had yielded, but which
pre is were yet calculated into these compensations. At
all events this was a case for inquiry.
Sir .5. GRAHAM and one or two other members then
addressed the house, after which Mr. Watson's motion
was. negatived by a majority of 84 to 68.
Sir,D. N ORREYS then brought on a motion for a select
committee to inquire as to the acts for the relief of the
poor ip Ireland, but his motion was negatived.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESD
On the motion of Mr. WILSON P/errat-r, it was ordered
that the time for making reports on turnpike road bills
be enlarged-till the 21st of June.
Mr. THORN;gI,Y presented a petition from English
Presbyterians near Liverpool, signed, among others, by
three magistrates, in favour of the Dissenters Chapels
Bill.
The house was soon after counted out.