SIR J. HANMER said, that as it had been intimated that Her Majesty's Government had no objection to grant an inquiry, he was anxious to learn from the right hon.

passed through very thin Houses, the number of Members present ranging only from 27 to 50; and he all along regarded it as a bad and suspicious measure. He hoped that the Members of Her Majesty's Go-Baronet the Secretary of State, whether vernment, who had had the courage to abandon bad plans and principles on other subjects, would not hesitate to change their policy on the present question.

it were the intention of the Government to take this matter seriously in hand, and to bring forward, at a future period, a substantive measure respecting it; or whether they would merely trust to the chapter of accidents, and, resting content with the appointment of a Committee, take no further step until some Member might again call attention to it?

SIR R. PEEL had no hesitation in giving an assurance to his hon. Friend that it was the wish of the Government that there should be a full and efficient inquiry as to the mode in which the officers of the courts of justice were paid by fees, for the purpose of ascertaining the facts of the case, and for the purpose of establishing effectual checks against abuse for the future. The providing against future

MR. ROMILLY was anxious that the Motion should be modified in such a manner, as to comprise an inquiry into the mode in which the various officers in the Court of Chancery collected their fees. He very much feared that the present system was a very irresponsible one, and that there was no species of check or means of ascertaining the extent of fees actually collected, and the precise amount that was paid over to the fee fee fund. Information on this point, however, was most desirable. He would support the present Motion, but wished to have it expressly understood, that he did not support it in the hope or the desire of pro-abuses was the matter in which the House curing a repeal of the Act of Parliament was chiefly concerned. When he filled the under which compensation was awarded to office of Secretary for the Home Departthe present officers. He thought that ment, he felt the difficulty of dealing with nothing could be more impolitic or unjust the compensations to the holders of judicial than that at the expiration of five years, and other offices which it was deemed exduring which the present system had pedient to abolish. From the first hour of existed, and after Government enjoyed the his entering upon that office, and even advantages which accrued from the circum- when he was Secretary for Ireland, he felt stance of inducing men to give their ser- impressed with the importance of this subvices on the understanding that compen-ject, and that it was wise to get rid of fees sation would be given-nothing, he re-by compensating the holders of office on peated, could be more unjust than that after all this, an inquiry should be instituted with a view to taking away the compensation which had been deliberately given. At the same time, however, he was strongly of opinion that the compensation awarded was excessive, and the reason why he would support the Motion was, that he thought it was highly desirable that a better state of things should be established prospectively, and that the evil should be avoided of giving a similar scale of compensation on future occasions. The fact was, that before the passing of the Act of 1842 the officers concealed, for a series of years, the actual amount of fees received, under the idea that the Chancellor might have reduced them had he known of it; and thus the House was misled, and a higher rate of compensation was given than circumstances should have warranted. His reason for supporting the Motion was, that he was desirous to obviate the recurrence of similar evils for the future.

abolishing them; but still there were great difficulties on the subject. He felt during the whole course of his experience that it was impossible to effect any important reform as regarded such offices, unless they acted liberally towards those who had vested rights in them. He found that they could not make any progress without doing so. It often happened that from the persons holding these offices they obtained the most important information respecting them, which they never would have acquired if these parties were impressed with the belief that the Government would not act liberally towards them if the offices were abolished. Government, therefore, had always shown an anxiety to act liberally when they proceeded to remove such abuses. The principle of giving to officers of courts of justice and to the holders of other vested offices such enormous amounts of fees as they would not for a moment think of giving to the highest officers of the State-which they would not give to

the Speaker, nor to a Minister of the Crown, | during that period, it was impossible that nor to a Judge-was a state of things which there must not have arisen a greatly inshould not be allowed. He did not hesi- creased number of cases for litigation. tate to say that one of the greatest abuses Whence then did the cause arise that there which existed was the amount of emolu- was no increase in the amount of business ment obtained by subordinate officers in in Chancery? Mr. Pemberton Leigh said— the shape of fees which were paid by and he told the truth-that it was all very suitors for justice. He did not agree with well for a rich man to institute a suit in the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, Chancery, but that it was out of all questhat the total amount of the expense of tion for a poor man to do so. There had litigation should be borne by the country; been no increase in the business of the for if that principle was adopted it would court, in consequence of the expense of give the greatest encouragement to the proceeding, and parties would rather susspirit of litigation, if parties had to pay no tain a loss than commence litigation in charge but that for their own counsel. Chancery, which they regarded as a great He was not prepared to acquiesce in calamity; and Mr. Pamberton Leigh said the doctrine that the whole expense should that a great proportion of this expense be defrayed by the public, for if this was arose from the amount of fees and emoludone he should quite despair of the Trea- ments paid to subordinate officers of the sury. It would be impossible to get a court. He said that one such officer received sufficient income for such a purpose. He 10,000l. a year, another 9,000l. and was not only prepared to assent to a re- another 8,000l.; and the first, after making vision of the fees of such offices, but to re- every deduction on account of the expense sist the future increase of abuses which of his office, could not clear less than might arise in the lapse of time by the fees 7,000l., a sum greater than that paid to increasing far beyond what was intended the Speaker of that House, to a Secretary when the office was established. He thought of State, or as a retiring pension to the some effectual check was necessary for this Lord Chancellor. His hon. Friend Mr. purpose, and therefore it would be de- Leigh then said that such great abuses resirable to institute inquiries; and he was quired an immediate remedy. The House, ready to acquiesce in any Motion for this therefore, was perfectly cognizant of the purpose; and as the matter had originated transaction; and to remedy the future they with the hon. and learned Gentleman, it were told the only way was to make a liperhaps could not be placed in better hands beral compensation to the holders of those than his own. If the hon. and learned offices. No doubt large sums were given Member would take the matter in hand, he in the shape of compensation; but do not would not hesitate to give him every as- lavish all abuse against a system of comsistance; but he could not acquiesce in the pensation which had repeatedly received justice of instituting inquiries into trans- the sanction of that House on the abolition actions which had passed so long ago. He of offices that were bought and sold. In did not think that any charge should be 1836 the House directly recognised the brought against the Lord Chancellor, who, legality of selling such offices. He was through the whole of this matter, had acted speaking of the offices of the Six Clerks in in accordance with the expressed opinion Ireland. It was on record in an Act of of the House. If the Act of Parliament Parliament that provision was made for under which he acted was defective, it was compensation on a change in them. The the fault of that and the other House. A clause in the Act to which he alluded stated most important opinion had been expressed that in the 4th and 5th year of his present in that House with respect to compensa- Majesty an Act was passed for the better tion to these officers in the year 1840. Mr. administration of justice in the Court of Pemberton Leigh then stated many most Chancery in Ireland, and that that Act be important facts on this subject, to which further amended, as it was reasonable and he should direct the attention of the House. just that the Six Clerks who had purchased He stated that the number of causes in and were entitled to sell their offices should Chancery in the years 1839 and 1840 was receive for every deprivation or loss of innearly the same as it was fifty years pre- come accruing from this amendment of the viously, and that the real amount of busi- law full and ample compensation. It was ness in the Court of Chancery had not in- clear, therefore, in this case, that the creased during that period. Looking to House recognised the principle that in a the enormous increase of real property change or abolition of such an office ade

provide a remedy for the future to prevent such abuses. He begged also the House to recollect, that the Lord Chancellor had given under this Act, in every case, the minimum of compensation. The Act stated, that he should not grant less than threefourths of the annual value or emoluments of the office to be abolished; but he might give more. But the Lord Chancellor had resisted all temptation to do so, and in every case had given the minimum of allowance sanctioned by Parliament. What more could he do? His noble and learned Friend was not to blame in any of these cases. The Act of Parliament might certainly have passed rapidly, as they had been told; but this arose from the circumstance that it received no opposition from the persons holding the offices to be abolished, who were satisfied with the liberality of the compensation proposed to them. He might say, with respect to all Acts of Parliament dealing with vested interests, that when parties did not feel themselves injured by them, they passed rapidly through. His noble Friend had taken every precaution, and adopted every proper proceeding with regard to the scale of retiring allowance; and any Motion in any way invidious to his noble and learned Friend would be most unjust. For the future, however, on the part of the Government, he was prepared to promise his cordial support to any inquiry into the subject.

quate compensation out of the public funds
should be made. How could his noble
Friend hope to succeed in his reform if he
did not act on the precedent which had
been set in that House, for it was clear
that by their former proceedings the sale
of these offices had been sanctioned. This,
be it remembered, also took place under a
Lord Chancellor of the highest reputation
-he alluded to Lord Plunkett. Let them
effectually put an end to the sale of these
offices for the future, and give the officers
performing the duties reasonable allowances
for the services done; but care should be
taken that they should be only effective offi-
cers, and let them take care to ensure a pe-
riodical inquiry from time to time into the
amount paid; and in every case where the
fees appeared to be extravagant, let them, on
the part of the public, provide a remedy.
He wished this to be done in every case. For
instance, there had been an enormous in-
crease in the amount of private business be-
fore Parliament-an increase which could
never have been contemplated; of course a
number of fees were paid for this business.
It was desirable to see what was the amount
of those fees received by officers of the
Court of Chancery, or other places; for
this department of business; and care
should be taken that these should be re-
vised from time to time. So much on this
part of the subject-for no one felt more
strongly impressed with the importance of
inquiry than himself. He thought it was
a scandal, when they abolished civil sine-
cures, that they closed their eyes to much
greater sinecures held by persons of com-
paratively no station. They escaped at-
tention because they were held by persons
who had no claim to consideration. If they
had been held by Judges, or by the clerks
at the Table of that House, they would
have excited attention, and these abuses
would have ceased to exist with civil sine-Bellew, R. M.
Blake, M. J.
cures. In resisting the Motion as to in- Blewitt, R. J.
quiry into the past, he agreed with the Bouverie, hon. E. P.
hon. and learned Member for Bridport, Bowes, J.
that now they could not take away from
Brocklehurst, J.
Brotherton, J.
those gentlemen this compensation.
Browne, hon. W.
hon. and learned Member said he thought Buller, E.
it was impossible, after the lapse of five Busfeild, W.
years, and after the proceedings that had Butler, P. S.
taken place under the Act of Parliament, Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Christie, W. D.
to do so, and, indeed, that it would be a Collett, J.
reflection on the justice of Parliament to Crawford, W. S.
attempt such a thing. If that was the Divett, E.
opinion of the hon. and learned Member,
Duncan, G.
Dundas, F.
then surely inquiry was superfluous, and
all that was requisite was, that they should

The

The House divided:-Ayes 65; Noes 80: Majority 15.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, II. A.
Baine, W.
Armstrong, Sir A.
Bannerman, A.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.
Barron, Sir II. W.

Escott, B.
Esmonde, Sir T.

Gisborne, T.

Granger, T. C.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Hastic, A.

Hatton, Capt. V.
Hawes, B.

Heathcoat, J.
Heneage, E.
Horsman, E.
Jervis, J.
Layard, Capt.
McCarthy, A.
Maitland, T.

Marsland, H.

Martin, J.
Mitcalfe, H.
Mitchell, T. A.
Morpeth, Viset.
Morris, D.

Napier, Sir C.
O'Connell, D.

O'Connell, J.

Ogle, S. C. II.
Ord, W.

Parker, J.
Pechell, Capt.

Hope, G. W.
Hudson, G.
James, Sir W. C.
Jermyn, Earl
Jocelyn, Viset.
Jones, Capt.
Kelly, Sir F.
Lygon, hon. Gen.
Mackenzie, T.
Mackenzie, W. F.
McGeachy, F. A.

M'Neill, D.
Mahon, Visct.
Martin, C. W,
Maunsell, T. P.
Meynell, Capt.

Neeld, J.
Neville, R.

Patten, J. W.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Peel, J.
Polhill, F.
Richards, R.
Rolleston, Col.
Seymour, Sir H. B.
Smith, A.
Smythe, hon. G.
Somerset, Lord G.
Spooner, R.
Stuart, H.
Sutton, hon. H. M.
Thesiger, Sir F.
Trench, Sir F. W.
Trotter, J
Villiers, Visct.
Walpole, S. H.
Wellesley, Lord C.
Wood, Col. T.

LORD BROUGHAM said, if their Lord-corporations and persons entitled to shares in the ships wished to have all the case before them, it would be necessary for them, in order to come to a right decision, to read the able and elaborate Report of Sir R. Grant, the late Governor of Bombay; from the perusal of that document he (Lord Brougham) came to the conclusion that the decision was just.

LORD BEAUMONT: The statement on which he laid particular stress was-with-either personally or by proxy, to determine either out saying whether the Rajah was guilty that the company shall proceed in the execution or not that it was considered he had not of the powers of this Act, or that the company had a fair trial, from the manner in which shall be forthwith dissolved; provided that before such meeting be called, it shall not be lawful for it was conducted. Petition read and ordered to lie on the of the powers of this Act relative to the taking or the company or the directors to put in force any Table.