HC Deb 01 August 1836 vol 35 cc745-51
Lord Morpeth

moved that the House should resolve itself into Committee on the Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill.

Colonel Perceval

, before the Speaker left the chair, begged leave to present a petition from Mr. Fenton, one of the examiners-in-chief of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, praying for compensation.

The House went into Committee.

Mr. Shaw

could not, even at that late hour, avoid bearing his testimony in favour of the Bill then under consideration. He took a particular interest in the subject, from the circumstance of his having some Sessions ago introduced a Bill himself with a view to stimulate the reforms, some of which had since been accomplished, and others, including those provided by the present measure, were now in process of being accomplished. It was particularly gratifying to him to have it in his power to state that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland now perfectly concurred with the Master of the Rolls, in giving effect to those general orders referred to in the Chancery Act, in respect of which he (Mr. Shaw) had, on a former occasion, been disposed to make some complaint. So far from the present measure being one of favouritism or partiality, he was perfectly satisfied that it had been prepared by the two eminent judges to whom he had alluded, with a single view to the public good, and to diminish the expenses of the suitors of the Court over which they presided. Though Gentlemen unacquainted with the technicalities of a court of equity might not easily understand the details of the Bill, nor their immediate object, yet he believed that he was safe in assuring them of a fact which would be perfectly intelligible to them all. That the result of the system of reform which was then in progress in the Irish Court of Chancery, and of which that Bill formed a part, would be a saving to the suitors of that court of about two-thirds of the former expenses of an equity suit. Under these circumstances, he confessed that he would be very reluctant, and he hoped that the House would participate in the sentiment, to interfere with the details of a measure that had been prepared with much care, and in the spirit he had mentioned, by persons above all others the most competent to judge of its practical working.

The Clauses to the 5th were agreed to.

On Clause 5—Clerk of Affidavits to compare and attest copies of affidavits.

Colonel Perceval

believed that this was the clause which appointed two new officers —one to attend in the Court of Chancery, the other in the Rolls Court. He begged to know why this new practice was to be introduced?

Mr. O'Loghlen

said, the Bill abolished the office of Six Clerks altogether, and substituted these two readers in their place. The suitors of the court would, by the contemplated arrangements, be saved up wards of 20,000l. a-year. The Bill was brought in under the sanction of the Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls.

Colonel Perceval

had no objection to the suitors being saved 20,000l. a-year, and had no doubt but that a saving of 30,000l. a-year might be effected. With regard to those two readers, it was not thought necessary to create such offices in England. Here the solicitors read the pleadings; and he saw no reason why a similar practice should not be pursued in Ireland. Whether the education of the solicitors in that country was such as to preclude them from being able to read the pleadings in court, he would leave the right hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland to answer; but in his opinion, the offices were useless, and if they were not created, an additional saving of 2,000l. a-year to the suitors would be effected. He had heard much of equalizing the system in the two countries; he had no objection to such a course, but he wished it to be extended so as to do justice to all.

Mr. O'Loghlen

said, that the hon. Member for Sligo was misinformed. There were two readers in the English Court of Chancery.

Colonel Perceval

made no objection to a reform of the Court of Chancery. On the contrary, his objection was, that it did not go far enough. The examiner of the Court of Chancery had most important functions to perform. It was before him that all the evidence was given—the evidence was given in private—and it must be borne in mind, that upon evidence so taken the most important decisions with respect to properly were based. A person filling such a situation ought therefore to be placed beyond the possibility of being bribed to alter the evidence, and trustworthy persons could scarcely be expected to leave a lucrative profession and accept one of these offices unless he were adequately remunerated. The very Act under consideration made it impossible for any officer of the Court of Chancery to act as a solicitor, and under these circumstances he felt convinced, that the Committee would not consider 500l. a year an adequate remuneration, particularly in the case of Mr. Fenton, who had given 5,000l. for the office. By the returns on the table of the House it appeared that Mr. Fenton's emoluments, in the years 1831, 32, and 33, averaged 1,000l.a year, and they do not now amount to half that sum. By this Bill the registrar of the Chancellor was to receive 2,000l. a year; his assistant was also to receive a large salary, and the Bill created other offices, at salaries of 1,000l. a year. After the clause respecting the registrars had been disposed of, it was his (Colonel Perceval's) intention to propose a clause giving to the examiners-in-chief the sum of 1,000l. a year each. Having been taxed with acting capriciously on a former night, he felt it due to himself to state, that he had waited on the Lord Chancellor, and stated to him the nature of the clause he intended to submit. His right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Lefroy), not then in his place, had drawn up a clause transferring the duties at present performed by the clerks of the Masters in Chancery to the examiners. The clerks of the Masters in Chancery received three guineas for doing that for which the examiners would only receive 7s. 6d., provided the duties were transferred to them. By this means a great saving would arise to the suitors; and his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lefroy) informed him, that the Lord Chancellor made no objection to the clause—but it was afterwards opposed by the right hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland. One of the objections urged to the clause which he meant to propose at the proper time was, that the Lords of the Treasury were not disposed to give their consent, as the consolidated fund would be saddled with the amount of compensation. Now he (Col. Perceval) would undertake, on the part of the examiners, that no charge should be made upon the consolidated fund. If the suitors' fee-fund were not sufficient to answer the claims upon it, the examiners would be content not to apply to the treasury at all. Having, he trusted, convinced every unprejudiced person, that the claims of the examiners were founded in justice, he should submit his clause to the consideration, and he hoped for the acceptance, of the Committee.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 11—New establishment of the Registrar's office,

Colonel Perceval

said, the principle of the present Bill was a just and proper one, namely, granting the offices by seniority.

Mr. O'Loghlen

said, that the registrar of deeds had nothing to do with this Bill. The present was a Bill to abolish certain offices connected with the Court of Chancery, and to provide for the performance of the duties thereof. With respect to Mr. Long, that gentleman arrived in Ireland with Sir A. Harte, a perfect stranger, but he gave such satisfaction to both branches of the profession, that when a vacancy occurred in the registry of deeds office, a memorial, signed most numerously, was presented to the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam worth, at that time at the head of the Government, praying the appointment for Mr. Long, and that right hon. Baronet, greatly to his credit, conferred it upon him.

Colonel Perceval

said, that no man had better claims for promotion than Mr. Long, and he rejoiced that he had been taken care of. He mentioned this, lest it might for a moment be supposed, that he cast the slightest reflection on the character of Mr. Long. The question he had put, however, was not answered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he should now repeat it. He begged to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, whether, in appointing a successor to Mr. Long, the fair and equitable principle laid down in this Bill, of appointing by seniority, would be adhered to?

Lord Morpeth

said, that an Act of Parliament vested the appointment in the Crown, and he saw no reason why the privilege should not be exercised agreeably to that Act.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 32,

Colonel Perceval

said, he believed the present was the proper time to propose the clause of which he had given notice. He did not see what solid objection could be urged against it. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland had encouraged him (Colonel Perceval) to press the clause, and that noble Lord stated, that if rejected on the present occasion, it might be made the groundwork of future legislation.

The clause was then read. It provided, that in the event of the fees, &c., received by the examiners not amounting to 1,000l. a year, the deficiency was to be made good out of the suitors' fee-fund.

Mr. O'Loghlen

said, that if he could, consistently with his duty, sanction the passing of a clause which secured to the examiners a salary of 1,000l. a-year, he should most cheerfully do so; but, under all the circumstances of the case, he felt bound to resist it. Mr. Fenton's was certainly a peculiar case; he had been eighteen years in the office, and had given 5,000l. for the situation; but as for the other examiner, he had been only recently appointed, and had no claims whatever. In 1834 an Act passed, enabling the Chancellor and Master of the Rolls to make new rules for the regulation of the court, and if Mr. Fenton's fees were diminished, he was entitled to compensation under that Act. The present Act did not interfere with his office one way or the other, and therefore the hon. Member for Sligo was quite wrong in pressing the introduction of such a clause into the Bill. He did not wish to say anything harsh of Mr. Fenton; but the principal reason why the fees had fallen off was, that he had been in the habit of receiving fees to which, strictly speaking, he was not entitled. He would not say that Mr. Fenton had done so from an improper motive, but he had formed an erroneous opinion of what his rights really were. The Acts of the 4th and 5th of William 4th provided for the compensation of all persons suffering for a loss of fees; and he (Mr. O'Loghlen) must therefore oppose the introduction of the clause into the Bill.

Mr. Shaw

would say in the Committee, as he had to the gentleman in whose behalf the clause was moved, and for whom he (Mr. Shaw) had a personal regard, that if he had communicated to him on the subject in Ireland, and thereby afforded him an opportunity of full inquiry into it, he should have been happy to have afforded him any assistance in his power, consistent with the general object of the measure; but he would not now venture to support an alteration in so important a Bill without knowing what might be its effect. He would recommend his hon. and gallant Friend not to press the clause, but having introduced the subject to let it lie over for another Session, and if in the mean time it appeared that such an alteration in the examiner's office would be desirable, and form, a part of the system of reform now working in the court, he (Mr. Shaw) would in that case be happy to give the object his support.

Colonel Perceval

said, that he felt the injustice committed on Mr. Fenton to be so great, that he must take the sense of the Committee upon the clause.

Clause negatived.

House resumed. Bill to be reported.