HC Deb 25 June 1852 vol 122 cc1319-24
The MASTER OF THE ROLLS

said, that he wished to refer to some observations which had been made last night by a noble and learned Lord in another place, and which appeared to bear personally upon himself. He was sure that nothing could have been further from the intention of that noble and learned Lord than to make a personal imputation, or to state anything which he did not think could be fully and completely borne out by the facts of the case. He was sorry that the noble and learned Lord should have made statements which were so completely, although, of course, unintentionally, erroneous. The noble arid learned Lord's statement was made in relation to the Suitors in Chancery Relief Bill. The noble and learned Lord was reported, amongst other things, to have said that this Bill restricted the issue of injunctions to the Master of the Rolls. He (the Master of the Rolls) presumed that this remark must be a misreport, because it had no reference to anything in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord was then reported to have said, "Who received the fees? The Secretary of the Master of the Rolls!" Now the fact was that by this Bill it was provided that no fees were to be received in future by the Secretary or any other officer of the Master of the Rolls. The noble and learned Lord was then stated to have said—"At whose suggestion was it passed through the other House? At that of the Master of the Rolls!" He begged the attention of the House to the fact that he (the Master of the Rolls) was no party to the introduction of the Bill. He was not a party to the framing it, and he did not introduce it. It was introduced by the late Government, and passed through the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department. The noble and learned Lord was then reported to have said that he wished to call the attention of their Lordships to the unsparing manner in which it dealt with the officers of the Lord Chancellor, reducing them to such a degree that they would hardly be able to carry on their business. "But what did it do with the officers of the Master of the Rolls? It did not touch them at all! No mention was made of them except to make their offices of more advantage. It provided that the Lord Chancellor's Secretary should have an additional clerk; but it stipulated that the salary should not exceed the insufficient sum of 200l. a year. At the same time, it provided that the Secretary of the Master of the Rolls should have two additional clerks at salaries not exceeding 300l. a year." But what really were the facts of the case? There were officers of the Master of the Rolls and of the Lord Chancellor, who were all paid by fees at the present moment. The practice hitherto had been, that the late Chancellor had restricted the receipts of these officers to certain fixed salaries, and this had also been done by the previous Master of the Rolls. The officers under him had received exactly that amount which the previous Lord Chancellor, and the previous Master of the Rolls, had restricted them to, and he (the Master of the Rolls) had made no alteration. This Bill, however, took away all the fees from those officers. If the second clause stood alone, it would have taken away their salaries, and left them without anything; but the Bill also provided that they should be at liberty to apply to the Lords of the Treasury for such compensation as they might be entitled to, and that the future officers of the Masters of the Rolls should receive such salaries as the Lords of the Treasury should think fit to direct. It was obvious that the Bill did not give these officers any greater advantage than they before possessed. Where the Lord Chancellor had fived the salaries of his officers, the House had thought it would be respectful to that functionary to leave those salaries at the' amount he had fixed; but with respect to the Master of the Rolls, it had very properly thought that the salaries of his officers should be fixed by the Lords of the Treasury. As to the statement that the Bill provided that the Lord Chancellor's Secretary should have an additional clerk with the "insufficient" salary of 200l. a year, while the Secretary of the Master of the Rolls was to be allowed two additional clerks at salaries of 300l. a year, the House would he surprised to hear read the passage from the Clause of the Bill relating to this point. The Clause provided— It shall be lawful for the Master of the Rolls to appoint a clerk or clerks to be employed in the office of the Secretary at the Rolls, which clerk or clerks shall receive by way of salary such annual sum or sums as the Master of the Rolls shall from time to time fix and determine; provided always, that such annual sum or sums shall not in any one year exceed the sum of 300l. That was to say, 30l. a year for all the clerks. If there were three clerks, they would only have 300l. a year between them. It was, therefore, inaccurate to say that there might be three clerks with 300l. a year each. The reason for passing the clause was this:—Many thousands of orders were every year drawn up in, and issued from, the office of the Master of the Rolls. The office expenses for the drawing up of those orders were now paid out of the fees received for the orders, and the payment of those expenses had not been provided for before this clause was introduced. The Secretary of the Lord Chancellor had, in fact, nothing to do but to write the Fiats for Commissions. No orders were drawn up in his office. The noble and learned Lord was reported to have stated, that "the Committee upon whose report this Bill was framed had the Master of the Rolls amongst its members," That was true. "It was brought in," the noble and learned Lord continued, "by the Master of the Rolls." That was a mistake. It was not brought in by him (the Master of the Rolls), nor had he been consulted about it by the late or the present Government, and in no part of it had he made an alteration. The noble and learned Lord added, "it passed through the House of Commons under his superintendence." He begged the House to recollect, as he had previously stated, that it passed through the House under the superintendence of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. He regretted very much that the noble and learned Lord should not have taken sufficient pains, if this were a correct report of his speech, to correctly ascertain the nature of the Bill; but all the statements contained in his address, as far as he (the Master of the Rolls) was concerned, were incorrect, as he had taken no part in the preparation, or the passing, of the Bill. It would have been more convenient to him, and to his officers, if their salaries had been fixed; but he still approved of the Treasury having control over these matters. He hogged pardon of the House for having detained them; hut he thought he could not with propriety allow these observations of the noble and learned Lord to pass without some remark from him.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he much regretted that it was not in his power to enter into the details to which the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls had referred, and that there was no lawyer at present on the Treasury bench. The right hon. Secretary of State of the Home Department was away on urgent business, hut he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not allow what had been said to pass without some remark. In answer to the allegations of error made against the noble and learned Lord by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, all that he could say was, that he was perfectly ignorant of the circumstances, although he need not have been, had the Master of the Rolls given notice of his intention to allude to the subject. [The MASTER of the ROLLS: My attention was only called to the report an hour ago.] This, however, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would say for his noble and learned Friend, that he was in his opinion, as distinguished for accuracy as for sagacity and learning, and he would therefore take the charitable view that the observations of his noble and learned Friend had not been diffused with that accuracy with which they might have been. He could not without some notice allow the name of his noble and learned Friend to be mentioned in a tone of reproof in that House, of which he was once so great an ornament; and he could not forget that this year, oppressed as the noble and learned Lord had been with physical infirmities, the brightness and energy of his mind still remained, and had been exercised with great advantage to the public, and (as he must acknowledge) with great assistance to the Government, in passing the measures of Law Reform which they had introduced.

[At a later period of the evening]

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, he wished to say in allusion to the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls, that he thought it very inexpedient to refer to discussions in the other House of Parliament. It was contrary to the strict rule of the House, and the observance of the rule was found greatly to conduce to the order of their discussions. But the present case was somewhat different in its circumstances. It was no wonder, however, if the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls, considering his high judicial situation, felt himself hurt by any imputation upon his public conduct, especially when it fell from so distinguished a person. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the merits and character of Lord Lyndhurst. He also must claim to speak of Lord Lyndhurst as his friend, and as a colleague with whom he was proud to have served. But, among his characteristics, there was one that peculiarly distinguished his noble and learned Friend, and that was his love of justice; and he was satisfied that, after the explanation that had been given by the Master of the Rolls of his conduct, much of which he knew and could bear testimony to as a witness, his noble and learned Friend would be convinced that the allegations which he had brought forward arose from misapprehension and misinformation, and that when he had read the explanation now given he would be the very first person to retract any imputation upon the Master of the Rolls. He saw in his place the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, who served on the Commission on the Court of Chancery with him, and also upon the Committee from which the Suitors Fund Bill emanated, and he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that there was nothing in the course of that inquiry, or in the progress of the Bill, which in the slightest degree sanctioned any accusation against the Master of the Rolls; that while he had borne heavily upon the fees in the Lord Chancellor's Court, he had desired to uphold unduly the salaries and emoluments connected with his own department of justice. Such a charge was most injurious to his right hon. and learned Friend, and he could quite understand his anxiety to clear himself from it. He was quite certain, however, that his explanation would give satisfaction to the public, while it would remove all occasion for misapprehension on the part of his noble and learned Friend Lord Lyndhurst.

MR. HENLEY

said, that, appealed to as he had been, he could not do other than say a few words. It was his privilege and honour to have served upon the Chancery Commission, and he did not recollect any question arising which gave the least reason for the supposition that the Commission looked at all as to where these alterations were to fall. Such a view did not present itself to the minds of the Commission. at all; what they alone considered was, whether the officers were fitly paid, nor was there the least difference of opinion either in the Committee or among the Commission.

Subject dropped.