COURT OF CHANCERY. (Hansard, 18 July 1820)

Mr. Calcraft
rose to make his promised motion relative to the disposal of brokerage paid for the stock transactions of the accountant-general of the court of Chancery. He observed, that the duties of the accountant-general were paid for not only by salary, but by a division of the brokerage (paid on stock transactions) with the broker usually employed by the court. Whether the sum thus received were great or small, he considered the practice an objectionable one. The accountant-general ought not to be remunerated in that mixed manner; he should be paid directly by salary. 541 He should now move for an account of the emoluments received from this participation in the brokerage, to the production of which he could conceive no earthly objection. He then moved for "an Account of the Commission and Fees received by the broker employed by the High Court of Chancery, and the proportion divided between the said broker and the accountant-general; distinguishing the amount divided during the last ten years."

Mr. Courtenay
did not intend to make any opposition to a motion of this sort, which, so far as it could be complied with, was almost a motion of course; but he wished to show how utterly impossible it was to comply with the motion, in the terms in which it was now conceived. By the act of the 12th of George 1st, which created the office of accountant-general, that individual was directed to perform, from time to time, all those operations respecting the funds of the suitors of the court of Chancery that might be deemed necessary. It was unquestionably a part of his duty to make all sales that wore directed to be made by the court; and it was obvious that, in the exercise of that duty, he was obliged to observe the strictest accuracy and attention. It was necessary that lie should proceed with entire accuracy; for the east mistake might occasion the transfer or the payment of a considerable sum of money to a wrong person, by which great confusion would be created. These were the sort of duties that officer had to perform, and he received, in remuneration, a salary of 1,500l. a-year. From the outset of the existence of this office, the accountant-general, in the performance of those duties, had, of course, been obliged to employ the agency of a broker; and it had been the practice of all successive accountants-general to pay the broker, not the full commission, but a portion of it, the rate of commission being precisely the same as was ordinarily charged; which, as the House would see, was paid by the individual who had the benefit of the transaction. An arrangement was usually made, by which the accountant-general paid to the broker a certain portion, instead of the whole amount of brokerage. The present accountant-general had been only six or eight months in office; and he would, therefore, find it very difficult to obey an order of the House founded on this motion It was certainly in his power to state all sums paid to him, and to give 542 an account of such transactions as he had been engaged in; and to that extent, doubtless, a proper return would be made. But the present motion called for a return of all commission and fees received by the accountant-general for the last ten years. To whom could such an order be directed? or who could make a return to it? He knew that there was no official record or document in the office that could give the information required; and it should be observed, that the broker was not an officer of the court or of the public. He submitted, therefore, that there would be very great difficulty in procuring a return to a motion of this description. It was true the person who now acted as broker had performed that duty for many years; but he doubted whether the House would call on him individually to make a return, since he was not an officer of the court or of the country. It would, however, be for the House to decide on that point. The hon. gentleman said the accountant-general ought to be paid entirely by salary. Certainly the accountant-general could have no objection to be so paid; but the question was, would it be wise to adopt that mode? What would be the effect of the alteration? It would be, that from some public fund this officer must be paid a remuneration nearly equivalent to that which for many years he had been in the habit of receiving as a fee. By whom, if the system were altered, must this equivalent be paid? By the public—a great proportion of whom had nothing to do with the duties performed by the accountant-general; while, as the salary was now paid, no person was burdened in any degree, except those who were benefitted by the transaction. Thus, if he had a large sum of money in chancery, which was laid out by the accountant-general to his advantage, he paid the ordinary brokerage charged on such transactions. Nothing, in his opinion, could be so little burdensome to the individual or the public as the mode at present adopted. He had no objection to the motion, as far as the accountant-general could answer for himself; but, beyond that, he could not conceive how information was to be acquired on the subject.

§ Mr. Abercromby
thought there could be no difficulty in procuring the return called for. The present accountant-general could make a return as far as his experience went; and, as the same broker had been employed for many years past, 543 the accountant-general could find little difficulty in obtaining the preceding information from him. Whether it would be proper, hereafter, to pay the accountant-general entirely by way of salary, was a point for the consideration of the House. But he, in common with his learned friend, entertained great doubts as to the expediency of making the alteration. He was sure it was not intended, by bringing forward this motion, to cast the slightest imputation on the manner in which the duties of the office had been, or were at present, discharged. They were performed in a manner extremely service. able and convenient to the public.

Mr. Calcraft
said, he founded his motion on information contained in the report relative to the office connected with the court of Chancery, and not on any private feeling. If he could not get such a return as that which he had moved for, he must, of course, be satisfied with whatever return the court was able to make. He was restrained, by motives of delicacy, from bringing forward this motion during the life of the late accountant-general, and he thought it was rather hard, when motives of that description had operated on his mind, to be told, as an answer to his motion, that the present accountant-general had been only six months in office.