§ Lord Althorpargued against any compensations being granted to officers of courts of justice, for the loss of fees arising out of the reforms made in the courts by the present bill. The compensations proposed were to be granted for the loss of professional profits, against all the known chances and vicissitudes of professional life. He objected to any compensation being made to any individual who could not prove an actual loss arising out of the present bill.
§ Mr. Brightthought the compensations proposed objectionable in principle, and pernicious in their example to the officers of all the other courts. He should hereafter think it is duty to take the sense of the House upon the measure.
§ Mr. Humewanted to know whether, if compensations were given to those who suffered in the present instance, gentlemen were prepared to support the principle of giving compensations to all who, in any case, should suffer a loss of fees under any bills of reforms and improvement? The claims in the present case were grounded upon the argument, that the claimants were injured in offices which they had acquired by purchase. For his part, he thought that the sale of offices in courts of justice was in itself a great evil, and that the first step ought to be, to prohibit any such sale, and thereby to prevent any claim for losses sustained by a reform of purchased offices. The whole system of fees was pernicious in the extreme. As to the compensations claimed in the present instance, upon the same principle might compensation be claimed for losses by any manufacturer who had established his manufactory upon the faith of laws and treaties, and had sustained injury by a breach of those treaties, or by an alteration of such laws. But for one or two individuals in that House, the compensations would never have been heard of. The noble lord, who originated this measure, would never have consented to the compensations, but for a knowledge that, without his acquiescence in the demand, his bill would not pass. What a state were they reduced to, if they were obliged to vote away the public money, merely to prevent the opposition to a useful measure by a party personally interested in the abuses which that measure was intended to obliterate! He saw no end to the claims that might be made upon the House, if the present were acceded to.
Mr. Grantthought, that claims to compensation in cases like the present rested upon their own individual merits more than upon any general principle. He should support the motion.
Mr. Wynnbegged the hon. member for Aberdeen to reflect that places, if not purchased by money, might often be said to be purchased by the sacrifice of other professional fees and lucrative practice. He conceived the principle of compensation which this measure embraced to be unobjectionable, and should give it his support.
The resolution was then agreed to.