§ The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
§ 12,000l. was voted to supply the deficiency of the fees of the Home Secretary's Department for the year 1830.
§ 17,000l. to make good the deficiencies of the fee fund of the Foreign Secretary.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the expenses of this department had doubled since 1797. The establishment at the office cost 27,000l., Contingencies were 10,000l., Messengers and couriers 26,000l., other officers, 10,000l. The charge for messengers was most enormous, and it arose in part he understood, from the messengers paying the expenses of their fellow travellers. Any gentleman who wished to have a pleasant trip to Constantinople or Madrid, might go with a King's Messenger free of expense.
§ Mr. George Dawsonjustified the expenditure in consequence of our being 711 obliged to send messengers to every part of Europe. It was not true as stated by the hon. Member, that individuals could travel with the couriers free of expense. If any person chose to accompany a courier from the Foreign Office, he was obliged to pay for himself, and he was not suffered of course to delay the courier, who always travelled with the utmost speed.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ The next Resolution was for the sum of 17,500l. to make good the deficiency of the Fee-fund of the Colonial Department.
§ Mr. Humesaid, if the Government would leave the colonies more to them-selves,—if they would leave them more free in their actions, and not keep them in leading-strings, as they did, this expense might be spared. In 1796, the whole expense of this department was 9,000l., and last year it was 26,000l. He could not say whether the different individuals connected with this department were necessary or not; but Government appeared to add one thing to another in the way of expense. He observed an item of 1,500l. a-year for a standing counsel. He understood that the gentleman who held that appointment had got another situation, but he did not know whether he still retained that of standing counsel.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, there was no person acquainted with the business of the Colonial-office, but must admit that the services of Mr. Stephen, the standing counsel, were invaluable. While he was on his legs, he would call the attention of the House and the Government to the alteration which had been made in the military department of the Home-office. By the extensive reduction of the yeomanry and the militia, nothing could be more certain than that the military duty of the Home-office had been considerably lessened. He might be told that the business of the criminal branch had increased. He admitted that it had increased; but, taking the two branches together, he thought that there could be, and ought to be, effected, a reduction in the expense of that office. He would call the attention of the House to another office connected with the Home Department, in which a saving might be made. The charge was not, indeed, a very great one; but where-ever an expense was incurred, without producing any benefit to the public, that 712 expense ought, on principle, to be spared. The office he spoke of was the Alien-office. If the Secretary of State for the Home Department were present, he did not think that he could state any possible ground, or point out any imaginable advantage, that could accrue from keeping on our Statute-book any portion of the law for the regulation of aliens. So long as the law gave a severe sanction to our sending aliens out of the country, although it was an impolitic, unjust, and atrocious law, yet it was an effective law, and answered the purpose for which it was in-tended. But the law as it now stood served only to clog and embarrass commerce and trade. The trader, under this law, was compelled to proceed to some particular port, when, perhaps, his interest would induce him to go elsewhere. The law, while it thus interfered with commercial pursuits, did not afford any protection against the dangers contemplated by the original Act. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, would move for the repeal of that bill, and thus get rid of the office altogether.
§ Mr. Humewas sure, that the subject could not be in better hands than those of his hon. friend; for his own part, he had quite enough to do already; but if his hon. friend would move for the repeal of the Alien Act, he would vote with him. He would take that opportunity of stating, that it was most preposterous that several of the clerks in the Home Department not only received salaries for their services in the office, but derived further emoluments as agents for different colonies.
§ Sir G. Murraydid not, generally speaking, advocate the propriety of appointing clerks as agents to colonies. It was a practice that ought not, perhaps, in all cases, to be pursued; but in these particular instances it was necessary. The business was well done, and the expense was not greater to the colonies than if it were performed by other parties.
§ Sir J. Newportadverted to the danger of allowing balances to accumulate in the hands of those agents, and instanced the case of Mr. Chinnery, who, at the very time that Parliament was voting large sums of money to meet Bills of Exchange that were drawn on account of New South Wales, had very considerable funds in his hands. He was ultimately a defaulter to the amount of 18,000l. or 20,000l. He would not, therefore, intrust clerks in 713 public offices with largo balances of money.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated, that care had been taken to provide against such an occurrence in future.
§ Mr. W. Smithdid not approve of insinuations being thrown out with respect to individuals who were not present. Allusion had been made to Mr. Stephen, whom he knew to be as conscientious and trustworthy an officer as any under the Crown.
Colonel Daviessaid, the hon. Member laboured under an error. His hon. friend never threw out any reflection whatever on Mr. Stephen. He only said—and he (Colonel Davies) agreed with him—that the salary for standing counsel ought to be dispensed with. He believed that Mr. Stephen did a great deal of duty, but he also believed that that duty ought to be done by others.
§ Mr. Humewished it to be understood that he had not the least idea of making any insinuation with respect to Mr. Stephen. He objected to the fact of giving a salary to a standing counsel, and of allowing the clerks in public offices, to receive salaries as agents for the colonies.
§ Mr. George Dawsonsaid, the vote in the hands of the Chairman was to defray the Salaries of the Secretary, Under-secretary, and Clerks of the Colonial-office. It had nothing to do with the payments of those clerks as agents. If, therefore, the hon. Member objected to their receiving separate allowances, it would be better to make a separate motion when those grants were called for. The House was not then called on to vote any of those sums.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ The following Votes were agreed to without observation:—
§ 16,850l. to make good the deficiency of the Fee-fund in the departments of the Privy Council, and Committee of Privy Council for Trade.
§ 8,000l. to defray the Contingent Expenses and Messengers' bills in the department of his Majesty's Treasury.
§ 8,045l. to defray the Contingent Expenses and Messengers' bills in the department of his Majesty's Home Secretary of State.
§ The next Resolution was for 34,750l. to defray the Contingent Expenses and Messengers' bills in the department of his Majesty's Foreign Secretary of State.
§ Mr. O'Connellsaid, he should move that this vote be reduced by 4,000l.
§ Mr. O'Connellthen moved, that the vote be reduced to the extent of 10,000l. If the expenditure turned out to be less than the smaller sum, which, perhaps, it might, then the country would receive credit for the difference; but if the expense proved to be more, Government could find no difficulty in providing for the deficiency whenever it should occur.
§ Mr. George Dawsonassured the hon. and learned Member that great inconvenience might arise to the public service from the proposed diminution of the vote, as Government possessed no means of making up the deficiency if the vote should prove too small to cover the expenditure. If the grant exceeded the outlay, of course the balance should be refunded. The expenses in question were paid in ready money; there was no credit in that branch of the public service, and any deficiency would be inconvenient. The hon. and learned Member must himself perceive, that if he would only put a moderate share of confidence in the Foreign Department, there would be no necessity for pressing his amendment.
§ Mr. O'Connellsaid, he was just as much indisposed to put confidence in Government on a point of expenditure as any genuine Representative of the people ought to be. The people had sent him to that House, and no Representative of their's ought to repose confidence in any Ministers when the expenditure of the public money was concerned. However, he had no inclination to press his Motion if it were the wish of the Committee that it should be withdrawn.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the Motion that a sum, not exceeding 10,500l. be granted to his Majesty to defray the Contingent Expenses and Messengers' bills in the department of the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the year 1830,
§ Sir G. Murrayexplained, that more than half the amount of the grant (namely, a sum of 5,500l.) was devoted to Contingencies. Of these, the expenses of the Slave-registration Office amounted to 596l.; there was an allowance to reduced clerks of 898l.; and the charge for preparing Returns was considerable, 1,255l. These were some of the items that came under 715 the head of Contingencies. With regard to the expense of Messengers, owing to the state of the Levant, great expense was incurred by the necessity of communicating with the island of Corfu over land; and although the messengers had to convey matters not immediately connected with the colonial service, but with other affairs, the expense was included in the vote, the amount of which was thus necessarily augmented.
§ Mr. Humesaid, he was quite willing to consent to the expense of making out returns, provided they were properly prepared; but the misfortune was, that he never could get the returns he moved for.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ 3,725l. to defray the Contingent Expenses and Messenger's Bills in the departments of his Majesty's Most Hon. Privy Council and Committee of Privy Council for Trade, for the year 1830, was voted without discussion.
§ Mr. G. Dawson moved, that 6,500l. be granted to his Majesty to make compensation to the Commissioners appointed by the Acts 1st and 2nd George 4th, c. 90, and 3rd George 4th, c. 37, for inquiring into the Collection and Management of the Revenue in Ireland, and the several establishments connected therewith, and into certain other Revenue departments in Great Britain, for their assiduity, care, and pains, in the execution of the trust reposed in them by Parliament.
Colonel Daviessaid, he had no doubt that these Gentlemen had discharged their duty with great benefit to the public. He was aware that they had made several valuable reports, and many useful suggestions, with respect to the subjects of their inquiry, particularly as related to certain departments in Ireland; but it should be recollected at what an expense these objects had been effected. The first payment to the Commissioners took place in 1823, and amounted to 6,255l.; the next was in 1824, the amount, 6,000l.; in 1825, 5,200l. was paid to them; in 1826, 5,675l.; in 1827, 6,000l.; in 1828, 6,500l. and a further sum of 2,000l. for Contingencies; in 1829, there was paid also 6,500l. and 2,500l. for Contingencies; this year, to be sure, the payment was only 6,500l.; but still, there had been paid altogether to these Commissioners, including the present Estimate, a sum of 53,130l. This was a prodigious expenditure. How was it possible that the Com- 716 missioners could spend eight years in their inquiries and be diligent in the discharge of their duties?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the annual saving effected by the Commissioners in the collection and management of the public income considerably exceeded the aggregate amount of the payments made on account of their services. The labours of the Commissioners had now closed, and this was the last vote which the House would be called upon to grant them; but although Parliament would hear no more of the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry, in the matter of voting money to them, it would have frequent opportunities to bear in mind the benefit derived from their labours.
§ Mr. Dawsonsaid, they would submit another report on the state of the Post-office.
§ Mr. Humewas aware of the general importance of the labours of the Commissioners, but their proceedings with regard to the Post-office had met anything rather than his approbation. What he wished was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would try and effect a complete revision of the laws relating to the Post-office. Although the general feeling was, that the Post-office was the best conducted department in England, he entertained a very different opinion on the subject.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Mr. Dawson moved, that a sum of 5,000l., be granted to his Majesty to defray the Salaries of certain Officers, and Expenses of the Court and Receipt of Exchequer for the year 1830.
Mr. R. Gordonwished to make a few observations relative to this vote. He was of opinion that if we assented to it, we should continue to sanction the recorded follies and acknowledged absurdities of an antiquated system. The Exchequer was divided into seven different departments; the Tellers' department, the department of the Pells, the Auditor's office, the Tally court, and three others, viz. the Pipe-office, the department of the King's Remembrancer, and that of the Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer. He should take the Pipe department which had seven subsidiary absurdities: among these were the Clerk of the Nichils, the Clerk of the Estreats, the Cursitor Baron, and the Foreign Apposer; 717 it might be sufficient to mention these at present, who were all subsidiary to the department of the Pipe.. Parliament had felt the absurdity and inconvenience of the system from time to time. In 1783 the first Act was passed on the subject. It was then declared, that after the extinction of certain existing officers, reforms should be introduced and acted on. In 1821, the attention of the Legislature was again called to the matter, and additional Acts were passed, but with so little effect, that in 1824 a commission was appointed, consisting of three Lords of the Treasury, to inquire into the subject. He should ground his observations principally upon the information furnished by their report. The commissioners stated, that the Pipe office consisted of eight sworn attornies two board-end clerks, and eight clerks attached to the sworn attornies. Of the eight sworn attornies, it appeared, that five had their residences in the country, at considerable distances from London. Two of the witnesses examined had been in the office, one nine years, and the other twenty-five; and it appeared from their evidence, that five out of the eight sworn attornies never came near the office, so completely were their situations sinecures. Perhaps it might be imagined that the clerks did something in the absence of the attornies,—no such thing. The commissioners stated, that the articled clerks appeared to have no stated duties to perform—no fixed hours of attendance; in short, that they did no more than they thought fit. Such were the words of the commissioners, who were not opposition Members, seeking for faults, but Lords of the Treasury, who were generally supposed to conceal them. Was such a system as this to be allowed to go on for ever? Were we always to be told of vested rights and reversionary interests, in answer to propositions of necessary reform? If Gentlemen took the trouble to examine the report of the commissioners, and he trusted some would do so when it was laid upon the Table, they would find, that the Lords of the Treasury had examined into the situation as well as the duties of the clerks, and discovered that three of them had been at school after they had been appointed clerks. One of these Gentlemen admitted, that subsequently to his nomination he was five years at school at Chelsea, two years in a conveyancer's office, and that he now practised as a 718 barrister, and might look in at the office once a month. The board-end clerks were much the same as the articled clerks, and the commissioners referred to the evidence of one of them, in order to prove the utter ignorance of the duties of their office (if any there were) that prevailed amongst them. Lord Lowther and Lord G. Somerset, two of the commissioners, in their report very properly disputed the right to superannuations and compensation, supposed to be possessed by persons in this office. They observed, that it would be for the Lords of the Treasury to decide whether the right of succession by seniority to highly-paid offices was so sacred, that no plea of ignorance, incompetency, or lack of duties, should interfere as a bar to a full claim for remuneration in the event of an alteration in the arrangements of the office. The same observation would apply to many other departments, which wore filled by officers who were scarcely able to tell what were the duties that they had to perform. The hon. Member proceeded to say, that he had been a member of the committee appointed to inquire into the fees and office of Sheriff, and added, that any one acquainted with the result of that investigation must be convinced of the mummery, inconvenience, and folly of the system. Five great rolls of parchment went down to the Sheriff yearly, containing accounts of supposed debtors to the Crown during the last 300 years. The Sheriff or Sub-sheriff was bound to summon a jury, in order to ascertain what money was due to the Crown on the roll. The sending of the roll down and up again occasioned an expense of 15l. He should not trouble the House with any detail, as to the duties of the clerks of the nichils: it might be easily conjectured, from the very title of the office, that those duties were very scanty. The commissioners from whose report he had got all the details he had given to the House, and he was bound to bear his testimony to the manner in which they had performed their labours,—the commissioners went into a history of the mode of examining and passing Sheriffs' accounts in the Exchequer chamber, and described the practice of throwing, in the presence of the Cursitor Baron, small copper coins behind a hat, from one little square of the cloth on the table to another—a proceeding not calculated to test the accuracy of the accounts, and which could only tend to produce a feeling of 719 contempt in the minds of the accountants. Where the Sheriff's accounts appeared correct, a person cried out "tot," and whenever any inaccuracy appeared, another individual exclaimed "nil," and according as these words were uttered the copper coins were shifted from one part of the chequers to another. Were we to vote money to support absurdities like these? He had explained the mode of proceeding in the Pipe-office, and might join the department of the King's Remembrancer and the Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer with it is as equal in folly. He now proceeded to other branches of the Exchequer, and in doing so confessed that he thought the Committee would be surprised at the manner in which the public money was paid into the Tellers of the Exchequer. There were four Tellers, and each had a little cabin near that House, in which he or his deputy sat, accompanied with the proper clerks, for the purpose of receiving from the Excise the Customs and the Stamps, money that was paid nominally to them, but in reality to a branch bank of the Bank of England, which sat in the next room, where two or three clerks from the Bank were placed to receive money, which was paid out of the Bank to be paid into the hands of the Bank again. The Tellers, on receiving the money, signed a parchment, written in a mixture of Latin and Saxon, a sort of language or jargon which nobody but a Teller could understand. They passed this roll through a pipe into another room below, and there it was cut into a particular shape, and carried to the Auditors of the Exchequer. It was true, the wooden tally formerly in use had been put an end to within the last six or seven months, but the parchment tally, for this roll was nothing but a parchment tally, was continued. The absurdity and inconvenience of this practice were felt so strongly by Ministers, that they had abolished Exchequer payments to a considerable extent, and they were now managed by certain clerks of the Treasury. He should be told, that Ministers were anxious to introduce improvements. We were always told this. It was always said, "Give us time, and we will do what you want." However, he contended that we should not wait till vested interests were at an end, and all persons had been satisfied who thought they had vested expectancies. The sum voted on account of the present 720 item was, in 1827, 5,700l.; in 1828, it amounted to 7,000l.; in 1829 to 6,200l.; and this year, to 5,000l. It was true, there was a reduction this year, which he imagined must have been made in some of the larger items. Out of this sum there was an allowance to the Barons of the Exchequer for stationery, 17l. 10s. for each Baron. The Barons surely could afford to pay for their own stationery out of their salaries. Again, the King's Counsel were allowed 8l. each for stationery. He did not much object to that—it might be an old custom, and it was, perhaps, the only salary which they received—he therefore thought it was not worth talking of. There were various charges for Messengers scattered up and down through those Estimates; and it required the utmost difficulty to discover how the accounts really stood. All the assiduity and all the clearness of his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen, would be necessary to analyse them, and present a clear view of the subject to the House. Nothing could equal the complexity and confusion of the affairs of the Court of Exchequer. If any one took the trouble to look into "Maddox's History of the Court of Exchequer," he could not fail to see that its complexity was beyond example. In that work he found a curious quaint old dialogue, in which a person, calling himself Gervasius Tilburiensis, takes a part, and which discloses, in a very striking manner, the state of obscurity in which that Court was at the time when the dialogue was penned—namely, in the reign of Henry 2nd. Gervasius was looking out of his tower at Tilbury-upon-the-Thames, and he heard a voice saying unto him, "Master, dost thou not know that treasure being hidden is of no value." Receiving an assent to that, the voice proceeds, and says, "Master, dost thou not know that knowledge being hidden is also of no value?" Gervasius assenting, is admonished that the knowledge possessed by him respecting the Court of Exchequer—knowledge possessed by so few, ought to be given to the public, and thereupon a History of the Court of Exchequer was compiled. The mode of doing business in it was then proverbially complex: it had since become more so, and it now passed all understanding.
§ Mr. George Dawsoncomplained that the hon. Member should have delivered such a speech on the present occasion, 721 instead of bringing forward a specific motion on the subject. The present vote had no more to do with the constitution of the Court of Exchequer than it had to do with that of the Court of King's Bench. A sum of 1,839l. was distributed by the Usher of the Court in lieu of salaries, and emoluments, and perquisites, in sums varying from 65l. to 1l. 3s. 7d. By this system a saving of 500l. annually had been effected. With respect to the expense of Messengers, it was impossible that he could go into all the details connected with such a subject. The House must see that a very large number of Messengers was necessary for the conduct of the public business.
§ Lord Althorpthought, his hon. friend (Mr. Gordon) had taken a very proper opportunity of bringing forward the constitution of the Court of Exchequer. For his own part, he felt great disappointment in finding that no change had been made in the system of keeping the public accounts. This was a matter for which the Ministers were responsible; and the more so, because it was agreed in the Finance Committee that the system should be changed without delay. With respect to the charge for Messengers, his hon. friend had very properly called the attention of the Committee to the fact, that instead of being brought forward as one item, it was scattered over various parts of the Estimates. He must also add, that taking into consideration the sums charged for Messengers in other places, it did appear to him most exorbitant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that so many difficulties had occurred in attempting to carry the recommendations of the Finance Committee, as to the mode of keeping accounts, into effect, that it had not been possible to accomplish its wishes; it might, however, be satisfactory to the House to know, that they would be complied with as far as possible, and that, in the mean time, every care was taken to prevent every species of extravagance.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that as this sum was asked to pay the salaries of certain officers of the Court of Exchequer, he could not understand what the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. G. Dawson) meant by saying it had nothing to do with that Court. For ten years past he had complained of the constitution of that Court, and though every Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised, every year, that the system 722 should be altered, no change had yet taken place. He should recommend his hon. friend to divide the Committee on this vote, in order to impress the subject on the minds of the Ministers.
Mr. Herriessaid, that a change in the system was still in contemplation, and would be carried into effect as soon as possible.
Mr. R. Gordonsaid, that he should not divide the Committee. He was content with having called attention to the subject; but he must say, that he was much susprised that even the recommendations of the Treasury Commissioners had not been carried into effect. It was six years since the report was made.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that after what they had heard of the necessity and importance of Messengers, he begged to ask one question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Was it true that a Messenger had been sent to the Duke of Buccleuch, to ask him to come up and second the Address?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he really could not carry in his recollection each individual service performed by the Messengers. He could not tell whether a Messenger had been sent to the Duke of Buccleuch or not.
§ Mr. Humehad learned, upon very good authority, that a Messenger had been sent on this errand to the Duke of Buccleuch.
§ Mr. Poulett Thomsoncomplained of the expense of Foreign Messengers. There was a Messenger sent every week to Paris. This person travelled post with four horses, and his expenses were treble what they ought to be. Why could not a Government Messenger travel, like the commercial couriers, on horseback? But the worst of it was, that this Messenger's real employment was smuggling. The Messenger was employed in bringing over gowns, and gloves, and shoes; and his bag was full, not of despatches, but of smuggled goods.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ "The sum of 958l. 5s., to pay the Salaries and Allowances of certain Professors in the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, for reading courses of Lectures," was voted.
§ The Resolution "That the sum of 13,778l. 2s. be granted for paying the Salaries of the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, of their Clerks, and the Contingent Expenses of their office, for 723 one year; and also of the expenses attendant on the Circuits," was opposed.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that while they had such an expensive bankruptcy establishment, he did not see why they should be called upon to pay such a sum as this for the support of an Insolvent Debtors' Court. In a work lately published by a Commissioner of Bankrupts, the expense of the Bankruptcy Establishment was estimated at 250,000l. a year. He did not see why the business of the Insolvent Court and the Bankruptcies should not be managed by the same parties, without entailing the additional expense which this vote required.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, it would be impossible that the business of the two Courts could be managed by the same set of commissioners. If the Bankrupt Court were to be made permanent, it would entail a vast expense on the country, and the commissioners could not obtain constant employment. The employments of the two Courts were quite different. The Bankrupt Commissioners had to decide upon important points of law, and to distribute a great deal of property; whereas the commissioners of the Insolvent Court had no points of law to decide, and no property to distribute. The legal knowledge necessary in Commissioners of Bankrupts, and practical acquaintance with the business they had to do, would compel the country to give them large salaries if permanently employed, and would create an immense expense.
§ Mr. O'Connelladmitted, that the constitution of the two Courts was different, and that the Bankrupt Courts had to decide important questions in law and equity, which would require considerable legal experience; but in looking at the selection made of Commissioners of Bankrupts in a country with which he was acquainted, it would not be found that these acquirements were exactly the qualifications for which they were chosen. Good political or family connexions, and little or no experience, seemed, in many instances, to have been made the grounds of choice. They were generally practising barristers, and it was not uncommon to obtain by a fee, substituting feigned names, their opinion on cases to be afterwards brought before them as commissioners. Altogether, the abuses under the present system were horrible, and he trusted that they might be remedied, If 724 no other Member should undertake the task, he would, however little qualified for it, bring forward the subject next Session, if it were only to stimulate those in whose hands the matter would be much better managed.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that in objecting to the present system he spoke not his own opinions, but those of the most eminent barristers, who recommended that a total change should be made in the constitution of the Bankrupt Court.
§ Sir M. W. Ridleythought, that if the Insolvent Debtors' Court had neither to decide important points of law, nor to distribute any considerable property, means ought to be taken to reduce the expense at which it was maintained. He was also of opinion, that the number of Commissioners of Bankrupts might be reduced one-half.
§ Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that there was not a mercantile man in London, who would not accept 5s. in the pound, although there might be hopes of the estate furnishing assets to the amount of 10s. or 15s. under a commission, rather than suffer it to go into the Bankrupt Court, where, as it was at present constituted, justice was denied, while the expense was enormous.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that although the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) did not exaggerate the importance of the Commissioners of Bankrupts, yet he seemed to undervalue that of the Insolvent Debtors' Court. He thought that the value of the Court ought to be estimated, not merely by the amount of money distributed by it, but by the compositions of which it was the cause. The present system was bad, as it held out temptations to insolvents to spend their money in prison, and left nothing to distribute.
Mr. Batleythought, the business of the Court would be much better discharged, if the commissioners had permanent salaries, and were men of a certain standing at the bar. He did not think it beneficial that the Judges in that Court should be practitioners in Chancery, for they gave up more time to seek profit in their profession than to discharge their duties as commissioners.
§ Mr. Sykescomplained of the enormous amount of the fees, and trusted that this branch of the law would be soon revised.
§ Mr. J. Woodsaid, that both barristers and solicitors felt that a great alteration ought to be made in the law. To merchants and traders it was ruinous and 725 delusive. The most corrupt and disgraceful transactions took place in those Courts, and the sooner they were completely reformed, the better the public would be pleased.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the Bankrupt Law was one of the greatest nuisances with which the country was afflicted, and yet the hon. and learned Solicitor General came forward to eulogise the Bankrupt Court. The evil mentioned by the hon. member for Clare was not confined to Ireland, for here also Commissioners of Bankrupts practised as pleaders in other Courts. The Attorney General, on a former occasion, said, that law was cheap in England, compared with other countries. What would he say to the fact of the Bankrupt Court having cost 250,000l. in one year? He thought it was a reflection upon the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Attorney and the Solicitor General, to allow the gross abuses of that Court to continue. He hoped that the Solicitor General would undertake the reformation of these evils. [The hon. and learned Gentleman shook his head.] Then if he would not fulfil that which was his duty, by proposing those alterations in the law which were necessary for the protection of the public, the sooner he gave up his situation the better. The Solicitor General stated, that the Commissioners of Bankrupts had grave questions of law to decide, leaving it to be inferred, that they ought to be men of talent, intelligence, and experience. But the fact was, that gentlemen were appointed Commissioners of Bankrupts, not because they possessed these qualifications, but because they were destitute of them, and could get nothing to do in their profession. How then could the law officers of the Crown have the assurance to make such statements? The hon. and learned Gentleman would pardon him, but he really felt indignant when he heard it asserted, that the commissioners were necessarily men of great talents. At the same time he should be guilty of great injustice, if he did not admit, that many of the commissioners were men of abilities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General, had pronounced no eulogy upon the Bankrupt Commissioners, but merely said that the duties of that Court, and of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, were so dissimilar, that they could not be performed by one set of commissioners.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that whatever accusation might be made against him by the hon. Gentleman, he doubted whether any of the responsibility attached to his office: he had no more control over the Commissioners of Bankrupts than the hon. Gentleman himself. He did not intend to retract anything he had said; he never meant to eulogise that Court: all that he had done was, to show that one set of commissioners could not perform the duties of both Courts.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, he did not object to the individuals who were the Commissioners of Bankrupts, but he objected to the office, and the number of those commissioners. There were seventy-two of them, some of whom were both commissioners and advocates, and the most skilful of them were frequently employed to protect, before other commissioners, the greatest scoundrels. He had known an instance in which one of these commissioners gave an opinion, that an individual was subject to the Bankrupt Laws, and that very commissioner afterwards argued, before other commissioners, that the individual was not subject to the Bankrupt Laws, and defeated him (Alderman Waithman), by which he lost 1,000l. This had given him a distaste for the Bankrupt Laws, and he had never since applied to them. The Insolvent Debtors' code was intended to relieve our prisons, which were overloaded with prisoners, and though it was not as bad as our Bankrupt Laws, it needed amendment. It was not to be expected that he or any other individual should bring forward any measures of improvement, for unless they were proposed by the officers of the Crown they never succeeded. It was the business, therefore, of the law officers to effect a reform. He expected that from them. In particular he wished to get rid of the army of commissioners. The whole system was bad, and he was sure that no persons who could help it would ever have recourse either to making his debtor a bankrupt, or forcing him to take the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act. He would lose both his money and his time. He felt so indignant at these laws, that he could not do otherwise than protest, in the name of the commercial community, against them.
§ Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, he knew no difference between an insolvent and a bankrupt, except that which the law made. They were both persons who could not pay 727 their creditors; but while the bankrupt, after receiving his certificate, could again possess property, the insolvent was liable to be called on to pay his debts in full. The Attorney General, in a bill then before the House, had introduced a clause which he thought likely to be beneficial. In introducing it, indeed, he had spoken of the preparation of going to prison; though what beneficial effect that preparation, whether legal or moral, was to have, it was out of his power to say; but the Attorney General proposed, that after going to prison as a preparation, a debtor who could pay 10s. in the pound, and could satisfy his creditors as to his honesty, should be immediately liberated, and be freed from all further demands. This would be a great improvement in the law, and acceptable to the whole trading community; for men were generally very ready to compound for their bad debts at the rate of 10s. in the pound; and, in fact, were very glad to get so much.
§ Mr. Brightsaid, that the whole question of the Bankrupt and Insolvent Debtors' Laws was far too important to be discussed on that occasion. He did not know a subject in which the whole community was more interested than these laws, the whole of which needed revision. Let any of the Members go to Guildhall, and there they would see three or four commissions working at the same time; three or four barristers examining as many witnesses, a great number of attornies consulting a number of clients, and altogether such a scene of confusion as never was seen in any other court of justice. It was not a question of a single debtor, or a single creditor, but a question that involved the welfare of the whole mercantile community. The interference of the Government to provide a remedy for this state of the law was necessary. At present no man who could avoid it went before the Commissioners of Bankrupts—he took what he could get from his debtor; but when he did go, he never left the Court without being affronted and ashamed at the abominable conduct of the commissioners. The Insolvent Debtors' Acts were worse, if that were possible, than the Bankrupt Laws. The dividend of the debtors liberated under them was, he believed, nothing. The attorneys and clerks of the Court were well paid, and they throve on the general distress, but the clients got nothing. Those persons 728 who defrauded their creditors were sometimes imprisoned for a short period; but in general they were immediately set at liberty. Under such a system there was no encouragement for honesty, but much for roguery. There never was a system better calculated to corrupt a community than our system of Bankrupt and Insolvent Debtors' Laws. He did not mean to propose any improvement in those laws; but he must say, that the system must be improved, for it was unbearable. It was complained of from one end of the kingdom to the other, and in particular the practice of allowing the commissioners to practise as advocates was complained of every where, and by every body. The very rules these gentlemen laid down as judges they afterwards employed their talents to subvert: they employed their ingenuity to oppose their own decisions. As advocates, they were bound to urge all the reasons they could collect, in order to overthrow what they had themselves, as commissioners, laid down as law. Such a system could not be tolerated, and the House and the Government were bound to devise a better.
§ Mr. Monckwas of opinion, that the Judges of the Bankrupt Court ought to be permanent, and ought not to be allowed to practise as barristers.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 4,034l. for the expense of the Alien Office, and contingent expenses, was voted.
§ The next Vote was for 6,882l. to defray the charge of Superannuation Allowances and Pensions of Public Officers, under the 50th Geo. 3rd c. 117, and the 3rd Geo. 4th c. 113.
Mr. Lennardcomplained that the Acts regulating the Superannuation Allowances were very unjust in their operation. They gave a large portion of their income, as a superannuation, to those who had large incomes, and only a small portion to those who had small incomes. He considered that the Acts ought to be amended.
§ Sir John Newportexpressed his concurrence in these views. The regulation pressed hard on those who had small in-comes, and was liberal to those who were amply provided.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that he would not enter into the subject, as a committee had been appointed to inquire into it. There was, however, a point connected with that committee, to which he wished to advert. It had been some time appointed, at the 729 suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but had never yet met. He had been for a long time a Member of that House, but he was not aware how he ought to act on such an occasion; or, as he was a member of that committee, he should have brought the subject under the notice of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the delay in the meeting of the committee was attributable to the circumstance of most of the Gentlemen on it being actively engaged on other committees. As soon as he could get an adequate number of members together, he should be most happy to meet them, and submit the views of his Majesty's Government on the subject to the committee.
§ In reply to an observation made by Mr. Gordon,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, measures had been taken to prevent all persons appointed to public situations, subsequent to last July, from having any claim on the public for Superannuation Allowances.
Mr. Maberlycalled the attention of the Committee to the provision included in this vote for retired stamp-masters, and other officers of the Linen Boards of Scotland and Ireland. The Boards were so useless, that the Linen Board of Scotland did not know what to do with the money confided to its care for the encouragement of the linen manufacture; and it had actually been obliged to advertise, in order to find means how to employ it. He thought, therefore, that it was high time to put an end to these Boards, and all their dependents and charges for superannuations.
§ Mr. George Dawsonsaid, that the Superannuation Allowances of all kinds had been so amply discussed last year, and a committee had been appointed to investigate them this Session, that he could not think that it was necessary to defend the vote he proposed.
Mr. Maberlythought it strange that the House should continue to vote a sum for the encouragement of arts and manufactures in Scotland, and that, in the absence of any object to which it could be applied, the trustees should write begging letters, soliciting suggestions for the employment of the money. He thought the proper course would be, to recal the grant, now that it was found to be unnecessary.
§ Mr. H. Drummondobserved, that the grant was made originally to encourage the growth of flax in Scotland, but that it 730 ought now to be applied to other purposes, more congenial with the improvement of the age, for the benefit of Scotland. He doubted whether the funds in the hands of the trustees of the Board could be touched, as they were vested in them by Act of Parliament.
§ Mr. Humeobserved, that the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman was inadmissible. The money voted for a specific purpose was public money, and necessarily reverted to the public when it was not applied to the purpose for which it was given. Connected with this question he wished to ask, whether the office of Secretary, with a salary of 600l. a year, vacated by death, was discontinued?
The Lord Advocatemaintained, that the fund was applicable to Scotland alone. It had been voted for the improvement of that country at the time of the Union, as an equivalent for the introduction of the Excise and Customs of England. With respect to the question put by the hon. Gentleman, he was able to state, that another Secretary had been appointed, but he was to do the duty without a salary.
§ Mr. Humeexpressed his surprise, that the noble and learned Lord should have appealed for a sanction of the grant. He would ask the noble and learned Lord, whether the Union called upon Parliament to expend so much money as had been expended upon Scotch roads and Scotch bridges—whether it called upon them to lay out a million of money upon the Caledonian Canal? He should be very willing to strike a balance with the noble and learned Lord.
Mr. Maberlywas of opinion, that the Trustees had no right to appropriate the money, and said, that the manner in which superannuations were allowed, and in which the Secretary had been appointed, were as gross jobs as ever were known.
§ Mr. Humecondemned the principle of superannuations altogether; and as an instance of the abuse to which it was liable, quoted the case of a young man named Anstey, 27 years of age, who, on the abolition of an office, the salary of which was 120l. a year, received 40l. a year superannuation. Besides, it had been determined in 1822, that those who were superannuated should be recalled, if any occasion required the appointment of new officers. But, in defiance of this understanding, not one had been recalled, though many new appointments had taken 731 place. The system of superannuation ought to be put an end to altogether, for experience had fully shown that it could not be modified.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 13,647l. 10s. to defray the Pensions to Corsican Emigrants and Dutch Naval Officers was voted.
§ 2,500l. for the National Vaccine Establishment was also voted.
§ 3,000l. for the Refuge for the Destitute was proposed.
§ Mr. Alderman Atkinsdefended the charity.
§ Lord Howickreminded Ministers of the pledge given to his hon. friend (Sir J. Graham), and suggested that the vote should be withdrawn for the present.
§ Vote withdrawn.