HC Deb 03 April 1832 vol 11 cc1272-4

The House went into a Committee on the Registry of Deeds (Ireland) Bill.

Mr. Jephson

moved that the salary of the registrar (Mr. Moore) be 1,500l. a-year. That gentleman was appointed in January 1830, and had been given to understand that he was to receive that amount; indeed, a Treasury minute to that effect was transmitted to him. But, since the present Government had been in office, they had reduced the salary to 1,200l. a-year. By this Bill, the duties of the office would be very much extended, and the responsibility increased, he hoped, therefore, that the original rate of salary would be restored.

Mr. Leader

said, he must oppose the proposed increase. He had no doubt, that many gentlemen perfectly competent to perform the duties of the office could be had at the reduced salary of 1,200l. If Mr. Moore felt any objections to the increased responsibility said to be imposed upon him by the Bill, he might, of course, give up his office.

Mr. Crampton

said, that Mr. Moore had an equitable right to 1,500l. a-year. He had been appointed at that salary, and a Treasury minute of the late Government was passed to that effect, though it appeared that another Treasury minute of the same date was recorded, by which the salary was fixed at 1,200l., which Mr. Moore had since received under protest.

Mr. Spring Rice

stated, that the minute of Treasury fixing the salary at 1,500l., he understood, had not passed the Treasury at all, but had been issued by a mistake of the clerk. He denied that Mr. Moore had any equitable claim to 1,500l., but, considering the changes which had been made in the office, the additional duty imposed upon the registrar, he thought the public would gain more than the 300l. a-year. If it was the case of a newly-created office; he should think 1,200l. a-year enough.

Mr. Wyse

supported the Motion, on the ground that, as the duties which Mr. Moore had undertaken to discharge had been increased, the salary ought also to be increased to a fair compensation for the additional duties and responsibilities imposed by the Bill. He, however, thought the increase of salary should be confined to Mr. Moore only, and that provision should be made that his successor should not have more than 1,200l. per annum.

Mr. Sheil

felt it his duty to move as an Amendment, that the sum of 1,200l. should be inserted in the clause in place of the sum of 1,500l. He could not acquiesce in the opinion that increase of duties should call for an increase of salary, when he remembered that the assistant barristers for counties in Ireland, notwithstanding the great increase to their labours, arising from their now discharging the troublesome duty of registering freeholders, had been granted no addition to the salaries they were before paid. In a recent appointment a reduction had been made in the salary for the discharge of onerous responsible duties; he alluded to the case of Mr. Goold, an eminent member of the Bar, who had been appointed a Master in Chancery in Ireland at a very reduced salary.

Mr. Lefroy

supported the original Motion. He conceived Mr. Moore had an equitable claim to the salary of 1,500l. per annum, for the contract between the Treasury and that gentleman was complete—it was ratified by the Treasury minute—a solemn document, as he thought, and one that it was too much to say should be set aside on the mere statement of a Treasury clerk that it was a mistake.

Mr. Jephson

said, he was completely in the hands of the House, and be felt that, in thus bringing the matter before it, he had discharged his duty to the public.

The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 23; Noes 21—Majority 2.

House resumed.