§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the third reading of the Common Law Courts Bill. When the measure was last under consideration, he had intimated his opinion that, in conformity with the opinion of the Commissioners on the subject, the number of officers in those courts should be reduced. He had since, however, had communications on the subject with Lord Denman, Sir Nicholas Tindal, and Lord Abinger; and they had assured him, that the number of officers now employed were 1672 essential to the satisfactory discharge of the business of the courts. To those representations he had felt it his duty to yield; but he had prepared two clauses; the one providing, that in the event of a vacancy among the officers of the courts in question, that vacancy should not be filled up without a certificate from one of the chief judges of the necessity of filling it up, and without the sanction of Parliament; the other, providing that no compensation should be granted, except in certain cases.
§ Mr. Harveyopposed the Bill, condemning the departure from the recommendation of the Commissioners. He objected, moreover, to this Bill, because it went, in the face of the recommendation of a Commission which sat for a long period, to create three situations with salaries attached to them, of 1,200l. each. The whole of this was a judicial job. It was said, fifteen officers were necessary, though the Commission declared twelve sufficient. He contended, it was most improper to set aside the recommendation of the Commission, made upon the representation of the judges. He objected to the mode of granting the certificate by the judges, inasmuch as this might lead to great abuse, because they might certify to their sisters' sons, or other parties equally nearly related. The appointment of the three additional officers ought, surely, to be delayed till it was found whether they really were required. He should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House, with reference to the creation of these three additional officers.
Mr. Sergeant Goulburnsaid, that this Bill was brought in in pursuance of the recommendation of a Commission, of which he (Mr. Goulburn) had the honour to be Chairman. The hon. and learned Member for Southwark, had not opposed the measure until the last occasion, when he made a speech precisely similar to that which he had first made. With reference to the appointments which had been made of relations by the judges, would the hon. Gentleman say they were not fully competent to the duties of the offices to which they were appointed, or were not fit and proper persons to be so recommended? He denied, that the salaries of l,200l. a-year each were too high. The object of the Bill was to reduce the creation of new offices by aged persons holding offices under the courts; 1673 and, assuredly, the proper persons to fill up the vacancies as they occurred, were the judges of the land.
Mr. Hodgson Hindethought the House was bound to abide by the recommendation of the Commission to limit the number of officers to twelve; and unless he heard something more satisfactory than had fallen from the learned Sergeant, he would vote for the amendment.
§ Bill read a third time.
§ A clause, by way of rider, was brought up.
§ Mr. Tookeconcurred in everything which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, because the creation of these three additional appointments, contrary to the recommendation of the Commission, was a most outrageous job. He would take this occasion of asking, how it happened that the recommendations of the Commission, in regard to the Crown-office, had not been acted upon and framed into a Bill? Had this been done, there would have been some consolation for the expense which this Commission would cost the country.
§ The Attorney-Generalcomplained of the course pursued by the hon. Member for Truro. He believed, that the judges of the land had acted upon the purest and most conscientious feeling. The business in the taxation of costs in the courts, in consequence of recent regulations, had been much increased; and as the duties of their officers would, in a great degree, apply to this branch of business—though he had the highest respect for the recommendation of the Commission—the additional number of three was not too great. He protested against the attempt made, to impugn the motives of the judges in reference to these appointments.
§ The House divided on the clause:—Ayes 39; Noes 17: Majority 22.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Adam, Sir C. | Goulburn, rt. hon. H. |
| Alsager, Captain | Hawes, B. |
| Baring, F. T. | Hodges, T. L. |
| Buller, Sir J. Y. | Howard, P. H. |
| Campbell, Sir J. | Howick, Viscount |
| Chalmers, P. | Jackson, Sergeant |
| Dillwyn, L. W. | Inglis, Sir R. H. |
| Ebrington, Viscount | Knight, H. G. |
| Elphinstone, H. | Law, hon. C. E. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. A. | Lefroy, right hon. T. |
| Forster, C. S. | Lennox, Lord G. |
| Gordon, R. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Palmerston, Viscount | Steuart, R. |
| Parker, J. | Stewart, P. M. |
| Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H. | Tancred, H. W. |
| Rice, right hon. T. S. | Thomson, rt. hn. C. P. |
| Richards, R. | Westenra, hon. H. R. |
| Rolfe, Sir R. M. | Woulfe, Sergeant |
| Rushbrooke, Colonel | TELLERS. |
| Shaw, right hon. F. | Goulburn, Sergeant |
| Stanley, E, J. | O'Ferrall, R. M. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Hume, J. |
| Beauclerk, Major | Maher, H. |
| Bewes, T. | Pease, J. |
| Blake, Martin Jos. | Pechell, Captain |
| Bowring, Dr. | Thompson, Colonel |
| Brotherton, J. | Vigors, N. A. |
| Callaghan, D. | Wallace, Robert |
| Chichester, J. P. B. | TELLERS. |
| Crawford, W. S. | Harvey, D. W. |
| Hinde, J.H. | Tooke, W. |
§ Clause agreed to. Bill passed.