§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMThe House was aware that by the Act passed last Session, the appointment of the clerks of the county courts was vested in the judges, and he had reason to know that in several instances these judges had appointed near relations of their own, who resided at great distances from the courts. For example, he knew of one clerk of a county court in a midland county who resided in London. He was personally cognisant of another case in Cumberland, where the clerk resided seventy miles from the court to which he was attached. There were very large salaries appended to those situations, some even as high as 600l. a year. The clerks in several districts being non-resident, appointed deputies to transact the business for them, and some of these deputies were not conversant in the duties of the office, were not competent to give the necessary instructions to the litigant parties, and were even not licensed attorneys, as directed by the Act.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYremarked, that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken with respect to the clerks being in receipt of large salaries. They received fees, and not salaries; and the Act provided that in no case should the amount received annually exceed 600l. a year. As to the appointment of the non-resident clerks, the judges had in some instances appointed clerks who did not reside in the same district as that in which the court was situated. But the practice seemed to be that the clerk attended personally when the judge was holding his court, or the deputy attended constantly in the office to issue summonses, and do the other necessary business. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that the deputies ought to be persons fully qualified to give advice to those who should require it.