HC Deb 03 August 1857 vol 147 cc960-91

House in Committee.

MR. MALINS

said, that when the Chairman reported progress on the last occasion that this Bill was in Committee, he was proceeding to move a clause to secure to the proctors compensation for the loss of their practice, of which the Bill would deprive them, and as he now rose with the same object in view as originally framed, the Bill confined the business of the District Courts of Probate to wills in cases where the property was under the value of £1,500; but upon a division, that proposition was negatived by the House. It was subsequently proposed to extend the limit to £3,000, but that proposition was also objected to, and negatived without a division. The Government then proposed to make a limit as to the nature of the property which was to be proved in the district courts, and included the cases of wills where there was Bank stock, East India stock, and other like descriptions of property. This proposition, however, met with the same fate as the previous proposals of the Government, and the result was that the District Courts had jurisdiction, under the Bill as it stood, in all cases, whatever the nature or the amount of the property embraced by the probate. The nature of the Bill had consequently been altogether changed since its first introduction into that House. It had originally formed no part of the Government scheme to grant compensation, and as the Bill then stood, there was less ground for asking it; but the business of the proctors in Doctors' Commons would, if the Bill passed in its present shape, be altogether annihilated. In the observations which he should make, he should refer chiefly and primarily to the claims of the London proctors; but those of the diocesan courts of Chester, York, Durham, &c., stood upon the same footing. The proctors of Doctors' Commons were from 114 to 120 in number. They were a body that had enjoyed their exclusive privileges for a period of not less than six centuries. They enjoyed the exclusive privilege of proving wills affecting personal estate, whether proved in the common form or the solemn form, and taking out letters of administration, in the Diocesan Courts of London and the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. Their duties had been very extensive and very valuable. When he said valuable, let it not be understood that the occupation of a proctor was lucrative—it was not so. As a body there were no more respectable men in England than the proctors. Their office, however, was not one in which they could accumulate large fortunes. But it was a kind of business that had been in families for several generations. The effect of the Bill would be at once to annihilate the whole of their occupations. Was such a proceeding wholly for the benefit of the public? This business, which had been so conducted for a period of six centuries, was by universal consent admitted to have been conducted for the benefit of the public. No complaint had ever been made against the manner in which the business had been transacted by the proctors. That it had been conducted satisfactorily was stated in the Report of the Chancery Commission, in which there was a recommendation that it should not be thrown open to attorneys or solicitors; but if it was thrown open, that the proctors ought to have compensation. When the Bill of the Government on this subject was before the House in 1854, he (Mr. Malins) presented two petitions, one of which was signed by 258 of the first bankers and mercantile men of London, urging that the business of the proctors was well done, with reasonable despatch and great accuracy; and the other signed by 122 of the leading solicitors and conveyancers of London, both deprecating the abolition of the business of the proctors. This proved that the privileges exercised by these gentlemen were not exercised solely for their own benefit, but greatly for the benefit of the public. This Bill annihilated all those privileges, and he having been in constant communication with the whole body of these gentlemen, was informed that if the Bill passed it would be in vain for them to attempt to pursue their occupation. As the Bill originally stood it limited provincial probates to £1,500, and excluding Government Stock and East India Stock, and the hon. and learned Attorney General resisted all appeals for compensation on the ground that it would not affect the business of the London proctors. Even if the Bill had limited the provincial probate to sums of £1,500, that business was 79 per cent of the whole business of the probate courts, and that would have taken away just so much of the business of the London proctors. No less than 41 new districts for proving wills, which could only before be proved in Doctors' Commons, were introduced by this Bill, each of which took away a proportion of the business heretofore done in Doctors' Commons; and, in fact, Doctors' Commons would be only the forty-second district for London. All the proctors of York, Durham, Norwich, &c., had the power of practising as proctors in London; and the Judge of the Probate Court had unlimited power to grant the same privilege to as many persons as he thought fit. He had been speaking only of common form business; but the greatest amount of business arose from the contentious business, and that used to be the exclusive privilege of Doctors' Commons. By the Bill all that was swept away, and the whole body of 10,000 solicitors were admitted to participate in this business. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) on a former occasion conceded that the York and Chester proctors ought to have compensation; on which he (Mr. Malins) pressed on the noble Lord that the principle of compensation had been conceded; because if the business of the York and Chester proctors was swept from the face of the earth they were therefore entitled to compensation. Now that this Bill was about to sweep the business of the London proctors away, ought not the same principle of compensation to be applied to them? If he showed that it was possible, without throwing a farthing of burden on the public, to give compensation to these gentlemen, he felt that confidence in the justice of the House of Commons as to believe that it would not sacrifice a body like this for the public good without the public paying for it. This body consisted of 114 or 120 members, and of them not less than sixty had passed the middle age. Would the House not reflect on the effects which this Bill would produce by annihilating the business of such a body of men—how many wives, children and grandchildren would be brought to penury? He had received statements of numerous cases, and he would mention one or two of them. One gentleman, in a petition to the House stated— That he had been forty five years a proctor, and by labour and integrity in the discharge of his business had brought up a family of fifteen children, all of whom were adults; the labour of his life had been to educate and place them out in life, that he had not kept horses, carriages, or livery servants, but that he had not been able to lay by anything, and he had no resource for leaving anything to his family, except by life insurance: that he was sixty-seven years of age and had an invalid wife, five unmarried daughters, and three sons yet unprovided for; besides several grandchildren who had lost their parents, and if this Bill passed, it would consign them to a situation of great struggle; and besides one of his sons had entered into articles to the same business, in order that he might succeed him. He (Mr. Malins) could not believe that the House of Commons could treat a gentleman like this in such a manner as to turn him out on the world. Another of these gentlemen stated,— That at twenty-one years of age he was articled to a proctor, paying a premium of 800 guineas. It ought to have been stated that this profession, though not lucrative, was a very expensive one, and premiums of 1,000 or 800 guineas were often paid on entering into articles, and the expense of being admitted as proctor was not less than £1,200. The petitioner went on to say— That the expenses of his education had been very great, that he had invested a large sum in entering into a partnership, and had nine children dependent upon him. Another stated,— That at twenty-two years of age he was articled to a proctor, paying a premium of.£1,200; that the stamp duty on his articles was,£120, and that the fees and stamps on his admission amounted to,£200. Another stated,— That he was in his forty-second year, with a wife and six children, the eldest of whom was under ten years of age, and that he was wholly dependent on his professional income; that he had entered into a partnership for life with a partner eighty-four years of age, who from age and infirmity had not given him any assistance for many years; that he paid annually £150 as a special premium on an insurance on his life, in order to provide for his children, which would be totally lost to him if this Bill passed. He had related these out of many cases, in order to show that all these gentlemen's plans of life were founded on the permanency of their profession, and if that was swept away they ought to have some compensation. The Commissioners had expressed an opinion that if the profession of the proctors was not preserved as an exclusive profession, justice demanded that some compensation should be made to them for the loss which they would suffer. But besides this, he had what might be called a Parliamentary title to compensation for them, for this was not the second or the third Bill which had been introduced on this subject. Bills had been introduced in 1855 and 1856, both under the auspices of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and what course had the Government pursued? The clauses which he (Mr. Malins) was now about to propose were identically the same as those proposed by the Government in their Bills in 1855 and 1856. How could that which was justice in 1855 and 1856 fail to be justice in 1857? But another Bill on this subject was introduced in 1854, in which exclusive privileges were granted to proctors for ten years; but when that provision came to be discussed, it was found to fall short of justice, and it failed. The principle was carried further in the Bill of 1855, and in that Bill it was proposed to do what he now proposed to do in the clauses of which he had given notice. How had this question been dealt with by the Government? He would read an extract from a speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General on that occasion. He said— Then there remained the question of the proctors. It was first proposed to give to these gentlemen a priority of business in the new court for some time; but that course was afterwards thought to be not fair towards those gentlemen. He had a great desire to meet, in a liberal spirit, the fair claims of all these gentlemen with regard to the probable loss in their professions; he believed, however, that their apprehensions of loss would turn out to be unfounded, and that when they emerged from the shade of Doctors' Commons into the light of day, and exercised their profession on a more extended arena, their experience, skill, and sagacity, would enable them to compete successfully with solicitors now practising their profession in the courts of Westminster Hall. At the same time, they were entitled to some reasonable equivalent for the risk of loss of practice which they would, at least at first, have to incur. This Bill therefore, proposed to secure to these gentlemen for life an annuity equal to one-half of the clear income now received by each of them from the testamentary branch of their business. That allowance, if it erred at all, would do so on the side of liberality, because the junior class of those who would receive it would, in addition, have a larger field open to their professional exertions by this measure, while the seniors of the body would receive a handsome retiring pension: The number of proctors in London did not exceed 120, whoso own estimate of their professional incomes, derivable from all descriptions of business, did not average move than £700 per annum for each. Computing the incomes of the country proctors at the same amount, though they could hardly be so high, the compensation at the rate of one-half their incomes, to be provided for the entire body, would be£52,150. Adding this item to the other charges before mentioned for the Testamentary Offices, allowances to officers of diocesan and peculiar courts, compensation to Mr. Moore, &c., the whole would amount to £144,150. To meet this charge the annexation of the business of all the minor courts to that of the Prerogative Court, and the continuance of the fees of the latter tribunal would, according to the returns, provide a fee fund of £74,740. This would be the aggregate of the fees of this court. The great saving to the people at large by the change proposed would be in the fact of the public being only obliged to employ one legal man, and not, as heretofore, two—a proctor and a solicitor—which induced the payment of two bills of costs. In the fees of court he did not propose at present to make any material deduction, save in what was called the proctor's fee, which was now calculated on a percentage of the stamp on the letters of probate and administration; and as proctors were to be abolished, that would of course entail the abolition of the proctor's fees. The substitute for this fee he proposed should be this. By a return made to the House, he found that the proctor's fee, if the property was sworn under £100, was 9s. 2d., or within 10d. of the amount of the stamp which was 10s. He proposed that in future three per cent should be charged on the stamp, so that the public, under the new Bill, when the property was under £100, would be relieved of the proctor's fee, but would have to pay 1s. 6d. on the stamp. When the property amounted to £8,000 or £9,000, an approximation to the fee now paid to the proctor would be charged. The present fee now paid on such a sum was £3 8s. 2d., and the proposed charge under the substituted percentage on an amount so large would be £3 7s. 10d., so that the charge would be always found less than that now paid. So, too, where the estate was £600, the proctor's fee of £2 4s. 10d. would only be £1 13s. This substitute for the proctor's fee he proposed should be paid into the testamentary fund. The income that the proctors would derive from the percentage fee would amount to the sum of £87,953; and this, with other fees, would yield a total of £158,661, which might be taken as the sum likely to be paid yearly in future to the fee fund of the Court. That sum of £158,661 was what they would have in order to meet the current charges of £144,000; thus leaving a margin of £15,000 for other purposes. And this would be effected without any increase in the stamp duty. It must not be considered that the £144,000 would be permanent charge against the fee fund—such would not be the case; and if the business of the Court increased, the fees would be augmented, and the fund would be increased proportionately. This fund would be raised without entailing any new burden on the suitors of the Court. He hoped this was a plan which all might support, because it did not burden the public, or deal injuriously with vested interests. That was the proposition of the Government in 1855. Then came the Bill of 1856, which in this respect was to the same effect. He would not trouble the House with what his hon. and learned Friend said on the second occasion, as it was to much the same effect. His hon. and learned Friend, when he introduced the present Bill, intended to preserve to Doctors'Commons all the common form business, and there was a semblance of a reason for denying compensation to the proctors; but alterations had been made in the Bill in Committee, which it was admitted annihilated their business for the benefit of the public, and the public was bound to compensate them. He trusted his hon. and learned Friend would consider the necessity of conceding the claims of the proctors, which were so founded on the principles of justice, that he should be disappointed if the majority of the House did not concur in them. Now what had been the practice of Parliament in similar cases? The House had on many occasions adopted the principle that when institutions were abolished or altered for the good of the public, it was a matter of justice to err on the liberal rather than on the illiberal side. He would take as an instance the alterations in the Court of Chancery. When the Masters' offices were abolished, the Masters, ten in number, with salaries amounting to £2,500, received the full amount of those salaries as retiring pensions, although some of the Masters had held their office only three or four years. Then again there were the Six Clerks, some of whose incomes amounted, to £7,000 a year. In that case Parliament went too far, for the amount was allowed for their lives, and pensions to their widows. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Those were offices.] The Six Clerks held no offices; they were only solicitors practising in Chancery; in the strict sense of the word they were not officers At all. But if they were, how did that affect the matter? In 1854, 1855, and 1856 the Chancellor of the Exchequer as sented to the principle of compensating the proctors, and therefore he was estopped from now objecting that they held no offices, and were therefore not entitled to compensation. But what in fact were the proctors? They held their offices under an Act of Parliament which had secured to them exclusive privileges, which privileges they had exercised greatly for the benefit of the public. Now if these privileges were to be abolished for the benefit of the public, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to say to these 120 men, "You and your families may turn out to the wind and the air and find shelter where you can—you don't hold any office." He had much misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's character if he was prepared to act on a ground so unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, say that the public burdens are great and increasing, and probably would remind them that a large addition to them would result from the passing of the Civil Service Superannuation Bill. Now the proposition which he (Mr. Malins) had to submit to the House was this: He undoubtedly called upon the public to pay a considerable sum of money in the shape of compensation, but no increased burden would be thrown on the public. There were at present certain fees paid on the probate of wills into the probate offices, and he proposed that during the continuance of these compensations such payments should be continued. Assuming that the proctors numbered 120, he proposed to give them annuities for their lives equal to one-half of their emoluments. Most of these men were advanced in years, and probably but few of these pensions would continue payable after a period of twenty-five or thirty years. The country would have no great reason to complain if, when the Government propounded a measure conferring a great public advantage, the price at which that advantage was purchased was the simple continuance for a limited time of the same payments which were now made, and which must undergo a gradual diminution. This proposition, the principle of which had been recognized by the Government, would thus impose no new charge upon the public, and would prevent a respectable body of men from being entirely mined. He begged, therefore, to move the second reading of the clause, which stood in his name.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it would be necessary in point of form to defer the discussion on the hon. and learned Member's clauses until several clauses to be proposed by the Government had been first disposed of.

MR. MALINS

assented.

Clause (Compensation to Registrars, &c., of existing Courts) brought up and read 1°and 2°.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he would beg to ask for an explanation of the object of the clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that by the abolition of the local Courts a number of officers would be entirely thrown out of employment. Some of them had been appointed anterior, and some of them subsequent to the passing of certain Acts which took away the right of compensation. The first class of officers had a legal claim to compensation, which this clause was intended to satisfy. The second class would also receive compensation, but its amount would be regulated on a different scale.

MR. SALISBURY

said, he would move to insert the words "all business" after the word emoluments. His object was to provide for the case of the stamp distributor of the city of Chester, on whom the Bill, as it stood, would inflict great hardship. Amendment proposed in p. 29, 1. 1, after the word "emoluments to insert the words "or business."

Question proposed, That the words "or business" be there inserted.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for an estimate of the total charge which the Bill would throw upon the country in the shape of compensation. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) told them that no new burthen was to be imposed on the country, because the sum required was to be raised by fees. But these fees were only another form of taxation, and the House ought to watch how they wore levied and how they were spent as strictly as they would any part of the public revenue. It appeared that the country was about to pay a heavy price for the advantages to be derived from this measure; and the least that the House could do was to insist upon knowing the full amount of the obligation to be imposed on the public.

MR. MALINS

explained that he had taken the incomes of 149 proctors, according to the number given in the speech of his hon. and learned Friend in 1856, at an average of £700 a year each; and, granting them compensation equal to one moiety of their earnings, the total sum to be paid out of the fund to which he had referred would be between £50,000 and £60,000 per annum.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he would first answer the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby). By a return made in 1832, since which time there had been no alteration in the constitution of those courts, the whole amount of the emoluments of the Judges, Registrars, and Deputy Registrars was given as follows:—.Salaries of the Judges, £13,271; of the Registrars, £28,076; and of the Deputy Registrars, £15,851. But then these Judges, Registrars, and Deputy Registrars included a number of persons who would be appointed to offices under the new Bill. The residue would be divisible into two classes of officers—those appointed before the statute 6 & 7 Will. IV., cap. 77, and those appointed since that time. The number appointed before that statute was now comparatively small. According to the best result at which he could arrive the aggregate amount of the salaries of the officers to be compensated was £29,000, after making a deduction for the appointment of some of the number to new offices under the Act. That amount represented the salaries of some who were entitled to full compensation, and of others, appointed since the Act of William IV., who were entitled to very limited compensation. He could not tell hon. Members how to work out the rule contained in the clause, because he could not tell the relative number of officers appointed before and since the statute of William IV. That Act was passed twenty-two years ago, and according to the ordinary course of things it was probable that very few persons now in office were appointed anterior to 1835. He would, however, assume that half the number were appointed before 1835, and the result would be that he should have to provide for the half of £29,000, say £15,000, according to the first description of compensation, and another £15,000 under the second. The consequence would be that the sum total of compensation would be certainly less than half the sum of £29,000. That sum would be raised by the fees to be imposed under the Act. It was contemplated that certain fees should be imposed, and that they should be transferred from the Testamentary Fee Fund. The latter fund would have to bear the compensation to be ultimately given, but the Consolidated Fund would be augmented from the Fee Fund. Whatever compensation the House might give would be levied as an additional tax upon the nation. He would not at that moment enter upon the question of compensation to the proctors. What they were then upon was the compensation to officers, and the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Salisbury) was that stamp distributors should be included under the denomination of officers, but he (the Attorney General) could not understand that any such person was entitled to be so regarded. It was the habit of the Treasury to give the privilege of distributing stamps to certain persons, who might be appointed on Monday and discharged on Tuesday. The stamp distributor was selected as a man of integrity and standing, and he became pro hac vice the agent of the Stamp Office in the distribution of stamps. He was allowed a certain per centage, and might sell a large number of stamps in one year, and a fewer number in the succeeding year. He could not admit that a stamp distributor, who was employed for the hour, the day, or the month, could be entitled to compensation. It was a question, indeed, whether the stamp distributor would not be likely to gain rather than lose by the passing of the Bill, for the House had been told that the greater part of the business would be done in the country, and not in London. The Amendment was wholly untenable, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Salisbury) would not press it.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

remarked, that he could not understand the process by which certain fees would be imposed under the Act, then paid into the Consolidated Fund, and afterwards paid out of that fund in compensation. If Registrars were to be paid by salaries and not by fees, he could understand that the whole of the fees would go into the Fee Fund. But if a gentleman died his executor would take his will to the Registrar, who would receive certain fees authorized to be taken for preparing, engrossing, and stamping probate, &c. The Registrar, not being paid by salary but by fees, would receive these fees for his own use. Were there to be any other fees, or was any fund to be brought into existence and called the Fee Fund, which was to be afterwards transferred to the Consolidated Fund, and out of which the compensation provided by the Act, was to be paid? It was intended that the authorities in London should make out a table of fees, and were they to make out first a table of fees to be paid to the Registrar and next a distinct table of fees to be paid by the suitor, and to constitute the fund for compensation?

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, that if his calculation was right, the compensation would be much more than stated by the hon. and learned Attorney General. By a document published in 1852 he found the salaries in the twenty-five Courts to amount to £63,000. Were all the recipients of these salaries to receive compensation? If so, how would the sum named by the hon. and learned Attorney General reach them?

MR. HADFIELD

said, he wished to know from what fund the compensation to be paid to the officers in question was to be derived? It would appear from the 6th Clause that the money was to be paid cut of the Consolidated Fund, and he, for one, objected to the proposal as a charge which was most extravagant, inasmuch as he was prepared to contend that there were few men who would not be willing to abandon their profession if they were to have one-half of their average annual profits secured to them by way of compensation, as would be the case of the proctors under the operation of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had referred to the case of the Six Clerks whose offices had been abolished, and who received £30,000 a year in the shape of compensation, but that, he maintained, was one of the most flagrant acts of extravagant expenditure that had ever received the sanction of that House, and afforded no good reason, as the hon. and learned Member seemed to think it did, why the proctors should be entitled to receive, by way of compensation, half their incomes. The petitioners for compensation under the Bill already amounted to 386, and might be expected, including the surrogates, to reach a much larger number. Now, he was of opinion that the amount of compensation which those various officers would be entitled to receive, if the clause which the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford had placed upon the notice paper were introduced into the Bill, would be found to be not less than £200,000 a year during their lives, and he could only say that to any such proposal as that he should offer his most strenuous opposition.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that if the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) had attended to the explanation which he (the Attorney General) had already given to the Committee, he would have been aware of the grounds upon which the calculation which he had made was based; while he had merely to observe, in reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) that he appeared to him to be throwing away a large amount of eloquence and to have "wasted his sweetness on the desert air," as the case of the proctors was not then before the Committee. The hon. Baronet seemed to doubt the accuracy of the calculation which he had made, but he had stated distinctly that the sum, which he had mentioned as that which would be paid in the shape of compensation, was to be ascertained by deducting from the aggregate amount of the existing salaries of the officers in question, the salaries of those among them who would be appointed to new situations under the Act. Now, taking the existing salaries to be £63,000, the hon. Baronet must bear in mind that forty-one of the Registrars, who were now paid out of that sum, would receive appointments under the new Act at a rate of remuneration amounting to £1,000 per annum each. As far as he could judge from the returns of 1852, and from other causes, he believed that the amount required for compensation would be much less than £29,000, but that was a subject which would be more conveniently discussed upon a subsequent clause of the Bill. With regard to the question of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Fitzroy Kelly) he would find that the Registrars were to be paid by salaries. No doubt it was intended that fees should be paid to District Registrars at first, but as soon as they could form an adequate notion of the amount of business that would be done in a district, they should fix a salary, and the whole of the fees would go into a general fund and be applicable to compensation. The object of Clause 6 was to ensure a proper return of the fees. Instead of fees being paid to the Registrar stamps would be issued, and as the Treasury would thus become the recipient of the Fee Fund, the charges for compensation would be on the Consolidated Fund.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that by the law at present it would be within the power of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, with the consent of the Treasury, to vary the payments with reference to the number of stamps sold.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would still maintain that they ought to know the amount of compensation to be awarded to each person, and it ought to appear in a schedule. When the question of compensating the Six Clerks was before the House he objected to the amount being fixed by the Lord Chancellor, and he received from the Government an assurance that the amount awarded would not be more than from £500 to £700 a year. The Lord Chancellor gave each of them from £5,000 to £7,000 a year, and also £2,500 a year during a period of seven years after their decease, to be left to whom they pleased by will.

MR. SALISBURY

said, seeing the temper of the House, he should not press his Amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

then said, that the intention of the Bill was that if any person who had a claim to compensation received a subsequent appointment the amount of the emolument which he received for that appointment should be deducted from his compensation; but as the clause at present stood, if any person received a subsequent appointment, no matter of how little value it might be, he would forfeit his right to compensation altogether. He would therefore move the omission of certain words to correct the defect which he had pointed out.

Another Amendment proposed in p. 29, 1. 1, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "to" in 1. 2.

Question proposed, that the words "and who are not transferred" stand part of the Clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he could not assent to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. A person who on the passing of this Bill was transferred from one office to another would not receive compensation. [Sir F. KELLY: What!none at all?] It would depend entirely upon the election of persons whose offices were abolished by the Bill whether they would receive compensation or take other appointments. If a person who held an office of £500 a year was transferred to one of £200 a year, he would have no compensation; but if he did not choose to accept a new office he would receive compensation for the loss of his former office. The Bill provided, however, that all persons whose offices were abolished, and who were transferred to other offices, should receive offices as nearly as possible equal in value to those which they had relinquished, but they would not be entitled to any compensation. The practical result of the Amendment would be, that persons would be entitled to compensation for their former offices, although they might be transferred to offices nearly equal in value to those they had previously held.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, the proviso of the clause, as it appeared to him, would operate in this manner:—A Gentleman who was now a country Registrar, with emoluments amounting to £600 a year, would be entitled to compensation of £400 a year; and if, after compensation was awarded, he received no appointment under the Bill, or under the Crown, he would retain that compensation to the end of his life; but if he received an appointment of the exact value of £400 a year his compensation would be suspended so long as he retained the appointment. Suppose, however, that a person entitled to compensation of £400 annually was appointed to an office of the value of £200 a year, he (Sir F. Kelly) wished to know whether it was the intention of his hon. and learned Friend that such person should be entirely deprived of his compensation and limited to an income of £200 a year, or whether he was, so long as he held the appointment, to retain £200 a year out of the £400 awarded to him as compensation? If the Bill intended that a person in such circumstances was to be altogether deprived of compensation he (Sir F. Kelly) thought the regulation was most absurd, because no man would resign a compensation allowance of £400 a year for an office of £200 a year. The consequence of such an arrangement would be that the country would have to pay the retired allowances, and new officials would be appointed to all vacant situations.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, in order to end the discussion, if his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly)would accept this, he would agree to the insertion of the words "of equal value" after the word "offices," at the end of line 2, page 29.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he was willing to accept the proposed arrangement.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Amendment made in accordance with the suggestion of the Attorney General,

MR. HADFIELD

said, we now had to propose the omission of the proviso that persons whose claims in respect of offices, held for life or otherwise, were excluded by the provisions of the 6 & 7 Will. IV., cap. 77, and the 10 & 11 Vict. cap. 98, but executed in person the duties of such offices, the said provision should not be deemed to exclude them from a just and proper compensation. He wished to call the attention of the House to some of the enormous claims for compensation which had been put in, and more particularly to the case of Mr. Raikes, the registrar of the Diocesan Court of Chester, who, he said, had been appointed to that office in 1837, when he was 26 years of age, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, then Bishop of Chester. This Gentleman, he added, was now in the receipt of an income of upwards of £5,600 a year from his office, and by November next he would have received from it £112,140 in the whole. Mr. Raikes now appeared claiming compensation, stating that his income would be reduced by the Bill to £600 a year; but the House would bear in mind that he would, of course, be continued in the office of Registrar of the wealthy and populous county of Chester.

Amendment proposed in p. 29, 1. 11; To leave out from the word "awarded" to the word "and" in 1. 18.

MR. SALISBURY

said, he must protest against depreciatory remarks on Mr. H. Raikes, the present Registrar of the Diocesan Court of Chester. They had never heard of any complaint of the manner in which the business was conducted in that court. Mr. Raikes did not depute his duties to others, but personally supervised every instrument which passed through his court. It was invidious to single him out for comment.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he would beg to ask if this was a personal case, or if it affected the general question whether persons who were injured by an Act of Parliament were entitled to compensation?

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he would beg to refer to the 5th Clause of the 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 77, which provides that persons appointed after the passing of the Act to any office not within the province of Canterbury shall have no vested interest therein, or any claim for compensation in case it was afterwards to be abolished. The Act was passed in 1836; Mr. Raikes was appointed in 1837. He wished to ask the Attorney General whether or not Mr. Raikes was appointed subject to that Act. A young man who was making nothing by his profession had since that time acquired annually £5,000; and because for twenty years he had enjoyed such an office he now asked for compensation. The man had done nothing. He had no claim. It was throwing away the public money, and he protested against it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, there could be no doubt that if Mr. Raikes had been appointed since the passing of the 6 & 7 Will. IV. he did come under the operation of that Act, and was by the Act prohibited from claiming compensation. If an officer were appointed previously, under the operation of law he would have a freehold of his own with respect to the tenure of office, and have a right to full compensation. There were two classes of officers — those appointed previously, and those appointed since the Act. It appeared to the Government not a very reasonable thing to say to gentlemen appointed since the statute passed, so long ago as 1836, that they should have no compensation at all, because when Parliament passed the Act of Will. IV., they represented that they were about immediately to abolish the Ecclesiastical Courts. The reform had been a dead letter from that time to the present. The statute had grown rusty. It had been hung up against the wall, and Parliament had done nothing. Would it be fair and right under such circumstances to take down the Act which had remained unused for more than twenty years and apply it to debar officers from any claim to compensation? He thought, and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with him, that it was not right so to deal with these gentlemen. But they could not treat the Act entirely as a dead letter, and accordingly two scales had been devised— a scale of full compensation to those who did not come under the ban of the statute, and a scale of compensation founded on the principle that those who did fall within the prohibition of the statute were appointed to offices removable at pleasure. He could not imagine a more strict measure of justice, and he did not think the Government had erred at all on the ground of liberality towards those who had been appointed since the statute in dealing with them as appointed during the pleasure of Parliament.

MR. TATTON EGERTON

said, that the question raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) was a very important one. He could not agree with the doctrine of the hon. and learned Attorney General that this Act was a rusty one. Successive Governments had been unable to carry these necessary reforms, because of the opposition of the proctors. The House should well consider the measure before they came to any conclusion on the compensation clause. It might be a very important one, but still they might pay very dear for it. He had never yet been able to get at the amount of compensation to be paid for it, and therefore he hoped before the Bill came to a third reading the hon. and learned Attorney- General would lay on the table the names of the parties to whom compensation was due and the amount to be paid.

MR. CLAY

said, he was inclined to think that Mr. Raikes, when he accepted his office, know that he was not entitled to compensation. He was not acquainted with Mr. Raikes, and far be it from him to doubt the respectability of a man who for twenty years had enjoyed an income of £5,000 per annum, but assuming that he did know, compensation ought not now to be asked.

MR. ROEBUCK

observed that, he was certainly startled by the doctrine of the hon. and learned Attorney General. A man twenty years ago accepted an office, the preceding year there being an Act of Parliament stating distinctly that there should be no compensation. His hon. and learned Friend said they had made a promise, when, in fact, none had been made. They had in reality conferred a great benefit on the person in question by continuing the Act, and he had had from £5,000 to £8,000 a year for twenty years, which was enough to polish the rusty Act of Parliament. The person accepted the office knowing reforms were in contemplation; he had been lucky enough to receive his money for twenty years, and the hon. and learned Attorney General would continue his luck. He had received at least £100,000, and yet the country was called on to pay him compensation. It was the widow and orphan, and brother or sister, deprived by death of their relations, who had to pay the money, and out of whose pocket the compensation was to come. The Act of Parliament was said by his hon. and learned Friend to have grown rusty. Did a beneficial Act grow rusty in twenty years? He hoped the House would look narrowly into the question before they awarded compensation.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that it appeared that during the best years of his life, the person in question had been engaged and had done everything required. It may have been wrong to appoint him, but if the Legislature by its delays occupied the best years of a man's life, he thought the House was bound to consider that fact. His office might have been an abuse from the first, but the fault lay with the Legislature, not with him, and to punish a man who had faithfully discharged all the duties required of him for a fault committed by Parliament itself would be at once unjust and ungenerous. It appeared to him that this was a case for consideration, and that, at the same time, regard should be had in dealing with it to the large receipts as well as to the long tenure of office.

MR. BARROW

said, he thought it very desirable to know the whole amount of compensation which was proposed to be given, before the House decided. It was said the Legislature had been guilty of negligence for twenty years. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) had properly pointed out that the unfortunate widows and orphans on whose behalf the hon. and learned Attorney General had so often opened the stores of his eloquence, had been taxed with enormous fees for this sinecure, and he agreed with the other hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) that the compensation should be taken out of the public funds, and not out of the pittances of widows and orphans.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had already stated who the officers were who would be entitled to compensation. The effect of the clause would be to give the Commissioners of the Treasury unlimited discretion as to the amount of compensation to be given. The clause did not direct, but empowered the Treasury to give persons who received the salaries reasonable compensation. If the demand of the hon. Member (Mr. Barrow) were complied with, they would require his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to lay most imperfect information before the House, and if a preliminary estimate were laid upon the table, and the Commissioners of the Treasury were to make a different scale of compensation less in amount, great dissatisfaction would be caused.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he would warn the House that the course taken now would be quoted as a precedent when other useless offices were abolished, and if they granted compensation for offices the abolition of which an Act of Parliament declared should be followed by no compensation, they would have some future Attorney General rising up and referring to this Act.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that the Bill had been printed and circulated through the country with this provision in it, and a large class of persons might fairly be considered to have abstained from setting forth their claims in dependence on this proposal of the Government. The attention of the Committee had been so much turned to the case of a single individual, that many hon. Members might suppose that the clause was intended to give that gentleman, and that gentleman only, compensation; but the clause referred to a class, and would the Committee deprive of compensation some sixty or seventy ill-paid functionaries, it might be, having nothing but their salaries to depend on, because one individual might be regarded as having already got enough?

MR. HADFIELD

said, that what they complained of was that they were asked to vote without knowing the detail. He had quoted two cases, but there were many others, and he wished to know by what right the Government took on them to grant compensation? The hon. and learned Attorney General said this was a rusty Act of Parliament; yet they had been since 1829 trying to get rid of it with all its nuisance and inconvenience.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to know upon what principle compensation was to be given—whether upon any defined plan or at the absolute discretion of the Treasury?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, at present compensation was frequently given for offices which had been held during the pleasure of the Crown, upon which tenure a vast majority of civil offices were held. The Treasury had great experience in matters of compensation, and as a general rule he believed they were not at all lavish in the amount of compensation they awarded if he could judge from the number of complaints he received of inadequate allowances.

MR. MALINS

remarked that, a great deal depended, in the case of Mr. Raikes, upon the question whether that gentleman actually had received £5,000 a year net during twenty years. From a statement in Mr. Raikes's petition it would appear that owing to the increase of business he had been obliged to double the number of his clerks and also to double their salaries, as well as to purchase additional buildings for the security of the wills under his control. If all these expenses were deducted from the £5,000 a year it was a most material fact. With respect to the circumstance of Mr. Raikes having been appointed since 1836, as Parliament had not acted upon the warning that had been given at that time, it would be harsh now, after occupying the best years of a man's life, to refuse all claim for compensation.

MR. WIGRAM

asked, whether it would be in the discretion of the Treasury to give or to withhold compensation at their pleasure?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Treasury endeavoured to act justly in all cases. The merits of each; case were gone into, and, as far as possible, a decision was adopted upon the circumstances of each individual case.

MR. HENLEY

said, he would remind the Committee that the hon. and learned Attorney General, in introducing the Bill, had particularly called attention to this provision, and no objection had been made to it. Had it not been for his statement of the intention of the Government in respect of this matter, which induced parties to remain quiet, the Bill would, no doubt, be in a different position to what it now was.

MR. CLAY

observed, that if any objection had been taken to the question of compensation upon the occasion of the second reading, the reply would have been that it was a matter of detail to be discussed in Committee.

Question put, That the words "Provided that where persons, &c." stand part of the Clause.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 81: Majority 68.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he would now move the addition of words to the clause, with the view of providing, that in computing any allowance, due consideration shall be had to the allowance for office or situation retained by the party.

Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the words, "but that in computing any allowance, due consideration shall be paid to any office or situation retained by the party."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it was idle to suppose that the Treasury, in making compensation at their discretion, would not take into consideration the office or emolument retained, and, therefore, it was useless to add the words which the hon. Member proposed.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Other Clauses added. Clause ("Whereas the fees and emoluments of the persons now practising as Proctors in the Courts to be abolished by this Act may be damaged by the abolition of the exclusive rights and privileges which they have hitherto enjoyed as Proctors in such Courts; be it enacted that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, by examination on oath or otherwise, which oath they are hereby authorized to administer, may inquire into, and may, by the production of such evidence as they shall think fit to require, ascertain and absolutely determine the net annual amount of the profits arising from the transaction of proctorial business by such Proctors on an average of five years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, or of such proportion of five years as shall have elapsed since each and every such Proctor was admitted to practise in such Courts, and shall award to each and every such Proctor a sum of money or annual payment during the term of his natural life, of such amount as shall be equal in value to one-half of the net profits derived by such Proctor in respect of such proctorial business upon the said average of five years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, or of such proportion of the said five years as shall have elapsed since the admission of each and every such Proctor to practise in such Courts") brought up and read 1°.

MR. MALINS

said, he regretted that, through a misunderstanding, his speech on this subject should have been so far separated from his Motion. At an earlier hour in the evening he had delivered his views on the subject, and only regretted that there was not then a larger attendance of hon. Members to hear the arguments which he had brought forward. Other hon. Members, however, would now have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on this subject; and he would, therefore, conclude by moving that the Clause be read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. WIGRAM

said, he wished to ask whether, if compensation were granted to the proctors, the Metropolitan Courts would be opened to other professional men, the same as the District Courts?

MR. MALINS

said, the proctors unanimously felt that, since the Bill was altered enabling the District Courts to deal with sums above £1,500, the privileges now enjoyed by them were not worth preserving; and therefore, if compensation were given, they were ready to give up all their exclusive privileges.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, the proctors were only undergoing the fate of almost any other class belonging to the profession of the law. Since he began his professional life many reforms had been introduced, which had the effect of taking money out of the pockets of the profession, but nobody ever proposed to give those who suffered compensation. For example, the business of the special pleaders had been destroyed, but no compensation was given to them. Again, the County Courts had destroyed in a great measure the business of the circuits. In one of the Welsh circuits lately, there was only one civil case brought forward, whereas the County Court Judge had had no fewer than 400 cases in his court. Nobody, however, proposed compensation to the barristers who suffered in their incomes from this cause. He would take a much harder case still. When, by the progress of machinery, the hand-loom weavers were thrown out of employment they were left to starve, and, though they applied, time after time, to that House for compensation, none was given. Now, he wanted to know what was the difference between their case and that of the proctors? Take also the case of turnpike trusts, which had been injured by the railroads. Who ever thought of giving compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained by turnpike trustees? If they admitted the principle that compensation should be given in all cases in which private interests suffered by what was done for the public advantage, there would be an end to all improvement. It was one of the misfortunes attendant on public improvement that individuals were apt to suffer, but that in no way implied a right to be compensated. The proctors had enjoyed a monopoly for 600 years, handed down from father to son, but they had done no service for the public for which they had not received ample remuneration, and therefore he felt bound to oppose the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend.

MR. WHITESIDE

observed, that he could not see the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, that because Country Courts had been established therefore proctors ought not to receive compensation. It should be remembered that, upon the establishment of County Courts, many barristers got good places, whereas in this case the very profession of a proctor was destroyed, and that made a great difference. Reform was not synonymous with economy, and he should vote for a clause which would compensate a class of persons whose occupation was totally swept away.

MR. KIRK

said, he would propose that the proctors should receive the same amount of compensation as the Irish bar upon the introduction of the Encumbered Estates Court, which took a large proportion of business from that bar.

MR. AYRTON

said, he came to the House very much resolved to vote against compensation. The Bill, however, had undergone great changes. The proctors were almost deprived of their business. Now, it was admitted that these gentlemen conducted their business in a very satisfactory manner, and he thought to deprive them of their profession was a perfectly gratuitous act on the part of the Government. The Committee had just given compensation, against the express determination of an Act of Parliament, to one class of persons, and now they were called upon to withhold compensation from persons whose profession had been recognized as an exclusive one by the express terms of another Act of Parliament.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he regretted that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) on that subject had been heard by but few persons on that side of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who had evidently studied this case very fully and completely, made a statement to the House giving the reasons of his proposal, and had altogether established a strong case for compensation. But then the hon. and learned Attorney General, after allowing the hon. and learned Gentleman to conclude his speech, told him that was not the time for making it. He (Lord J. Russell) regretted the more that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made his statement under such circumstances, because he felt convinced that, if the Committee refused all compensation to these proctors, they would be committing a great injustice. He could not see any resemblance between the general case of barristers, to which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) had alluded, and that of the proctors. It could hardly be said that any positive loss had resulted to the profession of the law by the reforms made, because Acts of Parliament which took away one kind of business generally created a good deal of new business. The position of these proctors, however, was very peculiar. Their number was limited; it was not to exceed 120; and their duties related not merely to their clients, as in the case of barristers, but also to the public,—for, though they might be intrusted with the private concerns of individuals, yet if in examining wills they found any error in form or any deviation from what was ordered by the Wills Act, they pointed that out, and probate was not granted. In a great measure, therefore, they might be called public officers. These gentlemen paid largely before they could arrive at the position they held; they had not been conniving at any abuse, but they acted under the law as it stood, and acted, he believed, with great fidelity and exactness. No one denied that the duties which devolved upon them under the law, and which it was necessary should be performed in London, were performed to the satisfaction both of the public generally and of the Judges who were best able to decide on this subject. There had been questions from time to time with regard to the reform of the testamentary jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and one Commission, at all events, said that if that jurisdiction were taken away compensation ought to be given, or else great injustice would be done. The Lord Chancellor brought forward a measure which proposed that, for a certain time, proctors should enjoy exclusive privileges in the court to which they belonged, and the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed to this House a Bill which contained the very clauses of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins). The Committee, therefore, had the Attorney General's high authority in favour of compensation. As it passed through the House of Lords the Bill did not make a new court and destroy all that existed, but it proposed that the proctors should be left to deal with amounts above £1,500. When that clause was rejected by the Committee, the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed that another kind of business—namely, that connected with the stocks and funds—should be reserved for the proctors in London. Both of these provisions had, however, been discarded, and, therefore, the measure which the hon. and learned Attorney General was now proposing differed entirely from that which he originally wished the Committee to accept. The whole occupation of these proctors was now destroyed, and, that being the case, they could not, he thought, pass this Bill without some compensation. The mode of giving it was that chosen by the Attorney General himself. It had always been the principle of Sir Robert Peel that, in making reforms in the law, compensation should be given. That principle had, perhaps, been acted up to rather too fully; but he could not conceive how the hon. and learned Attorney General, having proposed these clauses in former Bills, and seeing that his own proposal had been rejected in this Committee, could make up his mind to commit such an act of injustice and spoliation as to deprive the proctors of their privileges without compensation.

MR. BRISCOE

said, that he entirely concurred in what had fallen from the noble Lord. Although he was a lover of reform, he was also a lover of justice, and thought that whenever, in order to effect a great public benefit, injury was inflicted on private individuals, compensation ought to be given to them.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that he would explain the position of the proctors. Their business was derived from three sources—the Testamentary Courts, the Marriage and Divorce Courts, and the Admiralty Court, in each of which courts they had at present a monopoly. A proposition was now made to compensate them for their proctorial business not derived from the Testamentary Courts.

MR. MALINS

Not so. It is only for their testamentary business. It is your own clause exactly.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he could undertake to say that there was no such confusion in his Bill. But, however, he would argue the case on the supposition that compensation was only asked for the business derived from the Testamentary Courts. There was now before the House a Bill to which a second reading had been given, for the establishment of a new Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, and in that Bill there was a clause which gave the proctors a monopoly of practice in those courts. In one department of that business he anticipated a considerable addition to the present business of the proctors, and unless they withdrew from all monopoly—[Mr. MALINS: They do.]—If the proposal were made that all monopoly should be entirely withdrawn from the proctors, and that they should be reduced to the level of solicitors, then he should be reduced to the position in which he had been placed by the noble Lord the Member for London, and it would not lie in his mouth to refuse them compensation. The Committee would have the propositions of the Government and the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford before them, and would have to decide which was most worthy of credit. The amended proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford he understood to be this, that the proctors receiving compensation according to the proposition in the clause, should not be entitled to any monopoly of testamentary business, nor to any exclusive privilege in conducting business under the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, if that should pass into law. It was a difficult matter to say what might be the result of the altered system. Business generally continued to run in the channel in which it had been in the habit of flowing for a number of years, and he had seldom found that any gentlemen who were employed in any particular professional occupation had had the resort to them diminished by a change in the practice of the courts with which they were connected. What he had been about to propose was this, that at the expiration of three years from the passing of this Bill, an account should be taken in by each proctor to the Treasury, and examined into there, of his professional gains during those three years, and if it should turn out that those professional emoluments had fallen below the average of the three years antecedent to the passing of the Bill, then compensation should be given accordingly. It was for the Committee to decide between these two propositions, and to adopt whichever they thought would be the fairest to the proctors. At the same time, he was not at all disposed to turn his back on the proposition which he himself made in the Bill of last year, and to which the Government were pledged. By that proposition the proctors were to receive, in the shape of an annuity, half of the clear yearly gains which they could show they had derived during the period of three years before the passing of the Bill from that particular source of business. Unquestionably, this was a case in which the claim of the proctors was entitled to favourable consideration, because they would be compelled by statute to relinquish a benefit which they had hitherto enjoyed. Nothing was said when the Bill (which was framed upon the Report of Commissioners) was framed about compensation, because at that time it was intended that the proctors should have a monopoly of the common form business. Still it was impossible to say what would be the result of the present proposition. In some cases it might be that proctors would receive under it too much compensation by one half, while others might receive too little. He should be glad to bear the Committee express their opinions upon the proposition.

MR. WESTHEAD

said, he thought that the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General might, on the whole, work very justly, but aged proctors might die before the expiration of three years, and, therefore, if they should live, say two out of the three years, they would evidently be injured without receiving any compensation whatever.

MR. ROLT

said, the country registrars should be put on the same foundation as the London Court, and if that were done, all solicitors might be admitted to practise in all the courts. It would be inconvenient that general practitioners should practise with the proctors in the testamentary jurisdiction, but the latter have exclusive practice in the Divorce and Admiralty Courts. He thought the Judge of the London Court of Probate should have the power of deciding who should practise in the London and District Courts.

LORD HOTHAM

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to a hardship which would be committed by the Bill, and which arose out of the distinction that existed between the surrogates in the south of England and those in the province of York; the duties of the former were only confined to granting marriage licences, whereas the latter transacted all the duties of a proctor. He had given notice of a clause to the following effect:— It shall be lawful for the Commissioners of the Treasury to grant to every clerical surrogate who, at the time of the passing of this Act, shall be acting under appointment from the Prerogative and Exchequer Courts of York, such compensation for any loss the said surrogates may sustain by the passing of this Act as the said Commissioners deem just and proper to be awarded; the said Commissioners having regard in awarding such compensation to the circumstance of the said clerical surrogates not being able to follow any other professional employment in lieu of the said office of surrogate. The surrogates in York were usually incumbents in large manufacturing towns, and only received a scanty remuneration for their services, and the emoluments which they obtained as surrogates were necessary to the maintenance of these incumbencies. The case, therefore, of the surrogates in the Province of York was especially deserving the attention of the Committee. He would only add that if they cut off these fees from the surrogates, they would deprive them in many instances of more than twenty-seven per cent of their whole income, and, therefore, he would appeal to the hon. and learned Attorney General, and ask him whether they had not quite as well-founded a claim for compensation as the proctors whose demands he had just conceded. Indeed, he humbly ventured to think that the surrogates had a stronger claim for compensation than the proctors, for it was impossible for many of the former to recover their incomes by any other means.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General could not be sincere in refusing the claims of the London proctors to compensation after what had been done in the case of the officers of other courts who had suffered by changes in the law. He should support the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins).

MR. WIGRAM

merely wished to express a hope that whatever rule, as to compensation was applied to the surrogates of York, should likewise be extended to the Province of Canterbury. He hoped, in fact, that the rule would be made general.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that there were no persons with whom he should be more disposed to sympathize than those clergymen who had with great advantage to their neighbourhoods discharged the duties of surrogates. He, therefore, could have no objection to the proposition of the noble Lord, which had been embodied and placed upon the table in the form of a clause, and owing to which these clerical surrogates were to be compensated according to the discretion of the Commissioners of the Treasury. He was also willing to extend the same rule to the surrogate of the Province of Canterbury. He did not think that the case of archdeaconries who had no chancellors and had discharged their duties, to which his attention had been called by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) would be included in the clause which dealt with Judges and Registrars; and he therefore would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should upon the Report insert in the interpretation clause a provision that in this particular section the word "Judge" should include archdeacons. The only question which remained for the Committee to decide was whether it would adopt the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), or would prefer the more elastic plan that he had suggested. The mode in which he had last year proposed to create a compensation fund differed from the form contained in the hon. and learned Gentleman's clause C, and therefore if the proposal of last year were adopted, clause C would require to be recast. He therefore now asked the Committee to determine the principle of compensation, in order that the necessary alterations should be made in the Bill, with the view to throwing open the business to all practitioners, instead of limiting the common form of business to the proctors.

MR. MALINS

said, he was much gratified by the candid manner in which his proposition had been met by the Government. The Committee had now the option of either adopting the clauses which he had put before them, or of accepting the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General, which settled nothing definite at present, but which would defer the matter for a period of three years, until they saw what loss the proctors would sustain. In all human affairs certainty was a most important element, and therefore he begged to inform his hon. and learned Friend on behalf of the proctors that he finally elected to take the clauses now before the Committee as he had himself proposed them, and in return for this concession the proctors would cede all exclusive rights of practice whether as regarded probate, letters of administration, divorce, or any other branch of their business. He would cheerfully accede to any alteration in the wording of his clauses, provided their principle was steadily adhered to. He wished to add a proviso enabling the annual sum awarded to proctors who had not practised for more than seven years to be computed over a period of two years in lieu of five. There was another class of persons—limited in number to twelve or thirteen—who would suffer great hardship under this Bill. He alluded to the clerks who had been articled to the proctors, and who had paid an average premium of 1,000 guineas. He trusted that Parliament would extend some consideration to these persons.

COLONEL SMYTH

was understood to say that the country proctors would much prefer the plan of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford to that of the Attorney General.

MR. ATHERTON

said, he hoped the proposition of the Government was to abolish the proctors, because nothing was more pernicious to the administration of justice than the existence of monopoly. It appeared to him that this monopoly was to be perpetuated, or a new monopoly created. Under such circumstances he would prefer the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that as the feeling of the House seemed to be in favour of compensation, he would undertake that the compensation clauses of the Bill of last year should be adopted and made part of the present Bill, the monopoly of the proctors being taken away, and the proctors being entitled to practise with and as other members of the profession. He would not give the House the trouble of dividing, but would add the clauses on the Report.

MR. MALINS

said, he was quite satisfied and would consent to withdraw his clause.

Motion and Clause by leave withdrawn.

LORD HOTHAM

then proposed the following Clause, viz.— It shall be lawful for the Commissioners of the Treasury to grant to every Clerical Surrogate, who at the time of the passing of this Act shall be acting under appointment from the Prerogative and Exchequer Courts of York, such compensation for any loss the said Surrogates may sustain by the passing of this Act, as the said Commissioners having deemed just and proper to be awarded; the said Commissioners having regard in awarding such compensation to the circumstance of the said Clerical Surrogates not being able to follow any other professional employment in lieu of the said office of surrogate.

MR. WIGRAM moved, as an Amendment, that the clause should apply to the surrogates of the dioceses of Canterbury and Durham also.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he proposed to insert a clause to the effect that — Every person who at the time of the passing of this Act, and of its coming into operation, shall have been for seven years consecutively chief or managing clerk to a Proctor and Notary in the Courts in Doctors' Commons, or in succession to several Proctors and Notaries in the Courts in Doctors' Commons, upon production of evidence of that fact satisfactory to the Judge of Her Majesty's Court of Probate for the time being, may at any time within one year after the passing of this Act, be admitted as a Proctor and Notary of the said Court of Probate upon his paying to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the amount of stamp duties legally payable upon articles of clerkship to and admission as Proctors and Notaries.

Clause brought up and read 1°.

Motion made and Question that the Clause be read a second time, put and negatived.

Clause negatived.

MR. WIGRAM

said, he proposed to insert the following Clause:— All Persons and corporations making any payment bonâfide upon any probate or letters of administration granted in respect of the estate of any deceased person under the authority of this Act, shall be indemnified and protected in, so doing, notwithstanding any defect or circumstance whatsoever affecting the validity of such probate or letters of administration.

After a few words from the ATTORNEY GENERAL, the clause was added to the Bill.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to move a clause providing for the annual returns of the accounts of the Court.

Clause added to the Bill.

SIR FITZROY KELLY moved the insertion of a clause before Clause 10:— The Judge of the Court if a Privy Councillor, shall be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. MALINS

then proposed the insertion of a clause granting compensation to those articled clerks who, having paid large premiums as well as stamp duty as preliminaries to admission to their profession, found as they were about to enter upon that profession that their prospects in it would be destroyed under the operation of the Bill under discussion.

Clause (Compensation to, and admission of, Articled Clerks to Proctors) brought up and read 1°

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he objected to the clause as he thought that the class of cases for which it proposed to provide compensation could not be brought within any definite principle.

MR. AYRTON

suggested that the articled clerks might have relief given to them by altering the 38th Clause, which restrained them from practising Otherwise than proctors; so as to enable them to practise as solictors in the same manner as their masters were allowed to do.

MR. MALINS

said, that there were only twelve or thirteen of those articled clerks, and that as their all was embarked in the profession they had adopted, it would be gross injustice to deprive them of the premiums and fees that they had paid.

Motion made and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 113: Majority 56.

Preamble agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that he proposed that the Bill should be recommitted pro formâ at the morning sitting to-morrow, in order to insert some new clauses, and then that the Bill should be reprinted and the third reading taken on Friday.

House resumed.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended to be considered To-morrow, at Twelve o'clock.