HC Deb 12 July 1859 vol 154 cc1094-6

Order for Committee read.

MR. HADFIELD moved, That Mr. SPEAKER do now leave the Chair.

MR. MALINS

hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not go on with the Bill at that hour, and suggested that it should be postponed for a week.

MR. HADFIELD

said, the Bill was introduced last year and read a second time, and was reintroduced this Session at the earliest possible period. He should take the sense of the House upon the Motion.

Motion agreed to.

House in Committee.

Clause 1, Provides for the opening of the Admiralty Court to barristers, Serjeants, and attorneys-at-law.

MR. MALINS

said, that it was perfectly true that the House had last Parliament agreed to the second reading of the Bill; but it was upon the understanding that Government would add clauses providing compensation, as had been done on the passing of the Probate and Divorce Act, for the proctors practising in the Court. [A laugh.] The House might laugh, but the principle had been adopted both by the Attorney General of the present and the Attorney General of the late Government, and was founded upon justice. If it was right that the proctor should be compensated for the loss of his business in one Court, he ought to be compensated for his loss of business in the other. A proctor might have had his business mainly in one Court which had been abolished, and he got compensation; another proctor had his business mainly in the Admiralty Court, and surely when he lost his privileges, he was also entitled to compensation. He moved that the Chairman report progress.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

thought that the House and the country, which were paying £69,000 a year to the proctors, had had enough of compensation. He also thought that the gentlemen who were receiving that sum had enough of compensation. When the Divorce and Probate Bills were before the House, he yielded to the claims for compensation; but it was distinctly stated that the Admiralty Court should likewise be thrown open, and that there should be no further demands for compensation. The present Bill was only the complement of the Divorce and Probate Acts; it dealt with an old and familiar subject, and he trusted, therefore, that the House would not allow it to be further delayed, especially for the purpose of affording the proctors an opportunity of getting up petitions for compensation.

MR. MALINS

reminded the Committee that it was the Attorney General himself who stated last Session that the £69,000 a year, paid as compensation to the proctors, did not come out of the public purse; and the hon. and learned Gentleman then corroborated the statement which he (Mr. Malins) had made that the fund which he had provided by the Act of Parliament was abundantly sufficient to pay it without costing the country anything. That fund was provided simply by continuing some small fees upon probates which were paid before the Act, and which the hon. and learned Gentleman stated was only a measure of justice, and should be continued, in order to prevent that body of men being ruined by the passing of the Act. He denied that there was any bargain or compact such as the hon. and learned Gentleman had hinted at, precluding the proctors from asking for compensation for loss of business in the Admiralty Court.

MR. MOWBRAY

Although the Attorney General had observed that the House had had enough of compensation, he had understated the amount which the country had to pay. The amount was in reality not £69,000, but between £120,000 and £130,000 a year. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) appeared to think that an arrangement had been made by which the country was to recoup this sum; but so far from that having been the case £56,000 for stamps was all that had yet been received against the £120,000 a year. If compensation clauses were brought up he would suggest that they should be based upon the principle that compensation should be limited to the difference between the income upon which the proctors had received compensation, and the amount which they had returned to the income tax.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

remarked that the compensation clauses in the Divorce and Probate Acts were forced upon the Government by the other side, and in a particular manner by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mowbray).

MR. MOWBRAY

stated that the clauses in question were supported by Gentlemen on both sides of the House; indeed, the Member to whom the proctors intrusted their petition was the noble Lord the Member for the City of London.

Clause agreed to; as were the remaining clauses.

House resumed.

Bill reported.