COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 21 August 1860)

MR. HADEIELD
proposed the addition of the following clause:— As regards the said John Arthur Buckley and the Chief Clerks to be appointed under this Act, and also as regards the Chief Clerks of all the Judges of the said Court appointed since the 2nd 1687 day of November, 1855, and to be hereafter appointed, it shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor if he shall so think fit, upon the certificate mentioned in the 44th section of the said Act of the 15th and 16th years of Her Majesty, cap. 80, to order and direct their salaries respectively to be increased to the full amount authorised by such Act at any one period.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
opposed the clause.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
then proposed the addition of a clause placing the salary of the twelfth clerk of the Registrars on the same footing as that of the eleventh clerk.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, he had already pointed out to the Committee that even when cases were brought before the Select Committee he entertained doubts as to the policy of adding such clauses as this to the Bill. One argument upon which he founded that opinion was, that such cases only formed a portion of those which might be brought forward, and it was hardly possible to enter upon them without doing injustice in other instances. In the last case, the claim was made before the Committee and decided against; and as the Government and the House had not supported the decision of the Committee in that case, he could hardly hope that they would refuse to accede to this demand, which had not been before the Committee. All the responsibility of these augmentations would rest with Her Majesty's Government; and he did not think that the course which had been pursued would afford much encouragement to Committees in the zealous discharge of their duties, or would increase the public appreciation of measures of law reform, in which merely personal interests were dealt with.

§ MR. HADFIELD
supported the clause.

§ MR. MALINS
hoped that the House would agree to the clause, which he understood would be supported by the Attorney General.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he had not promised to support the clause, but had only said that he would not say a word against it. The House must be left to its own decision. He was sorry to have incurred the rebuke of the right hon. Baronet, but be had supported the last claim because he believed that it was only an 1688 accident in the framing of the Act of Parliament which excluded the claimant from a benefit which it was fully intended that he, as well as the other chief clerks, should enjoy.

MR. HENLEY
thought it hardly fail-either to the parties whose interests were affected or to the House that this matter was not brought before the Select Committee, who could have inquired into it. The case rested now only on a statement made in that House. If the eleventh clerk was to be promoted to the place of the twelfth, was there also to be a thirteenth clerk? Instead of leaving the House to do as it pleased in this matter, the Government ought to form an opinion upon it on its own responsibility.