§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON,in rising to call attention to the defective manner 1936 in which the Law requiring the publication of the lists of Dormant Funds in Chancery is carried out, found grave fault with the manner in which the Chancery Office furnished, or rather failed to furnish, the particulars of sums of money in their possession. The law required lists to be made public every three years, and to be issued in alphabetical order—neither of those directions were attended to. Human ingenuity could hardly have devised a method of publication more adapted to conceal the information which was in the possession of the office than the authorized version of dormant claims put forth by the Paymaster in Chancery. In the meantime, the money of the suitors was being used for purposes from which they derived no benefit. The Court of Chancery did sometimes, in cynical language, decide how some of this money, which did not belong to it, was to be used; for instance, the language used when it handed over £1,000,000 belonging to suitors to be expended on the Palace of Justice—
A million of money standing to the account of securities purchased with the surplus of the interest arising from securities carried to the account of moneys placed out for the benefit and better security of the suitors of the Court of Chancery!If it was only mismanagement in high places that had to be complained of, he should not have interested himself in the matter; but the effect of the system of concealment was that it awakened false hopes among numbers of people who thought they might be claimants. The system prepared the ground for gigantic frauds, such as the famous next-of-kin frauds last year in Birmingham. A Society was established under the name of the Law Agency for the Recovery of Sums in Chancery; more than 200 persons were victimized. The fraud was founded on delusions which such publications as the Chancery Paymaster issued helped to keep up. Information was only given to claimants at the Chancery Office through solicitors. Agencies for the assistance of claimants were, consequently, perfectly legitimate in themselves; but it was a serious grievance to the public that funds could only be rescued from the grip of Chancery at enormous cost. Other public offices gave information of the private property in their possession, and endeavoured to discover the owners, by publishing the 1937 dates, the amounts, the addresses, and every other particular which was within their knowledge. This was the practice of the Indian Government, the War Office, and the Bank of England. The Chancery Office was the only exception. The Master of the Rolls in Ireland had spoken in no measured terms of this system. He said—"The Government ought to be compelled to publish the accounts." His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had not attempted to improve the system. For three years in succession he had called attention to the subject, and had met with evasive answers. He trusted that both sides of the House would now affirm that they would not allow the standard of public morality in Government Offices to sink below the level of common honesty.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, they had had a very amusing speech from his hon. Friend on this subject, which he had also brought forward on the 10th of March last year, and he had not much varied his description on the present occasion. The accounts referred to had to be published every three years, and the last publication had taken place on June 25, 1881; and, therefore, the next publication would be immediately after September 30, 1883. When the debate took place last year, he had to admit that there had, no doubt, been neglect in not publishing those accounts in proper time, and the course the debate took was that he promised then that there should be perfect accuracy, and that every despatch should be made. No publication had taken place since the Motion of last year. It was impossible to give all the details asked; but sufficient details would be given for all practical purposes, and any respectable person making a claim to funds in Chancery would get every facility for establishing his right. Since 1852 one-half of the claims had been made by three firms of solicitors alone, and he expected this was a scheme of certain persons who wanted to know too much, in order to base their claims upon information furnished. He would renew the promise previously made that everything would be done within reasonable prudence to give all the information required.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, that he believed the regulations already made afforded such information as the public 1938 could fairly demand; and there could be no doubt that a trade was carried on by certain persons in regard to these funds in the Court of Chancery against which some protection should be afforded.
§ MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONsaid, he thought the Attorney General had rather evaded the question raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, which was not as to the frequency with which the lists were made out, but rather that, when they were made out, they were useless. At present only experts could understand them; whereas if clear and proper lists were provided much trouble and expense would be saved to suitors, and this should be done, notwithstanding that a readier means of obtaining access to funds would diminish those means which might be devoted to the provision or accommodation of future Law Courts. It was only fair, however, that for the large number of suitors interested in this question more ready means of obtaining information about those funds should be provided.