COPY OF COMMISSION MOYED FOR. (Hansard, 7 March 1861)

§ LORD St. LEONARDS
rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of the Commission 1529 recently issued to certain Commissioners to inquire into the Constitution of the Accountant General's Department of the Court of Chancery and the Provision for the Custody and Management of the Funds of the Court, and to ask Her Majesty's Government upon what grounds the Commission has been issued. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that a week ago he brought under their consideration the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the desirability of bringing all the law courts together on one site. The Commissioners had come to the conclusion that it was desirable to build the law courts in a particular spot, and although the Commission contained not one word about taking the money from the Suitors' Fund, yet the Commissioners proposed to take £1,400,000 from that fund for the purpose; and he understood the noble Lord on the woolsack, who was at the bead of the Court of Chancery, to approve of what he must call such a misappropriation of the money. They were told that the Government were prepared with a Bill to carry out the object in view. He had heard of no Bill, but he found by the Gazette that a new Commission was to be issued to inquire into the office of the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery and into the management of the funds of that office. The Accountant General was entrusted with the management of funds amounting to £49,000,000 belonging to the suitors in the Court of Chancery. In his opinion it was a most unprecedented proceeding. No charge had been made against the office, either in that or the other House of Parliament, yet the Accountant General and his officers were to he dragged before this Commission. Either there must have been some misconduct, or Her Majesty's Government wanted to know a little more of the funds they were nibbling at and desired to lay hold of. There was not a single equity judge or equity lawyer on the new Commission, and, apart from personal qualifications, he objected to Mr. Rogers and Mr. Field being members of it, because Mr. Rogers was a willing witness before the first Commission for the application of the fund to the building scheme, and Mr. Field, who was also examined before it, expressed his opinion that the Accountant General's office was utterly useless and ought to be abolished, and the clerks transferred to the Bank of England. It was not right that a gentleman who had 1530 so committed himself should be put upon a Commission of Inquiry. Such a mode of proceeding was disrespectful to the court of which his noble and learned Friend was the chief, and alarming to the suitors, who had hitherto been under the impression that their funds were under the protection of the law. The Suitors' Fund by various enactments was expressly devoted to purposes connected with the benefit of the suitors. The fees in the Court of Chancery amounted now to £100,000, but with a little care they might be reduced to £50,000. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the Address.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, his noble and learned Friend was most unnecessarily alarmed. Surely, his noble and learned Friend might have been satisfied with the composition of the Commission when he saw that the name of Lord Kings-down was upon it. That name alone ought to have satisfied his noble and learned Friend that the interests of the suitors would he protected. The object of the Commission was not intended to inquire into the conduct of the officers of the court, but to make an inquiry into the system that now existed. The Commission had been issued with a view to the benefit of the suitors, and not to their detriment.

LORD DENMAN
said, that there were some noble Lords who had been Chancellors of the Exchequer, and who had not become mere dolts because they had become Members of that House, and it behoved them to pause before they sanctioned any scheme which would do away with Westminster Hall.

§ LORD KINGSDOWN
said, that he had consented to be nominated a Member of the Commission, for when the Government thought there was a necessity for inquiry, he felt that it would be inconsistent with his duty to refuse to serve. As far as he knew, it was not possible that the most profligate and rapaciously inclined Commission should meddle with the funds of the Court of Chancery. The whole object of the inquiry was to ascertain whether any saving could be made or improvement effected in the custody of the funds; and, whatever might be the suggestion of the Commissioners, nothing could be done except under the control of Parliament. Moreover, he believed that there was nothing in the terms of the Commission which would authorize them to express any opinion as to whether any portion of 1531 the funds should be appropriated in the construction of new courts. His noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) had done more perhaps than any other person during his term of office to insure the safe custody of the money; but he was mistaken if he supposed that there was any secret plot for the purpose of obtaining indirectly an expenditure which perhaps could not otherwise be authorized. Personally, he should not at all be unwilling to see this Commission annulled, knowing by experience that those who served on such an inquiry were sure to incur the hostility of individuals whose interests were interfered with, while, on the other hand, the public, whose interests they were to promote, often joined in the outcry against them.