Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the duties of the officers and clerks of the Court of Chancery in Ireland

Back to Search Bibliographic Data Print
5,3 CHANCERY OFFICES, IRELAND, COMMISSION. 
Accountant-through the business they have not time to do during General's the official hours?—Yes; 
we always stop in the office 

after official hours in vacation, not during term time. 
During term the office hours are from eleven to four. 
During vacation there are two office hours each day. 
735. 
Chairman.—It 
is in the vacation you say you are obliged to stav after office hours?—Yes. 

Office. 
John Ford, Esq. 

730. 
You do not work at office business at night? 
—No. 
737. 
But in vacation you remain as long in the office at business as the prescribed office hours for term time ?—Yes, 
frequently. 

Seventh Day.—Dublin, 
Octobek 30, 1858. 
Present:—Edward Litton, Esq., 
Senior Master in Chancery, Chairman; Henry Barley, Esq., 

and Wilmot Seton, Esq. 
Digby Pilot Starkey, Esq., 
further examined. 
Digby Pilot 738. 
Mr. 
Seton.—You 
heard the evidence whieh Starkey, Esq. 
was given yesterday by your clerks about their 

salaries ?—Yes. 
739. 
Those salaries were awarded upon your recom¬ mendation and thatof the then Lord Chancellor ?—Yes. 
740. 
Do you conceive that that arrangement of salaries in 1857, or any slight modifications which may be necessary to make in it, in accordance with other offices of an analogous character, is such as to secure a fit class of men to succeed to the higher positions in the office, and with that right of succes¬ sion, to give them such an interest in their duties as will guarantee to the public their efficient perform¬ ance ?—It 
depends upon how the appointments are originally made; I certainly should not say, that under the present system, I could insure an efficient performance of the duties of the office, because I have no control over the appointments. 
When my prede¬ cessors made a claim to the right to make promotions in the senior department, it was disputed by the heads of the Court, who promoted at the same time. 
There¬ fore, I cannot say who has the power to promote. 
Most of the appointments that have been made are of efficient men. 
741. 
Do you mean to say, that if your Chief Clerk, Mr. 
Davis, were to retire, a power exists of foist¬ ing into the office some person utterly unconnected with it, or ignorant of the detail of its duties, and placing him over the heads of the other clerks ?—That 
is a question extremely difficult to answer; I should say there is nothing to prevent it. 
I believe the Chancellor has a general power of appointing, and perhaps, of promoting. 
There is nothing in any Act of Parliament I am aware of controlling appointments or promotions hi any way. 
742. 
Then, you mean to say, that the gentlemen in the lower positions of the office have not that inducement to be zealous hi the performance of their duties, which a distinct right of succession to the higher positions would naturally produce?—They 
have not. 
Under the present division into classes, I do not think any individual clerk could possibly claim a right to succeed to a senior class, unless he was competent, and chosen by the Lord Chancellor, or whoever has the appointment. 
743. 
The object of my question is to know whether, if a vacancy took place in the office of Chief Clerk, or in the offices held by the three senior clerks, a person unconnected with the department could he foisted into any of those places, above the heads of the three junior clerks ?—I 
think he could. 
744. 
Do you not think a system of that sort must be totally demoralising to the office, and withdraw from the clerks that inducement the right of succes¬ sion would hold out to them, to qualify themselves for a higher position, and render themselves efficient officers ?—I 
think so. 

745. 
Has that power ever been exercised during the time you have held the appointment of Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery ?—No. 
746. 
Have the clerics, during your experience in the office, succeeded each other in rotation ?—They 
have. 
747. 
Do you not think, if the right of succession was strictly recognised, and a veto given to the Lord 

Chancellor upon a representation in writing from the Accountant-General of the unfitness or incompetency of any clerk to succeed to the vacancy above him, a sufficient guarantee would be afforded to the public for the due promotion of those persons alone fit to succeed to the higher branches of the business? 
Yes. 
With regard to the appointments and promo¬ tions generally, you will allow me to say, that I think nothing can be more unsatisfactory than the state of things at present. 
Under the general power given by the 6th and 7th Wm. 
IV., 
cap. 
74, the Chancellor may appoint any additional clerk or clerks at such salary or salaries as he may think proper. 
Under that power our junior clerks have been appointed. 
Since I have been in the office, the promotion of the three seniors, whom I call the Parliamentary clerks, because their offices are regulated by the act of the 4th Geo. 
IV., 
have been made concurrently by the Chan¬ cellor and myself in my time, and before that in my predecessors. 
We agreed as to the persons to be pro¬ moted, and they were promoted. 
It, therefore, remains a doubtful matter, at least I consider it doubtful, who has the power of promoting to these three senior clerkships, and I conceive that to be a very unsatis¬ factory state of things. 
748. 
Mr. 
Darley.—The 
Lord Chancellor has always exercised the power ?—Yes; 
the Lord Chancellor has always exercised the power with regard both to pro¬ motions and to appointments. 
I may observe, that I conceive I am responsible for the acts of my clerks. 
Our duties are of a very responsible nature, dealing as we are with large funds ; and in point of fact it has been attempted to hold me responsible in one or two cases with reference to those funds. 
In one case particularly, which Mr. 
Darley will remember, the attempt was made. 
Certain funds were directed to be invested under a very old order, long before I came into the office : the sums were not invested, and the parties interested endeavoured to make me respon¬ sible. 
The case was brought on in the Eolls Court, and it was only—as I suppose—because I was able to show that no injury had been done to the property by the non-investment, that I was not made responsible. 
I had no means of knowing whether the investment should have been made or not in that particular trans¬ action. 
I therefore think, that it would be only reasonable, considering I am so responsible, that the appointments and promotions to those places should be made by me, so that I should be able to know that the parties so appointed were competent to the dis¬ charge of their duties. 
740. 
Mr. 
Seton.—Then 
you conceive, if the original appointments were made by yourself, and that a right of succession existed in the office, subject to the veto of the Lord Chancellor, upon your certificate as to incompetency or unfitness of the person, you would in that event have under you a class of men who would enable you, with safety to yourself, to become responsible for those transactions, which at present you conceive, from the mode of appointment, you ought not to be answerable for; but that being answerable for the acts of the clerks, you think it un¬ reasonable you should. 
not have the right to appoint them ?—Yes.