The Sun. — London, England, 1846-05-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 7. In the absence of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Earl of SHAFTESBURY took the Chair at Five o'clock. SCOTTISH FREE CHURCH. Lord CAMPBELL said he had petitions to present of very treat importance to the country, from certain inhabitants of Edinburgh and. Paisley, praying for the interference of the House in a matter in which they were deeply interested. They said that there were certain religious questions in Scotland Which excited great disagreement, and that members of the Free Church wt re not allowed to purchase lands for the erec tion of churches for any purpose. . They were quite ready to give reasonable remuneration for any land which might be required for the erection of churches ; but in some cases, where one great proprietor held the whole of the land in the parish, they could not obtain any quantity of land whatever. If such were the case, he thought u was a reasonable ground for the interference of their Lord ships, as they had interposed and given their sanction to an invasion of private property in the case of railroads, where the companies merely sought permission for travelling with reater facility from one part o f th e country to the other. This was a case of inkoitely greater importance, and if the pe titioners made out their case, he should feel no difficulty what,. ever in assenting to the principle they had adopted, and sup portio.g a Bill for snaking it law. _ FACTORIES BILL. Lord REDESDALE presented a petition frm the Dissent ing ministers of Wigan'in favour of the Ten Hours' Factory Bill. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. The Earl of CLARENDON presented a petition against the Charitable Trusts Bill. THE PORT OF LIMERICK. The Duke of BUCCLEUGH laid on the table certain Papers relative to the improv ement of this harbour. The Ma rqu i s o f LANSDO VV NE presented a petition from steps mayor, aidercnen, and burgesses of Limerick , p ra y in g that might be taken for the improvement of the harbour of that town. Lord 7 ,IONTEAGLE presented several petitions in favour of the f_iiasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle, the 'Midland Counties, Mid rAher railways. THE OFFICE OF HIGH CONSTABLE. The Duke of BUCCLEUGH presented a petition from the City of Westminster against certain provisions in relation to that city and liberty in the Bill proposed for the regulation of the office of high constable, and praying to be heard by their agents and counsel against the Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND stated it was not his intention to press that part of the Bill. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. Lord COTTENHAM presented several petitions against the Charitable Trusts Bill. Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Lancashire to the same effect ; also a petition from the same place against the isle of spirituous liquors on Sunday. CORN-LAWS. Lord ASHBURTON moved for the returns of some papers with reference to the corn-laws, which he thought would facili tate the progress of that measure when before their Lordships. He was not at all wishing to open up a discussion about the ex• pediency of passing such a measure. If they did pass it, he wished them to do it with their eyes open, as it was one in Which not only the agricultural portion of the community was interested, but in fact every class in the country. The motion he had to make was for the purpose of ascertaining the quantity of corn in bond. The last time they had a return, the amount of wheat was 1 , 2 00,000 quarters, and the quantity of sour was about 700,00 0 3 or 800,000 barrels. He had also to move for a return of every hundred pounds' worth of tithe received under the Tithe Commutation Act, from the passing of that Act down to 1845. He hoped there would be no objection to such a motion. Lord BROUGHAM entirely concurred with his Noble Friend, and, differing from him as he did on other matters, he rejoiced to be able to agree with him on this.—(Laughter.) He was undoubtedly of opinion that the result of the measure that would shortly come before their Lordships would have the effect of lowering the price of grain, inasmuch as a much greater quantity of grain would be introduced into the English market. He had no desire, however, to anticipate the disscu siors that would arise on that measure, and he would, there- F:ce, postpone any arguments which he had on the ques tion till the proper time arrived. He would, at the same time, express a hope that their Lordships, who were appointed to inquire into the burdens en land, would lose no time in laying their report before their Lordships, believing, as he did, that a more important report had never been laid on the table of their Lordships' House. Earl FITZWILLIAM thought it would be desirable for their Lordsh i p s to have a statement similar to that which was asked for by the Noble Lord (Lord Ashburton), of the corres pondingperiods, as far back as the time when the last Corn Bill but one (1828) passed, and he should move an amendment to that effect. Lord ASHBURTON said that in the last year the quantity in bond was 430,000 quarters ; the year before that 220,000 ; the year before that 245,000; then 1`24,000; then 132,000; then 257,000 ; and so on up to the year 1838. Lord BROUGHAM suggested that it should be ascertained whet!ner corn was at such a price as to be importable at the time these returns were made. Lord ASHBURTON said that the returns were from the months of October and December in each year, when the farmer held most of his corn in hand, and at that season cern was exported from abroad for this country. The corn dealers on the Baltic found all the ports between their country and ours shut against them, and consequently their supplies came to the British ports. Earl FITZ WILLIAM said there never was so great a quan l i - tity in bond as at the present moment. It was now better than four months since this measure was first introduced into Parliament, and he would leave it to their Lordships whether the real nature of the measure had not been well known two months before that time; so that there was a period of six months since this measure was first brought under the notice of the public, during which time no merchant in his senses would take a single quarter out of bond. The Duke of RICHMOND wished to correct his Noble Friend the Earl Fitzwilliam in one point. It was well known that the British farmer never brought his corn to market until it was in the best condition. Now, it was also known that English corn required some time to be laid up, and the influence of frost, to bring it into condition. The late season had been unusually mild, and there was, in con sequence, siever a greater quantity of corn in the hands of the farmer than there was at the present moment. It was always kept up in the hope of obtaining better prices, and there was in fact at this particular time a great quantity of grain waiting for disposal. He did not think the Bill would pass, but if it did pass, he would do all he could to protect those farmers who had large stocks of wheat on hand. He must protest against those No ble Lords who said that the question was settled. He did not think so. He could not believe that Noble Lords on the oppo site side could so suddenly turn round, or that those on the other side, who had advocated a fixed duty, would now give it •tip in favour of the Bill before the other House. Lord BROUGHAM did not think the question settled, but whether settled or not, he would give a little advice. He would strongly advise those who had large stocks on hand to bring their wheat to market as if it was settled.—( A laugh.) Earl GREY differed with the Noble Duke. He believed that the farmers were suffering greatly through this delay. They would be exposed to this deluge of foreign corn, from the importation having been dammed up for six months, instead of the market receiving gradual supplies. The suffering of the farmers had arisen from the want of foreign wheat to mix up with the produce of last harvest, which was generally of an inferior quality. It could not be ground unless Mixed up with old or foreign wheat, and the state of things had been such that the necessary supply of foreign wheat was not forthcoming. In the north of England the wheat of last harvest was generally inferior in quality, and millers were pre vented from grinding it from want of foreign wheat. It would have been a great advantage to the country if the ports had been opened in N&eember or December last. Lord BEAUMONT was anxious that there should be no delay in producing those returns. He hoped next week to be able to lay on their Lordships' table the report of the Com mittee of which he was Chairman. At the same time he hoped that whatever might be the result of that measure the labours of the Committee would not be altogether lost. The motion was then agreed to. RELIGIOUS OPINIONS BILL. The Bishop of EXETER consented to postpone the mo tion of which he had given notice for to-day, until Monday next. DR. REID'S VENTILATION. The Marquis of CLANRICADE wished to know whether there would be any impediment in the way of allowing Mr. to have some part of the new Houses appropriated to Gurney might him, for the purposes of ventilation o , se th d y L ordshipsthTeh ir e - Commissioners be able to judge of the p lan prop had not yet made th er report upon ofn this h subject. Lord CAMPBELL complained uld Wh scarcely caused to their Lordships by Dr. Reid s system of ventilation •te serious annoyance that annoyance b ecam e worse and worse When he entered their Lordships' House t ha t morning breathe the air, and he only wished that Dr.Re T id h m as ig h h e t ( ti o m rd _ self be compelled to breathe it for t s e s b il l e a d f o already th a made it. Campbell) knew makehours. the ai r worse than po h The Marquis of CLANRICARDF, s aid that Dr. Reid had acq uired great reputation as a ventilator, and he apprehended 2., that he th a t their Lordships would have no ob jection to accede should to the very seasonable request of that gentleman, vi be allowed the use of one room in the new House of Lords, in which to experimentalise. WESTERN AUSTRALIA BILL. Lord STANLEY moved the second reading of this Bill. For several years there had been ne indications of a wish for a change in the Govern ment. In 1829 that colony was f oun ded , and, with the exception ,. of 1837, there had never been any wish for a change. Since t hat period, however, there had been an indication of a wish for change. Earl GREY could not help expressing his surprise and regret at the principle of the Bill, whic h had just been introduced by her Majesty's Government , and he still more regretted the opinions of his Noble Friend who had just sat down. In the course of last session a very important debate had occurred in the other House of Parliament, during which the Right Hon. Baronet who held the weighty office of first Member of the Government had propounded the doctrine that the colonies had better be left to the Government themselves ; that, with some modifications the principle of representation ought to be in troduced into all our dependencies. especially New Zealand. If this was true with regard to New Zealand, it was more espe cially true with respect to Western Australia. His Noble Friend had said that until within a few years nothing like P. sentiment of discontent had been evident in the colonies. But that such disconte n t did exist now was allowed. He trusted, therefore, that n o measuretie colonists e wo o u a l i d s ta be themselves. allowed to Unless becom law without first consulting m eans were taken to put the Colo on it would be impossibl e to n'a proper and pop u l a r f o oting, that was desirable. develop the resour ces o f th e co l ony i n the way Lord LYTTELTON thought that d u e deliberation. If th ey legislated t i me i, should be allowed for m ight be the cause of mor e ev il than astily on the m a tt er , it died. At least they ought not t o ta k e was sought to b e reme crease the ex p enses e colony, any step that would in crease of th e without consulting those who were resident there. Earl GREY remarked, that popular forms of „ m a had been carried out with great e ff ect i n Novagovern- Scotia, New Brunswick, and many of the West India islands The Duke of R I CHMOND said the horribl e state. of things y that Fri railed in Australia ou g ht to be met with a remedy. If the Government was not prepared w i t h a measure to rem . edy those evils by the end of the session, be, as an independent Peer, would consider it his duty to move fer a Select Commit tee to inquire into the whole affairs of the colony, with the ob ject of providing a remedy. Lord LYTTELTON said the subject had occupied the attention of the Government for a considerable period. He was not, however, prepared at that time to announce any de cision they had come to upon the subject. The Bill was then read a second time. RAILWAY DEPOSITS BILL. The Earl of DALHOUSIE moved the third reading of the Railway Deposits Bill. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. Earl ST. GERMANS proposed that this Bill, which had been brought up from the other House, should be read a second time on Monday next. The Bill was then read a 'first, and ordered to be read a mond time on Monday next. COMMITTEES ON RAILWAY BILLS. Lord REDESDALE then moved the resolution of which he had given notice, " That the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships to name the Select Committee for the consi deration of opposed private Bills should not name any such Com mittee on any opposed railway Bill atter Monday, the 20th July. There would be great difficulty in obtaining proper and efficiesit committees after that period, to sit upon Bills and give them due attention. Their Lordships were also aware that some of the most important Bills were those that came up at the latest period, and that was the case with those that were most op posed. It was desirable to secure good committees, and a fair and proper time for the consideration of Bills before them, and he thought every person must be fully aware that the time that was allowed by this resolution for the lull consideration of those Bills was such as ought to be allowed in such matters as railway I,gislatere. He had, therefore, selected the 20th July as the day beyond which no committee should be isamed for sitting on railway Bills. Their Lordships were aware that a Committee named on that day, might very properly !it be yond the end of the month, and on some occasi ons in the other House they had Listed for a lon g er period. He, therefore, did not wish to name a later day. He had co nsulted that with Noble Lords, who were best acquainted with the . arrangement d o e f s t ir h a a h t le H h o es u a se . , f a s n e c l l ee t t h i e n y x e t n h t e ir d e a ly y c h o e n h e ad urr n e a d m w ed i . th h i r e, o th n e t r h e_ e for e e r , a be o g n ge o d f movetoopposed p th n a v t at n e o ESeillleactaChooamldmhiteteefixfeodr tahfteereothne sidti 20th July. The Earl of WICKLOW said that the motion appeared to be a very unjust one towards the public. 1 here never had been a session in which a greater number of railway Bills had been brought b efore the House; and, notwithstanotwithstandingthat, a proposition was brou g ht forward at an early period of the session which, to a great extent, delayed the progress of those Bills. He perfectly approved of those measures; but if this resolution was passed the promoters of several railway Bills would be subjected to great expense and inconvenience. No doubt many Noble Lords would think it convenient to lease town before the end of the session. But they had duties to perform, and very important duties, in attending to railway Bills. It was very true tha2. great injury had been done to the public by over-speculating in railways, but it was also very true that they benefited by such undertakings. How was it possi ble to fix a time after which no Bills were to be taken in Corn mittee, when the session would, in all probability, last till August, judging from the great amount of business which was to come before their Lordships. To pass suck a resolution would he to do a great injury to the public, who would most un doubtedly be benefitted by many of the Bills which would be rejected, because refused a hearing. He was, indeed, sur prised to find the Noble Lord proposing such a motion, and he expected to have heard some good reasons stated for taking such a course. Lord REDESDALE said that he did not make such a motion for the purpose of saving the labour of their Lordships, but to serve the parties interested in railway Bills, who would, by the course he proposed, know the latest time when they could come before a Committee. This session many Bills had commenced in the House of Lords, and that expedited their progress very much, and he saw no injury whatever by the adoption of this motion. The resolution was then put and passed. ABOLITION OF DEODANDS BILL. Lord CAMPBELL rose to move the third reading of this Bill, and regretted to say that intimation had reached him that it was intended to offer considerable opposition in the other House of Parliament to the principle of the measure. It had received the approbation of the Lord Chief Justice of England, and of the other learned judges, in whose judgment it appeared a most admirable measure. He trusted, if .they intended to offer any inch opposition, that the Noble Duke opposite would use his influence with the Government to get the measure through the other House. The Duke of WELLINGTON had had some communica tion with his Noble and Learned Friend, and quite concurred in the principle of the Bill. Lord DENMAN conceived that no real opposition would be offered to the measure, which was simply intended to abolish a remnant of a barbarous and superstitious practice, and likely to be of great service to the public. The consequences would be inestimable in the preservation of life. Lord CAMBELL quite concurred in the importance of the observations that had been made. He trusted that the prin ciple of awarding compensation to the widows and children of any person killed by gross negligence would not be lost sight of, and that this Bill would be suffered to pass the other House of Parliament. The LORD CHANCELLOR conceived their Lordships would have a difficulty in awarding a value to his Noble Friend's hope. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL. On the motion of the Duke of BUCCLEUCH, The House went into a Committee on this Bill, The Duke of RICHMOND proposed a clause, exempting Glasgow from the operation of the Bill. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH opposed the clause, which was negatived without a division. The Bills on the table were advanced a stage, and their Lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMOIVS, May 7. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. MALTON AND DRIFFIELD JUNCTION RAILWAY. The report on this Bill was brought up and agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed. GLASGOW AND BELFAST UNION RAILWAY BILL. Mr. DUNCAN moved, that it be an instruction to the Select Committee on the Glasgow and Belfast Union Railway Bill to hear parties, on the petition of James Ballantine, Esq., against the said Bill, presented by Mr. Duncan on the 26th day of April last, and referred by the House to the Com mittee on the Bill, and Counsel ordered, on a copy of the petition being produced, and certified to the satisfaction of the Committee, the petition having been lost, and not entered in the Journals of the House. After a. few words from Mr. GREENE, who objected to the motion, The SPEAKER suggested that a fresh petition should be presented, which would at once obviate any difficulty respect ing the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. The amendment was accordingly withdrawn. LEICESTER IMPROVEMENT. Sir J. EASTHOPE moved the third reading of this Bill, which was read a third time and passed. WELSH CHARITY SCHOOL INCORPORATION. The Lords' Amendments to this Bill were read and agreed to. BIRMINGHAM AND OXFORD JUNCTION RAIL- WAY. Mr. SPOONER moved the recond reading of this Bill, which was ordered to be committed. The Hon. Member also moved the second reading of the Birmingham and Oxford Junction ( Birmingham Extension) Railway . Bill, which was likewise ordered to he committed. SOUTHAMPTON PORT AND HARBOUR. The report on this Bill was brought up, and agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be engrossed. SALE OF LIQUORS ON THE SABBATH. Several petitions were presented from different places against the sale of intoxicating liquors on the Sabbath. TEN HOURS' BILL. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from the borough of Rochdale, signed by sixteen millowners, and several manu facturers of the town, in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. _ _ Mr. BLEWITT presented a petition in favour of the Ten Hours' Bill. CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. Sir W. CLAY presented a petition from the Tower Hamlets in favour of this Bill. GUILDFORD, CHICHESTER, AND PORTSMOUTH RAILWAY (No. 2). Mr. ESTCOURT moved that it be an instruction to the Committee of Selection to fix the first sitting of the Guildford, Chichester, and Portsmouth Railway (No. 2) Committee for Friday, the 6th day of May, and that it be referred to the Chair man of Ways and Means, and two other Members, not being those who were ordered to bring in the Bill.—Agreed to. Mr. FORBES presented a petition, praying the House not to interfere with the spiritual independence of the Church of Scotland. CHANNEL ISLANDS. In reply to a question from Mr. ROEBUCK Sir J. GRA HAM said that a commission had been issued for the purpose of making inquiries into the administration of law in the Channel Islands, and that he should have no objec tion to lay the Commissioners' report upon the table of the House. Dr. BOWRING said there was another island to which he wished to call the attention of the Right Hon. Baronet, and he wished to know whether he was prepared to de the same thing with regard to the Isle of Man? Sir JAMES GRAHAM.—No. _ _ Mr. AGLIONI3Y said that in the absence of the Hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller), he would give notice that that Hon. Member would, on Thursday fortnight, move for copies of correspondence relating to New Zealand. THE NELSON MONUMENT. Mr. J. COLLETT said he asked a question in the early part of the session of the Noble Lord opposite relative to the state of the Nelson monument, and when it was likely to be finished, and he was then told that a satifactory answer might be expected in about three months. Since that period three months and a half had elapsed, but the boarding of the monument still remained in the same state. The Earl of LINCOLN answered the question in so low a tone as to be scarcely audible in the gallery ; but he was ut der stood to say, that at the time he gave the answer alluded to, he did expect a satisfactory answer to the question would be given at the time stated, but since then he had not been able to as certain what had been done ; but he had reason to expect that the work would have been completed within the time stated. TAXATION OF SUITORS. Mr. WATSON moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the nature and extent of the taxation of suitors by the col lection of fees in the courts of law and equity, and the applica tion of such fees, and the compensations paid to retired officers of these courts, and into the propriety of the continuance thereof ; and particularly to inquire into the orders for com- pensation made by the Lord Chancellor to the persons filling a ' oerthe offices of clerk of the enrolment , comptrollers of han riding clerk, six clerks , sw o r n clerks, waiting clerks, and others, under the Act 5 an d 6 Vic. c. 103, an d to inquire into the nature, duties, and emoluments of those officers before the passing of that Act, and their right to compensation dur ing life and for seven years after the death of such person. In making this motion, he said he did so in consideration of the manner in which suitors in the courts of justice were so enormously taxed, and in which the most outrageous compromises often took place. Now, contrary to every principle of justice, there was no suitor in the Court of Chancery and no suitor in any other of the Courts who was not subjected to very heavy taxation. There were no less than from 300 to 400 persons who were employed in collecting fees in the Courts of Equity. Some of these fees went to the consolidation fund and some to the officers in the Courts, but no step whatever could be taken unless the fees were paid, and it was impossible to obtain redress otherwise. The House would be surprised also to learn that there was no check or control, or scarcely any, over the collectors. Some of them were certainly bound by oath, but there were others who were not. A great many officers were paid by fees only, and the only guarantee with re gard to the collectors of these fees was the honesty of the persons. What he asked for, therefore, was a Committee to in quire into this system, which he considered a most objectionable one. The next pointhe wished to call attention to was, whether it was right to tax suitors at all. There might be no fear enter tained that by the abolition of these taxes law would become too t cheap, for in thi s coun t ry th ere was very little chance of that. In the year 1843 t o 1844 th e f un d c alled the Suitors' Fee Fund amounted to 97,000/. There was also a sum of money amounting to 155 ' 000 , , which was paid in taxes into the Court of Chancery. Altogether there was from 300.00 01 . to 400,000/. 0,0001., w hi c h went t o the salaries to officers connected with the court, and a sum of 29 Conso lidated Fund, amounting alt 410,0001. of which was a o g e ther to upwards of 600,00')/., direct wh tax upon the suitors, a it nd was t c h o e llect r e e d by persons stataz' over This was a mo ns t rous su, upon th e coun t ry at l arge. m, but what was still more monstrous, he asked the Ho use fora em there was no che c k, an d principle ought no t t o be Committee , discontinued.—.( to co ns id er w h et h er this was one individual i n the Court of mued.—( Hear, hear.) There sinecure of 7,700/. a year, another who h e ld a s i necure of Queen's Bench who held a 5,4961. a year; and th ere were from that sum to 2,000/. a year. there was formerly a sinecure of . som office was that of the prothonotary numerousi others, varying In the Lancaster Court annel2,9". a year. The individual from 1791 up to a very rec'ent pe riod . its held by one It ever, abolished , and although the fees 9 was, how mod as, only 0 y ou of rt th o e f 2,3001. per annum at the time it was abolis hed, a compensationasno of 1822 2 he i o t ffi w ee a s s w d h e i e c m h ed the e y x h pe a d d ie v n a t cat t e o d. aho A l g is a h in, so i m n e th si e ne y eu ea re r of '2,700/. per annum was awarded to the sin ecurist, who w less a person than Lord Liverpool. What wasmore wh to et b h e er la a - offices t i o n f t t e ing La s w ß C e o n u eh, rts. an T d he th o e ffic d e tr o ee f t p o r r o o th f o t n h o e tai c • mented was, that it was a poll-tax , an d no matter man sued for 20,000/. or 2,0001., he had to h pay, six clerks same e f fe t e h s e . vCaoematiinnognthPelieraos ,ffiwhichoffices receivedoffi ces e w om er p e en h s e a l t d i o b n y to no t lo h l e e m fu e l n i , a w nt h e o un in t The Bill was to give c ompens l at n ion b t e o en t c e on s s l idered a public of the value of their situations. It would also be found that but they were per- by the Act 3 and 4 William IV., sec. 81, cap. 94, and b the nuisance eoef received Chancery, who w ho enormous ttl o o ugs fees,as sure, for t 2 h and usa 8 d George d s I V w . a , s c a o w m a p r e d n e s d a t i t o o n p t e o r s t o h n e s a w m h o o u s n e t o o ffi f e e several had s h e beem would had received the deliberate consent of the Legislature,and them were in the receipt of between three been abolished. The Act for compensation to the six clerks a f a e b n e s d l o i Y l s u o t m e u l s e y e deocisfsi gannodthcinogm.penTshateiyonwewre he amount of 30,000!. prive those individuals who ' •compensation under hardly believe him, when he stated that four of these persons asked if it would be fair to repeal that Act now, and to de were receiving were enjoying amongst them the enormous and four hundred a year. He was su ld r g e iovffi t e h nc e erts H : o t u ot a y ea r.—( Hear, hear.) What cou ld, t h en, b e t he meaning of it s prov i s i ons o f th e i r i ncomes . Hi s H on . an d Learned Friend giving such extra va g ant compensat ion ? Th e i r business saw that the Lord Chancellor had not fully investigated the depended solely open connexion, b u t that connexion justice of these claims. He entirely denied that. The was like an attorney's, it m i g ht not last five amount of the fees had been fully ascertained, and the Lord days, and it might last for ever; but the business transacted Chancellor had exercised due caution in inquiry into the mat was not worth six days' purchase. The coun try had a right ter. The Lord Chancellor had on every occasion adhered to to inquire and see how the funds were d is t r ibuted, an d whether the minimum which was allowed for compensation, and the public money was to be w asted in s uch an extravagant man- he also required a reduction to be made on account ner as he had detailed to the House. lie would quote to the of bad debts before he would make any award. House an authority upon this subject which he was sure would He admitted that the public had paid a large amount for the have weight with the House, he would quote Mr. Pemberton abolition of the offices, but not more than the justice of the Leigh, who after vainly, for a length of time, endeavouring to case demanded. These offices were entitled to the remunera get a return from these gentlemen of their emoluments, they tion which Parliament had awarded them. The Act of Par having refused them for a length of time. had at last given liament had given the Lord Chancellor the power of appoint some lump sums without stating name, or time, or place. ing six taxing officers at 1,0001, a year each. The Lord Mr. Pemberton Leigh designated the fees which these Chancellor had made those appointments, and he (the Atter officers received as an iniquitous tax upon the suitors in ney- General) believed that those appointments had been made Chancery. One gentleman, who was eminent in the Court of with advantage to the public. Those officers were selected Chancery, had said that when he was doubtful upon a point of from the clerks in court. The Master of the Rolls had power the practice of the Court, he applied to the sworn clerks, and also, under the Act of Parliament, to appoint four officers in acted directly the reverse of their advice. One gentleman, in the court, and he also selected those officers from the clerks his evidence before the commission, had stated that the fees to of the court. Would the House, then,' dispassionately and calmly the sworn clerks were a great tax upon the suitors in Chan- consider whether they were justified in acceding to the motion cery, and the services of the clerks were useless, In fact, one of the Hon. Member for Kinsale. These persons respecting of the officers was a good clerk when he was a lunatic. whom the motion was made had a vested interest in their He would now call the attention of the House to what was offices, and if they were deprived of those offices, it could called the compensation clause—a clause by which the Lord only bo done by giving them full and fair competition. Chancellor was enabled to award compensation to officers in Mr. HUME said it was certainly true that he agreed with certain cases. At the time of Lord Erskine he had found the the principle of the Bill which gave these compensations, but fees of those officers so low that he increased them; but in 1829 he never could have supported the details of the Bill which the fees of those officers had so enormously increased, that they had been alluded to. It would be presumptive in him to at were entitled to fees on every item on the paper; and tempt to draw the line of demarcation where compensation Lord Brougham had seen the enormity of these fees to be se should cease, but he thought the Right Hon. and Learned glaring in the year 1833 that he told them their days were Attorney-General, having cited the only, though a doubtful numbered; but they still remained the same to the present precedent, which had occurred in Ireland, in justification of time. One of those clerks who had been dismissed received these compensations, had failed to make out a good case for 5,424/., and 2,00 W. a-year for attending for a few hours the Lord Chancellor.—( Hear, hear.) each day in Chancery-lane. Another, who retired, was a The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I could give you many clerk to a clerk, and he got 4721. a y ear ; and a third, other precendents. The Irish case is by no means a solitary a young gentleman, only 28 years of age, received fees to the one.—(Hear, hear.) amount of 5,204/. per annum, besides a salary of 2,000/., mak- Mr. HUME said it did not matter to him how many prece ing a total of 7,204'. per annum. Again, there was an agent dents could be produced, because that would not alter the state who received for compensation alone 1,778/. per annum ; a of the case ; and he for one was convinced the public generally waiting clerk received a compensation to the extent of 3441. per looked upon this as one of the grossest jobs that had ever been annum ; in fact, altogether the compensations amounted to no perpatrated.—( Hear, hear.) It might be urgod, if this case less than 170,000/, annually. The Lord Chief Justice of England, were to stand good, that if capital punishment were abolished the highest dignatary of the law, received under 10,0001. per an- the hangmen of the country would be entitled to compensation. num, and the Noble individual who now held the office refused —( Hear, hear.)—Well, he was not opposed to giving it, but to receive the whole salary, and only took 8,0001., and yet let the compensation be just. It was alleged, however, that there were persons, without holding any office, receiving the compensation in the instance now before the House was un -7,000/. The First Lord of the Treasury had, on elate occasion, just, and he, therefore, thought there ought to be some inquiry given to two gallant officers who had distinguished themselves into it, in order that those persons who had awarded it might in the service of their country, pensions of 2,000/. and 3,000/. be deterred in future from violating the confidence which had while many persons !who had done nothing for it were been reposed in them, on behalf of the public.—( Hear, hear. ) receiving the large salaries he had mentioned. The House Some of these fees, it must be clear, were manifestly unjust, ought to come to some resolution, which would submit this and wrongfully imposed on suiters, and this, in his opinion, matter to the consideration of a Committee.—(Hear, hear.) was an additional reason why his Hon. and Learned Friend It was the brightest morning that ever dawned in Chancery. should have his Committee.—(Hear, hear.) For it was the lane, and to all the clerks in a certain law institution there, duty of the parties appointed to take these fees not to t a k e m ore for all the flesh and blood, and every human being therein, re- than the old law allowed. It was no use to tell him that they ceived a good compensation ; and even some of the clerks were had become just from usage. If the law of the land—the sta to have one-half of their compensation paid to their friends for tute law of the land—did not sanction them, they had no right several years after their death, in consequence of the loss of to be taken ; and, still more, the parties taking them had no the influence and services of those gentlemen to the country. right to compensation on their abolition.--( Hear, hear.) It The sale of these offices, therefore, was wholly illegal, and was on these grounds that he supported the motion of his Hon. the persons who held them were not entitled to receive any com- and Learned Friend, and he hoped those who had unjustly taken pensation. No Bill ever travelled with the same railroad velo- fees and received compensation on their abolition in the pro city as the Bill in question did through that House. It came gresses of legal reforms would be held up to the public indig down from the Lords on the 29th of July, and was read a first nation.—( Hear, hear.) time. On the Monday following—the Ist of August— Mr. B. WILLIAMS said there had been a great deal of it was read a second time. On the 2d of August special pleading on the part of the Hon. and Learned Attorney it went through Committee, and on the 3d of General, who had avoided the real question before the House, August it was reported and ordered to be re-committed. which was simply this—Were these fees taken by those parties The 9th of August, 1842, was a lucky day for the riding clerk, to whom compensation had been given legal and just ?—and it the waiting clerk, and the agents of the House of Commons, was the bounden duty of the House to take this question into for on that day their Compensation Bill passed; and how, let their earnest and serious consideration.—( Hear, hear.) If the him ask, was this compensation to be calculated? Why, it Lord Chancellor had granted compensation for illegal fees, he was calculated upon the produce of the three years during which ought to be held up to public indignation. But why was the there was the most extraordinary amount of business trans- matter left to the Lord Chancellor? Why was it taken out of acted in the Court of Chancery, and when the equity business the hands of the Tieasur y , which was the proper place for de of the Exchequer had been transferred to the Court of Chancery. tiding the compensation ? Why, the fact was, the whole affair The compensation which should be given, according to the was a most palpable job. This was plain enough, for one of Acts he had cited, was to be only two-thirds of their former the parties, a Mr. Wainwright, who received a portion of this receipts. The examiner was also to inquire into those re- large compensation, drew up the Bill legalising the compensa ceipts. Now he asserted no inquiry had taken place, and how tion, or rather, he ought to call it, the job.—( Hear, hear. ) was this compensation, extravagant as it was, obtained? It But if the compensation were fair and just, why refuse this was levied from the suitors of the Court of Chancery ; inquiry ? It was all nonsense ; the compensation was grossly from those who had the misfortune to appear there in order to unjust ; and Government, in refusing the inquiry, were vir have justice done them. Why, it was monstrous.—( Hear, tually acknowledging it to be so.—( Hear.) The Hon. and hear.) Four per cent. was laid upon a Bill, without Learned Attorney-General, however, said the Bill granting the reference to the amount of the property sought to be compensation passed through the House after it had under obtained; after years of anxious and dreary litigation, four gone the most careful and deliberate consideration, but this per cent. was laid upon the costs of that cause before was not so, and he for one dared to say it was smuggled, in they were bound to pay a shilling. When he first stead of cautiously passed through the House.—( Hear, hear.) brought forward his motion, a reduction of twopence Oh, but (said the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General) if the a folio took place, which, trivial as it appeared to Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Kinsale had so be, amounted to 5,000/. out of every 70 , 00 0 1 . One per many objections to the Bill, why did he not on the third reading, cent. had since been taken off, which also amounted or during its prog re ss through Committee, attend in his place to one thousand in every seven thousand pound s .—( H ear . ) i n t h e House, and state there what his objections to this 'nee- He asked for a Committee to inquire into those matters, sure was ?—( Hear, bear.) Was it not easy enough to explain He asked the Government to grant that Committee ; why an Hon. Member who w as a member of the learned pro and if he was asked, was he ready to be unj us t t o th ese i n di- fession, could not be in his place on a particular occasion ? His viduals? he would say, he was ready to be so, sooner than to professional avocations might be the cause of his not being pre !)e: the u Court of Chancery.njusttohundred He wished that this cm sandthousandswho would besui o ters sent, and they had a re markable instance of this a few nights case wd. e s n e under rai , he mittee would be granted in order to investigate the matter. a H g o o n ' . wh a e n n d a LcoemarpneendsaAtitotn case Attorney-General, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in answer to the state- favour of, and took a deep interest in the Danish claims, but, ments of the Hon. Member who had just sat down, said his from a similar cause to the one he had already Hon. and Learned Friend had had a reat advantage o ver alluded to, the Hen. and Le arned Gentleman was him, because he was the assaulting party; and there was prevented from being present when they were under dis always something exciting in hearing a party making a charge, cussion.—( Hear, hear.) But why need he follow the Hon. while the arguments of the party in defence generally fell and Learned Gentleman in this train of special pleading, when upon dull ears. He (the Attorney-General) could not everybody knew that the public had long ago made up their hope to make what he had to say in answer minds that this case of compensation was a most palpable job ? to the charges of his Honourable and -Learned In his opinion it would be more becoming her Majesty's Friend at all interesting, as it applied to matters of dry law, not Government if they were to accede to, instead of refusing, the by any means interesting ; but still he would make a demand Committee.—(Hear, hear.) At all events, if they persisted in on the time of the Honae, but he trusted he would be heard w ith r efusing it, he hoped the Right Hen. Gentleman, the Chancel patience. His Hon. and Learned Friend proposed a Committee for of the Exchequer, would get up in his place and tell the on the very same materials upon which the same motion was House whether this enormous compensation agreed with his refused by the House in 1844. Now he (the Attorney- views or not.—( Hear, hear.) He was sure if the Right Hon. General) would say that his Hon. and Learned Friend Gentleman spoke conscientiously, it could not, and for this and called upon the House to do an act of gross injustice. the other reasons he had stated, he should vote for inquiry. It would be very easy to lead the House to the conclusion that Sir J. GRAHAM was very unwilling to trespass upon the the compensation awarded to those holding those offices was attention of the House on a question which involved legal enormous, in order to excite in Hon. Members the notion that technicalities, but after the speeches which had just been ad the motion which the Hon. Member for Kinsale proposed dressed to the House by Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite to make, was well founded, and ought to be granted. He benches, he felt himself bound to make a few observations. at once took the Hon. Member on that g r ou n d, a n d said There were some observations that had fallen from the Hon. that the guestion was not whether the existing emoluments Member who bad last addressed the House that particularly for these offices were or were not abuses. It was rendered it necessary for him (Sir J. Graham) to trespass quite immaterial whether the emolument :derived from those upon the attention of the House before they went to a division. offices was in proportion to the services rendered by those who After those observations he was by no means prepared to vote possessed them. Those offices bad been established a number for a Committee of inquiry o f thi s sort, although he was of of years ; they were vested interests, and if they d e sired to re- opinion certainly that an inquiry into the fees received in the form them, they were bound to give the possessors the fullest courts of law and equity might be very useful.—.( Hear, hear.) compensation. His Hon. and Learned F r i en d w ould not But he was bound to resist the motion after what had fallen consider it any disparagement if he considered that the opi- from the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and the nions of a better reformer were against him on this subject, Hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Williams), because In 1812 a motion was made in that House respecting the sine- they had designated the proceedings under the Act in question cure offices of tellers of the Exchequer. The object of the as the job of jobs.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for motion was to call the attention of the House to the Montrose had said that it was impossible, in his opinion, to ask enormous emoluments which were derived for services for a repeal of the Act of Parliament under which these corn performed by deputy ; and what did Mr. Horner say on pensations had been granted, and he went on to say that these that occasion ? He gave it as his decided opinion that compensations were in his opinion irrevocable. It had been in such cases the offices were vested interests, and however far openly stated that the objection of the Committee sought for economy was stretched, vested interests were always sacred, was to inculpate the projectors of the Bill. Now that ex and therefore these offices should remain untouched. pression showed that they had prejudged the question; they In those sentiments Mr. Tierney and Mr. Ponsonby clearly ha d said that it was " the job of jobs." He (Sir James concurred, and the motion for the reduction of the enormous Graham) had the greatest possible respect for the Lord Chan emoluments in the sinecure offices were rejected. Now he cellos., and he was quite satisfied that his conduct in this (the Attorney-General) was w illing to call for the matter was pure and irreproachable; that had, in fact, been same principle to be applied to this question. The proved by the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend the At. offices of these clerks were established in 1592, torney-General. The Hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. and there had been no diminution in the Williams) had asked what right had the Chancellor of the fees from the year 1743 down to the time of the abolition of Exchequer, when this Bill was introduced in 1844, to antici the offices. It had been said that Lord Lyndhurst had reduced pate that the amount of comp en s a ti o n would be so great as it the fees before they abolished the fees. That was not so. All turned out to be? He Sir (James Graham) would have given Lord Lyndhurst did, was to prevent the sworn clerks receiving the same answer as had been given by his Right Hon. Friend, attendance fees in cases where n o a tt en d ance was re quired. viz., that the precise amou n t of the fees had not been then as- It was quite true, that at the time of the abolition of these certained. He certainly was not aware at the time that this offices there were only twenty-five remaining out of sixty Act passed that the amount of compensation would be so large. clerks, and five or six of these engrossed the greater part of —( Hear, hear.) But he did not think that was the question the business. In answer to the objection of his Learned before the House when the measure was passed. The ques- Friend, it was perfectly notorious that the persons who pos- tion for consideration was, were these compensations just in sensed these offices were in the habit of disposing of their principle ?—(Hear, hear.) This Bill came down from the business and transferring it to others ; an d this was so well un- other House of Parliament with the highest possible authority. derstood, that every on e look e d u p on th e matter as they would An inquiry in reference to the fees was conducted by the theupon any other bargain or sale. Hi s L earne d F r i en d sa id th a t M aster o f t h e R o ll s , t h e Ch ance ll or o f th e Ex c hequer, and Mr. thetAbca Act was s 4wi a 9t l at e whs a w dos a i fr s ceaGc c at o eet onrdart contrary y a ge r at y : oni t lst o t. t et h hub e e tebs salet a h n (theda o n Gf d At ob6tffittoohcrfensoEef connected e w rendc a et r er d vadli V ) l d . e n a i n e d d t P o e t m h b a e t r b to ra n n L ch ei o g f h t . he T s h u o b s j e ec C t o r a m n i d ss h io e n w er a s s gi informed v f o e r v e e d r , y a a n t d t e r n e t a i n y with That the three believed, ttimes ethat beforethe it draftea came e f dtohwenßfri from was h alteredthe other House.an and When hen d execution and administration of justice ; but these offices were the Bill was introduced, the Lord Chancellor was ill, and could not of that description. Besides, the offices of the clerks, ac- not attend to his duties in the House of Lords, and he, there cording to r t e o eeg th n e ise 4 d th a , s s s th afea a h n l d e. 6th lf o t f h W e ill e ia a m rite l d v. b w en er t e lem di a s n - f ß o u re t , t l h ia e d ß n i o li t w ch as ar i g n e tr o Id look to the Ist of Victoria, chap. 30, he would find Langdale, and the . questleot end i n t ob t the other hoeth erconsidered M aster House of ta o hs f e Pwßaborellltisba,me whether Lord offices much more closely connected with the administration of principle on which those compensations were to be granted was justice which were saleable. According to this Act, the seve- J ust or unju s t. Thi s Bill la i d down certain principles. In ral offices r e f erre d to, and which were connected with the the Excheq uer case seven-eighths of the fees which had Court of Queen's ench, were all sa l ea bl e , H e re there b een t a k en for a number of years formed the basis of were offices more closely connected with the admi- compensation, but in this Bill the minimum was fixed, not at nistration of justice than those of th e s ix clerks, seven-eighths, but at three-fourths. A discretionary power which were distinctly stated to be saleable.—( Hear.) was given to the Lord Chancellor to limit , strictly by Act of (The lion. and Learned Gentleman then quoted from a Pam- Parliament the amount of compensation to three-fourths of the phlet, in which the d oc t r ine was l a id d own th a t the se six clerks amount of fees that had been received in the three preceding had a right to sell their claim fo r compensation.) The author years. He remembered during the progress of the Bill, and he had not any interest in making the statement; be wrote the was sure the Hon. Member for Montroae (Mr. Hume) would without not the work to show the abuse which these sworn clerks were who also well remember, a discussion that took place about a particu received an enormou s salary for absolutely doing nothing. He lar gentleman whom the Bill would affect.—(Hear, hear.) stated th a tiit w as a recognised right among the profession to sell And if he mistook not the lion. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. question t l d . repeat their good will, they had also a right to compensation.—(Hear, Buller) said a clause should be inserted in the Bill for his pro.. hear.) H e und ers t oo d th a t cheer, and he was ready to meet tection. The Bill did not pass through theintHo,ouwsaes it ; he apprehended that fair compensation would be that kind ample discussion and consideration, and he would again say that which would be commensurate with the former receipts of the there was nothing of novelty inpitalicee,Btilhle, and fees he would office. Many of these gentlemen had nett incomes of 10,8791., that what the Commissioners had to inquire 8,0001., and 7,0005., and they should net adopt amount of the fees, but the justice of the principle laid down in an_ arbitrary principl e w ith resere nce n o compensation.—( Hear.) the Bill. Assuming, now, for a moment that the fees heretofore He would wish to call attenti on t o information given to the received were legal fees, he could not conceive anything more public by the House of Commons, when Lord Lyndhurst en- good than the principle laid down in the Act. Now, this nsr—r of f( H t t h e o e ar t ic h i e h n e g ar s d t o a ) m t —and he deavoured to introduce reform into the Court of Chancery. brought him to the le it g h al t i h ty e p o teo f ep t s h u e lar f te e ifo e e n n oof were Upon that occasion, a memorial was presented by the attornies thought that it was on that point that this debate mainly hung. practising in that Court, praying for reform in thisdepartment, —( Hear.) But, in the first and the Lord Chancell or app o i n t e d a_committee, who reported fixed by the Lord Chancellor ardwicke,H if he mistook upon the necessity of abolishing these offices of the six clerks and the year 1843. The fees were reviewed by the Lord Chan sixtyln clerks, and asked the Law Association to suggest some cellos Erskine in the Theyear . 1807, and he believed th at some of practical means of doing so. The most careful and th m i a s t A ur c e t t t h b e os m e w a e a r a e rts re b d ad uc , ed w . business consideration was given to this Act by the learned persons who business of the Courts a Chancery. B u t t h e hoesi etee were appointed on that Commission, and every clause in received their most careful attention. t was considered ex - increased since that period. The legality of those feeskingdom, lv desirable that a measure of this description should peered to him to be established in a most remarkable ap treme manner. have the attention of the nobleman who had presided for some T hey were l ega l by prescription and usage in the Courts of • h great distinction in the Lord Chancellor's Ch an cery f ro m day to day, and their legality was placed years with beyond Court. Some correspondence had passed on the sub- all doubt. The Commissioners that had been - appointed had to the tellers, and he could come to the determination that the ject of compensation amount of compensation House the lastshould be less than three-fourths not do better than read to the not two letters which had passed between them on the subject. ceived in the three preceding years. In no case had the Lcrd He had the sanction of Lord Cottenham, and of the other law Chancellor a discretion by the Bill of fixing the amount lords in the other House, who had made no objection to the of compensation to a certain extent. In no case did the Lord Bill. The Bill came down from then,onse aLords w•th the Chancellor give the full amount of the fees received ; in every unanimous sanction of that House. If there had been anything case, without exception, his award was the m i n i mum sane improper in the clauses of the Bill, the Government would tioned by the Act of Pari ameht. When this Act passed, if he The Hon. Member for mistook not, the fees in question amounted never have given their consent to it. Montrose had stated that he approved of the principle and the were rapidly increasing.—(Hear.) The effect produced by this to eradicate details of the measure. Every Member of the House was a Act of Parliament was niatugdreat abuse—a most for - party in its ma party to that Act of Parliament, The Act expressly provided midable abuse—bothe and extent; and the 77 000/ 40 of fees were reduced from , • 00 that the six clerks should receive compensation to the extent , 0/. per annum. The and the other clerks amount of compensation was certainly large, but not less than three - fourths of their income, not too large, e feeble vested rights tion to an extent not exceed in g two- for the fees wer ,as he b e li eve d t h em to were to receive remuneration i m p or tant that have been. The compensation, as he had clearly • thirds of their regular income. It was rather said, had been they sht.uld look a little into the matter for the precedents reduced, and, in the course for greatly 1836 it was first pro- this compensation would be entirely extinguished. the course they had adopted. In the year ing these salutary legal reforms, they h posed to abolish the office of six clerks. The Bill was passed,_ . ould take especial to violate the just rights (A' and there was a legislative permission granted for the sale and care not any parties.—( Hear.) He purchase of these of f ices. By the 6th and 7th William IV., 's view this • would not take a lawyer on subject, but he was most cap. 74, the officers were allowed to dispose of their o ffices for anxious that law expenses should be diminished. He was, of h owever, of opinion, that they could ' a pecuniary consideration, and they received a sum not, consistent VON, for the reversion of their offices. They were with public opinion, effect these legalreforms by whatever o pensioned off with the full amount of the annual emoluments inflicting any IntittrYu lunccent parties who had established rights ; and in this case the parties who were in the receipt of compensation, were justly entitled to a rea sonable compensation. If the fees were large, (and, if they pleased, exorbitant), it was necessary that the principles of compensation should he large also. In reference to the itis quiry of fees generally, upon another occasion, he, for one, should not object to the Committee.—(Hear, hear.) But if the declared object of this motion was to inculpate the conduct of the present holder of the Great Seal—( Cries of " No, no," )—he was certainly prepared to vote against them. He (Sir James Graham) denied that the conduct of the Noble Lord wtis anything b u t p ure an d i rreproac h a bl e i n this matter. He denied, too, in the most distinct terms that this was a job. He believed, on the contrary, that it was carried out on sound and righteous principles. He was of opinion, too, that by this Act an i mmense a b use h ad b een removed, and he d i d not deprecate this discussion, because it would, no doubt, tend to Lo set the cond uc t o f hi s N o b le Friend the before the publi c , although he had been Chancellor right rd dealt harshly with on the present subj ec t. He was certain that the conduct of that illustrious personage had been perfectly pure and disinterested throughout the whole matter.—( of the He ar , h ear .) Mr. F. BARING was prepared to vote fo r th e C omm itt ee , though he did not thereby intend to impeach the conduct of the Lord Chancellor in the slightest respect. He conceived that the argument of the H on . and LearnedAttorney-General was perfectly untenable. He had no hesitation in stating that the Treasury was an efficient check i n the framing of that mea sure.—( Hear, hear.) He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the eighteen compensation clauses had received the sanction of the Treasury ? ( Hear, hear.) It was absurd to say that the House was responsible for the passing of this Bill of eighteen clauses, brought in at the end of e the ses sion, and passed in a w ee k. The Treasury t sy sible.— ( Hear, hear.) Th e p u bli c l oo k ed at the measure with extreme jealousy, and he thought it should be a warning to the House not to interfere in compensation cases . a He thought the most satisfactory course would be to appoint Committee.eas Sir J. GRAHAM stated, in expla na ti on , that the'r had no control whatever over the Suitors' Fund; that th e whole ury management rested with the Keeper of the Seals. Mr. C. BULLER considered it unjust to plunder those per sons of the compensation which had been awarded to them by Act of Parliament. Lord Lyndhurst, when he came into office, acted in the spirit of true reform, and being desirous of placing the law courts on a bet ter footing, he referred the matter to a Committee, composed of gentlemen who reflected honour on their profes • sion by their conduct—conduct which he wished to God he could see imitated by gentlemen of his branch cf the profession —the common law. They were not actuated by any desire to benefit themselves—there was no party feeling displayed on the occasion, and he hoped there would be none upon the present. The real question for the House to decide was the amount of compensation to be given. The only course which the Com mittee thought they could adopt in discharging their public duty was to inquire as to the amounts usually given by the House. They looked over all the Acts of Parliament on the subject, and they found that the usual ratio of compensation was three-fourths of the amount of salary received. They could not, therefore, be considered as acting wrong when they awarded as a minimum this rate of compensation. This sum was not so much as had been awarded by Lord Cottenham in compensa tion to the clerks in the Court of Exchequer. The Act upon that occasion stated that the compensation was to be at the rate of not less than three-fourths of the salary, whereas Lord Cot tenham actually awarded seven-eighths ; and in the average of salaries they threw out of the account altogether bad debts. The Lord Chancellor, in the instance before the House, gave three-fourths of net profit, after deducting bad debts. ( The Honourable Member here entered into some calculations with respect to confiscations, which he said thought it would be impossible for him, even though possessed of all the mathematical knowledge of Newton himself, to make clearly understood by the Hon. Member (Mr. Watson). He then went on to say that it was a scandalous thing that those places should have been allowed to be saleable, and that Govern ment should then turn round and attempt to deprive of compen sation those parties who had purchased those places under their sanction. These persons had a perfect right to rely on the legality of the fees they were allowed by the court, and no one had ever contested their legality. The sanction of law had been given to them in as decisive a way as if they had been embodied in an Act of Parliament. He considered that if they repealed the Act—if they adopted the resolution of his Honourable Friand, they would be doing a grievous injustice. He was certainly of opinion that the levying of these fees upon the suitors in the court was most burdensome and unjust, and was a grievance which should hardly be allowed to exist for him to denounce in 1846. He could not see an argument for the fee system ; it was introduced first in order to pay the ex penses of work and labour, and offer an inducement that it might be done expeditiously, but as that system was done away with there could not be any pretence for continuing it longer. He was sorry ;for trespassing so long upon the House,` but, differing in his opinions upon the subject from those on his side of the House, he thought it his duty to come forwar d and state his opinions frankly to the House.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted that the time was coming when these fees would be entirely done away with, and justice would be rendered cheap and ac cessible to the people.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. B. ESCOTT had listened to the debate with the greatest satisfaction, and especially to the statement of his Right Hon. Friend, that the Government were determined not to resist inquiry into these abominable extortions. The question was one of great public importance, and he could wish that nothing , of a personal nature would be mixed up in it. He thought the Right Honourable the Attorney- General (differing as he did with him in most of his opinions) had proved one thing, namely, that the Lord Chancellor had only acted in strict accordance with the Act. When this Committee was granted the principle under which compensations were granted must be considered. No one yet defined the legal principle of compensation. It had been stated by the Attorney-General and the Member for Lis keard that these offices were estates, and for that reason were offered for sale in the masket. He never heard of such abuses as were connected with these offices, and if the judges sanc tioned the sale of them, it was high time for that House to put an end to such a system. It was said that the motion must not be granted, because it would interfere with an Act of Par liament. He would vote for it, because it repealed the Act of Parliament, and because it would have the effect of repealing many of those abuses which at present existed in the courts of law. He denied the legality of these fees, and he would like that question to be tried in a court of law. He would ask the Attorney-General, if they were legal, why were they reduced? —( Hear, hear.) The very fact of these officers submitting to the reduction, proved that they did not rest upon a legal founda tion. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said that it was a novel course to reconsider the question of compen sation when it had been already decided upon by that House. It wasa novel practice he admitted, and it was only a novel pro ceeding which would put an end to the abuses which were a stain on the ermine of the Judges who presided in those courts. Mr. R. YORKE was now, as on former occasions,of opinion that the subject was a very fit one for re-consideration. It came before the House at a period when it was extremely thin, the Members present varying from 27 to 50, and when the Go vernment were hurrying on measures with railroad rapidity. He himself acquired all the knowledge he then obtained on the Bill from the gentlemen who were promoting it.—( Laughter.) Mr. ROMILLY said that the mode of collecting the fees in the Court of Chancery was one to which no responsibility was attached ; there was no check whatever upon the persons em ployed in their collection. He, therefore, contended that the system was one which should be inquired into, with a view to its abolition. With regard to the other part of the motion, he thought it most impolitic. The House had decided upon it already, and though it was done hastily and without due consi deration, the question could not now with any degree of justice be re-considered. It would be a monstrous thing, after the lapse of five years, to reverse that decision, but he must say that the compensation was excessive. He should, however, vote for the motion, believing as he did that it would result in alter ations with regard to the system of fees which would be benefi cial to the courts of law themselves as well as the country at large. Sir J. HANMER supported the motion. Sir R. PEEL said it was the wish of the Government that there should be a full and efficent inquiry into the payment of those who held such offices, and for also checking abuses in their payments. He was against that system which gave to persons a rate of compensation far greater than they were en titled to. When he was Secretary of State for Ireland, he was much struck with the very heavy rate of compensation which was given to those who had held offices, and which were really sinecures. But he felt that they would be cramping very much the means of reforming the abuses complained of, if they were to adopt such a spirit as would make those, from whom the information was to had, feel that they were about to be injured by any steps to be taken. This he felt to be the case, from his acquaintance with such matters while Secretary of State for Ireland. They received from such persons informa tion, which, if they were to understand that they were to suffer by the inquiry, they would not receive. There was a great abuse in giving over-compensation to those officers. They were giving such an amount as the House would not give to the officers of the Crown—such as they would not give to their own Speaker. He could assure the House there was no objection on the part of the Government for a strict and searching inquiry, and they only had an objection to the mode by which it was proposed to be made. He could not agree to any inquiry into those compensations given by the Lord Chancellor, for he had given them on the gronnd of an Act of Paaliament, and he ( Sir Robert Peel) had the greatest confidence in his Noble and Learned Friend's jadgment and impartiality. For fifty years previous to 1839, there had been given a remunera tion far above what the justice of the cases merited ; and the Hon. Member who brought on this Bill spoke of those great abuses as if they were chargeable to the Lord Chancellor. This House recorded by an Act the sale of those professional offices, or at least passed an Act which made remuneration the right of the parties ; and this was acted upon.bv one of the most faultless Lord Chancellors of Ireland—he meant Lord Plun kett. The Act of Parliament provided such a compensation as would allow men of honourable characters and acquirements to take such offices. They had abolished sinecures where there might have been some excuse found for continuing them, but they had allowed abuses to exist where there was no public claim — where, in fact, there was nothing like a claim to support them. —(Hear, hear.) When it was recollected that in this case the Lord Chancellor gave the minimum of what Parliament allowed, it could not be said that he had acted contrary to what could be expected. In the year 1840 the Act was brought in by Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and that Act was not brought in without notice, and it was not passed by that House in a partial manner ; and what was it that could be found fault with in its powers? Let them propose such an in quiry in a manner that would not reflect upon the Lord Chan cellor, and he would promise, on the part of the Government, their cordial co-operation in enacting a law for the future. After a few words from Mr. WATSON, stranger were ordered to withdraw, when there appeared to be For the motion Against it Majority PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS. (From the Votes and Proceedings or the House of Commons.) WEDNESDAY, MAY 6. The following Petitions for Railways were reported, and the Bills ordered to be brought in by the undernamed Hon. Members : Newcastle and Batlington Junction (Durham and Sunderland Rail way and Wearmouth Dock Parchase)—Mr. Liddell, Mr. Hinde, and Mr. Hudson. Midland (Leicester and Svrannington Railway vesting)—Mr. Packe, Mr. Farnham, and Mr. Mundy. London, Salisbury, and Yeovil Junction (Salisbury to Tetiril)—Sir W. Heathcote, Mr. J. Benett, and Mr. Seymer. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons. WEDNESDAY, MAY 6. ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. Order for Committee read ; Motion made, and Question proposed, " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair:"—Amendment pro posed, to leave cut from the word " That" to the end of the Ques tion, in order to add the words " this Mouse will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," Instead thereof:— Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided : MAJORITY—AYES, 110. A'Court, Captain Fitzroy, Henry Neville, Ralph Archbold, Robert Faster, Matthew O'Connell, Daniel Armstrong, Sir A. Gore, montagoe O'Conor, Don Arundel, Earl of Goulburn, Henry Ord, William Bantle, Colonel Graham, Sir J. Pakington, J. S. Baring, Henry Granger, T. C. Parker, John Baring, F. T. Greene, Thomas Pechell, Captain Baring, W. B. Grey, Sir G. Peel, Sir Robert Barron, Sir H. Grosvenor, Lord R. Peel, Jonathan Berkeley, Craven Hall, Sir Benjamin Philips, G. B. Bernal, Ralph Harcourt, G. Plumridge, Captain Blake, M. J. Boldero, H. G. Hatton, Captain V. Powell, Caleb Bowes, John Herbert, Sidney Pusey , P . Bowles, Admiral Hindley, Charles Rawdon, Colon el Bowring, Dr. llorsman, E. Roebuck, J. A. Bretherton, J. Howard, C. W. Russell, Lord T. Browne, W. Howard, P. 11. Sheridan, R. B. . Buller, Charles Hughes, W. B. J j o a lm me s s On S , ir O W en . eral S2 S mmi om itt e hh rse : jV t .e , Arn L . o o r n d G. Busfeild, William 31_311. 1 Kelly, Sir dj .t: S h:a ; cs r E: . a. Feaaps,irttl Captain r ofu o i k if y 0 r Somerville, Butler, P. S. Cardwell, Edward Carnegie, Captain Lambton, H. Strutt, Edward r ,yB3 , : : , S w .Tjir. J. S. Fs Thomas . . Christie, IV. D. Lascelles, W. S. Sutton, 11. M. Collett, John Williams, vI T TM : i r , ja k e e l ° s l i r i a l in ae li w i n e y e n l Coote, Sir C. M. Leader, J. T. Macaulay , Walker, Richard Cowper, W. F. T. n. exander Craig, W. G. Crawford, W. S. . 1 1V V vy °( oLd e , 1 , 1 :C u h h s o a e m r' Charles E. Cripps, W. Wall,. C. B. Denison, J. E. M'Geachy, F. A. Dennistoun, John Mahon, Viscount Maitland, Thomas Duncan, Viscount Duncan, George Marsland, Henry Young, John, Dundas, David Martin, J. Escott, Bick ham Wines R. Monekton TELLERS. Esmonde, Sir T. Mitchell, T. A. Watson, Henry Ewart, William Morpeth, Viscount Manners, Lord J. MR. SMITH O'BRIEN. The Hon. PIERCE BUTLER said, that he had given notice of a motion to the same effect as that upon the paper from his Hon. Friend the Member for Galway ; but he could assure the House that he would not have done so had he been aware that the Hon. Baronet had given notice of such a motion. He was sorry for the error he had committed, and begged to apologise for it; but had he been able to bring it on, he could assure the House he was fully prepared to discuss it. He would, however, bring on a motion to an effect somewhat similar on an early day. Sir C. NAPIER wished to know if the returns he had moved for in the early part of the session would be laid upon the table of the House ? Mr. CORRY said that the returns were in course of prepa ration, and would be ready in a few days. ORDERS OF THE DAY. The Leith Petty Customs Bill, and the Railway Companys Bill, were ordered to be read a second time. Mr. AGLION BY wished to know vilLat course was intended to be pursued with respect to the Salmon Fisheries Bill. It was of considerable importance to the owners of fisheries in the country to know. Mr. FORSTER wished to have a similar question answered. The Bill had already been two sessions before Parliament and nothing had been done. An HON. MEMBER said that he believed that the Bill would be proceeded with; its object was to give better protection and facilities to our salmon fisheries. The 13111 was then read a second time, and the report ordered to be received; to be read a third time to-morrow. Act The second reading of the Ban kru p tc y and Insolvency was postponed. The Committee on the Danish claims was postponed until the 22d. The Election Notices (Ireland) Bill was read a second time, and the report ordered to be received ' . The Reuse adjourned at Ele ven MINORITY-NOES, 67. Adderley, C. E. Estcourt, T. G. Maunsell, T. B. Alba, J. P. Finch, George Maxwell, eon. J. P. Arbuthaott, Hugh Forbes, William. Meynell, Captain Arkwright, G. Fox, S. L. Newdegatc, C. IL Astell, William Fuller, A. E. Palmer, G. Bailey, J., j un. Grimsditch, Thomas Plumptre, J. P. Baillie, W. llamilton, J. H. Rashleigh, W. Baskerville, T. B. Hamilton, G. A. Round, C. G. Bateson, T. Hamilton, Lord C. Round, John Beckett, William Hildyard, T. B. T. Sheppard, T. Bell, Matthew Hope, Sir J. Shirley, E. J. Bennet, P. Houldsworth, T. Sibthorp, Colonel Deresford, Major Hussey, Thomas Stuart, J. B'ackbnrne, J. I. Jones, Captain Tollemache, J. Broadley, Henry Knightley, Sir C. Tyrrell, Sir J. Broadwood, 11. • Law, Hon. C. E. Verner, Col. Brooke, Sir A. B. Lawson, Andrew Waddington, H. S. Butler, Sir Y. Lefroy, A. •Wyndham, Colonc Christopher, R. A. Lindsay, Captain Yorke, E. T. Churchill, Lord A. S. Lockhart, W. Chute, W. L. W. Lowther, Hon. Col. Connolly, Colonel Lygon, General Douglas, Sir li. Mackenzie, T. 1 Douglas, J. S. Marton, G TELLERS. Colquhoun, John Spooner, Richard GRAIN CROP OF THE UNITED STATES. The Commissioner of Patents has published an esti mate of the harvest of wheat and Indian corn in the various states for the last two years. As the com missioner has access to many intelligent individuals in various parts of the country, it is probable his estimate is as near an approximation to accuracy as can be made. Wheat. Corn. ... 13,572,000 57,600,000 .. 12,580,000 17,126,000 ... 7,044,000 30,625,000 ~. 4,563,000 25,584,000 ~. 16,200,000 13,250,000 ... 11,885,000 27,272,000 ... • 8,340,000 70,625,000 ... 4,769,000 54,625,000 7,061,000 4,945,000 4,884,000 3,273,000 1,969,000_ 14,887,000 1,168,000 8,184,000 502,000 1,912,000 647,000 1,282,000 241,000 3,098,000 5,000 731,000 114,000 2,649,000 854,000 1,728,000 1,050,000 7,314,000 440,000 516,000 1,571,000 2,713,000 980.000 16,650,000 378,000 2,167,000 1,525,000 15,625,000 2,427,000 8,250,000 733,000 971,000 672,000 793,000 2,028,000 15,000 35,000 Ohio ... ... Pennsylvania ... Indiana Illinois New York ... Virginia ... Tennessee ... Kentucky ... Michiga❑ ... Maryland ... North Carolina South Carolina Maine New Hampshire Massachusetts Rhode Island ... Connecticut ... Vermont New Jersey ... Delaware ... Georgia Alabama ... Mississippi ... Missouri Arkansas Florida Wisconsin lowa ... District of Columbia ... Total ... ... 106,548,000 417,899,000 The crop of 1844 was estimated at 95,607,000 bushels of wheat, and 421,953,000 bushels of corn. There was a material deficiency in the crop of wheat in the state of Ohio last year over the preceding year ; but in almost every other state, except the Carolinas, Georgia, and Alabama, there was a considerable increase. In the corn crop there was a falling off of one-third in New York and South Carolina, one-fourth in Maryland, one-third in Virginia, one-third in North Carolina, one-fourth in Alabama, and a considerable increase in all the Alter states, except Mississippi.—New York Journal of Com merce. , Saxony, 25,433 cwt. to Turkey, 23,210 cwt. to Sou' Germany, and 20,542 cwt. to Prussia. let f : Prussia possesses 540 coal mines, giving emp , .A ---- via.- --- -- to 25,000 workmen. The produce, in 1844, a 't . ?..1/V . _ , I>. ~.._ to 53,000,000 cwt., or a value of four and a hal 4 ~,,. aR k r..... 1 )4, dollars (675,0001.) In 1841, Prussia imported 3 O. :7;1 . , - ..,',, cwt., principally from England. Her exportati st-vils -4-1-. % 1 _ - - - .- - N , 6,903,473 cwt. to Holland, France, and Poland. ~.. , 1 ..- AV In Bavaria the produce is not what it might be; % elm - 1, - ( - 1 1 , 4 Ak a k r are 40 extensive coal mines, principally in her Rhenistr provinces; the produce is about 1,200,000 cwt. In Saxony the mines are worked with zeal; the pro duce amounts to about 4,000,000 cwt. There are extensive mines near the the forest of Thuringen. The Grand Ducy of Baden possesses some valuable coal mines. In the Duchy of Brunswick there is scarcely a mine. In the kingdom of Hanover there are coal mines which occupy more than 1,000 workmen. Wurtemburg is poor in this respect. The Grand Duchy of Hesse; the Duchy of Nassau, the Grand Duchies of Mecklembourg and Olembourg do not possess coal mines. In the Electorate of Hesse there are some valu able mines, producing annually about 900,000 cwt. Generally speaking, the production of coals in Europe is susceptible of being greatly developed, especially in some parts of the Austrian dominions. It is true that during the last few years much has been done, but there is still much more to do. The produce of coal in Europe amounts annually, on &rough calculation, to 120,000,000 florins, or 12,000,0001. sterling.—Lloyd's Austrian Gazette. STATEMENT OF THE ABBESS MIECZISLAWSKA. The Journal de Debuts inserts the following answer from the Polish priests at Rome to the second denial by the Rus sian Government of the truth of the recital of the Abbess Mieczislawska, which we have published. The answer to it is transmitted to the Debats by the Count de Monts,- lembert : " ANSWER TO THE ADDITIONAL. NOTE DATED FROM ST. FETERSBUROH, MARCH, 1846. " The venerable nun, whom it pleases the author of the ad ditional note to call 'the woman Mieczislawski,' never as sumed the title of Abbess of the convent of Kowno. We defy the Russian diplomatists to cite from among the numerous creditin persons who have seen and conversed with her since her ar e r of l within the Prussian territories, a single witness worthy made e o heard her take this quality. In the first decla rationobfefosfre, u er n r i o r r ers i . nto Ti :-h s ic v h a publicationFthoef t A h r e ch ar b t i i s e h le op ef of th P e o j se ea n t , na tw l t o he m T on hi th rd s y th , she took her true title of Abbess of Minsk. fallen, was rectified in the next journal, the Third of May, had nishe n s ex ti t ie d fi ty Abbess to confess by that journal and by part of addition num ssofnsk. The author I the he b of er t l is s ß eco em n a d in n s ote the i li f t o l r e ce o d f that, in the first note, it was carefully concealed that in the said town did exist a convent of Basilian nuns, a n d to o acknowledgeof Minsk there that the mother Makrena did not arrogate to herself im aginary title. Thus is confirmed by the admissions of Russia herself an the existence of this convent, the reality of which has been wilfully denied :—thus is confirmed the testimony , of the old inhabitants of Lithuania, and particularly that of the Sisters of Charity at Wilna,as well as that of the Marquia de Narp, an officer who was in the service of the French army in 1812, now resident at Rome, all of whom attest the fact from having been eye-witnesses of it, Driven to speak of the convent of Basilian nuns at Minsk, the note gives its history from 1834, and pretends that at that period it was converted into a hospital. This assertion is completely false. In 1835, the convent still belonged to the Basilian nuns, and by the fire which in that year reduced Minsk to ashes, the convent suffered severely. All the wealthy inhabitants of the town witnessed the mother Makrena, with the sisters Wawrzecka and Conorska, demanding and receiving contri butions towards the reparation of the damages their convent had sustained. It was not until 1838 that it was suppressed by the violent expulsion of the nuns. As to the augmenta tion of revenue and other advantages of which the note speaks, favours still enjoyed by the superior of the convent transferred from Minsk, there is the same sophistry, the same falsehood as was inserted in the first note. If it be true that the revenues of some convents have been increased by fresh grants, it has been most assuredly only for the benefit of such nuns as have embraced the schism, and not of those who have refused to do so ; since these last have Wen treated as servitors and prisoners, and as no longer forming a legal community. Besides it is literally false to aosert that any new revenues have been conferred upon religious establish ments since the Russian Government, after having seized their estates and property, has replaced the ample incomes derived from them by very small pensions. Consequently there is an evident falsity in this second part of the first ad dition. No person can be made to believe that the Russian Government, which had seized the property of the convents, can have augmented revenues no longer in existence, that they can have been augmented in favour of nuns considered to be rebellious heretics, and that these rants have been continued up to the present day. The Last referred to in the addition No. 5 has never been disputed. It has not been denied that some nuns may, on account of the state of their health, have been allowed to return to their Catholic families ;:but it is affirmed that these permissions have all been anterior to the cruel persecutions of 1838. Addition 12.—The note affects to give the names of the superiors of the convents existing in 1839. Here, again, it falls into vo luntary error. Thus, the superior of Grodno was not Bai kowna, but Maliszweska ; that of Witebsk was not Kasi meraka, but Bublika ; that of Polock was not Kuleszawka, but Kostrowna. From this let the confidence merited by the writers of the note be judged, when they say that Ma krena Mieczislawska was not Abbess of Minsk. It may be that in 1839 there were only nine convents of Basilian nuns in Russia, for at that period persecution was already old. It must be concluded that persecution had already borne its fruits ; for previously there were at least fifteen of these con vents in Russia, viz., those of Wilna, Grodno, Pinsk, Orza, Minsk, Polofock, Witebsk, Novogrodesk, Zyrovice, Slonim, Boruny, Beresweez, Czaswiki, Biala, and Foczajow. These convents were inhabited by 245 nuns, as is proved by the Calendars of the order printed before the persecution. The convent of Minsk alone reckoned 35. If, therefore, there were no more than 55 nuns in all, there would remain only 20 for the other . 14 convents, or one anti a halt for each. It is added that no change has been made in the interior dis cipline of the convents. Nothing, cei tainly, beysod the re ligious faith and the persons of their inhabitants—the old faith has been made to give place to a schism, and the inha bitants have become Greco-liussians, or have been martyr ised for remaining faithful to their creed. With these ex ceptions, it is true that there has been very little change. The note concludes with two allegations—the first of which is founded on a slight mistake, which it vainly endeavours to exaggerate ; and the second of which is branded with flagrant bad faith. It is truC that the Governor of Minsk was not named Uzakoff. The Mistake arose from the similitude between the two names Stil.zkoff and Uzakoff, and not Usrakoff or Souchkoff, as the note, with a view to delude, wishes to represent. It was in truth General Suszkoff who was Governor of Minsk at the time Of the persecution. It may be easily imagined that the ear of the Abbess, or of those who took down her testimony, may have misappre hended the sound, It will be easy to appreciate tiie. declara tion which the note attributes to General Suszkoff, N zhen it is known that this personage is a man of cruel and despotic character, sent at that period to Minsk precisely to be the executor of those pitiless orders against the Catholics, whoa it was determined to force by whatever means to apostatise. In the second place, the note joins irony to falsehood, in affirming that the Princess Euphrosnia Giedymin, who is brought to life in 1838, died at Rome more than six hundred years ago. We inform the learned author of the note, that Christina Clara Giedymin, who took the name of Euphrosina on becoming a nun, was visitress gene ral of the order of Basilian nuns; that she is the person designated under the name of mother-general—a title which was gives to her according to custom—and that she it was who perished miserably when she was being conveyed to Siberia. It will be seen that the author of the note is little versed in genealogies, although he pretends to have consulted them. It will not be out of place to make him acquainted with that of the nun whom he persists in calling the woman Mieczislawska. Makrena Mieczislawska be longs to a distinguished family of Poland, allied to the princely family of Wistgenstein. She is the dalaghter of Joseph Mieczislawski and Anna Jagiello, daughter of Casi mir and Hedwige. She was born at Stokliszki, the estate of her parents, in the ancient palatinate of Troki, in 1784. She is not the only member of her family who has suffered for religion. One of her brothers, Calixt Mieczislawski, who took the name of Onuphrus on entering the order of St. Basil, was, on his refusal to forsake his religion, put into a cart, and so tightly bound, that he perished on the way to Smolensko. Two of his companions, Szozerbwiski and where hich fakrena entered the order (f St. Basi at sokw, expireddied Rolfh. arriving g n t h the n sa i r ie e n c s a k r o t . ; and Nve awfiol addrth, Abbess Several her Jagiello, was her maternal aunt, t ZC h h° a lr t kY:wn mother 3 months the age a o f f te t r vizi d ty: s t i b ie ree went in to the t e he co c n o v n e v n e t n o t f o ß f i M ala Ls o k f , s h e remained, and perfo rmed almost all the duties of the esta blishment until the moment when the abbess Kulesza, having become infirm, Makrena took her charge for three y he e r ar q s im a l n it d y s o u f ee a e b e b d ess ed , h s e h r e a w s as abb p e r ss ese a n t t h e e t r th dea e tehleiontiolBne23. of the a W lle il g n at a io a n n s d o ß f e t r h e e sw o e d cz ditio W ne e l have note, d en es d tro w y e e til o v n e e r a by bbes one e t s h o e f the new errors with which it is filled, as its most cruel con demnation, to the indignation and contempt of all upright and impartial minds.--Rome, April, 1846." MURDERS IN ENGLAID.—Mr. John O'Connell, Men' her for Kilkenny, moved on the 12th of February for a return of ail murders that have been committed in England since the Ist of January, 1642 ; specifying the county, &e., where such murder had been committed, with other particulars. It appears that the ordinary criminal returns received at the Home office, having reference to cri minals, and not to the parties against whom offences; are committed, do not in any Instance state the condition in life, and not in all in stances the names of persons mnrdered or attempted to be murdered ; nor do these contain any record of murders or attempts to murder further than in cases where accused parties have been apprehended. There was therefore no direct means of furnishing the particular in formation required by the address, A summary of of the From is e totals given, it is proved tha t the number added, showing the number of inquests, w r n o v f i ctinieqnue wtehinn „ ch2,2Barwioet, infa nticides. es. There tiejd were For 2 0 found m urder the convictions ; viscstielfon-dseni were 58 for &c. manslaughter, 51 ; for concealment of birth, 27 ; and under the ts wasro44mos, the B of of the accused, 2 ; accus ed died in prison, 4 ; no bill or acquitted, 99 ; and cases not ascertaine d, 190 : making the total stated. There were of attempts to mur der 65 attended with bodily injury, and 17 an not attended with bodily injury, and 10 cases in which reward or pardon was offered by Government and no results followed. There were 29 convictions ; 16 of the accused found insane; 36 ewes in which there was no bill found, or the parties were acquitted, and one which the trial was postponed. Of rewards offered there were 35 ; 28 in cases of murder, and 7in cases of attempts to murder. Theron were 8 of the rewards paid, and in 12 cases convictions follotwoed. which 11 were in cases of murder, and 1 in case of att empt rewards mur der. In four cases where convictions took place tteof acquittal, offered reward was claimed, but not paid. In one case without pecuniary re pardon was offered do not appear to have been claimed. In one cases of attempt to murder, ward on the part ef Goveniment. To murder, and ' four THE CHOLERA. A s i a tic cholera had spr ead t thr°i a lity in some of the principal gh several of the provinces of Persia, towns. and had given ris e to grea t mortality —ln a late n umber we stated that the it is reporte d Meshid, thence south of the Caspian to from Riga, it has d to have extended from Bokhara across the Persian frontier to Herat an , Odessa Tehe ran,state that it has crossed the Russian boundary, and has appeared at and still further south to Ispahan. Recent accounts from ppetaretersdbuonrghtlie lEfutruoupseeaancesoiduentastaKreatsuanu,eatbeuttedl2,,ooothe Tiflis, tuking a course northward between the Caspian and Black seas , w hile, according to the latest intelligence Broken out at Orenburg in the Uralian mining district, crossed the d r"V is il e ige as sa e rra l o i nm as d S t a l l:l ien a somewhat irregular course, in a direction west by north; as and in it tl l e oes furni no e t r a t p r p r e u a p r ilo to n l o ia f ve lli f 2 o B llo 3 w o. ed I I:: b a nks di.seas e of w gr kt ea ch y t w lB as 23 toe nlllBn3eBd. It tutni ap a p ci e u a a r rt ed at urfo O r r a en p b e u rt rg od fo u r the e ll y r ea st me r t s i .l i t n re l a B p 2 p 3 and . ; reappeared reached England in 1831, prevailed in P ers i a f or seven years , f rom at Orenburg in 1829, and its prevalence and fatality in this province were so great, that upwards of one-tenth part of the inhabitants were seized with it, and one-fourth of those who were attacked died. It reached St. Petersburgh in July, 1831 ; and England on the 26th of October of that year. At Tiflis, where it is again reported to have broken out, the mortality from the former epidemic was so great, that three-fourths of these who were attacked perished. W cshall take care to report any further Information which may react go respecting the progress of the maled:f.—XerliceiGatete. ,o PRODUCTION OF COAL IN TILE DIFFERENT STATES OF EUROPE. After iron, there is certainly no produce of the minera . kingdom which exercises a greater influence on our com mercial relations than coal. The following is a statistical sketch of the produce of that article in the different countries of Europe:— England possesses the richest veins of coal, both as regards quality and quantity; they form a line from south-west to north-east. In Northumberland and Durham, from the Tweed to the Tees, coal abounds; at Whitehaven, in the hills of Cumberland, in Yorkshire, and in Lancashire. The most abundant mines are in Wales. . The consumption of coal in England and in exporta tion is so great, that it has often been asked if the mines would not be exhausted ; but, according to calculations made in proportion to the present consumption, they could not be exhastcd under 1,500 years—the yearly consumption in Great Britain is 20 to 21 millions of tons. The exportation increased in the following propor tions :—.ln 1830, 505,421 tons ; in 1832, 588,450 tons ; „ . in 1834, 621,256 tons ; in 1836, 1,101,000 tons ; in 1838, 1,413,800 tons ; in 1840, 1,621,300 tons ; in 1842. 2,120,000 tons ; and-in 1844, 2,410,000 tons. The number of miners exceeds half a million. English coal is to be had in every part of the civilised world; there are deposits at Rio Janeiro, at Odessa, at Archangel, and at Constantinople. France does not produce enough coal for her own consumption, and is obliged to import. She possesses 250 mines, of which 182 are worked, and which ren• dered in 1844 72,000,000 cwt. of coal, to the value of 21,000,000 f. (840,000/.) The produce is decreasing, as in 1815 they only rendered 17,000,000 cwt. ; 40,000 men are employed in the mines, and traffic belonging to them. In 1642, the importation of coal, into France, amonntei to 16,711,328 cwt. France imports her coal from Belgium, England, and the Prussian provinces on the Rhine. Spain draws but slight profit from her abundant mines; the principal mine is in the Sierra Morena ; the produce is not known. They import but little. In some of the principal Spanish ports, there are depots of English coal for the steamers. In Portugal there are depots at Figuierds, at Coimbra, and near Oporto. The principal mines of Italy, which produce annually from 140,000 to 150,000 cwt., are in the Savoy, and near Genoa. The others, scattered over the Peninsular, are of very little value, and there are depots of coal in the principal ports. Belgium possesses r odu c tproduction increases.im m e nse minera lln 183 r 1 i le e s ; produce amounted Colltit amounted to 42,800,000 cwt., and in 1844 it realised 84,232,420 cwt. i n 1844 the exportation amountedto a 1,050,000 tons, a va l ue of about six millions florins (600,000/.) Holland has no coal mines. There is a single mine in the county of Limberg. They import all their coal from England, Belgium, and the Prussian provinces. Switzerland, though rich in metals, has very little coal, and imports a quantity from England. The only mine of any value in this country is at 11oehefeld; in 1843, it produced 514,969 cwt. Norway has no coal mines. In Russia the production of coal does not exceed 800,000 punds. It seems that between the Don and the Dnieper, and in Siberia, there are rich coal mines, and the Government are now taking measures to Wrn them to account. Denmark has one insignificant mine at Bornholm, and imports nearly all her coal from England. Austria is rich in coal mines, but the produce is not in proportion with the number of her mines. The annual produce of coal in Austria is at least 12,000,000 cwts.; in 1843 it did not exceed 9,000,000. Of this amount Bohemia produces about one-halt; Moravia, 2,000,000; Austria, 1,500,000; Styria, 1,000,000; Carinthia and the districts of Ogragno, a little more than 500,000; Hungary, 600,000; the coast lands (Kiisten-land), 60,000; Galicia, 3,000; Lombardy, a very small quantity. Coal mines exist in nearly every province of the monarchy. In Bohemia their are veins of the mineral along the river Beraun, in the north districts of Klattan, Pisen, and Rakovitz, to the neighbourhood of Prague. There are coal mine in Erzgebirge, in the valleys of the Eger and the Biela, and at the foot of the Riesengeberg , from Sehatzlar to Landskron. p n r e i a n r c i R p a o l ss m itz in a e n s l't In the dofoflAolovraans:iaanadrethien tchoeodinsterairctthoef mouth of the Oder is of a superior Br T un h r e , Gioggnuz; , Klingenfurt, Grunbach, and of the Archduchy there are mines near vciieupaelrs,yt.N,rieaustnaedatr, L I, e a o r b a ne and d d F i n o h the n s d n o e r g ; in the Carpa n in thian in Lombardy, in the districts h i o Carinthiau rh o o -d of e f i c r o t e h rn v e an valley i and ; yn Pavia; Dal matia ri‘olle,unnetaarinlsl.aring, and in Hungary, i t n hi r a i n 'Y In 1844, Austria exported 773,065 cwt., of which 703,262 cwt. were sent from Bohemia by the Elbe to THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MORNING, MAY 8, 1846. N