The Sun. — London, England, 1844-05-15 00:00:00

----.' ;E. • Ir * Ind 404 ; Liga‘ti;, ,00a d i et , j ool airtj term— ], Or iclu to " $, her "' ds so l'is 1 otior i) $ ........ 3 Wiper) re a . .7.01 117 "„ te ,0 , a 4 tring"o AS . 0 4$ rati? it or ''' l oo ortb , dos been fter w iee o Sire GA ir. rlo ch utt t io till o f.- og e , A vott ':code d .05gi i h or 0 G oo t wo o 6 ea .11,0 IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 14 Their Lordships met at Five o'clock. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Mr. GRIENE and other Members brought up the Factories and other Bills from the Commons. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice that, on Friday, he should present a petition on the subject of the Poor -laws in Ireland, and he should take that oppor tunity of asking the Government what progress had been made by the Commission appointed to investigate the state of poor-houses in Ireland. Several petitions were presented praying the House to legalise Presbyterian mixed marriages in Ireland. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Edin burgh, in favour of the North British Railway. Earl SOMERS presented petitions from occupiers and . owners of land in the city of Hereford and its vicinity ; in the districts of Kingston ; town and vicinity of Ledbury, county of Hereford ; parish of Nathan, county of Worcester; parish of Bromsberrow, county of Glouces ter ; parish of Shelton, county of Hereford ; parish of Canon Promo, ditto ; parish of Colwah, ditto ; parish of Pultey, ditto ; parish of Little March, ditto ; parish of Eggleton, ditto ; parish of Munsby, ditto ; district of Packhold, ditto ; parish of Aylton, ditto ; parish o f A s h perton, ditto ; parish of Castle Frome, ditto ; parish of Pixley, ditto ; parish of Coddington, ditto ; parish of Bosbury, ditto ; all praying for the samedegree of agricultural protection as at present exists. Lord CO TTENHAM moved for returns of the num • her of persons who were confined in prison at the pre sent time, distinguishing the duration of their impri sonment, the amount of their debts, and the sums ex pended in their support. The LORD CH ANCELLOR said he had not the slightest objection to granting the returns moved for by his Noble and Learned Friend. Th r eDe, t° a q ue stion from Lord CAMPBELL , ` - ' - "D CHANCELLOR said that in the rnea re respecting imprisonment for debt now before their L or d Soi a cl ass of hesurn named in it for the support of year, and not Pri mersamounted to exactly 300 shillings Lord BR, to 36 5, as he seemed to suppose. • bar of ,„....,", 11 ; 12 1RAM moved for a return of the num- Place t ruatte ns, a mensa et thoro, which had taken tiring the last ten years. The Marquis SPY SYSTEM IN IRELAND. r o d " - 'grcluis of NORM.ANBY, in moving for the u ction of th e papers of which he had given notice, re e ai d make a f ew o b servat i ons on a top i c w hi c h h a d tly created a great sensation in Ireland. No oneC ould deny that th a t revo l t i ng an d o di ous emp l oyment , which as commonly ca ll e d t h e spy system , was one _:tch met with th e repro b ation of all good men i n every c entry. in former periods the ramifications of that sys „ltem had spread through every- quarter of the lower 0r :7,3 °f society in Ireland. Although they had not heard ',_"t during recent years, yet the recollection of it still ' e duced most disastrous effects upon the well-being of ii°ei etY in many parts of Ireland. He would not allude to its probable re-introduction, but it was a notorious fact that the system existed at present to a greater extent in Irel an d than it had recently done. He would not al inde to any particular cases which might at present be under investigation. The Skibereen case, he believed, wsiat present under inquiry. It was notorious that the ; Meta was extending. He would allude to a pamphlet t w hich must be regarded as some sort of authority, as it -VW been quoted by the Prime Minister in the other Ouse of Parliament—it was entitled "A Cry from Ire 'and," and there it was stated, that in the gaol O f Kilkenny, persons had been placed in the aerie room with persons under criminal charges, for the _Purpose of worming themselves into their ejnfitlence, and obtaining confessions to be 'l i ven in evidence against them. The system extended boy to tampe r i ng w i t h w i tnesses, an d an affidavit of a _ had been given, in which the deponent described the process by which he h a d b een l e d' t o recogn i se a party guilty of an offence, whom he had previously sworn - . ittat he did not know. He took it for granted, as the Minister had quoted this pamphlet, that he PI directed i nqu i r i es to b e made into these cases. V S a proof t h at th i s system was not necessary, ado r d shi Z e would refer to th e ev id ence t a k en b e f ore th eir peCommittee , in 1841, from which it ap !eared that su c h a system 'Ares unnecessary to se . 4 1 i f t e a the proper ad min i strat i on ' o f j ust i ce in Ireland. evidence showed that between 1835 and 1839 there was of _ greater proportion of committals to offences, and ....yonaictions to committals, than , at any previous v'Llnd ; and in the entire of it he defied their Lordships 143 shal l the use of such means as were now had recourse It° in Ireland. Though this was an evil, it was no reason lv eh bY individual injustice should be inflicted on any party uged With participating in such offences. The Go . ernment refused Mr. Grey any further investigation • lilt() his case, and they said that all correspendence with "Ira must be closed. When those documents which he held in hi s hand came into his House. He thought it right to subinit his cas e t o th e House. He had no acquaint . tee with M r . G rey. When that gent l eman arr i ve d in /don he call e d on hi m ( t h e Marqu i s o f N orman by), but 21 7 4ml not think it right to receive any information from of which the Government were not in possession: Mr aaree, was one of those persons who were removed at the Z e saien of the present Governm en t. Wh en M r . G re y t h . '•eniployed in Kilkenny, and when it was rumoured oat he was removed, he received from th e magis .43, •in all parts of the country, testimonies regret at the prospect of his removal, and s memorial had been presented to the Lord-Lieute t a.,111!, by the Hi g h Sh er iff, s i gne d by p ersons o f a ll kl;""`" , .PraYing that he might be allowed to remain. be; .:."o:i.eY laboured under the imputation of having tne fetich p a rent and originator of this odious syStem theta sta as nd ? r rwtmen were. were. arrested in Thurles in w 40w acquiring new 'flame. Now, how did the November, for hawking a seditious pamphlet or ballad , )' • • l i r 111 / 1 49 of which was called the " Tories'downfal." (the .Marquis —arquis of Normanby) never saw that ba llad, t a i b d , therefor e , h e was not aware w hether it was objce able i n execution or in its topic; nor did he know whether 4: i t was one of those cases - which were ,I: v se r l bed by the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham), I Light, as fond and fantastic prophecies.' ''' 4l.l ad• however was considered seditious by Th i ; Attorney -G en e ra ‘ ,Smith. It appeared that su p ;Perearis having been arrested, Mr. Jennings bees of that they should be tried at the quarter-ses the- Thurles, then going on; and Mr. Grey consulted T Atto rney -General on the subject, and he said, eo h m e „ballad - is very seditious, and it was quite right to thet , Parties for trial; the only difficulty is whether oti ra ougnt not to be tried at the assizes, as we are not n t i e t i ee .... er t,in that the jurors at the sessions would be us) their duty." Now he (the Marquis of Nor hi") would not pause to comment upon the doubt . u_e Attonay. II was here thrown upon the jurors in petty sessions. General's opinion having been obtained the • the committed for trial. Mr. Grey, not wishing theatrain the law so as to operate unnecessarily hard upon ' • n prisoners staged that to the Attorney ' t i t: -e ra. and stated that Osborn had expressed th e r eadiness to give information respecting P r inter of the ballad, and he wished to 2011, whether; un d er t h ese c i rcums t anc es, the prisoner Ciald:not be admitted as a witness against the printer a . t ho ballad, and the AttorneY-General replied, "1 fr - th ' e xi ." doubt that similar billadS may be purchased pel - i dif' n rae, and therefore he can, be prosecuted inde- I wh y - '„at of Osborn's evidence. I therefore see no reason ba,,`' s horn should be discharged unless he can obtain wont to- It appeared that Falvey, a his he . a s took house of the printer with manuscripts in the t, immediately after which Inspector g 1,; () GroY, and the printer was immediately appre . •NOW, Mr. Grey distinctly denied that he li t ve any inst ruct i o n upon t hi s subject. The . Noble st : r cltths then read a statement detailing the circum ve ac es attendant u p on t h e arres t, and recommending Fal a44 to the consid erat i on o f t h e G overnme nt as an a ctive t o ei noiant officer ; a l so a re p or t from the sub-inspector t he GOvernment to the Same effect. This was ta ble gather' a most extraord i nary case, f or con s Falveyr,„ fully bore out the assertion of whi with respect to not having issued • instruction to Falvey, yet Mr. Grey was dismissed, Falvey wa s re t a i ne d in the constabulary. What vi F alvey said when he was asked what did he imagine , 111°Ifiti have been his duty if no ballads had been printed? • the answer was be supposed he should have to get • the''''° tn e 4 P ri nted, but he had received no instructions. Now ik ,. *- c ero rnment had reasived these reports on the 30 th I4raber, and if the Governthent had . nbt interfered, , tie selle rs of' the ballads would have been prosecuted. oW, it appeared that Mr. Grey was anxious that these Parties should not remain in gaol, and he ,Applied,. to the Goiernreent to forward the pro . and L °l1- t- He applied to have Osborn discharged, d be . permitted to avail himself of Osborn's evi . against the other parties. No, said Mr. Brewster, a re would be no necessity for that if proper means ser e Wh, taken Now; what were those proper means? Y. evid ent l y it was meant to send a policeman in thtiNiae, they could hardly send him in uniform, to procure se ballads. Now, the Government knew as much Zia this case on the 30th .Nov. as they did at the p rase moment. They had received both the Tel _ ad had an opportunity of comparing them. These ta_ ap.ers were not returned by Mr. Brewster until DeCember WO. were they were returned -by him to Mr. Grey ;am did not rest on his testimony alone. Reports were tinselitted from day to day by the Inspector-General toseithe Chief Secretary, and the most important were etted bY the Chief 'Secretary; and brought under o _, notice of the Lord-Lie u t enant . Dir ect i ons we r e g i ven I,pl.tlose reports, which were sent to the constabulary. I .,_ l3l arlie rested any where, it must be with the Under __re tar- , for he w as aware t h at the. Inspector-General 7.„fas most punctual i n sen di ng, reports to "the Castle.— wa s` hear.) Th e fact of the printing of the ballad Zas . known to the Government. on the 12th of ' c 'rember g • doubt • e did net think there could be the least 0f that.—(Heir, hear.) It did not rest iti r " te- eilanoe.of the parties, fo r on the 12t h o f D ecem b er Brewst er returned them - to - Mr. Grey, saying that 0 further directions seemed necessary in the case. What lernretation was Mr. Grey to put on this but that the previous directions had' been adopted. From the lto ima that those unfortunate men had been gaol, till they had been discharged, from the Go vernment refusing to prosecute them, which was four months, ase. Grey had no reason to suppose that he had not fulfilled the in s t ruct i ons he had received. It was • not till the matt er b ecame notorious to the public any steps were taken, and ke -thought th at M r. G rey and the Irish people had reason to complain that the inten tions of the Government were not clearly expressed !flora th e matter had become so public and notorious. ade apprehended ded that it was but just to Mr. Grey that a atyl explanation of the circumstances under which his cl.,amissal took pl ace s h ould be laid before the public ; with this view he had brought the subject under the notice of their Lordships, Lord. WITARNCTIFFE thought he would be enabled to show that rib blirne'W - as - to be attributed to the Go ta.l.ranient with re s p ec t t o t hi s matter. The circumstances Q 1 this ease undoubtedly had been detailed with great accuracy by the Noble Marquis, and it was very true that Mr. Brewster gave directions that _means _ _ should be taken to purchase copies of this ballad from Moran, who was the printer, according to the information which had been given by Osborn. The Noble Marquis must remember that when Osborn gave his information he was placed very much in the position of a common in former, and, therefore, his evidence was not entitled to much weight, and ought not to be relied upon if they could get better evidence by proper means. A man dressed as an itinerant ballad-singer was therefore sent to Moran's house, to purchase one of these ballads, and lest Moran should have none printed in his p9ssession the man took with him a Manuscript copy of the ballad in his pocket, with directions that in such case he should order Moran to print some more copies from that manu script. It was ascertained that there were no printed copies in existence, but he produced the MS., and pro cured others to be printed in his presence, and pur chased eighteen dozen of them. He said, further, that when Moran received the MS. he asked if it had been procured fr im Ulver, and was answered in the affirmative. Now he had produced the MS. to Mo • ran, had got it printed in his presence, and had pur chased the copies. That was a different case from sending a person to a printer's house to purchase publications which had been printed previously. He believed that that was a course which was every day adopted in this country without objection, but if no printed papers were found, and a MS. was taken to the printer, and he was induced to print it, such a course of conduct was perfectly unjustifiable. Now, Mr, Grey at all events, knew of this transaction, for Falvey said in his evidence that he had told Mr. Grey of all that had occurred. Mr. Grey had reported on this tran saction to the authorities of the Castle,andyet he had never mentioned one word of this circumstance. The gist of the whole transaction consisted in his having sent to Moran to get these ballads printed. The accusation against the Government was that they had employed a policeman as a spy—they had furnished him with a manuscript to get printed, and had prosecuted the printer. Now he could not acquit Mr. Grey. Mr. Grey said he could not recollect the circumstance, that it had escaped his memory ; but the other said that he had positively given directions that those orders should be given to Falvey, and Foote said that he was not sure if Jennings or Mr. Grey mentioned it, but that the two had been consulting together, and that Mr. Grey was in the room, when the orders were given ; therefore, Mr. Grey knew all the circumstances, and yet had not reported the facts to the Castle. Jennings afterwards said that Falvey went to Moran disguished as a ballad-singer, and desired Moran to print the ballads. Besides that of ,the other witnesses, they had the evi dence of a person named Cooke, who swore that he came into the room where Falvey and Moran were, and saw the manuscript produced ; that he understood Falvey was acting under orders, and further, that on his return from Cashel he informed Mr. Grey of all that had passed. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought Mr. Grey's friends were acting unwisely in moving for the pro duction of those papers. Of all other situations there was none which should be more clear from any suspicion than that of the stipendiary magistrate. He considered that the evidence which had been adduced in the inquiry instituted before Mr. Martley, Q.C., fully justified the course adopted by the Government. Mr. Grey saw the report which had been made after the investigation, the accuracy of which he did not deny. Under those cir cumstances he did not think that the Government would be justified in retaining Mr. Grey in the commission of the peace. With regard to the papers be would say at once that it was not necessary the Government should in all cases lay before the House all the confidential papers that might pass on any subject ; but if the Noble Marquis persevered in his motion, he would not object to all the papers being given. The Marquis cf CLANRICARDE said that he had heard the speech of the Noble Lord with great regret. If this were a mere question between the Government and Mt. Grey, he had shown that Mr. Grey was to a considerable degree culpable. The fault, or crime, for it was nothing less than crime, of Mr. Grey he had no doubt was from want of judgment, or excessive zeal, and as such it was fit that he should be removed, but he did not think that the Noble Earl had shown that the Go vernment were not at fault. He did not think that the Government had taken the proper steps to know what was going on. He had not explained how it happened that from the Ist of December till April no notice had been taken of the conduct of Mr. Grey, or of Jennings. If practices such as were disclosed in this case were allowed, and there were unfor tunately many similar cases, the confidence of the people in the law and in its administration would be very much shaken. The Government ought to be particularly careful in watching over the police force of Ireland. That force was totally different from any force in this country. It was a most excellent and useful force in Ireland, provided it were well governed ; but if the force should get into abuse, and should not be properly go verned, it would reduce Ireland to a state of slavery. Earl FORTESCUE thought it would be well if their Lordships were to suspend their judgment upon this matter until the papers were before the House. He had seen Mr. Grey for the first time that morning, and he distinctly stated that he gave.no direction whatever that copies of the ballad which had been referred to should be printed. In what he had done, he had acted upon the instructions of the Law Officers of the Crown. It was in consequence of the suggestion of the Attorney-Gene ral that he became a party to the course which had been pursued. The course he suggested was to obtain the evidence of Osborn against Moran, and, upon that evi dence to send a search warrant to Moran's house, as he had no doubt that copies of the ballad would there be found. _ _ The Earl of WICKLOW said it was quite clear that if Mr. Grey had directed a person to get copies of the ballad printed, in the manner stated, that he was guilty of an offence for which he deserved to be dismissed. If a Conservative magistrate had committed such an of fence,' and the Government had not dismissed him, he could imagine the clamour that Noble Lords opposite would have raised. Yet now, after a culpable act had been committed—(Cheers from the Opposition benches) —an outcry was raised because the person committing it was discharged from his office. After a few words from Lord WHARNCLIFFE and the Marquis of CLANRICARDE in explanation, The Marquis of NORMANBY rose to reply. The police had been employed as spies. The Government had refused to prosecute, and they had dismissed Mr. Grey without giving him an opportunity of explaining his conduct. Now nothing of all this would have oc curred if it had not been for the loose opinion given by the Attorney-General for Ireland as to the conduct of sessions juries in Tipperary. He was by no means sa tisfied with the defence which had been made for the Irish Government ; and if ever the realisation of that fond and foolish prophecy, as the Noble Lord had called it, of. the Tories downfal was to take place, the con -1 duct of such officials as Mr. Brewster and Mr. Lucas was more likely to occasion it than a thousand ballads. The Earl of WICKLOW explained. The Earl of WINCHILSEA said it was certain that Mr. Grey had concealed from the Government the fact that the police had been employed to get the ballads printed, and whether he had ordered him to do so or not he deserved his dismissal for concealing the fact. The Government had acted as soon as they became ac quainted with the facts of the case, which was not until Mr. Scott had read the depositions. Mr. Grey had kept circumstances from the knowledge of the Government with which he was acquainted, and that was sufficient to justify the Government in dismissing him. He should, however, reserve his judgment until the papers were before their Lordships.—(lronical cheers from the Oppo sition.) Noble Lords opposite had brought forward a * this motion in order to do everythin in their power to make her Majesty's Government 'ow as they could in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) They w no true friends to Ireland who acted in this way. Those who had to ad minister the law in Ireland had a very difficult task to perform, and ought to be properly supported. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said it was at all events not necessary for his Noble Friend to appeal to the people of Ireland to ask whom they con sidered their best friend. He would not deny that what he had said was meant as an attack upon the Government. Nothing had been said to satisfy him why this magistrate had not been dismissed four months be fore. They would, however, when they had the papers, see the date of the appointment, of his successor, and they would. then, in all probability, find that nothing had been done in this affair until after public attention had been drawn to the subject. Lord WHARNCLIFFE was understood to say that the date of the new appointment was the 18th of April. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE—Not until after public attention had been called to that subject by the speech at the assizes. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH rose to order. It was impossible that the order and regularity of their proceed ings could be observed if Noble Lords made more than one speech on the same subject. The Marquis of NORMANBY would not be prevented by the lecture of the Noble Duke from replying to the attack of the Noble ,Earl, who ought to have spoken in the course of the debate, instead of waiting until after his reply. He should undoubtedly exercise tke right of bringing the conduct of the Irish Government under their Lordships' notice whenever he thought it neces sary ; and he would do so even were the Noble Earl himself a member of that Government, and were he in that capacity to renew his visit to Ireland, where a vivid recollection of him was retainediby sounds not so articu lated, but possessing quite as much meaning as anything the Noble Earl uttered ,in their Lordships' House—he meant the Kentish fire.—(Hear, and laughter.) The Earl of WINCHILSEA explained. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said the assizes were held on the 20th of March, and the new appointment was made on the Bth of April. The motion was then agreed to. HER MAJESTY'S SHIP QUEEN. The Earl of MINTO, in moving for a return of the services of her Majesty's ship Queen, stated that the Queen, a three•decker, built on a new principle, had been sent out to Malta, where she was the flag-ship. His complaint was that she had not had a fair and proper trial. A voyage to Malta under easy sail, and a few holiday trips from that island, were not sufficient to test her powers. He had no wish to cast any imputation on the conduct of the Gallant Admiral commanding a t Malta, as he considered that the Mediterranean station was so near home, that whatever was done there had been done by orders from the Admiralty. , The Earl of HADDINGTON agreed that it was de sfrable that every opportunity should be taken of testing the powers of trial ships, and although the powers of the ships in question had not been tested to the extent that he wished, yet they had been tested to a much greater extent than the Noble Earl seemed to imagine. On the voyage out she had, been tried against the For midable ; since she had been at Malta, she had been tried against the Vernon,-but •they-had been separated during a tempest. The Admiral reported very favour- I ably of her. It was not always in the Admiral's power to go to sea when he wished. The affairs of Greece, Syria, and of Spain had obliged him to keep his ships together, so as to be enabled at once to send them in any direction, which the exigencies Gf the service might re quire. The Government had latterly thought it inex pedient to keep up such a large force in the Mediter ranean, and there had only been two or three line-of battle ships there during the last year. This rendered the presence of the Admiral at Malta almost constantly necessary. He objected to granting the return, because it cast an imputation on the Government, for which the Noble Earl had laid no parliamentary ground. The Earl of MINTO thought the reasons of the Go vernment for refusing the returns insufficient. He had heard from a naval officer that the Queen had remained in Malta harbour until she had almost grounded on her "beef bones." The trials to which she had been sub.. jetted had been nothing to the purpose for testing her qualities as a ship. After a few words from the Earl of HADDINGTON the motion was negatived without a division. RAILROADS. Earl FITZWILLIAM moved that a message be sent to the Lower House of Parliament, requesting them to furnish their Lordships with their reports on the Com mittee on Railroads. The Noble Earl then alluded to the contest now carrying on between two railroad com panies in the north of England for the formation of a third, or junction line, each company claiming a right of property in the making of this third line, as an illus tration of the necessity for some interference on the part of the Executive to prevent the wasting of such great sums of money as would be spent in carrying on con tests of this nature before Committees of the two Houses of Parliament. ' The Earl of DALHOUSIE assured the Noble Earl that the Government were alive to the importance of the subject. At the commencement of the session, the head of the department, which had a limited control over railroads, had moved for a Committee to consider the subject ; that Committe3 had furnished several reports, and would soon complete their labours. Perhaps it would be better to wait until then, and have all the re ports together. Earl FITZWILLIAM wished at once to have the re port• which had already been presented. The motion was then agreed to ; and the Bills on the table having been forwarded a stage, their Lordships adjourned till Friday. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 14. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock. NEW WRIT. Lord MARCUS HILL moved that a new writ be ordered to be issued for the election of a burgess to serve for the borough of Kilmarnock, in the room of Mr. A. Johnstone, deceased.—Ordered. Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from Toxteth, near Liverpool, against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Mr. WYSE presented a petition from the Art-Union of London, praying that Art-Unions might be legalised. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented petitions from Pres byterian congregations of Bangor and Ballygilbert, near Kilmore, in the county of Down, in favour of the Dis senters' Chapels Bill. Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND presented a petition against any alteration in the law of mortmaia. SHEFFIELD. ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE, AND MANCHESTER RAILWAYS BILL. Mr. PARKER moved the further consideration of the report of the Committee upon the Sheffield, Ashton under-Lyne, and Manchester Railways. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said that, as the relative merits of the two lines could not be understood by Hon. Members who had not had the reports of the two Committees in their hands, he would move that the consideration of this report be adjourned till Thursday next. Mr. LABOUCHERE would not object to the adjourn ment ; but he would say that the Committee upon this Bill had sat for nine days, and had unanimously agreed on the report. Mr. GLADSTONE hoped there would be a general acquiescence in the proposal of his Noble Friend, to adjourn the debate. After a short discussion, the debate was adjourned till Thursday next. NOTICES OF MOTION. _ _ _ Mr. CHRISTIE postponed till this day fortnight his motion on the subject of education. DISSENTERS CHAPELS BILL. Sir R. INGLIS beved to ask his Right Hon. Friend, the First Lord of the Treasury, a question with respect to a measure to which both sides of the House, attached great importance—the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. At pre sent that Bill stood first on the paper for Friday ; he wished to know whether it was his Right Hon. Friend's intention to press it forward on that day, the Bill not having been in the hands of Members more than one week? Sir R. PEEL said that he thought a week was a very ample allowance of time, considering how much public attention had been excited to the Bill However, he would not bring on the measure that night if it had not a fair chance of being discussed.—(Hear.) It would be absolutely necessary for his Right Hon. Friend to bring forward—first, his resolutions respecting the customs ; after which his Hon. Friend the Lord- Advocate of Scotland would bring forward the Scotch Parishes Bill ' • and if he were not able to bring on the Dissenters Chapels Bill before ten o'clock, he would not then proceed with it.—(Hear, hear.) Sir H. INGLIS said he ought to have stated that, though the Bill had been before the House for a week, it had not been during that time in the hands of Members. ,- THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, MAY 15, 1844. IRISH REGISTRATION BILL. An HoN. MEMBER inquired when the Irish Registra tion Bill would be brought forward?—(Laughter.) Sir R. PEEL said he must bring forward the Bank Resolutions on Monday, and, as we understood, it was not likely that the Irish Registration Bill would come on before the holidays. Mr. FERRAND said that the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had, on the previous evening, quoted a document which set forward the claims of the coal miners during their unfortunate strike. As he was informed that that document also set forth their grievances, which were of the most oppressive kind, be wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet had any objection to lay it on the table of the House ? Sir R. PEEL said he believed it was not consistent with the forms of the House to lay on the table a hand bill ' • but he had a copy of the printed hand-bill from which he quoted, and if the Hon. Gentleman wished to have it for the purposes of debate, he should be happy to furnish him with it.—(Laughter.) Sir ROBERT PEEL postponed, till that day fort night, his motion for leave to introduce a Bill to define and regulate certain rights of the Duchy of Cornwall. EXTENSION OF THE SUFFRAGE. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, previous to bringing forward his motion for leave to introduce a Bill to ex tend Parliamentary suffrage, and to secure the free representation of the people, presented petitions from Leicester, the Tower Hamlets, and Leeds, signed by upwards of 10,000 per sons, in favour of his motion. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to state, that on former occasions he had brought before the House propositions similar to that which he now advanced, and had entered into different arguments in support of his views which he would not then reiterate. He should only state his general views on the question, and explain as shortly as he possibly could, the principles he desired to see in operation. If they considered the principle of all government, they would find it to be that the great body of the people gave up their natural rights, and entrusted them to others to exercise them for the benefit of all. This principle was consistent with his proposition that every man should have a share in the appointment of those who were to make the laws which he was bound to obey. He would not maintain universal suffrage in all its details, but the principle of the Bill he would in troduce to the House was, that all male adults of twenty-one years of age should be entitled to vote for Members of Parliament ; but that principle should be limited by registration laws, which should confine the exercise of it to a residence within the locality where the election took place. He would exclude from the right of suffrage all those who were under sentence for any crime, or who were insane, but he would have no class of the community subjected to limitations to which every other class was not. He would also propose a new ar rangement of the electoral districts, for he could not think it fair representation, if a district having 100 voters should have as many representatives as a district having 1,000 voters. His third proposition was the in troduction of vote by ballot. He considered it impossi • ble to extend the suffrage with safety to the Hes wished safe h unless ad tot thus it draw was the attentionpeople unless voting by ballot was also adopted ; nor did he think that vote by ballot would be accompanied of principles t b h y e o t e u n s t d ee e ; d wfihrsiet,h suffrage. thhee stated thethree extension of the franchise ; secondly, a new arrangement of the electoral districts; and, thirdly, the vote by ballot. He did not wish to trespass on the time of the House by going into the detail of the argument which bore upon those three points ; but he would read the petition which he had formerly presented to the House from the delegates at Liverpool, and which contained a summary of those arguments. (The Honourable Member then read the petition, but could not possibly be followed correctly in the gallery.) Perhaps gentlemen. might admit the principles which he had alleged, and 'yet differ from him as tosome of the details ; and if so, they ought not to object to going into a Committee, where the details might be examined. The great body of the people were, by the present system, excluded from the representation, and the advocates of that exclusion should show that it was wise, expedient, andjust. He had been challenged by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite 'io say why he excluded females from universal suffrage. But, although he did not include women in this measure, he was not prepared to say that women should not in some cases possess the suffrage. He did not think that the working classes were represented in that House or that their interests were sufficiently attended to. Nor did he think that it was right to re fuse the franchise to a poor man, because he was poor and unlettered. The poor man without learning was still capable of judging of his own interest, and he was the person who most required protection. To show that the working classes required protection, he need only refer to the recent divisions upon the Factories' Bill, when the House of Commons twice decided by a ma jority, that women and children ought not to be required to work in factories more that ten hours a day. Then on a third division the same House divided that they ought to work more than that time, and afterwards, on a fourth division, by a large majority, that they ought to work twelve hours. It was evident that in those' divi sions the House had not acted as a body that represented the working classes, whose almost unanimous opinion had been expressed in favour of the measure; in fact; the House was the representative of the Government and not of the people. There were other points besides those which he had enumerated, which were included in the demand for full and fair representation. Amongst them was the reduction of the duration of Parliaments. No man could say that there could be free representa tion so long .as Parliament sat for so many years. He was aware that many sincere Reformers disagreed as to the extent of the reduction which should be made, but all agreed that there should be some reduction. He would not say that there could be no due representation for the people unless all these points were carried, but in brin g ing this questi on b e f ore th e H ous e he had felt it his uty to state what the demands of the people were. That House relied on its power as a means of resisting popular rights; but he warned Honourable Members that there was an amount of discontent existing which would lead to effects of the most disastrous nature on the constitution of the country, and on society at large, if the grievances of the people were not redressed. It was not his intention to trespass at any further length on the attention of the House. He had already stated that those who voted for the introduction of ?he . Bill would not thereby be considered as pledging themselves to its details. The Hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill. Dr. BeWRING said he had great pleasure in second ing the motion of his lion. Friend. He thought that at that moment especially, when great discontent existed among the people, those who looked at public opinion as the only safe foundation for general legislation, were bound to give some evidence that they were willing to allow it to have due influence upon the deliberations of that House. He believed that public opinion sometimes erred—he believed that it had erred greatly on a late oc casion—but he thought that the greatest advantage would be derived from allowing public opinion to bear on the discussions of that House. He did not see why, because a man had a little less of the good things of this life, he should not have a voice in the representation of the country. The State took care to take part of.his earnings for its support, and he ought, therefore, to have a voice in it. Concurring in the general view of his Hon. Friend, he willingly seconded the motion. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority against the motion Mr. T. DUNCOMBE postponed to this day week his motion relative to the petition of Charles Price and Wm. White Thompson, complaining of the conduct of certain Magistrates of arwick. COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS IN CHAN- . 31 . 97 CERY. Mr. WATSON presented a petition from various solicitors against granting compensation for salaries to officers in the Court of Chancery. The Hox. MEMBER thee brought forward the motion of which he bad given notice, for a Select Committee, to inquire into the orders for compensation made by the Lord Chancellor to the person's filling the offices of clerk of the enrolments, comptrollers of the hanaper, riding clerk, six clerks, sworn clerks, waiting clerks, agent or record keeper in the Court of Chancery, under the Act 5 and 6 Vic., c. 103 ; and to inquire into the na ture, duties, and emoluments of those officers before the passing of that Act, and their right to compensation (and if any, to what amount) during their life, and for seven years after the death of such person ; and to in quire into the circumstances attending the passing of that Act, and the moneys charged on the suitors' fee fund in Chancery, for passing that Act ; and also to in quire into the taxation of suitors in courts of law and equity, and the application of moneys raised thereby, and the propriEty of continuing the same. The annual sums paid for compensation under the above-mentioned Act was 78,0001. Out of the six clerks to whom compensa7 tion had been awarded, only one was ever found necessary to be in attendance on the courts. It was to the clerks of the six clerks he wished particularly to call attention. They were in number 60, and they had little or nothing to do. In fact they were rather an obstruction to the course of justice. The business of the clerks depended on the solicitors who employed them ; and, besides that, the Chancellors had the power of altering the fees as they willed. They were cut down in 1785 by Lord Chancellor Jeffery, afterwards by Lord Hardwicke, and again by Lord Erskine —and th e mos t im portant fee which they received was, in 1828, cut off by Lord Lyndhurst. In 1840, Mr. Pemberton, a distinguished member of the Chancery bar, de clared in the House that the system of fees was iniqui tous and enormous, and that'the suitors were compelled to pay to those officers no less than 59,8621. in a year, for doing absolutely nothing. The only real duty of the six clerks was to transmit to the solicitors for whom they acted any notices that were entered in court, and the fees upon that alone amounted to 14,000/. Such having been the nature of the duties, what was the ground of the compensation ? Mr. Getty had awarded to him for compensation, as long as he lived, the sum of 5,4281. He was also appointed taxing master, with 2,0001. a year.—(Hear.) He therefore received 7,428 Z without any deduction whatever. Then there were others who received 5,0001 a year as com pensation for their office, and one of them was to have 2,7001. a year for seven years after his death.—(A laugh.) Neither the naval nor military service received anything like such amounts. He put it to the Right Hon. Baronet, who wielded the destinies of this country, whether he received such a sum ?—(Hear, hear.) He appealed to the Chair. Did the representative of the Commons of England receive such a sum ? He put it to Hon. Members whether, after various charges, any of them had a clear rental of 7,000/. a year? —(Hear, hear.) The poor unhappy suitors had to pay an increased taxation in order to make up these enormous salaries and compensations. But the House, however, in its liberality, not only compensated the six clerks, but their agents received three-fourths of what they had received previously. One of these agents re ceived 900/. a-year. There was what was called a waiting clerk, who received 500/. a-year. There was a clerk of the six elerks who received 1,935/. 2s. 7id. whilst out of office. In fact all the flesh and blood which was found in Chancery-lane was compensated.— (Laughter.) He had been very anxious to ascertain how the Bill had passed through Parliament, and he had' referred to the journals for that purpose. It appeared it was hurried through at arailroad pace. (The Hon. Me mber then read an extract from the journals of the House.) There never was a Bill forced through the House with so much indecent haste ; and, two days after the third reading in the House of Lords, it received the Royal assent. No Bill had ever passed through Parliament so rapidly. He did not impute any acts of commission ; what he imputed was acts of omission, in not inquiring into the nature, amount, and application of the compen sation. The Bill was introduced in the month of August, just at the very time the law Members of the House of Commons went on circuit.—(Hear, hear.) The com pensation was not made upon an average of the gains of those clerks for the last six years, or ten years, but of the last three years. This Act of Parliament, if com pared with other acts of compensation, would seem very extraordinary indeed. It was most unfair and unjust that the funds placed to the credit of the accountant general in Chancery, and which, for the most part, be longed to minors, and infants, and females, should be taanxdedotfhoerrtshieneceouraripset. And i compensation of rt the fees d ofs tihd seem a mostesesixclerks strange and unjust proceeding, that not only the com hpeenhsaatdionaltroeadthy said,oseper sons should be paid out of thi s, fund, but a l so t h e very expenses of passing this measure through Parliament. —(Cries of " Hear, hear.") For this the ch arge of 3391, was ma d e t o b e paid, as perso ns , who were, eorfe,the fn of course,udof a t h h e o s g e de fenceless e t h e r at the mercy of the Court. There were two funds in Chancery—one called the Suitors' Fee Fund, obtained from suitors in the Court of Chancery, and which amounted, in the year 1842, to 62,000/. ; in 1843, to 153,0001. There was another fund, called the Suitors' Fund, which consisted of unclaimed dividends, of which there was a sum of 2,800,000/. in stock, and from both these funds the enormous sum of 277,000/. for suitors' fees were deducted. It was the bounden duty of the Lord Chancellor to investigate these charges for compensation, and to see that the funds which came into his Court were not malappropriated. It was said the Lord Chancellor had no power, but such was not the case—he possessed the power, and he should have exer cised it. He was sure the House, thought it might be in favour of some compensation to these six clerks during life, would think it rather extravagant to extend the pension to their families for seven years after their death. Neither would Hon. Members, after a little reflection, be at all satisfied with the manner in which this Act passed, without deliberation, without discussion, hur riedly, and evidently with a view to avoid inquiry into its objects until inquiry might be useless. lie trusted the House would grant the inquiry he sought for, and if so, he felt convinced that such facts would come to their knowledge that the repeal of this Act of Parliament would speedily ensue. It was well known that there were what were termed Bankruptcy Exchequer Fee Funds. sow, he did not think it right that the system of paying or pensioning the officers of the Court out of these funds should be continued. They ought, as he had already said, to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Suitors ought not to be mulcted. There should be cheap justice. Mr. Pemberton Leigh—no mean authority—said tke present system of , fees was enormous and iniquitous; and the House in acceding to this motion, would make one great step in favour of cheap justice.—(Cheers.) Mr. JERVIS seconded the motion. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL gave great credit to his Hon. and Learned. Friend for the industry he had exhibited in collecting these details, and for the dexterity and address he had used in placing them before the House; but he complained that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman could stopped short when he should have ad-- vanced, because advance would have condemned him. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had brought forward very serious charges, but he thought many of them could not be sustained; and he was further of opinion that he could make out a case fully to justify the House in resisting the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentle man. In some things which had been stated he entirely concurred. He thought, for instance, that many of the offices connected with the Court of Chancery were sinecures, and ought to be abolished. From the year 1688 nothing was done by those six clerks beyond signing their names to the proceedings in the Court of Chancery, and to the performance of that duty they attended in rotation, each taking two months in his turn, according to an arrangement amongst themselves. Those six clerks appointed others, who were called sworn clerks. Their number was limited to sixty ; but at the time of the passing of this Act they were only twenty-five in number. Those performed the duties subsequent to 1688 which originally belonged to the six clerks," viz. the issuing of writs, filing of plead ings, making office copies of the different proceedings in Chancery, and representing solicitors in court. The performance of those duties they also gave up, and they hey devolved ag ents, and the only duty remaining for the sworn clerks to perform was uponpersons who were called attending before Masters in Chancery to tax the bills of the solicitors who employed them. Those agents enjoyed their office practically for life,_ inasmuch as there was seldom any prospect of their being removed froin their situations, and when those offices were abolished they had claims for compensation which were admitted by the Act of Prirliainent. He admitted that that state of things was a great abue-=that ' those officers 'redeived considerable fees for doing next to nothing, but then those fees had been fixed by various Lord Chancellors. There was a scale of fees fixed in the reign of George the Second by Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, which was remodelled in 1807, and from that time to the period of the passing of the Act the fees remained the same. He admitted those fees were very high, and that the whole of the arrangement in reference to those offices consti tuted a great abuse, and that it was necessary to do away with them before any reform could be effected. In the year 1840, Mr. Field, a solicitor, in a series of tables, called the attention of the public to this abuse, and he believed it was in consequence of the information presented in that gentleman's pamphlet that the Hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) obtained a return of the fees and emoluments of the six clerks, and the sworn clerks, from which it appeared that one of them, a Mr. Gatty, received between 10,000/. and 11,0001., others 9,0001, 6,0001., and so on ; some received so small an amount as 201. a year. The subject was then brought before a Commission, consist ing of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Langdale, Vice- Chancellor Wigram, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and the late Mr. Sutton Sharpe. The clerks, on being con sulted with, stated their readiness to enter into any views of reform, on the understanding that they should get compensation. A Bill was accordingly drawn up by one of the sworn clerks, Mr. Wainwright, which was submitted to a Committee a t the Law Insti tution. The Bill, after their supervision, was intro duced by Lord Langdale into the House of Lords, and before its third reading Mr. Wainwright went through its various clauses with Lord Cottenham; and as those compensation clauses were passed without any oppo sition on the part of the Noble and Learned Lord, he (the Solicitor-General) supposed he approved of them. It then came down to that House at, he admitted, a late period of the session, but still at a time when there were several Honourable Members in attendance who would have opposed it if it contained any pro visions that were considered objectionable. The Bill did not pass through the House sub silentio. The Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield made a comparison between the remuneration for political and professional services.. The Honourable Member for Montrose stated that he had examined the Bill, and found that it was perfectly correct in its principles and in its details. The Hoe. and Learned Member for Lis keard proposed to compensate the agents of certain officers in the Court of Exchequer. That proposal, however, was not agreed to. The Bill found its way iuto the House of Lords, not clandestinely, but under the sanction and auspices of persons who were well ac quainted with all the circumstances of the case, but who were not willing to deprive the parties of their compen sation because it was larger than was consistent with the duties they had to perform. If there were any blame in the matter, it attached to the whole Le gislature there was no individual exempt. What were the grounds of objection on the part of his Hon. and Learned Friend ? In the first place he thought the principle of compensation would be admitted by all ; there could not be a doubt as to the justice and propriety of compensating officers for offices legally held for so long a period. His Hon. and Learned Friend ob jected to the amount of compensation, stating that suf ficient caution was not maintained for the purpose of as certaining the proper sums. If that were so, the blame rested with those who passed the Bill. The grounds of the different charges, and the nature of the emoluments were perfectly well known in the profession. There was no necessity, therefore, for guarding the return by any particular sanction. No discretion was left by the Act of Parliament to the individual who was to administer the compensation. The rate of compensation was to be— for the six clerks, three-fourths ; and for the clerks in court and agents,_ two-thirds. In one case—that of Mr. Mitford—the salary had been made the subject of trust settlement, and that was at the time particularly im pressed on the attention of the House. It had been stated that there were a great number of bad debts. He believed that on that subject his Hon. and Learned Friend was entirely mistaken. The debts did not amount to more than a thousand pounds, and that amount was deducted. His Hon. Friend was, perhaps, not aware of what was done by the Bill introduced by Lord Plunket in 1836, abolishing the Six Clerks' Office in Dublin. That Bill was founded on precisely the same principle as the Bill under considera tion. The emoluments of the office were not more than 6001. per annum. They had 4,0001. paid to them as a compensation for the abolition of their office ; and upon an average of three years they received an additional sum during their life. This was a much stronger case of compensation; and it afforded a complete precedent for the coarse adopted on this occasion. His Hon. and Learned Friend had endeavoured to excite the compas sion of the House by speaking of the poor suitors' fund. He said that fund was burdened to the extent of a rail lion for these compensations. The only fund they had to deal with was the Suitor's Fee Fund. That fund was taxed to the amount of 77,000/., received by the six clerks, the fee clerks, and the other clerks, whose offices were abolished. Unless the Legis lature had interposed, the fees could not have been abolished. The compensations, he admitted, were being extended to between 46,000/. and 47,000/. It was agreed that it was just some compensation should be given to the perspns who held those offices, and he knew that many lion. Members opposite would agree that the expense of defraying those compensations ought to be borne by the Consolidated Fund, and not by the poor suitors, and the object of the present Bill was to decrease the charges which now pressed upon the suitors. The sum awarded for compensation amounted to be tween 45,0001. and 46,0001. In every case which 'was set down for uial those clerks were entitled to a fee of 6s. Bd., which brought in a sum of 15,0001. There was also a similar fee to be paid upon every warrant of taxa tion, which amounted to 8,0001. These fees had been abolished by the Lord Chancellor, and therefore the sum of 23,0001. had to be provided for and in lieu of that the price of each folio copy was raised from three-halfpence to threepence-halfpenny. Under the old system the whole per eentage was 77,319/., under the present it was 79,0711. or 2481. in favour of the suitors. But there was another point to be considered with respect to this question of compensation, and that was that before seventy years had elapsed the necessity for this com pensation would be at an end, and the dividend upon the suitors' fund would give a further reduction of other fees. Had his Hon. and Learned Friend opposite, or even the House, more information upon this subject than those excellent persons who recommended this measure, and who had such extensive experience? If it were necessary to pass such a mea sure, he trusted no person in the House would for an instant refuse allowing fair compensation to those per sons whose future prospects and hopes in life *ere about being injured by the repeal of an Act of Parlia ment. His Hon. and Learned Friend in his speech left a sting behind, because ho said there was some motive with the parties who brought in this measure to pass it hastily and clandestinely. But let them see how the offices had been bestowed. His (the Solicitor-General's) Hon. and Learned Friend was right in saying that the Master of the Rolls had the appointment of the six clerks, and of the clerks of the writs and the clerks of the re- cords, the latter of whom, when appointed under this Act, would get salaries of 1,200/. per annum each. There were also six taxing officers, whose appointment lay with the Lord Chancellor ; but instead of exercising that right, the Noble and Learned Lord vested it in the Chancery Commissioners, who selected three solicitors and three old clerks of the Court. Had his Hon. and Learned Friend satisfied the House that the framers of this Bill had used no proper caution in the matter ? (Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition) = or that, after the repeal of the former laws, it was improper to render fair compensation? He should trespass no further upon the attention of the House than merely to express his hope that he had stated enough to induce the House to come to the conclusion that the motion of his Hon. and Learned Friend was perfectly useless, and that they would oppose it. Mr. JERVIS said with 6spect to the nature of the compensation to be given to the claimants and its amount his Hon. and - Learned Friend who just sat down had added nothing new, but had informed the House by whom and under what circumstances the Bill had been brought in, and had also stated the construction given by the Chancellor to the Act. There certainly was no charge of commission against the Noble and Learned Lord, but rather of omission, for he allowed others to act for him and to construe the Act, which, being him self specially authorised to do, he was bound to look to. All the profession knew that their clients were bound to pay at least five per cent. for those fees, and what his Learned Friend near. him wanted was to have an in quiry to lull the suspicion and distrust which he prevailed against that measure, but they were told that none of the parties had the slighest wish for concealment, and yet they refused any explanation. He felt sure the House would not allow such a precedent as this Bill would afford, to be now introduced for the first time. It would truly be a most dangerous precedent, if the officers, who were the guar dians of the public purse, were to be allowed impunity from investigation. He thought those offices, which it was now proposed to abolish, ought to have been long since swept away. The six clerks originally were per sons who had been admitted to those courts with a pa tent of office, and all solicitors who had business should have it carried on in their name, although they did all the work themselves. Each general y, in consequence of the increase of business, had ten assistants, and some times as many as fifteen or twenty were allowed. His Hon. and Learned Friend opposite had said, that those six clerks had the right of selling their offices. He (Mr. Jervis) denied that, because by a statute of Edward 111. it was declared penal for any person to sell offices connected with the administration of justice. Those sixty clerks had clients amongst the attorneys, and they made bargains with them for a share in their profits. 'The waiting clerks were mere common clerks of the sixty clerks, and they had no more right to com pensationan attorney.—(Hear, hear.) The sixty clerks were 8s for allowed fees on the taxation of costs, and. o than any law stationer who was employed 'by come on.—(Hear, hear.) In the time of for each of there used to be a great number . of causes, stood which they received 6s. Bd., if they only _ on the every cause that stood on the paper, though g ijo t r f d t &Ed; Eldon o h n ea th r: ay r o w n . w ul h d ich th i e t paper? But what did Lord Lyndhurst do? What did he do to show his opinion of the vested interests those clerks were supposed to have? He actually, before the passing of this Act, made an order by which they were 6 th s. ns Bd ii e f t. i p e r , living g ra ts e lt s h ( e e H m e e n a a ly r t , once of 10,0001. a-year. hear.) Wuld he do this if he considered 1,300,000L-(Cheers.) , e o l oo aim i.:_c s fo c r h e e o e m rs p .) ensa T ti h o e n were made ad o e r v e n e dt en s os te d d ured it?—(Hear, hear.) Yet it was on —(Hear, i royhH e kut c ;r ihn e g ; o: e :ug waiting clerks were copying clerks of th e s i xty clerks, a nd they were :paid lid. a folio out of the 10d. a folio which the sixty clerks received. Why what right had they to this? l was a mere monopoly?—(Hear.) What more right had they to receive this money: than any copying clerk who was able to do his business?- --(Hear.) Was it right that the attorneys in London, Who had an interest in the matter,. should be allowed to settle with the sixty clerks, and that Mr. Wainwright, who got 7,000/. a-year by the Bill, should be allowed'to draw it up. It was said that it was hard to see men who held good situations turned out of thefr offices and walk through the streets in poverty ; but was the public to suffer for that ? Were those who were entitled to no compensation to obtain large sums from the public purse?—(Hear, hear.) The public had a right to com plain that they received this compensation without any inquiry. how was the Act of Parliament introduced ? It was said to be approved of by the Law Association in London, which was composed of attorneys, who must at least be :supposed to have an interest in the matter. It for the first time introduced a new principle.— (Hear, hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend had even gone to Ireland for a precedent. But he failed; for in the case he instanced the officers compensated were officers under patent, and their offices were saleable by law.—(Hear, hear.) There were six clerks, and not sixty clerks.—(Hear, hear.) He said whether this Bill had been in the House for months instead of hours, it was the duty of those who brought it in to read it, and if they read it they must see that a new principle had been for the first time introduced. He was quite sure that the present Chief Baron of the Exchequer would say, on introducing the Bill, that it introduced a new principle of compensation if he was aware of it ; but the Bill was hurried on through the House with inde cent haste. It was brought into the House on the 29th of July, and it was read a first time on the same day. It was read a second time before the Bill was printed. On the 2d of August it was committed, when, for the first time, the compensation clauses were added—(Hear, hear)—and it was not till the third reading that those clauses were made known. He had, therefore, a right to say that the Bill was passed in indecent haste ; and he was quite sure that if the new principle intro duced had been pointed out to the Chan cellor of ..:the Exelte,quer, or to the Right Hon. Gentleman at ilyk i head of the Government, they would notebave sa*ctioned it.—(Hear, hear.) If it had been said to then4l6l it was desirable to abolish those offices, they would not, looking to the interest of the public, have allowed such a Bill to pass in such a manner.—(Hear, hear.) All his lion. and Learned Friend wanted now was an inquiry. They did not want to alter the Bill altogether. All they wanted to see was, whether it was good. The six clerks were entitled to compensation, but there was no provision for pensions after, death. But who were the sworn clerks ? (Hear hear.) Was the nature of their office inquired into ? Was that an office that could be sold ? It never had been sold, unless by some evasion of the statute. Had they inquired into the amount of their fees ? What had been done with regard to those fees ? When equity business was transacted in the Court of Exchequer, all the officers of that court were paid from the public funds, and now, after their business was transferred to the side clerks in the Court of Chancery, the public was to pay again —(Hear)—that was, the public was to pay twice for the abolition of the same office.--(Hear, hear.) By the 12th section of the sth and 6th Victoria, chap. 103, the Lord Chancellor was empowered to inquire who were entitled to receive compensation. Did the Lord Chancellor do so ? Let them inquire if it was so. That was all they wanted.—(Hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General said the Lord Chancel lor was fettered, and that he could not give less than three-fourths. Who were to blame for this ? Was it not the Legislature who passed such an Act ?—(Hear, hear.) Upon what principle were the agents to be com pensated ? If they were justly entitled to it, what a crying injustice bad been done to the clerks in the Court of Exchequer. He defied any person to say that there was a legal claim for compensation. But it was said that it was but an act of justice towards those persons to pay them, and that it would be very hard if they were not paid. Perhaps he (Mr. Jervis) also thought it would be hard, but was this a ground on which those who were responsible for the public purse should act ?—(Hear, hear.) lie would ask, therefore, whether they were prepared to say that any man, who was a mere writing clerk, liable to dismissal at a moment's notice at the will of his master, should be entitled to compensation by an annuity for life.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that this was a subject which called for inquiry in the House of Commons. If there had been inquiry in this case, the compensation would not have exceeded 20,0001. instead of 46,0001., which was now paid. In the meantime, the fees which were abolished, or to be abolished, were in creased in amount, even though they might be changed in form and in name. Were they to be surprised that the solicitors who had to charge these fees in the costs, should complain and require that the system should be altered, and that the fees should not be so heavily increased to pay these compensations ? The cost of passing the Act was charged to the Suitors' Fund. Had not the suitors a right to complain of that?—(Hear, hear.) Was it just of the Lord Chancellor and the Government to put the expenses of the Act of Parliament for granting thateem pensation to the charge of the Suitors' Fund ?—(Hear, hear.) To say the least of it, he would insist that this was at least a subject for inquiry, and unless it were granted the public would not be satisfied. Mr. R. YORKE had been a Member of the House of Commons when this Bill was passed, and he cordially supported the motion, of his Hon Friend, the Member for Kinsale. Sir J. GRAHAM was obliged to state to the house the reason why he opposed this motion. He admitted that time did not sanctify an abuse. But it was to be recollected that these offices had been held for a time dating a,s far back as Charles the First ; and when Mr. Pemberton Leigh spoke from the other side of tha House, in 1940, which had been alluded to by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who now introduced the subject to the house, he (Mr. Pemberton Leigh) admitted that the officers to be displaced were entitled to large and libe ral compensation. When the Bill, which was prepared by Mr. Wainwright, was introduced, his Noble and Learned Friend now . on the woolsack, acquiescing in all the statements of Mr. P. Leigh, laid it down that the officers were entitled to compensation. The Bill passed through the House of Lords, having received the appro bation of Lord Langdale, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and Mr. Sharpe, and was sent down to this House. The Hon. and Learned Member for Chester had said that, in the I Bill there were provisions quite unexampled—that it gave compensation for the sale of offices in the adminis tration of justice. But, on referring to the Bill itself, it would be eeen, from the fourteenth clause, that the object of the Bill was to put an end to the sale of offices, and the fact was that it had done so. The sums awarded to the six clerks in Ireland, under the sanction of Lord Cottenham, were expressly declared to be as compensa tion for the privilege which they had enjoyed of the transfer or sale of office during life. The , Act had not been unfairly obtained, or smuggled through Parliament. On the contrary, it had been pre pared and e xamined with the greatest care. It could not be said truly that this measure was smug gled through Parliament or surreptitiously obtained. The next question was, had the provisions of the Bill been properly carried into execution ? The Lord Chancellor, on making the award of compensation to be given, called to his assistance the Master of of the Rolls and Vice-Chancellor Wigram, and all the compensations that had been given received their sanction, and were, inva riably, the minimum of the Act of Parliament. 6,0001. a-year had already been remitted from the Suitors' Fund, and in the course of 20 years 45,0001. would be re mitted. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by hoping that the House would not accede to the motion. Mr. WILLIAMS announced the whole matter as a scandalous job. It had been said that his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had supported the Bill. He (Mr. Williams) was sure ho would never have done so had he been properly made acquainted with the provi sions of the measure. Unless there was a new system of management of the public business, it would be impossible, he was afraid, to prevent jobs of this kind. The public were entitled to protection from this system, and her Majesty's Government, in defence of the Act, ought to allow inquiry into it. Mr. C. BULLER was prepared to defend the vote he should give to her Majesty's Ministers against the first part of the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Kinsale. The House, in looking to the great question of law reform ought not to be illiberal in compensation; pecuniary consideration ought never to interfere with. great practical good —(Hear)—and acting upon that prin ciple, he should vote against the motion. This measure had been denounced as a job ; now he knew the whole of this measure proceeded from gentlemen who were among some of the most sincere law reformers in the country.—(Hear, hear.) Upon this Act no ques tion had arisen as to its working, while upon other Acts the greatest question had arisen. The latter part of the motion he thought was well worthy of the consideration of the House. That part of the motion which proposed an inquiry into, the subject of fees in the courts of law and equity was entitled to sup port. In those courts one hundred persons had the control of 300,000/. Ninety-ono of those were in the law courts, and they were subject to no check whatever with respect to that money. In the courts of equity the persons appointed to receive the fees wero required to make an affidavit with respect to them. Many of the fee-takers in the law courts were small salaried men, and therefore there were great temptations before them. t Another very important question was thepecessi y of taking fees at all in the courts of l _ he ar .) He thought the whole system required inquiry and re vision, and he thought the Government would do well to institute an inquiry into the subject. Mr. WARBLTRTON said he recollected reading in the memoirs of the Duke de St. Simon, that when a I proposition was submitted to him for law reform, he said that it could neyer..be accomplished, inasmuch as there wero so manypethans whose livelihood depended upon those law institutichs. Thus was law reform frustated in the,tirne of LOUIS XIV. Now his Hon. Friend the Member for Lislekard had fallen into this kind of tender heartedness, and would not give his consent to law reform unless an unlimited compensation accompanied it. In that respect he (Mr. W ar b urton) could not agree with his Hon. Friend. Wh y, i f they gave this immense compensation to parties, whether they wereent t i h tl e ed u t b o ii i n t or not, it would only h ave the effect of disgusting with respect t o a ll attempts at law reform.Now p with respect to these fees, about which there had been so much discussion. It must be recollected that these fees had been, on several occasions, altered and interfered with by several of the late Lord Chancellors, and yet the compenstion for these fees had been fixed at the highest point. This was a course of law reform which would disgust the public. No one would object to com pensation being given, provided that compensation was fair and just ; and, therefore, he thought the Govern ment ought to support a proposition for inquiry into the subject. Mr. WATSON, in reply, said that the Solicitor- General had stated that he (Mr. Watson) had no right to interfere in this subject. Now ho was prepared to show that he had this right, inasmuch as the Act of Parliament provided that the returns of these compen sations should be laid on the table of the House. Why was that provision made, if it was not to give the House the power of investigation? It now appeared that Mr. Wainwright—for his name appeared at last—had re ceived 3,0001. for preparing the Bill for giving compen sation. They might as well make ,the felon pay for the -- gallows on which they hanged him as make the unfor tunate suitors in Chancery pay this amount. Ile said there had been no sate of offices. The Right Hon. Baronet said there had been a sale. Issite was joind upon that point, and a C omm i ttee ought to decide. —(Cheers.) The Irish case was perfectly different— there a patent office was in question —an office which was legally the subject of purchase and sale. The taxing masters in the Court of Chancery had 2,000/. a-year, while the taxing masters in the courts of common law, who had a great deal more to do, had 1,2001. a-year. When the Bill had been brought 'for ward, theßight Hon. Baronet had never told the House that the compensation would amount to 7,5001. a-year during the lives of the parties, and 2,500 L a-year for some years after their death. The Hon. and L.tarned Member for Liskcard said that if the motion passed it would put a stop to all law reform. He should suspect for the future all persons who talked of law reform who did not vote for this motion. He had showed the House that these fees were not worth ten days' purchase. 'Mk y had been altered by Lord Hardwicke, and one great feu had been entirely abolished by Lord Lyndhurst within one month after he had been first appointed to office. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority against the motion.... .-IG , POOR LAWS (IRELAND.) Sir D. NORREYS moved the appointment of the following Committee on Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts— Sir Denham Norrevs, Lord - Eliot, Mr. More O'Ferrall, Mr. Young, Mr. 1 4 rencb, - ViseOunt . 33ernard, Mr. John O'Connell, Lord Claud Hamilton, Sir Henry Winston Barron Mr. Shaw, Lord Courtenay, Mr. Vesey, Sir Edmund Hayes, Mr. Bellew, and Mr. E. P. Shirley. This question was ill a very peculiar position, and he could not understand the grounds on which it was in tended to oppose the appointment of this Committee. The poor-law in Ireland a as an experiment, and all that was asked for was inquiry. He denied that his object was to procure the repeal of the poor-laws. The alteration in the poor-laws in England was an experi ment. Some years after the experiment had been insti tuted the House had granted an inquiry. Why should they refuse an inquiry into the working of the poor-laws in Ireland ? an d y e t t h ey h a d virtually refused to do so. The conduct of the Govern ment had been most unstatesmanlike. They had, in the first instance, granted this Committee, because they had been badgered into it by his lion. Friend the Member for Kildare, and then, because his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Dublin said "No," they had refused it. They were about to rescind their own act by re sisting the nomination of a Committee. Some half dozen of Members opposed it, and therefore the Go vernment thought themselves justified in opposing it. It' the Government thought the poor-law worked well and beneficially in Ireland, they should not have supported the appointment of a Committee; but if they really con sidered that the matter required revision, they should have granted it. The public mind in Ireland was sa much engaged on another subject, that its attention waa diverted from the consideration of the poor-laws; hot there was a strong feeling in that country that many of the provisions of that law required remodelling. He looked upon the poor-laws as now established in a. manner that would prevent their ever being done away with, but he thought that there were several defects that might be remedied. He wished that the Com mittee should be appointed, to consider the general work ing of the system, and see how far it was likely to meet the objects for which it was intended. Mr. BELLEW opposed the motion. He thought , that at the present time no advantage would be deriver from the proposed inquiry. He complained that the Poor-law Commissioners had not sufficiently studied the wishes of the inhabitants of the people of Ireland, unit he regretted also that no attempt had been made to legislate on medical charities. But he thought that within a year or two from this time a Committee would be much more useful than it could be at present. Sir J. GRAHAM said the Hon. Member for Mallow having made his speech, he hoped he would now b a somewhat more at ease, and not press his motion. Th e House would recollect hat he had, at the close of the last sessicn, given an assurance that if Irish Peers de sired inquiry on this subject he would yield to their wishes, and that be had given a similar assurance, with respect to Irish Members in that House_ A great number of the Irish Peers were adverse to the inquiry sought for by the Hon. Baronet the Member for Mallow, as also was his Hon. Friend the Member fur the Queen's County, and a number of other Irish commoners. He was decidedly of opinion that the proposition of the Hon. Baronet, for a Committee, would be attended with not the slightest !practical or beneficial result at this: period of the session. The questions proposed to lea entered upon in that Committee were so multifarious and difficult, that the more he considered the motion of the Hon. Baronet he was confirmed in this opinion. Tie WAS most anxious to allow a fair trial to the measure of last. year, and to be influenced by the opinions of thosta Members of this House who were connected with Irelana. Mr. F. FRENCH supported the motion of his Roca Friend for a Committee. Such a Committee had been sanctioned on a former occasion by the Right Hon. Ba ronet, and he (Mr. French) certainly thought it was now rather a singular mode, when it suited his will and plea sure, to call upon the House to stultify itself by rescind ing the opinion they had expressed on that occiaeleas. Would the Right lion. Baronet (notwithstanding lite vic tory last night) now maintain unaltered a law, which tended by its operation to increase every existing evil of which Ireland hitherto complained, because some lion. Members from Ireland said that amongst their con-. stituencies there existed no desire for a change with re spect to the Irish poor-laws? But he would challenge them to show that in a vast majority of the parish es of Ireland the operation of those laws was not attended with the greatest detriment.—(Hear, hear.) Suea must be the opinion of any one who paid the slight. est attention to the spirit and tone of the Irish press. (The Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from a letter of the Rev. Mr. O'Malley, who had been an advocate of poor-laws, to show they had not worked well in Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman then went on to show that Mr. Nicholls was quite incorrect in his calculations as to the expense of building the poor-houses, and the number of persons who would be likely to go into them.) A petition presented to the House, from the guardians of the South Dublin Union, stated that the cost of: each pauper in the Mendicity, before the establishmetta of the poor-laws, was 3/. 13s. 10d., while, under the pew, laws, the cost was 71. 16s. This law was not fitted to the habits and feelings of the people, and they would agitate against it from one part of the country to the other. Mr. SHAW said he would state a few simple facts which, he thought, would remove some of the erroneous impressions which, it seemed, had been taken up with regard to the working of the law. There was not one: single member of the Commission upon either side thn.t was not in favour of adopting the law. lie, for one, b a see never thought that the system was perfect ; bne Ise thought that some further trial should be given before any attempt to change it was made. In a large pro portion of the unions the system was working satisfac torily—that was, the largest portion of the rates were collected, and the paupers were provided for. Ou the 25th of March last the balance against the unions was only 13,0001. He thought this was a fact which ought to have been in fairness stated, and be recommended that,, in the present state of the unions, it was not desirable to, do anything which would interfere with the efforts ofr those who were using their best exertions to carry thee law out fairly. Mr. MORE O'FERRALL said that the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, hal unjustly, and from his own imagination, accused him tor one of the persons who opposed the introduction of any poor-law into Ireland. On the contrary, when he was a member of the Commission, he had not opposed the introduction of a system of poor-laws. But ho was in a minority in the Commission, in opposition to the report on which the present law was. founded. He never voted in favour of this law, although L a Member of the late Government at the time when it: came before the House, and, rather than vote for it, het l had placed his office in the hands of his Noble Friena l then at the Government, because h e was convincoo that the Bill was not suited to th e feelings increaser haute.. w But, eu i ' a g of the people of Ireland, and that it would ncreaw alto evils which it was designed to r emed y . measure became law, he neve r attempted to start an resistance to it. Was it not r ather too bad to tell 'aim he think ; to bu u t p t sheetymight dep en d the -law ? H wa e s w o i n s e he o d f upon it, if they did not a mend the present law, they t t o h odsoe no wh would cause the upsetting o f t h at which, would prove s o uch wi worse than a poor-law. If the Govermr,ent were deter mined not to grant the Committee, upean them must rest the responsibility ; for, if °nee tho'y forced the people to resist the law, they might depowil upon it they would have some difficulty to stop that, 're s i s t ance. Sir J. GRAHAM explaine:a Mr. REDDINGTON that he • could not conceive: any grounds on which, an inquiry could be refuses. Great doubts were eutertained throughout Ireland, but particularly in the west of Ireland, as to the operation of the law. But though he thought that a Select Commit tee ought to be granted, he admitted that much was to be corrected at home, particularly on the part of the guar dians, which legislation could not reach. Lord J. RUSSELL said his opinion was, after listen ing to the objections which had been urged for the refu-• sal of a Select Committee, that unless tire principle of: the law was entirely vicious, the beea course to be adopted was to leave to the Government the question of inquiry into the abuses in the admirdstration of the arear —to send all complaints to the Sec'eetary of State for the- Home Department, who would, 4 4.nvestigate the charges. made against the Commission. s, and who could be askedi in the House what the foiendations of those complaints ware, and what was the result of his inquiries. Having so done, there might fame a time when a Select Com mittee would be advisable ; but at present the objections. made by the Honourable Gentleman confirmed Wise that the Government took the right course. On the part of those Hon. Gentlemen who spoke in favour of the Committee, there was an evident blending of two questions. Some spoke against the principle of the law, and others spoke against its administration. With regard to the appointment of a , Committee as the law was entirely new in Ireland , and as many of the pers ons who had to carry it into effect were unused to it, and as. it appeared those who were hostile to the law were be-• coming snore reconciled to it, he thought that thalr should wait for some time. With regard to what the Hon. Gentleman had said on what had always been a sore subject with him (Mr. R. French), he meant the appointment of Mr. Nicholls to go to Ireland, he would state the solo reason of that appointment. When the report of the Commissioners appointed to consider the question had been first presented, ho had asked the opinion of several of those practically acquainted with the working of the poor-laws on the subject of that report, and they had all stated that the report ze.one wouldi not make a satisfactory foundation for the atroductioN of a system of poor-laws in Ireland. He the n considered , ' how best the report might be modified. Ile did not throw it aside entirely, for it would be seen th 4 • many of its re