The Sun. — London, England, 1857-07-07 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT IMr. Bidder, who had been appointed at the request of Mr. Lewis, and whose duty was to decide the exact limits of the claim of the crown. Thee xi -teu co of the railway did not alter the rights of the Crown, which re mained the same, subject to the deci-iou of the arbitra tor. So far as Nr. Lewis was concerned he thought he bad estal lished that there had been no hardship on him, rind no unnecessary delay. He now came to the case of the Lianelly Docks, and the noble sari said it was a great hardship on them after 30, years possession to have the claim made rgainst them. But surely it was the duty of the dock company to take care that the land on which they built was conveyed to Clem by a proper title Row would the noble earl like to have the rights which he had to the shore of the port of Liverpool, and which were not his but those of the Crown—the lands being granted to his family by th' Crown—encroached upon ? How child the noble earl, if the Crown had no right to the foreshore, estat•lish his right to a property which brought him in 90,000/.1 He hoped that with his view of the case the noble earl would be prepared to abandon his rights to the foreshore in question. (A. laugh.) With regal(' to the law of the case, he should leave that to be defended by the noble and learned lords who were concerned in considering and giving judgment on the case, but he trusted that he had shown that, so far as the Crown was concerned, no new rights had been claimed, and the Government would have neglected its duty if it had not preserved the rights to which the Crown was entitled. HOUSE. OF LORDS.-(YESTERDAY.) CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS TO INDIA. The Eirl of CARDIGAN, having referred to the seri ous disturbances that had taken place in India, and to the circumstance of a large number of troops being about to be sent there from this country, wished to know whether the reports he had heard were true, that it was intended to send out the troops in sailing vessels in preference to screw steamers. _ _ _ Lord PANNIURE said the Government had given great consideration to the best means of conveying troops to India, and as much difficulty existed in ob taining steam vessels of sufficient size at the present moment to accommodate the Expedition, it bad been de cided to employ first-rate sailing vessels for that purpose. As the time occupied by steamen in coaling would be saved, it was expected with favourable winds that those sailing vessels would make a quicker passage than screw steamers. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said his experience was in accordance with the determination of the Govern ment in respect to the greaterspeed ofsailing vessels than steamers t 3 India. The present period was most fa vourable for sailing vessels. IMPORTATION OF FREE NEGROES. Lord BROUGHAM again called the attention of their lordships to the expedition fitting out at Marseilles by the French Government for the importation of Free Negroes into their colonies. He regretted that a sovereign whose antecedents were so opposed to everything cal culated to give the slightest encouragement to the slave trade should countenance an act which was so cal culated to lead to a revival of that horrid traffic. Lord WYNFORD said that it might be recollected that last session he warned certain Scotch proprietors not to attempt to improve the docks and ports of Scotland before they had satisfied themselves that no demand of this kind could be made on them by the Crown. He had then in his eye not only the subject-matter of these petitions but a number of other cases in which the de partment of Woods and Forests had cruelly pressed on proprietors, and there were numbers of instances in which the proprietors of land on the sea shore and on the banks of navigable rivers were not able tl deal with their property in consequence of the course taken by the Woods and Forests. He would not go further into the matter, but would merely say that he was surprised to hear the noble lord say that a verdict had been given for the Crown in one case, when in point of fact the case -was settled by a compromise. He was also surprised to hear that Mr. Lewis had submitted his claim to arbi tration since Mc. Rendell's death ; for it was stated in the petition presented that day that no other arbitrator had been appointed. The property in question, to his knowledge, lay far above high-water mark. The Earl of SHAFrESBURY ex2lained the objects of the deputation that a few days ago waited on Lord Palmerston with reference to the subject. The Earl of MALMESBURY did not believe that the Emperor of the French would do anything that was calculated to revive the slave trade. _ The Earl of CLARENDON said he was of opinion that such an attempt could no t b e ma d e w ith ou t having that effect. SOUND DUES BILL. This bill passed through committee. SITE OF Wo'RKHOUSES BILL. This bill passed through committee. THE LAND BETWEEN HIGH-WATER AND LOW-WATER MARS. The Earl of DERBY presented two petitions com plaining of the rights of the crown between high-water and low-water mark. He slid he was afraid he should but imperfectly do justice to the merits of the petitions, seeing that they involved many serious and complicated questions. At the same time he hoped he should be able to show that the matter of the petitions was deserving the attention of the house. The subject-matter was a claim on the part of the crown to the land between high and low water mark round the whole of the United Kingdom, and not only the claim, but the manner of enforcing it. The two petitions were from different parties, and some of the alegations were different, but as the subject matter was the same, and the principal details were common to both, and related to the same locality, he woad state the substance of both at the same time. The first petition was from a gen tleman of property named Lewis, residing upon the coast of Carmarthenshire, which county he at one time repre sented in Parliament. The other was from the Llanelly Railway and D..ck Company, which waa e-tahlished in the year 1828. The river in que:tion was of considerable as WO, and at low water showed a large expanse of sand. The banks outside the sand consisted of mud and land occasionally flooded at high spring tides, but generally partaking of the character of salt marshes. About two. thirds tee way up the river was the property now in dis pute. Up to the year 1845 Mr. Lewis and his predeces sors had been in undisputed p , ssessien of the property, and had exercised over it all the rights of ownership, and had leased a portion of it to a company, who had sunk a shaft for the purpose Of procuring coal. So long ago as 1807 and 1812 two acts were passed from which these marshes were excluded as being the private proper y of Mr. Lewis. In the year 1845 an information was field by the Attorney-Gen2ral, which recited that all the sod, so far as the tide flowed, belonged to her Maje•ty, a n d claimed for the Crown up to the highest point reached by spring tides, including that portion of the land where the shaft had been sunk for coal. Mr. Lewis lost no time in filing an answer to the information, and availed him self of the assistance of Mr. Bethel), and in 1851 the Master of the Rolls decreed that the Crown should in one case proceed to trial at law. Tile Rol of Ca aelcr, it appeared, had auerted his right as lord of ;be manor, but the matter was compromised between the Ci-onn and the Earl of Cawdor, and the Crown then turned again , t the owners of the adjoieing soil. In the case of the Earl of Cawdor he believed some money was paid on account of the compromise. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the doctrine laid down that evening was rather startling, for the noble earl set out on the assumption that the crown had the right to the disputed shore, but that the question was whether it had been properly asserted ; and he gave as one reason why the right should not be asserted, Gat the crown had the shore, not for its own benefit, but Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY remarked that be had never heard of any money being paid. The Earl of DERBY resumed—The Crown renewed its proceeding against Mr. Lewie, and two other creuin stances occurred which made the matter of still greater importance. One of them was that Mr. Bethel]. became Solicitor-General, and teen Sir R. Betbell's services were claimed on behalf of the Crown, he havirg previowdy be come acquainted with all the fact.; oa the ether side. In 1847 an act was obtained by which the South Wales Railway was authorised to be made, and its construc tion', as it ran along the shore, materially improved the condition of the salt marshes, and these were the lands which the Crown now claimed as being between hi g h and low water mark. In 1854 the Lord Chanced made a decree that the landward boundary was the medium line of high water of all tides occurring in the ordinary course of nature. The question had ben raised whether the right, did not extend to the wry highest point reached by the highest tides. Mr. Recde:l was entrusted with the task of laying down a line to de flee the right, but he bad sines died, and the matter was still pending, and the petitioner seas debarred for an indefinite period from the management of what he , considered his property. Another question arose of very serious moment—was it in the power of the Crown to lay down certain marks which should form a line between the rights of the Crown and the rights of other parties ? Because if the Crown had the right claimed, it might interpose another proprietor between the posses sor of properly and the sea. The petitioner complained that while the proceedings had been going on, a tenant of his had been served with a notice horn tee Woods and Forests, requiring him to take a lease from the Crown. He &so complained of the delay which had taken place, and that, whilet he had prescription in his favour, he was eompeled to light on the part of the public the question of tile extent of the Crown rights. The case of the Rail way and Dock Company was still stronger ti an that of Mr. Lewis. That company having obtained an act in 1328, formed a railway and dock, and, having been in texistence for nearly 30 years, they had been served with a notice stating that a portion of the land taken by them was the property of the Crown, and that they must come to an agreement with the Crown and take a is..se from the Crown. Now, if a period of 60 years was required as security to the Crewn, then there was no harbour ( r dock which Lad been wale at private expense within the last 60 years under the sanction of an act of P.wiiarnent which was not liable to be proceeded against by ti:e Crown. This was a questi we therefore, whice affected the whole country. Ile believed the claim to be one un known to the law of England No person would dispute that within certain limits the crown had ci,ouinion over the soil between low and high water. But it was mater for grave consideration whether the cr , ven had tee right to %ell or make a profitable transaction by way of com promise or lase, or whether the_property was vested in the crown for the pubde interest, for the protection of the public, for the prevention id encroachment on the sea coast by individual proprietors so a-; to cut off the pain from its uwe It was laid down by some of the rid authorities that the right of the crown in these re-poets "is net for the crown itself, but for eecurMg to the public certain privileges between high and low water mark;" and "if the King were to make the seashore a source of 'pri vate ssle and profit, he would be acting contrary to the trusts vested in the crown by the cowmen law." Now what was the crown doing in this case ? It was in terfering to compel persons, under the risk of legal proceedings, to come t 4 a compromise, or to accept a lease under the crown, and making a profit of the pioperty of the crown, contrary, to the common law of England. (dear.) There were two cases illus trating the restriction imposed on the exercise of this power by the Crown. In the Gosport case it was declared that the land between low and high water mark might be granted to the corporation, subject to the public right of passage ; and at Portsmouth, when certain public buildings badibeen erected by the corporation, between high and low water mark, under a grant from the Crown, they were abated by a decree, inasmuch as they interfered with the flex and reflux of the tide into the harbour, Now, according to the common law, although the Crown had a dominion over those portions of the soil, it was for the benefit of the public, and the Crown bad no right to lease it to any private individual whatever without the authority of Parliament. There were two important questions involved in the matter Bow before their lordships : first, the nature and ex tent of the rights of the Crown ; whethe r the Crown was an absolute possess or or exercised a trust for the protection of the public ; and, secondly, the manner in which the claims of the Crown were now enforced, setting aside every title short of 60 years, awe e ,o, founded on express conditions and powers laid down by act of Parliament assented to by the Crown itself. If such a principle as that were to be admitted no dock or harbour company would be safe within a period of 60 y e ars, even under the security of an act of Parliament. The petitioners prayed for the appointment of a select committee, but he would not press that point on their lordships at present. Ile trusted, however, that th e Government would take steps to quiet the apprehensions which prevailed throughout the country, and would set matters at rest, by passing a declaratory law, stating what are the rights of the Crown between high and low water mark. (Hear.) Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said the attention of the Crown was celled to many encroachments on the coast of C armart h ens hi re se veral years ago, and that, 'iter the subject had been under discussion for a con siderable time, Sir William Folett, the Attorney-Ge neral of the Government of which the noble earl was a diAinguiallecl member, filed an information against these parties in the year 1845. In the case tf the Earl of Cawdor a verdict was found for the Crown, and no pecuniary payment was made with regard to the case of Mr. Lewis. It was in 1855 referred to the arbitration of Mr. Pendell, who was directed to define the nicaning of high and low water mark, according to the terms of the decision of the Lo r d Chancelio_r, as Mr. Baron Alderson and Mr. Justice MaelewVhseteadrbbiY tration proceeded until Mr. Rendell's deatb, and he held in his hand a communication which showed that he had been succeeded by Mr. Bidder. for the use of the public. It seemed strange to say that the crown, which held the land for the use of the public, should not assert its right, for the more strenuously it asserted it the more it would seek to preserve the land for the use of the public. If the crown allowed pro perty of this kind to be encroached on year after year, and did not claim it for the use of the public, the crown deserted its duty, and, in fact, gave up what belonged to the public to the neighbouring proprietors. The noble earl said that the assertion of those rights was in consistent with the making of docks, and of those in this case especially ; but if the dock company had a title which was good against the crown, why was it not set up in answer to the information ! When he (the Lord Chancellor) was one of the law officers of the crown, he, in conjunction with his noble friend the Lord Chief Justice, was consulted with regard to the rights of the crown with respect to this question, ' and they gave an opinion, which, however, was not acted on until the government of Sir R. Peel, when Sir Wm. Follett gave direc ions to have iniormatiene filed. What the cause of the delay was he did not know, but the trial did not coma on for several yeere afterwards ; but at length it was decided that the crown was only asserting its light to the " littus marl." The matter came before him (the Lord Chancellor) by way of appeal, to de cide what the " littus marl" was. The civil law car ried the doctrine very much farther than was ever re cognised by the law of England; and the matter be ieg one involving a question of common law, he ob tained the assistance of Mr. Justice Mauls and Mr. Baron Alderson, who heard the case with him. It was most elaborately argued, and they came to the cenclu sion that the rights of the crown were bounded by the middle line between the highest and lo ;vest point to which the spring tides reached. Then came the point, ho ,v wag that line to be drawn ? That matter came before hint by petition, and it was arranged, with the consent of both parties, that an engineer should be named, who, with the decision of the court in his hand, should draw the rtquired line; and Mr. hooded was selected. If Mr. Bendel( had been guilty of any delay, it was Mr. Lev.is'e fault for not forcing him on ; but no complaint was made of his proceedings, When Mr. Infidel died it was necessary to appoint another arbitra tor, and Mr. Bidder wag appointed. With regard to Mr. Bidder's basing been appointed with Mr. Lewis's appro bation, he had in his hand a letter from Mr. Lowis's solicitor, in which he stated th a t h e was w ili ng to ac cept Dr. Bidt'er's arbitration. What had been the cause of the delay he (the Lord Chancellor) did not know ; but the matter stood thus—that the crown on its own part, or rather on the part of the public, bad as serted certain rights, in which it had been successful. The Duke of BUCCLEUCII said that as regarded the proceedings of the Woods and Fire-ts, there were many complaints of the vexatious manner in which this pan of the busines of the department was conducted. He knew of a case in which a disputed right of this kind had been suspended over a proprietor and his father for years and years, and no decisi n had been come to. It would be a desirable thing for the public if the Woods and F,;rests were compelled to bring these matters to a speedy trial. Lord CA.MPBELL was tin lerstood to protest against the drctrine which had been laid down, and which was calcu!ated to produce uncertainty where none existed with regard to the rights of the Crhwn, which was un questionably entitled to the soil of the sea shore between high and low water mark. Lord BROUGHAM thought there ought to be a me dium bet een the rigorous and the capricious exercise of these rights of the Crown. Tins was not, however, a subject for leeilation, as the rights of the Grow❑ were undeniable ; but the Crow❑ could only deal with them so as to betofit the public. At. the t-ame time there ap peared to have been unusual delay in these proceedings. Lord WENSLEYDALE agreed with his noble friend on the woolsack, and his noble and Learned frieLd, that it would be entir.-ly useless to legislate on this subject, as the law I% a 3 perfectly clear. The seashore beleted to the Crown for the benefit of the public; but there was a dlfficulty in interpreting what was the foreshore, and the question came before the Lord Chan cellor, who, with the aesietance of two of the com mon law judges, had laid down the proper line. Tiers could be no doubt that the seashore was hel I by the crown for the benefit of its miljects, and the crown had a right to gr , rit the Lind t, any one it plasce.l, pro vi ed that the grant was not inconWtent with he rights. The saject then dropped. The Dulwich College Bill, the 11iiiiLia (Treland) Act Amendment Bill, and the Oxford Tjaivenity Bill were severally read a third time and passel. The house adi.mrned at 5 minutes past 7 o'cloc's. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTnRDAy.) STATUE OF RICHARD CCOUR DE LION. Mr. HANKE a:Ilk - 2d whether any decision bad yet been made tB to the spot where the statue of Richard Cccur de Lion, by Baron Marochetti, purchmod by sub• ecrii:tioo, - a,cl presented to the nation in 185 G, was to be erected ? Sir B, HALL said the site hal not yet been decided on. It was under the consideration of the proper de partment. REFORMATORY SC [TOOLS BILL. On the inotton of Sir G. GREY, the order of the day for the home going into committee on the Reformatory Schools 1311 was fixel for Titu..sday, at 12 o'clock. The Fail of DERBY inquired the date. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY—May, 18 57. The arbitration was now proceeding under the auspieui •f IHE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 7_ 1857 and that he woull not be able to try any contideralda number of issues. Still, whenever it cauld be conve• niently done, it would be open for him to take cases in• stead of sending them before the ordinary common law tribunal 4. (Hear, hear.) Mr. COLLIER, after the statement of the hon. and learned gentleman, and especially after the communica tion from the Lord Chief Justice to which be had refer red, would not preys his amendments; but as it was now determined that there must be a Court of Probate, hp would devote bis attention to making that court as per fect as possible. (Hear.) The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause was agreed to. On clause 5, The ATTORNEY•GENERAL proposed to strike out the proviso contained in the last three lines, because that would seem to make it imperative on the distinguished and eminent judge of the Prerogative Court to be the first judge of the Court of Probate. Sir F. KELLY concurred in this amendment. ingly in the arrangements for securing to the surrogates their full amount of remunerative employment ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not undertake to say that the orders that would be framed would give to the surrogates, who were an exception to the general rule, duties quite as cxteesive or as remunerative as those they now enjoyed. The proctors of both provinces would be placed on the same footing ; but with regard to the surrogates of York, probably a special clause had better be drawn up to meet their case. The object of the hon. member (Mr. Steel) was, he thought, suffici ently provided for by the bill as it stood. The clause was then agreed to. Clause 25 was also agreed to. • In clause 26, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL introduced several verbal amendments, for the pnrpose of enacting that if any case should arise not provided for by the new rule established under the bill, the mode of procedure should be in accordance with the present practice. As altered the clause would read, " The practice of the Court of Probates shall, except where otherwise provided by this act, or by the rules and orders made under it, be, so far as the circumstances will admit, according to the present practice in the Prerogative Court." After a few words from Sir F. KELLY, expressing an opinion that the practice under the bill would, as the Attorney-General anticipated, be precise and simple, as well as expeditious, Mr. BOWYER proposed an amendment, to leave out the words, " as far as the circumstances cf the case will admit," on the ground that they would give to the judge an undue power to alter the practice of the court. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that some such power as he proposed was necessary, especially as the bill would bring into the court many cases of a cha racter different from those which came before the Pre rogative Court. Mr. BOWYER thought the words would apply to all matters to be brought before the court. It would be easy to introduce words restricting the dispensing power to the new cases. He begged leave to withdraw his amendment. The amendment was then withdrawn. The clause was then agreed to. Clause 27 was withdrawn, the A TTORNEY-GENERAL stating that he proposed to substitute a new clause in lieu of clause 27. Clauses 28 to 31 were agreed to. Clauses 32 and 33 were postponed. On clause 34, Mr. MALINS objected to the transferring of the ap peal from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the House of Lords, which was a most dilatory and expensive tribunal. He therefore proposed to sub stitute the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the House of Lords. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he adinitted the great value of the Judicial Committee ; but, if the amendment of his hon. and learned friend were carried, there would, be two co-ordinate courts of appeal, which would be a great inconvenience. With regard to the House of Lords, he hoped that before long there would be an improved and general court of appeal for the whole kingdom. (Hear.) He was afraid, too, that if the amendment were carried, it would bring the house into collision with the House of Lords, and might therefore endanger the succes , of the bill. Mr. CAIRNS said it was very much to be regretted that there were two courts of appeal, but why should they, when they had a choice, take the worst of the two tribunals as the court ofappeal ? If the House of Lords was improved as a court of appeal, the appeal in these cases might be transferred to it. The SOLICITOR.-GENERAL said that as the bill was framed, the proper court of appeal was the House of Lords. The bill proposed to affect real estate, and issues as to the title were about to be tried before the common law courts. In this respect the House of Lords had an advantage over the Judicial Committee as a court of appeal, because the House of Lords Lad the power of summoning the judges, which the Judicial Committee had not. The procedure of the new court was assimilated to the common law procedure, and therefore the appeal should be to the House of Lords, who could summon to their aid the 15 judges. Mr. COLLIER said that the bill, in fact, appointed a 16th common law judge, and theref ,re the appeal ought to be to a court of which the 15 common law judges might torn a part. Mr. BOWYER, said it seemed to be forgotten that all the chief judges of the c mmon law courts, and some of tee other judges, were not only assistants but actually judges of the Judicial Committee. In that court there were always judges sitting who were versed in ecclesias tical law, but there were none in the House of Lords. In appeals from the ecclesiastical courts, the Judicial Committee had always given the greatest satisfaction. A report of the House of Lords themselves had ad mitted that the appellate jurisdiction of that house was in an unsatisfactory state, and nothing had since been dune to improve it. Yet it was now proposed to send a new class of appeals to that tribunal. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to which appeals now went from the testamentary courts, sat at all times of the year ; and some of the most important cases came on in November and December. If the House of Lords were made the court of appeal, it would be shut up for six months, and there would thus be a denial of justice for half the year. They could not reckon on the atten -1 sf dWa poseenr a n c s se ; eoy but f dT many a d c l wasa r, r w u e l cdleonnt lords e t ; r been o e L e n k r o ad u p created p o e n aChancellor,s th t e p o e regular e r h g e u a l for l l a n r t do h u a e t p e t Lod e u n o r ' dance of Lord St. Leonards and Lord Lyndhurst. In the Judicial Committee there were five judges regularly attending. besides Sir John Dodson. Mr. ROLT considered the House of Lords as able and exotPent a tribunal for the final hearing of causes as ever sat in any country. The most eminent men in the country sat there to decide causes, and nothing had oc curred to cast discredit on it except some cases which had been tortured into an accusation against it. The Privy Council was not without its difficulties as to the time and mode of hearing cases. There might be four members present one day, and four others the next. Hence cases were sometimes adjourned for weeks or months to secure the attendance of the same judges. They must either have such a tribune!, or such an one as the House of Lords, which only sat during half the year. As to ex pense, he did not thick there was any difference between the two tribunals ; the papers were printed in both. The Court of Probate being now constituted a court of re cord, the appeal was properly to the House of Lords ; the cases taken before the Judicial Committee included those arising in the colonies and in courts which were not courts of records. The matter had been fully considered by the commission, and he hoped the house would ad here to the bill as it stood. (Hear.) Mr. HENLEY said that as landed property was now ' subjected to the probate duty, it was most proper that questions involving that property should go, as they had been accustomed to do, to that tribunal which had al ways dealt with them. The opinion of the commission on this point was unanimous ; he should therefore sup port the bid as it stood. Mr. MALINS did not think there was any great force in the argument about reel property, as the only ques tion which the Court of Probate had to decide was whe ther there was a will or no will ; and the forms to be complied wi , ll were the same whether real or personal ' property was concerned. He denied that the House of Lords was a satisfactory court of appeal ; this great court of ultimate appeal was attended by two learned lords ' only—the Lord Chanced a. and Lord Wensleydale. Such a court never could be satisfactory. If it was to be maintained, why had not the Government taken steps to put it on a more efficient footing ? They could not mistake the opinion of that house last year. Even appeals from th% decision of the Lord Chancellor were heard by himself, and one other, or at the most two other jud g es. (Hear, hear ) Nothing of the kind could happen in the Judicial Committee, where there were always five judges in attendance. He denied that the judge of the now Court of Probate was a common law Judge ; therefore that argument entirely fell to the ground. The ATTORNEY-GENERA L thought n .thing could be more unconstitutional or more opposed to existing rules than to confer this jurisdiction on the Judicial Committee ; nor could anything be more impossible in practice. The Judicial Committee was only created at the expense of the ordinary tribunals of the country, some of which had to be shut up while it was exercising its funcions as a court of appesl. The Court of Chan cery, for example, had then to be closed, and they were also obliged to draw away one or two common law judges from their other duties. The Judicial Committee as at present constituted was inadequate to the discharge of more than it now accomplished. It had not the power of entertaining a single appeal from any common law or equity court in Westminster-hall ; and therefore when they were about to create a court with a jurisdiction partaking both of common law and equity it would be an anomalous proceeding to send its ju,igmenti to an appellate tribunal different from that to which the other courts were subject. They should adhere, then, to the existing rule, and not establish one that would lead to conflicting decisions. If the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords required amendment let them amend it whea they saw the prespect of their coming to anything like a unanimous conclusion on the subjec . But, at all events, the committee ought not to counte nance the present proposal, which would utterly destroy this bill, and would impose on the Judicial Committee of Privy Council a jurisdiction over a large cf cases which it could not possibly discharge. Mr. NAPIER said that only last week the Lord Chan cellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Wensleydale, and Lord St. Leonard's, assisted by the common law judges, eat to hear appeals in the House of Lords, than which no more efficient or dignified tribunal cowl I be found in any country in the world. It was said that the house last session almost unanimously Condemned the appellate jurisdiction of the Upper Chamber. That was entirely contrary to his own impression of the feeling evinced by the house. Uniformity of decision on questions affect ing the property of the country was indispensable, and to secure that object the House of Lords should be their tribunal of last resort. Mr. MALINS begged leave to withdraw his amend ment. Mr. MA LINS thought that instead of omitting the proviso it would be better to insert the words, "if ho shall be willing to accept such office." Mr. AYRTON regarded the two offices as virtually the same, and thought they ought to make the accept. ance of the new judgeship imperative on Sir J. Dodson. The proviso was, however, struck out without any further observation. Oa clause 6, _ _ Mr. HODGSON asked the Attorney-General to fur nish the house, on some future occasion, with an esti mate of the probable yearly expense of the new court. Mr. ADAMS repeated his suggestion that the Admi ralty Court should not be united with the Court of Pro bate. He thought it would be far better to send Admi ralty eases before the common law courts, with juries of nautical men, than that the judge of the Probate Court should not have time to try the issues that might arise. He objected to the limitation of the provincial probates to cases where the property did not exceed 1,500/ There were cases in which a man's debts might swallow up the greater part of his estate, and there was no reason why the unnecessary additional expense of bringing the matter up to London should be imposed upo n th e executors. Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that no alarm need be ap prehended with regard to the amount of work that would be thrown upon the judges by having to transact the business of the Admiralty Court. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL bad satisfied himself that there were reasons why it would be better that Admiralty cases should be confined to a single judge. The chose before the committee simply provided for a future eontingeney, upon which a bill would have, at some future period, to be brought in ; in the meanwhile that contingency ought to be provided for, and he trusted that the c )mmittee would accept the clause. Mr. ATHERTON thought that the common law courts were already sufficiently burdened, and that to add any more business would be to place the hat straw on the camel's back. Sir F. KELLY approved of the cause. No doubt many questions came before the common law courts which came before the Court of Admiralty also ; but the latter court had a jurisdiction in rem which the former did not possess. This jurisdiction was of the utmost uti lity where one of the parties, as frequently happened in collision cases, was a foreigner, residing out of the juris diction of the ordinary courts. Ile trusted, therefore, that this jurisdictio n i n Ad miralty cases would be care fully preserved. The clause was then agreed to. Upon chose 10, Sir E. PERRY moved to leave out after " esta blished," and insert " District courts to be presided over by the county court judge in all county court districts except those of the metropolis (Nos. 40, 44, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, and 48), and a public registry shall be attached to each court, the registrar whereof shall, be under the control of the Court of Probate." His object was to as sociate the reg;strar with the judge of the county court. Taking .Devonsaire, the county with wuich he was con nected, as an instance how the matter would be affected if the bill passed as it stood, he might mention to the committee that whereas at the present time probate could be obtained at the different places in that county, under the bill there would he but two such places where that facility would be afforded. Now the effect of his amendment would be to attach an ecclesiastical registrar to each county court. This proposal would lead to the appointment of 51 registrars instead of 41. There would accrue from such a proposition a benefit to the public, inasmuch as at a future time the registrarships could be held by the county court registrar:. Mr. ATIIERTON opported ti. amendment, consi dering it to be most desirable that in small properties the greatest possible facilities should be placed in the way of those having to administer the estates of deceased par ties. Mr. COLLTEFt thought it was contrary to principle that the contentious jurisdiction should be marAalled according to the county court districts, while, the non contenti ,us jurisdiction was settled by the diocesan dis tricts. One system ought to be adopted, and that system was the county cool', diktricts. The diocesan divisions were antiquated and inconvenient, while those' of the county courts had recently been settled by a commission which had carefully inquired into the whole matter, and were therefore roost likely to meet the requirements and the state of population at the presenr day. Mr. B. DENISON supp:nted the clause as it stood. He could sately say that those parties who lived in the Yorkshire districts were extremely anxious that the ex isting divisions should be preserved, and that York should continue to be the c:ntre of them. talked t the chcouldder member u t n cb for ee r; f a ocr n o i Dn o v m eev e roi n i ne t np eoer listen t. T t h o e a t h G e n amendment. member The ATTORNEY-GENERAL w as sorry th a t h e , when the committee was dealing with rural districts, consisted in preserving, as far as possible, the existing habits of the people. They would find it most to their convenience to go to those places to which they bad been in the habit of geinc, i n order to prove wills. The hon. member proposed to undo all existing arrangements, and then to impose upon peo ple the necessity of travelling about after the county court judge—for that functionary visited different towns is succession—in order to transact the common form business of proving a will. And the person to transact that common-form business was to be a registrar of that county court. But he reminded the committee that these registrars had important duties to perform, and it was highly expedient that their offices should be held by men who were possessed of ainpleexperience. The:bill proposed to place experienced gentlemen in the position of regis trars, and to give them the means of communication with the judge of the Court of Probate in London. Thus it was hoped that due security was made for the proper fulfilment of the important duties entrusted to them. The county court judge would be competent to decide matters of fact, but it would be quite at variance with their intention to mix them up with more important questions. Mr. COLLIER, said that all he contended for was that the registrar should be attached to the county court. Nothing that bad fallen from the Attorney-General had altered his opinion. Sir E. PERRY said that the Attorney-Genera) had misunderstood him. His only object was that ti e reg,s trar shoul f be attached to the county court, instead of the diocesan court. Hh hon. and learned friers 1 propo se d 41 registrars ; he suggesteddistrict. 52, to be lo c at e d i n some central spot in each The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause then agreed to. Clause 11 was then agreed to, without discussion. Clause 12, with some verbal amendments proposed by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, was also agreed to. Clause 13, Mr. DIVE TT moved to insert, in line 2, after the word "court," the words "and all managing clerks who have been continuously emjloyed in any diocesan court for 15 years and up wards immediately before the passing of this act," The ATTORNEY -GENERAL objected to inserting any words having reference to the managing chrks in that clause. Their case might be considered lower down in the After a short conversation the amendment was nega tived without a division, and the clause agreed to. Clause 14, An amendment, proposed by Mr. SALISBURY, was assented to by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, and the clause agreed to. Clause 15, fees of diocesan and district officers. paidimpossible at irl Mr. MALINS proposed that these officers should be Mr. ROEBUCK su pport the amendment. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected. It would be properly to apportion the sal trios. Tne amount var i e d muc h i n different districts, and if the officers were paid by sa laries some would !Ave too much and Come too li tt l e. After an obs ervat i on fro - n Si r E. PERRY, . . . - Mr. HENLEY thought that Government had taken the wisest course in adhering to the fees. When this act bad worked for a few years they might be able to fix on a proper scale of salaries. Mr. ROEBUCK said the work might be as bard in a small district as i n a large one, while the fees wool I be very different. fees were to b e regulated. He wished to know ou what scale the - --gt atad. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the mode of regulating the fees would be two-fold. In the first place they would be regulated by the amount of the stamp, which was so met i mes so sma d as sevenpence, and not acc3rding to th e l ength of the d oc ument. In some wises the prob a t e might contain only a few wor ds, and in others it mi g h t extend to severa l sheets. The fee would be in pr o p ort i on. Mr. BRISCOE opposed the amen d m ent, which was put and negatived, and the clause was agreed to. ncl Clauses up to 23 i • ordered to stand part u.tive were of the bill. Mr. WESTITEA.D inquired whether the clerical sur rogates would under the bill coutinue to perform the duties which now devolved upon them of swearing - affi davits, &c. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not say that it might nat be necessary, in framing t h e ru l es an d or d e rs, to alter in som e way the duties w hi c h were n ow per formed by the surrogates. But th i s h e sa id, v i z ., th-t with regard to the surrogates, and the clerical surrogates more especially, i t was intended to secure them the full measure of remunerative employment they now enjoyed. Mr. STEEL moved to insert in hue 31, after " pro bate," the cord s " Provided that in every c ity, b oro u g h, and town throuA eut Knoand containing not lems than judge 5,000 inhabitant s , the shall appoint the registrar of the county court of the district in which such city, borough, or town is situate cr some other fit and proper person within such city, borough, or town, to be such commissioner or commissioners.' Lord HOTEIA.II believed there was considerable diffe rence in the duties performed by the surrogates in York and Canterbury, the duties of the surrogates of York being nearly cited to those of the proctors in the pro vines of Canterbury, consequently their emoluments were greater. Waa L intended to male provision accord, The committee, however, would not allow it to be withdrawn, and a division took place. The numberg were— For the amendment For the clause . 271 Majority --294 On the question that the clause be agreed to, Mr. MA LINS said he wished the committee distinctly to understand that he greatly regretted they had had the trouble of dividing. He had been desirous of withdraw ing his amendment, and he thought it was not fair that the division should have been forced upon him under the circumstances.' (Laughter.) The clause was then agreed to, as were the following clauses to 39 inclusive. On clause 40, which provides that probates and affmi niltration way be granted in *common form by Ow dietrio registrars when the personal estate of the deceased is under the value of 1,5001., - - - efficient, and brought home to every man's door, and he mould therefore support the amendment. - Air. ROLT eaitl, there was no doubt the small trades mar: or farmer vaiurd his property as much as a man possessed of a far higher amp tnt of wealth ; but the rea son for the limitation proposed by the clause under con sideration tar as that a mistake in the granting of pro Late for farming stock was not irretrievable, and might be set right before any mischief was done ; but if they wera dealing with money in the funds to the amount of thou sands of pounds, and any mistake were committed even for an hour or a day in the granting of probate, that mistake would be irretrievable. It was that considera tion which led the commission to the conclusion that it was right to limit the amount of the property on which property could be granted by the diocesan courts. Mr. ROEBUCK said the bon and learned gentleman who last addressed the committee fancied that all pro perty under the value of 1,5001. must necessarkly be farming stock, and that all above that sum was money in the funds. (A laugh.) He would ask the hon. and learned gentleman whether a mistake committed in the granting of probate would not be quite as fatal where the money in the funds, which was the subject . of it, well below 1,5001., as it would be where the sum was 15,0001.? If they wanted integrity in the administration of an estate above the value of 1,5001., he (Mr. Roebuck) cm tended they wanted it equally with respect to property below that amount. Mr. WESTHEAD moved the omiasion of the-words after the word " affidavit" in Hoe 30, and the insertion of the following words ; —"and that such probate or let ters of administration shall cover all personality, wher ever situate." The object of his amendment was to en able ex -cuters, or persons taking out letters of administration, to do so to any amount of personalty. It was stated that four-fifths of the wil's proved in England related to amounts below 1,500/., and he could not con• ceive what good reason there could be for debarring tes tators from obtaining probate of wills to any amount of personalty in the district courts. (Flean) Mr. CAYLEY supported the amendment, and ap pealed to the right hon. member for Oxfordshire (\lr. Henley), who was a member of the commission, to explain upon what ground the limit of 1,5001. was adopted. In many instances the machinery io one ma nufactory might be worth 1,5001., and in another worth 2,0001., and why shoul•1 the-executor of a man whose ma chic ery was worth the former sum be enabled to take out letters of administration in York, while the executor of a person who possessed machinery worth 2,0001. s•as obliged to come to London. The same observation would apply to household furniture, which•in many cases was worth 2,0001., 3,000/ , or 4,0001., and in such in stances probate could not be obtained in the district court, but the wills must be proved in London. Mr. HENLEY regretted that he could not give a satisfactory answer to his hon. friend's question, far he must honestly say be was unable to assign any reason for the adoption of the limit of 1,5001. (" Hear," and a laugh.) He (Mr. Henley) divided in the commission against the limit of 1,5001., and he was in a minority of one. (A. laugh.) He must say, however, that persons whose opinions were entitled to much greater weight than his (Mr. Henley's) were strongly in favour of adopting a lower limit than 1,5001., and in several of the billy which had been introduced or shadowed out of late years it was proposed that t'se powers of proving in country districts should be limited to a much lower sum than 1,5001. For his own part, he would have been glad to see the limit extended to 2,0001., or even higher ; but as some concession must be made when differences of opinion Existed, he would rather have this measure with the limitation to 1,5001., than run any risk of its defeat. If, however, those who had charge of the bill would ex tend the limit, he believed it wou ld b e a b oon to th e country, for 1,5001. would not cover the value of stock upon a great proportion of farms. (Hear, hear ) Mr. MOWBRAY hoped the Attorney-General would accede to the suggestion of the right lion. gentleman, for the. only obj ct of the clause seemed to be to take busi ness out of the hands of the proctors in the country, and transfer it to Doctors'-commons. Mr. ROEBUCK said he should wish to ascertain from his bon. and learned friend the Attorney-General what reason existed for fixing a limit at all. (Hear.) There was just as much necessity for the employment of officers possessing integrity and intelligence in the granting pro bates of wills in cases in which the sum involved did not exceed 1001. as in those in which it reached 10,0001. If, then, the same' qualifications were required in the former as in the latter cae.e4, why fix a limit ? He saw no good reason ,why it should be done, while there were many strong arguments against the adoption of such a course. The tendency of the present day was to bring the law home to every man's door, and he should like to know why that which was a sound policy had been departed from in the present instance. The ATrORNEY-GENERAL said that the point to which his hon. : - . 'and learned friend who had just sat down, as well as the hon. member who had im- Enediattly prepeded him, referred, was one which had been the subject of frequent deliberations upon the part of tne commission. That deliberation, be might aid, had depended not so much upon the pre con ceived notices of the members of the commission, as upon the evidence of the very experienced solicit , re and other practitioners who had been exiinined before them, and all of whom bad concurred in representing thegreat dangers which must attend the unlimited extension of the stun with respect to which probate should be granted in the country districts; He bad not been aware that the point would have been pressed so much upon their attention that evening, but since the discuss►on with re ference to it bad arisen ho had looked over some passa ges of the report of-the commissioners, as well as of t'le evi lence which they had taken, and he found in the re port the following distinct expression of opinion upon the part of the commissioners : " We think it evident that protection would be best af forded the public by the establishment of a central court in London. The skill and vigilance which are required to guard against fraud and mistakes will be, we think, most certainly possessed by officers in London, under the imme diate control of a judge, to whom they will have an oppor tunity of applying in any emergency that may ar i se , an d t o whom they will be immediately responsible." Such was the opinion of the commissioners, and he might remind the committee that the practical working of the law as it stood, owing to the doctrine of bona notabilia, was to bring every cause in which the sum involved ex ceeded 5001. or 6001. within the jurisdiction of the Pre rogative Court. Now, if probate were granted upon an imperfect will, or to the wrong parties, and an executor or administrator were appointed to take possession im mediately of the estate of the testator, and it should be afterwards found that probate had been improperly granted, those persons who might have paid money money under its operation would have to pay it over again. The question therefore was one in which bankers and public companies, as well as the community at large were deeply concerned, and the comm;s,ioners taking these matters into consideration, had concurred in the expediency! of a thorNgh and frequent examination of the documents produced being entered into before probate could with any degree of security be granted. One of the witnesses who had been examined before the commission—he meant Mr. Trevor of the Legacy Duty-office, a gentleman of great experience and intelligence—stated, in reply to a ques tion which had been put to him, that, in his opi n i on , one tribunal for proof of wills would be found more efficient than a great number, in consequence of the uniformity , in dealing with those instruments which it would be cal culated to produce. He had gone on to say that since . the passing of Lord Campbell's Willa Act he had known probates of wills to be granted in the diocesan county in cases in which the document had been obliterated, and in which no inquiry had taken place as to whether the obliteration had occurred before or after the comple tion of the-will. Such was the nature of the proceedings which were sometimes observable in the diocesan courts as they stood, and be did not therefore think that the committee would be warranted in assuming that each individual registrar would be competent to exercise over wills that same careful superintendence that would be exercised by the officers successively through whose hands they must pass in the Court of Probate in Lon don. He might also refee to the.evidence of Mr. Shep herd, who bad been examined before the commission, and which went to establish the justice of 'the view which he had urged upon the committee. The testimony of men of experience in such matters having then been opposed to the continuance of the power of granting probate to an unlimited extent in the case of the dioce san courts, the conimis,ioners had come to the conclu sion that for the benefit of the country districts liberty should be given the registrars of those courts to grant probates to some fixed amount, but that that liberty ought to be corifin , d within very narrow limits. His right hon. friend the member for Oxfordshire was quite right in stating that several members of the commission had been desirious to fix that limit at even a lower auto than. 1,5001., but it had not been d, eined expedi ent to take that course ; while he was of opinion that, as great critical nicety, great care, and a knowledge of law were required in dewing with wills, it was desirable that' the district registrars should not be intrusted with granting of probates in cases in which a larger amount was involved. Some limit must be taken, and, it he was not mistaken, the present limit had been fixed by his right hon. friend the member fOr OxfordEhireo, who had stated that, in his opinion, the farmers, whose interests would be affected, would rarely be found to possess bona notabilia exceeding the sum of 1,500/. (Mr. Henley was understood to express his dis sent from this statement.) He had understood the right hon. gentleman to have said so, but, be that as it might, he felt perfectly confident that any gentleman who looked carefully into the evidence which had been taken before the commissioners, and at their report, would feel that they had acted wisely in adopting the course which they bad pursued. He hoped, therefore, that the com mittee would not consent to a proposition the effect of which would be to subject wills involving large amounts of property to a comparatively insufficient examination. Sir J. TROL LOPE said 'the argument of the hon. and learned gentleman sought to establish the expediency of a strict-reliance being placid upon the evidence of the solicitors and other practitioners who had been examined before the commission. Now, so far as he (Sir J. Trol 13pe) recollected the evidence which had been adduced before that commission, it had emanated from persons who were connected with the courts in London—(hear) —and the whole tendency of whose testimony had been in favour of the system of centralisation. His own ex perience went to prove that the business which had been brought under the consideration of the district courts had been most satisfactorily discharged, and he should wish to know from the hon. and learned gentleman whether property whicti did not exceed a sum of 1,5001. was not of as much value to the person who possessed it a 3 a larger sum would be to the person whom the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to take it fur granted would, if he were empowered to do so, seek for pro bate in the district court% Now, everybody must be well aware that those who ha - I a large amount of property at stake brought their business up to London. He should like, however, to know why the shopkeeper upon one side of the street, who had property in volved only to the amount of 1,0001., should be enabled to transact business at a comparatively tr,fling expense in the district courts, while a farmer upon the other side, because he happened to possess Rome hundreds more, should be compelled to resort to the central court of London. He thought the reasoning of the hon. and learned gentleman in support of this view upon the matter was of a character the most unsound. He ob jected to any limitation at all, and should, therefore, vote in favour of the amendment. _ _ Mr. ROEBUCK said, the Attorney-General seemed to fancy that there must be some essential difference between the will of a rich man and that of a poor man, and that he was now making an experiment in corpore viii. (A. laugh.) The hon. and learned gentleman ap peared to think that a testator dying and I ,, aving pro praperty worth only 1,5001. was a person so poor and unworthy that any inefficient officer might administer his estate, but that a man dying worth a greater amount of property required the exercise of a far higher amount of intelligence in the distribution of his effects. (blear.) He (Mr. Roebuck) would ask the committee to look bow these matters were managed in America. There they had local courts of probate which were vgarded as great safeguards of the constitution, and appreciated by the whole poi ulatiou, Se wished to gee law cheap, The committee then divided upon the question that the wards proposed to be left out stand part of the clause, the effect cf the amendment being to,strike out the pro vision of the bill by which the jurisdiztion of district re gistrars was confined to estate under the va'ue of 1,5001. The numbers were— Ayes Noes . .. 162 Majority ---31 The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers. The question was then put, that in lieu of the words struck out the words " and that such• probate or letters of administration shall cover alt personalty wherever situate" be inserted in the clause. Mr. AYRTON suggested that, considering the late. ne-s of the hour, the further consideration of the clause of the bill might be postponed. The ATTORNEY•GENERAL said that the practical effect of the vote at which the committee had untortu rately arrived—(a laugb)—hon. gentlemen might laugh, and no doubt those who were opposed to the principle of the bill had cause to do so, but that vote would, if car ritd into (flee', render the whole bill useless. So fully did be feel the fatal results to the measure if the amendment of the hon. gentleman were carried, that he should feel it to be bis duty to take the sense of the committee upon the question of the insertion of the words proposed to be introduced by the hon. gentleman. _ The committee then divided : For the motion l4l Against it 139 Majority 2 The announcement of the numbers was received with great cheering. On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON, The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL. The house then went into committee on this bill. On clause 1, Justices to have power to state a case for the opinion of the superior courts, Mr. HENLEY thought this would throw a great in crease of business on the superior courts, and be often used for the purpose of delay. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL believed the effect of the bid would be to bring up only difficult questions of law, which the magistrates were as anxious as the parties themselves to have the opinion of the court on, and no case could be stated except on the application of the parties, and with the consent of the justice. Mr. G. HARDY considered no case bad been made out to show the necessity of this bill. Mr. NAPIER supported the bill. It was a simplifi cation of procedure, and afforded a substitute for the circuitous process of the certiorari. . Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD considered the provisions of the till so valuable that at his suggestion it was pro posed to extend its operation to Ireland. Mr. MASSEY said that at present there was no means of reviewing the decision of a magistrate at petty sessions if erroneous in point of law. The object of the bill was to remedy this defect. Mr. HENLEY must protest against the magistracy being put to any expense. Ile should suggest that the cases go through the Home office. Mr. NAPIER thought that his right hon. friend was under a misapprehension with regard to the bill. In most cases before magistrates there w ere two parties to the question, and these two parties would alone be necessary to be represented before the superior courts. The ma• gistrate would be put to no expense. Mr. LIILDYARD considered it had not been shown that this act would not throw great expenses upon the agis t racy. The SOLICITOR-GENERA.L explained that under the bill all that was necessary was for the magistrate to write down upon a piece of paper the point of law upon which he hai based his conviction. Beyond this he had nothing to do, and would be put to no expense. Mr. MILES moved that the chairman report progress. The' bit would require great consideration before it could be assented to.' The motion was agreed to, and the hou se resume d. SUPPLY. The report of the committee of supply was brought up and agreed to. ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS (COLONIAL COURTS) BILL. This bill passed through committee. CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time and patted. SMOKE NUISANCE (SCOTLAND) ABATEMENT BILL. This bill was read a second time. THE MILITIA. Sir J. RAMSDEN brought in a bill to suspend the making of lists for the militia • LIFE INSURANCES. Mr. WILSON obtained leave to bring in a bill to re• gulate life insurance offices. The other orders of the day were then disposed of and the house adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock. COAL hiARICET.—JIILY 6. Prices of Coals per ton at the close of the market. Wallsend, Ms. WaHamad, Ike. s. d. s (L Stewart's l7 Braddyll l5 9 ,, Cassop 16 3 t; South Hetton 17 Caradoe . Lambton 16 6 4 eaham l5 9 Tees l7 0 Trimdon l6 0 Ships at market, 38 ; sold, 29. lADVERTIIRMANT.I SPONTShiNN AND GENTLEMEN of ARMY AND NAVY. S. and 11. Solomon, opticians, 39, AAA' marie-street, Piccadilly, West. Ohsneye—opposite the York Hotel.—Portability, combined wiih great power in Field, Racecourse. Opera, and general out-door day and night powerful waistcoat pocket Perspective Glasses, weighing only four ounces, each containing 12 and 18 lenses, coir structed of German glass, will show distinctly a persono countenance two and a half and three miles. They serve every purpose on the race-course, and at the opera houses, country scenery, and ships are clearly seen at 8 to 10 miles. They are also invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, and yachti ng . Single ones, the size of a walnut, possessing the same great power. Her Majesty's Coast-Guards are making use of them as day and night glasses, in genera use by OP tlemen, of the Army and Navy, and by sportsmen, gentlemen, gamekeepers, and tourists. The most powerful and brilliant telescopes, possessing such extraordinary power that some, three and a-half inches, with an extra astronomical eye-pieee will show distinctly Jupiter's moon's, Saturn's ring, and the double stars ; with the same telescope can be seen a persodo countenance three-and-a-half miles distant and an object, from 14 to 16 miles. All th e a b ove can be had of larger and all sizos, with increasing powers, and are secured by Her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent. Newly-invented Spec' tacle Lenses of the grey est transparent power. The valu - able advantage derived from this invention is, that vision becomes preserved and strengthened; very aged persons are enabled to employ their sight at the most minute occupatiou-- - can see with these lenses of a much less magnifying power --and they do not require the frequent changes to the dangerous effects of -farther powerful assistance. Persona can be suited at the Mo ,remote part of the world by send: in/ one of the glasses out of their spectacles in a letter, and stating the dist+nce from the eye they can read small print with ir, and those who have not made use of spectacles bf sta iug their age. Deafness.—A newly-inventihd instrument for extreme cases of thafness, called the Sound Magnifier, Organic Vibrator„ and invisible Voice Conductor. It fits so into the ear as not to be in the least perceptible ; the unplea• sant sensation of singing noises iu the head is entirely se mond It affords instant relief to the deafest persons, and enables them to hear distinctly at church and at public assail' bleu. 34, Alliemarle-street, Piccadilly.—Opposite the. Yori Hotel, W. BIRTIIS. OF ♦ SON. On the sth inst., at 14, Ashloy-place, Westminster, the wife of Archibald Smith, Esq., of Lincol n ' s -i nn , b arr i s ter' at-law. On the 4th inst., at Ashdale, Pembrokeshire, the wife Of Henry B. Saville, Esq. SCOTCH BELLS. Oa the motion of Lord DUNCAN, in consequence of the absence of thA Lord Advocate--the Court of Session; Crown, Suits ; Bill Chamber and Asse, , ,sments (Scotland) Bills, were postponed till Wednesday. PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRA.- TION BILL. On the motion for going into committee on this bill, Mr. MALINS said that he and those who acted with him intended to offer every opposition to the bill unless the Government recognised the principle of compensa tion in reference to the proctors. Mr. HADFIELD protested against such understand ing being entered into by the Government. After some further discussion relative to the question of compensation, S,r H. WILLOUGHBY said that the house appeared to be going int) committee on an important subject without information relative to the compensation clauses. He asked how many officers were to receive compensa tion, and the amount, if this bill passed into a law, and he called attention to the number of persons connected with the her now receiving compensation. Col. SAYrII urged that the house ought to be in possession of the information asked before going into committee on this bill. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that every de scription-of compensation should be raised on the dis cussion of the clauses, when ha would be ready to give every information. He thought it would be better to abstain from making any statement then relative to compensation, but wait tia the question came regularly before the house. The house then went into committee on the bill. Clause 1 was agreed to. On clause 2 Mr. COLLIER move , d , to substitute the term "Office" r newob a t page 2. The present bill L u o u r p r t e d " se e d f P a of Probate for the term he had the authority of the would have very little to do.ce,ouinrt,lin:hilcib, TheChatmellor for saying, was divided into two kinds, the bu'ine's of the court itie common form business and the contentious business. re would be iit•li necessity for the presence of a superior de termine this common form business . Ofjutdhge to tious business nine-tenths would be sent to the e ' c Z en. common law, and, therefore, as the Lord CU:la t e -e ll of said, the new judge would have next to nothing to e Li r The bill proposed to send a case before Court A, which . was to send it to Court B, which Court B was to send it back to C-,tort, A. That was a had principle. Now, ghat, he pr posed wa., that the court of common law should have the determination of all the contentious business. all the questions of form being left to be trans acted by the registrar. There could be only two objets tions to the course he proposed. The first was that the judges of the courts 0 common law had rot time to dis charge the buioests ; the tecond, that they ware not competent. With regard to the first objection, the insti tution of the county courts, and the simplification of pro cedure, hod so dimini-hed the business of the superior courts that there could be no doubt that they would have time to discharge the new business. In addition to thip, he might mention that there was a commission now sit ting to inquire whether the number of the judges of the higher courts might not be reduced. As to the compe tency of the judges of the superior courts there could be no doubt. It appeared to him that there should be either no court at all or a court that would discharge the whole business. Mr. ATHERTON hoped his hon. and learned friend would not persist in his amendments. If he meant to press the views he now put forward he should have op posed the bill on the second reading, because his amend ments were destructive of the very principle of the bill. His hon. friend said there was no neceesity for a new court and a new judge. He thought his hon. and learned friend underrated the business which the new court would have to transact. But the remedy for that was to give the court more business to do. He therefore hoped the Attorney-General would, when they came to the 32d clause, agree to the introduction of words which would enable the new judge to try cases by jury himself, with out compelling him to send the issue to a court of com mon law. Ho also thought that the judge should be al lowed to hear motions for a new trial in these matters. Sir F. KELLY said that, having been unfortunately absent when the second reading of the bill was befo're the house, he begged leave now to offer one or two sugges tions with regard to it. He entirely concurred in the general principle of the bill. They were all, he believed, agreed as to the necessity of doieg away with the eccle siastical courts. He approved of the cl►ases which threw the common form business into the bands of persons who were distributed throughout the different districts. The new court having power to deal with real property to some extent would increase the business of the new court, and remove a great deal of the objection, on the ground that the new court would have little business to transact. The hon. and learned member for Plymouth proposed that the entire contentious business should be transferred to the common law judges. He concurred with his hon, and learned friend in thinking that those learned persona would be the best judges in those cases ; and if the Government were prepared to state that the judges were willing, as well as able, to transact the new business, he would adopt the amendment of his hon. friend. He must, however, express his doubts on that subject. As far as he could collect the opinion of the judges it was this, that it would be impossible, consist ently with the other important duties they had to dis charge, and the interests of justice, to throw upon them this additional mass of business. (dear.) The judges had to open new nisi prius courts in order to be able to meet business they were now called on to transact. It was a matter of great importance to consider what the jurisdiction of the new court should be. In this respect what had been suggested by the hon. and learned mem ber opposite was as nearly as possible in conformity with the bill which he (Sir F. Kelly) laid on the table last session, and he hoped those suggestions would be adopted by the committee. The Lord Chancellor had stated that a main principle of the bill was that the business of the court, and the mode of_ adminis tration, should be based on common law principles, but he (Sir F. Kelly) submitted that would not be the cave, unless the measure was materially altered. The sth section proposed to enact that the judge of the Prerogative Court should be the first judge of the new court. He would at the proper time propose to omit that provision, and leave the choice of the crown entirely unfettered. It was further proposed that until the jurisdiction of the Admiralty was trans fered to the new court the salary of the judge should only be 4,0001. He thought he ought to b© placed in all respects on the same footing as the puisne judges and the Vice-Chancell ►r, and have the same salary. He also thought it would be advisable to make a further change, so as to enable the judge to transact the whole business of his court. With a competent judge, and he was sure none other would be appointed, there would be no occa sion for sending issues to the courts of common law to be disposed of. The judge should have authority to sum mon a jury, and so dispose of the entire business. The result would be that the non-contentious business would remain in the hands of those best qualified for it ; and the whole of the contentious, except that small portion allotted to the county courts, would be disposed of by the court in London. It was said that the judge of the new court would not have enough to occupy his time. To meet this difficulty, he (Sir F. Kelly) suggested that, if her Majesty should be pleased to name him a member of her Privy Council, there should lie a provision in the bill to make him one of the Judicial Commitne. Mr. MALINS thought that the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Collier) would transfer all the business to the courts of common law. It raised a very important poin►, and he was surprised the hon. member had sat dow❑ without giving them some explanation of how the business was to be done. This bill was founded on the report of the Chancery commission, which, after full con• sideration of the subject, reported that the jurisdiction ought not to be transferred to any court where the testa mentary administration was not the primary business of the judge, and that it was inexpedient to transfer it to the courts of common law. The hon. member proposed to establish a registry instead of a court, but the commission reported teat it was of the highest importance that the common form business should be presided over by a qualified judge. It bad been said that the business of the court world be much incresved by the fact of its obtaining jurisdiction over cases of real estate, but the committee must be aware that there were very few cases which related solely to reel estate. In his tehtl. pri fessioral experience he bad not met mo►e than five, and all wills which related to both real aed personal estate should be proved as at present, s ► that the increase from this source would be very small indeed. _ _ _ Ifr. EOWYER entirely approved of the amendment. Its principle was to get rid of a most un€cientific distinc tion of jurisdiction. There was no reason why they should have a separate cam t for wills any more than for leases or for mortgages. He did not see what necessity there was for probate of a will any more than of a deed, although he admitted it would be very desirable to have a registration of will 4. If a w ill was no t di s puted, why should it not be treated as a deed that was not disputed ? At present, if a real estate of 10,0001. a year was loft to him, he took possession of it at once ; but if he got a le gacy of 101., he could no t ge t it without obtaining pro. bate from the Ecclesiastical Court. The amendment pro posed to give all the common form business to the regis trar, who would not be a cow t, while all the contentious business would go to the cmumon law _courta. Mr. ATHERTON said some remarks had been made as to the aniouit of business in the common law courts. A certain class of scandalous business had been gold rid of, but other business had very much increased, and it was as much as the ju !gas could do to get through their work. Ile believed that very day there were six judges sitting in Guildhall to dispose of jury causes. Mr. WHITESIDE would wish to know from the At torney-Gereral why, if a man in the North of England was to be allowed to prove a wilt of 1,5001. on the spot in a cheap way, he should not do the same if it was for 15,0001? Mr. A VIITON hoped the important question involved in the amendment would ❑ot be decided on the narrow issue of whether the judges of the courts of common law were fully occupied cr not. He believed the bill was founded on the soundest principle of liw reform, that the entire of this business of wills and letters of administra tion should be entrusted to a single judge, who would discharge the whole duty. He believed that the only way they could obtain perfecti.in in the administration of justice was by that divisio❑ of lab )ur which had proved so eucces•ful in every other department. Mr. DUNLOP said a system similar to that recom mended by Mr. Collier had been in u 35 for the last 30 year.; in Scotland, and it had been found to work ad mirably. (Ifear.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL reminded the hon. gentleman that the Wills Act was not in force in Scot land. In that country any document, of the most in formal kind, would at once be admitted ; so that there was not tnat amount of care required in dealing with wills there as was the case in England. 'VY hen a man died they could not have a scramble fir his effects ; and so they must constitute some p erson as his representa tive. Who that representative should be was deter mined according to the tenor of the will itself, if the tee. tator left directions on that point; but if not, it must be determined by certa'n rules of practice. In a great variety of cases no doubt there was no contest, but in struments were constantly brought for the purpose of proof of a most irregular, unfinished, and imperfect cha racter ; documents centeining numerous erasures, inter lineations and alterations, whether those alterations were intended to be final, or whether they were what were technically called deliberative ones. In all these cases the document had been submitted to the judge, and a vast proportion of the 25,000 wills which were annually proved needed thus his personal inspection, to satisfy him that the requirements of the Statute of Wills had been complied with. Now, that was a very onerous duty) for if the wrong document was admitted to pro bate, and the ,wrong executor converted to his own use stock standing in the public funds, or in a public com pany, in the name of the deceased, the executor ap pointed by the will, which ought to have been admitted to probate in the first instance, might go to the bank, or to the public company, and insist on the money being paid a second time. It was clear, therefore, that the duty of granting probates could not be confided, with any chance of its being duly performed, except to a per son of practical experience and skill. If they threw the work upon the judges they could only take it at cham bers, and the result would be the most conflicting and dis tracting discrepancies in practice. Besides, he (Sir R. Bethel)) bad just received a communication from the Lord Chief Justice, stating that it was utterly impossible for them to undertake either the common form or the con tentious business. In a few days the report of the com missioners who had been appointed to inquire into the constitution of the common law courts would be published, and it would be found to contain astatement to thesame effect. He (Sir R. Bethel!) found that in two days 14 documents had been reserved in the registry of the Pre rogative Court, for the personal consideration and exa mination of the judge, besides those which had been brought before him in court. The house would therefore see how much time would be required when the business, not of the province of Canterbury only, but of the . whole country, came before one judge. He would remind lion, members that it was intended for the judge of the Pro bate Court to be likewise the judge ordinary of the court which would have to deal with marriage and divorce. He regretted that the powers proposed to be c o n f erred on him were not larger, but it bad been thought desir able to adhere as much as possible to the report of the commissioners who had sat upon the Ecclesiastical Courts. He was happy to say, however, that ho entirely concur red in the opinion which had been t xereseed, that this judge should have power to try issues himself when that could be co n veniently d one . S o f a r, then, from having nothing to do, Lis apprehension was that the judge would not find his time adequate to the discharge of hie duties, OP A DArGIITER.. On the sth inst., at Adbury, Hants, the wife of Williere Fox, Esq. On the sth inst , at 7, Hans-place, Sloane-street, the wife of Dr. Charles Gage Brown. MAitRIED. On the 4th inst., at St. Jude's Church, Soutbsea, elutes Hyde, Esq., Captain, 6th W es t Y or k R egt., to Mary Ana Louisa, widow of the late William Henry Foakes, Esq. , and only child of J. Se we ll, E sq . , of Albert-road, Regent 'e park. On the 4th inst., at Islington parish church, Alfred Aurelius, younger son of Wm. Clark, Esq., of Highburr park, Middlesex, to Mary Ann Jane, only daughter of the late Stephen Price, Esq., of .Helton Butler, Shropshire, and granddaughter of Richd. Wace, Esq., of College.bilip Shrewsbury. DIED. On the Gth inst., suddenly, at 25, Kensington-gate, Ed' ward John Otley, Esq , of 50, Conduit-street, Hanover' square, aged 59. On the sth inst., at 14, Blandford-square, Edw. Wynd' ham, Esq., aged 60. • On the sth inst., Mr. B. W. Thompson, of 254, Oxford' street, aged 53. On tho 4th inst., suddenly, Mary Jane, wife of Richsra,. A bucl, Esq., 11, J o n s on-place, H arrow - road, d aug h ter ot, Mr. Joseph Tussaud, Baktr 7 sti•eet, and grandaughter the late Madame Tussaud, aged 27. LONDON : Printed and Published , by MURDO YOUICO , of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at 214 Sun Office, N°' 112, Strand, in the. Precinct of the Savoy, in the conalf of Middlesex, Tuesday, July 7, 1857. rmeti Mor Stall Pnl v had tlpir OF I day, Adm At C: eels of Pc M. n The from all tl being wnn , EVE tkveni day 1 c Ltvir contc moni at a ( —A the p /ki Gallo -11 it Leopc bavin bratec public elms cent c Peri d Chad, Austrl Itis have taton the m remar The steno: of Frti Napoli The son al M. ,i eetabli tary j e Mozar reeeivl Majest by the the it has a] The Step is be so Mattel that a branch With t °man, The S CAI LANDI and th Sold amore The anY c Porta l their 1 The Ithlly Sev en tribut the sr Door E;sho Fut eatio! Rev. tonio New An Th litic the skin, tons] Its , YEit( Of lj PI of th