The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-20 00:00:00

LEEDS CORN MARKET.—March 15.

Wheat, Norfolk and Suffolk, 601 b.
445. to
ttoo
6782:17
- York. and Lincoln. 60Ib.
Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk
-.-- Yorkshire and Lincolnshire
Ms. to 3Sf. =
- Grinding
Beans 6.11b. ............. ......... 275. to 38s, Fp"
Oats, Potatoc
-Nicaling, Foreign 10d. to 11 ,i(1....1,:ng1i.1) 10,1. t o I2d. per rt.
Shelling 3!s. to abs. per load.
liapeserd, Engli:,h, V7l. to Vt..... Foreign, —4. to -4. per la&t.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(LAST NIGHT).

The Royal Assent was given to-day by Commission to
the Exchequer Bills Bill, the Transfer in Aids Bill, the
Guernsey and Jersey Poor Bill, the Salford Lighting and
Watching Bill, together with eight other private bills.
The Comenissione:s were the LORD CutexcEi.i.on, and
Earls SliArTEsnumr and ROSSLYN.
Several Bills- were brought up from the Commons.
Several Noble Lords presented petitions against the pay_
meet of wages iu goods, for free trade to India, and a
repeal of the duty on Hope.
Mr. Hickey, from the Court of Exchequer in Ireland,
presented papers in the appeal case of the Commissioners
of Chari,able Donations and others.
Lord GODERICH had some petitions to present on a
slilsiect on which he himself gave no opinion at present,
litonely, the payment of wages by truck, or in goods in-
stead of money. The first was from eighteen Magistrates
of the county of Worcester, who held that this was a
bad custom, awl prayed that it might he abolished ; the
second wa,s from the silk throwsters of Congleton; and
the third from the shopkeepers, &c. of a place in the county
of Glamorgan ; both to the same effect as the first. He
had petitions from Sedgley, in Staffordshire, and other
places, complaining of distress, and praying relief; and
one from Beverley, in Yorkshire, praying for the opening
of the China-trade. His Lordship also presented a peti-
tion from the tanners of Dublin and Belfast, praying for a
repeal of the leather-tax, in which, as his Lordship ob-
nerved, they. were likely to be indulged. His Lordship
then stateJ that he had three other petitions to present
from different parts of Sussex, praying for the repeal of the
dV'T !n hops. He regretted that the petitioners were not
1t! ply to succeed for
:the present; but at the same time,
, considering the mode in which his Majesty's Ministers ap-
plied the principles in which he concurred with them,
there was every reason to believe that this tax also might
soon be repealed.
.Lord TEYNHAM presented a petition from a Society
for the Encouragement of Industry, against the Poor-rates.
Earl DARNLEY presented a petition from certain per-
sons engage) in the leather trade in and about Dublin,
praying for relief, and the crension of Poor Laws to
Ireland.
The Earl CAERNARVON presented a petition from
the tea-dealers and grocers of Bath and Wells, complaining
that their trade was materially injured by itinerant hawkers
of tee, alvi praying that this might be prevented.
Earl STANHOPE gave notice that he should present
the Xent petition on Thursday next, and on the same
day he, should move for certain papers relating to India.

The Mutiny Bills were read a third time and passed.

Earl BATHURST presented a petition from Wootton-
under-Edge, against the payment of wages in goods.
Earl FITZWILLIAM presented a petition from a place
in the West Riding of Yorkshire, against the monopoly in
the China trade.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition, signed
tOO persons, from Boston, in Lincolnshire, complaining
of distress, and praying the reduction of taxation. He also
presented a petition from George Gunning, of Finsbury, of
the half-pay of the Foot Guards, objecting that the Clergy-
man of his;pariah appointed one of the Churchwardens, and
praying for an alteration in the law relative to the Church-
wardens. His Lordship gave no opinion of his own on the
subject.

CORN LAWS.

Lord KING gave notice that on Monday week he would
move curtain resolutions on the subject of the Corn Trade,
as connected with the prosperity of the country.
SUTTEES.
Lord CALTHORPE presented a petition from a Pro-
testant Society Meeting in Eagle-street, Red Lion-Nip/re,
and one from tt Female Society of the same description,
praying for the abolition of Suttees in the East Indies.—
The petitions were laid on the table.
REGULATIONS OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, pursuant to nonce, celled
the attention of their Lordships to three Bills which
lay en the table for a second reading, relative to certain
rides and proceedings in the Court of Chancery. The
Bills were prepared and brought into the other House
by the Solicitor-General, who, fur the industry, ability,
end temper which Ito had displayed in the task, was en-
titled to the gratitude
of the country. The first of these
Bills related to what were celled Contempts of the Court
of C!-iancery. Their Lordships were probably aware that,
the only way in which the Court of Chancery could corri
pel obedience to its orders Was by imprisoning the refrac-
tory party. Thus, when a Bill was filed against a party
svgs refused to appear, the only way in which the Court
could compel him to appear was by imprisonment for his
dieohedieuce or contempt of Court. From prison he was
brought to the bar of the Court ; and, if he still continued
obstinate, the Court entered an appearance for him. There
wee a clause in the Bill, that in such cases the Court
might enter an appearance for him at once, instead of
having recourse to this circuitous process, which was at-
fouled with unnecessary expence. Then, as to the an-
swer—when a party refused to answer, the only way which
they hail to compel him was to imprison him for contempt
rbisobedience to its order. Bat as to persons having
privilege of Parliament, the Court, if they refused to
answer, hell the Bill against them pro confesso. But
tilos* who hail not this protection were committed, and
be hail heard of persons being confined for a very
tons; time—for fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, and even
thirty years. It was the duty of no person to attend to
them, and they often remained confined front mere igno-
rance. There Waa a clause in the Bill, providing that
officers should attend, from time to time, to the cases of
such persons, and make proper reports, in order that the
Conn might at short intervals know what really was their
eisoasane The Solicitor-General, in the course of in-
tptiriee, found one confined for contempt who was in a
Mate of fatuity, and incapable of understanding for what
perjure or front what cause he was confined. This Bill
provided against the continuance of these evils. The
Court frequently had to make an order on a person to do
a certain act—such as to sign a deed, to levy a fine, and
other things. If he refused, the Court could compel him
only by imprisonment; and if he continued obstinate, he
remained in prison and the act was not done. This
Bill proposed that in suck cases, according to the
known doctrine of equity, that should be considered as
done which ought to be done. This was one of the
modes for shortening processes recommended by the
Chancery Commission. At present, when a party con-
tinued obstinate, he was brought from prison before the
Court by habeas corpus, and admonished by the Court to
do his duty. if he remained obstinate, he was sent back
again to prison ; he was then again brought before the
Court by an alias habeas, and again admonished ; and if
he continued obstinate, he was sent back again to prison.
He was then brought before the Court by what was called
a plaries habeas, and again admonished ; and if he was
still obstinate, he was sent back again. He was then brought
spin before the Court by en alias pluries habeas; and,
on his still remaining obstinate, if it was a refusal to answer,
the Bill was taken pro confesso. The present Bill pro-
vided, that he should at once, as in the case of those having
privilege of Parliament, be held pro confesso. The Court
had made various rules on the recommendation of the
Chancery Commission; hut, for the purposes whiehle had
mentioned, it was found necessary to have recourse to the
Legislature: There was another Bill, the object of
which was to consolidate the laws relative to the care
of the property of femmes couvertes, of infants, of
idiots, and lunatics. There avers many Acts on that sub-
ject which required to he consolidated, with addi-
tions recommended to the Solicitor by his (the Lord Chan-
cellor's) predecessor. Copyholds might be surrendered to
firmest, couvcrles, but not to infants and idiots ; and it
was new proposed to enable infants to take surrenders of
eopyholds and leases, and to make other leases for the be-
neficial Administration of the property, and for the im-
provernent'Of the estate ; but there was a provision that
no flee should.be taken, and that the lease should be at
the fall rent. There was also a provision to enable the
Court to complete conveyances of real property of a luna-
tic, who hail contracted to convey before his lunacy. The
Court at present had tile power to order the purchaser to
pay the money into Omit, but it had no power to make
the holistic convey. There was a clause also to compel the ;
committee of a lunatic to make a transfer of stock belong-
ins; to the lunatic. It might happen that a Committee
might be removed fur misconduct or sonic ether reason ;
but time Court could not compel him to transfer the
stock, atul it was intended that in these respects the laws
of England and Ireland ehould he assimilated. There
was a third Act, the purpose of which was to amend the
law with respect to estates vested in trustees. A vender
sells an estate, and dies before conveyance ; the heir in
that case, if of age, was bound to convey. BLit when the
heir was an infant the Court...had ea power to order a con-
veyance till the heir became ofJr-0, although the Court
should be of opinionflinathevonveyance ought to be com-
pleted. It was proposed in this Bill to remedy this in-
convenience, and that amendment also was recommended
by hitaptedecessor. On the death of a trustee—or, if it
was necessary that there should be two, and one died--
then, on the mere change of a trustee, it was necessary to
tie a Bill .in Chancery. This had rather an alarming
sound, for their Lordships knew what a Bill in Chancery
was. There were many cages of an analogous kind, in
which the matter was done by petition to the Court of
Chancery; and it was proposed that for the future ad,

should be so done. Then, as to the trustees of charities,
1 the heir of the surviving trustee might represent the whole
estate ; and yet it was often extremely difficult to find him,
and a cumbrous and complicated process was at present em-
ployed for that purpose. It was in this Bill provided that
when the heir could not he discovered by advertisement, or
some such easy and short process, it should he in the power
of the Court to appoint another trustee. The contents of
these two last Bills were at first put into one; but on con
sideration it app.ared best to the Solicitor-General to di-
vide it; as was now done. These Bills he thought would
be beneficial, and ought to pass after perhaps two or three
alterations, which might be made in the Committee. In
the meantime he moved that they he read a second time.
The Earl of AIALMESBURY was of opinion that the
regulations were of great importance, and would be bene-
ficial, and he thanked the Noble and Learned Lord for
the condensed and luminous view which he had given of
them. But he wished to ask the Noble and Learned
Lord a question as to the power of trustees holding estates
during the infancy of the heir or person beneficially, or to
he beneficially, entitled when he came of age. The trustees,
he understood, were to have the power to lease the estates
for 21 years. which might be required for the beneficial
management. Non•, what he wished to know was, whe-
ther the trustees were, or the Court was, to have the
power to lease the mansion-house for 21 years? If they
were, the heir might be unable to get possession of his
own family mansion-house till he was forty years of age.
The LORD CHANCELLOR replied, that the clause in
question was large enough to include the letting of the
family mansion house. But still the matter would be in
the discretion of the Court, which would take care that
the heir should have the power to take possession of the
Lamily mansion when he became of age. The object of the
clause was the improvement of the estate ; and though it
was large enough to carry the power to the extent to which
the Noble Earl alluded, the Court would always take care
that the heir should not be kept out of his family mansion
after he came of age.
The Earl of iIIALMESBURY then gave notice that
in the Committee he would move that the mansion house
should be excepted fron► the power.
The Bills were then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed (time not mentioned).
Adjourned till Monday.