The Sun.
London, England, 1831-09-01 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

The House having resolved itself into a Committtee of
Supply,
Mr. RICE moved that a sum of 50,0001. be granted
for defraying the probable exprnres of their Majesties
Coronation. The Committee would observe, that that
sum amounted to not mere than a fifth part of the sum
expended upon the last Coronation, and that therefore the
arrangements must have been made upon a principle of
the strictest economy.
Mr. HUME was ready to admit, that if a Coronation at
all took place, the vote moved for the approaching cere-
mony was moderate compared with the expence attendant
upon the Coronation of George the Fourth ; hut he could
not help expressing great regret that his Majesty's Govern-
ment should hare thought it necessary to call for such a
slim as 50,0001. He did not blame the present Govern-
ment for the manner in which they brought forward the
present vote ; on the contrary, he believed they mad- the
whole of their arrangements with a view to save expence ;
nevertheless, he could not bring himself to regard such an •
appropriation of 50,000/. otherwise than a complete
throwing of it away, and he %Ira; quite sure that it would be
infinitely more satisfactory to the people if the ceremonial
were gone through without such an expenditure of the
public money. He must, therefore protest against the grant.
Mr. HUNT said, that if the Hon. Member for Middle-
sex was sincere in his opposition to the vote, he would di-
vide the Hou e upon it, and if he did, he (Mr. Hunt)
would divide with him.
Mr. HUME did not :understand the Hon. Member for
Preston. He (Mr. Hume) thought it right to give his
opinion on the vote, but it did not necessarily follow that
he was thereupon to put the House to the trouble of divid-
ing without the prospect of any useful result.
Mr. RICE differed front the Hon. Member for Middle-
sex, as to the necessity which there existed for the cere-
monial of the Coronation. Those who framed the Corona-
tion Oath were deeply impressed with the necessity fur such
a ceremnny, and there was no man acquainted with the
Constitution, who for a moment doubted that it was not
alone the King, but the people who were interested in the
due performance of that ceremony.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the Hon. Member for Preston
had accused the Hon. Member for Middlesex of insincerity.
As mankind were prone to judge of others from them-
selves, he confessed it did surprise him to bear the Hon.
Member for Preston accusing any Member of that House
of insincerity.—(A laugh.) As to the ceremonial of the
Coronation, he was persuaded that there were very few
persons in that llow.e, or in the country at large, who did
not feel the propriety of such a solemn recognition of the
compact between the Monarch and the people ; and he was
sure no Monarch could take the oaths with more perfect
sincerity than could our present most gracious Sovereign.
His Hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex had been re-
commended to divide the House upon the present vote.
Did he venture upon that step, he assured him he would
stand alone. There was one additional and great cause of
satisfaction—namely, that the proposed expence would not
amount to more than one-filth of the expence of the last
Coronation.

Mr. BRISCOE approve.' cf the vote.
Mr. HUME—AII that he would contend for was this_
that the ensuing Coronation might be conducted without
expellee. The people were not admitted to the ceremony,
and in fret and in truth, his Majesty's Government were
driven into the expence by the taunts of the opponents in
the other House ; they seemed to have no power to resist
those taunts. Of this, at all events, he felt perfectly as-
sured, that if the expences were kept within 5,0001. the
arrangement would prove much more satisfactory to the
people ; it was an expense for excluding the people.—
Vote agreed to.
Mr. RICE said, that the next vote was one of tlicese
which was under the consideration of the Committee above
stairs—it was for defraying the expences of the House-
hold of the Lor-I Lieutenant of Ireland. He could assure
the Committee, that all possible p sins had been taken to
render the estimate as low as possible—it was still under
the consideration of a Committee above stairs, and he bad
no doubt that it would obtain, as it merited, their most
serious attention. The amount was 16,379/. 14s. 111.

Mr. HUME bore testiinon✓ to the anxiety manifested
by the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to effect all
possible reductions, but he hoped soon to see the office
abolished altogether. He trusted that the first S:ssion of a
reformed Parliament would put an end to it.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT, on the subject of the office
of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, would reserve himself till
the subject came regularly under the consideration of the
House.

Sir JOHN BURKE observed, that there was a sum of
2,3731. for the payment of the Battle Me Guards, and
wished for some explanation on that point.
Mr. STANLEY said that they formed part of the
pageantry attendant upon the office of Lord Lieutenant--
that the present members of th.t body had purchased their
situatit:ns, and, therefore, could not with any justice be
dismissed, but it was intended gradually to abolish them as
they fell in.
Mr. O'CONNELL approved of the plan of abolishing
them as vacancies by death arose ; but as to the office of
Lord Lieutenant, he could not agree to its abolition ; for
if there were one subject more than another upon which
all Irishmen were unanimous, it was upon the expediency
of maintaining that office and the establishments attendant

upon it.
Mr. LEADER said, that during the last ten years, there
had been a falling off of four hundred thousand pounds a
year in the customs and excise of the city of Dublin.
Could it then dispense with any of the usual advantages
which it at present possess .d ?
Mr. HUME did not desire the abolition for the mere
sake of the pecuniary saving, though that was not incon-
siderable, but for the sak,l of good government in Ireland,
Till they got rid of the Lord Lieutenant, there would be
nothing like good government in Ireland. If the Irish
Members on the other side rose to express their opinions,
he was sure they would dissent from those of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Kerry.
An liox. I 1 taai wished to know who it was that

preitenbed Irish gentlemen from sraking?—(Great laugh-
ter, in which Mr. Hume heartily joined.)
The next was a sum 0f:5,334/. for defraying the charges
of the office of Vice Treasurer in Ireland.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the late Vice-Treasurer
was a di faulter to a large amount, and he should be glad to
know whether anything and what bad been done on th jt
subject ?
Mr. RICE began by explaining, that the late Vice-
Treasurer of Ireland, Sir George Hill, had some years
ago an account with the Government, the balance of which
was about 8001, but vas subsequsntly reduced to a much
smaller sum. On his being appointed to the Vice-Trea-
surystlip, the annual suns that passed through his bands
was 10,0001. ; but an account of the disbursement of this
for the five years that he held the office was not rendered
up to the time that the late Government appointed him to
the office of Grovornor of St. Vincent. After Sir G. 11111
had sailed to the West Indies he was w►itten to on teh
subject, and his accounts were peremptorily demanded ;
on
which they were then rendered by a gentleman in Ireland,
who was named by Sir G. Hill ; and on an examination,
it appeared that there were about 2,000/. due froat Sir G.
Hill to the Government. the payment of which hail been
demanded at his hands, together with the vouchers for the
other part of the account.
Mr. R. GORDON had been the first to mention this
subject to the House; but, subsequently, understanding
that the business was in a course of inquiry, he had not
continued to press it. Ile attached no blame to this Go-
vernment, but he did to the last, fir sending Sir G. Hill
uut to the colonies before he hail rendered his Irish ac-
counts to the Treasury.
Mr. HUME went further, and wculd say, that the
Treasury WaS highly culpable in not requiring their ac-
counts to be settled annually.
Mr. G. DAWSON was surprised at the tone of the
speeches of the last two Hon. Gentlemen. They treated
the case as if there was an actual defalcati•m ; but there
was a great difference between the postponement of an ac-
count and a defalcation. He admitted, however, that this
account had been postponed a very long time; and he
(Mr. G. Dawson) bad done everything in his power
while in office, to bring Sir G. Hill to a settlement ; but,
unfortunately, he had not succeeded.—(A laugh, and
hear, hear.) He said this, that no man bad a right to
cast an aspersion on Sir G. Hill till it was proved that
he was unwilling to pay the balance ; and he would under-
take t say, that the public would not lose a shilling by this
account.

Mr. R. GORDON had not cast any aspersions ; he
had only said that the account was confused ; and he
thought that that was pretty evident from the Right Hon.
Gentleman's own statement—(A laugh)—and he must
again say, that he attributed great blame to the late Go-
vernment for allowing this account to run live years with-
out any elucidation of it.--(Hear.)
Sir J. NEWPORT referred to the case of Chinnerv,
and observed, that he had several times attempted to call
the attention of the Government to it at that time ; but
the result was that his appeal not having been attended to,
a considerable sum was lost in that case. The Right Hon.
Gentleman said that there would be no money lost in Sir
G. Hill's case. Perhaps so ; but he thought that that
was no answer to the public for the delay that had been
allowed to take place.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to know what was the sum
for which vouchers► were required in Sir G. Hill's account?
Mr. RICE did not precisely know ; but supposing there
were vouchers for ail the account, there would still be
2,1007. unaecNinted tor.

Mr. O'CONNELL zpked what excuse there could pos-

sibly be for these 2,1001 being for a moment in Sir G.
pocket ? He defied any man to say that, on his
own confession, he seas not a public peculator ; and those
who refrained from insisting on the accounts were partici-
patois in the crime. The Right Hon. Gentleman said
that he had written to him threatening letters, but what
were those, when the iSsue of farther money ought to have
been stopped.— (Hear, bear.) It was said that t'ie public
would not ultimately he losers; but he did not know that.
The next packet from the \Vest Indies might bring news
that the yellow fever had killed him. He should feel it
his duty to bring this matter again before the House ; for
he did not know that the present Government teas justi-
fied in continuing this person i❑ office. He knew of no-
,hing worse than political timidity ; that was the besetting
sin of the present Administration, and he wished to God
that they would learn to distinguish their friends from
their enemies.—(Loud cries of " hear" from Mr. Hume.)
Sir G. MURRAY thought the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Rice) had put this case upon its proper footing, by stating
that the present Government was becoming urgent with
Sir G. Hill to explain the matter, at the same time taking
care not to press too heavily upon that; gentleman. Ile
thought that to say, however, Sir G. Bill was by this
transaction unfitted to hold his office in the West Indies of
the Gmornorship of St. Vincent was, to say the least of it,
a little premature.
Mr. WILKS trusted that this would be an example i❑
future to the Government, to make them alive to com-
pelling their officers'to account for the sums advanced to

them.
Mr. G. DAWSON perhaps had to come extent become
a party to some degree of blame in this affair; but, know-
ing his connection with Sir G. Hill, he had not taken the
question into his own hands, but had put the papers into
the hands of the Assistant-Secretary of the Treasury,
with directions to him to pursue the subject with all dili-
gence. It was, however, but due to the Treasury to ex-
onerate that dep irttnent ; and he must reluctantly admit
the blame of the transaction rested with Sir G. Hill.
Mr. R. GORDON was not at all satisfied with the
statement of his Right Hon. Friend. lie thought that
his Right Hon. Friend oueht to have insisted on Sir G.
Hill settling his accounts before he went to the West
Indies, or to have sent a whole statement of the case to
the Colonial-office, where nothing of the affair could be
known.
Mr. HUME said, that if the doctrine laid down by
the Right Hon. Gentleman was allowed, it would be fol-
lowed by the most disastrous consequences ; if the Right
lion. Gentleman would read the debates in Mr. Pitt's
time, he would find it laid down that no one had any
right to take any portion of the public money for his own
use, however accurately and entirely it might be accounted
for at a subs-Anent period.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the Right Hon. Member
for Harwich had accused him of committing a blunder,
hut the blunder was on his part. The Knight of Kerry
could know nothing of the matter, and the Right lion.
Gentleman had committed a blunder himself, for it was
his fault that the public money had been wasted. What
had come of the 2,0001. ? Sir George Hill had had it
without any authority, and spent it. The matter called
loudly for the interposition of Parliament, and if no other
Member moved for the Address to the Crown to remove
that officer, he would do it himself.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN censured the plan of
givirr, a man who was a defaulter another situation abroad,
that he might pay his default out of the other money he
received from the public.
Mr. G. DAWSON explained. The facts on which
the Hon. Members had commented were made known
after Sir George Hill had been appointed. They were
wise, therefore, after the fact. He took blame to himself
(or not having seen Sir George Hill's accounts ; but not
having seen them, the Treasury could not know he was in
arrears. It was bard and unjust to assert that Sir George
Hill had embezzled this money, which was merely unac-
counted for.
Mr. R. GORDON thought the Right Hon. Gentleman
bad been most unsuccessful, whether he meant to defend
himself or defend Sir George Hill. It was an aggravation
of the negligence of the Treasury to assert, that for five
years the Treasury had not had this officer's accounts be-
fore it, and yet had appointed him to another office. It.
was clear that the money was not now at the comtnted of
the public, and therefore it had been improperly appro-
priated.
Mr. STRICKLAND hoped the Hon. Member for
Kerry would move the Address he bad spoken of; for he
could not conceive the offence imputed to Sir George Hill
amounted to any thing but embezzlement. In private life,
at least, it would he called embezzlement.
Mr- HUME had a right to call Sir G. Hill an em-
bezzler, and his conduct embezzlement. When the prin-
ciples on which he had acted were defended, it was the
duty of that House to investigate the matter, anti bring
the whole question to a trial.
Mr. HUNT complained of this—the second discussion
of tie question. The present and last Governments both
wished to shift the blame off their shoulders. lie, as the
representative of the public, wished to know how the
public was to be indemnified ; and he should suggest that
2,000/. less than the vote should be granted. He moved
that 2,1001. be taken off from the vote. The Secretary
of the Treasury might then stop the money out of his own-
salary.—(A laugh.)
Mr. SPRING RICE said, that the motion of the Hon.
Member was nonsense and gross injustice. How any gen-
tleman should think of stopping 2,0001. front the salaries
of the clerks at Dublin and London, in order to recover
money from Sir George Hill, he could not conceive. The
present Government had no blame to throw off its shoulders.
Mr. HUNT respectfully denied that. He did not know
any step the Government had taken to recover this money.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY saw no difference between
the
purloiner of public or private property committed to his
charge. lie thought there was much more to plead in

mitigation of the errors of a poor and industrious clerk,
with a family, than in favour of a titled man of rank, who
had no other excuse than his own extravagance. In our
Criminal Courts it was not allowed to compound a felony
after it was detected. It was not enough, therefore, that
the friends of Sir G. Hill offered to reimburse the pubic.

That satisfied the civil party, but public justice ought also
to be s aisfied. Unless the matter were followed up by
some spirited individual, it w. uld end where it began
He thought it ought not to stop there. Ti e imputations
thrown on the individual demanded an inquiry. If they
did not institute such an inquiry they would neglect their
duties as trustees of the public money.
Sir GEORGE MURRAY said the House had•received
the assurance of the Right Hon. Meilber, the Secretary
of the Treasury, that the Government would follow up
this matter if the balance were not paid up as had been
promised. He thought the conversation might be dropped.
Mr. JAMES thought the trion,l, might be stopped out
of the pay or out of the pension of Sir George Hill.
Another way was, for the Right Hon. Gentleman to give
security for it.
Mr. SPRING RICE repeated, that the Govern an nt
was taking strong and pressing means to recover tl:e
money. It it were not recovered the Government wou!d
take measures to proceed against Sir George Hill.
In answer to a question from Mr. O'Connell, be stated,
that the letter written to Sir George ILII was written the
very day tide communication was received from Ireland.

The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote was for 1,6801. for the Teller of the Ex-
chequer in Ireland.
Mr. SPRING RICE explained, that this office had
been transferred from the Civil List.—Vote agreed to.
46001. for printing statutes, proclamations, &c. was
the next vote.

Mr. SPRING RICE explained, that in this vote a re-
duction of upwards of 5.000/. had taken place, and he
hoped more reductions would take place.
A conversation of some length ensued on the expediency
of adopting the recommendation of the Committee of Fi-
nance, that the proclamations of the Irish Government
should be published only in the Dublin Gazette, and wit
in the Irish newspapers. With a view to carrying that
recommendation into effect, Mr. HumE moved to reduce
the grant by 1,500/. ; and Mr. O'CoNNELL moved to re•
duce it by 1,000/. On the assurance of Mr. STANLEY,
however, that the subject was one which should lie taken
into consideration!by the Irish Government, and that in the
mean time the recommendation of the Committee of F -
nance should be the general rule of their conduct, and any
little deviation which necessity might require only the ex-
ception to that general rule, both amendments were with-
drawn, and the original resolution was agreed to.
On the resolution granting a sum of 50,000/. to defray
the expences of Criminal Prosecutions and Crown Pro-
ceedings in Ireland,
Mr. G. DAWSON expressed an opinion that the
2,4001. a year paid to Major Woodward and Major Farmer,
as visitors of the gaols of Ireland, might now be readil
dispensed with. The objects for which those gentlemen
were appointed had long since been accomplish d, and the
propriety of abolishing the offices had engaged his atten-
tion while he was in t.ffice. He feared, however, that an
Act of Parliament would be found necessary to abolish the
situations.

Mr. RICE said that he had urged the abolition of those
offices, and divided the House on the ,uhject. The re•
sponsibility of keeping them up rested therefore with the late
Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since be (Mr. It.) came
into office with the present Government he had directed
his attention to the nature of the appointments, and found
that they could not well he dispensed as ith, if they desired
to keep the prison discipline in the good state in which it
now was; but he intended to reduce the salaries to the
amount allotted,at the time of the er,ation of the offices.
Mr. O'CONNELL, applying himself to the subi'ct be-
fore the Howse, approved of the grant of .:iO,OOO/. fur the
prosecutions, because it went to the constitutional admi-
nistration of the laws, through the means of Trial by
Jury. He thought, however, that the Attorney-General
should not, under the present Government, adopt the re-
prehensible practice of former Governments, and pa-s
over the Senior Counsel on Circuit, in order to give briefs
to men who were distinguished fur no quality but that of
holding violent political opinions.
Mr. STANLEY agreed with the Member for Kerry
(Mr. O'Connell), in the propriety of keeping the Crown
prosecutions free from the imputation of being conducted
by political partisans, and believed the cases to be rare in
which men of that character were called on to ace. On-
had, indeed, been mentioned, and he had given directions
that such an occurrence should be avoided. With respect
to the grant before the Committee, he f, ared that it would
not meet all the expences. A long arrear had accrued from
former years, and la,t year there was a balance left of
27,0001. although the grant had been as lart;e as the Fre,
sent. He had hoped this year to reduce it, but the ex-
pence of the Special Commissions to Clare and other places
rendered it impossible.
After a brief conversation between Messrs. North,

Crampton, Lefroy, IL Grattan, Leader, Maurice O'Con

tied, Hunt, and Hume, and a few words from Mr. Daw-
son and Mr. O'Connell respecting the judicial capabilities
of Mr. Justice D.,herty, the vote of 50,0001. fur criminal
prosecutions and other law expences for the year 1831, was
aareed to.
The next vote proposed was 21,7411. 15s. for Non- con-
forming,Seceding,and other Protestant Dissenters inb eland.
Mr. HUME of to the vote. He thought the Irish
Church was rich enough to pay all Protestant Dissenters;
and suggested, that if this grant were to be continued, it
should be paid from a fine of 21,0001., which he stated
might be levied upon the Bishopric of Derry.
Mr. STANLEY, in answer to the Hon. Member,
stated first, th it the grant was not a recent one. It was
made in the first instance by Charles IL--(A laugh).—
and increased by William 111., and afterwards during the
Secretaryship of Lord Castlereagh. In the next place he
could prove, if necessary, at the bar of the House, that the
revenues of the See of Derry never did, during the incum-
bency of the late Bishop, exceed 12,600/. a year ;
lastly, he contended, that, although the Legislature Lad the
power of controuling the expenditure of the revenue of
the Established Church as of any other Corporation, yet
had it not the power of devoting them to any other pur-
poses than those for which they were originally intended.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man laid down a doctrine to which lie could not assent,
when he (Mr. Stanley) Stated that the Legislature had not
the power of controuling and directing the revenues of the
Church of England. Ile maintained it had—inasmuch
as it was from an Act of the Legislature the Church ac-
quired all its rights and all its prop. rty. He contended,
also, that it appeared from the evidence of Mr. Leslie
Foster that the revenues of the See of Derry amounted to
15 or 16,000/. per annum from lands, independent of
Prebendaries and other sources of emolument in Derry,
raising it altogether to 20,0001. a year.
Mr. STANLEY admitted that Parliament had just a-
much right to touch the property of the Church of lrelar d
as to attack that of any private individual, and no more.
Mr. O'CONNELL maintained that church property
was not like private property ; church property was public
property placed in the bands of the clergy in trust for
special purposes.
Mr. SHEIL remarked, that the See of Watel ford only
extended over 5,000 cultivated acres, which produced
5,0001. a year. The See-of Derry extended over 40,000
cultivated acres, and if, therefore, eight gave five, the ques-
tion was, what would forty give ?—a rule of reason suni,
which it would be very easy to answer.—(Cheers.) He
adverted to the discordance of opinion between the Prime
Minister in the other House and the Irish Secretary in
this : for Earl Grey had distinctly stated on a recent occa-
sion, that the church property in Ireland was too great,
and that the establishment was not adopted to the countr).
Upon this point he also referred to the pamphlet of Mr.
Senior, the Professor of Political Economy of the Univer-
sity of Oxford, which -vas written with equal know-
ledge and ability. As a Roman Catholic, he (Mr. Sheil)
could not be friendly to the Protestant Church Establish-
ment in Ireland, but he was not therefore its enemy ;
and he all Owed that it would be most unjust to diminish
the receipts of a single Bishopric or of a single living
in Ireland in the hands of the present incumbent who
h id duties to discharge; but in places where not a
single response was heard in the Church to the clerk's
" Amen," and where the cobwebs, originally over the
poor-box, defiled the altar, and even hung like a canopy
over the pulpit, important and immediate reductions might
and ought to be made ; justice, policy, humanity—the
united voice of seven millions of people, and last, not
least, the Professor of Political Economy in Oxford re-
quired it.—' Hear, hear.) The Bill of Reform showed
that the present Goveininent possessed sufficient energy
and power—for the Minister who was bold enough to
storm the walls of G itton, need not pause before t e gates
of Derry.—(Hear, and laughter.) It was time to speak
out, and he was determined not to be guilty of the hypo-
crisy of silence on a question of this importance, brought
f)rward at such a moment. Two mitres had fallen already
to Downing street, and it was unfit that they [thou d again
adorn the forehead of the establishment.
Mr. R. FERGUSON was able to state, of his own
knowledge, that doting the life of the late Bishop of Derry,
that see, in no one year, hid produced 12,000/.
Mr. HUME proposed that tlse vote should be postponed
for one week, to give time for cons deration.
Mr. S. RICE said that the vote (or the Presliyterian

Clergy did not at all fairly raise the question regarding 'l3l
Church Establishment of Ireland, which might be brunt'
on hereafter upon notice. He objected to the distinct'
his Hon. Friend had drawn between Catholic, and Prr,
testant Members. No such difference was known
this House.
Mr. SIIEIL and Mr. S. RICE explained upon the
point.
A MEMBER remarked that the only real question
whether the Church Establishment of Ireland contribtar
to the public benefit?
Mr. WYSE insisted that Parliament was omnipoo,
hut only omnipotent for good, and that it might deal asi
pleased with the church property of Ireland, provided be
advant q,e of the whole st tte were kept in view.
Mr. BRISCOE l:ojeed that the strongly-prevalent to
poet was not true—that it was the intention of M•Otc,
to recommend an individual to fill the vacant see, cf n't
he would say no more than that he was not distinzuior''
by the highest theological !earning and attainmento/,
(Cries of question Ince intert opted the Hon. IMetaber'
and he sat down.)
After a few words from Lord BELrAsr,
Mr. HUME agreed to forego his amendment for r
p tning the vote, as he understood that such a delay ""°11:
be highly inconvenient. He strongly protested against
doctrine that Raliatnent 11,1,1 not a right to deal 'l°l
pleased with the church property of Ireland.
The question was then put, and the vote was agreed
On the lot tion of Mr. S. RICE, a vote for 170/. 15,t5,'
for the sal •rics of the Lottery Officers in Ireland, was t
agreed to. Li
Mr. S. RICE also moved that 2,6501. be granted
the expense of Inland Navigation in Ireland, for 1831.
The resolution was then put and agreed to.
The next was 20,8331. for defraying the expense Of tbi
Polire Est iblislonent in Dublin. •
f
Mr. HUME hoped that the further consideration 0 1.,
vote would be postponed, for the purpose of affording
House en opportunity of discussing the propriety of tF
Record?rship and the Reprt sentation of Dublin being no'
in the same individual.

After a few words fram Mr. RICE,
Mr. O'CONNELL concurred iu the postponement.
Mr. GItATTAN supported the vote, as did Mr. l'
PuortEs.
After some further conver,ation the vote was agreed tc'
The next vote was 3,754/. fur the expense of the Co
missioners of Judicial Inquiry.— Agreed to.
Also, 1,0001. for the expense of the Record Works n't
yet compl ted.
Pat
The next wa, 40,0001. for the employment of the P
and the relief of di,tress.—Agreed to
The next was 1,100/. for the salaries of the Coma'
ir
sioners of Public Woiks.—Agreed to.
The House then resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported Pro,",
gr us, and obtained leave to sit again this day ; the rep
to be received on Friday.

GAME BILL. 01/
The amendments, on the bringing up of the repot
this Bill, were read a second time. It
On the question that the Bill with its amenthnen
engro,,el,
Colonel SII3THORPE moved that the House do 0°
On this amendment the gallery was cleared for a
ds
sion, but none took place, and the original motion
agreed tn.
of, 1.
The otter

ne ,er orders of the d.n• were then
e Hour;•, at Half-past One, adjourned.

lisposed

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CILANCERY, Auuusr 31'
SMITH V. BRAIN. 0;1
Mr. PEPYS was heard upon an appeal frog)
Vice-Chancellor's order, by which the plaintiff
directed to pay 'o the solicitors in thes nit the lb,
which had been int:Hired in its prosecution. ;`,O
plaintiff Jenied that he had given any instrueoo',
for the proceedings which had been taken.
Mr. WHITMARSII contended that the ordel4(o,'
pealed agait;st was valid. Tne plaintiff's childreig
who were infant:, were entitled under a will, ,4,
tqwees of which declined to act. He constiV
the solicitors as :o the mole by which his childrenn
in erests could be best protected, and in the he
of
ing of a clerk, who had made an affidavit to 0,
effect, directed them to do what they thought `ll,
most expedient for that purpose. A hid for iherod
pointment of new trovees was accordingly filed'',
the plaintiff was applied to f 0 r the information :1,1,
quis:te on preparing the bill, when the nature 0f,04
proceedings was expla;ned to him. Some tiej
arterwards the plaintiff's master, being dispiet''ti
at hearing of the suite, a notice was served

his solicitor, Mr. Selby, countermanding le.c,
proceedings, but the plaintiff afterwards
pressed his regret at the discontinuance ,/
:he suit. The affidavits used in the Court belt
were read in support of this statement, and it ir
therefore insisted that the plaintiff had given L:
F.roc,ions and sanctioned the proceedings so slto
make himself liable to the costs which he had be
directed to pay by the Court below. ut
The Leann CHANCELLOR said, he could no'
firm the order of the Vice-Chancellor. Lord
had decided in a case " Wright v. Castle," (3 )t,
vale 1.20 aft, r full consideration of the authoritl,
that where the client denied that he gave it;'-'4,u;
tions, and the solicitor alleged that be recei;
them, the solicitor must produce his authorili.,•.
krriting to counterbalance the client's negati
His Lordship was of opinion that this case.",
binding, and unless tin authority in writrl
could be produced by the plaintiff, or titrie;}'
he could prove sortie act sanctioning the pro'.
ings, such as the payment of money on account d,
them, or the swearing of an affidavit in the
he pnistnutrion must be in favour of the client; rr
Lordship was of opinion that the balance of Oil
in this case was rather against the authority 4
have been given, and he was not satisfied ths',
of
plaintiff had performed any act that amoonted'oli
recognition or adoption of the suit. He sh°ot
11b;
therefore, decide according to the case of "
and Castle," and go by the rule that the auttoil
of the solicitor might be general to defend, but ":yt
be special to involve the client in litigation.°(
of the Court below reversed with costs. et!'
His LORDSHIP rose at three to attend his N-u.1:1
and return of at about five o'clock. After .611,11,1P/1i
snort time the Court adjourned til! seven, W"",ao
:notion which had been begun in the morning
heard.

HIMMERSLEY V. DUCKETT.
His LORDSHIP gave judgment in this case, a I,efr
ing the decision below, and dismissing the all
with costs. The Court rose at half-past nine. r;
His LORDSHIP having disposed of the wholelit
of bankrupt and oilier petitions, and having
few judgments to give, will sit to-morrow (title'
purpo-e of pronouncing them, after which he
ise and sit no more in public during vacation.

The cholera morbus has made its appe3l;i'
at Revel: ep to the 12th inst. 31 military and .51 Priti'l
persms had been attleked—lt) of the former and 52 -
latter had died.
It has been reported. within these few, nV
that the Lord Advoca,e will at no distant period reoft-,li
high (Alice ; bad health is assigned as the cause. lot.
states that he will be succeeded by Jr. JOHN ARCS' 1,0(
Muttitav, the Solicitor-General declining to ,

Advocate. —Edinburgh Observer. J 1;
SLAVES.— A runaway nen() is auvere,
,r
Georeia, " the white of wlie,e eyes is red !"----1;)

Carolina.
B I ICPIL St"
On the .'.7th ult. in Wilson-street, Mrs. William
of a son.
MA It RI ED. of
Ao)
• 'J o
On the :Nth ult., at Ulverstone, by the Rev. WO ,
burner, Mr. Henry Andrews, of Manchester, to Hannah,' 0
daughter of Ralph Brewer, 'E.sq. of the former place. tea'
On the 30th tilt. et Han ;well, Middlesex, W. Johns°, 9r,P
Eaton-place, to Sarah Jane, only daughter of C. Turn 1`
of Hanwell Park. e, fVt
On the .20!It ult. at St. John's, Clerkenwell, the --e Ab'
Faulkner, P.D. Vicar of St. Sepulchre, Cambridge, t°tl.r
second daughter of the late J. thimour, Esq., of the
Compan's service.
On they 30th ult. at Lambeth, Mr. J. Stearn 4, of Neentyll
to Sarah Ann, eldest daughter of the late J. Pittrnaot
Warwick-square.

DIED.
giOn the -`)Stli ult. at }la.:llford, Middlesex, aged 30,
wife of G. Wells, Esq., of Cottage Grove, Wit:worth.
On the 26th ult. in York-street, Portman-. 'laic, lgr
stet% of Dunnichen, Forfarshire, N.B. aged tS. net,,"
On the 21th ult. at the Manor-house, Teddingtun,
given birth to a still-born son, the lady of J. Coulson,
,`-',.‘„)
daughter Cl the late Rev. E. Dawkins, of Portnudi-!;!.u.J, 4
On the:llst ult. Frances, the only daughter of ,31'.
Upper Thames street, aged 20. 04'
On the 2.)th at North Foreland Lodge, M. bac—,
Greenwich, aged #52. 11
P.:4 ILD AND t 1.1.1.1,10 1.1 ,;U it.Dl.• • NU' At
Sum OVNICE, 111, STRAND, LONDON.