The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after Twelve
o'clock.

CITY ELECTION.
Major BERESFORD presented a petition from cer-
tain electors of the city of London, complaining of an
undue return for the city of London, in the persoa of
Baron Rothschild.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' amendments to the Lancashire and York-
shire and London and North-Western R-lilway Com-
panies (Transfer of Interest i❑ the Preston and Wyre
Railway Harbour and Dock, and Regulating Manage-
ment of the Undertaking) Bill, were considered and
agreed to.

LONDON CORPORATION BILL.
Oa the question that this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. HUME said the elections of the city of London
ought to be assimilated to those of other towns. Lon-
don was excluded from the operation of the Reform
Bill, but it was upon the understanding that a measure
would be subsequently introduced to reform the corpo-
ration. That measure, however, had never been intro•
duced, but the Bill was to enable all freemen who occu-
pied premises in the City of the rateable value of 101.
a year to vote at the various corporation elections. In
all towns, with the exception of London, rate-payers to
the extent of 2s. 6d. a year, were entitled to vote, but as
it was not possible to obtain premises under 101 a year
within the City, he did not propose to alter that
amount. He, however, wished to leave out the
word freemen, so as to give all occupiers of
premises in the City of the rateable value of 101. the
right of voting, and as Government were favourable to
progressive reforms, he hoped they would support this
amendment.
Mr. W. PATTEN complained that no netice had been
given of the amendment.
The LORD MAYOR said the present practice in the
city of London was only to allow freehold huseholders
of the rateable value of 10/. to vote, but the Bill pro-
posed to extend the suffrage to occupiers, who were a
very large body, and as this was a step in the right di-
rection, he trusted his lion. Friend would not endanger
the passing of the Bill by persevering in his amend-
ment.

Mr. BERNAL insisted that the amendment could
not be entertained, as it differed from the one of which
notice had been given at the Private Bill Office.
Mr. HUME appealed to the Speaker to state whether
the fact, that the Bill, as it now appeared in print
underlined with his amendment, was not a sufficient
notice.
The SPEAKER did not think it was. All amendments
to be introduced into a private Bill must first pass stand-
ing orders. Now this was not the amendment which
had been before the examiner, and it ought not, there-
fore to be introduced.
Mr. HUME had been so much occupied with public
business that be had not bad time to make himself fully
acquainted with the mode of proceeding on private Bills,
but he had taken the advice of parties who were con-
versant with the matter, and they thought he had given
sufficient notice. However, as the Speaker ruled other-
wise, he had no alternative but to withdraw his amend-
ment.
The amendment was accordingly withdrawn, and the
Bill was read a third time and passed.
SECOND READING-.
Lord Brougham and Vaux (late Duke of Cleveland's)
Estate Bill was read a second time.
PREVENTION OF SMOKE.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL presented a petition
from a person of the name of Jukes, stating that he had
invented a new mode of consuming smoke, and praying
for au inquiry as to its efficacy.
RAILWAY AUDIT BILL.
Mr. W. PATTEN presented a petition from Lanca-
shire against the Railway Au tit Bill.
CERTIFICATE DUTY.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM presented a petition from so-
licitors practising at Penrith, praying for the repeal of
the attorneys' certificate duty.
ESTATES LEASING (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to.
On the motion that it be read a third time on Thurs-
day next,
Sir L. O'BRIEN said he had prepared certain clauses
to add to the Bid, which he considered were calculated
greatly to promote the social welfare of Ireland, and he
wished to know from the Government what course he
had better pursue with respect to them.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the clauses had
been placed in his hands only within the last few minutes;
but if the Hon. Gentleman would get them printed, he
would consider them, and see if they could be put into a
proper form. He admitted that the object which the
Hon. Gentleman had in view was a very desirable one,
and if he found the clauses unobjectionable, he should
propose that they he introduced upon the third reading.
The Bill was then ordered to be read a third time on
Thursday next, at twelve o'clock.
SMALL DEBTS ACT AMENDMENT BILL (COM-
PENSATION FOR OFFICES ABOLISHED).
The report upon this Bill was received and agreed to.
SMALL DEBTS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill; Mr.
BERNAL in the chair.
On the clause giving compensation to the officers of
the Palace Court being proposed,
Lord DUDLEY STUART objected to the clause, be-
cause be could not agree to any compensation being
granted to these officers. His Hon. Friend (Mr. B.
Osborne) had stated yesterday that the court was illegal;
and indeed he could not himself help thinking that it
was unconstitutional to tax people as that court
had done without the consent of Parliament.—(Hear.)
Landowners, merchants, manufacturers, and shopkeepers
were not compensated when new laws were made affect-
ing their respective interests, and he knew not why such
peculiar and tender concern was felt for the interest of
the lawyer; indeed he could not comprehend it all.
If these gentlemen bought their places at an extrava-
gant price, they did so upon speculation, and they ought,
therefore, when the Legislature thought fit to alter or
abolish the court, to take the consequences, in the same
way that other persons did in other kinds
of speculations. He must, therefore, again
protest against compensation being granted to
persons in the condition of these Palace-court
officers. He would repeat the objection which he took
yesterday to the Treasury being authorised to estimate
and determine the amount of the compensation.—
(Ilear, hear.) The objection which he made was
not a vague one, for when the Treasury had such
authority given before, large sums were awarded to per-
sons, in the shape of compensation, when they had suf-
fered no loss whatever. The officers, as had already
been stated, had received compensation under the Act
passed to abolish imprisonment for debt; that
during the four years that had elapsed since
then, they made more money than they did during the
four years previously. He should mention, however,
that there was ono exception to this; the deputy pro-
thonotozy had received during the last four years 2664.
less, and to show in what way the Treasury
compensated persons, they gave him 1,4001.,
The Treasury were often extremely penurious and paltry
—indeed, so much so, that nu gentleman in his private
capacity would act so scurvily; but here was an instance
of a very lavish and culpable expenditure.
How could they be called upon to trust to the Treasury,
after such instances of lavishness and disregard of the
public interest, to decide upon the amount 01 compensa-
tion? The plan of referring the matter to a Select Com-
mittee was much better than that; it was more consti-
tutional, and the House would have it more in their own
hands ; whereas if it were left to the Treasury,
they might afterwards complain, but in vain.
He must protest against this mode of proceeding—
against those persons being compensated who had al-
ready been compensated more than enough. He should
test tho opinion of the House upon this point, for be felt
convinced that he should receive the support of the
House, and that the sense of the country would be
with him.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped that when the
Noble Lord saw the effect which his motion would have,
he would be induced to withdraw it. He had no doubt
that the Noble Lord, in common with the rest of
the House, desired to see the Bill pass as soon
as possible. There wero many Acts of Parliament
which had fully recognised and sanctioned the sales of
such offices as these, and it was not likely that the Le-
gislature would pass an Act utterly to abolish offices,
without compensation to the holders, the sale of which
they had often recognised. Ile understood that the
Noble Lord objected to the mode in which this com

pensation was to be granted. For his part, if the matter
were to undergo a thorough investigation, he thought the
mode proposed would be far the best; fur if the House
referred the matter to a Select Committee, there would
be no such responsibility upon any person as there would
be if it rested upon the Treasury. In fixing the amount
of compensation, account would be taken of that which

. _ ....._ ...........
they had already received, and advantage would be
taken of a return made in 1846 by the counsel and soli-
citors practising in the Palace Court of the fees and
emoluments.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to know why it was
hat universal beast of burden, the Consolidated Fund,

was called upon to sustain this additional weight of
compensation for a local court.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL explained that the
practice in the Palace Court tended to diminish the fees
and emoluments in the other Courts; if these were not

sufficient to pay the salaries of the judges the remainder
was taken from the Consolidated Fund; if there was an
excess, it went to the Consolidated Fund, so that, in
fact, in abolishing this Court, they increased the prac-
tice of the other Courts, and thus relieved the Conso-
lidated Fund.

Mr. J. EVANS was extremely partial to the plan
proposed by his Noble Friend, it would be productive
of more searching investigation. After such an
instance of compensation as the six clerks
i❑ Chancery, these men had already received 150,0001.
and upwards. This was a subject which required in.

yr stigation.
Sir F. THESIGER thought that the Treasury was
the best authority to which to refer the matter of com-
pensation. Besides which, if the course which the Noble
Lord proposed was adopted, and it was referred to a
Select Committee, the Bill would not pass this session.
With regard to the ill. gality of the Court there was no
pretence for such an assertion. It had been asterted
that the Crown had no power to establish this Court.
The Crown had the prerogative of establiAing any
court, acting in accordance with the common law of this
country; and there having been an ancient Court,
whose jurisdiction extended twelve miles round
the Palace, for the officers of the household, all
that was done by the Charter of Charles 11. was to erect
a court for persons who were not of the household.
That charter had been recognised over and over again
by Acts of Parliament, and by it the offices of the offi-
cers of the Court were made freehold. Large sums