The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 24. 1441.

pose the motion, His constituents had been wait-
ing fourteen years for the passing of a general measure,
arid from the state of business in the House,
there was as much hope of its being carried in the present
session as any of its predecessors. He trusted the House
would allow all Bills which had been read a second time
to proceed, and if a general measure were passed, then
they would, of course, merge into it.
Mr. F. M AUL E hoped the House would not concur in
the opposition made to his motion. He could assure the
Hon. Member that his constituents were not the only
parties who had been waiting fourteen years for the passing
of a general measure. They were anxious to save the
money of the parties, and he hoped the House would agree
with him that that was a desirable object.
After a few words from Mr. FRE SHFIELD and Mr.
F. MAULE, the House divided. The numbers were—
For the motion 4O
Against it 39
Majority
The North Midland Railway Bill was read a third time
and passed.
CLENT VICARAGE BILL.

The SPEAKER ieformed the House that after the
second reading of this Bill it had been discovered that the
Standing Orders had not been complied with, in consequence
of a misapprehension of them by the supporters of the Bill,
and consequently that it would be necessary to nullify the
proceedings, and again refer the Bill to the Committee on
Private Bills.—Agreed to.
Mr. BR A MSTONE presented a petition from Roch-
dale praying for the extinction of Church-rates.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented four petitions from
Baptist Congregations in the counties of Essex, Suffolk,
Kent, and Warwick, prayingtobe allowed to make affirma-
tions or declarations instead of taking oaths.
Mr. STRUTT presented petitions from the inhabitants
and from the Mayor and Corporation of Derby against the
Import Duties.
Mr. RAIKES CURRIE presented a petition from
the Mayor, Aldermen, and Council of Northampton, pray-
ing for a revision and reduction of the Import Duties.
Mr. A INS WORTH presented a petition signed by
6,500 inhabitants of Bolton against the Compensation
clauses in the Criminal Justice Bill ; also two petitions
from Stockport against the present system of Corn-laws.
Lord HOTHAM presented a petition from a proprie-
tor of land in South Australia, complaining of the
misapplication of the emigration fund of that colony. The
petitioner stated that he, in common with many other per-
sons, had been induced to purchase land by the guarantee
given on the part of the Government that the funds of
that colony would be applied strictly to emigration purposes.
Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from the in.
habitants of Tamworth, and its neighbourhood, praying for
the Repeal of the Corn-laws.
Sir DE LACY EVANS presented a petition from
100 inhabitants of Marylebone, to the same effect.
Petitions were also presented from Manchester by Mr.
Mark Phillips, from a Dissenting Minister in the county of
Chester, by Mr. Gisborne, and from the Town Council of
Annan by Mr. Ewan, praying for a total repeal of the
present Corn-laws.

Mr. LVANS presentel petitions from Dublin and
Wicklow, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. VILLIERS presented petitions from Leicester-
shire and other places to the same effect.

Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN presented three petitions from
places in the county of Limerick, in favour of Lord Mor-
peth's Irish Registration Bill.
Mr. EASTHOPE presented several petitions from
Dissenting Congregations, praying for the extinction of
Church-rates and Ecclesiastical Courts, and the release
of Mr. William Baines.

Mr. HAWES presented petitions from Dunstable and
Codlington, for the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. LABOUCHERE presented two petitions to the
same effect.

Sir J. GRAHAM presented petitions from Westmor-
laad and Cumberland complaining of the assessment u
tithes to Poor-rates.

Mr. 0. GORE presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Blackfriars-road praying that the toll might be
taken off the Metropolitan Bridges.
Mr. LUCAS gave notice that on the Gth May he
should move for leave to bring in a Bill empowering credi-
tors in Australia to attach the wages of workmen to the
amount of one-fourth when the debt did not exceed •201.

Mr. JERVIS gave notice of his intention to move for
leave to bring in a Bill to amend the General Turnpike Act.
Lord TEIGNMOUTH postponed the second reading
of the College of Maynooth Bill till the 19th May.
Mr. HUME moved for returns of the number of persons
confined for criminal offences in England, Scot'and, and
Ireland, for the last three years, with the number convicted
and acquitted.—Ordered.
On the motion of Mr. HAVES, an account was or-
dered cf the quantity of fresh fruit imported from 1838
to 1840, and of the amount of duty received upon it ; also
an account of the produce of the additional 5 per cent.
imposed upon all excise and customable articles ; together
with the additional 10 per cent. added to the assessed taxes
last year.

In answer to a question from Mr. W. PATTEN,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expressed anxiety to
proceed with the Criminal Justice Bill, but if he were
prevented doing so before ten o'clock he would not move
it that night.
On the suggestion of Mr. LUCAS, Lord Morpeth con-
sented to postpone the further progress of the Irish Arms
Bill till next week.

On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the H-iuse, at
its rising. was ordered to stand adjourned till Monday.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the House
resolve itself into Committee on the Administration of
Justice Bill (No. 1).

Sir WM. FOLLETT presented a petition from the
Court-keeper of the Court of Exchequer, setting forth that
he had purchased his place is the usual manner; that the
Bill would very much reduce his fees, and that the com-
pensation clause to be proposed by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer did not provide for his case. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman gave notice that unless that clause
were much altered, he would feel it his duty to tike t-e
sense of the House upon it.
The House then went into Committee.
Clauses 1 to 6 were agreed to, with some verbal amend-
ments.

On clause 7 bring proposed,
Sir E. SUGDEN said the effect of this clause would be
to transfer to the Accountant-General of the Court of
Chancery all funds in the hands of the Accountant-General of
the Court of Exchequer. The effect of this would be
to greatly increase the emoluments of the Accountant-
Geueral of the Court of Chancery, which were already
sufficiently large. The funds in the Court of Exchequer
were but a thirtieth or fortieth part of those in the Court
of Chancery. The proposed appointment of one or two
Judges would in like manner increase the income of the A -
countant-General, because the same business would be done
in a shorter time. He was not aware what that income was,
end he called upon the Attorney-General or the Noble Lord
to inform the House what would be the probable amount
f the income of the Accountant-General of the Court of
Chancery when these additional sums were added to it.
He would be exceedingly sorry to have it suppose] that he
said this from a feeling of disrespect to the Learned
Gentleman who filled the office ; but he thought the
House should be informed cf the probable increase if this
clause were passed. •
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was not able
to state what would be the exact amount of salary ; in his
opinion the sum at present received was small considering
tee important duties to be fulfilled.
After a few words from Sir E. SUGDEN, strangers
were ordered to withdraw, but no division took place.
On our return to the gallery we found
Sir E. SUGDEN on his legs. He said he was anxious
to re-state his arguments for the benefit of the lion.
Members who were not present when he made his objec-
tions to the claw.e upon a former occasion. He asked for
a postponement of the clause, so that he might have cer-
tain returns laid before the House.

`lr. GOUL BURN, on the part of the public, said the
money ought to be applied to compensate the officers of
the Exchequer, in the place of giving it in the shape of in-
creased fees to the officer in the Court of Chancery.
Lord J. RUSSELL defended the clause as being C -
sential to the well working of the Bill.

The SOLICITOR•GENERAL supported the clause.
The alteration suggested by the Right Hon. Gentleman
would be introducing into it that which would be wholly
irrelevant.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER thought the House and
the country were much indebted for the suggestion of the
Right Hon. Member for Ripon, which it was his intention
to support. This might be an antiquated way of paying
the Accountant-General, but it ought to be abolishcl.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, they were going to a division
on a clause that every one agreed to, for all agreed
that these funds should be transferred.—( Hear, hear.)
How could they prevent the Accountant-General from
sharing the profits of the brokers ? If he did not, the
brokers would get the whole of it. Perhaps it might be
better to have a broker for the Court of Chancery ; but
if so there should be a clause for that purpose.
After a few words from Nlr. H TIME,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was not before aware
of the way in which the Accountant-Gotteral was paid.
He thought it might be necessary to introduce a clause on
the subject.
Sir E. SUGDEN said such being the case, he should
withdraw his amendment.

The clause, with several others, was then agreed to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the clause now
under the consideration of the Committee related to the
appointment of the new Judges, and the question was,
what number the blank should be filled up with. He pro-
posed that the blank should be filled up with the word
" two ;" for the opinion of all the witnesses examined
before the Committee of the House of Lords was that
two new Judges at least would be required, and some of
them—among others, hie Honour the Vice-Chancellor—
did not think that two would be sufficient. Ho need not
remind the Committee of the large amount of arresrs at
present existing in the Court of Chancery, and the delay
experienced by suitors in the hearing of their causes.
Another general complaint was the vast expense attending
these suits, and it was well known that unless the sum to
be recovered exceeded a thousand pounds it was not a very
lucrative speculatiou to embark in a Chancery suit. From
the arrangements at present in contemplation there would
be such a reduction of expense and such an increase of
expedition that suits fur much smaller sums would be freely
undertaken.
Mr. HUME thought one Judge amply.s?fficient, and
be understood that such was was the opinion of Lord
Brougham.
Sir E. SUGDEN objected to the clause, not on ac-
count of the appointment of new Judge', bet on account
of the expense which would be entailed by the establish.
mart of Courts. If the clause should pass there would be
no less than five Courts of Equity, whilst there were only
three Courts of Law. Such a state of things must lead
to confusion. He ( Sir Edward Sugden) had before
alluded to the defective state of the Appellate Courts of
this country. His proposal for amending the sy3tern
however, opposed by the Government. The opinion of the
Flee-Cliancellor had been cited in favour of this clause.
If he rightly understood that opinion of the Vice-Chan-
cellor, it ass that one extra Judge would be sufficient,