The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-08 00:00:00

Lord LYTTELTON said the subject had occupied the
attention of the Government for a considerable period. He
••gas not, however, prepared at that time to announce any tie-
3ision they had come to upon the subject.
The 13111 Iras then read a second time.
RAILWAY DEPOSITS BILL.

The Earl of DALHOUSIE moved the third reading of the
Rail way Deposits Bill.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
Earl ST. GERMANS proposed that this Bill, which had
been brought up from the other House, should be read a second
time on ;Monday next.
The Bill was then read a first, and ordered to ite read a
second time on Monday next.
COMMITTEES ON RAILWAY BILLS.
Lord REDESDALE then moved the resolution of which he
had given notice, " That the Select Committee appointed
by their Lordships to name the Select Committee for the consi-
deration of opposed private Bills should not name any such Com-
mittee on any opposed railway Bill after Monday, the 20th July.
There would be great difficulty in obtaining proper and efficient
,3ommittees after that period, to sit upon Bills and give them
due attention. Their Lordships were also aware that some of
the most important Bills were thot, that came up at the latest
period, and that was the case with those that were most op-
posed. It was desirable to secure good committees, and a fair
Ind proper time for the consideration of Bills before them, and
he thought every person must be fully aware that the time that
was allowed by this resolution for the lull consideration of
those Bills was such as ought to be allowed in such matters as
railway legislature. He had, therefore, selected the 20th July
as the day beyond which no committee should be named for
sitting on railway Bills. Their Lordships were aware that a
Committee named on that day, might very properly sit be-
yond the end of the month, and on some occasions in the
other House they had lasted for a longer period. He, therefore,
did not wish to name a later day. He had consulted that with
Noble Lords, who were best acquainted with the arrangement
of that House, and they entirely concurred with him on the
desirableness of selecting the day he had named. He, there-
fore, begged to move that no Select Committee for the con-
sideration of opposed private Bills should be fixed after the
20th July.

The Earl of WICKLOW said that the motion appeared
to las a very unjust one towards the public. There
never had been a session in which a greater number of railway
Bills had been brought before the House; and, notwithstanding
tlat, a proposition was brought forward at an early period of
the session which, to a great extent, delayed the progress of
those Bills. He perfectly approved of those measures; but if
this resoiution was passed the promoters of several railway
Bills would be subjected to great expense and inconvenience.
No doubt many Noble Lords would think it convenient to leave
town before the end of the session. But they had duties to
perform, and very important duties, in attending to railway
Bills. It was very true that great injuty had been done to the
public by over-speculating in railways, but it was also very true
that they benefited by such undertakings. How was it possi-
ble to 6x a time after which no Bills were to be taken in Corn
mittee, when the session would, in all probability, last till
August, judging from the great amount of business which was
to come before their Lordships. To pass such a resolution
would be to do a great injury to the public, who would most un-
doubtedly be benefitted by many of the Bills which would be
rejected, because refused a hearing. He was, indeed, sur-
prised to find the Noble Lord proposing such a motion, and he
expected to have heard some good reasons stated for taking
such a course.

Lord REDESDALE said that he did not nuke such a
motion for the purpose of saving the labour of their Lordships,
but to serve the parties interested in railway Bills, who would,
by the course he proposed, know the latest time when they
could come before a Committee. This session many Bills had
commenced in the House of Lords, and that expedited their
progress very much, and he saw no injury whatever by the
adoption of this motion. The resolution was thin put and
passed.

ABOLITION OF DEODANDS BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL rose to move the third reading of this
Bill, and regretted to say that intimation had reached him that
it was intended to offer considerable opposition in the other
House of Parliament to the principle of the measure. It had
receivers the approbation of the Lord Chief Justice of England,
and cf the other learned judges, in- whose judgment it appears 1
a most admirable measure. He trusted, if they intended to
offer any such opposition, that the Noble Duke opposite would
use his influence with the Government to get the measure
through the other House.

The Duke of WELLINGTON had had some communica-
tion with his Noble and Learned Friend, and quite concurred
in the principle of the Bill.
Lord DENMAN conceived that no real opposition would be
offered to the measure, which was simply intended to abolish
a remnant of a barbarous and superstitious practice, and likely
to be of great service to the public. The consequences Would
be inestimable in the preservation of life.
Lord CAMBELL quite concurred in the importance of the
observations that had been made. He trusted that the prin-
ciple of awarding compensation to the widows and children of
any person killed by gross negligence would not be lost sight
of, and that this Bill would be suffered to pass the other
House of Parliament.

The LORD CHANCELLOR conceived their Lordships
would have a difficulty in awarding a value to his Noble
Friend's hope.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of BUCCLEUCH.
The House went into a Committee on this Bill,
The Duke of RICHMOND proposed a clause, exempting
Glasgow from the operation of the Bill.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH opposed the clause, which
was negatived without a division.
The Bills on the table were advanced a stage, and their
Lordships adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, May 7.
TAXATION OF SUITORS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in answer to the state-
ments of the Hon. Member who had.just sat down, said his
Hon. and Learned Friend had had a great advantage over
him, because he was the assaulting party; and there was
alwaes something exciting in hearing a party making a charge,
while the arguments of the party in defence generally fell
upon dull ears. He (the Attorney-General) could not
hope to make what he had to say in answer
to the charges of his Honourable and Learned
Friend at all interesting, as it applied to matters of dry law, nut
by any means interesting ; but still he would make a demand
on the time of the Houae, but he trusted he would be heard with
patience. His Hon. and Learned Friend proposed a Committee
on the very same materials upon which the same motion was
refused by the House in 1844. Nave he (the Attorney-
General) would say that his Hon. and Learned Friend
called upon the House to do an act of gross injustice.
It would be very easy to lead the House to the conclusion that
the compensation awarded to those holding those offices was
enormous, in order to excite in Hon. Members the notion that
the motion which the Hon. Member for Kinsale proposed
to make, was well founded, and ought to be granted. He
at once took the Hon. Member on that ground, and said
that the question was not whether the existing emoluments
for these offices were or were not abuses. It was
quite immaterial whether the emolument derived from those
offices was in proportion to the services rendered by those who
possessed them. Those offices had been established a number
of years ; they were vested interests, and if they desired to re-
form them, they were bound to give the possessors the fullest
compensation. His Hon. and Learned Friend would not
consider it any disparagement if he considered that the opi-
nions of a better reformer were against him on this subject,
In 1812 a motion was made in that House respecting the sine-
cure offices of tellers of the Exchequer. The abject of the
motion was to call the attention of the House to tie
enormous emoluments which were derived for services
performed by deputy ; and what did Mr. Horner say on
that occasion ? He gave it as his decided opinion that
In such cases the offices were vested interests, anti however far
economy was stretched, vested interests were always sacred.
and therefore these offices should remain untouched.
In those sentiments Mr. Tierney and Mr. Ponsonby clearly
concurred, and the motion for the reduction of the enormous
emoluments in the sinecure offices were rejected. Now he
(the Attorney-General) was willing to call for the
same principle to be applied to this question. The
offices of these clerks were established in 1593,
and there had been no diminution in the
fees from the year 1743 dawn to the time of the abolition of
the offices. It had been said that Lord Lyndhurst had reduced
the fees before they abolished the fees. That was not so. All
Lord Lyndhurst did, was to prevent the sworn clerks receiving
attendance fees in cases where no attendance was required.
It was quite true, that at the time of the abolition of these
offices there were only twenty-five remaining out of sixty
clerks, and five or six of these engrossed the greater part of
the business. In answer to the objection of his Learned
Friend, it was perfectly notorious that the persons who pos-
sessed these offices were in the habit of disposing of their
business and transferring it to others; and this was so well un-
derstood, that every one looked upon the matter as they would
upon any other bargain or sale. His Learned Friend said that
the sale was contrary to the sth and 6th of Edward VI. and
the 49th of George 111. He (the Attorney-General) denied
that it was contrary to the sth and 6th of Edward VI. That
Act was directed against the sale of offices connected with the
execution and administration of justice ; but these offices were
not of that description. Besides, the offices of the clerks, ac-
cording to the 4th, sth, and 6th of William IV., were dise
tinctly recognised as saleable. If the Learned Gentleman
would look to the -Ist of Victoria, chap. 30, he would find
offices much more closely connected with the administration of
justice which were saleable. According to this Act, the seve-
ral offices referred to, and which were connected with the
Court of Queen's Bench, were all saleable. Here there
were offices more closely connected with the admi-
nistration of justice than those .of the six clerks,
which were distinctly stated to be saleable ( Hear. )
cks were who
ler he wrote the
(The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then quoted from a pam-
phlet, .
phlet, in which the doctrine was laid down that these six clerks
had a right to sell their claim for compensation.) The author
mwmakinghich the
theseswornstatement;
received an enormous salary for absolutely doing nothing. He
show the interesth e
se
stated that:it was a recognised right among the profession
to sell
workhhad
nto o t any
yw
their good will, they had also a right to compensation. —( Hear,
hear.) He understood that cheer, and he
was ready to meet
it ; he apprehended that fair compensation would be that kind
which would be commensurate with the former •t of the
;i
office. Many of these gentlemen had nettreceifps
lo B_9l
8,000 e., and 7,0004, and they ncomdes o
adopt
an arbitrary principle with reference ts oul net, a p
He would wish to call attention to the information given to the public by the House of Commons, when Lord Lyndhurst en-
deavoured to introduce reform
into the Court of Chancery.
Upon that occasion, a memorial was presented by the attornies
practising in that Court, • praying for reform in th is d epartment,
and the Lord Chancellor
appointed a Committee, who reported
upon the necessity dabob •
long these offices of the six clerks and
sixty clerks, and asked the Law Association to suggest some
practical means of doing so. The most careful and mature
consideration was given to this Act by the learned persons who
were appointed on that Commission, and every clause in this Act
received their most careful attention. It was considered ex-
tremely desirable that a measure of this description should
have the attention of the nobleman who had presided for some
years with great distinction in the Lord Chancellor's
Court. Some correspondence had passed on the sub-
ject of compensation to the tellers, and he could
not do better than read to the House the last
two letters which had passed between them on the subject.
He had the sanction of Lord Cottenharn, and of the other lot
lords in the other House, who had made no objection to the
Bill. The Bill came down from the House of Lords w.th the
unanimous sanction of that House. If there had been anyth'n,g,
improper in the clauses of the Bill, the Gcvernment woe!"
never have given their consent to it. The Hon. Member for
Montrose had stated that he approved of the principle and the
details of the measure. Every Member of the House w”
party to that Act of Parliament. The Act expressly
provicie4
that the six clerks should receive compensation to the extent
not less than three-fourths of their income, and the other clerks
were to receive remuneration to an extent not exceeding
thirds of the:r regular income. It was rather important that
they shi uld look a little into the matter for the precedents for
the course they had adopted. In the year 18.16 it was first pro-
posed to abolish the office of six clerks. The Bill was passed,
and there was a legislative permission granted for the sale n,
purchase of these offices. By the 6th and 7th IV.,
cap. 74, the officers were allowed to dispose of their offices for
a pecuniary consideration, and they received a sum o'e
4,0001. for the reversion of their offices. They were.'
pensioned off with the full amount of the annual emolumesal