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

of the offices which they had vacated. Again, in the year
1822 it was deemed expedient to abolish some sinecure
offices in the Law Courts. The .ffice of prothonotary of the
Court of King's Bench, and he riiiemor of the Court of
Common Plea., which t,ffices were held by nobit.mro, who in
vaeating their office% received ompen-anon tr. th.- full ~mount
of the value of their situations. It would also be foun.i that
by the Act 3 and 4 William IV., sec. 81 cap 94, and by the
2 nd 3 George IV., compensation to the amount of several
thousand rounds was awarded to Tersonl whose offices had
been abolihed. The Act for compensation to the six clerks
bad received the deliberate consent of the Legislature, and be
asked if it would be fair to repeal that 'Act now, and to de-
?rive those individuals who were receiving compensation under
Its provisions of their incomes. His Hon. and Learned Friend
saw that the Lord Chancellor had not fully investigated the
justice of these claims. He entirely denied that. The
amount of the fees had been fully ascertained, and the Lord
Chancellor had exercised due caution in inquiry into the mat-
ter. The Lord Chancellor had on every occasion adhered to
the minimum which was allowed for compensation, and
be also required a reduction to be made on account
of bad debts before he would make any award.
He admitted that the public had paid a large amount far the
abolition of the offices, but not more than the justice of the
case demanded. These offices were entitled to the remunera-
tion which Parliament had awarded them. The Act of Par-
liament had given the Lord Chancellor the poser of appoint-
ing six taxing officers at 1,004, a year each. The Lord
Chancellor had made those appointments, and he (the Atter-
neY- General) believed that tho e appointments had been made
with advantage to the public. Those officers wero selected
from the clerks in court. The Master of the Rolls had power
also, under the Act of Parliament, to appoint four officers in
the court, and he also selected those officers from the clerks
of the court. Would the House, then, dispassir nately and calmly
consider whether they were justified in acceding to the motion
of the Hon. Member for Kinsale. These persons respecting
whom the motion was made had a vested interest in their
Offices, and if they were deprivei of those offices, it could
Only be done by giving them full and fair competition.
Mr. HUME said it was certainly true that he agreed with
the principle of the Bill which gave these compensations, but
he never could have supported the details of the Bill which
had been alluded to. It would be presumptive in him to at-
tempt to draw the line of demarcation where compensation
should cease, but he thought the Right Hon. and Learned
Attorney-General, having cited the only, though a doubtful
precedent, which had occurred in Ireland, in justification of
these compensations, had failed to make out a good case for
the Lnrd Chancellor. —( Hear, hear. )
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I could give you many
other precendents. The Irish case is by no means a solitary
one.—( Hear, bear.) . _

hail establi•thed rights ; and in this else the parties who were
in the r•ceipt of compensation, were justly entitled o a rea-
sonable eoln en,ttio.. It th, t. es wet- ;,1 tt-'•( A' if
exorbr ). ;t

t

cool 0.9-i a u • •a tf,e 1r
qui4 y :4"11, ‘,. rt „ iir ,1•! for or.,
should 0.,t object C e. Lira:, he ) i 3 t
if the uecla; ed obj.,ct of this mottos was to inculpate the
conduct of the present holder of the Great Seal—( Cries of
No, ne," )—he was certainly prepared to vote against them.
He (Sir James Graham) denied that the conduct of the Noble
Lord was anything but pure and irreproachable in this matter.
He denied, too, in the most distinct terms that this was a job.
He believed, on the contrary, that it was carried out on sound
and righteous principles. He was of opinion, too. that by
this Act an immense abuse had been removed, and he did not
deprecate this discussion, because it would, no doubt, tend to
set the conduct of his Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor right
before the public, although he had been dealt harshly with on
the present subject. He was certain that the conduct of that
illustrious personage had been perfectly pure and disinterested
throughout the whole of the matter.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. BARING was prepared to vote for the Committee.
though he did not thereby intend to impeach the conduct of the
Lord Chancellor in the slightest respect. He conceived that
the argument of the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General was
perfectly untenable. He had no hesitation in stating that the
Treasury was an efficient check in the framing of that mea-
sure.—( Hear, hear.) He would ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, whether the eighteen compensation clauses had
received the sanction of the Treasury ?—( Hear, hear.) It was
absurd to say. that the House was responsible for the passing of
this Bill of eighteen clauses, brought in at the end of the es-
sion, and passed in a week. The Treasury should be respon-
sible.—( Hear, hear.) The public looked at the measure with
extreme jealousy, and he thought it should be a warning to
the House not to interfere in compensation cases. He thought

the most satisfactory course would be to appoint a Committee.
Sir J. GRAHAM stated, In explanation, that the Treasury
had no control whatever over the Suitors' Fund; that the whole
management rested with the Kt eper of the Seals.
Mr. C. BULLER considered it unjust to plunder those per
sons of the compensation which had been awarded to them by
Act of Parliament. Lord Lyndhurst, when he came into
office, acted in the spirit of true reform, and
being desirous of placing the law courts on a bet-
ter footing, he referred the matter to a Committee,
composed of gentlemen who reflected honour on their profes
sion by their conduct—conduct which he wished to God he
could see imitated by gentlemen of his branch cf the profession
---the common law. They were nor actuated by any desire to
benefit themselves—there was no party feeling displayed on the
occasion, and he hoped there would be none upon the present.
The real question for the House to decide was the amount of
compensation to be given. The only course which the Com
mittee thought they could adopt in discharging their public
duty was to inquire as to the amounts usually given by the
House. They looked over all the Acts of Parliathnt on the
subject, and they found that the usual ratio of compensation was
three-fourths of the amount of salary received. They could
not, therefore, be considered as acting wrong when they awarded
as a minimum this rate of compensation. This sum was not so
much as had been awarded by Lord Cottenham in compensa-
tion to the clerks in the Court of Exchequer. The Act upon
that occasion stated that the compensation was to be at the rate
of not 'less than three-fourths of the salary, whereas Lord Cot-
tenham actually awarded seven-eighths ; and in the average of
salaries they threw out of the account altogether bad debts.
he Lord Chancellor, in the instance before the House,
gave three-fourths of net profit. after deducting
bad debts. (The Honourable Member here entered into
some calculations with respect to confiscations, which he said
thought it would be impossible for him, even though possesse
of all the mathematical knowledge of Newton himself, to mak,
clearly understood by the Hon. Member (Mr. Watson ). H.
then went on to say that it was a scandalous thing that those
places should have been allowed to be saleable, and that Govern.
ment should then turn round and attempt to deprive of compen-
sation those parties who t ad purchased those places under their
sanction. These persons had a perfect right to rely on th.
legality of the fees they were shoved by the court, and no on.
hadn ever contested their legality. The sanction of law hat
been given to them in as decisive a way as if they had beef
embodied in an Act of Parliament. He considered that i•
they repealed the Act—if the, adopted the resolution o'
bit. Honourable Friend, they would be doing a grievous injustice
tie was certainly of opinion that the levying of these fees upon
the suitors in the court was most burdensome and unjust, an,
was a grievance which should hardly be allowed to exist for
him to denounce in 1846. He could not see an argument for
the fee system ; it was introduced first in order to pay the ex-
penses of work and labour, and offer an inducement that it
might be done expeditiously, but as that system was done awa%
with there could not be any pretence for continuing it longer.
He was sorry :for trespassing so long upon the House, but,
differing in his opinions upon the subject from those on his side
of the House, he thought it his duty to come forward and state
his opinions frankly to the House.---( Hear, hear.) He trusted
that the time was coming when these fees would be entirely
done away with, and justice would be rendered cheap and ac-
cessible to the people.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. B. ESCOTT had listened to the debate with the
greatest satisfaction, and especially to the statement of his
Right Hon. Friend, that the Government were determined
not to resist inquiry into these abominable extortions. The
question was one of great public importance, and be could
wish that nothing of a personal nature would be mixed up in
it. He thought the Right Honourable the Attorney. General
(differing as he did with him in most of his opinions)
had proved one thing, namely, that the Lord Chancellor
had only acted in strict accordance with the Act
When this Committee was granted the principle under which
compensations were granted must be considered. Na one yet
defined the legal principle of compensation. It- had been
stated by the Attorney. General and the Member for Lis-
keard that these offices were estates, and for that reason were
offered for sale in the market. He never heard of such abuses
as 'were connected with these Offices, and if the judges sanc-
tioned the sale of them, it was high time for that House to
put an end to such a system. It was said that the motion most
not be granted, because it would interfere with an Act of Par-
liament.' He would vote for it, because it repealed the Act-of
Parliament, and because it would have the effect' of repealing
many of those abuses which at present existed in the courts of
law. He denied the legality of these fees, and he would like
that question tb be tried in a court of law. He would ask the
Attorney-General, if they were legal, why were they reduced ?
----( Hear, hear-) The very fact of these officers submitting to.
the eeduction proved that they did not rest upon a legal founda-
tion. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said
that it was a novel course to reconsider the question of compen-
sation when it had been already decided upon by that House.
It wasa novel practice he admitted, and it was only a novel pro-
ceeding which would put an end to the abuses which were- a
stain on the ermine of the Judges who presided in those courts.
Mr. R. YORKE was now, as on former occasions,of opinion
that the subject was a very fit one for re-consideration. It
came before the House at a period when it was extremely thin,
the Members present varying from 27 to SO, and when the Go-
vernment were hurrying on measures with railroad rapidity.
He himself acquired all the knowledge he then obtained on the
Bill from the gentlemen who were promoting it.—( Laughter.)
Mr. ROM ILLY said that the mode of collecting the fees in
the Court of Chancery was one to which no responsibility was
attached ; there was no check whatever upon the persons em-
ployed in their collection. He, therefore, contended that the
system was one which should be inquired into, with a view to
its abolition. With regard to the other part of the motion, he
thnught it most impolitic. The House had decided upon it
already, and though it was done hastily and wi lout due consi.
deration, the question could not now with any degree of justice
be,re-considered. It would be a monstrous thing, after the
lapse of five years, to reverse that decision, but he must say that
the compensation was excessive. He should, however, vote
for the motion, believing as he did that it would result in alter-
ations with regard to the system of fees which would be benefi-
cial to the courts of law themselves as well as the country at large.
Sir J. HAN 11E11 supported the motion.
Sir R. PEEL said it was the wish of the Government that
there should be a full and efficent inquiry into the payment of
those who held such offices. on for also checking abuses in
their payments. He was against that eyttem which gave to
persons a rate of compensation far greater than they were en
titled to. When he was Secretary of State for Ireland, he
was much struck with the very heavy rate of compensation
which was given to those wh' had held offices, and which were
really sinecures. Rut he felt that they would be cramping very
much the means of reforming the abuses complained of, if
those,
were
theywb omw
theer e
nor. adopt suchn
was
spirit
had,
feel utl it atm they
to be injured by any steps to be taken. This he felt to be the
case, from his acquaintance with such matters while Secretary
of Stat.. for Ireland. They received from such persons informa-
tion, which, if they were to understand that
by the inquiry, they would not receive. There was a great
abuse in giving over-compensation to those officers. They were
givingsuch an amount as the House would not give to the officers
of theUrown—such as they would not give to their own Speaker.
He could assure the House there was no objection on the
part of the Government for a t •and inquiry,
s net setrch.ng
androposed they only had an objection to the mode by c whi 'lt
pto be made. He could not agree
given to was
inquiry
into those compensations by theLrdany
o Chancellor, for
he had given them on the gronnd of an Act of Parliament, and
e t
he (Sir Robert Peel) had the greatest confidence in his
Noble and Learned Friend's judgment and impartiality. For
fifty years previous to 1839, there had been given a remunera-
tion far above what the justice of the cases merited ; and the
lion. Member who brought on this Bill spoke of those great
abuses as if they were chargeable to the Lord Chancellor.
This House recorded by an Act the sale of those professional
offices, or at least passed an Act which made remuneration the
right of the parties ; and this was acted upon by one of the
most faultless Lord Chancellors of Ireland—he meant Lord Plun-
kett. The Act of Parliament provided such a compensation as
would allow men of honourable characters and acquirements to
take such offices. They hadabolished sinecures where there might
have been some excuse found for continuing them, but they had
allowed abuses to exist where there was no public claim—
where, in fact, there was nothing like a claim to support them.
—( Hear, hear.) When it was recollected that in this case
the
Lord Chancellor gave the minimum of what Parliament
allowed,
year 1840 the Act was
what could be expected. In the
ton Leigh, and that Act was nut
brought in by Mr. Pember
brought in without notice, and it was not passed by that
House in a partial manner ; and what was it that could be
found fault with in its powers? Let them propose such an in-
quiry in a manner
that would not reflect upon the Lord Chan-
cellor, and he would promise, on the part of the Government,
their cordial co-operation in enacting a law for the future.
After a few wards from Mr. WATSON, strangers were
ordered to withdraw, when there appeared to be
For the motion
Against it
Majority
MR. SMITH O'BRIEN.
The Hon. PIERCE BUTLER said, that he had given
notice of a motion to the same effect as that upon the paper
from his Hon. Friend the Member for Galway; but he could
he been
assure the House that he would not have done so had
such a
aware that the Hon. Baronet had given notice of
motion. He was sorry for the error he had committed, andt
,
begged to apologise for t • • but had he been able to bring it on,
he could assure the House he was fully prepared to discuss it.
He would, however, bring on a motion to an effect somewhat
similar on an early day.
Sir C. NAPIER wished to know if the returns he had
moved for in the early part of the session would be laid upon the
table of the House?

Mr 2 HUME said it did not matter to him how many prece-
dents could be produced, because that would not alter the state
of the case ; and lie for one was convinced the public generally
looked upon this as one of the grossest jobs that had ever been
perpetrated.—( Hear, hear.) It might be urgod, if this case
were to stand good, that if capital punishment were abolished
the hangmen of the country would be entitled to compensation.
—( Hear, hear.)--Well, he was not opposed to giving it, but
let the compensation be just. It was alleged, however, that
the compensation' in the instance now before the House was un-
just, and he, therefore thought there ought to be some inquiry
into it, in order that those persons who had awarded it might
be deterred in future from violating the confidence which had
been reposed in them, on behalf of the public.—( Hear, hear. )
Some of these fees, it must be clear, were manifestly unjust,
and wrongfully imposed on suiters, and this, in his opinion,
was an additional reason why his Hon. and Learned Friend
should have his Committee.—( Hear, hear.) For it was the
duty of the parties appointed to take these fees not to take more
than the old law allowed. It was no use to tell him that they
had become just from usage. if the law of the la.,d—the sta-
tute law of the land—did oat sanction them. they had no right
to be taken ; and, still more, the parties taking them had no
right to compensation on their abolition.--t Hear, hear.) It
was on these grounds that he supported the motion of his Hon.
and Learned Friend, and he hoped those who had unjustly taken
fees and received compensation on their abolition in the pro-
gresses of legal reforms would be held up to the public indig-
nation.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. B. WILLIAMS said there had been a great deal of
s_pecial pleading on the part of the Hon. and Learned Attorney -
tieneral, who had avoided the real question before the Howe.
widely was simply this—Were these fees taken by those parties
to whom compensation had been given legal and just ?—and it
was the bounden duty of the House to take this question into
their earnest and serious consideration —( Hear, ),ear.) If the
Lord Chancellor had granted compensation for illegal fees, he
ought to be held up to public indignation. But why was the
matter left to the Lord Chawceller ? Why was it taken out of
the hands of the T: easury, which was the proper place for de-
ciding the compensation? Why, the fact was, the whole affair
was a most palpable job. This was plain enough, for one of
the parties, a Mr. Wainwright, who received a portion of this
large compensation, drew up the Bill legalising the compensa-
tion, or rather, he ought to call it, the job.—( Hear, hear. )
But if the compensation were fair and just, why refuse this
inquiry? It was all nonsense ; the compensation was grossly
unjust; and Government, in refusing the inquiry, were vir-
tually acknowledging it to be so. —( Hear.) The Hon. and
Learned Attorney-General, however, said the Bill granting the
compensation passed through the House after it had under-
gone the most careful and deliberate consideration, but this
was not so, and he for one dared to say it was • smuggled, in-
stead of cautiously . passed through the House.—( Hear, hear. )
Oh, but (said the lion. and Learned Attorney-General) it the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Kinsale had so
many objections to the Bill, why did he not on the third reading,
or during its progress through Committee, attend in his place
in the House, and state there what his objections to this mea-
sure was ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it not easy enough to explain
why an Hon. Member who was a member of the learned pro-
fession, eeiiild not be in his place on a particular occasion ? His
professional avocations might be the cause of his not. being pre-
sent, and. they had a remarkable instance of this a few nights
ago, when a compensation case was under consideration. The
lion. and Learned Attorney-General, he believed, was in
favour of, and took a deep interest in the Danish claims, but,
from a similar cause . to the one he had already
alluded to, the Hen, and Learned Gentleman was
prevented- from being present when they were under dis-
cussion.—( Hear, hear.) Rut why need he follow the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman in this train of special pleading, when
everybody knew that the public, bad long ago made up their
minds that thiiieise of compensation was a most palpable job ?
In his 'Opinion would be' more becoining her Majesty's
Govern-meat if They skre,te accede te, instead of refusing,.the
Committee.-(Hear, hear.) At all events, if they persisted in
refusing it oped the Right Hen. Gentleman, the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer,. would get np in his place and tell the
House whether this enormous compensation agreed•with his
views or not.—( Hear, hear.) He was sure if the Right Hon
Gentleman spoke conscientiously, it could net, and for this and
the other reasons he had stated, he should vote for inquiry.
Sir J. GRAHAM was very unwilling to trespass upon the
attention of the House on a question which involved legal
technicAties,„ but after the speeches which had just been ad-
dreaseorfif (he House by Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite
ben-Ches,' he felt himself bound to make a few observations.
There were some observations that had fallen from the Hon.
Member who had last addressed the House that particularly
rendered it necessary for him (Sir J. Graham) to trespass
upon the attention of the House before they went to a division.
After those observations he was by no means prepared to vote
for a Committee of inquiry of this sort, although he was of
opinion certainly that an inquiry inte the fees received in the
courts of law and equity might be very useful.—( Hear, hear.)
But he was bound to resist the motion after what had fallen
from the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and the
Hon. Member. who had just sat down ( Mr. Williams), because
they had designated the proceedings under the Act in question
as the job of jobs.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for
Montrose had said that it was impassible, in his opinion, to ask
for a repeal of the Act of Parliament under which these com-
pensations had been granted, and he went on to say that these
compensations were in his opinion irrevocable. It had been
openly stated that the objection of the Committee sought for
was to inculpate the projectors of the. Bill. Now that ex-
pression showed that they had prejudged the question ; the)
had said that it was " the job of jobs." Lie (Sir James
Graham) had the greatest possible respect for the Lord Chan
cellos, and he was quite satisfied that his conduct in this
matter was pure and irreproaehable • that had, in fact, been
proved by the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend the At-
torney-General. The Hon. Member for Coy ntry (Mr
Williams) had asked what right had the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, when this Bill was introduced in 1844, to antici-
pate that the amount of compensation would be so great as it
turned out to be? He Sir (James Graham) would have given
the same answer as had been given by his Right Hon. Friend,
rig., that the
_precise amount of the fees had not been then as-
certained. lie certainly was not aware at thetimetshat this
Act passed that the amount of compensation would be large.
—(Hear, hear.) But he did not think that o
wasthe question
before the House when the measure was passed. in
The ques-
tion for consideration was. were these compensations just
principle ?—( Hear, hear,) This Bill came down from the
other House of Parliament with the highest possible authority.
An inquiry in reference to the fees was conducted by the
Master of the Rolls, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr.
Pemberton Leigh. Those Commissioners gave every attention
to that branch of the subject ; and he was informed, and realty
believed, that the draft of the Bill was altered and reprinted
three times before it came down from the other House. When
the Bill was introduced, the Lord Chancellor was ill, and could
not attend to his duties in the House of Lords, and he, there-
fore, had not charge of it in the other House of Parliament.
But the Bill was introduced by the Master of the Rolls, Lord
Langdale, and the question to be considered was whether the
principle o n which those compensations were to be granted was
just or unjust. This Bill laid down certain principles. In
the Exchequer case seven- eighths of the fees which had
been taken for a. number of years formed the basis of
compensation, but in this Bill the minimum was fixed, not at
seven-eighths, but at three-fourths. A discretionary power
was given to the Lord Chancellor to limit strictly by Act of
Parliament the amount of compensation to three-fourths of the
amount of fees that had been received in the three preceding
years. He remembered during the progress of the Bill, and he
was sure the Hon. Member for Montrose ( Mr. Hume) would
also well remember, a discussion that took place about a particu-
lar gentleman whom the Bill would sffect.—( Hear, hear. )
And if he mistook not the Hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C.
Buller) said a clause should be inserted in the Bill for his pro-
Section. The Bill did not pass through the House withont
ample discussion and consideration, and he would again say that
there was nothing of novelty in the Bill, and he would repeat
that what the Commis‘ti tiers hail to inquire into, was not the
the.
amount .
of the fees, but justice of the principle laid down in
BillAssumingieneosw,,hfeor a moment that the fees heretofore
received were legal
could not conceive anything more
goad than the principle laid down
of
thef in the Act. Now, this
brought him to the legality
Hear, hear
thought that it wasinonthtchafitrpsteinltacteLets—th(is debate mai)n—lyania(ulnig'e.
—(Hear.) But,
place,
iette fees in question were
e,dif he mistook not, in
fixed by the Lord Chancellor
the year 1943. The fees were review
to3o the state of the
tailor Erskine in the year 1807, and he believedby the Lord Chan-
them were reduced. The fees referred
But the business of
that some of
business of the Courts Chancery.
f the
increased since that period. The legality
peared to him to be established in a most remarkable manner.
placed beyond
They were legal b
uy prescription and usage in the Courts of
appointed had
Chancery from da to day, and their legalitbyeewnas
all doubt. The Commissioners that had
come to the determination that the amount of compensation
of
fixaise had the Le rd
should not be less than three-fourths of the fees that were re_
amount
re-
ceived in the three preceding years. T
-n no c
Chancellor a discretion by the Bill
of compensation to a certain extent. Its no cansge tlei the Lord
Chancellor give the full amount of the fees received ; in every
t
case, without exception, his award was, the m* •
nimum sanc-
tioned by the Act of Parlament. When this Act passed,
mistook not, the fees in question amounted to 77/
by this
. e-arsyeda'r,ifuhdo
were rapidly increasing.—( Hear.) The effect
produced
most Act of Parliament was to eradicate a great abuse —a
midable abuse—both in its magnitude and
extent;m asotdf hore.
fees were reduced trom 77,0001. to 40,C00/. per a
toonnum.
large,
to
The
n
amount of compensation was certainly large, but
for the fees were feeble vested rights, as he believoetd them
have been. The compensation, as he had clearly said, had been
greatly reduced, and, in the course of the next twenty yes thin compensation would be entirely extingnished. In fffeT hag these salutar lealmuid take especial
reforms, they
e the just rights of any P '
care not to viola:
would not take a lawyer's • rtie4- ( Hear. ) He
view on this subject, but he was most
anxious that law expenses should be diminished. He was,
however, of opinion,that the could not, consistent
With public o
R") 14419 effect these legal reforms by
'-'9l any wirVl Trlaltricr in Pent Martin who

Mr. CORRY said that the returns were in course of prepa-
ration, and would be ready in a few days.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
The Leith Petty Customs Bill, and the Railway Companys
Bill, were ordered to be read a second time.
Mr. A GLIONBY wished to know wi,at course was intended
to be pursued with revect to the Salmon Fisheries Bill. It
was of considerable importance to the owners of fisheries in the
country to know.
Mr. FORSTER wished to have a similar question answered.
The Bill had already been two sessions before Parliament and
nothing had been done.
An HoN. Malaita said that he believed that the Bill would
be proceeded with; its object was to give better protection
and facilities to our salmon fisheries.

The Bill was then read a second time. and the report ordered
to he received; to be read a thi 'd time to-morrow.
The second reading of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Aot
was postponed.
The Committee on the Danish olainis rras postponed until
the 22d.

The Election Notices (Ireland) Bill was read a second time,
and the report ordered to be received.:

The Miitse atcoarne4l et Niro ectook.

TAyr:t.,.an and Dish Union. 42a ,
1/ EN TA RY PT7-SINF,S6•
Coilnion4,) C,071111.11
illtilLS'DAY, MAY 7

..4

• • - ',.inton, 22s

~ .

• ‘111.•••.%,, •
('-Lim,ot.cv - Vwc,k,unt ''ori.etlt • f,:h.i.rmai)). Mr.
I:. Mi. J. 11,1. 11. I.vw;:ier,
whom they have referred the Bills comprised in Group No. 2 of Rail-
way Blls, viz. :
North Devon,
Taw Vale Extension,
B‘deford and Tavistock,
South Devon (Tavistock and other Branches—No. 1),
South Devon (No. 2),
West Cornwall,
Cornwall.
The Select Committee to meet en Thursday, May 21, at one.

—Glasgow and Beltast. Union, 41s.- - Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and All,
75!' - Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle, 475. Glasgow and Greenock,
171.—Glasgow, Kilinarn,ck, and Ardrossan, 41s. Glasgow, Airdr.e,
and Alonkland Junction, 35s.—Glasgow and Dundee Junction, 335.
Gd.—Glasgow Harbour Grand Junction, 24s.—Great Indian Penin-
sular, 12s. 6d.—lnverness and Elgin, 228.—Kilmarnock and Ayr
Direct, 355. 6d.—Larne, Belfast, and Ballymena, 17s. 6d. —Lesma-
hagow, 425. 6d.--London, Bristol and South Wales, 198.—Dianches-
ter and Southampton, 555. —Midland and Eastern Counties, 20s.—
Perth and Inverness, 31s. 6d.—Scottish Central. 171. Ditto, New,
74—Scottish Grand Junction, 245. Scottish Central and Caledonian
Junction, 28s. Gd.—Slamannan and Bo'ness, 70s.—South Midland,
51. 33.—Stirling and Dunfermline, 365.

A Committee consisting of -Mr. Deedes (Chairman), Viscount
Clements, Mr. J. H. Vivian, Mr. Arkwright, and Mr Farnham, to
whom they have referral the Bills comprised in Group No. 10 of
Railway Rills, viz. :--
Ballochney (shotts Braneh),
Caledonian (Clydesdale Junction Railway Deviations),
Caledonian (Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Railway Branches),
Monkland and Kirkintilloch (Chapel Hall Branch),
Monlaind and Kirkintilloch,
Glasgow, Airdrie, and Monkland Junction,
Kirkintilloch and Kilsyth,
Lesmahagow, Dalserf, and Coatbridge Mineral Junction,
Caledonian (Dundyvan Branch).
The Select Committee to meet on Monday, May 18, at one.
A Committee consisting of—Mr. E. Denison (Chairman), Sir E.
Hayes, Sir It. Vyvyan, Major Beresford, and Mr. Clifton, to whom
they have referred the Bills comprised in Group No. 32 of Railway
Bills, viz.:—
Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton,
Cheltenham and Oxford,
Northampton, Banbury, and Cheltenham,
Buckinghamshire (Tring to Banbury).
The Select Committee to meet on Tuesday, May 19, at one.
• -

A Committee consisting of—Mr. Ewart (Chairman), Mr. Gill, Mr,
E. 11 eneage, Mr. Maher, and Mr. Pulsforo, to whom they have re-
:erred the Bills comprised in Group No. 56 of Railway Bills, viz.:—
Eastern Counties Stations Enlargement,
London and Birmingham (Camden and Euston Stations Enlargement),
London and Blackwall,
East London Extension,
Enfield and Edmonton,
Eastern Counties (Tottenham and Barnet),
London and Croydon (Thames Junction Canal),
Eastern Counties (Thames Junction Branches),
East and West India Docks and i.ondonand Birmingham Junction.
The Select Commit:ee to meet on Tuesday, May 19, at one.

PARLIAMENTARY' DIVISIONS

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons

THURSDAY, MAY 7.
COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY.

Motion made, and Question: put, " That a Select Committee be ap
pointed to inquire into the nature and extent of the taxation of
Suitors by the collection of fees in the Courts of Law and Equity, and
the application of such fees, and the compensations paid to retired
,ufficers of those Courts, and into the propriety of the continuance
thereof; and particularly to inquire into the orders for compensation
made by the Lord Chancellor to the persons tilling the offices of
Clerk of the Enrolments, Comptrollers of Hanaper, Riding Clerk, Six
Clerks, worn Clerks, Waiting Clerks, and others, under the Act 5
and 6 Vic. e. 103, and to inquire into the nature, duties, and emolu-
ments of those officers before the passing of that Act, and their right
to compensation during life and for seven years atter the death of
each person." The House divided

MINORITY-AYES, 65.
Xglionby, H. A. Dundas, F. O'Connell, Daniel
irrnstrong, Sir A. Escott, Bickham O'Connell, John
Saine, Walter Esmonde, Sir T. Ogle, S. C.
dannennan, A. Gisborne, Thomas Ord, William
itaring, F. T. Granger, T. C. Parker, John
itarron, Sir H. Grey, Sir G. Pechell, Captain
lellew, R. M. Hastie, Archibald Plumridge, Captain
tlake, M. J. Hatton, Captain V. Powell, Caleb
Ilewitt, Reginald Hawes, B. Romilly, John
touverie, E. P. Heatlicoat, John Ste =art, P. M.
:owes, John Heneage, Edward Strutt, Edward
firocklehurst, J. foreman, E. Tattered, iI..W.
tro.therton, J. Jervis, John Thoritely, T.
Browne, W. Layatd, Captain Warburton, EL
tuner, Edward M'Carthy, Alexander Wawn, J T.
msteild, William .Maitland, Thomas Williams, W.
;utter, I'. S. 31arslaild, Henry W;nnington, Sir T.
'bristle, W. D. Martin, J. Wy.te, Thomas
olebrooke, Sir T. Mitca:te, H. Yorke, H. R.
'ollett, John Mitchell, T. A.
rawford, W. S.. Morpeth, Viscount TELLERS.
)ivett,',Edward Morris, David Watson, Henry
itilleill, ueorge Napier, Sir Charles Hume, Joseph