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

MAY 'B, 1846.

ABOLITION OF DEODANDS BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL rose to trove 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
received the approbation of the Lord Chief Justice of England,
and of the other learned judges, in whose judgment it appeared
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 CAM BELL 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 I3UCCLEUCH opposed the clause, which
was negatived without a division.

The' hills on the table were advanced a stage, and their
Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
IIALTON AND DRIFFIELD JUNCTION RAILWAY.
The report on this Hill was brought up and agreed to, and
the 13ill was ordered to be engrossed.
GLASGOW AND BELFAST UNION RAILWAY
BILL.
Mr. DUNCAN moved, that it be an instruction to the
Select Committee on the Glasgow and Belfast Union Hallway
Bill to hear parties, on the petition of James Ballantine, Esq.,
against the said Bill', presented by Mr. Duncan on the 28th
day of April last, and referred by the House to the Com-
mittee on the Bill, and Counsel ordered, on a copy of the
petition being produced, and certified to the satisfaction of the.
Committee, the petition having been lost, And not entered in
.the Journals of the House.
• After a Tew words from Mr. GREENE, who objected to
the motion;
' The SPEAKER suggested that a fresh petition should-be
presented, Which would at once obviate any difficulty respect-
ing the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.
• The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.
LEICESTER IMPROVEMENT..
VE MEN T.
Sir J. EASTHOPE moved the third reading of this Bill,
which was read a third tine and passed.
WELSH CHARITY SCHOOL INCORPORATION.
The Lords' Amendments to this Bill were read and agreed to.
BIRMINGHAM AND OXFORD JUNCTION RAIL-

WA Y.
Mr. SPOONER moved the second reading of this Bill,
which was ordered to be committed. The lion. Member also
moved the second reading of the Birmingham and Oxford
Junction ( Birmingham Extension) Railway Bill, which was
likewise ordered to he committed.
SOUTHAMPTON PORT AND HARBOUR.
The report on this Bill was brought up and agreed to, and
the Bill ordered to be engrossed.
SALE OF LIQUORS ON THE. SABBATH.
Several petitions were presented from different places against
the sale of intoxicating liquors on the Sabbath.
TEN HOURS' BILL.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from the borough
of Rochdale, signed by sixteen millowners, and several manu-
facturers of the town, in-favour of a Ten Hours' Bill.
Mr. BLEWITT presented a petition in favour of the Ten
Hours' Bill.

CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
Sir W. CLAY presented a petition from the Tower Hamlets
in favour of this Bill.
GUILDFORD, CHICHESTER, AND PORTSMOUTH
RAILWAY (No. 2). - • -
Mr. ESTCOURT moved that it be an instruction to the
Committee of Selection to fix The first sittinrof the Guildford,
Chichester, and Portsmouth Railway (No. 2) Committee for
Friday, the 6th day of May, and that it be referred to the Chair-
man of Ways and Means, and two other Members, not being
those who were ordered to bring in the Bill.—Agreed to.
Mr. FORBES nresented a petition, praying the House not
to interfere with the spiritual independence of the Church of
Scotland.

CHANNEL ISLANDS.
In reply to a question from Mr. ROEBUCK
Sir J. GRAH A NI said that a commission had been issued for
the purpose of making inquiries into the administration of
law in the Channel Islands, and that he should have no objec-
tion to lay the Commissioners' report upon the table of the
House.

Dr. BOWRING said there was another island to which he
wished to call the attention of the Right Hon. Baronet, and
he wished to know whether he was prepared to de the same
thing with regard to the Isle of Man ?
Sir JAMES GRA HAAL—No.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that in the absence of the Hon.
Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller), he would give notice
that that Hon. Member would, on Thursday fortnight, move
for copies of correspondence relating to New Zealand.
THE NELSON MONUMENT.
Mr. J. COLLETT said he asked a question in the early
part of the session of the Noble Lord opposite relative to the
state of the Ne;son monument, and when it was likely to be
finished, and he was then told that a satifactory answer might
be expected in about three months. Since that period three
months and a half had elapsed, but the boarding of the
monument still remained in the same state.
The Earl of LINCOLN answered the question in so low a
tone as to be scarcely audible in the gallery ; but lie was u, der-
stood to say, that at the time he gave the answer alluded to, he
(lid expect a satisfactory answer to the question would be given
at the time stated, but since then he had not been able to as-
certain what had been done ; but he had reason to exp'ect
that the wank would have been completed within the time
stated.

TAXATION OF SUITORS.
Mr. WATSON moved for a Select Committee to inquire
into the nature and extent of the taxation of suitors by the col-
lection of fees in the courts of law and equity, and the applica-
tion of such fees, and the compensations paid to retired officers
of those courts, and into the propriety of the continuance
thereof ; and particularly to inquire into the orders for com-
pensation made by the Lord Chancellor to the persons filling
the offices of clerk of the enrolment, comptrollers of hamper,
riding clerk, six clerks, sworn clerks, waiting clerks, and
others, under the Act 5 and 6 Vic. c. 103, and to inquire into
the nature, duties, and emoluments of those officers before
the passing of that Act, and their right to compensation dur-
ing life and for seven years after the death of such person.
In making this motion, he said he did so in consideration of
the manner in which suitors in the courts of justice
were so enormously taxed, and in which the most
outrageous compromises often took place. Now, contrary
to every principle of justice, there was no suitor in the Court
of Chancery and no suitor in any other of the Courts who was
not subjected to very heavy taxation. There were no le-s
than from 300 to 400 persons who were employed in collecting,
fees in the Courts of Equity. Some of these fees went to the
consolidation fund and some to the officers in the
Courts, but no step whatever could be taken unless
the fees were paid, and it was impossible to
obtain redress otherwise. The House would be surprised also
to learn that there was no check or control, or scarcely any,
over the collectors. Some of them were certainly bound by
oath, but there were others who were not. A great many
officers were paid by fees only, and the only guarantee with re-
gard to the collectors of these fees was the honesty of the
persons. What he asked for, therefore, was a Committee to in..
quire into this system, which he considered a mostohjection Ie
one. Thenext point he wished to call attention to was, whether it
was right to tax suitors at all. There might be no fear enter-
tained that by the abolition of these taxes law
would become
too cheap, for in this country there was verylittle chance of
that. In the year 1843 to 1844 the fund called the Suitors'
Fee Fund amounted to 97,000/. There was also a sum of
paid in taxes into
money amounting to 155,000' , which was
the Court of Chancery. Altogether there was from 300,0001.
to 400,000/. paid in salaries to officers connected with
the court, and a sum of 29J,0001 ,t which went to the Conso-
lidated Fund, amounting altogether upwards of 600,00 i/.,
co,OOC/. of which was a direct
the
upon the suitors,
iol
lu
more r
maot
and the rest a tat upon
he
tfehwai this
kswecados
collected
eoudnosbut
yrs oeufsors personsu
amc,
overbuto
whomwhat.
there was no cheek, and
.ittee, to consider whether this
principle ought not to be discontinued._( Hear, hear.) There
was one individual in the Court of Queen's Bench who held a
sinecure of 7,700/. a year, another who held a sinecure of
f5;04m96/t.haat ysenamr;
tean2dooll4re were numerous others, varying
there was formeorflyh;
office was that sine-cuareyeoafr.somlen
2thoe L.anca,ster Court
179 t
iet prothonotary , and it asa heeldar.by Theone
individual from up to a very recent period. It was, how-
ever, abolished, and although the fees collected • were only

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 notfname any such Com-
mittee on any opposed railway Bill after Monday, the 20th .luly.
There would be great difficulty in obtaining proper and efficiebt
committees after that period, to sit upon ails and give them
due attention. Their Lordships were alai aware that some 01
the most important Bills were those 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
and 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 earned 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 conF•ulted 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 nu 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 be a very unjust one towards the public. 'I here
never had been a session in which a greater number of railway
Bills had been brought before the house; and, not withstanding
that, 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 resoiation 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 injury 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 fix 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 suck 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 REDESDA LE said that he did not make such a
motion for the purpose of saving the labour of their Lordship.,
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 thn put and
passed.