The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-07 00:00:00

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.

Mr. lIUME gave notice that, to-morrow, he would
move for a return of the amount voted for the ordi-
nary services of the Cape of Good Hope, during the
years 1846 and 1847, and of the nature of the ex-
penditure of 11,0001. in war services during these
two years.
WINDOW-TAX.

Lord DUNCAN, understanding that the Noble
Lord the First Commissioner of WToods and Forests
had intimated his intention to bring in a Sanitary
Bill, should on an early day renew his motion on
the repeal of the window-tax.
IRISH RETURNS.

Mr. GROGAN moved for certain returns relat•
ing to the exportation of horses, cattle, and live stock
from Ireland.

Mr. REYNOLDS rose to oppose the motion, but
was interrupted by
The SPEAKER, who called his attention to the
fact, that the motion was for a return of the cattle
and live stock exported from Ireland during the last
year.
Mr. REYNOLDS—Oh, I thought it was for re-
turns connected with the Corporation of Dublin.

The return was agreed to. -
THE POPE.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS gave notice that to-morrow he
should ask for leave to present a petition from the
Dean and Chapter of Westminster against the usur-
pation_ of the Bishop of Rome upon the integrity. of
the British constitution and liberties of the British
People.
MONMOUTH ELECTION.
tniitziaon on, ebse entered into
to
thel
Mr. STUART WORTLEY moved that the pe-
tition
of Lord Granville
t,te Somerset, as to the recog-
Ccoomunmtiyttoefe Mononmthoeutchhpeei:
tenham Election referredr
Sir G. GREY petition
he could agree with not resist this motion, but
Youghal that the petition oonourable Member for
for Dublin could legally be referred
the Honourable Member
e referred to the same
Committee.
The petition after a short discussion
was ordered
to be referred to the Committee. -
Mr. PACKE presented a petition from certain
electors of Leicester, praying to be allowed to attend
before that Committee. The petition was ordered to
be printed.
DUBLIN ELECTION.
Mr. C. ANSTEY moved, pursuant to notice, that
the petition of Mr. Reynolds, one of the Members for
the city of Dublin, should be referred to the Com.
mittee on the Cheltenham election, notwith-
standing what had been stated by the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary of State for the Dome De-
partment, and he should press his motion, if it was
neepilry, to a division.
\
presisre,7il9-REY observed that if the llon. Member
motion, the House must decide it; but
tie thought 3e lion. Member did not fully under-

stand the objection he had to the petition
being presented to the Committee. The
points were fully discussed before the Examiner,
and he held that the person was properly described ;
and if the lion. and Learned Gentleman would look
at the next section he would find that the decision
of the Examiner was final and conclusive against all
parties.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS begged to state that the facts,
as they occurred before the Examiner, were precisely
as the lion. Member (Mr. C. Anstey) had stated
them ; and though personally affected, but not
being a lawyer, which circumstance he might
have occasion to regret, he wished simply to
state, that in raising the objections which he did,
he acted under the advice of several eminent lawyers,
who stated that in consequence of the misdescription
of the recognisance that it was void. He was con-
tent, however, to leave the matter in the hands of
the House.—(Hear.) The Examiner stated to him that
if he could prove that the person described as
" George Gregan" was commonly described as
" George William Grogan," that he should declare
his recognisance void. The Examiner advised him
to visit Dublin to make inquiries, and having done
so, at great expense and inconvenience, he ascer-
tained that the person known as George
William Grogan, but described as " George Grogan,"
kept his banker's account, voted as a freeman at the
last election, and was admitted as a barrister in the
former name, and that he Ras never known under
any circumstances as " George Grogan" alone.
He pressed this before the Examiner, and
his solicitor asked Mr. Grogan if his
name was George, and he replied that it was not,
that it was George William; and on being asked if
he was the George Grogan mentioned in the re-
cognizance, he declined to answer the question. Not-
withstanding proof of these facts were adduced, the
Examiner decided against him, stating, in explana-
tion, that he had changed his mind. If, however, he
was to labour under this legal injustice,
he asked the House if it was not time to amend the
Act by rendering the decision of the examiner not
omnipotent in the future as during the past.— (Hear,
hear.) He suggested to his Hon. Friend that he
should withdraw his motion.
Mr. C. ANSTEY consented to withdraw the mo-
tion. He wished the House clearly to understand
that he simply stated that the petition ought
to be referred to the Committee, and that he did not
express any opinion on the legal merits of the question.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
RETURN FOR BODMIN.

On the motion of Mr. C. ANSTEY, the following
motion was agreed to :—That the petition of James
Wyld, Esq., M.P., complaining of the recognizances
entered into in respect of the petition against the re-
turn for the borough of Bodmin, be referred to the
Committee appointed to inquire into the petition of
Sir Willoughby Jones, Bart., M.P., or be otherwise
dealt with as the House may deem fit.
Mr. BAINES moved that the petition of Edward
Richard Littleton, against the retut n for the borough
of WaLail, be referred to the Select Committee ap-
pointed to inquire into the petition of Sir Willoughby
Jones.—Motion agreed to.
RELIEVING OFFICERS.

Mr. P. SCROPE said that he had put a notice
upon the paper of his intention to ask the Secretary
for Ireland whether any and what legal proceedings
have been taken against such boards of guardians or
relieving officers as have neglected the duties imposed
on them by the Act 10 and 11 Vic., c. 31, of affording
due relief to the destitute poor, but as he wished to
preface that question by a few remarks, and the
House appeared to be very impatient to proceed to
the consideration of the Jewish Disabilities Bill, he
would postpone his question till to-morrow.
WEST GLOUCESTER ELECTION.

Mr. G. I3ERKLEY wished to know whether the
Home Secretary had duly recevied ten petitions from
the inhabitants of West Gloucester with reference to
the West Gloucester election ?

Sir G. GREY said that he had received them ; but
owing to misinadvertence the receipt of the petitions
hail not been acknowledgE d.
IRISH. DESTITUTION.

Mr. SCULLY, in the absence of Mr. O'Connell,
wished to ask whether, considering the enormous and
every day growing increase of destitution in many
parts of Ireland ; the nearly total want of tnea►ns
among her small formers and agricultural labourers
to purchase food and maintain their families ; and
the inability of the poor-law to support the over-
whelming pauperism of the country, the Government
had not some measure ready for the providing of
relief by means of food or employment; and thus for
preventing the wholesale wasting and destruction of
human life among the poorer classes of Ireland.
Sir G. GREY complained of the inconvenience
attending upon putting questions of this nature,
involving considerations of the whole question of the
state and condition of Ireland, at so short a notice.—
(Hear, hear.) He would, however, state, for the
satisfaction of the Hon. Momber, that the Govern-
ment were not prepared to bring in any measure for
the commeneeni9nt or resumption of the public works
in Ireland, neither were they prepared to propose
any measure to feed the whole of the destitute
poor of that country. At the same time
he would state that a great deal had been already
done in aid of the poor-law guardians by the British
Relief Association in relieving cases of extreme and
urgent distress, this assistance had been given in the
shape of food and clothing to the children attending
the various schools of Ireland without regard
to their sect or religious persuasion. From
a return which had just been made to him, he found
that in the week ending the 21st ult. 2,136 children
attending 118 diffigrent schools, had been afforded
relief by the association. The total number of
rations of food supplied to the children
had amounted to 650,000, which had been dis-
tributed to between 94 and 95,000 distressed persons.
In justice to the Irish people, however, he must take
that opportunity of stating that the collection of
poor-rates during the last three months of 1847 far
exceeded the collection of any former period. The
total collection of these montbs amounted to
441,780, as compared with 105,0001. for the same
period of the preceding year.
JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.

On the motion for reading the order of the day for
the second readingof the Bill for Jewish Disabilities,
Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition in favour
of the measure, signed by 280 members of the British
bar.

Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, Mr. DRUMMOND, and
several other Honourable Members, presented peti-
tions against the Bill.
Lord Duncan, Mr. Cockburn, Sir Charles Burrell,
Mr. Baynes, and Mr. William Brown, presented a
large number of petitions in favour of the Bill.
Mr. LAW presented petitions from places in
Suffolk and Norfolk against the Bill.
Mr. MITCHELL presented petitions from Brid-
pert, Wolverhampton, Enfield, and several other
places, in favour of the Bill.
Sir H. VERNEY presented petitions from Bed-
ford to the same effect.

Dr. BO WRING presented similar petitions from
Bolton, signed by 3,000 persons; from Newington..
green, and other places.
Mr.-WARD presented similar petitions from the
aldermen and burgesses of Sheffield and other places.
Mr. SIMEON presented a petition from thirty•
one clergymen of the Isle of Wight against the Bill.
Lord GEORGE MANNERS presented similar
petitions from Fifeshire.
Colonel TIIOMPSON presented a petition from
Bungay in favour of the Bill.
Mr. GIBSON CRAIG presented a similar petition
from Edinburgh, signed by 4,000 persons.
Lord D. STUART presented similar petitions from
the select vestry of Marylebone and Kentish.town.
Mr. J. WALTER presented a similar petition
from the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of Not-
tingham.
Mr. KERSIIAW presented a number of petitions
from Stockport.
Mr. FOX presented a number of petitions from
Oldham and other places.
Mr. HODGE presented similar petitions from
Tunbridge Wells, Gravesend, and other places in the
county of Keut.
Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from the Jews
of Birmingham in favour of the Bill; also another
signed by 4,000 of the inhabitants of tho town to
the same effect.

Mr. STRUTT presented a petition to the same
effect from Derby.
An Hos. Mumma-presented a petition from Barn-
staple against.
Lord G. BENTINCK presented petitions from
King's Lynn, Canterbury, and other places, in favour.
An Hos. MEMBER presented a petition from a
place in Wilts against.
Mr. BOLLING presented a petition from the
parish of Bolton to the same effect.
Mr. BRIGHT presented several petitions in favour.
Mr. COWAN presented several petitions from
Edinburgh to the same effect.
Mr. COBDEN presented similar petitions from
Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Bridgewater, and Caer-
narvon.
Mr. PEARSON presented a similar petition from
the borough of Lambeth, signed by 2,879 persons.
An Hos. MEMBER presented a petitson from
Wigan against.
Mr. HEYWOOD presented three petitions in
favour.
Mr. HUME presented four petitions to the same
effect, one of which was from Boston in Lincolnshire,
and another from Arbroath.
Mr. TUFFNELL presented a petition in favour.
Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition, signed
by the
Lord Mayor of Dublin, and upwards
of three thousand inhabitants, to the same effect;
also one from the Loyal National Repeal Association,
signed by the chairman,
_on behalf of the members,
wlaoee number =wonted to 1,000,000.

Mr. LAW said he apprehended that the petition
could not be received otherwise than as the petition
of the chairman. It was a mere figure of speech to
say that he represented all the members.—(Laughter.)
The petition was, however, received.
Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition from the
Catholics of Blanchester to the same effect.

Petitions against the Bill were also presented by Lord
Brooke, signed by 1,600 persons of Warwick ; by
Mr. Henley, from Oxford; from Mr. Pluintrce,
from various places in Kent ; by Sir W. Joliffe,
from Somerset'; by Lord H. Lennox, by Mr. Spooner
from Belfer, by Mr. Newdegate from several places
in the county of Warwick, by Mr. Bankes from the
clergy of Dorsetshire, by Mr. Floyer, by Mr. B.
Cabbell.

Petitions in favour of the measure were
presented by Mr. Sharman Crawferd
,fer Rochdale,
signed by 2786 ; by George Thompson ; by Mr.
Cowper, from Hertford; Sir \V, Clay, from the
Tower Hamlets, by Mr. Aglionby, from Carlisle,
by the Attorney-General from Cheater, by Mr. Rice
from Dover, Mr. B. Osborne from Finsbury, signed
by 2,080 persons, by the Earl of Lincoln from the
Falkirk Burghs, by Lord Palmerston from the
majority of monikers of the Senate of the University
of Cambridge.
Mr. GOULBURN stated that he had himself re-
ceived a petition from the University of Cambridge
against the Bill, and trusted that the llouse would
not consider the petition of the Noble Lord as that
of the majority.
Lord PALMERSTON, upon referring to the re-
turn of the rotes in both Mouses, found that his
petition was that of the minority, and not of the
majority. The discovery of the mistake caused con-
siderable laughter.
(LEFT SITTING.)

THE BENCHERS OF THE INNER
TEMPLE. ;

The " Report of the Proceedings before the Judges"
on Mr. Hayward's Appeal has recently been
published, and we are glad it has ; for the course
pursued by the benchers is one which every right-
thinking man must unequivocally condemn ; and it
seems morally impossible that so palpable an abuse
can be maintained much longer, now that its
existence is established by documentary evidence of
the clearest kind.

The essential facts lie within a small compass.
Each of the four inns of court is governed by a select
body (from twenty-five to fifty) called benchers, who
are precisely analogous to the fellows of a college,
except that they live less together and have more im-
portant duties to perform. They possess the exclusive
privilege of calling to the bar, and exercise judicial
authority in all cases of discipline or professional
honour. The office, therefore, is strictly of a
public character ; and the benchers of the two
Temples hold the whole of their large property
under a grant from the Crown (6 Jac. 1) in trust
for the profession. The elective power is vested in
the body itself; but the custom, time immemorial,
has been for every barrister receiving the rank of
Queen's counsel or a patent of precedence to be made
a hencher of his inn ; and this custom has been the
principal means of preserving what still remains of
the original character of the institution; for the dis-
cretionary choice of the body (as shown in the last
number of the Law Magazine) has almost always
fallen on retired barristers of social habits, or on men
of rank and influence who are only nominally con-
nected with the bar. At Lincoln's Inn, Gray's Inn,
and the Middle Temple, the votes are given openly,
and the majority decide. At the Inner Temple it
was the practice to subject the claimant to a ballot, in
which a single black ball excluded; but whatever the
origin of this practice, the impropriety of indulging
private animosities in the adminiztrat;on of a trust is
so obvious, that it had long come to be regarded as a
mere form ; and the professional understanding was
that it was never to be used arbitrarily.
In this state of things Mr. Hayward received his
silk gown, and claimed the customary appendage of
his rank. He was duly proposed at the Bench of
the Inner Temple by Sir George Rose and Sir F.
Thesiger, balloted for arid black- balled. Mr. Roe-
buck told Sir George Rose, before the ballot, that he
meant to black-ball Mr. Hayward (a circumstance of
which Mr. 11. was not informed till afterwards), and
avowed subsequently that he had black-balled him ;
alleging a quarrel in 1832 as the ground. As Mr.
Roebuck has not attempted to support or even au-
thenticate his version of this (as Sergeant Talfourd
justly characterises it) very trumpery affair, it need
not be discussed. It is sufficient to say hat the
benchers refused to give up their ballot; that Mr.
Hayward appealed to the judges as visitors of the
Inns ; and that they delivered a judgment, which
(after negativing the legal right of Queen's Counsel)
concludes thus :—" But they (the judges) all think
that the mode of election, by which a single black-
ball may exclude, is unreasonable ; and they strongly
recommend the benchers of the Inner Temple in
future to conduct their elections to the bench on some
more satisfactory principle."
The modified tone of this judgment, compared with
the strong remarks made by some of their Lordships
during the argument, may be in part accounted for
by the fact that five of the eleven judges who signed
it had been benchers of this very inn. Still the
practice (the cause of all the mischief) was con•
demned, and perhaps the judges thought that the
henchers would gladly avail themselves of the oppor-
tunity of getting rid of a dangerous and utterly in-
defensible anomaly. But the esprit de corps was
roused ; and under the influence of feelings which
should be uniformly suppressed, they enacted a new
by-law, "That in future no one shall be elected to
the bench of the Inner Temple unless he obtain the
votes of a majority of the existing benchers.' and that
four black-balls shall be sufficient to exclude." There
are twenty- eight existing benchers, so that fifteen
votes must be obtained ; and as fifteen or sixteen
is an average attendance, one might still exclude.
The majority of those present elect at the other inns,
and in all other collegiate or corporate bodies. It is
also a recognised principle of law, that when the trust
is of a public or general character, the majority of
the trustees decide ; and some of the judges intimated
a strong opinion that a body like the bench could
not legally adopt a different course. The decirion,
therefore, is evaded in spirit as well as the letter, and
the recommendation is entirely disregarded, for no
one pretends to say that there is the slightest differ-
ence in principle between the new by-law and the
old.

The spirit by which the body are likely to be
actuated in their elections for some time to come may
be collected from the tone of their mouthpiece,
the late Sir • Charles Wetherall, and his suc-
cessor, Sir Frederick Thesiger. The latter plainly
says (Rep. p. 140) that Lord Mansfield's injunction
to public trustees—" to be fair, candid, and unpre-
judiced, not arbitrary, capricious, or biassed ; much
less warped by resentment or personal dislike "—is
inapplicable to a body like the bench, who have only
their own pleasure to consult; and as to considera-
tions of fitness, in the very letter to Mr. Hayward in
which he justifies the continued exclusion on the
ground that it is now necessary to promote the
"comfort and harmony" of his colleagues (who have
caused the whole mischief by upholding the bad
by-law), he says: " When you obtained your silk
gown, and the period arrived for considering
your call to the bench, having known you for many
years, and believing you to be in every respect en-
titled to admission amongst us, I willingly undertook
(I believe unsolicited) the duty of seconding your
nomination." Sir F. Thesiger might have gone
still further; for it is only hare justice to say that
Mr. Hayward's familiarity with foreign systems and
gener.ll jurisprudence (shown by his juridical
writings) peculiarly qualify him to be a useful mem-
ber of a body who are (or ought to be) about to co-
operate in establishing an improved system of legal
education and remodelling the faulty constitution of
the bar. According to Sir F. Thesiger's doctrine, no
wrong of the kind should ever be remedied, and to
resist injustice is to justify it.
In the middle of one of Sergeant Talfourd's ad-
mirable speeches, Baron Alderson pointedly inquired
whether the same principle of exclusion was to be
extended to calls to the bar, or where it was to
stop? Where, indeed? Why should not a si-
milar veto on the appointment of a new colleague
be claimed by the members of all public boards
(as the Treasury, the Admiralty, the Horse Guards,
&c.) ; or by the judges; or by the bishops, who
might have been saved the discredit of an open re-
sponsible opposition to Dr. Hampden, had they been
allowed to black-ball him ? But further argument
would be wasted on so clear a question ; and the
benchers of the Inner Temple must know by this
time, that they are discrediting the judges, lowering
inns,
trifling profession, impairing the stability of all the
trifling away their character as a body, and even
bringing their own individual conduct and motives
under suspicion, for no earthly purpose but to avoid
the acknowledgment of a notorious error, or main-
tain (luring a brief interval a system which, the .
mo-
ment any one thinks proper to mention it either
House of Parliament, must be put down.—kraminer.

SINGULAR ACCIDENT AT TAUNTON.—A singular
accident has happened to J. Colt's, Esq., of Taunton.
While pulling up his boots he strained the lids of his
eyes so much as to break a smell blood vessel, which
caused the loss of sight of one eye, and much injured
the other.
" We learn from Switzerland," says the Univers,
" that the Pope's Nuncio has not been recalled, as re-
ported by several journals. liis holiness has, in consi-
deration of the state of the Nuncio's health, granted his
leave of absence. Mgr. Macioti has been ad interim,
and solely on account of the peculiar position of Switzer-
land, replaced at Lucerne by Mgr. Luquet."
Lord Monteagle had an interview on Friday with
the Right Hon. E. Strutt.
FEB. s.—The Ashley, Ostend to London,
which went on shore on the Maplin Saud, Ist inst., has
become a total wreck.