The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-05 00:00:00

INNS OF COURT.

Mr. O'CONNELL moved for leave to report progress
from the Committee sitting upon the Inns of Court.
Mr. O'CONNELL brought up the report, and moved
that it should be printed with the minutes.
Mr. O'CONNELL enquired if the Right Hon. Gentle-
man opposite, the case of Mr. Lyons having been mentioned
more than once during this session, had received any information
which would authorize him to contradict or qualify the expres-
sions that had been used with reference to this case.

Mr. LITTLETON stated something with respect to the
Solicitor-General who was not then in his place, but said that
he was authorised to state thus much, that the report which had
appeared in certain newspapers was most incorrect in all
respects.
- Mr. O'CONNELL said he understood that some men had
been arraigned in Carrickfergus on a charge of murder,
but that indictment was cancelled before the trial
took place, and the charge of manslaughter substituted, of
which the principal was convicted. It appeared that the Lord
Chief Justice, in passing sentence, expressed his surprise at
the alteration. He (Mr. O'Connell) wished to know upon
what authority such alteration was made ?
Mr. LITTLETON said it was not in his power to afford
any positive information on the subject.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether any arrangements had
been entered into in order to supply Scotland with copies of
Acts of Parliament from the Office of the King's Printer.
He understood that the King's printer had agreed to sell the
Acts at from 3d. to 4d. per sheet, but it had been proved before
the Committee that he could print them at one halfpenny
per sheet, and yet derive a fair profit from the sale.
It was however a fact that Acts of Parliament could not be
procured at the office of the King's printer without great diffi-
culty at any price.
Lord ALTHORP, who spoke in an extremely low tone,
was understood to say that there were certain regulations
to be observed by the King's printer, and he was not aware
that they had been departed from.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether it was correct
that a solicitor had been appointed to assist in the
management of the compensation fund to the West
India slave proprietors, and that such solicitor was to
be allowed to make his own charge for the business he
executed in his own way ? If such was the case, his demand •
would amount to many thousands, at least ; according to
some estimations 100,0001. He thought the Noble Lord had
stated that the other Commissioners had been engaged to per-
form their duty for a given sum. He wished to know why the
solicitor had not been placed on an equal footing ?
Lord ALTHORP said he regretted • the aLseice of his
Right Hon. Friend, who would have been able to afford that
information which he was unable to give.
After a few words from Mr. B. CARTER,
Mr. CLAY begged to know from the Noble Lord oppo-
site whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government
to take off the duty on refined sugar (as we understood him.)
The advantage to the Revenue was of a very trifling nature,
and as the Bill for the repeal of certain duties had not been
read a third time, a clause to that effect could be easily intro-
duced.

Lord A LTHORP said it was not the intention of his Ma-
jesty's Government to take off the duty to which the Hon.
M3mber alluded at present.
In reply to a question from Mr. MACKENZIE relative
to the report of . the Commissioners upoon the Borough
Abuses in Scotland,

The LORD ADVOCATE said that he expected to have
had the report of the Commissioners in his hand before that
time, but he hoped it would very shortly be ready.
TITHES (IRELAND.)
The Order of the Day for the further consideration of the
Report of the Committee on, the Tithes (Ireland) Bill was
then read.

On the question that the .amendments be read a second
ime,

Mr. S INC L AIR begged to call the attention of the House
to the great and sweeping alterations that had taken place in
the principle of the measure. The Hon. Member proceeded
to point out the changes that had taken place in the Bill by
the amendments that had been made.

Mr. O'CONNELL said he never knew an instance of such
ingratitude as had been shown to his Majesty's Ministers by the
supporters of tithes in that House. The clergyman was better
off under the Bill than before ; his tithes were of more value
to him, and were certain, without the trouble and expense of
collection.—( Hear, hear.) But the Bill also relieved
both landlord and tenant, and therefore he supposed
this Bill was to be opposed here and elsewhere.—(Hear.)
There was a great disposition amongst certain parties to set
the Government at war with the people of Ireland, especially
those who refused the million of last year. But the govern-
ment were doing well in keeping this bill, and whatever sinis-
ter reports they might hear, he trusted there would not be
found, and certainly not in the House, that presumption strong
enough to, defeat this salutary experiment.
Mr. F. SHA W said he certainly felt no gratitude either to
the Government or the Honourable and Learned Member for
this their joint production. He contended that two-fifths of
the church property were taken away by this Bill, and there-
fore he opposed it. - •
Mr. LITTLETON said he had learned to put no faith in
;he predictions or opinions of-the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man upon this subject.—( Hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) With
respect to to the amendment introduced by the Hon. and
Learned Member for. Dublin, he admitted that it was of great