The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-04 00:00:00

r irE SUN, LONDON, FRI DAY EVENING, JUNE 4, 1858.

courts, but it was found tbat it would 'be impossible to
do that In London. -

- _
Mr. WILLIAMS doubted whether it was expedient
to maintain a court of insolvency in London.
Mr. WALPOLE said a diminution of expenditure
might be effected by an amalgamation of the courts of
insolvency and bankruptcy, though not to any great ex,
tent immediately, because compensation would have to
be given to the judges and officers of the courts. It was
alio under the consideration of Government whether it
would not be wise to abolish imprisonment for debt,
where it was unaccompanied by fraud. (Hear.)
Mr. J. FITZGERALD said that the amalgamations
of the bankruptcy and insolvency courts had been suc-
cessful in Irtland.

The vote was then agreed to. , •
On the vote of 35,1631. for the expiusee, of the Court
of Probate,
Mr. BUTLER wished to know whether this vote in-
cluded the expenses of the Prerogative-office 1 The vote
•
was very large.
Mr. HAMILTON said the vote was large, and he
. .

ared it would be larger; but, on the othei-hand, the
sum received from fees was very considerable. The
amount received between January and May was 19,6521.
(Hear.) It would be the duty of the government to
keep down the expenditure.
Mr. HADFIELD complained that the Court of Ad-
miralty had not been thrown open to the whole profes-
sion. The pudic had given ample compensation, but
they had not got what had been promised.
Mr. WILSON said that the fees had been fixed with
a view to make the court self-supporting. Of course that
was a speculation. When the salaries were fixed the
present judge proposed them at a low rate—also as an
txperinsent. The amount of fees and salaries was
therefore subject to revision.
Mr. WARREN said that the late Lord Chancellor
intrciuced a bill to amend the Court of Probate Act,
and when that bill came to the House of Commons it
was his intention to move clauses throwing open the
Court of Admiralty to the whole profession.
Mr. SALISBURY said that considering the large
amount of compensation;which bad been given he
thought the court should be thrown open.
Mr. HADFIELD pressed for an expression of opinion
from the treasury bench.

Mr, WALPOLE had nothing to do with the bill, and
theref re could not give any explanation of the reason
why the clauses on the subject were struck out in the
Lords. His own opinion was, that all the ecclesiastical
courts should have been dealt with together. There was
a proviso in the act for the future union of the Probate
and Admiralty Courts under one judge.
The vote was then agreed to.
157,0501. for salaries and expenses of county courts.
Lord DUNCAN said there was a reduction in the
total of this vote from last year, but there was an item
to which he wished to call the attention of the house,
that of the expense of providing court houses, which was
55,0001., an increase of 10,0001. on last year. By the
original act the treasurers were obliged to provide court
houses, but in the last act a clause was inserted throw-
ing the expense on the country at large. A. deputation
had lately waited on the Earl of Derby with regard to
the county courts in Scotland, and his lordship ex-
pressed an opinion that all such courts should be pro.
vided by the districts. It was most unfair to call on the
people of Scotland to provide county courts unless the
same principle was extended to the sheriffs' courts. He
begged to move that the vote be reduced by the sum
of 15,0001.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said that if the system of
the county courts was to be maintained in efficiency to
the extent the public required, it was absolutely neces-
aary that court houses should be provided. There was
a considerable decrease this year in the vote ; the ex-
panses of the registry amounted to 272,0001., the fees
produced 216,0001. ; leaving 56,0001. to be proirided for
by the vote. In addition to the vote there was a sum
of 87,0001. charged on the Consolidated Fund. With
regard to Scotland, the question was not then before
them. If the noble lord thought the system ought to be
extended to that country, he ought to introduce a bill on
the subject.
Sr G. C. LEWIS hoped his noble friend would not
press his amendment ; the vote for the registry was only
45,0001., although the hon. gentleman stated the diffe-
rence was 56,0001.
Mr. MACARTNEY remarked that in Ireland the
courts were provided at the expense of the county.
Mr. WILSON said that by the original act the ex-
pense of providing court houses was charged on thefees.
Before he left office his attention had beon called to
some officers connected with these courts ; the high
bailiffs were largely paid, but had very little to do; one
judge appointed his brotheioin•law, a medical practi-
Lioner some miles off.
Mr. SALISBURY had before called attention to this
subject. The high bailiffs were not required at all, and
be hoped Government would take steps to do away with
them.
Mr. HAMILTON said that the difference between the
fees and expenses last year was 56,0001.; it was esti-
mated for next year at 45,0001. With regard to the
bailiffs, he was pursuing the inquiry into the subj •et,
and hoped to be able to make some reduction.
Atter some further discussioe, the vote was agreed to.
On the vote for 25,4281. for the expenses of the police
courts of the metropolis,
Lord DUNCAN said on the last vote he was a,ked to
produce a case where criminal courts were provided fur
out of the consolidated fund, and here was one.

Mr. HADFIELD moved that the vote be reduced by
5,0001.
The CITAIRMAN asked that the hon. member should
move in respect to some particular item.

Mr. HADFIELD then moved that the first item of
7,4301. for clerks' salaries should be omitted.
Mr. WILLIA MS complained that the estimate was
not drawn in an intelligible manner.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said it should be more ex-
plicit next year.
Tne amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. D. NICOLL asked for explanation as to an item
of 2,000/. for rent of premises, f0r'17,900/. had been ex-
pended this year in building new police offices.
Mr. HARDY explained that there were a great num-
ber of houses rented.
Mr. AYRTON said that the police of London was on
an entirely different. footing from that of the country. It
was under Government control, and the inhabitants of
the metropolis bad no right to interfere. The inhabi-
tan s of the metropolis paid large sums of money for the
police, police-courts, and prisons; and the force was not
metropolitan, but national to a great extent.
Mr. COX quite concurred that it was desirable that
there ehond be no application to the consolidated fund
for the police of the metropolis; but then their police force
should be on the same footing as that of the country.
Three-fourths of the expense of the police of the metro-
polis was maintained by rates, and the other fourth was
paid by the Government to enable them to use the police
—to use them as foreign sp4l, to attend at places where
discussion societies were held, and to obtain evidence
against Dr. Bernard, or against Knee publisher. That
was the reason why one-fourth part of the charge wag
plac d on the consolidated fund.
Mr. HADFIELD said the country had to pay to-
wards other things for London. There were parks,
Westminster-bridge, and a park for Finabury.
Mr. COX—We paid for it ourselv, s.
Mr. HADFIELD—Yes ; but 50,0001. had been asked
for. He would oppose the whole grant.
Mr. WILLIAMS said the inhabitants of the metropo-
lis paid as much as 400,0001. a year for the police force,
and had nothing to do with the management of it.
The vote was agreed to.
On the vo'e of 128,607/. for the police force,
Mr. GRIFFITH wished to make some observation as
to the impediments of the public streets. (A. laugh.)
Many of the streets were infested by prostitutes. In
King-street, St. James's, you could not pass without be-
ing impeded by these unfortunate women ; and he wished
to know what was the duty of the metropolitan police
in this respect.
Mr. C. GILPIN did not know how it was, but per-
haps hon. gentlemen bad more personal attractions than
he had—(laughter)—and that might account for his not
being insulted when going home from the house. He
wished to ask the S cretary for the Home Department if
he could give any explanation as to the very large in-
crease in the amount to be voted in payment of salaries.
Taere was an increase of about 28,0001. He wished to
know whether there was any sum paid for the expense
of foreign police. The increase'was from 103,0451. to
128 6071.
Kr. WALPOLE said that a large additional sum was
raised last year for the improveme,gt:af iai icing new dis
tricts, but he was not prepared , 44 ;any more detailed
explanation of thy increase,

Mr. MASSEY confirmed this statement 4 adding that
the rapid increase of London and .the springing up of
new neighbourhoods must frequently- cause increased
demands under this head.
Mr. D. NICOLL said that the increased t xpense of the
police might, to some extent, be accounted for by the
variety of duties they had to perform. They were"oftaa
employed in attending privets parties and public compa-
nies, and recently it came under his notice as a magis-
trate that the police had been constantly employed in
protecting one of the worst of the recently suppreseei
dens of infamy in the metropolis. Besides the increase
in the expense, this practice was attended with another
evil, viz.; the eisence of the police from the streets wht
their protection was most required.
After en °lv ervation from Mr. WALPOLE,
Mr. AYRTON complained of the haste with which
much of the police legislation was carried through the
house.
Mr. D. GRIFFITa again complained of the obstruc-
tion to be met in the public thoroughfares at night in
3on
prevalence of what was popularly
k
Mr. WALPOLE said that power was given to the
'‘Lecin u
as enc
thee o f
social tle
evil.
police to prustrva order in the public streets, and so far
as pos..ible crier would be preserved. But he appre-
hended that to go further than pr,eairviog order and de-
oaecy in the streets would he a siretch of arbitrary power
ehich would he highly obj,ctionable, and one to which
be could not give his sanction.
After an observation fi ow Sir J. TEELAWNEY,
Mr. WILSON entered into some explanations respect-
ing the causes cf increase, which he said were mainly two
—v..z., the creation of new distric!s, and the demands of
t!ie tipkrantinati,r, fund, which, previous to the present
grant, was nearly bai.klupt. Three fourths of the vote
paid 1 y the toetrepolis,
and only one-fourth by the
cons( heated fowl.

Mr. HADFIELD complained that the country should
be taxed fur the inetropoli., and divided against the vote.
For the vote
Fur the amendment
The vote am consequently agreed to.
3,495/. for the Queen's Prison, Scotland, was also
agreed to.
Oa the vote of 3,3421. for the Lord-Advocate and Soli-
citor-General of Scolind,
Mr. WM.:I-HON complained that the cost of admi.
ni -tering justice in Scotland was much higher thiii in

England, and drew attention to several defeats, as he
ccnidered them, in the Scotch law.
Mr. EWART expressed a.hope that the attention of
Cie Government would be dite)ted to the appointment
of a public prosecutor for England, similar to the procu-
rator-fiscal in Scotland.

Mr. MILES hoped the Government would, during
the recess, take the recommendation of the committee
which sat some time ago on this subject into considera-
tion, with a view to the carrying it into effect.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that his at-
tention had bean so much engaged on other subjects of
law reform that he had not yet bad an opportunity of
turning his attention to this particular branch of the sub-
ject. The question of appointing a Minister of Justice
was under consideration, and he hoped soon to submit
several bills for the purpose of consolidating the statutes,
and to move for a committee for considering that and
other matters of a similar. nature • and he hoped to be
able to take into consideration during the recess that
particular subject to which his hon. friend (Mr. Miles)
had now directed his attention, viz , the recommenda-
tion of the committee in referenCe to the propriety of ap-
pointing a public prosecutor for England.
Mr. M'MAHON contended that criminal justice was
better transacted in England than it was either in Scot-
land or Ireland, and instanced as proof that the directors
of the Royal British Bank bad been brought to punish.
ment, whereas the directors of the Western Bank of
Scotland, with all the appliances of procurators-fiscal
and public prosecutors that existed in Scotland, had not
yet been put upon their trial.
The vote was agreed to.
5,5701. was voted for the expense of penal prosecu-
tions in Scotland.

18,5771. for expenses of Court of Session, Scotland,
25,0001. for the charge of procurators-fiscal, and some
other votes connected with the administration of the law
in Scotland, were then passed.
On the vote of 15,1181. for the Registry House in
Scotland,
Mr. COWAN said there was an item of 1,0001. for the
salwy of the Registrar of Seisius. He wished to know
whether this was not a sinecure office, and whether a
Treasury minute was not made two or three years ago,
that when a vacancy occurred it should be abolished. He
wished also to ask whether the late Government did not,
when in a moribund state, appoint a gentleman to this
lucrative office.

Mr. WILSON said his hon. friend was quite right in
stating that about two or three years ago the Treasury did
call the attention of the Some Department to the fact that
this office was a sinecure. The salary at that time was
1,5001. It WA3 then proposed that the office should be
abolished, but the Lord Advocate proposed that the
duties should be amalgamated with those of some other
office. The appointment was then made, but the salary
was reduced to 1,0001.
The LORD ADVOCATE said there had been no
amalgamation of duties. At the same time he was bound
to say that he considered the office absolutely essential,
and therefore ho entirely approved of what was done in
the way of filling up this office. There was a desire that
the different local registries should be centralised in one
pace at Ed nburgh. There was no doubt the effect of
that would be to diminish considerably the expense of
the whole establishment, and he had been engaged in
drawing up a bill to effect that of jest.

Mr. COWAN said he felt so strongly on this subjeet
that he would move the vote be reduced by 1,000/.
Sir G. C. LEW Pi observed that the Lord Advocate had
explained that the office was necessary, and that the per-
son who was appointed discharged the duties effectively.
Mr. DUNLOP supported the amendment.
Mr. C. BRUCE bore testimony to the ability with
which the Registrar of Seising fulfilled his duties.
Mr. DUNDAS remarked that the office was given to
a great supporter of the late Minister, and he thought
that giving it to him under the circumstances was in
some measure a job.
Alter a little more conversation, the CHAIRMAN put
the amendment, which he declared to have been carried.
He was then proceeding rapidly to put the whole vote,
when

Mr. JACKSON interposed, and entreated the hon.
gentleman nut to go quite at the rate of 60 miles an
hour. (L )ud cries of ' Hear, hear.")
Mr. WILSON then resumed the discussion, remark-
ing that the functionary whose salary had been stopped,
was the only person responsible for the accuracy of the
work performed by his clerks. Some years ago the per-
son who held the office had actua ly had to make goo i a
lose of between 3,001. and 4,0001., which had been oc-
casioned by an error. .
Mr. MILES observed that the only question was
whether two years ago this office had been declared to
be a sinecure. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILSON said it was true that a recommends-

tion had been made two years ago that on the next va-
cancy occurring it should not be filled up—(hear, hear)
—but a correspondence on the subject had afterwards
taken place between the Lord Advocate and the Home•
office, and it had been determined to continue the office
in toe modified shap?.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the Recaiver, if
his salary was stopped, could not of course ba expected
to perform the duties of the office, and no assistant would
be responib!e. (Hear.)
It was k, re objected by several members on the Mi-
nisterial side of the house that they had challenged the
chairman's decision, and that there ought to have been
a division.

Tlie CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sug-
gested that Ai there seemed to have been some mistake
abut pat lug the qawition, the vote had better be with-
drawn, in order that it might be reconsidered. (Hear,
hear, and " No, no.")
Mr. KINNAIRD said he had never in his life heard
a question put in,,re distinctly. (Hear, hoar )
Mr. B_ .X recurring to the question of the vote
itself, submitted that though the committee had de-
prived the Receiver of his salary, his responsibility had
still romsined.

Sir G. C. LEWIS thought that as the only reason why
the Chairman'e deci,,ion had not been challenged in time
was an inadver,ence, it would be unusual and discour-
teous not to allow the vote to be withdrawn. (" No, no.")
Tue CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he was a perfectly impartial witness in this matter,
for he had not at the moment been attending to what
was going on. Afterwards, finding that there was
some little confusion, he had asked the reason of his

friends around him. He still thought that the with-
drawal of the motion would be the best coarse.
Mr. HOWSMAN said the omission of gentlemen
opposite to challenge the chairman's decision had not
risen from any inadvertence. It had arisen from inde-
cision. (hear.) Tee gentlemen opposite did not make
up their minds what course to pursue till it was too late.
(Cheers.) . .
Lord J. MANNERS denied the accutaoy of the
right hon, gentleman's impression. He had himself said
" No."
Mr. I.IOI3,SNIAN--The noble lord, no doubt, said
"No" when the question was first put; but be believed
he'had done so alter the chairman said `•The Ayes
have it."
Lord J. AIANNERS—Taat was not the fact. I
said "No" on both occasions. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. lIAMILTON admitted that the fault was his. It
was his duty to have challenged the vote; and he sup-
posed be said "No" at the Wrong moment. (Hear.)
• Mr. WALPOLE declared that nothing could be
further from his intention than to impugn the conduct
of the chairman, than whom he had never seen a gentle-
man conduct himself in the chair with greater fairness
and propriety. (Hear, hear) At the same time he
would remind the holies that the Government
had no interest in resisting his decision in the
present instance, except what arose from their wish to
carry out the assurance given by the late administration.
Lord PAL ME RSlONsuggested that if the diminished
vote should be agreed to, on bringing up the report it
would be competent to the Government to move that it
be recimmitted.
The CHAIRAAN said that course would be quite
consistent with the rules of the house.

The vote for 14,1181. 10s. 7d. was then agreed to, as
were also the following votes:—

1:1241. for the Commissary Clsrk of Edinburgh.
1,6751. for the Accountant in Bankruptcy in Scotland.
26,6221. for criminal prosecutions and other law
charges in Ireland.

3,7261. for the Court of Chancery, Iralard.
2,599/. for the Court of Queen's Bauch, Ireland.
3,4801. for the Court of Common Pleas, Ireland.
3,9751. for the Court of Exchequer, Ireland.
2001. for taxing-officers and their clerki, Ireland.
5,8491. for salaries of registrars to the judges, Ireland.
1,9501. for the consolidated offices of Writs, Four
Courts, Dublin.
_ 2,3481. for the office of Registrar of Judgmentq, Ire-
land. .
9.546/. for the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency,
Ireland.

W••••••,...
8,8721. for the Court of Probate. Ireland
8301. for the Dublin Revising Barrister.
2671. fcr the Clerk of the Cmirt of Errors, Ireland.
1:6001. fur the Police Justices, Dublin.
24,500/. for_the Dublin Metroplitan Police.
384,0001. for the Constabulary of Ireland.
17,7001. fur the inspection and superintendence of
pt icons.
140,023/. for the maintenance of prisoners in county
gaols, reformatory institutions, and lunatic asylums.
24,7151. for t ximises connected with the transporta-
tion of convicts.
225,968/. fur the expense of the convie, establishment
in the colonies.
The house then re‘u;ned,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. BILL.
The order for the second r- ading of this bill was post-
poned till Thursday the 17;h inst.
JOINTSTOCE. BANKING COMPANIES BILL,
Mr. IIEADLA.M moved that the house should go
into ummittee ~n this i ill.
After a cohver-atioo, several members objecting to
proceed with the ha at that hour,
Mr. BUCHANAN moved the adjournment of the
debate, a• d the house divided—
For the skilliurnment ... 77
A:;i.inst it l4O-63
Mr. WILSON rose to move an instruction to the
committee.
Mr. WALPOLE ~bj,.ctod that this could not now be
&tie, a division having taken place on the question of
going into committee,
The SPEAKER hell that Mr. Wilson was in order.
Mr. WILSON move.l that it be an instervhueacryitrnliodniaffnteoroetf a
the
committee to extend she provisions of the bill to insur-
ance companie2.
Mr. COWAN opposed the motion. He said that
ofipvienyioz atd
sagoliteheexhporens.Begdentthlaemt aonpiwnaipsnofasa
c; mmittte which sat to inquire into the subject of iht;
enrollee itenalies.

Mr. LYG ON r..)se to order, asking the Speaker whether
the home was not precluded from entertaining this
motion.
The SPEAKER said that the rule applied to the most

convenient mode of conducting the business of 'the
house in this respect, which was thought trx.be by
making a motion of this kind on the motion for leaving
the chair, but there was nothing to prevent the course
no w taken from being pursued.
Mr. COWAN renewed his observations against the
motion, stating that he had hoped the hon. gentleman
would have introduced a bill founded on the report of
the committee in question for the purpose of amending
the existing state of things with reference to insurance
cl:npanies. He moved that the motion be rejected.
Mr. HEADLAM said that insurance companies
could now obtain limited liability by means of their
policies, but he did not object to the extension of the
bill to those companies.
Mr. BUCHANAN objected to going on with what
he believed would be a very long discussion.
Mr: WARREN moved the adjournment of the debate.
Sir. W. HEATHCOTE thought the form of the in-
struction was not in conformity with the rules of the
house ; it ought to be that the committee have " power"
to extend the provisions of this bill, and the proper time
for diseassing it would be in the committee itself, and
there need be no lengthened debate on it now.
Mr. HEADLAM propcoed that they should pass the
instruction as giving power to the committee, and he
could not then ask to go any further to-night.
Mr. HENLEY said there was some difficulty in the
form of the motion. It cuss put as an amendment on
the motion for going into committee, and if it was car-
ried, the motion fur going into committee could not be
put.
Mr. BOUVERIE said the form of putting the in-
struction was not usual or convenient, for any one
voting for it would vote against going into committee.
He suggested its withdrawal.
Mr. WILSON had nri objection to withdraw the mo-
tion, on the understanding that no further steps were
takes.

The motion for the instruction was then withdrawn,
and the debate adjourned to this day.
OXFORD AND CAMBRID ;E UNIVERSITIES,
&c., ESTATES BILL. _ _

This bill, as amended, was considered and ordered to
be read a third time this day.
HAINAULT FOREST (ALLOTMENT OF COM-
MONS) BILL.

The house went into eom.mittee on this bill.
Clause 1 was agreed to.

On clause 2,

Mr. CAIRD proposed that the remuneration of the
surveyor should not exceed 2001. About 6,0001. had
been already expended in the survey, and as 2001. was
considered sufficient remuneration for the commissioner,
be thought it ought to be sufficient for the surveyor.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON opposed the amendment.
The house was cleared for a division, but none took
place, the amendment having been accepted by the
governmeat.

The clause then passed as amended.
The other clauses were agreed to.
ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS LEASING

BILL.
Ti is bill was read a third time.
PROPERTY QUALIFICATION BILL.

Mr. L. KING moved the third reading of this bill.

Mr. BENTINCK said that it was not his intention
to give any further opposition to the bill. (Cheers.) He
retained his opinion with regard to it, and only regretted
that by one of those accidents which were sometimes so
common, they Ind not the benefit of the noble viscount
(Palmerston). who left his seat about two minutes ago.
(Lau4hter.)
Mr. DRUMMOND repeated his objection to the bill,
which involved a very important principle, but unfor-
tunately questions of principle were not paid much
attention to in that house. The noble lord the member
for the City of Lyndon referred to the act of Queen
Anne, but that act bad no more to do with this question
than the man in the moon. This was one of the five
points of the charter, which was carried with the sanc-
tion of a Conservative Government. (Hear, hear.) He
hoped they would hear no more of the great Conserva-
tive principle of the canstitution. (Cheers.)
The bill was read a third time and passed.
THE FUNDED DEBT.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
leave was given to bring in a bill to repeal certain pro-
visions for the issue out of the consolidated fund of fixid
amounts for the reduction of the funded debt. The bill
was subsequently read a first time.
FOREIGN•OFFICE RECONSTRUCTION.

On the motion of Mr. HOPE the following members
were nominates as the committee on this subject :—Mr.
Hope, Lord John Manners, Sir Benjamin Hall, Mr.
Hamilton, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Akroyd, Mr. Buxton, Loid
Robert Cecil, Lord Elcho, Mr. Seymour Fi zgerald,
Mr. Lygon, Sir John Shelley, Mr. Stephenson, Mr.
Stirling and Mr. Tite. Power to send for persons,
papers, and records : five to be the quorum.
The house adjourned at a quarter past one.