The Sun.
London, England, 1832-08-07 00:00:00

CHANCERY PATRONAGE BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR ito;red--;;;rding to
notice the third reading of the Bill for the abolition of pa-
tronage offices attached to the Court of Chancery.
Earl GREY said, that he was instructed by his Ma-
jesty to signify his Majesty's consent to this Bill.
Lord WYNFORD was by no means an enemy
to the abolition of patronage wherever it might
exist. He was the first he skid to abolish the
patronage for the Court over which, for a time, he
had presided. It might be very necessary to abolish the
offices which the Bill, now on their Lordships' table, was
directed against, but in his opinion this was not the Bill
that ought to be passed for that purpose. This Bill could
not have been prepared by the Noble and Learned
Lord on the woolsack? He (Lord Wyndford) without
meaning any disrespect to that Noble Lord, would
proceed to point out what had occarred to him in the Bill
as being altogether inaccurate. The bill says that provi-
sions shall be made for the performance of the duties of
some of these offices, but no such provision is made in the
bill itself, as there ought to be. As the bill now stood it
abolished these offices from and after the 15th of April
next, so that unless Parliament should be pleased before
then to pass a Bill to provide for the performance of the
duties of these offices, the Court of Chancery would be
placed in a most embarrassing situation. There was no
precedent of offices, which it was acknowledged had duties
attached to them, and some of them very important, be-
ing abolished, leaving i 1 to chance whether any or what
provision should be made and provided for that special
purpose. The Lord Chancellor bad been too much
occupied to bring in the Bill for some months, and there
was no reason to suppose that his Lordship would not be
equally occupied for some months to come. He thought
the best course would be to postpone the measure
till next session, when it could be maturely considered.
There was no reason for now pressing it forward, and even if
The Noble Lord did not continue to be Chancellor, he
might be sure that if they ought to be got rid of, others
would he as willing to get rid of them as himself. This
Bill was full of imperfections, and did not abolish all the
useless offices of the Court of Chancery, but left, among
others, the Registers and Curaitors. He feared, too, that it
would affect reversionary interests, which he was sure his
Noble Friend was too just to wish to see destroyed. The
enacting part of this Bill does not fulfil promises of the
preamble.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that although cer.
tainly these offices were to be abolished by the 15th
day of April, yet, as a matter of course, the Par-
liament would meet before that time, and provide for
the transfer of the functions and responsibility of the
officers holding them. If, however, his Noble and Learned
Friend wished to make certainty more sure, the time
might be extended to the 15th May, or the last day of
the next Session. With respect to the Registers
and Cursitors, they had not escaped his attention, and
he had no objection to insert them in tne Bill if his
Noble Friend wished, although these offices were already,
or would be very shortly, merely nominal in their
emoluments.

The Earl of ELDON next rose, and was
(LEFT SPEAKING).

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

On the SPEAKER. taking his seat the House was sum•
moned to the House of Peers, to hear the Royal Asseni
given to several Bills, for which see the Lords' report.

The LORD ADVOCATE trusted the House would not
think he was out of order in moving the order of the day
for the House going into Committee upon the Sheriff of
Selkirkshire Bill, previous to the presentation of peitions,
as it was important that it should go into the House of
Lords without delay.
Lord DUDLEY STUART interposed by saying he
had a petition to present, and be always understood that
petitions came on first.
The SPEAKER said the object, as stated yesterday
by the Lord Advocate, for expediting the Bill,
was the extreme urgency of the business of Sheriff, and
the state of health of the talented individual
(Sir Walter Scott) who held the office of Sheriff.—(Hear.)
In consequence the Bill was read without notice a first
and second time )7, sterday.
The Bill then went through a Committee, was read a
. . . _ _

third time and passed. It was entitled "A Bill to autho-
rize his Majesty to appoint a person to act as Sheriff of
Selkirkshire during the incapacity of the present Sheriff."
On the motion of Mr. SPRING RICE the office of
Speaker Bill, the Public Accounts Bill, the Glass Duties
Repeal Bill, and the Aberdeen College Bill, were severally
read a third time and passed.
Mr. Alderman VENABLES presented a petition from
the silk manufacturers of London, complaining of the de-
cision of the Committee en the silk trade. The Hon.
Member entered into a long detail of the grievances com-
plained of by the petitioners, which lie thought well
worthy the attention of the House.
Lord D. STUART supported the petition.
Mr. 11. L. BULWER hoped, as Member for Coven-

try, he might be allowed to say a few words upon this
subject, which was so intimately connected with that
town. The Hon Gentleman then went into the evidence
that was given before the Committee, in order to show
that the distress among the silk-workers was much greater
now than when a much less quantity of silk was used.
The Hon. ME3IBER quoted various portions of the evi-
dence given before the Committee, with a view of showing
the depressed state of the English silk trade, and the pro-
portionate increase in the French trade, and contended
that the depression of the English trade was solely
caused by what was termed foreign competition. He
expressed his earnest hope, that when the Right Hon.
Gentleman had time to examine the evidence, he would see
the necessity of introducing such a measure in the next
Session of Parliament as would have the effect of throw-
ing a fair shield of protection round the English manu-
facturers.

Mr. W. ELLIS was exceedingly concerned, as well as
the petitioners, that the Committee had not thought proper
to make any report, especially considering the importance
of the subject, and the very voluminous evidence that had
been adduced. Ha was sure that if Honourable Members
would give their calm consideration to the evidence they
would see that it was easy to suggest a sufficient protec-
tion for the English manufacturer without wholly shutting
out foreign goods.
Mr. HUME said it was very easy in a mass of evi-
dence, in the course of which above 12,000 questions
were put for any Hon. Member to pick out a few por-
tions that might suit any particular opinion that any Mem-
ber might entertain. He, however, believed that the pe-
titioners were in error, and that they attributed effects to
toe wrong causes. He was on that account anxious foi
aninquiry, as it would have the effect of correcting any
erroneous opinions upon this subject. The petition was
stated to be from the undersigned silk manufacturers.
Now there were twe classes under that head, the
silk throwsters, who enjoyed a very extensive mono-
poly of the trade, and the weavers who worked up
the silk after it came from their hands, but the House was
not informed from which class the petition came. He
understood that the silkweavers of Spitalfields, and also
the silkweavers of Coventry, paid to the throwslers a sort
of duty of 8 or 9 per cent. upon the amount of the silk.
The Hon. Member thought it inconsistent with the evi-
dence given before the Committee, that the weavers should
ask that the articles they had to use should be increased
in. price, and thus instead of assisting them to compete
with the French manufacturer, rendering it utterly im-
possible for them to do so. The Honourable Member
thought the evils under which the trade laboured was the
protecting duty on thrown silk imported into this country,
)
i
to give relief .to the raw material, as well as the thrown,
must be had at a cheap rate. The best thing to do
for the interest of the manufacturer of silk was
to leave them as free as possible.--(Hear, bear.
Prohibitions or increased duties would tend very much, n
the Hon. Member's opinion, to the extension of smuggling.
He was sorry the result of the long inquiry which had
taken place had not been more satisfactory to the parties
than it appeared to be.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN felt called upon to state
his views upon this subject. lie held in his his hand

several protests against the proceeding of the Committee,
from which it appeared that the greatest distress existed,
notwithstanding the declarations of the Vice-President of
the Board of Trade to the contrary. The present was not
a subject for levity of manners.
Mr. P. THOMPSON denied having treated the sub-
e t with levity, the Hon. Alderman had referred to him
by a name not usually made use of in that House, and it
was in consequence of that he smiled, and not in respect of
the subject to which the Hon. Alderman was adverting.
Mr. Ald. WAITHMAN resumed with respect to the
Committee, it was quite apparent the Right Hon. Gen
tleman had lost ground, for before it evidence had been
brought forward which distinctly proved the existence
of unequalled distress in various parts of country as well
as at Spitalfields. But look at the unfair way in which
the Committee was named ! why, it was as well known
at first whether votes would be as it was at last ; yet,
after sitting four month., after having received
upwards of 12,000 answers, it was attempted by the op.
ponents to refpect the whole by bringing forward
fresh evidence, at least what was called fresh evidence,
but the parties bad actually been in the Committee Room
every day of its sitting. The Hon. Member for Middlesex
attempted to get rid of the whole business, because they
could not carry their favourable plans of reducing the duty
on thrown silk.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, AuousT 6.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from Liverpool,
for a better observance of the Sabbath. The petitioners
especially complained of the neglect of that day by the
tipper classes.
Mr. V. SMITH presented a petition from the Stafford.
shire potteries in favour of the Government plan of edu-
cation in Ireland.

On the motion of Mr. Ross an account was ordered
of the number of Speakers there had been since 1688, the
number of years they had served, and the amount of pen-
sions granted to each.
DECCAN PRIZE MONEY.

Mr. WARBURTON rose and said, that nothing but
the extreme urgency of the case would have induced
him to bring forward the questien of the Deccan
prize money at the present period of the Session, but he
thought it his duty as Member of that House to attend to
the solicitations of the parties in a case which he thought one
of extreme hardship. The first petition he bad to
present was from Sir Lionel Smith, who contended that
the booty, commonly known as the Deccan prize money,
ought to be distributed only among the army that was pre-
sent at its capture. The second was from Sir Thomas
Hislop, who complained of the manner in which the money
was distributed under the Treasury warrants of 1826 and
1828. The facts of the case were these—There were two
armies appointed to settle the disputes that had arisen
between the East India Company and the natives, one
of the armies was commanded by the Marquis of Hastings,
and the other by Sir Thomas Hislop. He was perfectly
aware that it was contended by the Marquis of Hastings
that it was only one grand army, under his sole command,
but subdivided; but, on the other band, Sir Thomas His-
lop contended that by the nature of his commission, the
Deccan army he commanded was perfectly independent of
the one under the Marquis, and that he was commander-
in-chief of it, only subject to the commands of the Mar-
quis of Hastings, as the Governor-General of India.
The campaign was but of short duration. The Marquis
of Hastings took the field in September, and by February
following, having increased his forces, and obtained a deci-
sive victory, that army was broken up, and he left the field.
Sir Thomas Hislop remained in the field about six
weeks later than the Marquis of Hastings. The booty
captured, almost entirely by the Deccan army, amounted
to about 800,0001. or 900,0001. At first, the Marquis
of Hastings took a liberal view of the question as regarded
the Deccan army; and stated, in his private and offi-
cial letters, he had no intention to csmtest with that
army its right to the prize; but as soon as he
was aware of the extent of the capture, he took a different
view, and called the whole a combined army, of which be
stated the Deccan army to bea portion; and then he stated
that the prizes should bedistributed among the general army
engaged in the general campaign. The result would be
that instead of Sir Thomas Hislop having a flag eighth of
the booty, it would go to the Marquis of Hastings, and in-
crease his share by 100,000/. The Marquis in June fol-
lowing sent an account of what he had done to the
East India-House, and in the end of 1822, and begin-
ning of 1823, the question was referred to the Treasury,
who in March issued a minute, and a warrant was also is-
sued under the Sign Manual. Those documents com-
pletely established that for which Sir Thomas Hislop
contended, viz., that the force in India was not a
combined army under the Marquis of Hastings, but
that the army in the North, arid that in the
South, and the Deccan army, were to be considered
as independent armies. They also laid down the principle
of actual capture as contrasted with constructive capture,
the Treasury adhering to a famous decision of Lord Stowell
upon that point. The Treasury minute stated that it
was a most just and equitable principle of distribution
to adhere as closely as possible to actual capture, and the
intended
by was of opinion that the mode originally
by the Marquis of Hastings was the most equitable and
just, and that the booty on each occasion should belong
to the division of the army engaged in the particular
operation. With regard to the general booty in the
Mahratta campaign of 1817 and 1818, it was granted
to such divisions of the grand army under the command
of the Marquis of Hastings, and of the Deccan army
under the command of Sir Thomas Hislop, as re-
spectively captured the same. With regard to the flag
eighth, it was allotted to Sir Thomas Hislop and his
officers who participated in the Deccan army until it was
broken up on the 31st of March, 1818. Thus almost
every point contended for by Sir T. Hislop was granted
to him by the minute and warrant. But it appeared there
was a cusus omissus. There was a large quantity of booty
taken in the Deccan, which was not obtained while either
army was in the field, but after both were dissolved. The
Marquis of Hastings quitted the field in February, 1828,
and Sir T. Hislop left the Deccan army on the 30th of
March following. There was a large amount of tribute,
rent, &e., due to the Peishwa, the deposit of which was
not received until July following. In 1823, the whole
booty was referred to trustees, who reported in 1826
upon it. The Lords of the Treasury, after hearing
Counsel on both sides, gave fresh directions, which
were, " that the booty taken in the daily operation of the
troops should be distributed according to the doctrine of
actual capture," and went on to decide that the amount
of tribute, rents, and money due to the Peishwali, should be
considered to have been acquired by the general result of
the war, and ought to be distributed amongst the troops
of all the presidencies. This was perfectly just, as it
would be difficult to say which of the armies had con-
tributed most to this object. There was, however, amongst
these monies a large amount of treasure belonging to the
Peishwali, which, upon leaving Poonah, he was obliged to
deposit with certain bankers in that town. It was not until
the July of that year that Captain Robertson, who was ap-
pointed by the Commissioner for the affairs of the Peishwah,
discovered the existence of these sums in the hands of these
bankers. The minute of 1826 directed, " That any part of this
property which can be proved to have been in Poonah at
the time when the place was captured—viz., on the 17th
of November, 1817, ought to be distributed to the cap-
tors of Poonah, according to the terms of the minute of the
Stir of February, 1823, upon the principle of actual cap-
ture; but that in all cases in which such proof cannot be
established, the monies or effects must be considered as hav-
ing been acquired by the general result of the war, and, as
such, ought to be distributed among the forces of all tl.e
presidencies engaged in the combined operations of the
campaign." This admitted that if any sums were in Poo-
nail at the time of the capture, it belonged to the captors.
Sir Lionel Smith was the commander of the 4th divi-
sion of the Deccan army, which took Poonah. Sir Tho -
mas Ilislop was the Commander-in-Chief, and if it were
proved that the treasure was in Poonah, then the distri-
bution ought to be amongst the 4th division, giving one.
eighth to Sir Thomas Hislop. Captain Robertson, who
discovered the treasure, was agent for the East India Com-
pany, who claimed it for themselves : to that it was not
the interest of Captain Robertson to collect any evidence
for the captors, as he (Captain Robertson) was to receive
5 per cent. for himself on all that he collected for the
company. This was another of the many difficulties with
which the captors had to encounter in getting evidence of
their claim. Difficult as this was, however, Sir L. Smith,
in 1828, sent home evidence on oath from five native
bankers, which showed that 8 lass and 72,000 rupees