The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-12 00:00:00

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY.

Mr. HADFIELD asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether the Government intends to bring in a bill to enable
serjeants, barristers at law, attornies, and solicitors to prac-
tise in the High Court of Admiralty, without compensation
to proctors ; and whether the yearly compensation to
proctors and other officers of the late ecclesiastical courts,
made and to be made underthe late act had been ascertained,
and if so, the probable yearly amount thereof, and what yearly
amount had been received by way of contribution, in
fees or otherwise, in diminution of such compensation to
proctors and other officers of the new Court of Probate,
from suitors and parties proving wills and taking out ad-
ministrations ; and what may be the probable yearly amount
of the expenses of the said Court of Probate, and of the
compensation to proctors and other officers.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that it was not his intention to introduce any bill to enable
sergeants, barristers, attorneys, or solicitors to practise in
the Court of Admiralty, and the time to consider the ques-
tion would be when it was brought forward. With regard
to the proctors, the question of compensation to them was
referred to commissioners, who fixed their remuneration.
The hon. gentleman seemed to consider that no exaggerated
statement could be made with respect to the amount of
compensation. An estimate was given to him of the amount
shortly after he came into office—a sort of rough sum which
amounted to £250,000. He felt it his duty to refer it tothe
commissioners, namely, his right hon. friend the Judge-
Advocate, and his hon. friend now Secretary to the Trea-
sury, but who was not then a member of the house. They
sat in the beginning of April, and at the end of July
his right hon. friend informed the house that the
amountnow would not- exceed £176,000 a-year. It was
diminution
npgay the expenses
, heowever, brought nearly to a conclusion, as
veryatoounft wmayclaibme stakreenmaaint remained, anmdereththeanagxgrengo,aooteo
a-year.annual
It was but
investigation tofromhi
justice to the commissioners to say that the
country was very much indebted to them for the searching
thell every claim was subjected. They
got great aid
wreerfoeunpudt vrinhfoorrernroaencoyrds of the Income-tax Office.
Claimse
thousands a-year, and gentle-
menineLirtees dhemselves as having been in
possession of large
indeed, on referring to their havingt very different incomes
for the income tax.
tree :Lon that circumstance.
(Laughter). So much had
income-
tax, that he thought it right to mention been said against the
With 1 of
original
oafr d
thet o claims,nfreoeos t
proctors'
andrs
w(Ahileahugwha.s)
x2sl' They
o reduced'
l 130 , 00 0
1-55 000 a year: and the
stamps, that will be applied_ as a di
balanceclaims.
of the Probate Court.
that tarmeomunainteeddt°wo"uldellre aoprplied to
MATRONS IN EMIGRANT SHIPS.
Mr. EWART asked the Secretary of State for the
Colonies whether, in cases of emigration by females, due
care is or will be taken that the female emigrents are placed
under the charge of a matron duly appointed or selected by
the Government.
Sir E. BULWER LYTTON said he was aware the sub-
h
y t e regu..
j ect, to which the question of the hon. member related, was
one of great interest, and he would state that, b
lotions, matrons were appointed, who had charge of single
females in all emigrant ships sent out by the Emigration
Commissioners, but not in ordinary ships. The right hon.
gentleman was understood to add that the matrons had a
free passage home from Australia.
Mr. KINNAIRD said he believed the matrons had only
a free passage home from Sydney. What he thought his
hon. friend (Mr. Ewart) wanted to know was whether the
matrons were properly paid, as they sometimes had the
care of from 300 to 400 women. _
__