The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-08 00:00:00

SYRIA.

The Marquis of BATH asked whether the attention of
the Government had been directed to the despatch which
had been transmitted from Prince Gortschakoff to Count
Kersloff at Paris, requesting him not only to support but
to urge the military occupation of Syria without limit as to
time. If the Government were aware of the circumstance,
he should like to know what course they intended to pur-
sue ?

Lord WODEHOUSE said the despatch alluded to by
the noble marquis was perfectly authentic, and a copy had
been sent to her Majesty's Government. He could not
therefore say their attention had not been drawn to it.
With respect to the tone of conduct her Majesty's Govern-
ment intended to pursue, negotiations were now going on
with respect to that circumstance, and therefore he could
not for obvious reasons give the noble marquis any answer
to the latter part of his question.
POLITICAL OFFENDERS AT CAYENNE.

The Earl of DERBY wished to ask the question he had
given notice of to the noble duke opposite, namely, whether
any bill had been introduced into the colonial legislature of
British Guiana for the purpose of sanctioning
the extradition of prisoners escaping from the
French colony of Cayenne. In every extradition
treaty political offenders were carefully exempted. As
almost all prisoners at Cayenne were political, he wished to
know whether such a bill had been introduced with the
concurrence of the British Government; and whether there
was any objection to lay on the table copies or extracts of
any despatches that might have been received on the sub-
ject

The Duke of NEWCASTLE was glad of the opportu-
nity of explaining the subject. He had not received any
official information to the effect, but he had no doubt the
noble earl's information was correct, because instructions
had been sent out from this country in September author-
ising the introduction of such a measure. A draft of the bill
had, however, been very carefully prepared by the Queen's
Advocate, and political offenders were excluded from its
operations. The bill would only include offences which
were specified in the convention of 1843. He had no ob-
jection to lay the despatch on the table of the house.

STATUTE LAW REFORM BILL.

This bill passed through committee without amendment.

THE NEW LAW, COURTS.

Lord ST. LEONARDS reminded their lordships that a
short time ago he brought under their consideration the
report of a commission in favour of bringing all the courts
of law and equity on one site. The commissioners, though
in favour of such a combination of the courts, said not a
word about the Suitors' Fund. But it was proposed to
take £1,400,000 from the Suitors' Fund of the Com t of Chan-
cery for the purpose, and he understo3d the noble lord on
the woolsack, who was at the head of the Courtof Chancery,
to approve of what he must call that misappropriation of
money. They were told that the Government were prepared
with a bill to carry out the object in view. He had heard
of no bill, but he found by the Gazette that a new commis-
sion was to be issued to inquire into the office of the Ac-
countant• General of the Court of Chancery and into the ma-
nagement of the funds of that office. In his opinion it was
a most unprecedented proceeding. No charge had been
made against the office, either in that or the other house
of Parliament, yet the Accountant-General and his officers
were to be dragged before this commission. Either there
must have been some misconduct, or her Majesty's Govern-
ment wanted to know a little more of the funds they were
nibbling at and desired to lay hold of. There was not a
single equity judge or equity lawyer on the new commis-
sion, and apart from personal qualifications, he objected to
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Field being members of it, because Mr.
Rogers was a willing witness before the first commission,
and Mr. Field, who was also examined before it, expressed
his opinion that the Accountant-General's office was ut-
terly useless and ought to be abolished. It was not right
that a gentleman who had so committed himself should be
put upon a commission of inquiry. Such a mode of pro-
ceeding was disrespectful to the court of which his noble
and learned friend was the chief, and alarming to the
suitors, who had hitherto been under the impression that
their funds were under the protection of the law. The
Suitors' Fund by various enactments was expressly devoted
to purposes connected with the benefit of the suitors. The
fees in the Court of Chancery amounted now to £lOO,OOO,
but with a little care they might be reduced to £50,000.
The noble and learned lord concluded by moving that an
humble address be presented to her Majesty for a copy of
the commission recently issued to certain commissioners to
inquire into the constitution of the accountant .general's
department of the Court of Chancery, and the provision
for the custody and management of the funds of the court;
and to ask the Government upon what grounds the
the commission has been issued.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said there could be no ob-
jection in acceding to the motion, but he thought his noble
and learned friend had unnecessarily alarmed himself. The
name of Lord Bingsdown on the commission ought to be a
sufficient guarantee to him that the interests of the suitors
would be protected. The noble and learned lord defended
the composition of the commission, and explained that its
object was to improve the system, so that the funds of the
suitors might be employed in the manner most beneficial
to them.

After a few words from Lord DENMAN in deprecation of
the removal of the courts from Westminster-hall,

Lord KING SDOWN said that he was a member of the
commission, for when the Government thought there was a
necessity for inquiry, he felt that it would be inconsistent
with his duty to refuse to serve. As far as he knew it was
not possible that the most profligate and rapaciously in-
clined commission should meddle with the funds of the
Court of Chancery. The whole object of the inquiry was to
ascertain whether any saving could be made or improve-
ment effected in the custody of the funds; and whatever
might be the suggestion of the commissioners, nothing could
be done except under the control of Parliament. Moreover,
he believed that there was nothing in the terms of the com-
mission which would authorise them to express any opinion
as to whether any portion of the funds should be appro-
priated in the construction of new courts. His noble and
learned friend (Lord St. Leonards) had done more perhaps
than any other person during his term of office to insure the
safe custody of the money ; but he was mistaken if he
supposed that there was any secret plot for the purpose of

obtaining indirectly an expenditure which perhaps could
not otherwise be procured. Personally, he should not at all
be unwilling to see this commission annulled, knowing by
experience that those who served on such an inquiry were
sure to incur the hostility of individuals whose interests
were interfered with, while en the other hand the public,
whose interests they were to promote, often joined in the
outcry against
,them. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
THE PAPER DUTIES.

The Earl of CAMPERDOWN moved that there be laid
before the house an account of the gross and net produce of
the paper duties for one year, to the latest date to which
the same can be made up.
Th 6 Earl of DERBY suggested that the returns should
be for more than the last year.
The motion was amended so as to embrace the last three
years, and was then agreed to.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
GREAT DOVER ROAD BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill, which
was introduced for the purpose of extending the powers of
the parties who undertook to construct the Great Dover
Road,
Mr. WILLIAMS moved as an amendment that the bill
be read a second time that day six months. The promoters
of the bill made the road several years ago, and it appeared
that the undertaking did not realise their expectations.
The last time they came to Parliament for a renewalof their
powers for taking tolls they applied for an extension of 21
years, which, on the distinct understanding that they
should not again apply to Parliament, the term for the
continuance of these powers was extended to 31 years. He
contended that this application for a further extension of
these powers was most unjust under the circumstances.
Mr. MASSEY said that it was rather singular that this
opposition should come from the hon. member (Mr. Wil-
liams), considering that his name and Mr. Roupell's were
on the back of the bill. These turnpike and road bills were
made the subject of a special regulation of the house by
being investigated up stairs, and afterwards submitted to
the consideration of the Home Department, as preliminaries
to their being passed by the house.
Mr. WILLIAMS explained that his name had been put
on the bill without his knowledge.

Mr. LOCKE agreed with the honourable member for
Lambeth, and bt ited that in 1809 certain parties un-
dertook to construct this road, to connect the Borough
with the New Kent-road by a more eligible
mode of communication than existed at the time. They
had not realised their expectation of 12 per cent., but that
was a result that might occur to the promoters of any other
private undertaking, and did not entitle them to any
special privilege. Besides the promoters had not carried out
the condition of lighting and paving the road which they had
promised when they applied originally for the bill. On the
contrary the parishes of Southwark )141 to bring ii a bill