The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-21 00:00:00

a claim for compensation, the Treasary should
be allowel to award such compensation. By the forms
of the 11.0t199, he found himself precluded from doing
so, but as those officers had been appointed for lite,
he hoped the Government would take their me into
consideration, and provide for a fair and equitable nom-

pensation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the parties re-
ferred to had no more claim than under-sheriffs, bar-
risters, or other parties whose emoluments in the supe-
rior courts would be interfered with by the extension of
the Act.
Major BLACKALL moved a clause-to the effect, that
barristers of seven years standing at the Irish her should
be eligible to fill the office of county court judges in
England.
Sir G. GREY said that the motion was contrary to the
general practice, and, if carried, would be au exception
to the rule of the profession.
Mr. FRENCII and Mr. ANSTET briefly supported the
clause.
Mr. KEOGH raid that the qualifications of a judge of
a clunty court were not higher than those required -of
an assistant-barrister in Ireland. Yet it was s,iid that
an Irishman ought not to be appointed to the office of a
county court judge. Irishman were ob..iged to spend
two years in England, to entitle them to be called to the
Iri,ch bar. This being so, he should be glad to know
what reason there could be for excluding Irishmen from
the honours and emoluments of the English bar?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the reason why

Irisliblrristers were excluded from the office in question
was simply a matter of bar arrangement, as it was de-
sirable that the law offices in Ireland should be filled by
Irishmen, and that the same arrangement should take
place in this country in respect to Englisiamen.
Mr. NAPIER concurred in this view of the case.
Colonel RAWDON said, that the argument urged in
favour of the abolition of the office of the Lord-Lieute-
nant in Ireland was, that it would have the eft.ct of
placing the office 3 in both countries open to the ambi-
tion of men of either country.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause ... ..• 58
Against it 111
Majority against the clause ... —53
Mr. MITCHELL moved the insertion of the following
clause:—" Whereas by the Act of the tenth year of her
Majesty it is enacted, that any summons may issue in
any district in which the defendant or some of the de-
fendants shall dwell or carry on their business at the
time of the action brought, ono by leave of the court,•for
the district in which the defendant or one of the defend-
ants shall have dwelt or carried on his business at some
time within six calendar months next before the time of
the action brought, or in which the cause of action arose,
such summons may issue in either of such last-mentioned
courts; be it enacted, that, by leave of thecourt for the
district in which the plaintiff shall dwell or carry on
business, or shall have dwelt or carried on business
within six calendar months next before the time of the.
action brought, such summons may issue in such last-
m enVoned court."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the clause.
Mr. FITZROY supported the clause.
The House divided, when there appeared—

For the clause ... 55
Against it ... . . 90
Majority nttainst ... —35
COURT OF CHANCERY BILL.

The House then went into Committeo on tha Court o:
Chancery 13111, in pursuance of leave given to tho Chair-
man on a former occasion. ' _

The remaining clauses haring been agreed to, the
House resumed, and the Bill was reported without
amendments.
THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.
Mr. PUSEIC moved that this Bill be read a third time.
The Hon. Member said that in consideration of the great
agriculairal distress which prevailed in many parts of
the country, he hoped the House would not hesitate to
accede to the motion. . .

Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND opposed the motion,
which he said demanded serious consideration.
Mr. ELLIS said that the Bill had been cut down, be
was sorry to say, to almost nothing, but such as it was,
the teuant•farmzrs in his part of the country were so
loudly in favour of its principle, he knew they would be
thankful for it. _

Mr. F. AIIt.CKENZIE then moved the adjournment
of the House.

The House divided, and the numbers were—

For the motion ... ... 29
Against it 9G
Majority against it ••• ••• —67
During our absence from the gallery another adjourn-
ment of the House was moved, and on our return

Mr. KEOGLI was complaining of the Government
having silently consented to its being extended to
Ireland.

Mr. PUSEY explained that the Bill was merely per-
missive, and that its passing, whether extended to Ire-
land or net, could do no harm to either country.
After some further discussion, the debate was ad-
journed to this day.
The Court of Chancery (County Palatine of Lancas-
ter) Bill was read a second time; as was also the Cruelty
to Animals (Scotland) Bill.
The Engines for taking Fish (Ireland) Bill, after
some opposition from Mr. SCULLY and other Members,
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed,
on the understanding that the Government would in-
troduce some measure to improve the fisheries of Ireland,
after a Select Committee had reported, to whom the Bill
would to referred.