The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-13 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, 4.aris 12
• LANDLORD AND TENANTS BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Sir J. Y. BULLER was quite ready to join wurn his
t,:naafs in improving his estates, but he entP7ta;med
strong; objections to the plan proposed by this Bill. It
gave -him no check over the extravagances of his tenant,
nor did it fix the limit to which au expenditure under
this Bill could be carried.
After a few words from Mr. TRELAWNY, the
Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
mejority ••• •••
The amendment was eons;,quently carried.
Classes 4,5, 6, 7 and 8 were tLen agreed to without
dizeussion.
On clause 9,
Mr. GREENE moved an amendment to the clause,
laying certain restrictions on glebe lands.
Mr. NEWDEGATE also proposed to introduce cer-
tain amendments with regard to charges on glebe lands. •
Mr. PUSEY thought they were mixing up two or
three • different subjects together, and he would rather
settle the point which had been raised by the lion.
Member for Lancast+ r first.
After a few words from Mr. PACKE,
Colonel SIBTHORP, in consequence of the promo-
ters of the Bill having asserted that this clause was
grounded on tl,e practice of Lincolnshire, row to clic:-
claim oa the. part of Lincolnshire any sympathy with
the Bill.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM suggested that the amend-
ment should be postponed for the present, until the Hon.
Member for Warwickshire had had time to frame his
proviso.
Mr. GREENE was perfectly ready to do so if it was
thought more desirable.
The amendment was consequintly withdrawn.
After a few words from Mr. LABOUCIIERE,
Mr. WALPOLE -moved the omission of certain
words in the clause, which ho contended did not sufii•
ciently restrict the powers of mortgagees.
After a short discussion, in which Sir James Graham,
Mr. Pusey, and the Solicitor-Generaltock part, strangers
were ordered to withdraw,
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... ... 46
Against it 117
rtl:::jority ... • ... —7l
The amendment was consequently lost.
The clause was then awe= to.
The remaining clauses of the Bill ware then agreed to
without discussion.
The House then resume?, and the Chairman having
reported progress, the report was ordered to be brouLht;
up on Monday next.
COtiltr. OF CLIAICrEP6Y. BILL.

... 84

... -19

Mr. TUENEP. moved the second reading of
this Bill. He said it was with great diffidence and
reluctance that he had undertaken the task of at-
tempting some improvement in the practise of the Court
of Chancery. The House would be aware that no less
than 50,000,0001. of funded property was at the present
time in the hands of the Court of Chancery. He must
say that iu the execution of this task he had
been encouraged by the remembrance of many
great men who had gone before him—coadjutors in
this great work. He had seen so much poverty, so much
distress, so much extravagance and waste caused by tho
present mode of proceeding in the Court o Chancery,
thatle considered some reform is this branch cf the
law imperative. He was bound to say that the
Learned Judges of these Courts had, as far as they were
able,•introduced beneficial reforms into their Courts. The
Dill which he had introduced dealt with the subject on
an entire new principle ; it would, to a great extent.
simplify and assimilate the proceedings in all kinds cf
cases, end do away with the delay ani expense which et
present brought such opprobrium upon the Court of Chan-
deryt There ems another great difficulty to provide for in
the Bill. An executor, toter paying all the debts of the
testator, and handing over the remainder of the property
to the legatees end oVler parties interested in the will,
might atter the lapse of forty years be called upon to pay
some claim duo by the testator of which no notice was
given at the time the will was carried out. It sometimes
happened that the testators were put to enormous ex-
penses in consequence of proceedings being institu:ed
against them in respect of such claims. Many of the
provisions of the Bill had been inserted at the suggestions
of persons holding eminent positions in the Court of
Chancery, and who were well acquainted with its practice.
That, as well as many other difficulties, the Bill endea-
voured to obviate. The Hon. Member delivered a warm
eulogium on the Lord Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce for the assiduity and learning which they
had tlisplsyed in their different capacities, and was un-
derstood to say that many parts of the Bill were either
suggested or approved of ley those eminent legal autho-
rities. The Hon. Member, who was very indistinctly
heard throughout, concluded by moving the second read-
ing of the Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he did not intend
to offer the slightest opposition to the measure.—(Hear.)
He not only entirely concurred in the object which the
Honourable Member sought to attain, but he had himself
brought in a Bill to remedy certain defects in the
law, which had already received the sanction
of the House, and was now in its progress through the
House of Lords. In that Bill he enabled parties, by
means of a special ca--e, to take the opinion of the
Court as to the construction to be put on certain
words in any will, deed, or other instrument, and
thus to evoifi much prolonged an-1 expensive litigation.
Ile approved of that part of the Ball which related to
the accounts of coeditors. Eaccutors could not obtain
an exemption from liahiiisies till their accounts had ,seen
passed, but at present the mode of oinaining the pasting
was dilatory and expensive, and this Bill proposed to
substitute a more simple mode of precedings. Now, in
his own Bill he had attempted to do the same thing, and
ultimately he hoped it woalci turn out that the attempt
had not been made in vain. With regard to the part of
the Bill which rela!ed to scandal, contempt, libels,
and such like offences, if he spoke according to his own
private opinion, he was strongly inclined to support
the plan of transferring some of the functions exercised
by the Masters to the Court itself. There could be no
doubt that the Masters were terribly overburdened with
business, greatly to the inconvenience of the public, end
any plan which could reduce the arrear must cf necessity
prove of great advantage to the country. Thanking, there-
fore, his Hon. and Learned Friend for the attention and
ability ho had brought to Lear upon this import Ant sub-
ject, it only remained for him to entreat the House to'
read this Bill a second time, and let them go into Com-
mittee, and see if some of its provisions could not be
made law.—(Hear.)
Mr. P. WOOD said the delays of the Masters' office
could not be made too familiar to the public, and to show
the immensity of the evil of the Court of Chancery, he
need, only explain the technical machinery of that office.
At present there were 1,944 causes under consideration
of the Masters' office, or an average of 200 causes
for each Master. Now, before any stage could be
taken in each case, what was called a warrant had
to be obtained, which entitled the party applying
for' it to the right to be heard by counsel before the
space- of an hour. It very often happened, however,
teat it required three or four of these warrants to issue
before the Master could be made familiar with the cir-
cumstances of the case, while the same proceed-
ing- had to be gee through by the other side,
in order that they might be heard in answer
to ' the case brought against them. It was
clear therefore that the real cause of delay in the move-
ments of the Court of Chancery was to be found in the
Masters' office, and he was rejoiced to find that his Hon.
and Learned Friend had taken the matter up. His Bill
was practicable in an eminent degree, and he should
have much pleasure in giving it his hearty support.
After a few words from Mr. C. ANSTEY, who sup-
ported the measure,
The Bill was road a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Monday.
BURGESS LISTS BILL.
The Mr. HODGES moved the second reading of this Bill.
existing law, h
abused. Thema)'or of h© said, was liable to be greatly
aborOugh, assisted by two assessors,
was required annually to, revise the burgess lists. Now h
it "not unfrequenisti
suffrages
that the mayor was a
candidate for the
es of these very burgesses, and
that circumstance sometimes influenced his decision, in
ea es
s where
himself he thought II:n burgess was likely to vote
agein. Indeed
and as he that contingency contingency had absolutelhe borough of Rochester
lieved that was by no means an3Pisttstlraitesedni nstar prevent a
e, he had
lilin
introduced this Bill
to amend the law,recurrence of such en anomalous state ofa things SIBTHORP opposed this Bill on the gsgr. oaunndi
among others, that it was intended to remedya-stte
things which existed in the borough of Rochester alone.
He reminded the House that there had been no petitioas
presented in favour of this Bill, and that there were
several petitions presented against it, including some
which he himself had presented from the city he had
the honour to represent. He understood there never
had been a complaint made against the proceedings
on-the revision of the burgess lists by the great number
of , cities and boroughs which sent Members
on
the
that
House, with respect to any conductimpropertb
part of the mayor and assessors. O
people were perfectly satisfied with thne econtrary, the
conduct of those
officers in this matter. In England and Wales
therewere no less than 269 cities and boroughs that sent 360
Members to that House, and the population in those
cities and boroughs amounted to seven millions and
several hundred thousands; and yet, until now there had
never been a complaint against the present system of
revising theburgess lists which had been in operation for
seventeen years. He objected to the Bill because it
would entail an extremely heavy expense on the diffe-
rent boroughs which had rates enough to pay already.—
(Hear.) He moved that the Bill be read a second time
this day six months.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY seconded the motion, though
he did so for different reasons frivoilliothic:sde of the onour-
able and Gallant Member
The instances of partiality shown in
the just spoken
burgess lists he considered were very rare ilviewaiaosn oac-
quainted with several towns of considerable importance,
where party spirit ran very high, and yet he never
heard of a charge of partiality being
trade aeainst
any of the revising courts, which b
sided over by the mayor.—(Hear, hewer"; pro-
of' the One principal objections which he entertained to the
present Bill was, that it would impose a largo additional
expense upon the country. The Hon. and Gallant
AcjaAlse had stated that the cost of revising the lists of
i • • 110!attaielatary electors amounted to 30,000/. a-yearlnd`,
irate same system of revision was extended to
, .
'barges- ass the additional cost would amount to more
than 10,0,11)00/. The Bill, in his opinion, was not Wanted,
a,44# is, would entirely do away with a system which
• wesent working very satisfactorily, and would
levy ,a ale and unnecessary cost on the public, he would
second the amendment of his Lion. and Gallant
see
N. 11 , BgIiNAL reminded the nieTer of the lemma.