The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-19 00:00:00

impress upon the Noble Lord was, that the information
being whally unprivilege.i, it was most unfair to call
upon a few dissatisfied persons, and to induce them to
take all the legal censequeuces upon themselves.
Sir R. INGLIS said, although the Noble Lord was a
' great master of debate, he had eviTlently not done justice
to the speech of his Right Hon. Friend and Cone ague,
who had brought together the most perfect reasoning
and the most profound philosophy, and which were only
quailed by its eloquence. They did not object to
inquiry, but to the unconstitutional nature of the
propose inquiry. With reference to the speech of the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman opposite, he had
made so many admissions that he was sur-
prised his speech had not been more applauded
by the two members of the Government 'who had
spoken than it had been. The lion. and Learned Gen-
tleman admitted the right of the Crown to institute in-
quiries into the state of the colleges and foundations of
the universities; but the matter had been decided other-
wise in the time of Bishop Trelawny, in the case of
Exeter College. The Crown had no more right to send
a roving Commission to inquire into alleged misdeeds in
collegee, unless such misdeeds were brought before it,
in the shape cf appeal, than the Chief Justice of the
Court of Queen's Bench had to send a Commission of
Inquiry into the conduct of the people of Devonshire or
Luckinghamshire. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
had needlessly introduced the subject of Trinity College,
Dublin, and given, what ought always to be avoided, a
gratuitous opinion with respect to his neighbour's pro-
perty. He had said.that Trinity College, Dublin, or the
fellows of that college, had more property than they
oneht to have—an opinion that was asloolly uncalled for.
He (Sir R. Inglis) entirely concurred in the opposition
0) the motion of the Hon. Member for North Lancashire
(Mr. Heywood).
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER explained in reference
to what had fallen from the last speaker on the subject
of the right of the Crown to institute inquiries by Com-
mission in those cases—that in the case of that very
Exeter College—when soon after the revolution of 1688,
on the occasion of a general visitation, the visitor de-
prived the Master and the Master disputed his power to
do so. The question was brought before the Court of
Queen's Bench, who held that the visitor had no such
power. Lord Coke differed from them, and the case was
hrought on appeal before the House of Lords, and it was
there decided that the visitor had acted iu conformity
with his jurisdiction. Then with respect to Trinity
College, Dublin, what he had said was that its revenues
were so large that he apprehended the purposes of the
foundation, and the interest of education in Ireland,
might be served, consistently with a due development of
the intentions of the Royal Founder, by enlarging the
foundation, instead of allowing thoselarge proportions of
dividend to accumulate in individual bands.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON wished to observe, in refe-
rence to what had fallen from the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman on the subject of the Fellows of Trinity
College, Dublin, marrying, notwithstanding the statutes
of celibacy, that it was true that forty or fifty years
ago, before the oaths of celibacy were imposed, some of
the fellows were in the habit of marrying ; but in 1811
the oaths of celibacy were imposed, and the practice of
marrying ceased until 1840, when, at the instance of the
Marquis of Normanby, the celibacy statutes were re-
pealed. With respect to what had been said about the
accumulated property of Trinity College, the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman was not present when his Hon. and
Learned Colleague (Mr. Napier) showed that it was
smaller than the amount voted annually to the College
of Maynooth.
Mr. HEYWARD replied, amidst impatient cries of
" Time,"and " Divide."
Mr. STUART rose and said, in courtesy to the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) who had given way in
the earlier part of the evening, when he (Mr. Stuart)
was about to move his amendment, and withdrew his
own amendment to give him the opportunity to do so,
he would now give way to the Right Hon. Baronet, and,
by withdrawing his amendment, allow him, it he felt
disposed, to again bring forward his amendment.
Sir G. GREY then moved as an amendment that the
debate be adjourned to this day three months.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... ..• ... 160
Against it. •.• 138
Majority for the amendment —22
The original motion, consequently, fell to the ground
JEW BILL. •
Oa the motion for the second reading of the Oath of
Abjuration (Jews) Bill,
Mr. LAW protested against proceeding with so im-
portant a Bill at this period of the session, and gave the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government notice that
if persevered in, he should feel compelled to avail him-
self of every constitutional oppositicn which the forms
of the House afforded.
Lord J. RUSSELL would fix the second reading for
Monday.
Lord J. MANNERS asked if the Noble Lord intended
to proceed with it on that day ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would on that day state
the intention of the Government.
The second reading was then postponed till Monday
next.
The Court of Chancery (County Palatine of Lancas-
ter) Bill passed through Committee.
ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATES BILL.
Lord R. GROSVENOR, moved that the House re-
solve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
should take the same course as oe previous stages of the
Bill, and begged to move that the House resolve itself
into Committee upon it that day three mouths.
Mr. HAMILTON asked whether any intention ex-
isted of moving an v instruction to the Committee to in-
clude Ireland and Scotland in its operation?
Lord It. GROSVENOR. said no instruction was ne-
cessary. The object would be attained by merely alter-
ing the title of the Bill.
Mr. A. STAFFORD said ho should be prepared, on
behalf of his Hon. Friend the Member for Kerry, who
was absent at the assizes, to move certain amendments
in Committee as soon as the Government had been de-
feated a third time.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 103
Against it...
„, 105
Majority against the amendment --2
The House went into Committee.
Colonel SIBTEIORP expressed a hope that the at-
torneys would send in their Bills to all those lion. Mem-
bers who had voted against the Bill.—(Laughter.)
An amendment was proposed by Mr. A. STAFFORD
and agreed to, including in the provisions of the Bill
Great Britain and Ireland.
On the provision altering the foe for registration paid
to the Incorporated Law Society from Is. 6d. to los.,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
that the fee should remain as at present.
Lord R. GROS'VENOR urged the expense cast on the
society in maintaining an extensive library, and in
steps to exclude improper persons from the pro-
justification for increasing the present most
ft,aslisiinogo.sates
inadequate fee,
Mr. MULLINGS said the society had expended as
much as 90,0001. in taking proceedings for the purpose
ofthe malpractices on the part of attorneys.
punishing
FERGUSON observed that the Incorporated
LaSwirSl.
Society had left Ireland and Scotland out of the
Bill.

Lord R. GROSVENOR said application bad been made
to the profession in Ireland and Scotland before intro-
ducing the Bill, and it was only because it was thought
that separate Bills would be required for that
purpose
that they had not been included.
Mr. CLEMENTS asked if the Irish and Scotch at-
torneys would have to pay the registration fee?
Mr. MULLINGS said they would not, not requiring
to be registered at the Law Society.
Sir F. TRESIGER bore testimony from his own re-
cent experience to the system exercised by the Law So-
ciety in excluding improper practitioners from the roll,
and expressed a hope that tbo Chancellor of the Exche-
quer would not divide the Committee on the question
unless he had very good grounds:
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the 10s. fee 70
••• •••
Against it ... 130

I~la ority 60
Mr. S. WORTLEY moved that the fee should be 55.,
a s it would be unreasonable to retain the present inade-
quate sum of is. 6d.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the old fee
sufficient, bearing in mind that the number of attorneys
in England and Wales amounted to 10,000.
Mr. G. TURNER contended that the present sum was
most inadequate, considering the important duties dis-
charged by the society.
Lord R. GROSVENOR said he was in communica-
tion with members of the profession in every part of the
kingdom, and could assure the Committee that they
were quite willing to pay the 10s. It was certainly
somewhat extraordinary to observe the new-born seal
which had seized the Hon. and Learned Attorney-Ge-
neral to save the pockets of the attorneys, after having
opposed the Bill in every way.—(Hear.)
Sir F. THESIGER said the error consisted in treat-
ing the Law Society as though it were a body apart
from the profession, whereas the greater part of the
London attorneys were among its members. The ques-
tion was whether they were now to deprive the society
of the means of discharging those duties which they
had hitherto performed so satisfactorily.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
he did not wish to deprive them of anything, but he
wished to prevent them from taking the money out of
his pocket to put into their own.
The Commtttee divided, when there appeared—
For the fee of ss. ... 68
Against it ... 124
Majority ••• ••• ••• ••• -56
Mr. HUTT molest that the Chairman leave the chair.
Mr. A. STAFFORD commented in terms of strong
animadversion on the course pursued by the Govern-
ment, who on some occasions were so eager to yield to
the first intention of the wishes of the House, as in the
recent case of the Pobt-office—(Hear, hear)—and now,
when the opinion of the House had been taken on the
contested points, and many of the supporters of the Bill
had lett the House. the Hon. Member for Gateshead
moved that the Chairman leave the chair, for the pur-
pose of getting rid of the Bill altogether; and the Go-
vernment, in rendering their support to the Hon. Member
in this individual attempt to defeat a measure. which
they had been unable to do in a fair standup fight, was
acting a most unworthy part.
Lord J. RUSSELL said there was a a great difference
between the case alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman and
the present. When an address was to be made to the
Crown, one motion was sufficient; but it was perfectly
right to contest a Bill on every one of its stages.
Lord R. GROSVENOR contended that the Govern-
ment had not treated him with fairness.—(Loud cheers.)
It was not his fault that the Bill had not been discussed
long ago; for he had introduced it in February,
postponed its further discussion three times at' and had
the in-
stance of the Government.—(Flear, hear.)
Ho could not
help thinking that the measure
might have been not to be the course, the
grace-
fully conceded ; but if that wAs