The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-15 00:00:00

CERY.

Mr. WATSON presented a petition from various
solicitors against granting compensation for salaries to
officers in the Court of Chancery.
The Hox. MEMBER thee brought forward the motion
of which he bad given notice, for a Select Committee, to
inquire into the orders for compensation made by the
Lord Chancellor to the person's filling the offices of
clerk of the enrolments, comptrollers of the hanaper,
riding clerk, six clerks, sworn clerks, waiting clerks,
agent or record keeper in the Court of Chancery, under
the Act 5 and 6 Vic., c. 103 ; and to inquire into the na-
ture, duties, and emoluments of those officers before the
passing of that Act, and their right to compensation
(and if any, to what amount) during their life, and for
seven years after the death of such person ; and to in-
quire into the circumstances attending the passing of
that Act, and the moneys charged on the suitors' fee
fund in Chancery, for passing that Act ; and also to in-
quire into the taxation of suitors in courts of law and
equity, and the application of moneys raised thereby, and
the propriEty of continuing the same. The annual sums
paid for compensation under the above-mentioned Act
was 78,0001. Out of the six clerks to whom compensa7
tion had been awarded, only one was ever found necessary
to be in attendance on the courts. It was to the clerks
of the six clerks he wished particularly to call attention.
They were in number 60, and they had little or nothing
to do. In fact they were rather an obstruction to the
course of justice. The business of the clerks depended on
the solicitors who employed them ; and, besides that,
the Chancellors had the power of altering the fees as
they willed. They were cut down in 1785 by Lord
Chancellor Jeffery, afterwards by Lord Hardwicke,
and again by Lord Erskine—and the most im-
portant fee which they received was, in 1828, cut
off by Lord Lyndhurst. In 1840, Mr. Pemberton,
a distinguished member of the Chancery bar, de-
clared in the House that the system of fees was iniqui-
tous and enormous, and that'the suitors were compelled
to pay to those officers no less than 59,8621. in a year,
for doing absolutely nothing. The only real duty of the
six clerks was to transmit to the solicitors for whom
they acted any notices that were entered in court, and
the fees upon that alone amounted to 14,000/.
Such having been the nature of the duties,
what was the ground of the compensation ?
Mr. Getty had awarded to him for compensation, as long
as he lived, the sum of 5,4281. He was also appointed
taxing master, with 2,0001. a year.—(Hear.) He therefore
received 7,428 Z without any deduction whatever. Then
there were others who received 5,0001 a year as com-
pensation for their office, and one of them was to have
2,7001. a year for seven years after his death.—(A laugh.)
Neither the naval nor military service received anything
like such amounts. He put it to the Right Hon. Baronet,
who wielded the destinies of this country, whether he
received such a sum ?—(Hear, hear.) He appealed to
the Chair. Did the representative of the Commons of
England receive such a sum ? He put it to Hon.
Members whether, after various charges, any
of them had a clear rental of 7,000/. a year?
—(Hear, hear.) The poor unhappy suitors had to
pay an increased taxation in order to make up these
enormous salaries and compensations. But the House,
however, in its liberality, not only compensated the six
clerks, but their agents received three-fourths of what
they had received previously. One of these agents re-
ceived 900/. a-year. There was what was called a
waiting clerk, who received 500/. a-year. There was a
clerk of the six elerks who received 1,935/. 2s. 7id.
whilst out of office. In fact all the flesh and blood which
was found in Chancery-lane was compensated.—
(Laughter.) He had been very anxious to ascertain
how the Bill had passed through Parliament, and he had'
referred to the journals for that purpose. It appeared
it was hurried through at arailroad pace. (The Hon. Me-
mber then read an extract from the journals of the House.)
There never was a Bill forced through the House with
so much indecent haste ; and, two days after the third
reading in the House of Lords, it received the Royal
assent. No Bill had ever passed through Parliament so
rapidly. He did not impute any acts of commission ;
what he imputed was acts of omission, in not inquiring
into the nature, amount, and application of the compen-
sation. The Bill was introduced in the month of August,
just at the very time the law Members of the House
of Commons went on circuit.—(Hear, hear.) The com-
pensation was not made upon an average of the gains of
those clerks for the last six years, or ten years, but of
the last three years. This Act of Parliament, if com-
pared with other acts of compensation, would seem very
extraordinary indeed. It was most unfair and unjust
that the funds placed to the credit of the accountant-
general in Chancery, and which, for the most part, be-
longed to minors, and infants, and females, should be
taanxdedotfhoerrtshieneceouraripset. And i
compensation of
rt
the fees
d
ofs tihd seem a mostesesixclerks
strange and unjust proceeding, that not only the com-
hpeenhsaatdionaltroeadthy said,oseper sons should be paid out of this,
fund, but also the very expenses of passing this measure
through Parliament.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") For
this the charge of 3391, was made to be paid, as
persons, who were, eorfe,the fn
of course,udof at hheosge de-
fenceless
e t
h e r
at the mercy of the Court. There were two funds in
Chancery—one called the Suitors' Fee Fund, obtained
from suitors in the Court of Chancery, and which
amounted, in the year 1842, to 62,000/. ; in 1843, to
153,0001. There was another fund, called the Suitors'
Fund, which consisted of unclaimed dividends, of
which there was a sum of 2,800,000/. in stock, and from
both these funds the enormous sum of 277,000/. for
suitors' fees were deducted. It was the bounden duty
of the Lord Chancellor to investigate these charges for
compensation, and to see that the funds which came into
his Court were not malappropriated. It was said the
Lord Chancellor had no power, but such was not the
case—he possessed the power, and he should have exer-
cised it. He was sure the House, thought it might be
in favour of some compensation to these six clerks during
life, would think it rather extravagant to extend the
pension to their families for seven years after their death.
Neither would Hon. Members, after a little reflection,
be at all satisfied with the manner in which this Act
passed, without deliberation, without discussion, hur-
riedly, and evidently with a view to avoid inquiry into
its objects until inquiry might be useless. lie trusted
the House would grant the inquiry he sought for, and
if so, he felt convinced that such facts would come to their

knowledge that the repeal of this Act of Parliament would
speedily ensue. It was well known that there were
what were termed Bankruptcy Exchequer Fee Funds.
sow, he did not think it right that the system of paying
or pensioning the officers of the Court out of these funds
should be continued. They ought, as he had already
said, to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Suitors
ought not to be mulcted. There should be cheap justice.
Mr. Pemberton Leigh—no mean authority—said tke
present system of , fees was enormous and iniquitous;
and the House in acceding to this motion, would make
one great step in favour of cheap justice.—(Cheers.)
Mr. JERVIS seconded the motion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL gave great credit to
his Hon. and Learned. Friend for the industry he had
exhibited in collecting these details, and for the dexterity
and address he had used in placing them before the
House; but he complained that the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman could stopped short when he should have ad--
vanced, because advance would have condemned him.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had brought forward
very serious charges, but he thought many of them
could not be sustained; and he was further of opinion
that he could make out a case fully to justify the House
in resisting the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man. In some things which had been stated he entirely
concurred. He thought, for instance, that many
of the offices connected with the Court of
Chancery were sinecures, and ought to be abolished.
From the year 1688 nothing was done by those six
clerks beyond signing their names to the proceedings in
the Court of Chancery, and to the performance of that
duty they attended in rotation, each taking two months
in his turn, according to an arrangement amongst
themselves. Those six clerks appointed others, who
were called sworn clerks. Their number was limited to
sixty ; but at the time of the passing of this Act they
were only twenty-five in number. Those performed the
duties subsequent to 1688 which originally belonged to
the six clerks," viz. the issuing of writs, filing of plead-
ings, making office copies of the different proceedings in
Chancery, and representing solicitors in court. The
performance of those duties they also gave up,
and they
hey devolved
agents, and the only duty remaining for the sworn
clerks to perform
was uponpersons who were called
attending before Masters in
Chancery to tax the bills of the solicitors who
employed them. Those agents enjoyed their office
practically for life,_ inasmuch as there was seldom any
prospect of their being removed froin their situations,
and when those offices were abolished they had claims
for compensation which were admitted by the Act of
Prirliainent. He admitted that that state of things was
a great abue-=that ' those officers 'redeived considerable
fees for doing next to nothing, but then those fees had

been fixed by various Lord Chancellors. There was a
scale of fees fixed in the reign of George the Second by
Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, which was remodelled in
1807, and from that time to the period of the passing of
the Act the fees remained the same. He admitted
those fees were very high, and that the whole of the
arrangement in reference to those offices consti-
tuted a great abuse, and that it was necessary
to do away with them before any reform could
be effected. In the year 1840, Mr. Field, a solicitor, in
a series of tables, called the attention of the public to
this abuse, and he believed it was in consequence of the
information presented in that gentleman's pamphlet
that the Hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby)
obtained a return of the fees and emoluments of the six
clerks, and the sworn clerks, from which it appeared
that one of them, a Mr. Gatty, received between
10,000/. and 11,0001., others 9,0001, 6,0001., and so on ;
some received so small an amount as 201. a year. The
subject was then brought before a Commission, consist-
ing of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Langdale, Vice-
Chancellor Wigram, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and the late
Mr. Sutton Sharpe. The clerks, on being con-
sulted with, stated their readiness to enter into
any views of reform, on the understanding that they
should get compensation. A Bill was accordingly
drawn up by one of the sworn clerks, Mr. Wainwright,
which was submitted to a Committee a t the Law Insti-
tution. The Bill, after their supervision, was intro-
duced by Lord Langdale into the House of Lords, and
before its third reading Mr. Wainwright went through
its various clauses with Lord Cottenham; and as those
compensation clauses were passed without any oppo-
sition on the part of the Noble and Learned Lord, he
(the Solicitor-General) supposed he approved of them. It
then came down to that House at, he admitted, a late period
of the session, but still at a time when there were
several Honourable Members in attendance who
would have opposed it if it contained any pro-
visions that were considered objectionable. The
Bill did not pass through the House sub silentio.
The Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield made a
comparison between the remuneration for political and
professional services.. The Honourable Member
for Montrose stated that he had examined the Bill, and
found that it was perfectly correct in its principles and
in its details. The Hoe. and Learned Member for Lis-
keard proposed to compensate the agents of certain
officers in the Court of Exchequer. That proposal,
however, was not agreed to. The Bill found its way
iuto the House of Lords, not clandestinely, but under
the sanction and auspices of persons who were well ac-
quainted with all the circumstances of the case, but who
were not willing to deprive the parties of their compen-
sation because it was larger than was consistent with
the duties they had to perform. If there were any
blame in the matter, it attached to the whole Le-
gislature there was no individual exempt. What
were the grounds of objection on the part
of his Hon. and Learned Friend ? In the first place he
thought the principle of compensation would be admitted
by all ; there could not be a doubt as to the justice and
propriety of compensating officers for offices legally held
for so long a period. His Hon. and Learned Friend ob-
jected to the amount of compensation, stating that suf-
ficient caution was not maintained for the purpose of as-
certaining the proper sums. If that were so, the blame
rested with those who passed the Bill. The grounds of
the different charges, and the nature of the emoluments
were perfectly well known in the profession. There was
no necessity, therefore, for guarding the return by any
particular sanction. No discretion was left by the Act of
Parliament to the individual who was to administer the
compensation. The rate of compensation was to be—
for the six clerks, three-fourths ; and for the clerks in
court and agents,_ two-thirds. In one case—that of Mr.
Mitford—the salary had been made the subject of trust
settlement, and that was at the time particularly im-
pressed on the attention of the House. It had
been stated that there were a great number of
bad debts. He believed that on that subject
his Hon. and Learned Friend was entirely mistaken.
The debts did not amount to more than a thousand
pounds, and that amount was deducted. His Hon.
Friend was, perhaps, not aware of what was done by the
Bill introduced by Lord Plunket in 1836, abolishing the
Six Clerks' Office in Dublin. That Bill was founded on
precisely the same principle as the Bill under considera-
tion. The emoluments of the office were not more than
6001. per annum. They had 4,0001. paid to them as a
compensation for the abolition of their office ; and upon
an average of three years they received an additional
sum during their life. This was a much stronger case
of compensation; and it afforded a complete precedent for
the coarse adopted on this occasion. His Hon. and
Learned Friend had endeavoured to excite the compas-
sion of the House by speaking of the poor suitors' fund.
He said that fund was burdened to the extent of a rail-
lion for these compensations. The only fund they had
to deal with was the Suitor's Fee Fund. That fund was
taxed to the amount of 77,000/., received by the six
clerks, the fee clerks, and the other clerks,
whose offices were abolished. Unless the Legis-
lature had interposed, the fees could not have
been abolished. The compensations, he admitted,
were being extended to between 46,000/. and 47,000/.
It was agreed that it was just some compensation should
be given to the perspns who held those offices, and he
knew that many lion. Members opposite would agree
that the expense of defraying those compensations ought
to be borne by the Consolidated Fund, and not by the
poor suitors, and the object of the present Bill was to
decrease the charges which now pressed upon the suitors.
The sum awarded for compensation amounted to be-
tween 45,0001. and 46,0001. In every case which 'was
set down for uial those clerks were entitled to a fee of
6s. Bd., which brought in a sum of 15,0001. There was
also a similar fee to be paid upon every warrant of taxa
tion, which amounted to 8,0001. These fees had been
abolished by the Lord Chancellor, and therefore the
sum of 23,0001. had to be provided for and in lieu of that the
price of each folio copy was raised from three-halfpence
to threepence-halfpenny. Under the old system the
whole per eentage was 77,319/., under the present it was
79,0711. or 2481. in favour of the suitors. But there
was another point to be considered with respect to this
question of compensation, and that was that before
seventy years had elapsed the necessity for this com-
pensation would be at an end, and the dividend upon
the suitors' fund would give a further reduction of other
fees. Had his Hon. and Learned Friend opposite, or
even the House, more information upon this subject
than those excellent persons who recommended
this measure, and who had such extensive
experience? If it were necessary to pass such a mea-
sure, he trusted no person in the House would for an
instant refuse allowing fair compensation to those per-
sons whose future prospects and hopes in life *ere
about being injured by the repeal of an Act of Parlia-
ment. His Hon. and Learned Friend in his speech left
a sting behind, because ho said there was some motive
with the parties who brought in this measure to pass
it hastily and clandestinely. But let them see how the
offices had been bestowed. His (the Solicitor-General's)
Hon. and Learned Friend was right in saying that the
Master of the Rolls had the appointment of the six clerks,
and of the clerks of the writs and the clerks of the re-

cords, the latter of whom, when appointed under this
Act, would get salaries of 1,200/. per annum each. There
were also six taxing officers, whose appointment lay
with the Lord Chancellor ; but instead of exercising
that right, the Noble and Learned Lord vested it in the
Chancery Commissioners, who selected three solicitors
and three old clerks of the Court. Had his Hon. and
Learned Friend satisfied the House that the framers of
this Bill had used no proper caution in the matter ?
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition)=or
that, after the repeal of the former laws, it was improper
to render fair compensation? He should trespass no
further upon the attention of the House than merely to
express his hope that he had stated enough to induce
the House to come to the conclusion that the motion of
his Hon. and Learned Friend was perfectly useless, and
that they would oppose it.
Mr. JERVIS said with 6spect to the nature of the
compensation to be given to the claimants and its amount
his Hon. and-Learned Friend who just sat down had
added nothing new, but had informed the House by
whom and under what circumstances the Bill had been
brought in, and had also stated the construction given
by the Chancellor to the Act. There certainly was no
charge of commission against the Noble and Learned
Lord, but rather of omission, for he allowed others to
act for him and to construe the Act, which, being him-
self specially authorised to do, he was bound to look to.
All the profession knew that their clients were bound
to pay at least five per cent. for those fees, and what his
Learned Friend near. him wanted was to have an in-
quiry to lull the suspicion and distrust which he
prevailed against that measure, but they were told
that none of the parties had the slighest
wish for concealment, and yet they refused any
explanation. He felt sure the House would not allow
such a precedent as this Bill would afford, to be now
introduced for the first time. It would truly be a most
dangerous precedent, if the officers, who were the guar
dians of the public purse, were to be allowed impunity
from investigation. He thought those offices, which it
was now proposed to abolish, ought to have been long
since swept away. The six clerks originally were per-
sons who had been admitted to those courts with a pa-
tent of office, and all solicitors who had business should
have it carried on in their name, although they did all
the work themselves. Each general y, in consequence
of the increase of business, had ten assistants, and some-
times as many as fifteen or twenty were allowed. His
Hon. and Learned Friend opposite had said, that those
six clerks had the right of selling their offices. He (Mr.
Jervis) denied that, because by a statute of Edward 111.
it was declared penal for any person to sell
offices connected with the administration of justice.
Those sixty clerks had clients amongst the attorneys,
and they made bargains with them for a share in their
profits. 'The waiting clerks were mere common clerks
of the sixty clerks, and they had no more right to com-
pensationan attorney.—(Hear, hear.) The sixty clerks were
8s for
allowed fees on the taxation of costs, and. o
than any law stationer who was employed 'by
come on.—(Hear, hear.) In the time of
for each of
there used to be a great number. of causes,
stood
which they received 6s. Bd., if they only _ on the
every cause that stood on the paper, thoughgijot
rfdt &Ed;
Eldon
ohneathr:ayr own. wulhdichthiet
paper? But what did Lord Lyndhurst do? What did
he do to show his opinion of the vested interests those
clerks were supposed to have? He actually, before the
passing of this Act, made an order by which they were
6ths.nsBdii eft.
iper, livinggratseltsh(eeHmeenaalyrt,once of 10,0001. a-year.
hear.) Wuld he do this if he considered
1,300,000L-(Cheers.)
,eolooaimi.:_cs focrheeoemrsp.)ensaTtihoen were made
adoer
venedtensosteddured it?—(Hear, hear.) Yet it was on
—(Hear,
iroyhHekutc;r
ihneg;o:e:ug
waiting clerks were copying clerks of the sixty clerks,
and they were :paid lid. a folio out of the 10d. a folio
which the sixty clerks received. Why what right had
they to this? l was a mere monopoly?—(Hear.)
What more right had they to receive this money: than
any copying clerk who was able to do his business?-
--(Hear.) Was it right that the attorneys in London,
Who had an interest in the matter,. should be allowed to
settle with the sixty clerks, and that Mr. Wainwright,

who got 7,000/. a-year by the Bill, should be allowed'to
draw it up. It was said that it was hard to see men
who held good situations turned out of thefr offices and
walk through the streets in poverty ; but was the public
to suffer for that ? Were those who were entitled to no
compensation to obtain large sums from the public
purse?—(Hear, hear.) The public had a right to com-
plain that they received this compensation without any
inquiry. how was the Act of Parliament introduced ?
It was said to be approved of by the Law Association
in London, which was composed of attorneys, who
must at least be :supposed to have an interest in the
matter. It for the first time introduced a new principle.—
(Hear, hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend had even
gone to Ireland for a precedent. But he failed; for in
the case he instanced the officers compensated were
officers under patent, and their offices were saleable
by law.—(Hear, hear.) There were six clerks, and not
sixty clerks.—(Hear, hear.) He said whether this Bill
had been in the House for months instead of hours, it
was the duty of those who brought it in to read it, and
if they read it they must see that a new principle had
been for the first time introduced. He was quite sure
that the present Chief Baron of the Exchequer would
say, on introducing the Bill, that it introduced a new
principle of compensation if he was aware of it ; but
the Bill was hurried on through the House with inde-
cent haste. It was brought into the House on the 29th
of July, and it was read a first time on the same day.
It was read a second time before the Bill was printed.
On the 2d of August it was committed, when, for the
first time, the compensation clauses were added—(Hear,
hear)—and it was not till the third reading that those
clauses were made known. He had, therefore, a right
to say that the Bill was passed in indecent haste ; and he
was quite sure that if the new principle intro-
duced had been pointed out to the Chan-
cellor of ..:the Exelte,quer, or to the Right
Hon. Gentleman at ilykihead of the Government,
they would notebave sa*ctioned it.—(Hear, hear.) If it
had been said to then4l6l it was desirable to abolish
those offices, they would not, looking to the interest of
the public, have allowed such a Bill to pass in such a
manner.—(Hear, hear.) All his lion. and Learned
Friend wanted now was an inquiry. They did not want
to alter the Bill altogether. All they wanted to see was,
whether it was good. The six clerks were entitled to
compensation, but there was no provision for pensions
after, death. But who were the sworn clerks ?
(Hear hear.) Was the nature of their office inquired
into ? Was that an office that could be sold ? It never
had been sold, unless by some evasion of the statute.
Had they inquired into the amount of their fees ? What
had been done with regard to those fees ? When equity
business was transacted in the Court of Exchequer, all
the officers of that court were paid from the public funds,
and now, after their business was transferred to the side
clerks in the Court of Chancery, the public was to pay
again—(Hear)—that was, the public was to pay twice
for the abolition of the same office.--(Hear, hear.) By
the 12th section of the sth and 6th Victoria, chap. 103,
the Lord Chancellor was empowered to inquire who
were entitled to receive compensation. Did the Lord
Chancellor do so ? Let them inquire if it was so. That
was all they wanted.—(Hear.) His Hon. and Learned
Friend the Solicitor-General said the Lord Chancel-
lor was fettered, and that he could not give less than
three-fourths. Who were to blame for this ? Was it
not the Legislature who passed such an Act ?—(Hear,
hear.) Upon what principle were the agents to be com-
pensated ? If they were justly entitled to it, what a
crying injustice bad been done to the clerks in the Court
of Exchequer. He defied any person to say that there
was a legal claim for compensation. But it was said that
it was but an act of justice towards those persons to pay
them, and that it would be very hard if they were not
paid. Perhaps he (Mr. Jervis) also thought it would be
hard, but was this a ground on which those who were
responsible for the public purse should act ?—(Hear,
hear.) lie would ask, therefore, whether they were
prepared to say that any man, who was a mere writing
clerk, liable to dismissal at a moment's notice at the will
of his master, should be entitled to compensation by an
annuity for life.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that this
was a subject which called for inquiry in the House of
Commons. If there had been inquiry in this case, the
compensation would not have exceeded 20,0001. instead
of 46,0001., which was now paid. In the meantime, the
fees which were abolished, or to be abolished, were in-
creased in amount, even though they might be
changed in form and in name. Were they to be
surprised that the solicitors who had to charge
these fees in the costs, should complain and
require that the system should be altered, and that
the fees should not be so heavily increased to pay
these compensations ? The cost of passing the Act was
charged to the Suitors' Fund. Had not the suitors a
right to complain of that?—(Hear, hear.) Was it just
of the Lord Chancellor and the Government to put the
expenses of the Act of Parliament for granting thateem-
pensation to the charge of the Suitors' Fund ?—(Hear,
hear.) To say the least of it, he would insist that this
was at least a subject for inquiry, and unless it were
granted the public would not be satisfied.
Mr. R. YORKE had been a Member of the House of
Commons when this Bill was passed, and he cordially
supported the motion, of his Hon Friend, the Member
for Kinsale.

Sir J. GRAHAM was obliged to state to the house
the reason why he opposed this motion. He admitted
that time did not sanctify an abuse. But it was to
be recollected that these offices had been held for a time
dating a,s far back as Charles the First ; and when Mr.
Pemberton Leigh spoke from the other side of tha
House, in 1940, which had been alluded to by the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman who now introduced the subject
to the house, he (Mr. Pemberton Leigh) admitted that
the officers to be displaced were entitled to large and libe-
ral compensation. When the Bill, which was prepared by
Mr. Wainwright, was introduced, his Noble and Learned
Friend now . on the woolsack, acquiescing in all
the statements of Mr. P. Leigh, laid it down that the
officers were entitled to compensation. The Bill passed
through the House of Lords, having received the appro-
bation of Lord Langdale, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and
Mr. Sharpe, and was sent down to this House. The Hon.
and Learned Member for Chester had said that, in the I
Bill there were provisions quite unexampled—that it
gave compensation for the sale of offices in the adminis-
tration of justice. But, on referring to the Bill itself,
it would be eeen, from the fourteenth clause, that the
object of the Bill was to put an end to the sale of offices,
and the fact was that it had done so. The sums awarded
to the six clerks in Ireland, under the sanction of Lord
Cottenham, were expressly declared to be as compensa-
tion for the privilege which they had enjoyed of the
transfer or sale of office during life. The , Act
had not been unfairly obtained, or smuggled through
Parliament. On the contrary, it had been pre-
pared and examined with the greatest care.
It could not be said truly that this measure was smug-
gled through Parliament or surreptitiously obtained. The
next question was, had the provisions of the Bill been
properly carried into execution ? The Lord Chancellor,
on making the award of compensation to be given,
called to his assistance the Master of of the Rolls and
Vice-Chancellor Wigram, and all the compensations that
had been given received their sanction, and were, inva-
riably, the minimum of the Act of Parliament. 6,0001.
a-year had already been remitted from the Suitors' Fund,
and in the course of 20 years 45,0001. would be re-
mitted. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by hoping
that the House would not accede to the motion.

Mr. WILLIAMS announced the whole matter as a
scandalous job. It had been said that his Hon. Friend
the Member for Montrose had supported the Bill. He
(Mr. Williams) was sure ho would never have done so
had he been properly made acquainted with the provi-
sions of the measure. Unless there was a new system
of management of the public business, it would be
impossible, he was afraid, to prevent jobs of this kind.
The public were entitled to protection from this system,
and her Majesty's Government, in defence of the Act,
ought to allow inquiry into it.
Mr. C. BULLER was prepared to defend the vote he
should give to her Majesty's Ministers against the first
part of the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Kinsale. The House, in looking to the great question
of law reform ought not to be illiberal in compensation;
pecuniary consideration ought never to interfere with.
great practical good —(Hear)—and acting upon that prin-
ciple, he should vote against the motion. This measure
had been denounced as a job ; now he knew the whole
of this measure proceeded from gentlemen who were
among some of the most sincere law reformers in the
country.—(Hear, hear.) Upon this Act no ques-
tion had arisen as to its working, while
upon other Acts the greatest question had arisen.
The latter part of the motion he thought was well worthy
of the consideration of the House. That part of the
motion which proposed an inquiry into, the subject of
fees in the courts of law and equity was entitled to sup-
port. In those courts one hundred persons had the
control of 300,000/. Ninety-ono of those were in the
law courts, and they were subject to no check whatever
with respect to that money. In the courts of equity
the persons appointed to receive the fees wero required
to make an affidavit with respect to them. Many of the
fee-takers in the law courts were small salaried men, and
therefore there were great temptations before them.t
Another very important question was thepecessi y of
taking fees at all in the courts ofl _ he ar .)
He thought the whole system required inquiry and re-
vision, and he thought the Government would do well
to institute an inquiry into the subject.
Mr. WARBLTRTON said he recollected reading in
the memoirs of the Duke de St. Simon, that when a
I proposition was submitted to him for law reform, he said
that it could neyer..be accomplished, inasmuch as there
wero so manypethans whose livelihood depended upon
those law institutichs. Thus was law reform frustated
in the,tirne of LOUIS XIV. Now his Hon. Friend the
Member for Lislekard had fallen into this kind of tender-
heartedness, and would not give his consent to law
reform unless an unlimited compensation accompanied it.
In that respect he (Mr. Warburton) could
not
agree
with his Hon. Friend. Why, if they gave this immense
compensation to parties, whether they wereenttihtleedutboiiint
or not, it would only have the effect of disgusting
with respect to all attempts at law reform.Nowp with
respect to these fees, about which there had been so
much discussion. It must be recollected that these fees
had been, on several occasions, altered and interfered
with by several of the late Lord Chancellors, and yet
the compenstion for these fees had been fixed at the
highest point. This was a course of law reform which
would disgust the public. No one would object to com-
pensation being given, provided that compensation was
fair and just ; and, therefore, he thought the Govern-
ment ought to support a proposition for inquiry into the
subject.
Mr. WATSON, in reply, said that the Solicitor-
General had stated that he (Mr. Watson) had no right
to interfere in this subject. Now ho was prepared to
show that he had this right, inasmuch as the Act of
Parliament provided that the returns of these compen-
sations should be laid on the table of the House. Why
was that provision made, if it was not to give the House
the power of investigation? It now appeared that Mr.
Wainwright—for his name appeared at last—had re-
ceived 3,0001. for
preparing the Bill for giving compen-
sation. They might as well make
,the felon pay for the

--
gallows on which they hanged him as make the unfor-
tunate suitors in Chancery pay this amount. Ile said
there had been no sate of offices. The Right Hon.
Baronet said there had been a sale. Issite was joind
upon that point, and a Committee ought to decide.
—(Cheers.) The Irish case was perfectly different—
there a patent office was in question—an office
which was legally the subject of purchase and sale.
The taxing masters in the Court of Chancery had
2,000/. a-year, while the taxing masters in the courts of
common law, who had a great deal more to do, had
1,2001. a-year. When the Bill had been brought 'for-
ward, theßight Hon. Baronet had never told the House
that the compensation would amount to 7,5001. a-year
during the lives of the parties, and 2,500 L a-year for
some years after their death. The Hon. and L.tarned
Member for Liskcard said that if the motion passed it
would put a stop to all law reform. He should suspect
for the future all persons who talked of law reform who
did not vote for this motion. He had showed the House
that these fees were not worth ten days' purchase. 'Mk y
had been altered by Lord Hardwicke, and one great feu
had been entirely abolished by Lord Lyndhurst within
one month after he had been first appointed to office.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it

Majority against the motion.... .-IG,
POOR LAWS (IRELAND.)
Sir D. NORREYS moved the appointment of the
following Committee on Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts—
Sir Denham Norrevs, Lord -Eliot, Mr. More O'Ferrall,
Mr. Young, Mr. 14rencb, -ViseOunt.33ernard, Mr. John
O'Connell, Lord Claud Hamilton, Sir Henry Winston
Barron Mr. Shaw, Lord Courtenay, Mr. Vesey, Sir
Edmund Hayes, Mr. Bellew, and Mr. E. P. Shirley.
This question was ill a very peculiar position, and he
could not understand the grounds on which it was in-
tended to oppose the appointment of this Committee.
The poor-law in Ireland a as an experiment, and all
that was asked for was inquiry. He denied that his
object was to procure the repeal of the poor-laws. The
alteration in the poor-laws in England was an experi-
ment. Some years after the experiment had been insti-
tuted the House had granted an inquiry. Why
should they refuse an inquiry into the working
of the poor-laws in Ireland ? and yet they had
virtually refused to do so. The conduct of the Govern-
ment had been most unstatesmanlike. They had, in the
first instance, granted this Committee, because they had
been badgered into it by his lion. Friend the Member
for Kildare, and then, because his Right Hon. Friend
the Member for Dublin said "No," they had refused
it. They were about to rescind their own act by re-
sisting the nomination of a Committee. Some half-
dozen of Members opposed it, and therefore the Go-
vernment thought themselves justified in opposing it. It'
the Government thought the poor-law worked well and
beneficially in Ireland, they should not have supported
the appointment of a Committee; but if they really con-
sidered that the matter required revision, they should
have granted it. The public mind in Ireland was sa
much engaged on another subject, that its attention waa
diverted from the consideration of the poor-laws; hot
there was a strong feeling in that country that many
of the provisions of that law required remodelling.
He looked upon the poor-laws as now established in a.
manner that would prevent their ever being done away
with, but he thought that there were several defects
that might be remedied. He wished that the Com-
mittee should be appointed, to consider the general work-
ing of the system, and see how far it was likely to
meet the objects for which it was intended.
Mr. BELLEW opposed the motion. He thought ,
that at the present time no advantage would be deriver
from the proposed inquiry. He complained that the
Poor-law Commissioners had not sufficiently studied the
wishes of the inhabitants of the people of Ireland, unit
he regretted also that no attempt had been made to
legislate on medical charities. But he thought that
within a year or two from this time a Committee would
be much more useful than it could be at present.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Hon. Member for Mallow-
having made his speech, he hoped he would now ba
somewhat more at ease, and not press his motion. The
House would recollect hat he had, at the close of the
last sessicn, given an assurance that if Irish Peers de-
sired inquiry on this subject he would yield to their
wishes, and that be had given a similar assurance,
with respect to Irish Members in that House_
A great number of the Irish Peers were adverse to the
inquiry sought for by the Hon. Baronet the Member for
Mallow, as also was his Hon. Friend the Member fur the
Queen's County, and a number of other Irish commoners.
He was decidedly of opinion that the proposition of the
Hon. Baronet, for a Committee, would be attended with
not the slightest !practical or beneficial result at this:
period of the session. The questions proposed to lea
entered upon in that Committee were so multifarious and
difficult, that the more he considered the motion of the
Hon. Baronet he was confirmed in this opinion. Tie WAS
most anxious to allow a fair trial to the measure of last.
year, and to be influenced by the opinions of thosta
Members of this House who were connected with Irelana.
Mr. F. FRENCH supported the motion of his Roca
Friend for a Committee. Such a Committee had been
sanctioned on a former occasion by the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet, and he (Mr. French) certainly thought it was now-
rather a singular mode, when it suited his will and plea
sure, to call upon the House to stultify itself by rescind-
ing the opinion they had expressed on that occiaeleas.
Would the Right lion. Baronet (notwithstanding lite vic-
tory last night) now maintain unaltered a law, which
tended by its operation to increase every existing evil
of which Ireland hitherto complained, because some
lion. Members from Ireland said that amongst their con-.
stituencies there existed no desire for a change with re-
spect to the Irish poor-laws? But he would challenge
them to show that in a vast majority of the parish es of
Ireland the operation of those laws was not attended
with the greatest detriment.—(Hear, hear.) Suea
must be the opinion of any one who paid the slight.
est attention to the spirit and tone of the Irish press.
(The Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from a letter
of the Rev. Mr. O'Malley, who had been an advocate of
poor-laws, to show they had not worked well in Ireland.
The Hon. Gentleman then went on to show that Mr.
Nicholls was quite incorrect in his calculations as to the
expense of building the poor-houses, and the number of
persons who would be likely to go into them.) A
petition presented to the House, from the guardians of
the South Dublin Union, stated that the cost of:
each pauper in the Mendicity, before the establishmetta
of the poor-laws, was 3/. 13s. 10d., while, under the pew,
laws, the cost was 71. 16s. This law was not fitted to the
habits and feelings of the people, and they would agitate
against it from one part of the country to the other.
Mr. SHAW said he would state a few simple facts
which, he thought, would remove some of the erroneous
impressions which, it seemed, had been taken up with
regard to the working of the law. There was not one:
single member of the Commission upon either side thn.t
was not in favour of adopting the law. lie, for one, basee
never thought that the system was perfect ; bne Ise
thought that some further trial should be given before
any attempt to change it was made. In a large pro-
portion of the unions the system was working satisfac-
torily—that was, the largest portion of the rates were
collected, and the paupers were provided for. Ou the 25th
of March last the balance against the unions was only
13,0001. He thought this was a fact which ought to
have been in fairness stated, and be recommended that,,
in the present state of the unions, it was not desirable to,
do anything which would interfere with the efforts ofr
those who were using their best exertions to carry thee
law out fairly.
Mr. MORE O'FERRALL said that the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, hal
unjustly, and from his own imagination, accused him tor
one of the persons who opposed the introduction of any
poor-law into Ireland. On the contrary, when he was
a member of the Commission, he had not opposed the
introduction of a system of poor-laws. But ho was
in a minority in the Commission, in opposition
to the report on which the present law was.
founded. He never voted in favour of this law, although L
a Member of the late Government at the time when it:
came before the House, and, rather than vote for it, het
l
had placed his office in the hands of his Noble Frienal
then at the Government, because he was convincoo
that the Bill was not suited to the feelings increaser
haute..
w But, eui '
ag
of the people of Ireland, and that it would ncreaw alto
evils which it was designed to remedy.
measure became law, he never attempted to start an
resistance to it. Was it not rather too bad to tell 'aim he
think
;tobuutptsheetymight depend
the -law ?
Hwaeswoinseheodf
upon it, if they did not amend the present law, they
ttoh odsoe
no wh
would cause the upsetting of that which,
would prove
souchwi
worse than a poor-law. If the Govermr,ent were deter-
mined not to grant the Committee, upean them must rest
the responsibility ; for, if °nee tho'y forced the people
to resist the law, they might depowil upon it they would
have some difficulty to stop that, 'resistance.
Sir J. GRAHAM explaine:a
Mr. REDDINGTON that he •
could not conceive:
any grounds on which, an inquiry
could be refuses.
Great doubts were eutertained throughout Ireland, but
particularly in the west of Ireland, as to the operation of
the law. But though he thought that a Select Commit-
tee ought to be granted, he admitted that much was to be
corrected at home, particularly on the part of the guar-
dians, which legislation could not reach.
Lord J. RUSSELL said his opinion was, after listen-
ing to the objections which had been urged for the refu-•
sal of a Select Committee, that unless tire principle of:
the law was entirely vicious, the beea course to be
adopted was to leave to the Government the question of
inquiry into the abuses in the admirdstration of the arear
—to send all complaints to the Sec'eetary of State for the-
Home Department, who would, 44.nvestigate the charges.
made against the Commission. s, and who could be askedi
in the House what the foiendations of those complaints
ware, and what was the result of his inquiries. Having-
so done, there might fame a time when a Select Com-
mittee would be advisable ; but at present the objections.
made by the Honourable Gentleman confirmed Wise
that the Government took the right course. On the part
of those Hon. Gentlemen who spoke in favour of the
Committee, there was an evident blending of two
questions. Some spoke against the principle of the
law, and others spoke against its administration. With
regard to the appointment of a ,
Committee as the law
was entirely new in Ireland, and as many of the persons
who had to carry it into effect were unused to it, and as.
it appeared those who were hostile to the law were be-•
coming snore reconciled to it, he thought that thalr
should wait for some time. With regard to what the
Hon. Gentleman had said on what had always been a
sore subject with him (Mr. R. French), he meant the
appointment of Mr. Nicholls to go to Ireland, he would
state the solo reason of that appointment. When the
report of the Commissioners appointed to consider the
question had been first presented, ho had asked the
opinion of several of those practically acquainted with
the working of the poor-laws on the subject of that
report, and they had all stated that the report ze.one wouldi
not make a satisfactory foundation for the atroductioN
of a system of poor-laws in Ireland. He the n considered,'
how best the report might be modified. Ile did not throw
it aside entirely, for it would be seen th 4 • many of its re

commendations had been embodied in the Act of Parlia-
ment, but in order to modify it so as to found on it a
practical working measure, he had deemed it advisable
to send to Ireland a gentleman who was well-acquainted
with the working of the poor-laws in England ; and Mr.
Nicholls had been sent to Ireland, where, although he
had only remained a short time, he had collected a
great deal of information. There were, in his opinion,
certain general principles of poor-law legislation, which
would be found as effective in Switzerland and in Spain
as they were in England or Ireland, and those principles
ought always to be kept steadily in view. He regretted
that the Right Hon. Gentleman had not ascertained the
sentiments of the Irish Members before he had
consented to the appointment of the Committee, but he
thought that, under all the circumstances, the best
thing that could be done would be to rescind the order
which had been agreed to without discussion, although
he could not but wish that it had never been agreed to.
Sir H. W. BARRON thought that the House and
country would be taken by surprise if the motion were
pressed to a division. He agreed with the Right Hon.
Baronet in the opinion which he had expressed as to the
operation of the poor-laws in Ireland; and as he con-
ceived that the appointment of this Committee would
lead to hopes which would never be realised, he hoped
the Hon. Baronet would withdraw his motion.
After a few words from Sir D. NORREYS,
„S'ir J. GRAHAM moved as an amendment that the
order be discharged.
btrangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Rouse divided, when there appeared—
For Sir J. Graham's amendment
Against it
Majority for Sir J. Graham's amendment —32
CLERK OF THE CROWN.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
for a Select Committee to inquire into the duties and
emoluments of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.—
Agreed to.
Colonel SIBTHORP moved for returns relating to
the improvement of the river Shannon.—Agreed to.
Sir DENHAM NORREYS moved for a Select Com-
mittee, to inquire whether the present townland valua-
don of Ireland, made by the Commissioners of Valuation
under the Act 1 and 2 Vic., c. 52, can be made avail-
akle for the imposition of poor-rate and other local rates
la that country ; and also, whether it be not desirable to
alter the principle on which the townland valuation is
>now constructed.—Agreed to.
The County Rates' Bill was read a second time, and
waa ordered to be committed on the 31st inst.
The Customs' Duties Bill went through Committee.—
,Repr.rt to be received this day.
The House then adjourned at One o'clock.

MR. BARNARD GREGORY.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sitt,•Ll take the liberty of handing you a copy of the
petition presented on Monday night to the House of
Commons, by Mr. Roebuck, on the matter of the im-
prisonment of my father, and the privations to which he
is subjected by the rigorous system now in force as
Affecting persons criminally proceeded against for libel.
Every allegation in the petition can be substantiated
on oath, and nearly every word uttered, or reported in
the public papers to be uttered, by Sir James Graham,
ou the presentation of the petition, and in reply to Mr.
Boebuck, refuted by the like means. My father, after
eonviction (if it can be called a conviction where a jury
has not pronounced a verdict) for the alleged libels for
which he is now paying a heartless and cruel penalty,
xt the time of passing sentence was not permitted to say
a single word, much less, as Sir James Graham has as-
serted, to ask to be placed in the first class of misde-
meanours. My father was ignorant of there existing
any such law, and so it is presumed were his counsel
10 d his attorneys, for no application was made to the
Court, as stated by Sir James Graham, consequently no
" deliberate refusal" by the Judges could have been
given to that which was not asked, nor would, probably
have been asked even if it had been known, for the mea-
sure of injustice and persecution should be filled to the
brim, that malignity may drink the deeper !
Again was Sir James Graham in error, or the re-
porters have made him so, in stating that my father
" was better now in health than when he was first con-
fined." If to be in a perfect state of physical prostra-
tion—to be attenuated and haggard in looks, and to be
enfeebled mentally from the long deprivation of literary
occupation to which he had from early life been accus-
tomed, are signs of an improved state of health, then is
jny father better—much better than he was when be
first entered his present loathsome domicile. The nine
medical certificates (the principal and most appalling
one having been corroborated in all its details by the
:chief medical officers of the prison) are pretty con-
_ (elusive as to the amount of credit to be placed on this
part of the "reported" statement. Sir James is aware
of the imminent danger of my father, or why give
directions to the Government medical officer to
,report every fortnight the state of my father's
goalth ? That medical officer knows the opinion of
gise eminent physicians who have seen and attended
; he cannot deny the facts as set forth in those
certificates ; and those certificates place an awful
responsibility on the heads of all those -who, to gratify
private feeling and personal malignity, have subjected
an almost dying man to the cruelties intended only (if
for any class of offenders) for those, guilty of the most'
heinous offences.—l haie. the honour to be, 'Sir, your
obedient servant,

MARGARET GREGORY.
North Audley-street, *ay 9, 1844.
The following is a copy of the petition presented by Mr.
Roebuck on Monday se'nnight

4" TO THE HON. THE COMMONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT
ASSEMBLED.
" The humble petition of Barnard Gregory, a prisoner in
her Majesty's Gaol of Newgate,
" Showeth, . _ _

" That your petitioner was, on the second day of December
last, at the Central Criminal Court, holden at the Sessions-
house, Old Bailey, sentenced by Mr. Justice Coltman to
twelve months' imprisonment in the gaol of Newgate, for
alleged libels on the characters of the Duke of Brunswick,
and of his attorney, 'Vt....Wellington Valiance ; being
lour months for that on: the Henry'Duke of Brunswick, and eight
months for that on his attorney.
" That the gaol of' Newgate is a prison chiefly appropriated
for the imprisonment of felons committed to be tried at the
Central Criminal Court, and, after trial, for prisoners under
sentence of death, or waiting to be removed for transporta-
tion, or sentenced to be imprisoned in other gaols or houses
correction..
" That upon your petitioner's commitment to the said gaol.
;he was placed under the rules, regulations, and discipline of
the said prison, the same as if he had been of the class of the
most atrocious criminal offenders, having assigned to hire a'
cell Without any other furniture than that of a small table
:and a ge,at without a back, a narrow iron .bedstead, with a
rope mat to sleep upon, and three horse-cloths for a coVer-
„,ing, without either sheets or pillow.
",That his diet (until slightly altered by the recommenda-
tion of the surgeon of the gaol) consisted of water-gruel,
;varied by a small portion of meat and boiled potatoes. That
be is deprived of the use of a knife and fork, being obliged to
feed himself, like an uncivilised man, with his fingers; de-
prived, also, of the use of pen, ink, and paper, and the
reading of newspapers, or any books except such books is
are permitted by the chaplain of the prison ; and 4it night,
he is not allowed the use of any light, whereby your peti-
tamer has been compelled to pass his time in solitary dark-
jess 15 hours out of the 2-1.
That, in addition to the above privations, your petitioner .
liNot allowed by the rules of the said prison to have any
perso.al intercourse with his only daughter or any of his
family
.and friends, except upon the espeCial written order
of a 'nag: 'itrate- or one of the sheriffs, which your petitioner
acknowledb-es with gratitude, they have freely granted.
That the said gaol so being a prison for criminal offenders,
he has had no .siternative but either to have for his associates
persons of that class, or submit himself (as he has done) to
solitary ceesine-oent.
" That your petitioner shortly before his commitment to
prison ruptured a- blood-vessel in the lungs, being the fifth
time .of such an occutTence within four years, and he was
upon his said commitment, and is now, in a very in
precarious state of health.
" That for snore than the last four Months your petitioner
ins not left his cell, and, being deprived °fills accustomed
air .and exercise recommended' by his medical advisers, he is
now ;educed to such a state of mental and bodily debility as
to es-cite the apprehension of medical men that his life will
be sacrificed by a longer continuance in the said gaol.
. "That, in proof of your petitioner's statement of ill health,
certificates of the precarious state of it, signed by six eminent
physicians, and three general practitioners, have, with a me-
morial from your petitioner, been presented to Sir James
Graham, het Majesty's Secretary. of State for the _Home De-
partment, but4witheut procurink for your petitioner, any al-
teration in the restrictions complained against, or any remis-
.
its on-of his sentence.
Your petitioner, however, gratefully acknowledges that,
sef, the visiting magistrates of the said gaol, and also from
the st .eriffs and the governor, chaplain and surgeon of the
prison
,• he has received every humane attention consistent
with the-..orders and regulations laid down for their govern-
ment by th.e said Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
meet, and tsts.e prison inspectois, and your petitioner is now
permitted the' 'lse of a chair with a back to it, and also a
feather bed, h,et'lvithout sheets or a pillow,: and is allowed
a partial alteracion In the prison diet, without which his life
must ere this ha ve been sacrificed ; and, he is also permitted
to read the workssa Shaikspeare ; all the other restrictions,
as against convieteo,' felons, continuing to be enforced against
your petitioner.
" Your petitioner humbly prays that your honourable
house will be pleased to take his case into your humane.
consideration. and obtain for. him such immediate relief as.
;all obviate the fatal effects of his impris'onment, which are
iticipated by himself, his family, and hie. medical advisers.
" Your petitioner" also prays (if not contrary to the rules
and orders of yoiir Honourable House) that he may be al-
lowed by himself or eounseito appear and be heard at the
bar of
your Honourable Houseat
supportand,
against
atihnestaltlhegosaetiornes
and stat&-ients in this, bia patitinit,
stric t ion s 6e lug longer enforced agitinitlim.
„And yon's' petitioner likewise prays that persons hereafter
convicted of _libel may not (like your petitioner) suffer the
same and the iik,s,prison discipline and privations as persons
•
convicted of eximin-11 . offences.
titio,nr will ever prky, &c.,-
".lad your Pe

OPPOS FrioiS.7 to the NE* POOR_
,--
L.A.IT in BIRMINGHAM.
BiIiatINGITAA' MONDAY, six, p.x. A meeting to oppose
the introduction of the New Poor-law into this town, anti
more especially- in reference to thetaanse introduced into the
Bill at
.present "before Parham:N o override the local Acts
under which the affairs of the
_poor in. Certain large towns
are at present. adnunistered, took, place this morning in the
• Town Mall. • Tile meeting; owed its origin to an understand-
ing which was entered into between _the' delegates who had
an inierview w ith Sir James Graham, Liethe Home-office, in
the letter end of April, anq wag called .hy• the Mayor of the
borough, in ol3udience to a requisition signed by upwards of
. .
.... _ . 'of the rn est. respectable rate-payrg; The Mayor pre-
AI L 1% S it Maid, tßitryeas ~eupported by .111-r. •Tiluntz and Mr. Scholeheld.
_,.._ Wietsflin • .accordtrnee.with 'the , object. of the meeting
4- - , Wirt% ' t
....., :;,,lITT. r: r3,-•'„ , -05.4111 amendment moved by lAA+ Sturge having
A-i--
„..,... T-.... 7: L.grov4nd.,fot want of a seconder.,
;(1:-;',--',fi--tt-'.:;-:,",„t1 rpet7javie - -,--:,-±L-,--:--.-
~,,,
~ 7-i-aai,.xiig,
emeiluflt of Kld. lernaitigt9r is improving,
C ~._ --w ''',fOrtOgli, Ther
t- ...., ••, ti, aruallsroB iltrorg?gts4criiit ph;ornine A
of
the last
Iye hear that heavy
:../4.,„ , ' I vo. a,z.ri il trade of .'Sfetirlitidme' , 4tewttl! . $ 0 improvement
-- t.. 4,.,0irS ve. been -reeeiVed at trTax;-..ce helicrge iron and coal
4:n
.ti:!....s intlienebOttr.i.hy_od..:,.pfßtl4l:4A,4l,-Orcfster Journal.
.1 1 , „.: ai.,L. eb. •

.