The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-05 00:00:00

--- -
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Aug. 4. •
TAXING MASTER'S COURT OF CHANCERY
(IRELAND) BILL.
Lord STANLEY moved the third reading of this Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW' sail he had an amendment
to propose to the Bill. Ile did. not think the nature Of a
barrister's education capacitated him to perform the
duties of a taxing master, and as the bill at present
stood it cast a slur on the whole body of attorneys
and solicitors in Ireland. He moved as an amendment
that all persons to be appointed under the Bill should be
solicitors of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, who
should have been in practice for the space of ten years
or upwards.
The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the amend-
ment, and reminded the House that the majority of the
taxing masters in the Courts of Common Law in Eng-
land were barristers.
Lord COTTENHAM said, as the Bill stood, a butler
or a coachman might be appointed to the office. It was
a mere matter of patronage, and the patron might ap-
point whatever competent person to the office, with-
out regard to his previous profession or occupa-
tion. Barristers knew little or nothing about taxing costs.
.Taxing costs was entirely out of the barrister's occupa-
don, while, on the other hand, attorneys were brought
up in that course of business. Why was it that such a
struggle had been created between barristers and attor-
neys by this Bill ? Was it because his Noble Friend had
discovered that the barristers had a greater knowledge
about costs than attorneys. He (Lord Cottenham) did
not see why barristers should be named in one part of
the Bill and attorneys in another. He thought also that
if the opinion was that what was good for England was
good for Ireland, and if justice was to be done to Ire-
land, they should adopt a course of assimilating the laws
of both countries.
The LORD CHANCELLOR here remarked that the
amendment was that they ought to have solicitors exclu-

aively.
Lord CAMPBELL suspected that there was a job at
the bottom of the Bill, and, if there were not, the matter
would not be so fiercely contested. HiONoble Friend
made a fine speech, such as he could make on any
occasion, and on any case, but he did answer the
arguments used by the Noble Earl opposite. The dis-
cussion now was respecting the officer who was to per-
form the same function which the taxing-master in this
country had to perform. From what he knew of Dublin,
the solicitors there were men of as high honour, credit,
and intelligence as could be found in Westminster. Did
his Noble Friend know the amount of terms, fees, and
of other legal expenses ? It was true, he would know
the difference between "To dining with you and advi-
sing you with respect to cause, &c.,165. Bd." and making'
the dinner a set-off to the advice given. Such knowledge
was only obtained by long study. He hoped the Noble
Earl would persist in his amendment.
Lord STANLEY said the question was whether they
would leave the appointment of taxing-masters to the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland for the time being, or to the
solicitors. He was willing to leave such appointments
to that high officer, whose high office gave a sufficient
guarantee that only proper persons would be appointed
to the office.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said this Bill was
another illustration of the total disregard in which the
feelings of the people of Ireland were held by this coun-
try, and which had the effect of materially contributing
towards its present distressed condition. The Noble
Lord had drawn a gratuitous and most odious distinction
between the solicitors of the two countries, and justified
it by calling the profession of Ireland a small and ex-
clusive coterie. He should assure him that a more re-
spectable class of men than the solicitors of Dublin
never existed, and they would resent, and that most
keenly, the uncalled for and unmerited insult contained
in the present proposition.
The LORD CHANCELLOR explained that he did
not mean to cast any slight upon the solicitors of Ireland,
than whom he believed a more honourable or respectable
class of men did not exist, but he contended that the
barristers of that country were equally competent and
ought to have the preference.
Lord LANGDALE supported the amendment of the
Noble Lord opposite (Earl of Wicklow), because he
considered solicitors were fully competent and the proper
persons to discharge the duties now proposed to be taken
from them and transferred to others. With reference
to the Bill of 1838, to which allusion had been made by
his Learned Friend on the woolsack, surely the Noble
Lord must remember that that gave the office solely to
solicitors, and though at first entertaining a preference
in favour of the barristers, his Learned Friend (the Lord
Chancellor) had, after mature deliberation and consulta-
tion, agreed to the Bill as carried.
The LORD CHANCELLOR assured the House that
it was not from conviction, but respect to the abilities
and the peculiar office held by the Learned Lord near
him (Lord Langdale), that he yielded in the details of a
Bill of which his Noble Friend had been the framer.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS denied that there was any
parallel between the cases of the solicitors of this
country and Ireland ; for, for every attorney that was
practising in Dublin there were twenty in this metropolis.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE reminded the
Noble Lord (the Earl of St. Germans) that, if in England
there were twenty solicitors for every one practising in
Ireland, six were to be appointed as taxing officers
under the present Bill in this country, for every one in

the sister country.
Tho Earl of WICKLOW, in reply, said that, con-
sidering the present state of discontent and disaffection
in Ireland, it would be perfect madness to draw the in-
vidious distinction he complained of, and he therefore
was determined to take the sense of the House upon the
question.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
Contents
Non-Contents

Majority in favour of the amendment —6
A message from the Commons announced that the
London and York Railway Bill had passed there, and
praying their Lordships' approval.
PAUPER LUNATICS.

Earl FORTESCUE called attention to a petition re-
specting the treatment of pauper lunatics, in Ireland.
The petition was from Dr. Flinn, and prayed for an assi-
milation in the medical treatment of the lunatics of Ire-
land to those of England. He cordially agreed with the
prayer of the petition, and bore testimony to the high
character of Dr. Flinn, the petitioner, who was only
actuated by a desire to promote the welfare of this un-
fortunate class of persons.
THE BRAZILIAN PIRATES.

The NOBLE EARL said he would also put a question to
his Noble Friend opposite, respecting a sentence passed
at Exeter, on seven foreigners committed at the Assizes
there for piracy and murder. He understood that great
doubts existed in the minds of legal men respecting the
legality of the sentence. He further understood that a
protest against the sentence had been made by the
Brazilian Government. The question he wished to put
was whether her Majesty's Government was fully satis-
fied of the legality of the sentence, with reference to the
question of international law, and if not, whether it
would not be better to exercise the prerogative of the
Crown for the purpose of suspending the execution of
the sentence ?
Lord STANLEY said he could not but concur with
the Noble Lord, that it was desirable there should be no
doubt of the legality of the sentence. lie had communi-
cated with the Secretary of State for the home Depart-
ment on the subject, and had been informed that Baron
Platt, who tried the men, had assented to the suspension
of the sentence until the decision of the fifteen judges
was. known on the subject.
COUNTY RATES BILL.
_ _