The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-30 00:00:00

lb to 1 60t Latham
20 to 1 asst Laird o' Cockpen
20 to 1 agst Europa
20 to 1 agst line Apple
25 to 1 agst Roderick
30 to 1 agst Aristides
35 to 1 agst Ajax.

THE CUT.
The Cure is declared not to start.
ST. LEGER.
5 to 1 agst Weatherbit
11 to 1 agst Annandale
12 to 1 agst Old England
12 to 1 agst Merry Monarch
16 to 1 agst Pantasa.

EIMATA..—In order to render our correspondent " Tele -
graph's " remarks upon the Goodwood Cup race intelligibi
read that Nat will ride Gamecock, that Winesour wi 11
speedily feel the effect of his race at Newton, and that tb e
Weight the Laird and Miss Elis will have to carry; will pr(
vent the Cup gracing the sideboards of either of Wei r
owners.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR and the MASTER OF THE ROLLS.)

IN THE MATTER OF THE SUITORS,

This case came on again today pursuant to appointment, upon
the petition sf thirty.two solicitors of the Court, complaining of
the course pursued in the office of Master Lynch by his chief clerk,
and praying.that the Court would direct inquiry into the subject,
and if it should think necessary, that it would remove the chief
clerk from his office. The petition, which we have already given
at length, among other things stated :
" That in the month of December, 1843, Andrew Henry Lynch,
Esq., cne of the said Masters in Ordinary, appointed Thomas
Whiting, who had then been copying or junior clerk in the office
"another of the said Masters for more than ten years, to be chief
clerk of him the said Master Lynch, and in the month of June,
1844, the Lord Chancellor was pleased to order that the salary of
One thousand pounds, provided for persons filling the said office of
chief clerk, should be paid to the said Thomas Whiting, since
Which time the said Thomas Whiting has annually received such
salary.

"That notwithstanding such appointment of the said Thomas
Whitieg, and such receipt by him tf the said salary, he has never
Performed, or in any manner attempted to perform, and does not
now perform, the important duties belonging to the said office of
chief clerk to the said Master Lynch, but that such duties have
been ever since his said appointment performed by, and the same
are now continuing to be performed by, Edward Wright, the junior
or copying clerk in the said office of the said Master Lynch, who
is not himself qualified, according to law, for the office of such
chief clerk, and by such means the duties of chief clerk to the
said Master Lynch are, in fact, performed by a deputy and an un
qualified person. And the said Thomas Whiting has ever since
Lis said appointment performed the duties of copying er junior
clerk, and no other duties, in the said office of the said Master
Lynch, and the petitioners believe that the said Thomas Whiting
is, in fact, incompetent to discharge the duties of chief clerk to the
Raid Master.
" That the petitioners are advised, and humbly submit to the
Lord Chancellor that an office of so much trust and importance
as that of chief clerk to one of the said Masters ought not to be
would by deputy, and that to permit the same to be so executed
w.uld be establishing a principle injurious to the interests of the
suitors of this Court, and contrary to the true intent and meaning
of the said Act of Parliament, and would have the effect of de.
riving the said suitors of the security intended to be given to them
the said Act for the performance of the duties of the said office
bY persons possessing the experience and legal attainment indispen_
'able fur the efficient discharge thereof; and the petitioners, in
their character of solicitors of this Honourable Court, and also as
representing the interests of the suitors of this Honourable Court
confided to their care, feel aggrieved by the premises."
Mr. ROMILLT, with whom was Mr. It. PALWER, appeared on
behalf of the petitioners, and contended at considerable length
that from the time of Richard 11. to the present, the clerks of the
Masters, and the Masters themselves, were under the control and
Jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, and that the Act of William
IV. did not remove that jurisdiction. By that Act it was, among
other things, enacted that no person should be appointed to be chief
clerk of any Master in Ordinary of this Honourable Court unless
be should have been admitted on the roll of solicitors or attorneys
in one of the Courts of Westminster Hall, for not less than five
lean, or should have been a junior clerk in the office of one of the
said Masters for a term of ten years. Now, it was clear by that
Clause that the Master was forbidden to appoint any person to the
office unless he should have been a solicitor for five years, or a
junior clerk in the office of one of the Masters for ten years ; and
by the '.2lst section it was clear that the duties of chief clerk could
not be performed by deputy. That was also clearly proved by a
'treat number of authorities.
The Loin CHANCELLOR observed that he did not understand
it was contended on the other side that the duties could be
Performed by deputy, but what was said was, that the Master had a
right to allot the duties as he thought proper among his different
Clerks,
Mr. Roartum admitted that, but denied that the office of
thief clerk could be performed by the junior clerk. It perhaps
'bight be convenient that he should now state what sort of order
v
he, proposed to ask. It was intended to ask the Court to direct a
reCerence to the three senior Masters of the Court of Chancery, to
Inquire into the practice of the chief clerk's office in the particular
circumstances of the present case. They proposed he should make
an order that the three senior Masters should report what were
the duties performed by the chief clerk, and what duties were per.
formed by Mr. Wright, and also to inquire under what circum-
stances the office of chief and junior clerk were held in the office
•1' Master Lynch, and to state special circumstances.
The MASTER of the ROLLS—What ultimate order do you ask?
Mr. Itomtstv—That no person should be permitted to perform
the duties but the chief clerk, and that if it was shown that he was
hot competent, then that the office should be declared vacant. He
did not propose that the Court should do anything in the first
Instance,
The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired by what tenure the chief clerk
held his office ?
fir.n °MILLI' observed that that was not stated. There could
menu
booubt that in the present instance there was some arrange.
but tht' Who
Wrighetween the senior and j clerk. It was that Mr.
performed the duties of chief clerk, wasclear not qualified,
at he would be in two years and a half.
The Loki, CHANCELLOR. asked if it was suggested that Mr.
wr
Or was to have the office at the termination of the two years
and a half ?
Mr. Rossitty—Nothing of the sort; it was clear, however, that
some arrangement existed, and the Master himself also appeared
to take part in it.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—I suppose the Master takes that species
of interest which will show to the Court that be is correct.
Mr. ItouiLLy said that was a matter that it behoved the Court
to inquire into.

The Loco CHANCELLOR was in hopes that it was unnecessary to
go further into that part or the case, as he felt convinced that, upon
any intimation from the Court of its opinion, Master Lynch would
act upon it.

Mr. STUART observed that nothing could be said against the
course pursued by Master Lynch, and lie was sure that any sug-
gestion of the Court would be instantly adopted by him.
Mr. ROMILLY would not press this part of the case further. The
Learned Counsel then contended he was entitled to the order he
asked. The petitioners, he could assure the Court, had most un-
willingly brought this matter forward, horsing that some legislative
enactment would have taken place upon the subject. His instruc-
tions were to avoid as much as possible anything like personal ob-
servations upon any one. As to Master Lynch, he was sure all
he had done was bona fide and with the best intentions.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that no person had ever performed
the duties of :taster more effictively than Master Lynch.
Mr. R. Palmer followed on the same side as Mr. Romilly.
Mr. STUART appeared for Master Lynch, who had been served
with a copy of the petition, and said the charges contained in it were
grave ones, if they were proved to be well founded. He had been
charged with appointing a person to the office of chief clerk in
his office who was incompetent to perform the office, and that
he had allowed another individual to perform the duty who
Was legally disqualified. Those were grave charges. He denied
the whole of that charge in the petition on the behalf
of Master Lynch, and asserted that nothing was more
falculated to lower the character of the profession of the
tow, and the officers by whom it was administered, than
present petitions containing allegations that had no
foundation in fact. On the part of Master Lynch, he contended,
"'at he had full power to discharge all the clerks in his office when-
ever he pleased ; and that there was no foundation whatever for
the statement that had been made on the other side,
that the Master could not discharge his chief clerk. The
Master held his office by the appointment of the Mi-
u• ster of the day, and the Master's chief clerk held
his by the appointment of the Master. No authority had been
brought before the Court in support of that proposition, that tended
• eXalt the office of chief clerk of the eMaster into a judicial
°le• The Learned Counsel then proceeded, at con-
Stderable length, to contend that the allegations in the
Petition that Mr. Whiting was incompetent to perform the
duties were wholly unfounded, and that the Master
h._,
the right to apportion the duties of the clerks in his office as
he thought right, and he had an absolute discretion on the subject.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was most important that the
Court should know what were the duties performed by Mr.
Whiting.
br• STUART said that he performed the duties allotted to him
nthe Master, He had a second affidavit, filed by Mr. Whiting,
which he stated the duties that he performed.
4r. ROMILLY observed that that affidavit had but just been filed,
arid
understood it had been made in consequence of something
that fell from the Court in the course of the morning.
, The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know whether Mr. Romilly
oetired to answer the affidavit?
Itosttuor observed that some of the duties stated in the
,T•
avit to be performed by Mr. Whiting were the duties of chief
; he would prefer therefore that the matter should go on.
"Ir• STUART then proceeded. It was admitted that the duties
but excellently well performed, but it was said that one ef the
ies that ought to be performed by Mr. Whiting was performed
lc! Mr. Wright. Now was that, he would ask, any ground for
allegations
the present petition, containing the absurd and improper
it did, and bringing forward Master Lynch before the
Court as a criminal, bound to answer these allegations ? As to
‘, inquiry it was proposed to make before the three senior
7asters of the Court, he contended that no ground had been
"own for that inquiry.
(The case had not concluded when our report left.)