The Sun. — 1834-08-05 (London, England)

INNS OF COURT.  Mr. O'CONNELL moved for leave to report progress from the Committee sitting upon the Inns of Court. Mr. O'CONNELL brought up the report, and moved that it should be printed with the minutes. Mr. O'CONNELL enquired if the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, the case of Mr. Lyons having been mentioned more than once during this session, had received any information which would authorize him to contradict or qualify the expressions that had been used with reference to this case.  Mr. LITTLETON stated something with respect to the Solicitor-General who was not then in his place, but said that he was authorised to state thus much, that the report which had appeared in certain newspapers was most incorrect in all respects. - Mr. O'CONNELL said he understood that some men had been arraigned in Carrickfergus on a charge of murder, but that indictment was cancelled before the trial took place, and the charge of manslaughter substituted, of which the principal was convicted. It appeared that the Lord Chief Justice, in passing sentence, expressed his surprise at the alteration. He (Mr. O'Connell) wished to know upon what authority such alteration was made ? Mr. LITTLETON said it was not in his power to afford any positive information on the subject. Mr. HUME wished to know whether any arrangements had been entered into in order to supply Scotland with copies of Acts of Parliament from the Office of the King's Printer. He understood that the King's printer had agreed to sell the Acts at from 3d. to 4d. per sheet, but it had been proved before the Committee that he could print them at one halfpenny per sheet, and yet derive a fair profit from the sale. It was however a fact that Acts of Parliament could not be procured at the office of the King's printer without great difficulty at any price. Lord ALTHORP, who spoke in an extremely low tone, was understood to say that there were certain regulations to be observed by the King's printer, and he was not aware that they had been departed from. Mr. HUME wished to know whether it was correct that a solicitor had been appointed to assist in the management of the compensation fund to the West India slave proprietors, and that such solicitor was to be allowed to make his own charge for the business he executed in his own way ? If such was the case, his demand • would amount to many thousands, at least ; according to some estimations 100,0001. He thought the Noble Lord had stated that the other Commissioners had been engaged to perform their duty for a given sum. He wished to know why the solicitor had not been placed on an equal footing ? Lord ALTHORP said he regretted • the aLseice of his Right Hon. Friend, who would have been able to afford that information which he was unable to give. After a few words from Mr. B. CARTER, Mr. CLAY begged to know from the Noble Lord opposite whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to take off the duty on refined sugar (as we understood him.) The advantage to the Revenue was of a very trifling nature, and as the Bill for the repeal of certain duties had not been read a third time, a clause to that effect could be easily introduced.  Lord A LTHORP said it was not the intention of his Majesty's Government to take off the duty to which the Hon. M3mber alluded at present. In reply to a question from Mr. MACKENZIE relative to the report of . the Commissioners upoon the Borough Abuses in Scotland,  The LORD ADVOCATE said that he expected to have had the report of the Commissioners in his hand before that time, but he hoped it would very shortly be ready.