could rely that it was the proctors them- | the Court, to the effect that such a clause selves who induced the late law officers ought to be accompanied by many proviof the Crown to urge the striking out of sions which could not be inserted in the that clause, and it was accordingly struck Bill then before Parliament. The Bill, as out in the Upper House without any dis- amended, came back to that House and cussion. The Bill of last year allowed the was duly considered. The hon. and learnenormous sum of £72,000 as compensa- ed Gentleman, it appeared, had relaxed tion to the proctors, and now they wanted his usual vigilance, for he took no notice £10,000 a year additional as compensation of the alteration that had been made in the for opening the Admiralty Court to the measure. Now, he proposed that the Adprofession at large. Those were the cir- miralty Court should be opened to the procumstances which induced him to move the fession at large, to which no one objected, second reading of this Bill, which pro- but at the same time he refused to give the vided against any such arrangement. He proctors who would be damaged by such considered that this large sum of money in a measure any compensation. The hon. the shape of compensation was an imposi- and learned Gentleman was under a great tion upon the country. The opening of misapprehension when he thought that the Admiralty Court to the profession there was any burden thrown upon the generally was not worth that sum of country by the provisions for compensation £10,000. He considered it would be in the Probate Act. The country did not better to continue the monopoly than as-suffer to the amount of a single farthing. sent to such an arrangement. He should be happy to resign this Bill to the Attorney General if that hon. and learned Gentleman would but take it in hand. By the Probate Administration Bill onehalf of the fees usually paid to the proctors was now constituted a fund, from which the amount of compensation granted them was paid. He asked, upon what principle should the proctors who suffered by the opening of the Admiralty Court be deprived of compensation when those whose business was destroyed by the Probate Administration Bill were provided for? The proctors connected with the Admiralty Court had received no compensation, because the Bill which had passed last Session did not apply to their case. As there was no objection to opening the Court to solicitors, he would not oppose the second reading; but he would oppose the Bill in its subsequent stages, if the injustice in refusing compensation to which he had referred were perpetuated. MR. MALINS was quite sure that the House would not desire to proceed with this Bill under a misapprehension of the facts. Hon. Members would recollect the circumstances under which the Probate Administration Bill was amended, so as to give compensation to the proctors for the destruction of their business which they considered that measure would occasion. During the passage of the Bill, but at a late period of the Session, the hon. Member for Sheffield proposed a clause, the effect of which was to open the Admiralty Court to the profession, without giving the proctors any compensation. As, however, the Bill itself did not relate to the Admiralty Court, it was strenuously THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he objected the clause of the hon. and learned should not oppose the second reading of Gentleman was quite inapplicable. The the Bill. The object of the measure was Attorney General of the day, however, re- to open the court to barristers generally, luctantly gave way, and permitted the and to solicitors. With regard to the first clause to pass. He (Mr. Malins) then con- of these objects no difference of opinion tended, that if that Court were to be openexisted. It was universally admitted it ed, compensation should be allowed to the was for the public interest that the court proctors who would suffer by such an ar- should be thrown open to advocates of all rangement as well as to the proctors im- classes. Perhaps, however, an objection mediately damaged by the Probate Ad- might be made to opening the court to ministration Bill. The Bill, however, left solicitors; and then came the question of the House with the clause of the hon. and compensation. It appeared to him that it learned Gentleman added to it. It was, would be inconvenient to enter into a dishowever, omitted in the House of Lords, cussion of that question at that moment; and, in contradiction of what had been and he would, therefore, suggest that the stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, whole matter should be left to Her Mahe could say that it was struck out on the jesty's Government. The subject was unrepresentation of the Judge and officers of der the consideration of the Government, and inquiries were being made into the facts on which claims for compensation would be made. He would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hadfield) that it was the Government, and the Government alone, who could carry a compensatory clause through Parliament with a due regard to the public interests on the one side, and to the rights of individuals on the other. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not proceed further with the Bill till the Government should have announced their intentions; but in the meantime he would consent to the second reading. Bill read 2o, and committed for Wednesday, the 13th April. CHARITABLE USES BILL. Order for Second Reading read. wished to endow schools, hospitals, places of worship, and other similar institutions, and would afford them cheap, effectual, and easy means of carrying out their wishes. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, he did not propose to enter upon the general question of the policy of the Mortmain Laws, and he was certainly not inclined to relax them. Undoubtedly, if the Bill went as far as the hon. Gentleman's speech he should not assent to the second reading, but he found that its object was simply to obviate a construction of the Mortmain Act which invalidated bequests of an unobjec tionable character. He should not, therefore, object to its being read a second time; but he must at the same time observe that the Bill involved questions of detail which would require very careful consideration in Committee. Bill read 2o, and committed for Wed MR. HADFIELD said, that in the ab-nesday, 20th April. sence of his hon. and learned Friend the MARKETS (IRELAND) BILL. Order for Committee read. MR. GREER moved aproviso to Clause 19, restricting the tolls to an amount sufficient to meet the necessary expenditure of the market. LORD NAAS promised to frame a clause to effect this object. Proviso withdrawn. Clauses 20 to 28 inclusive agreed to. MR. COGAN moved the omission of Clause 29, on the ground that it made it compulsory upon buyers and sellers to have recourse to the public market. MR. ESMONDE defended the clause. LORD NAAS said, that if the clause were not agreed to the sellers might pitch their articles in the streets or anywhere else than in the market. With competition of this sort it was not likely that the owners of a market would expend money in improving it. The clause was essentially a poor man's clause, inasmuch as it provided that corn, cattle, butter, and other merchandise should be brought to one common centre. All the evidence taken before the Committee showed that the present confusion which reigned in Irish towns on market days ought to be put an end to. MR. SPAIGHT said, he was of opinion that if the clause were omitted the Bill would be deprived of its chief value. MR. H. A. HERBERT said, he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Naas) that the clause was a poor man's clause. Reject it, and it would be impossible for any party to come forward and give the accommodation which it was the object of the measure to provide. If sellers were to be permitted to pitch their articles in the streets, and not compelled to carry them to the market, the Bill might as well be at once abandoned. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, that the proposal contained in the clause was in accordance with the law of this country, to the effect that the person who exposed goods for sale in any other place than his own shop or premises during the continuance of the market, should be liable to a penalty of 40s. MR. J. D. FITZGERALD said, he would recommend the withdrawal of the Motion for o nitting the clause, and that the point should be reserved until the Bill was reported. Motion made and Question put-"That the clause stand part of the Bill." The Committee divided :-Ayes 123; Noes 35; Majority 88. Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 30 to 33 inclusive. House resumed. House adjourned at five minutes HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, March 31, 1859. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1a Patents for Inventions (Munitions of War); Common Rights, &c., (War Department). 2 Manslaughter. stand over, though he did not see the necessity for it. He understood one of his noble and learned Friend's objections was, that in the metropolitan police district any other than a police magistrate might under this Bill commit a prisoner for trial. Now, he believed that was a mistake. Then his noble and learned Friend objected that in the City, as the Bill stood, any Alderman sitting in his own private room might commit a prisoner for trial. But he understood that the practice in the City was, that the Lord Mayor or an Alderman sat daily at the Mansion House and at the Guildhall in public court, and that prisoners were examined and committed only by them. A third objection was, that there were some small portions of counties in the metropolitan district which were not under the jurisdiction of the police magistrates, and that the magistrates committing prisoners from these districts for trial did not sit in open court. Perhaps there might be something in this objection, but at all events the numbers of commitments were small. Out of 1,200 commitments to the Central Criminal Court in the course of a year, only ten had been committed from these districts. He hoped, therefore, his noble and learned Friend would not object to proceed with the Bill. LORD CAMPBELL said, it had been laid down by the ancient law that unless twelve fellow-citizens declared a man guilty he should not be punished. As the Bill now stood any Alderman of the City of London might be considered tantamount to twelve grand jurymen. Third Reading put off to Monday next. MANSLAUGHTER BILL. THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving 3a Vexatious Indictments; Evidence by Commis- the second reading of this Bill, said its sion. INDICTABLE OFFENCES (METROPOLI TAN DISTRICTS) BILL. On the Order of the Day for the Third Reading of this Bill, LORD CAMPBELL stating that he approved generally of the provisions of this Bill said, there were some to which he excepted and requested that the hird reading be postponed. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he had no insuperable objection to let the Bill object was to enable coroners to admit to bail parties against whom verdicts of manslaughter had been found; whereas at present they could only be admitted to bail by one of the Judges of the superiour courts. The law at present inflicted great hardship upon poor persons who were not able to make application to the Judges in London; and their Lordships were no doubt aware that coroner's juries often returned very extraordinary verdicts. He recollected a case in which a quantity of timber, which had been floated off a warf at Deptford by an unusally heavy flood, had upset a boat and caused some persons in it to be drowned. K H tended to be sent, for withdrawing the survivors of the detachment of Troops at Trinidad from that Post. In that case the jury actually found a verdict of manslaughter against the owners of the timber. He had received from a learned Judge now on circuit a letter in which he stated that two cases had come before him during the present assizes in which verdicts of manslaughter had been found against persons against whom the grand jury threw out the bill. The same Judge had met with another case, in which the accused, if he had been convicted, would have been sentenced to a very slight punishment, whereas he had practically been condemned to a long imprisonment by the result of the inquest. After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL and Lord WENSLEYDALE, expressing approval of the measure, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow. House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, until To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-2° Indemnity. CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION REFORM.-QUESTION. MR. BRADY said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the better Regulation of the Corporation of the City of London; and if so, when it will be laid on the Table of the House. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT was understood to say that it was his intention to bring up the Bill for the Regulation of the City Corporation, as recommended by the Select Committee of last Session. The Bill consisted of two parts-one relating to Municipal Reform, the other to matters of national interest; but it was proposed to confine it to the former. He hoped to be able to bring in the Bill before Easter. THE TROOPS AT TRINIDAD. SIR DE LACY EVANS said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or the Secretary of State for War, whether orders have been sent, or are in. GENERAL PEEL said, that the Official Report on the subject had not yet arrived ; but, having heard a few days ago that yellow fever still raged very seriously at Trinidad, he had applied to the Secretary of State for the Colonies for his sanction to the withdrawal of the Troops from that station. Orders would go out by the next Mail, directing the commanding Officer at Barbadoes to consult with the Governor of Trinidad, with a view to the withdrawal, if possible, of the Troops from the latter Colony. SIR DE LACY EVANS said, he wished to know whether arrangements will be made in future to prevent Troops being sent to such unhealthy quarters? SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTON was understood to answer in the affirmative. THE PAPER DUTY.-QUESTION. MR. DILLWYN said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury under what Section of any Statute the Board of Inland Revenue has forbidden Mr. Routledge, of Eynsham Paper Mills, to send out without Excise Survey, half stuff made into slabs similar to those imported free from Russia. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, that the provision under which this had been done was contained in the Section of the Paper Duty Act, which determined what was to be considered paper. What the hon. Gentleman called half stuff, similar to that imported free from Russia, was not precisely similar, because it might be used for some of the purposes for which paper was employed, which the half stuff imported from Russia, could not. made to the manufacturers that they might send out this half stuff if it were cut into strips or other pieces; but they had declined to accept that proposal, and therefore the Board of Inland Revenue treated it as paper, and as such, subject to the provisions of the Paper Duty Act. An offer had been LOCAL ASSESSMENTS EXEMPTION ABOLITION BILL.-QUESTION. GENERAL BUCKLEY said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what course it is his intention to take respecting the Local Assessments Exemption Abolition Bill? MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, that the claims put forward by Charitable, Scholastic, and Literary Institutions to exemption from local assessments had been very numerous. Many of those Institutions had represented that if they were obliged to pay any Rates at all their means of usefulness would be either totally put an end to, or very much circumscribed; and, after hearing several deputations which had waited upon him on the subject, he was persuaded that he should not be able to induce the House to pass the Bill in its present shape. There now lay before him two courses, either practically still to preserve as a principle of universal application the liability to rating, or to withdraw the Bill, and deal only with that part of the subject which related to Public Buildings, in which case he thought the proper course would be to proceed by means of a Royal Commission. OFFICERS OF THE PROBATE COURT. QUESTION. MR. VANCE said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce into the Superannuation Bill now before the House any provision for the Officers and Clerks of Her Majesty's Courts of Probate in England and Ireland; and, if not, whether it is their intention, during the present Session, to bring in a Bill for the purpose of giving Superannuation Allowances to the Officers and Clerks of the said Courts ? SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, that the case of these Officers could not properly come within the operation of the Superannuation Bill, for they stood in the same position as other officers of the law courts. If any Bill should be brought in affecting the Probate Courts, a provision might be inserted in it with respect to those clerks and other officers; but at present it was not the intention of the Government to introduce any measure upon that subject. REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.-EXPLANATIONS. LORD ELCHO:-Sir, I wish, with the permission of the House, to say a few words by way of explanation of a statement which I made in reference to certain expressions that fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General at the close of his speech on the Bill for VOL. CLIII. [THIRD SERIES.] the Amendment of the Representation of the People. It may be in the recollection of the House that in the remarks which I made on Monday last I ventured to defend my hon. and learned Friend from the censure directed against him by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I did so under the belief that nothing had fallen from him in the course of his speech which could in any way affect the private character or the personal honour of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and that what he said did not exceed the limits of legitimate discussion and fair Parliamentary warfare, which are ordinarily observed in this House. I must add that I would never open my lips in defence of any man who would say anything which could in any way reflect upon the private character and the personal honour of the noble Lord, which I look upon as precious to every Member of this House. But I regret to find that an impression prevails in the minds of some of the Friends of the noble Lord that the language employed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General was injurious to his private character and personal honour; and, indeed, a private friend and late colleague of the noble Lord said to me, that he hoped before I defended a person another time I would take care clearly to understand what he meant. I find that in the opinion of some friends of the noble Lord the words used by the Solicitor General at the close of his speech, namely, "private advantage," would bear a construction injurious to the noble Lord's private character and personal honour. Now, I would rather cut out my tongue than say anything in defence of any man who would attempt to imply what those words are supposed by some persons to imply. But I have much too high an opinion of the hon. and learned Gentlemar the Solicitor General to suppose that he meant to imply anything of the sort. SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY here rose to order. He considered that the noble Lord was exceeding the limits of a personal explanation. MR. SPEAKER:-The noble Lord must confine himself to an explanation of what he himself may have said on any point on which he appears to have been misunderstood by the House. LORD ELCIO:-What I was going to say was, that so far from that impression having been left on my mind, I have too high an opinion of my hon. and learned 2 P |