MR. TURNER said, that in point of fact, the master would have no rules to guide his proceedings. avoided by the operation of the Bill. When | fore it became an order of court. With it was considered that, besides this incon- regard to the incomes, it was impossible venience, the business of the equity branch to avoid every difficulty unless the Bill was of the court had so greatly diminished, applied without distinction to all charities. added to the fact, that the business of the Some contest, therefore, might occur upon law branch had considerably increased, it the question whether the master had juriswould be admitted there was an absolute diction, but in such cases the master would necessity to remove the equity jurisdiction, make a special report to the court. so that the court might devote its whole attention to the legal department. There was also precedent for the measure. In 1844, the equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer in England was transferred to the Court of Chancery; and clauses of the present Bill were almost precise copies of the English Act upon the same subject. He remarked, that the discordant decisions of the equity side of the Exchequer, and of the Court of Chancery upon similar questions, encouraged appeals to the House of Lords. Under these circumstances, he called upon the House to agree to the second reading of the Bill; but at the same time he should be glad to receive any suggestions for its improvement from his hon. and learned Friend. Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to leave out from the word "require" to the end of the clause. The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, his hon. and learned Friend was under a misapprehension as to the effect of the clause. He supposed the object of it to be that the opinion of the master should have the same effect as if it were an order of court. But the simple object of the clause was, in the case of charities whose income exceeded 301. and was below 1007., to give the primary jurisdiction to the master, in order to avoid the expense of first going to the court. The question was referred to the master by the Bill. The clause simply meant that the subject-matter of the petition went before the master primarily, who dealt with it according to his judgment; and he made a special report upon it be Question put, "That the words and upon the presentation of every such petition, the same,' stand part of the Clause.' The Committece divided:-Ayes 65; Noes 14: Majority 51. Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive. Clause 8. MR. TURNER said, this clause would place all the smaller charities of the country entirely under the administration of the judges of the county courts. This was open to some objection. As a general rule, the county court judges did not reside in the districts over which they had jurisdiction, and, therefore, they could have no local knowledge of the charities under their control. The consequence would be, that they must obtain their information in relation to them through the medium of their clerks in different towns upon their circuit, who were generally solicitors and attorneys, who had considerable political influence. He feared that in this way the choice and appointment of trustees would fall, practically, into the hands of these clerks, who might-he did not say they would-turn it to political purposes, as the judges themselves would have no local knowledge. He therefore trusted the House would reject the clause, and place charities under 301. annual value upon the same footing as charities between 301. and 1007. The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, this question, of which he fully admitted. the importance, had been discussed upon the second reading of the Bill. The power must be given to some tribunal, and he was not aware of any so unobjectionable as the county courts, though some objections might be made to them. The fact of the judges not being locally resident was an advantage, because it had always been found that judges locally resident contracted local feelings and local prejudices. They must, however, determine upon the evidence submitted to them. He did not deny that some evil might arise in respect to the appointment of trustees from politi cal feelings; but he was willing to introduce | to compensate everybody, they must coma provision that the same course should be pensate sheriffs' officers and attorneys. taken, both with respect to the county He could quite understand that where an courts and the master's office, as prevailed office was abolished there should be comin the Court of Chancery with regard to pensation, but where there was only an inall charities except corporation charities, direct loss they could not give compensanamely, that the list should in the first in- tion. stance be submitted to the Attorney General for his approval. of this Bill. SIR G. CLERK said, before the Bill was read a third time, he wished to call attention to the case of certain officers who would suffer pecuniary loss by the operation of the Bill. The officers to whom he alluded were the registrars of the Cinque Ports. They had applied to the Treasury, but no answer had been given to their application. He was afraid that according to the forms of the House he could not move that compensation be given to these officers; and, under these circumstances, he could only appeal to Her Majesty's Government, who he trusted would give an assurance that they should be compensated if they could prove that they had sustained a pecuniary loss. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he would explain the nature of the claim. He understood that the individuals to whom the right hon. Baronet referred were in the nature of sheriffs' officers, and the complaint they made was that by the operation of this Bill, process being served by the officers of the court, they would lose the service of the processes of the superior courts. Now, the first observation in answer to that claim was this, that this was only an extension of the original Act, and he found no clause in the original Act giving compensation to the registrars of Cinque Ports. But further, if they were Bill read 3°. On the Question that the Bill do pass, MAJOR BLACKALL moved a clause to the effect that members of the Irish Bar of seven years' standing should be eligible to fill the office of judges of the county courts in England. Clause brought up, and read 1°. SIR G. GREY said, that if the House adopted this Motion, they would have to go much further. No English barrister could be appointed to an office in Ireland. MR. F. FRENCH wished to know why Irish members of the Bar, with the advantages of a legal education, should not be allowed to fill legal offices in this country? MR. C. ANSTEY asked if an English barrister of inferior standing was fit for a high office in Ireland, why should not an Irish barrister of superior standing be fit for an inferior position in England? MR. KEOGH said, that the duties of the judges of the county courts had been described as not requiring very high qualifications. If Irish barristers were not permitted to fill these offices in England, why were they dragged from Ireland to England to obtain their right of admission to the bar? Why were Englishmen sent to Ireland to fill judicial offices? He knew that there were persons in Ireland at this moment receiving high salaries, holding offices in the Court of Chancery, who had come to Ireland, holding the offices of clerks. It was most unreasonable for any Member of the Government to stand up and reject this most reasonable proposition. The ATTORNEY GENERAL observed that the Motion was not resisted on the ground of qualification. The Bill was a Bill to amend the County Court Act by extending the jurisdiction of the court. The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed to put a clause in the Bill which would have the effect of altering the entire system. If it were thought right that all gentlemen qualified for Ireland should qualify themselves for each bar, let it be so understood. COLONEL RAWDON thought it most important to give Irish gentlemen who HOUSE OF LORDS. LORD CAMPBELL wished to address were obliged to come over here to keep a | ATTENDANCE OF THE JUDGES IN THE certain number of terms, an equal opportunity of sharing in the administration of justice in both countries. He should therefore vote for the clause proposed by the hon. and gallant Member. Motion made and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time. The House divided:-Ayes 58; Noes 111 Majority 53. MR. MITCHELL moved a clause, to the effect that, with the leave of the court for the district in which the plaintiff shall dwell or carry on business, or shall have dwelt or carried on business within six calendar months next before the time of the action brought, such summons may issue in such last-mentioned court. Clause brought up, and read 1o. The ATTORNEY GENERAL opposed the insertion of the clause, and reminded the House that on its former production it was withdrawn in obedience to the general feeling of the House. He looked upon it as violating the principle which was sought to be established by the Bill. MR. FITZROY supported the clause, and hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would withdraw his opposition. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time." Question put. a few words to their Lordships on behalf of the Judges who had been summoned to attend their Lordships for the remainder of this Session in cases of appeal. The Judges knew that it was their first duty to attend upon their Lordships when summoned to do so. They felt that it was an honour to advise their Lordships during their deliberations, although they had not a right to vote upon them. In consequence, however, of the present state of affairs, caused by the Great Seal now being held in commission, they had considered that it was not likely that their Lordships would call for their attendance during the present Session; they had therefore made arrangements de die in diem in the Court of Queen's Bench, in the Court of Common Pleas, and in the Court of Exchequer, by which their time would be fully occupied until the commencement of the assizes. He knew that it was very desirable that many of the cases which were in appeal before their Lordships should be decided as speedily as possible, and that the judgments might be disposed of more speedily if the Judges could attend their Lordships; but such attendance would lead to great inconvenience in the arrangements which they had made for their respective courts, and would be likely to lead to serious consequences. He believed that those appeals The House divided:-Ayes 55; Noes in which the attendance of the Judges was 90: Majority 35. Amendment made; Bill passed. required might very well stand over until the next Session of Parliament-until the The House adjourned at a quarter after spring of next year-and that too with little One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, June 21, 1850. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-13 Factories; Metro- Borough Courts of Record (Ireland); Turnpike THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. LORD LANGDALE informed the House, that Her Majesty had issued Commissions, revoking the former Commissions appointing Speakers of this House, and thereby appointing the LORD LANGDALE Speaker of the House: in his absence, the LORD DENMAN in their absence, the LORD CAMPBELL. The said Commissions read by the clerk. damage to the parties engaged therein, while the regular business in which the Judges were now engaged was of much more urgent importance. What he, therefore, most respectfully submitted to their Lordships was, that they should not exercise their undoubted right to summon the Judges during the present Session; but that they would allow the existing arrangements to be carried into effect. Having made this statement, he should leave the matter in the hands of their Lordships. LORD BROUGHAM had expected to dispose of two writs of error this Session, in case the assistance of the Judges were given to him; but the speech of his noble and learned Friend had put an end to that expectation. It was no fault of his, nor yet of the Judges. It was the right of those noble Lords who attended to the appeal business to summon the learned Judges. As he understood that the circuits would take place in the course of the week after next, he did not think that the arrangements mentioned by his noble and learned Friend could be interfered with. POST OFFICE ARRANGEMENTS - DELIVERY OF LETTERS ON SUNDAY. LORD BROUGHAM wished to put a question to his noble Friend the President of the Council, on a subject on which he had received so many letters that he could not any longer refrain from noticing it. The question related to certain new regulations issued respecting the delivery of letters on Sundays. As a lawyer, he entertained great doubts whether the Crown had power to issue, or at least to enforce, those regulations; and he hoped that they would be well considered before directions were given to carry them into effect. He had great doubts himself-but several eminent lawyers had no doubt whatever, as to the legality of these regulations. The ground which many of his legal friends had taken as the basis of their opinion was, that this order of the Crown had been issued in reply to an address coming from only one branch of the Legislature. Nothing was more legitimate in his opinion than the action of the Crown upon the address of only one branch of the Legislature; but if the matter to be accomplished by the address was in itself illegal, it could not be carried into effect legally even by an address from both Houses of Parliament. The only mode of acting legally in such a case was a proceeding by Bill. Now, there were votes annually passed, and taxes regularly paid, for the delivery of letters. Could those taxes be repealed, or those votes of both Houses be got rid of, by the vote of a single House, or by an Address to the Crown? If the delivery of letters could be thus stopped on the Sunday, it could be equally stopped on the Monday, and indeed on any other day in the week. The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE said, that the point which his noble and learned Friend had raised was one of very great importance, and that he would endeavour to obtain correct information respecting it in the course of To-morrow. LORD BROUGHAM said, that he intended no allusion to what had taken place elsewhere, nor did he mean to imply the slightest disrespect to the House of Com mons. ACCOMMODATION FOR FOREIGN MINISTERS. The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE rose to move, pursuant to notice— "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether an improvement can be made in the existing arrangements of this House, so as to afford better accommodation for Ambassadors and Ministers of Foreign Powers who may desire to be present at its debates." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of asking your Lordships' consent to the appointment of a Committee for the purpose of considering and reporting upon the best mode of accommodating in your Lordships' House those distinguished persons who represent Foreign Courts in this country. It is unnecessary for me to repeat what I have on a previous occasion stated upon this subject, more especially as I am sure all your Lordships must be anxious to promote the object which I have in view, and to do all in your power to accommodate those distinguished persons. Your Lordships must be aware that there was some misunderstanding on this subject a few nights ago, but to which I do not wish more particularly to advert. I believe, however, that the distinguished person alluded to on that occasion believed he was justified in occupying that seat, which, under a recent order of your Lordships' House, he had not a strict right to occupy-I believe this gentleman had no reason to suppose that he was not authorised to occupy it. He might have formed that conclusion from two reasons: one was, that he was admitted to the seat by one of the officers of your Lordships' House; and, secondly, because on the door through which he passed into this seat were inscribed the words, "Seats for diplomatic persons.' From these circumstances, the distinguished individual to whom I allude conceived he had a perfect right to occupy the seat he occupied, and that by taking and maintaining that seat he was only maintaining the position which he was entitled to maintain; that he was only fulfilling his duty to the Sovereign he served, and discharging the obligations which he had to perform. However unpleasant the circumstance may have been to him, I am confident that there was no disposition on the part of your Lordships to act harshly or wound the feelings of that gentleman. I believe that, on the contrary, there is every disposition on the part of your Lordships to provide for the representatives of Foreign Courts all possible accommodation, | undoubted right to be in that place, and and to receive them in your Lordships' whose right to be there cannot be chalHouse on the most friendly terms. Your lenged, I should have taken leave, with all Lordships are all anxious to provide suit-possible tenderness and respect to the able seats for the members of the diplo- wrongdoer, as I should have considered matic body, and to do anything in your him, to protest against his remaining in power to promote their comfort. It is with that place. It is said that I have been these views that I beg to move for the seen, and that my noble Friend the Chanappointment of the Committee. I know cellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been the place allocated for their accommoda- seen, repeatedly in the Peeresses' gallery. tion cannot be very large, and that it To be sure we have, over and over again, would be scarcely possible to find room for for we have a right to be there; but I all the inferior members of the corps diplo- venture to say, that neither I nor my noble matique; but some arrangement is neces- Friend ever kept our seats there when sary, and therefore I ask your Lordships Peeresses were standing at the door and to appoint a Select Committee to inquire could not get a seat. That is the point, I into and report upon the subject. say; that is the question. No gentleman in England, be he a Member of this House, or, as I believe, of the other House of Parliament, but I can only speak with confidence of the House to which I have the honour to belong-no gentleman in England, be he in Parliament or out of it, would keep a seat to the exclusion of any lady unable to obtain one. It was, therefore, not on any ground of privilege, except so far as the gallery is appropriated by the orders of your Lordships to the accommodation of Peeresses and their daughters, that I interfered. The noble ladies in question for whom I interfered were among the nearest relations of a noble Lord whose conduct was to form the main subject of that night's debate. They came to the door of the gallery; they found it full, they found that there was not even standing room. I then said, as I thought, courteously-I am sure that I intended no disrespect-I addressed myself three times over to this highly-respectable individual LORD BROUGHAM: I entirely agree with the observations which have fallen from my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, and I rise to second his Motion, in token of my agreement. It is necessary for me to add, that what took place, and what I said on the occasion alluded to, took place without any intention of originating it on my part, as I shall endeavour to show your Lordships. Anything in these days more misrepresented anything more gross than the misrepresentation which has gone forth to the public, in language the least decorous which I ever heard applied to any Member of either House of Parliament-anything more utterly gross, in my opinion, than the representations which have gone forth, and in the least decorous language, I have never, on any occasion, read in any account of the proceedings of either House of Parliament. It was not because the gentleman in question, whose name I do not recollect to have mentioned to your Lordships, for I purposely abstained from mentioning it, because I was aware, or at least expected, that as soon as the affair was mentioned he would leave his place, and in that case his name would never have come before the public that being the case, I add, that is was not from any the most remote approach to any disrespect towards that eminent individual, that I proceeded as I did. I have, in common with my noble Friend opposite, a great respect for the attainments of that excellent gentleman, for his station, and for his character. I have the honour of his acquaintance, and am, and have been, on the most friendly footing with him. It was, therefore, from no disrespect either to him or to his functions that I took the course which I did. If it had been one of your Lordships, who have an was enforced from the woolsack, he still I stated three times over that Peeresses, who had an undoubted right to be in the gallery, were waiting at the door; I stated -as I thought, most courteously-that there was a place below assigned for him to occupy. In all probability, as I was talking to him in my own language, and not in his, this respectable individual did not understand me. I hoped that there would be some fair interpreter there to aid me, as I was speaking on behalf of the sex. Why do I say that he did not understand me? Because he never answered me-because he did not even look at me. I then told him that I should be under the disagreeable necessity of enforcing the standing orders of the House. Still he took no notice of what I said. Even after I had addressed the House, and the order |