The Express.
London, England, 1848-05-11 00:00:00

2~i~

Z

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNEADAY, MAY 10.
Tks SPRAEna took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE. BUSINEBR.
REPORT CONSIDERED.—LaverpooI Docks (EsteUon of Ware.
hour.. and Construction of New Works) Bill.
THIRD READlNGS.—llattleabeldge and Holloway-road Act Be.
peal i NaUosal Monument of Scotland Amendment; BBL.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.

FIRST READLNG.—Wientife ffoe4etles Bulldiogs (canimion from
owing; Bill.
COM MlTTEEl3.—Collectem of Cele (Ireland); Imprisonment he
Debt (Ireland); Bills.
PETITIONS.—Mr. G. BWIIXY, from revers' congregations of in..
dependents and Wesleyano, in the county of Gloucester (1), against
the sale of spirituous liquors on a Sunday.—Mr. from some
place in Northumberland, to the name effect. —Mr. It. Tonga, from
the corporation of York city, against the centralizing effect of the
Public Health Bill.—Mr. IL Baows, from the Odd Fellows' Society of
Tewkesbury, praying for • law granting them incorporation privi-
leges and rlghts.—Mr. R. Tongs, from the Archangel Society of Odd
Fellows, to the same effect.—Mr. Rayne:liar, from Warwickshire
(2), against the Diplomatic Itela.ions with the Court of itnme Bill,
am( the Roman Catholic Charitable Trusts Biß.—Mr. A. Seat roan.
from Northamptom‘hirc, against the lb iv Removal 13111.—Sir k IL
1i..1.11a, from a place in Oxfordshire, against the aiming= of Jew, Is
parliament.
NOTICES OF MOTlON.—lbiermArs—Mr. Ulltit•llAkT, an the
6th of June, again to bring forward his motion on the subject of
• British intervention in the affairs of Portugal.
AFFAI.OF L'aiiedawr, on the Scat supply night, to
bring forward a motion on the subject of the Spanish diplomatic cor-
respondence reoently laid on the table of the h use.
lihrgasun OF TIFF. C.XIiX l'Ollll5.—MF. I.7IMLEART, tomorrow
(this day), to put questions to the Foreign Secretary and the Attorneys
General relative to the blockade established against German porta by
Denmark.
PARLIAMENT OF IRELAND.
Mr. R. M. Fox, on behalf of Mr. J. O'Cotrxzt.t., post-
pnned the adjourned debate on thia motion until the Ist of
June.

THE COUNTING OUT OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. HUME appealed to the house whether such a pro-
ceeding as that adopted last night by the hon. member for
Sunderland, in counting out the house, was fair, at a time
when there were four cabinet ministers in their places. If
such proceedings were resorted to member. who had motions
independent of the government on the paper would have no
chance of ever Iningiag them forward.
Mr. FRENCH suggested that notice of`a count should be
given by ringing the bell. There were fourtcen members
dieing at the time the house was counted out last night, all
of whom would have come down.
Sir It. INGLIS said that the fairest muse was for each
member who had a notice on the paper to be in his place,
and then a house would probably be sectored.
SPANISH CORRESPONDENCE.

Mr. BANKES said he was in his place when the house was
counted out, and he sincerely joined in the expressions used
by the hon. member for biontr..se. He begged to renew his
notice of last night: viz., that on the next supply day he
should move a resolution, that this house learns with deep
regret, from the diplomatic correspondence now lying on the
table, thatsuch expressions as were therein contoured should
have been thought fit to have been addressed by the Span-
ish government to the British minister. He also would bring
forward on Tuesday next the bill for abolishing the Railway
Commission Act, which stood for last night.
Mr. URQUHART witndrew his notice of motion relative
to the Spanish correspondence, as the hon. member for Dor-
set had taken up the subject.
INCUIVBERED ESTATES (IRELAND).
Sir G. GREY, in answer to a question from Mr. Moxinu.r.
when this bill might be expected to be brought in, said, that
it was waiting for the third reading in the House of Lords,
after which it would be immediately brought forward in that
place.
COPY HOLD ENFRANCIIISEMENTS.
Mr. AGLIONBY asked when the promised measure for
enabling copyholders to enfranchise their holdings compulso-
rily was to be looked for?
Sir G. GREY said that the Lord Chancellor had taken
charge of the subject, and bad prepared a bill, but finding
that the rights of property were very seriourly affected by
the projected law he had taken some time to consider the
matter. He had reason to know that the subject had been
fully considered by his noble friend, and that a bill would
shortly be brought forward in the upper house.
PERPETUITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Sir D. NORREYS asked when the Perpetuities (Ire-
land) Bill was to be looked for ?
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that the bill was preparing,
and would soon be brought forward.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
Mr. URQUHART, in the absence of Mr. Anstey, moved
that this bill be postponed for a fortnight.
APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES.
Mr. EWA RT moved the second reading of this bill.
Sir G. GREY urged the expediency of postponing the
further progress of this bill until a measure which had been
prepared by Lord Campbell, and which was now in program
through the upper house, was before them ; some delay had
occurred in respect to taxing the evidence of the judges on
the clauses of the bill, but there would now be no further
hindrance to the bill in the upper house, and it would soon
be laid before them.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought the reason assigned for the
postponement of the bill of his hon. friend was a good one.
He could not, however, see why as appeal should not lodge
in criminal cues as well in respect to facts as to law, which
he understood the bill of Lord Campbell was confined to.
Sir G. GREY mid that Lord Campbell's bill did provide
for an appeal being lodged against the facts as against the law.
Mr. EWART was only anxious on public grounds to have
the question settled. He was willing to postpone his bill
according to the right hon. baronet's request.
QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS BILL.
The second reading of this bill was postponed until Wed-
nesday nest.
HORSHAM BOROUGH BILL.
On the order of the dsy for the second reading of this bill
being read,
. Sir G. GREY moved that it be postponed until the general
measure brought in by. the hon. baronet the member for
Flint, for a general inquiry into the cases of corrupt boroughs,
was in further stage of progress.
A conversation ensued, during which Mr. Bankes, Mr.
Newdegate, and Mr. A. Stafford objected to, and Mr. ume
and Sir J. Hanmer supported, the proposal to postpone the
second reading.
Mr. GORING gave notice that, if the second reading was
postponed, ne should tomorrow (this day) move that the
writ for Horsham do immediately issue.
Mr. HENLEY thought there would be great inconve-
nience and public scandal in postponing a bill which had
been brought in by the chairman of the Horsham committee,
and which was :intended to rsform abuses on which that
committee had expressed the strongest possible opinion.
Mr. HUDSON thought that the bill should be proceeded
with at once, or else the writ should be permitted to issue.
He should take the sense of the house on the question.
After an observation from Sir G. Gut's,
Col. SIBTHORP said that the conduct of the goer rnment
in this case was only a fresh instance of whig corruption.
He had often said "sweep" the treasury bench, but now
"scour" was the word—nothing less would serve the interests
of the country. (Laughter.)
Sir J. HANMER explained that his hill, which had been
alluded to, merely applied to those boroughs which 11,1 been
convicted of corruption.
Mr. SI'OONER objected to the postponement of the bill.
The cases of Iloreham and Great Yarmouth were precisely
parallel. Why then press one bill, and indefinitely postpone
the other ?
Sir G. GREY said that the cases were not parallel, neither
had the government pressed the Yarmouth bill forward.
They had adopted the same course as in the present case,
namely, to recommend: the postponement of the bill until
the bill of his hon. friend the member for Flint had been

considered.
The house divided—For postponement 56
Against it 37-19

Postponed accordingly.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL.

The house wont into committee on the above
Clause I,
Mr. HUDSON suggested that the inquiries contemplated
by this bill should take place on the spot where the trans-
actions to be inquired into had occurred.
The SOLICI COB-GENERAL could not concur with the
hon. member for Sunderland as to the expediency of local
inquiry. However, as the member for Newcastle had a
motion on the subject, perhaps the better way would be to
postpone the clause.
Mr. STUART concurred in the view taken by the hon.
member for Sunderland. At all events, discretionary power
ought to be given to the Lord Chancellor to refer questions
to a local tribunal in particular cases.
Mr. HAYTER defended the bill as it stood, and con-
tended that it would be impossible to get competent local
tribunals to decide intricate questions.
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the proposition of the hon.
member for Sunderland, and believed the public had more
confidence in the Court of Bankruptcy than in masters in
Chancery, who carried on their inquiries in private. If it
were desired that the bill should work well, discretion
should be given to the Lord Chancellor, to make the order
to refer questions arising under the bill to the Court of
Bankruptcy.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to the proposi.
tion, on the ground that in every contested case it would lead
to expense, and it might be to injustice. The Court of
Bankruptcy bad jurisdiction only in respect to the collection
and distribution of the estate. Other questions might arise
with which those courts would not be competent to deal.
Mr. HENLEY observed that it appeared that the authors
of the bill distrusted the tribunal they had selected, for they
proposed to alter the whole course of proceeding in the
master's office. He supported the suggestion of the hon.
member for Sunderland, on the ground that the Court of
Bankruptcy was the more fitting tribunal. He would, how-
ever, leave it to the discretion of the Chancellor, as to whe-
ther the matter should be referred to the Commissioner of
Bankrupts, or the master in Chancery. •
Mr. BAINES supported the amendment, considering that •
the Lord Chancellor should have a discretion.
Mr. M. GIBSON thought it better to leave the bill as it
was; but if the question were allowed to stand over, the go-
vernment would prepare a clause which they would propose
on the report, admitting the principle contended for—the
discretion of the Lord Chancellor. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. EWART spoke in favour of the amendment, as did
Mr. HUME.
Mr. W. P. WOOD opposed it, on the ground that the pur-
pose for which the bill was proposed was totally different
from those which, under the existing law, the courts of
bankruptcy bad jurisdiction over, and that it would give rise
to conflicting decisions on questions of equity.
Mr. HUDSON concurred in the arrangement proposed by
the hon. member for Manchester, and thanked government
for the concession.
The amendment was then withdrawn and the clause past`
pond.
Clauses 2 to 13 (excepting clause 6, which was struck oat)
L were then agreed to. On clause 14,
Mr. HUDSON (for Mr. lieadlam) moved to add, as a
proviso, " that no order absolute shall be made if it be
proved to the satisfaction of the court that the petitioner
had, st the tine of the preitatatios of the petifty be..