The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-09 00:00:00

LW thought that althorigh the sum of men y'
• it rialinidoolim the present be quite enough.
Y would contract the powers given by tse
dens; le the imenset possible limit.
After • few words from Mr. OTatutttt and Sir B.
Fonousox in nipport of the clause,
Mr. HAMILTON withdrew his amendment.
The Eat of LINCOLN hoped the attorney and solici-
tor-generale would direct their attention to the 7th clause
(which gave the government the power at r6tag lead if de-
fault was made in payment), with a view. to sans ••••ifiga.
tion, or otherwise be should, on bringing up this
stove to omit the latter part of the clause (Ma the
"meeting."
The clause was then agreed to.
On chow 6 being proposed,
Mr. GROGAN moved in line three, after the wore "&y
courtesy," the insertion of the words "or any penmen 40.
powered by law to embank and reclaim lands fro= dm ame
Three or four companies, in the improvement of hathome,
had inclosed land reclaimed from the see, which had he.
come most fertile, and he celild not conceive of
manner in which unskilled labour =ski be ;pre prolley7
employed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER mid
object of the hos. member was to mash= the sempimile GIP
which he bed referred to borrow money ler lihe pinnate Me*
rying their private acts into operaties. Buck &pretreat&
wee opposed to the whole sprit of the bill, and he must,
therefore, oppose it.
After a few words from Lord G. BINTINCIL,
Mr. GROGAN withdrew his amendment, and the dales
was agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 17 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 19, "Commissioners to call a meeting and hear
objection',"
The Earl of LINCOLN complained that this clause gave
the commissioners the power to hear and determine open
matters of right, which should be decided by the Court of
Chancery.
Mr. MONAHAN observed that, so far from its being left
to the commissioners to decide upon matters of nee, it was
expressly provided that the Court of Chancery should deter.
mine who was the proper party to apply as owner under the
act.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no
objection to take the words of the Million Act of last year,
if there was any doubt as to the meaning of the proviso m it
stood.
The claws win agreed to.
The several clauses, down to 25 inclusive, baring beim
agreed to,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. (at the suggestion
of Lord G. Bettina and other hon. 'Ramberg) consented=
alter the proviso of clause 26 irom 300/. to 5001. The elan=
enacts that every loan shall be issued by instalments, "pm.
Tided always that no one instalment of any such loan gala
any case exceed the sum of 3001."
The clause, as amended, was agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 43 were agreed to, with few observations.
On clause 44,
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN objected to the principle of the
clause. He thought it extremely unjust that either the
landlord or tenant should have the power of imereine the other.
Mr. BELLEW thought if the clause was omitted, the
bill would be of little use.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 60 were agreed to.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, as were also
the schedules.
Lord NEWRY proposed a clause to enable trustees and
tenants for life to lay out their own money in the improve-
ments of their estates.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected le
the clause es not within the mope of the present bill. The
clause was then withdrawn.
Sir R. FERGUSON moved a clause to give power to
exchange lands.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no ob-
jection to the principle of the clause, but could not consent
to insert it in the present hill..
The Earl of LINCOLN hoped that the object of the
clause would be embodied in a separate bill.
The clause was than withdrawn.
Mr. 8. O'BRIEN proposed certain clauses of which be
bidArer brief given
no.conversation the climes were withdraw%
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCEEQIIER promising that they
should receive his attention.
The house then resumed,—the report to be received en
Wednesday.
GALWAY ELECTION.
Mr. 8. O'BRIEN presented a petition against the return
of Mr. Monaghan for the borough of Galway, from the
agents of the opposing candidate; and praying for a ma-
mittee to inquire into the matter. The petitioners com-
plained that though the affidavit of the sureties was properly
drawn up, the examiner of recognisance' refused to
endorse it on the ground that it contained a flow. The
question was whether the expression " being worth 5001.t'
was a legal expression. He understood the recognisantes
could be put in suit, and, therefore, the forms of the house
had been complied with. The examiner had refined to take
the affidavits of the sureties in consequence of the form of
expression used, the words " seized or possessed " being
omitted. He had to request that time be allowed to the
parties to amend their recognisance" and &Aden= ; and ho
begged to move that the time for presenting the petition ire
extended.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the decision of the
examiners was decisive, and the house could not interim*.
The act 7 and 8 Viet., e. 103, directed that
should be entered into, and that the sureties @Tod eniti
ee
nne
that they were seised or possessed of real or personal pro-
petty to a certain amount. It was intended that the &a-
non of the examiners of recognisance' should be final. A
case in point occurred in 1641, when Lord W. Paget was re-
turned for Caroarvon, in conjunction with Mr. B. tingle",
a petition was the consequence, and it was then decade*
against the petitioner on the same grounds.
Mr. M'CARTHY thought the prayer of the petitieft
ought to he complied with. A cue was reported in
ling's Reports" where a person was admitted as ban whir
merely stated that he was worth the required sum.
Sir R. PEEL said the great object of the act (which he
had introduced) was to prevent appeals to the home from
the decision of the examiners. The act stated expressly that
a man should swear he was possessed of personal estate to
the amount of 5001.; and therefore the party had not ful.
filled the intentions of the act. He thought that, under the
eirculeatancea, the house could not afford the petitions= say
relief.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL supported the prayer of the
petition.
Mr. 8. O'BRIEN contended that the house, in rehash*relief,
relief, was shutting out justice on mere technical grounds.
He would not divide the house. The motion was negatived
without a division.
The house adjourned at 2 o'clock. •