The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-24 00:00:00

ASSESSED TAXES BILL.

This bill was read a second time.

In answer to Sir J. SHELLEY,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the exemption of four-wheeled carriages, used by tradesmen
exclusively intrude should be considered.

MALICIOUS INJURIES (IRELAND) BILL.

This bill passed through committee.

RECOVERY OF PERSONAL LIBERTY BILL.
Mr. PHINN proposed that the adjourned debate should
be further adjourned till July 13.
Mr. C. BERKELEY suggested that a commission should
issue, instead of the committee proposed by the hoc. and
loaned gentleman. If the Irish members would consent
to that course, would the honourable gentlemen also
accept it ?
Mr. PHINN would be happy to do so if that were
to by all parties, for he was not much in love with
agreed
proposition. (Cheers.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE suggested that the debate should
be taken on Wednesday, the 20th July.
- - - -

Mr. PHINN explained that communication had sines
been made to him to the effect that the proposition would
not be so much objected to if it were confined to the latter
part of it ; namely, that which related only to property.
That had been the question upon which he had himself
laid the principal stress. (Hear, bear.)
The motion that the de to be now adjourned was then
agreed to.
On the question that it be adjourned till the 20th July,
Mr. G. H. MOORE moved that it be adjourned till this
day six months, upon which the house divided :
For the amendment 95

Apitsit
The debate was therefore adjourned till the 20th of July.
_ _ BORO UG HOF SLIGO.

On the order of the day for resuming the debate on the
Leos of this writ,
Mr. M. GIBSON complained that the letter alleged to
have been written by Mr. Stoner, who had been (teetered
guilty of bribery, did not appear in the evidence. Ile
wished for some explanation of this omission.
Mr. MACARTNEY, a member of the committee, moved
that the debate should be adjourned till Tuesday next.
Mr. HINDLEY, another member of the committee, also
urged the adjournment of the debate, u the chairman of the
teemitbee was absent.
Kr. BOUVERIE opposed any further delay in the issue
gibe writ.
After some remarks from Mr. Narrate,
Mr. FITZGERALD said if the letter of Mr. Stoner had
been published, it would have disproved the charge of
bribery against him. He contended that there was no
ground for further suspending the writ.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY remarked on the irregularity of
Ike letter not being in evidence.
Mr. FILMER said that, u a member of the committee,
be begged to state that his decision upon the question before
Me easamittee was not founded upon any particular letter,
but upon the whole mue of the evidence.
Lord PALMERSTON said that he had on a former m-
ission advised that this matter should be postponed, be-
muse the evidence was not in the hands of members. Now,
however, the evidence was printed and before the house.
If there ware no proceedings to be proposed against the
borough itself, he thought that, according to the invariable
practice, the writ ought to issue.
Mr. VANCE complained that the evidence bad only
been in the hands of members about 24 hours. He, there-
fore, mend the adjournment of the house, in order
to give ben. gentlemen further time to consider this
question.
Mr. EVELYN thought that the writ ought to issue ; in
which opinion Mr. Wonnaly concurred.
Mr. BOWyER complained that there had been a mis-
t:rine (Ojai** in this case.
After a few words front Mr. P. O'Brien, Lord Claude
and Mr. V. Scully,
'OLEY said that no imputation rested on Mr.