The Express.
London, England, 1860-06-16 00:00:00

SELLING AND HAWKING GOODS ON SUNDAY
BILL
_ . .

On the order of the day for the wood reading of this
DIGBY SEYMOUR nee to all the attention of the
Speaker to a question of privilne. There was a clause (the
11th) in this bill which provided that a certain part of the
penalties which alight be imposed should be paid over to
the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police or to the Chamber-
lain of the City of London, as the case might be, and cep
plied in aid of the expenses of the police. Now, he (Yr.
D. Seymour) understood that a considerable portion of the
cost of the metropolitan and City police was provided out
of the consolidated fund, and if that were eo, the bin was
one which would lessen the charges upon the public Exche-
quer. He believed that by resolutions which the house had
peened in the years 1831 and 1849 any measure of that
character should originate in the House of Common, and
not in the House of Lords, and he would therefore beg
leave to remind the house that if ever there was • time
when they ought to be jealous of their privileges in matters
of this kind, it was the time at which they had now arrived.
The resolution of 1831 was to the effect that before the
house pr seeded to a second reading of any money bill a com-
mittee should report to the house whether in any such bill
brought to this house from the House of Lords, or returned
by the House of Lords to this house with amendments,
whereby any pecuniary penalty, forfeiture, or fee
should be authorised, imposed, apppropriated, regulated,
varied, or extimmished, the ancient and undoubted
privileges of this house had been interfered with,
and if so that this house should originate such provisions.
In 1849 it was resolved that with respect to any bill such as
he had referred to this house would not insist on its ancient
and undoubted privileges in the following uses:—First,
when the object of such pecuniary penalty or forfeiture was
to secure the exertion of the act on the punishment or pre-
venting of offences; secondly, where secret fees were imposed
in respect of benefits taken or service rendered under the
act, and in order to the execution of the act, and were not
made payable into the Treasury or Exchequer, or in aid of
the public revenue, and did not form the ground of public
accounting by the parlies receiving the same either in re-
spect of deficit or surplus ; and thirdly, when such bill
should be a private bill for • local or personal act. He
thought the first of than resolutions apparently remove'
the strength of the resolution of 1831 to which he had re-
ferred, tut be thought the language of the second resolu-
tion applied to this case. This was a bill the opal, 'on of
which would indirectly be in aid of the public revenue, and
therefore the bill should be laid aside, and not entertained
by the house. (Hear, hear.)
The Smarm consulted with Mr. Bouverie and Mr. May
for • few minutes, and was apparently in much doubt as to
the question thus suddenly raised.
Mr. BRIGHT said it was very likely that the house
might riemeider that there was some force in the objection
that had just been made It was a pity the question had
not been brought under the notice of the speeker some time
before the second reading of the bill, in order that he might
have looked into the case and been fully prepared to give an
opinion in regard to it. But the hon. and learned gentle-
man was net to be blamed for that ; for his sagacity bad
only enabled him to discover the point since the Speaker
took the chair that evening. If it would be a convesience
to Mr. Speaker and the house be thought it would be
better not to proceed with the bill then—(bear, bear)—
but to adjourn the consideration of it for a few day*, in
order that the Speaker might have time to cousider the
matter tally. He (Mr. Bright) should have no objection to
the adjournment being for three months. (A laugh.) They
ought to be careful lest they should establish a precedent
which they might hereafter have occasion to regret. (Hear,
hear.) He would move that the order for the second
riad-
wg o the bill should stand adjourned until that day week.
The SPEAKER—I should certainly desire to be cowed
in any opinion which I might give upon • matter of this
sort, which appears to me to involve rather • nice die.
fanatics. (Hear, hear.) As it in very deniable that nothing
should be said without due consideration, I should cer-
tainly prefer the opportunitT that would be afforded by an
adjournment. (Hear, hear.
Mr. H. D. SEYMOUR said the objection had only cc-
*erred to him while the Speaker was in the chair, or he
should certainly have consulted him first. (Hear, hear.)
Lord R. MONTAGU did not object.. to the adjournment
of the bill, but thought that the objection taken was un-
founded. The fines imposed by the bill were not made
payabie into the Treasury, or the Exchequer, or in aid of the
public revenue. At the same time, if the Speaker wished
for time to consider the question, he would move that the
debate be adjourned for a fortnight.
The adjournment was then agreed to.
TITHE COMMUTATION BILL.

This bill having pissed through committee, the house
resumed.
LAW OF PROPERTY BILL.

This bill was considered as amended, and the amendments
Were seated to.
TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRE-
LA.ND) BILL
The home went into true on the above bill.
Clausen 8 and 9 were agreed to, and
The CHAIRMAN reported pogrom.
THE LOCAL BOARDS OF HEALTH, &c.,
. . . . .

This bill as amended passed through committee, and was
"Mt4tto the house.
eeel Government Supplemental Ball passed through
committee.
SUPPLY.

TaThe report of the Connlite4T4 Supply wu brought up
greed to.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS JURISDICTION BILL _

The Lords' amenihnenta to this bill were considered and
agTeed to.
PETMONS OF RIGHT BILL.

The Lords' amendments to this bill were ►lso agreed to.
The house adjourned at one o'clock.

tab) Entelligenct.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Jairs 15.

Sittings in Banco after Tenn.—(Before the Lord Chid
Justice, Xr. Justice Wigbtman, Mr. Justice Crumples,
and Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
ABHWORTH V. STALTIVIE AND ANOTHER.

This was an action tried before Mr. Justice Blackburn, at
the summer assize in the last year for the county of Dur-
ham, when a verdict passed foe the plaintiff for Zit, subject
to the point that under the circumstances no llabslty
at to the defendant Stainwiz.
. .

The defendants Stabil/ix end Welker were joint pos-
sessors of • coal-pit. &Mewl: wan • sleeping partner;
while Walker was not only • joint posmesor of the pit, but
he actually worked at it as • thalia. On the 16th of
April, 1859, the plaintiff, who is an old man upwards of
sixty, came to the bottom of the shaft to be taken up, and
as he was about to ascend without waiting for being
trailed from above, a plate or rail connected with the
machinery or tackle at the mouth of the pit fell upon him,
sad injured him, as be alleged, for life. The jury found
that Walker bad been guilty of negligence in allowing tele
plate or rail to fall over the mouth of the pit, and Mims&
ea Walker would be unable to pay any damages, it became
desirable to change Biainwix, his partner, with the conse-
quences of such neglect Of course if it alker were merely
• fellowwerrant of the plaintiff, the proprietor of the on
wouldsot be liable for any consequences arising from his
between himself and a fellow-servant, pro-
-12.117e as
was originally • fit selection, and provided the
accident arose out of their common employment. But here
the effort wee to take the case out of the ordinary rule on
the ground that Walker wag not only a fellow servant of
the plaintiffs, but likewise pert posameor of the colliery. It
was proved that Walker lad notice that the plate was
limes, sad if so, notice to him wan notice to his partner.
Mr. 01111111 d, Q.C., smeared for the plaintiff, and showed
muse spinet the rah ; Mr. Davidson (with him was Yr.
blanisty,.Q.C.) was in support of it.
The point being a novel one, the court took time to con.
aider its judgment.

!SUDDEN r. BELLER.
This was en action by a widow against a Mr. Charles
Belleny, the clerk to a tmanl of guardians in the county of
Durham, for negligently causing the death of her husband,
through the discharge of a gun which the defendant WY
Carßientry had found a verdict for the plaintiff, giving her
1001. for herself, and WI. a piece for each of four children.
A rule having been obtained to spat this verdict, on the
ground that it was against evidence, it came on to be argued
this day.
It appeared that the defendant and his two sone, together
with the deceased and another man, were returning one night
from shooting, when they fell in with two poachers. A
dog belonging to the poachers having bees shot, sad rough
work being feared, it wan determined for safety sake that
the younger Hallways should yield up their guns to the
father, who would thus have to carry three guns. Before
the guns of the sous were handed to the defendant they
were supposed to have been examined by the deceased, who
declared that the hammers were down. Going along, by
some widest or other, one of the guns went off, and the