The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-17 00:00:00

THE HOUSE OP CO.VNONS AND THEIR
DINNERS.

This morning was issued the usual grave report
from the Select Committee on the kitchen and refresh-
ment rooms of the House of Commons. These rooms,
the committee say, are inadequate for the requirements of
the members. Up to the end of May 6,412
dinners have been served to members. On seve-
ral evenings upwards of 200 members have dined,
" and many others who had intended to dine have
been (*opened from want of room to go elsewhere." A
new plan suggested by Mr. Berry for improving the ac-
commodation, namely, by converting the present confer-
ence and adjoining committee-rooms into a large dining-
room
for both houses of parliament, in lieu of their pre-
sent separate dining-rooms, which could be used for tea-
rooms or for other purpcsee. is considered by the com-
mittee mittee preferable to any yet produced.
The "proceedings of the committee" form a part of the
report in the usual mode of parliamentary records. Some-
times we are simply told, " The committee deliberated ;"
but at others we are allowed a glimpse at their
deliberations. Thus at one meeting it was resolved
" That the wine-mereba.nts should be restricted to supply-
ing only three varieties of each wine, with the exception
of sherry, of which four varieties may be sent." At an-
other meeting, attended by four members, three of whom
were Scotchmen and the fourth an elderman of the city of
London, " the committee deliberated" and finally resolved
"that Meson. Tod-Heatley and Co. be requested to supply
Cos d'Betournel claret." Some little excitement appears
to have been caused at some of the meetings of the com-
mittee by a complaint from the ufllcer of wm r',.• relative to
the use made of the hot plate in the kitcher. Large tires,
it is said, were put oe the top of the over nstead of
under it. But this appears to have ended am eddy in 'he
board giving directions for a broiling stove to le t rovided.
A note was conscientiously made rf the foe', and duly
transferred to print, that on the 29th ult, a letter was re-
ceived from Mr. Carnegie complaining of ti e I rice charged
at the bar for brandy and seltzer water. Colonel French
was in the chair at all the sittings but taw, wl en h;a place
else supplied by Mr. Dalgliali.

LAW INTELLWEAct.

(Tills 1).%1.,

EQUITY COI•IlT.
(Defer* ttte lasesiChanorllor am) the Tamils Juoi
CSITCIP STATZ...I AMLNIk A
Their Lordship. gave judgment in thi, e.t.t. (4..1 e
It was au appeal by the (dainties fro ii
of Vice-Chancellor Wood, who had ;,(1„„..1
mutter to the bill the f II c,
under
The bill was hied by the Unit Ail ,d
purpolc of estaliliali ing their right t•i roil .11 aud ot
in this country, which bad been consig, .1 fhtii,,,• tie
lion, by the Confederate govi .mia
.oel weie
claimed as State property by the I sta., I, .
bill the plaintiffs said they ha•l new di......aer• I
the defendants' firm, Meatus. 'rams, Tr.
Co., had from the commencement of •
been the recognised financial agents ..f the
States in England. and that in each cap.. fly
tonsive.lealings with the Confederate states,
calved, in addition to the cotton, the ”ildect of a t . • :
suit (The United States r. l'rioleau I. ditto. shim,
and goods, which hail formed part of the it
or which they claimed in their public e..,..iciti, ai.i• •
otherwise. As the plaintiffs' claim wan ii,.t th 4
an
real owners of all the public propett of the lat. Cot!..te.:
rate States, the bill prayed that .in Remota TM .1.
taken of all money., and goods. and ste
other shire which had at any time crime him the ru.t.ly
of the defendants as agents or tnistees of the
States, and that the defendants w:gl.t lie (mkt.' t.,,
or deliver whatever, on taking such account, shin • ( I e
found due from them, or in their pusni,lon
The defendants demurred upon the pound that so in:
dividual state officer, or member of the exec Incr. win
could be called upon to give discovery mem a one. 1,1
hail been put forward un behalf of the ['lntel
The Vice. Chancellor, in allowing the denim
that if be were to allow that great an I powerful ndi q
called the United States to sue in that name sinip!y,
without putting forward any person against arb.iin relief
by way of discovery could be obtained upon a cro,s 141.1*
should he conceding to them tin advent:l;e enjoyed h.„. no
other suitor in that court. No imestiou anise as to th,ir ,
right of suit in this country, but simply as to the tons
which they must sue. It was clear upon autliordy that
the form adopted was wrong. and on the ground that t,,e
defendant was entitled to have soave
to him from whom he could obtain that discovery to tiliat
in common justice he was entitled, the demurrer mut be
allowed.

The Lord Chancellor said the question in this ease me
whether the United Mates of America were tenth'',
bring in a suit in their own 08111 e for mans. owl 4.
asserted to be their property, and which had come in'oth
defendants' hands. }le was of opinion that the court
bound to take judicial notice of the exis mice of the
States as a sovereign power, and that the name in wlmilm
they had sued was their correct title. As was ols
served in the court below, the question was to
whether the United States could institute a suit here, El;
in what mode they could properly sue. The tiefendara
counsel went so far as to contend that the proper turtle
proceeding would have been for the suit to hove hut
brought in the name of the President. The Vice-ci,
oellor did not take that view. If, then, the Preddest s;
not the proper person to site, what other mole could is
resorted to of prosecuting their rights in a foreign mummy,
but that of suing in their own names. He (the Lel
Chancellor) was unable to appreciate the distinction wk.*
bad been made in the course of the argument between'
republic and a monarchy. When a monarch seed, In at)
so, not as representing the state, but as having all thm
rights of the state vested in himself, whereas in the c-me
I of a republic those rights were the ptnperty of the it.,,
It was held in the court below that the plaintiffs Im-e
being a republic, there must be joined with them as co-plz.
tiff some person who would be capable of giving discuti
Ito the defendants. He was not aware, however, the s
person was disabled from suing in that court, bee. ma
they could not get discovery from him. If it were so. as
result would be that a republican government meld at
sue without potting forward as a co-plaintiff some prm,s
who was ocgnisant of the whole matter, and yet had se
interest in it, and thin would be contrary to the fleetest;
the joining as plaintiff of a Person having no interest in to
subject matter of a suit. to injustice could be into-id
by permitting the United States to sue in their own n.r.,e,
because the defendant, if he should wish to obtain .s.
covery, could apply to the United States for the nano of
a person capable of giving discovery, and in the ever of
his application being refused, the Court of l'hancerye.l4l
have the power of staying all proceedings in the c
until it was complied with. Time order of the Vice-o.m
miler must therefore, in his opinion, be reversed, aid
the demurrer overruled.

Lord Justice Turner concurred in the opinion espre.ed
by the Lord Chancellor. There could be no doubt that
in the CAW of a republic the public property retusine. is
the State, and the State was the proper person to
institute proceedings. An American corporation could sue
in this court in its own name and certainly the state itself
could not be considered in a worse po.itioit than a corpora-
tion which had been created by it.
Lord Justice Lord Cairns also concurred. la the case el
a republic diplomatic intercourse was held with the slate
and in it the public property was seated. He was dearly
of opinion the demurrer must be overruled.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Palm Waal
THE UNITED !MATES foF AtIEEII r. PRl.oltAr

This was a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs, the l'o.ited
States, that the defendant Prioleau, who had bees, by
order of 26th July, Die hi, appointed receiver of the
bales of cotton, end represented by k BIM of 20,00101. is the
order mentioned, might be discharged from his Oboe,
and for consequential directions. The ground of
the motion was that Prick:au was • mender
of the firm of Fraser, Trunbolm, and Co., who hire
lately announced themselves unable to meet their engne-
menu. On the :fifth of December last it will he review-
bored the court discharged the defendant Prioleatis
sureties, on the ground that as the United States hal
not answered the cross bill nor filed an affidavit es to docu-
ments, it was unjust that a sum should be tied up any
longer for the purpose of providing for the liabilities of the
sureties. An affidavit of the defetokut "riolesu, tiled ea
this occasion, stated that in the 'fiat, a of the I:ltn of Jane
there appeared a paragraph, in the letter of the
delphia correspont eel t, stating that in the United States
District Court of Charleston is bill had been filed h the
United States Attorney against Kuhn, Prioleau, TA*.
holm, and others. members of the firm of Frwer and Co.,
charging them with violating the laws of the United
States in blockade running, and claiming tlid in other
respects they were answerable to the government,
and that the court heard the case and granted
• preliminary injunction, rentniining them fees
disposing of the real estate they held. Further,
that these gentlemen were said to be the owners of areas
part of the city of Charleston. The defendant went on to
say that he bad not been able to confine the :dose rgatet,
which must have been sent from Charleston to Mils.
delphia by telegraph ; but he believed it to he tree be-
cause certain members of his firm who hail been sane
mimed to Washington professedly for the rue
pose of giving evidence before the committee ler
the impeachment of President Johnson, instead d
being asked questions affecting the condii.l of de
president, were subjected to a scorching ccamiltattel
with reference to their own private affairs, and
as defendant believed with a view to the institutiou el ths
above-mentioned proceedings. He said that the value d
the property affected by the injunction consideraldre
ceeded 100,01601., and was the same as that which was IM
subject of this suit.
Mr. G. Y. Geffen!, Q.C., and Mr. Wickens supported*,
application ; Mr. W. M. James. Q.C., Mr. Kay, QR., No.
Charles Hall, and Mr. Benjamin opposed it.
The Vice-Chancellor said that no mute had been made le
disturb the conclusion which was art ived at in December
last, when the court must be understood to have been fant
cognisant of all the facts. Two pain age. the court has
thought it right that this fund should he kept in iinsho, a
order to meet the claims of the plaintiffs, the United States.
It was then thought prepaid() that half of this seas el
20,000/. might lie coining to the plaintiffs .ifkr s doling
the lien of the defendant Then the cross bill was filed,and.
inasmuch as the court thought that it might have been
answered and discovery made by the (*tilted States in the
course of hut year, when in December an appliiation was
made to discharge the defendant's aura tit* and leave the
fund to be secured by his recegnizances alone, it ess
thought unreasonable that the defendant's hands should
be fettered any longer, and that he should lut compelled
to keep this fund locked up to satisfy the liabilities of his
sureties. The court was of opinion that the defendant
ought to be allowed to deal with it up.. his own sole secu-
rity, nobody having alleged that a pan,:l, farthing was due
to the United States government. Under the cumuli-
stances, his honour thonglmt he might nut take any
further step in this matter, or to 'immune the embarrar•
manta of this firm, which appeared to lw sinking under the
pressure which had been put upon it ; anti he et""i them'
fore, refuse the motion, with costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings in Banco.—Htefore Lord Chief Justice. Dorill sad
Justices Willem, Keating, and Smith.
APPLICATIONS AGAINST sHAIII:HoLDERS.
This morning several application% were ni ale to the
court for perrniwn to issue writs of ache Luisa against
individual shareholders, so as to obtain payment from
them of debts due by companies in which they were share,
holders. Such a course of proceeding is extremely elm
sive, for in some instance. upwards of a score of shat.'
holders have been proceeded again 4 at oncv by an Mil*
creditor, and the practice is that the proceedings shoat*
be in the nature of a separate action against each
india-
dual shareholder. Some attempts have been made, but in
vain, by the court to mitigate this expense, and their
lordships have on several occasions drawn attention to the
desirability of having some better remedy provided.
The Lord Chief Justice now said that there wan a bill
before the House of Commons, which had some refereem
to this matter, and he was perfectly certain that with very
alight amendment provisions might be made which would
be very much for the benefit of creditors of companies 10
of shareholders also ; and he hoped that some steps would
be taken to insert clauses to effect that object.