Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-16 00:00:00

JI7DGNIENTS, &C., EXECUTION BILL.

The House went into committee on this bill.
Mr. Ayrton inquired whether the promoter of the bill
(Mr. Craufurd) had consulted the Attorney and Solicitor
General. the Attorney General for Ireland, and the Lord
Advocate, upon the provisions of the bill, and whether
there had been any consultation on the subject.
The Lord Advocate said there had been no conference.
He thought the bill was satisfactory as it stood.
Coigne! French thought it was useless to proceed with
the bill, which the legal authorities of the country, on
account of other duties, had been unable to consider. He
thought it was unadvisable and useless, at this late time
of the session, to waste another day in the discussion of
the bill, more especially as all the Irish lawyers were
away. He moved that the chairman do report progress,
and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. Headlam said that if there were any chance of
carrying the bill through he would support it, but he did
not think there was the slightest probability of passing it.
The committee divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion 33
Against it 53

Majority
The motion was therefore lost.
On clause 9 (to which point the committee arrived at a
previous sitting),
Mr. Maguire said, that if the hen. member (Mr Crau-
ford) showed pertinacity in persevering in the bill, the
Irish members would show equal pertinacity, for they
were determined that it should not pass this session (hear,
hear, and laughter.) There was a strong feeling amongst
the legal and commercial classes in Ireland against the
bill, and he should move that the Chairman do leave the
chair.

25

The Lord Advocate said he had never been able to see
that Ireland was placed in a worse position by this bill
than England or Scotland. He feared that in consequence
of the pertinacity of the Irish members there would be no
cbance of carrying the bill this session.
Mr. Spooner hoped the Lord Advocate would not go
away with the impression that the opposition to this bill
erne from the Irish members exclusively, As an English
member, he (Nlr. Spooner) had the strongest objection to
tho bill on commercial ground;. _ . _

Mr. M'Cann said he—would give his most determined
opposition to the bill, but he was willing to leave the whole
matter to the law officers of the Crown.
Mr: Watkin regretted that it should be in the power of
any members of the House thus to defeat a bill by factious
opposition. He believed this bill was a step in the right
direction ; but at the same time advised the hon. gentle-
tn (Mr. Craufurd) to withdraw it under the moral
coercion with which he was threat, ncd, with a promise.
however, he hoped from the Government, that it should
be introduced next session under their auspices.
_ _ _

Mr. Craniumd said, that atter the remarks of the Lord
Advocate, and the declarations of various hors. members,
he thought he would be pursuing the right course in
with irawing the bill for the present session. He should,
however, next year, make an attempt to carry through
his bill, which had received the support of all the law
officers of the Crown, and of the commercial community
generally.
The bill, after some further discussion, was withdrawn,