The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-09 00:00:00

L PAHL

Lord PALMERSTON said that some great system
of drainage was absolutely necessary, and the question
was whether it should be done by private enterprise or
by the metropolis itself. , He thought if a private com-
pany were disposed to undertake it, it would be much
better to allow them to do so. Even when the works
projected by this company were executed, there would
still be a great sum needed for the repair of district
sewers. He did not believe that this guarantee
would be needed, but it was a matter for the considera-
tion of the committee, and he should, therefore, support
the second reading of this bill, without any adjourn-
ment.

Lord SEYMOUR supported the second reading of
the bill, because he thought that, if this greau work
could be carried out by a private company, it would be
an immense benefit to the metropolis. He had been in-
formed that to drain the north bank of the Thames
alone would cost about 1,500,0001., and he did not
think that was a burden which the metropolis would be •
readily brought to take upon itself.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY said he looked with some sus-
picion on this bill, because he had reason to believe that
it was backed up by the corporation of London, the
Commissioners of Sewers, and the Board of Health—.

the three great nuisances of the metropolis. (Hear.)
Believing that the ratepayers of the metropolis ought to
have time to consider this guarantee, he should vote for

he amendment.

After some remarks from Mr. V. Sculley, Mr. Divett,
and Mr. Cayley, the house divided, when there ap-
peared— _ ..

For the second reading lll
Against it

Majority ..

105

The bill was read a second time.

Mr. MACKENZIE presented a petition from the
working men of Liverpool against the opening of the
Crystal Palace on Sundays.
A great number of petitions were presented against
the admission of the Jews into Parliament.

Mr. MIALL presented a petition praying for
National Arbitration.

Mr. SPOONER presented petitions from Staffordshire
against the Maynooth grant.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the second reading of
this bill, which he explained was to remedy the defect in
the present law on the subject, by which no appeal is
allowed in convictions under 40s. The more immediate
cause of his bringing in this bill was a case of injustice
which had taken place in 1850, in the North of England,
in which the magistrate had made the penalty 11. 19s 6d,
in order that there might be no power of appeal. Other
cases had also come to his notice, some in the metro-
polis, which convinced him that the power of appeal
ought to be altered.

Sir G. GREY defended the conduct of the magistrates
in the case alluded to by the hon. member for Finsbury.
With regard to the bill, he thought there was no neces-
sity for it.

Mr. FITZROY opposed the bill on the ground that
the case to warrant it had not been made out. Persons
convicted under this act were in a much better situation
with regard to the right of appeal than any other. He
should, therefore, ask the house to reject this bill.
(LEFT SITTING.)

ELECTION COMMITTEES-(THIS .DAY.)

DERBY.

At the sitting of the committee this morning,
Mr. M. Smith announced to the committee that Mr.
Horsfall had determined to drop all opposition to this
petition, and withdraw himself from the representation
of Derby. The petition against Mr. Bass would also be
withdrawn.

Mr. Horsfall was then examined, and gave a most
emphatic denial to any knowledge of improper practices
during the election. He had given his party clearly to
understand that he would not sanction any illegal ex-
penses. He had transmitted 8001. to Derby, and out of
that 5791. had been paid for his expenses. He had re-
ceived the balance.

Mr. Fanshaw, the agent of Mr. Horsfall, was ex-
amined to a similar effect. He had drawn 5791. on ac-
count of Mr. Horsfall, to discharge his election expenses ;
all the expenses were legal. He had no knowledge of
any improper practices at the election. •
The room was then cleared, and the committee was
then deliberating on its resolutions when our report
left.

SECONDARIES' COURT.-( THIS DA Y.)

(Before Mr. Secondary Potter.)
PROST V. WISCOMBE.-A BILL TRANSACTION.

This was an action to recover the sum of 51., the ba-
lance due on a bill of exchange of which the efendant
was the acceptor.
Defendant pleaded payment of 81., and paid 21. 10s.
into Court on account of balance and interest.
_ _ _

Mr. Chidley, Gresham-square, appeared for defendant
in support of the plea, and called him to prove the pay-
ment of 11. to a person named Clarke, who held the bill,
and two similar sums to the plaintiff, and subsequently
51., the latter sum being indorsed on the back of the bill.
He denied that he had paid the 31. for time from month
to month.
Mr. Anderson, for the plaintiff, said he approached
the case with considerable difficulty, for he should have
to call the plaintiff, who would most positively contra-
dict the defendant. He should also call a gentleman
named Massey, who was a perfectly disinterested party,
and who would in the macn confirm the plaintiff, and it
would then appear that the 31. was paid to induce the
plaintiff to hold the bill over, as defendant was pressed.
Plaintiff was not the holder of the bill at the time it became
due, having paid it away to Clarke, but subsequently
took it up. Mr. Anderson contended that a party could
not at one time give a bonus to obtain time, and then
plead it as part payment.
The plaintiff was called, ard gat e evidence that two
or three days before the bill ,became due he told defen-
dant he did not hold it, but it was in the hands of
Clarke, and introduced defendant to him. He saw de-
fendant shot ay after, and the latter said that he had
settled with him to hold the bill over for a month, and
had paid him 11. to do so. Defendant afterwards paid
him L. for a further delay of a month, and another 11.
for a purpose. He admitted also the receipt of
51. on account, but denied that he had ever agreed to
take payment by instalments, and that the 31. was paid
on that account.

Mr. Henry Massey, an attorney at Edmonton, where
all the pai ties reside, said that he was instructed by
plaintiff to apply for payment, and he did so and
threatened proceedings unless the money was paid
before 12 o'clock the next day. He had spoken to
defendant previously on the subject, as defendant was
his client.

The Secondary said, that nothing said to witness as
defendant's professional adviser ought to be given in
evidence.

Witness, in cross-examination, denied that deferdart
ever told hi fa anything about the payment of the 3!.,
but he said that he did not care about the proceedings
as he should go through.
Mr. Chidley replied, and commented on the fact that,
supposing the plaintiff to have spoken the truth, the de-
fendant was paying 120 per cent. by way of bonus. He
did not believe that the jury would for a moment give
credence to such evidence, but that they would at once
give a verdict for defendant.
The Learned Secondary said that money was a mar-
ketable commodity; and if persons would be foolish
enough to pay exorbitantly for it, they must abide by
their bargain. The question for the jury was, whether
the 3/. had been paid as a bonus or on account of the
bill.
A juror asked what the bill was given for, and what
Clarke gave for it? and was answered that it was for
onsCullatarktieong,avgeav9el.a verdict for
goTodhse soldjury ,anadftewr oarkshdoortnec.
the defendant.

ENCOURAGEMENT OP SOLDIERS IN FRANCE. In
order to enhance the value of the new military medal,
the Emperor has decided that every soldier wearing the
medal shall be entitled to marks of respect from sentinels
of his own rank not so decorated. This mark of respect
is to consist in standing at attention, whether with arms
ported or grounded. Sub-officers and corporals having
the medal, are to receive regular military salutes from
soldiers. On the decease of any sub-officer, brigadier,
or soldier, decorated with the medal, he shall be entitled
to funeral honours from a quarter of a detachment. No
corporal, brigadier, or soldier can be cashiered except by
the minister at war. These new regulations are analo-
gous to those now applicable to military members of the
Legion of lionour.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(THIS DAT).
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
Mr. H. HERBERT reported, from the Southampton
election committee, that H. E. Bower, a witness sum-
moned before the committee, had misbehaved himself, by
refusing to give evidence, and he had, therefore, by the
direction of the committee, committed the witness to the
custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, to await the pleasure
of the house.

LONDON DRAINAGE BILL.
Sir B. HALL moved that the consideration of this bill
be postponed until the 6th of April.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS seconded the motion.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that the drainage of London
was a great public work, which must be carried out by
somebody. In ,answering a question on a former night,
the Secretary of &ate for the Home Department, said
that it very much depended on the success which this
great private company formed for the drainage of Lon-
don might have, whether the Government would bring
in a measure to enable the Commissioners of Sewers to
borrow money on the rates. This company proposed to
drain the metropolis by two great arterial sewers, the
expenses of working which were to be covered by the
profits of the manure which would be thus collected.
The guarantee clauses, by which the profits of the com-
pany, should they fall below it, were to be made up to 3
per cent. would be better considered in committee, and
he was not prepared to say that the company would
give up their project if this guarantee were rejected.
He should press the second reading now, in order that
the details might be considered.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought that the whole scheme
was ridiculous and absurd. He understood that the
manure when got would not be worth a farthing. He
should vote against the second reading of the bill when-
e)ver it was presented.
After a few words from Sir De Lacy Evans and Mr.
Sotheron,