The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-17 00:00:00

NAVIGATION LAWS.

Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE gave notice that on Mon•
day he should ask when it was the intention of the
Noble Lord, Lord John Russell, to bring forward his
measure with respect to the navigation•laws?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he should not be
able on Monday to state the precise day on which he
should bring forward the measure, but he was then pre-
pared to say, that that measure would be introduced at
the very earliest period after the recess.
NEW ZEALAND.

Mr. LABOUCHERE, in answer to a question put on
a previous evening by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
Mahon), said that no dispatch had been received from
Governor Grey on the subject, with reference to which
the Noble Lord had put a motion on the table.
Lord MAHON complained that there was no assimi-
lation in the mode of laying papers before the House
pursued by the Foreign and Colonial officers, the former
officers giving the dates of the dispatches, which the
latter did not. He wished to know whether the officers
could not be assimilated in this respect.
Mr. LABOUCHERE had communicated with the
Secretary for the Colonies, and that Noble Lord had no
objection to urge against the same rate applying in the
case of the Colonial-office.
GOODS IMPORTED INTO SPAIN.

Mr. BANKES said that with respect to a
question asked of the Foreign Secretary last
night be did not see the Noble Lord then in the House ;
but as the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
and the President of the Board of Trade were in their
places, perhaps they could answer. He wished to know
if the Government had received any intimation from the
Spanish Government that that country had altered the
tariff on all goods imported into Spain from other
countries?

............„....
Mr. LABOUCHERE expected the Noble Lord in his
place presently, when he would answer the queslion of
the Hon. Member.

PUBLIC PROSECUTION IN CRIMINAL CASES.
Mr. S. WORTLEY begged to give notice that he
should put a question, on Monday, with reference to the
necessity of establishing a pablic prosecutor in criminal

cases.

Sir GEORGE GREY said that the question had
been under consideration but no definite plan had been
yet settled.
Mr. WAKLEY thought that the sooner a public pro-
secutor were provided the better.
CHELTENHAM ELECTION. _ _

Mr. WALPOLE, in moving the consideration of the
petition of Sir Willoughby Jones, Bart., M.P. (pre-
sented 14th December), alleging that the recognisance
entered into by the petitioners against the return, is not
in the form prescribed by the Act 7 and 8 Vic. c. 103,
and praying that no further proceedings may be had
upon the said petition, said that the recognisances en-
tered into on the case of the petition against the return
for Cheltenham was not in the form required by the
Act, inasmuch as the electors, who were bound, did not
enter into their recognisances severally as well as jointly.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman referred to precedents
in which the Speaker had decided Lthat costs could not
be paid in similar cases; and Lord Denman and Mr.
Justice Tindal had decided that as the pro-
ceedings in one of the cases had commenced
with a upon the' face of them, that they could not
be rectified. This opinion was also entertained by some
of the ablest lawyers in the courts, namely, Sir Fitzroy
Kelly, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Peacock, and Mr. Austin. Another
question—and it was an important one—was, whether
the decision of the examiner of the recognisances was
final or not?—(Hear, hear.) This officer gave two
certificates—first, that the recognisances entered into
Were in the form prescribed by the Act; and secondly,
that the sureties were sufficient. These were important
matters for the consideration of the House, as the
The on. ainiTELieg
pmaerattness
of
fnterested on the other side had no other
that the sureties were defective.
the appointment -aPrane—de-Me
Th
Member concluded by moving
the
aeatieetsafotTile b 1 ct Committee to inquire into
to the House. petition, and report upon the same
importantwas
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL much mistaken
if there was not a much more
Htehaer;i,heaafterinttheal:itts-:
On this subject than the question container
qtiuninrynwowas,bewfohreeththere
tHhoeynsceo.
House.—(Hear,
of the Act entertain jurisdiction of
mg any such
hear.) That was the
matter.—(Hear, question for
the consideration 0f the House, and he bitted that

they were not such a court as could entertain juris-
diction on the present matter.—(Hear, hear.) Either
by way of appeal or review. He asserted that upon two
grounds—first, on the general question; and, secondly,
upon the construction of the question upon the present
petition with reference to the Act of Parliament—
That House was a difficult and bad tribunal to try
difficult questions of law.—(Hear, hear.) What
was the object of the Act in some of its
principal clauses ? It was to withdraw from the
consideration of the House the consideration of ques-
tions that could be much better settled elsewhere.
He contended that under the circumstances of this case
the House had no power to interfere. The House had
delegated its authority in such cases to the Examiner of
Recognizances, and the House could not consistently
move in the matter. The Right Honourable Gentleman
then went on to read a number of similar cases where
the House had refused to interfere, and grounded his
opinion that it would be contrary to law if the House
departed from the rule established by these precedents.