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

NEW ZBALAND.

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 ❑ot 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 he did not soe 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 nad 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 question 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 public 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 (that 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 blot 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
parties interested on the other side had no other
means of showing that the sureties were defective.
The Hon. and Learned Member concluded by moving
the
the aaPllpeogianttiemeesnetf heotfa Select Committee to inquire into
petition, and report upon the same
to the House.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was much mistaken
if there was not a much more important inquiry raised
.n this subject than the question contained
in
Thatthe peti-
ci mnow before the House.—(Hear,hear.)
(-Fairy was, whether they could then,
after the a
h in.
ID' of the Act entertain jurisdiction of
any suscsh-
tuatt3r.—(Hear, hear.) That was the question for
the consideration of the House, and he submitted 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
prineipal 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.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

BANK OF ENGLAND.
(From the night's Gazette.)
An Account, pursuant to the Act 7th and Bth of Victoria, cap. 32, for
the Week ending on Saturday, the 11th day of December, 1847.
ISSUB DM' ARTMEN T.

X.
NotQ, i3sued•• •• •• 24,769.686

Government debt .. 11,015,100
Other securities .. 2,984,900
Gold c•in and bullion 9,450,007
Silver bulliox .... • • 1,319,678

£24,769,685

£ 21.769.686
M. MARSHALL, Chief Cashier.
Dated the 16th day of December, 1847.