The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-21 00:00:00

MILLBANK PRISON.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid on the table several
doeu.ments and reports in reference to this establishment.
CONFERENCE WITH THE COMMONS.

The following Noble Lords were then appointed to meet the
Commons in Confer-nce on the Bill already named :—The
Earl of Minto, Earl Spencer, Earl Dacie, the Bishop of Ox-
ford, Lord Ponsonby, Laird Churchill, and Lord Monteagle.
The members of the deputation then withdrew, and after an
absence c f about five minutes, returned.

_ .
The Earl of MINTO, approaching the table, said the
Commons had submitted to them the reasons why they dis-
sented from certain amendments made in the Bill in their
Lordships' House.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE then rnnyed that the
House do not insist on the amendments referred to, which
was agreed to.
Their Lordships immediately after adjourned.

HOUSE OF C0M,310.N S. August 2(:),
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
DUKE OF NORFOLK'S ESTATE BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
CORK AND WATERFORD RAILWAY.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were agreed to.
Caledonian Railway (Clydesdale Junction Railway Deviations).
Glasgow and Belfast Union Railway.
London and South-Western Railway (London-bridge Ezterir
sion).
lklictropolitan Sewage Manure Company.
Sion College Estate.
Taff Vale Railway.
XEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE AND CARLISLE BRANCH
RAILWAY.
On the Lords' amendments to this Bill being proposed,
Mr. JOHN ABEL SMITH opposed their adoption, and
said that! the company had, through five or: six! Acts
which they had obtained from Parliament, power
to raise, by shares, the sum of 915,0001., and by loan,
$35,000/.; but in 1844, the company bad raised the enormous
sum of 741,000/. by loan. This it was true had been reduced
in 1845, by a large sale of shares, but the money obtained
thereby, instead of being applied to the reduction of the debt,
had been ,lamed to the account of profit and loss, so as to in-
grease the ~value of the property in the hands of +he proprie-
tors. Now, with this enormous debt, this was anything but
right, and he felt—not' having the slightest interest one way
or the other—that it was but his duty, as a Member of Par-
liament, to bring it under the-consideration of the House, in ,
order that there aright be a proper inquiry before this Bill
Was: passed.—(Hear, and cheers.) But there was another
and, as be poneeivgd, most flagrantly disgraceful transact*,

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill, which wens
cgreed to. and ordered to be reported.
CUSTOMS' DUTIES (No. 2) BILL.
nn the motion that this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. HUME hoped that during the recess Government would
institute an inquiry into the duties performed by Custom-house
officers, and he proposed next session to recommend some re-
duction in the expense of that establishment. He trusted, too,
that in future the appointment of Custom-house officers would
not be under political influence, but be dependent upon the
merits of appointees for the situation they proposed to fill.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL,
This bill was also read a third time and passed.
SMALL DEBTS COURTS' (SALARIES OF
OFFICERS) BILL.
The report on this Bill was brought up by Mr. Gautax
and agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed.
SMALL DEBTS BILL.
On the question being put for going into Committee on this
Bill,
Lord G. BENTINCK said this Bill was of too much irn •
portance for them to go into Committee upon it without hearing
some further statement from the promoters. He was aware
that this was a measure which originated with the late Govern-
ment, and her Majesty's pi esent Ministers had obtained it by in-
heritance. The measure bestowed more patronage upon the Go-
vernment than any re her measure that had been brought in for
some time past. Ile thought at this period of the session,
when there were so few Members left in the House, they
%sere entitled to have it delayed till a complete exile-
nation was given of how the patronage was to
b • bestowed, mad of the whole extent of expense
that would be brought upon the country by this measure.—
( Hear, bear.) There was a power in the second clause of the
Bill to divide every county into so many districts that might
seem fit to her Majesty's Ministers in Council assembled. Now
they ought to know the number of districts into which such
county in England was to be divided. As the Bill stood at
present, it appeared that each district was to have its separate
judge, and each judge was to have a salary of 1,200/. a year, their
,ppointment to he in the patronage of the Lord Chancellor of
England. Each court etas to have a clerk, with a salary of
600/. a year ; and each court was also to have a treasurer,
but no amount of salary was devised for this last office. It
was left to the discretion of the Commissioners of her Majesty's
Treasure to decide how many treasurers there should be, and
what amount of salary they should receive.—( Hear, hear.) It
acv commonly supposed that the number of districts would, in
,i 1 probability, be not less than a hundred. He had learned,
since he had entered the House, from the Honour.
able and Learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General,
that he estimated that the number would not exceed
sixty-five. Well, he would take the numberef courts at sixty-five.
There would be 65 judges at a salary of 1,2001., which would
.mount to a sum of no less than 78,0001. Sixty-five clerks,
vett a salary of 600/., would amount to 39,000%, and
-hese two sums together would amount to 117,063/.,
Is the patronage to be disposed of by the Minister
•f the Crown. --(Hear, hear.) The salaries to be given to the
• reasurers were to be left to the discretion of the Lords Com-
mivioners of the 'freasurv. Here, then, there was no
limit to the salary of the treasurers; and, therefore,
he thought they ought to hear what was the limit to
he put upon the salaries of these treasurers, or the
'limber there was to be of them.—( Hear, hear.) There were,
however, other considerations connected with this measure which
reodered explanation necessary. These judges were, for in-
stance, to be pint by fees, while one provision of the Bill pro-
.r dud that the judges of these Courts were to perform many
duties belonging to the High Court of Chancery. They would
Save the power of acting as Masters in Chancery and Masters
of the superior courts of law, and for their services they were
to be paid fees in addition to their salaries. These
fees would be paid in diminution of the fees
that were now paid in the Court of Chancery.
New, the expenses of the Court of Chancery he thought, in
round numbers, amounted from 134,000/. to 135,000/. This
-urn was wade up to the Consolidated Fund by the fees
said into the Court which used formerly to be paid to
its officers ; but if these fees were to be diminished
tn the manner he had just mentioned it was right
hey should know it was proposed to make up the
ietieiency to the Consolidated Fund.--(Cries of " Hear,
'ear.") Then, again, there was to be compensation given to
el officers of the new courts now subsisting. There were at
his moment 450 courts of diff rent descriptions, which, for
anything they knew to the contrary. might be superseded by
toe new courts to be evahlished by this Bill —( Hear.) Now
.f tleese 450 courts were to be abolished, all the officers who
lid het choose, or had not the option given to them, of taking
ffices in the new courts, would he entitled to compensation.
at the discretion of her Majesty's Lords of the Treasury.—
i Hear, heat:) Now he thought they ought to hear from
Ministers what would be the amount of all this compen-ation,
in order that they might have some sort of notion
-.hat the expense would be of carrying this Bill into
effect.—( Hear, hear.) He had no charge to make
gainst Ministers, who had come by this Bill arel all its
advantages in the course of inheritance. Their was, to be
sure, this difference made in the Bill since it had
come into their hands, that the patronage was to
he given to the Lord Chancellor, and not to the
first Lord of the Treasury.—( Hear, hear.) Much might
be said in favour of this change, but at the same time it was
matter for grave consideration whether or not they should put
into the hands of any Government additional patronage to the
extent of upwards of 117,000/. There were many
matters of detail in the Bill which he objected to.
but he should not trouble the House upon them till
they got into Committee on the Bill. He objected,
for instance, to the despotic power which the Bill gave
to the judges, but he should leave all this for
cemment in Committee, and, in conclusion, he could only
say that he thought this measure was of too much import-
ance—gave too much patronage to the Government—to be
disposed of when the great majority of Members were not
present.—( Hear.)
Sir GEORGE GREY said the Noble Lord had told
them this Bill was a legacy left to the pre-
sent Ministry by the- late Government, but so many altera-
tions had since been made in it that it might be said to be a
new Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The Bill in its new shape had gone
before the country, and he believed it was generally approved
of. Weed no remonstrance had been made against its
principles, and the objections to some of its de-
tail could easily be got rid of in Committee. —(Hear, hear. )
The amount of fees in the courts to be established by this Bill
would depend upon the amount of business. It would not be
necessary to divide every county in England. 1., fact, in some
parts, two or three counties might form t he district of one court,
whereas, such densely 'populated counties as Lancashire and
Middlesex would have to be divided for the purposes of this
Act. In case the amount of busineis should turn out
to be very large, the Home Secretary would have
the power of limiting the salary of the judge to
1,2001 , in some cases the salary might be much less.
then as to the patronage to be conferred by the bill, he thought
that the best hands in which it could be placed were those of
the Government and the lieutenants of the different
counties. (Hear, hear.) As the Noble Lord Lad
himself said, it would be much better to postpone
any further discussion of the merits of this Bill till it was in
Committee ; and when it reached that stage he ( Sir George
Grey) would be prepared to explain its objects more fully. The
judges of the present local courts for the recovery of small
debts would stand a better chance of being appointed judges
of the courts to be established by this Act than any other new '
candidate.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to compensation, the
same rules would be acted upon as had been hitherto adopted
by the Treasury in similar cases.—(Hear, hear. )
Mr. MANNERS SUTTON said, that although the late
Government had introduced a measure similar to this, there had
been several changes since that period, which placed great
difficulties in the way of their carrying out this Bill.
He thought that there este great danger in placing such a vast
amount of patronage as this Bill would create in the
hands of the Government. The Bill of the late Govern-
ment had iu it a clause which would prevent any
abuse of patronage, and he did not think that the Government
had acted rightly in excluding that clause from the Bill.
Although he much preferred the Bill of the late Government,
he did not intend to impede this Bill by any opposition on his
part.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the Hon. Gentle-
man who hat just sat dawn was mistaken in supposing that
the Bill of the late Government would have placed the patron-
age which it would have created in the hands of the lord-
lieutenants of the counties. It professed to do so, but did not
it fact. The patronage would really have been in the hands of
the Government by their Bill, and he (the Attorney-General)
thought that the present Government were entitled to credit for
having come torwaid, and plainly said that they did intend to
seek tor the patronage which this Bill would create,—(hear. )
With respect to compensation to the judges of the present
courts, he contended they were not entitled to compensation,
because they had no vested rights in the office.—( Hear, hear )
But ample compensation would, notwithstanding, be given to
ry one whom the Bill might injure, -and that compensation
would be paid out of the very large funds to be accrued under
the operations of this Bill.—( Hear, bear. )
Air. S. WORTLEY contended that the Bill, as drawn up
by the late Geverninent, was preferable to it in its present
altered state.
Mr. ROMILLY said that before the Bill went into Com-
mittee he wished to make a few observations upon it. In the
first place, he did not consider it a complete measure, but he
considered it as a first step in the right direction. It enabled
•he poor of this country to have justice brought home to their
own doors at a cheap rate. It appeared to him to be of great
importance to establish thronhout the country judges who
would take on themselves the functions to be given to them
under this bill. He thought that the expenss ef the adminis-
tration of justice should be made as light as possible, and that
that expense should be home by the country.
Sir. H. BERKELEY said that this Bill was most anxiously
looked forward to by the country, and he hoped that the
Government would prosecute it with all possib e dispatch.
Sir. NEW 1; ELATE agreed with the Hon. Member for
Bristol, that this Bill was most anxiously expected by the
country, but he should not be so willing to support it if it were
the commencement of a system so extensive as ha.l been
alluded to. He very much dou'Oed the probability of the ap-
plication of the principle on a large scale to the constitution.
and he therefore thought that consiaerahle caution should be.
exeicised in carrying it into effect.
Mr. HENLEY thought that the amount of patronage likely
to be given to the Crown under this Act would give
iippertunities fur corruption to a very dangerous extent. The
Government also could give very little information in reply to
questions on the subject; and he therefore thought that the
House ought to have some further information before giving its
assent to such a m: asure.
The House then resolved itself into Committee on :he Bill.
Clauses from 1 to to were agreed to without discussion.
On clause 9 being proposed,
Mr. W'AKLEY objected to the clause which restricted
the selection ot judges from one branch of the legal profession
only. In principle it was most unjust to restrict the selection
to barristers only, as he believed the solicitors and attorneys of
the country were quite as able, as members of the bar,
to fulfil the duties, and their characters, he was sure,
stood quite as high. Why not leave it to the Lord Chan.
cellor to to take the judge' from whatever branch of the' legal

which ought to be known. In the accounts submitted to the
members of the company, in 1844 and 1845, there was a state-
ment of a realisation upon 3,000 calls, subject to the redemp-
tion by the company, by which the sum of 300,0001. had been
raised, and also another item of a similar transaction upon 2,250
shares, upon which the sum of 225,000/. had been paid. Thus
there was a sum of 525,00:J. stated to the public to he a
realised capital, but which was insteesi of that absolutely, and
in fact, an additional debt. A more disgraceful transaction
had never come under his notice, for when au inquiry was in-
stituted by the House of Commons no statement was made
whatever of any of these sums. He would, therefore, call the
attention of his Honourable Friend, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, to those facts, and ask him whether
he could countenance a transaction which might, by
the fraud on the face of it, give such occasion to the
distraction of the money market, and, above all things, was so
likely to destroy the whole credit of railway debentures?
Being himself confident of the great mischief likely to occur
from such a proceeding, he should conclude by moving that
the Bill be read this day month, for a more gross breach of
regard to the premises of an Act of Parliament he had never
witnessed.
Mr. FOSTER trusted that his Hon. Friend would not per-
severe in this motion, for this very same allegation had been
submitted ;// ext, top.) to the Lords' Committee by whom these
amendments were proposed. By :them these allegations had
been fully examined, and yet they had passed the Bill, and
sent it dewn to this House. His Hon. Friend had really
brought forward no public grounds, and as, after all, the whole
fault appeared to be only an irregularity of accounts, he hoped
' he would not press a motion which would have the effect of
throwing out the Bill,
Mr. WARBURTON thought that the House were deeply
indebted to his Hon. Friend for bringing this matter forsvard ;
for if they were to pass the Bill in its present stage, it woold
be neither more nor less than giving a premium for the fraudu-
lent transactions of railway directors.
Mr. GREENE said, that really there was no sufficient
ground for throwing out this bill, which must be the con-
sequence of the success of his motion. The fault which had
been committed by this company was one of irregularity only.
and that defect had been provided for by a clause of the general
Act of last session ; and it was preposterous that a Bill, which,
after a searching investigation by both Houses, had received
their approbation, should be met with such opposition. He
thought that this would be unjust; anal lie trusted that after
having passed this ordeal it should not be rejected for what it,
fact was not a defect.
After an inquiry from Mr. AGLIONBY,
The SPEAKER stated, that in reality there was no breach
of privilege, yet the motion was not in accordance with the
rules of Parliament. These directed that when a Bill hael
once passed the House of Commons, they had nuthirg more to
do with it ; and that in the event of there being amendments
made in it by the House of Lords, the House of Commons
could touch neither the principles nor the clauses of the 1301,
but could either pass the 13111 by agreeing to the amendrnests.
or express their disagreement, and state so much to the other
House.
Mr. SMITH then remodelled his motion, and moved that
that the Lords' amendment be disagreed with.
Mr. ALIONBY had been exceedingly anxious, both
on public grounds as well as front private motives,
that the Bill should pass. It was for the formation of
only a few miles of railway; but on the principle that it was
absolutely necessary that the most unlimited confidence should
prevail between the shareholders and the directors, he de-
sired its postponement, for, upon the bee of the ae
comes, it appeared that lb-AT v, as some delusion. It
was stated that there was a large capital, when abso-
lutely there was nil. It would be better, therefore, on all con-
siderations, much as it was against his private feelings, to
accede to the proposition for the postponement of this Bill till
another session.
Mr. P. HOWARD trusted the House would not so far
forget the usual mode of proceeding in Parliament, as to reject
a Bill which had received the deliberate sanction of both
Houses ; and that, too, without the advancement of any one
single public principle whatever. The Bill was to matte a
line to communicate between the Newcastle and Carlisle Rail-
way and the mineral district of .Alston, for which plenty
capital had been already provided. There was no public
ground, he would re-assert, for the shareholders were perfectly
satisfied with the conduct of their directors, and he trustee,
therefore, that on such a pretence as this the House would no-
reject the trill at this stage of the proceedings.
Mr. ESTCOURT conceived that whatever be the stage of
the proc,ding, if there were any appearance of fraud, is
was the duty of the House to reject the Bill. Now, from the
statements allowed to have been made it appeared that a debt
of 741,0001. had been contracted contrary to the express terms
of their Acts of Parliament. There had also been an issue,
what appeared to him a fraudulent issue of shares, and on
these grounds he conceived that the Bill ought to be postponed
till another session.
Mr. HUME did not see how, after the inquiries which had
been made in both Houses, the House could proceed further in
the matter, and he should therefore vote fur the amendments.
Lord MORPETII would not have given any opinion upon
the matter, had it not been for the absence of all Members
connected with the part of the country through which this rail-
way passed. This railway had been one of the earliest of the
railway companies, and their earlier proceedings were nut
marked by that regularity which was now required. lie
thought, however, that as the Bill had passed its ordeal in both
Houses, any further interference was nut called for.
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE said that the slight irregular!tie.
alluded to by the Noble Lord were certain gross misrepresen-
tations made to the shareholders of the company for the pur-
pose of deluding them. He thought that some explanation of
the matter was certainly due to the House ; and with reference
to any. inquiries made in the Upper House, there was no
official intimation on the subject, and therefore they could not
take it into consideration. He thought that these amendments
ought not to be acceded to, and he recommended the postpone-
ment of the Bill until next session, when these things can be
arranged.
Atlr. MUNTZ said that the postponement of the Bill was
not likely to benefit the public, and might injure the company.
There was no complaint made on the part of the shareholders.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said, that if the irregularities re-
ferred to had been of so gross a nature, a committee of the
Lords would not have deliberately recorded their ecisions that
they were of a venial nature, and he certainly preferred taking
the authority of that decision before the simple statements of
, Members of that House. He therefore would not be a party to
reject the measure on such slight allegations.
After a few words from Lord GRANVILLE SOMER-
SET, which did not reach the gallery.
Mr. J. A. SMITH said that he thought that the conduct of
the company certainly required some explanation, for if they
had raised 400,000/. more than they were authorised to do, and
hail afterwards covered it by a fraudulent statement, these
amendments ought net to be acceded to.
Mr. BERNAL thought that the present system of their
railway legislation was most inefficient, as Committees of beth
Houses had inquired into the Bill, and yet these enormous
frauds had been allowed to pass unnoticed and unchecked
He hoped that some attempt would be made to modify that
defective system.
Mr. SHELL thought that where the question had been re-
ferred to a proper tribunal, and the efficiency of that tribunal
not disputed, it would be wrong to impugn their decision.
Mr. WAKLEY moved that the debate be adjourned until
Monday next, in order to give the parties time to explain or
refute the allegations made against them.
Mr. HAWES thought that the adjournment of the debate
would be to pronounce the sentence of condemnation on the
Bill. The facts were already fully before the House, and he
thought that they ought to be proceeded with at once.
After a few words from Mr. A. SMI l'H,
Mr. MUNTZ said, if they were to throw nut the Bill en
account of the alleged frauds, they would be inflicting a great
hardship on the shareholders, who were not parties to the abuse
complained of.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there ap-
peered—
For the adjournment of the debate
Against it
Mejority —lB
The House again divided on Mr. J. A. Smith's amendment,
" That the House do not agree to the Lords' amendments,"
when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment.— —2O
The Lords' amendments were then agreed to.
GLASGOW COLLEGE ESTATE BILL.
Mr. GIBSON CRAIG moved that, in the case of Mac-
farlan's ( Glasgow College) Estate Bill, the standing orders
Nos. 120 and 139 be suspended, and the report be now con-
sidered, amended prints of the Bill having been delivered to
the doorkeepers, and the amended breviate laid upon the
table, on Tuesday last.
Mr. WARBURTON complained of the college property
being taken without proper compensation being given. He
thought this matter ought to have been brought under the
consideration of the Lords of the Treasury, and have their
sanction.
Mr. GIBSON CRAIG thought the best course would be to
take any discussion on the measure in the next stage of the
Bill. lf he Bill had received the sanction of the law officers of
both the late and the present Government.
Mr. J. OSWALD did not complain of the professors wishing
to part with the present buildings, so as to get a more eligible
site for themselves. He did not, however, think that a fail
price wait guaranteed by the railway company for the build-
togs. lie was quite sure that if the buildings were put up for
auction they would bring at least 20,0001., instead of
3,0001., as pr posed.
Mr. FOX MAULE said the objections he had had to the
Bill had been removed by the clause which was to be proposed
on the third reading. lie considered the best possible price
should be obtained for the old building!, and he should have j
been better satisfied if some proper party was called in to value
the property ere it was parted with.
Mr. PROTHEROE stated that evidence adduced before
the Committee showed that it would be much to the advantage
of the professors and students if the ecelege were removed from
the centre of the city to the suburbs. The faculty c f the col-
lege certainly were afraid that if the Bill was passed without
restricting the railway company not to apply the presen'
buildings to any educational purpose, they would
suffer from competition. The Bill, therefore, was passed with
that restriction through Committee. Now, however, it seemed
that a clause was to be introduced annulling that restriction,
so that the buildings might be applied for another college ;
still lie hoped that, if this was agreed to, the railway compinv
would act honourably in the matter in the use they vreulit
make of the buildings.
After some further discussion the motion was agreed to.
ANDOVER UNION COMMITTEE.
Lord COURTENA Y moved that the report of this Corn
mittee be brought up and agreed to.
Captain PECHELL could not allow thairtoreeisitio7r:Nten bepre-
sented without bearing his testimony to the „ ability
and courtesy which the Noble Chairmen had exhibited in con-
ducting that inquiry.
Mr. WAKLEY said that no chairman could have shown
more ability, tract, and judgment, than the Noble Lord did on
that occasion. It was but an act of justice to the Noble Lord
to make this declaration of his impartiality.
ETWALL concurred in the encomiums passed upon the
Noble Chairman.

_ . ..
After some observation from Mr. CHRISTIE and other I
Hon. Member!, to the same effect, profession he thought best ? Believing the clause, as it stood,
to be unwise and unjust, be would move, as an amendment,
Lord COURTEN AY acknowledged the complimentary words to admit of the selection of attorneys as well as barristers
terms in which he was referred to, and observed that, in the to officiate as judges in these coarts.
delicate inquiry over which he had presided, he had acted to the Captain PECHELL said it was intimated to be the intention
best of his ability. of the Government officers under which the Bill had been
Mr, BORTH-WICK hoped the report would be printed be- drawn up, to continue the services of the revising barristers,
fore Monday neat, so that they might have it before the Hon. and other similar judges, who had been appointed by the Lord
Member for Montrose brought on his motion in refereike to Chancellor as judges under this Bil. If so, then there would
the Poor-law Commissioners. not be so much objection to the clause as it stood. But the
FLOGGING IN THE ARMY. point should be clearly stated, in order that he might know
Mr. T. D'EYNCOURT presented a petition from Peck-. how to act.
ham, in Surrey, signed by 1,500 of the most respectable in- Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET would prefer leaving the
habitants of that locality, against military togging.
who was
sPaEC prisonerH E LL presentedinthe Q u
eae
np.est ißt ieonnchfropmrislo'nh i lsiipnHeeerlrLn gi : appointment entirely to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor as
far as it regarded the qualification of seven years standing. He
did note hinkrestricting the appointments. to barristers of that
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from the Manchester
against the keeper of that prison, for harsh treatment. standin would enhance the qualification of judges. He also
College of Surgeons in favour of the Medical Regulation Bill. were hardly dealt with by the Bill, and he would rather leave the
agreed with the Hon. Member for Finsbury that the attorneys
Mr. WAKLEY presented several petitions to the same appointment open to them, though his own opinion was, that the
effect. The Hon. Member also presented several petitions education of a barrister rendered him more eligibie as a judge.
numerously Essex, Kendal and other places, numerou signed, against Sir G. GREY differed with the Noble Lord as to the view
what the petitioner; designated the " sanguinary " practice of lie
logging. Also a petition from the pawnbrokers of London . took- regarding the seven years' qualification. He consi-
tiered it would be the means of securing
(at the request of Mr. Masterman) in favour of the P perienee if they retained the restriction in question. He
brokers' Bill. awn-men of grater ex-
could not agree with the amendment respecting the ap •
NEW ZEALAND LOAN ACT AMENDMENT BILL. puintment of the attorneys, as it would be contrary to ail 1
This Bill was read a third time audpissed , I precedent in similar Bills, and would lead, he was persuaded, to I