The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-29 00:00:00

EVENING-, MARCH 29, 1851.

were draivn by horses were no doubt calcu-
lated to excite alarm, and occasion accidents
in the streets, and on a representation being made to
the Commissioners of Police on the subject, it would be
their duty to interfere.—(Hear.) Advertising vans
would also, he apprehended, come under the operation
of the Act, though there was no particular clause ap-
plicable to them.
HIGHWAYS BILL.

Mr. RICE wished to ask the Secretary of the Trea-
sury if it was the intention of the Government to in-
troduce any Bill this session for the butter management
of the highways.
Mr. C. LEWIS said that a Bill had been prepared on
that subject, but ho could not at that momeat say whe-
ther it would be introduced this session.
ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Lord H. VANE asked the Clerk of the Ordnance when
the Ordnance maps, on the scale of six inches to a mile.
for the North Riding of Yorkshire, and the counties o'
Durham and Northumberland, would be completed?
Colonel ANSON saia that the survey was progressing
northwards, but be could not hold out any hope that the
maps in question would be ready for some time.

Select Committee to try the petition, had made a slip or a
mistake not ansolutely fatal according to the Act, it became
the House to rectify that slip, and to see that no injustice was
done either to the sitting Member or petitioner.—(Hear.)
The Act required the general Committee to give notice 14
days before the swearing of the G mnaittee ; and according
to decisions in the courts of law fourteen days' notice meant
not less than fourteen clear days. The notice of fourteen
clear days not having been given in this case no further pro-
ceedings, strictly speaking, could be taken with regard to the
peti ion. But then he wished to suggest that that part of
the Act relating to the giving of notice was merely direc-
tory, and that the appointment of the Co nrnittee did not de-
pmd on the validity of the notice. If that were so, he
thought that when the 23th March had arrived the sitting
Member or his agent ought to have stated what objection
there was to the appointment of the Committee ; for if that
had been done, the general Committee would have had
power under the 53d section of the Act to appoint a Select
Committee to try the petition. Having neglected to do this
he thought the petitioner had waived all objection. If he
was right in that, then came the question as to what they
were to do at that moment. The Act seemed to provide that
a slip made in the appointment of a Committee should not in
Any way operate to the prejudice of the party. By the 6Sth sec.
it was provided that the Members having come to the table to
be sworn, and wring been sworn, they should be regarded
is the Select Committee legally appointed to try the peti-
tion, and that the legality of such appointment should
not to be called in question on any ground whatever. If,
therefore, the sitting Member c. uld not allege any objection
to the wrprnber, of the Committee being sworn, he was of
opinion that justice would not be done either to the sitting
Member or the petitioner if the members of the Committee
were not allowed to be sworn. He should like to know
.hether any injustice would be done by trying the petition
on the notice which had been given?
Mr. BERNAL agreed with his lion. and Learned Friend
that if the Committee were once sworn the legality of its ap-
pointment could not be questioned. But the difficulty was,
.hat the live members of the Committee should have been
sworn yesterday.—(Cries of "No, no," end laughter.) The
Act provided that they should be sworn on the first business
day after their appointment, and yesterday was the first day
the House had met after their appointment on the 25th. He
protested against the assertion that that House was in the
habit of following the constructions put upon legal tech-
nicalities by the courts of law. With respect to the terms
of notice, he might remark that the words used in the stand-
ing order, with reference to private Bills, were, " seven clear
d4ys"
Sir G. GREY regretted that this case had been brought
before the House, which, in his opinion, was not the best
tribunal for deciding nice questions of law.—(Hear, hear.)
He believed that the decisions of the courts of law were con-
flicting as to the proper construction of the term of notice.
He concurred with the Hon. and Learned Member for Mid-
hurst, that the Committee once sworn would be legal, and
that it'ihad not been alleged that the parties petitioning
against the swearing of the Committee had suffered any
injury or inconvience from the alleged mistake. The ques-
tion for consideration was, whether there were clear and
distinct grounds for the House interfering, and saying
that the Committee should not be sworn. His own opinion
was, that there were no grounds strong enough to warrant
such at interference, and he should therefore vote against
the resolution of the Hon. and Learned Member for Cocker-
mouth.

Mr. AGLIONBY intimated his intention of taking the
sense of the House on his resolution.

Mr. T. HOIiIIOUSE thought that this case would not be
settled by any decision they might come to, but would ulti-
mately find its way into the courts of common law. In a
case of such importance he could not accept the ipse dixit of
any man, not even of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Midhurst. He thought his Hon. and Learned Friend who
and introduced the question should withdraw the motion,
and substitute another for referring the matter to a Select
Committee.— (Cries of " No.") There were some Hon.
Members near him who thought that the Right Hon. 'Gen-
tleman the Speaker could throw great light on such a ques-
tion as this.
Sir D. DUNDAS counselled the House not to be afraid of
anything which the courts of law might do in this question.
The 68th section of the Act distinctly declared that the lega-
lity of a Committee once sworn could not be called in ques-
tion on any ground whatsoever. He differed from the Hon.
and Learned Member for Midhurst and from the Home Se-
cretary, and maintained that the words to which they were
referred were not directive, but imperative.—( Hear.) He
did not find anything in the Act of Parliament which would
make him believe that the words were merely directory. Let
them look at the Act itself. The Hon. and Learned Member
for Midhurst had omitted all mention of the publication in
the Votes. But the Hon. Gentleman thought the words "14
days" meant 14 clear days. He (Sir D. Dundas) was of.that
opinion also. No one, he thought, could doubt that that was
the meaning of the words. The House was then acting ju-
dicially. Though it was painful to him to vo e against
those with whom he had been in the habit of acting, he felt
obliged to oppose them then, for such was his clear convic-
tion in point of law.

The House then divided, when the numbers were—
Ayes ... 79
Noes ... ... 204
Majority against the motion ... —125
The Committees were then sworn on the St. Alban's and
the Aylesbury election petitions.
QUESTIONS. _ _

Mr. B. OSBORNE wished to know from the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government when he intended bringing
forward the Parliamentary Oaths Bill?
Lord J. RUSSELL said it would be brought on some
time in April. He wished to take that opportunity of stating
that he should move on the order of the day on Monday for
a Select Committee to inquire into our relations with Kaffraria
and the South African Continent.—(Hear.) He mentioned
that in reference to a motion which an Hon. Member oppo-
site had on the paper.
An HON. MEMBER asked, would the question come on
first ?
Lord J. RUSSELL.—Yes.
Mr. ADDERLEY said, he did not know why the Noble
Dud did not consent to his motion. He was glad, however,
that the subject should be left in more efficient hands; and,
therefore, begged to withdraw his notice.
The motion for going into Committee of Supply, having
been put.
Colonel DUNNE was understood to move a notice ho had
on the paper.
Mr. HUME said he understood the Budget was coming on
on Monday.— (Several voices, " Friday.") He understood
that it was on Monday, and that no supplies were to be voted'
until after that bad been brought forward. They had been
called on to vo:e men for the navy, and he had thrown no
impediment in the way of that; and be supposed because
they had agreed to it, they were to be called on to vote the
army and the ordnance estimates before the Budget was in-
troduced. It the House supported him he would move that
there be no further proceeding cn the estimates until after
the Budget. He was not aware that there was any obstacle
in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from bringing
on the Budget on Monday, or even at that moment if he
wished.
The SPEAKER said the question before the House was,
" that he now leave the chair," of an amendment to which
the Hon. and Gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel
Dunne) had given notice.
Mr. WILLIAMS—I rise to second the motion of my
Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose.—(Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he was not aware that any un-
derstanding had been entered into that they were not to pro-
ceed with the estimates until after the Budget. He thought
they were fully justified in proceeding with the estimates
then, with a surplus in the Exchequer, even before the Budget
was brought forward.
Mr. WILLIAMS said it struck him as being very strange
that the Budget had not been introduced long before this.
He was surprised the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for
one moment longer than was necessary to bring it forward.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had said he proposed to reduce
the duties on timber, coffee, and tea. Now, the complete
suspension produced in the trade of these important articles
was very injurious to the commerce of the country.—(Hear.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE said he understood it was not competent
for the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) to go on
with his motion, in consequence of the previous motion of
his Hon. an I Gallant Friend (Colonel Dunne). Now, although
he was not one of those mho would unite in such an extreme
measure as that of stopping the supplies, he could not but
think the Noble Lord sit the head of the Government had
not acted fairly towards his friends in the matter of the
Budget. He, too, had understood that the Budget was to
be brouget forward before any more money was to be voted.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would then rise up in
his place and say he would take off the window-tax.—(Hear
and laughter.) -the Right Hon. Gentleman would calm the
apprehensions of many Hon. Gentleman at his side of the
House. Perhaps the Right Hon. Gentleman would favour
the House with a brief financial sketch then of his intentions.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said lie did
not think his Hon. Friend made a very reasonable request.t
The lion. fir Member for Montrose should be aware that a
was a particular time of the year, which made it necessary
done
before the men for the service should be voted. If not
before the sth of April the public service would be put a
stop to.
Lord JOCELYN intimated to the House that he would not
move the nomination of the Select Committee of which he
had given notice until Monday text.xeat .
of all na
Mr. HENLEY suggested the eclusi vat companies inof
_
persons connected with any of the gr la
terested in the inquiry.
samlanea:Ntehoreve -
- ' that on that even-
after the division of the other mortising,
srist would state when
es sotoi
am aatrersi vae f t
ate r
Sir B. HALL said he understood the Noble Lord to say,
ing he would take the army estimaweosu,
ld make his financial
the Chancellor of the Exchequerof
the session, howlwer, the
thought
statement. In the early part
Is.TO before they proceeded
that statement
.any
Latnored.more serious in consequence of
they ought to hove
that Noble
financial Lord h had It
astaeildu
ehaet
.w oul avert aluk,
oeh
et:bsesihrnoaußvl
.:
Hall)
they should be thrown one night
less time to consider the financial
further. The c
eTehf e
Chancellor of the Exchequer The e
abnimedecates, then have the Budet. In
tfharetbEerastoear, receass,
y w re
before
juthdgeeHoofustet,te there Budget
eesugeneral condemnation of
statementt
o taktake
tb
eo f
nay
vey C
consequence of
be a new one made; and that theason to
hveiehwastiof the Go-
suppose there Isle Got
to have, to enable
they voted the large item • •
vernment, before which they were
which had beenuti4tihde-
to do. If they -
then called upon
shouldvote voted the number a men,
they
of course
them.
After a few words in explanation from the CHANCEL-
LOR of the EXCHEQUER. s ,
Sir
DE LACY EVANS said that the notice given by the
d w• •
Noble Lord, an b )fah might lead to a protracted debate
had made it dou ly iah mortaut that they should hate a finan-
cial statement at once. The window proposition of the
Right Hon. Gentleman had been most unpopular, The
general opinion was that the tax should be repealed, and
it was most desirable any mistake on the subject should be
cleared up.
Mr. ADDERLEY said until they had a financial state-
meat they could not know what means .they had to meet
such an aggression as the Kafir war.
Sir W. MOLES WORTH gave notice that he would move
as an amendment upon the Noble Lord's motion, that it was
the duty of the Government to relieve the country from any
expense of any war with the Kafirs or others at the Cape of
Good Hope.—(Hear.)

SUPPLY.
Colonel DUNNE then rose to move the following resolu-
tion of which he had given notice on going into Committee
of Supply "
That orders having been given not
to receive any more pensioners into the Royal
Military Asylum at Kilmainham, it may be inferred that it
is the intention of her Majesty's Government to
abolish that establishment, and it is the opinion
of this House that such abolition is not advisable.
I. Because unjust to the old soldiers of Ireland who
have served her Majesty and been worn out in the service of
the country. 2. Because the land on which the Royal
Hospital was erected was granted by Charles 11. to trustee,
for the purpose of erecting an asylum for the reception of
the old soldiers of Ireland, and that asylum was built by
means of a fund created by deductions from the pay of
Irish soldiers. 3. Because the saving which would be effected
by such abolition would be so inconsiderable as to give Et)
colour for such injustice, the expense of supporting a peL-
sioner at Kilmainham being much less than at Chelsea. 4.
Because -the winger of the Irish eitabliehrhent to Loglind