The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-06 00:00:00

Griffin
Brandy Ball
Lass of Richmond Hill

Anatis

Boadicea and Theodine distanced.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF. COMMONS—(Tms. EVENING).
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. -
The following bills were considered, and' rdered for third
reading :—Hertford, Luton, and Dunstable. Railway;
Kingston-upon-Thames Gas; and Tweed Fisheries.
Price's Patent Candle Company, and Trinity House of
Leith Bills were read a second time.
The report of the committee upon the Indian and Aus-
tralian Telegraph Company (No. 2) (Agreements, &c.) was
received, and the resolution was agreed to.
Mr. C. FORSTER moved that the Dundee' and New-
tyle Rail Way Bill be recommitted to the, former committee,
with leave to the committee to sit and proceed on Thursday
next.—Agreed to.
Mr. FITZROY moved the following resolution :--
" That in case the cOmmittee on any private bill, or group
of such bills, shall report their opinion to the house that any
bill or bills not yet considered by them should not be
entered upon, or that the consideration of any bill siready
partly considered should,not be proceeded with, all further
proceedings Upon such bills shall be suspended during the
present session."—Agreed to.
Mr. FITZROY then Moved to repeal standing order 169,
and to move the following order in lieu thereof;--"-There;
shall'not be less than three:4or days, norinorei*an st;y4n,
between' the first and e.0444-Fep;dirg of any private
unless -any such bill haveciWen referred to the examiners of
petitions for private bills;,in which :ease the,bill shall not be
read a second time later than sever; eJoar days after the re-
port of the examiner; or of the select sbmmittee on standing
orders, as the case may be."
The motion was agreed, to. -
NEWSPAPERS.

Mr. AYRTON presented a petition from the Association
for the Repeal of Taxes on Knowledge, . in favour of the
bill before the house for the abolition of the registration of
newspapers. •
. .
SI.TPPLY.—PERSONAL EXPLANATION. •

Lord PALMERSTON took the opporr*fty of making
a' personal explanation, rendered necessary by something
said with regard to his-conduct by a person whose autho-
rity in this country was considerable. He'had been accused.
of -unconstitutional conduct -in questioning the -prero-
gative of the Crown to dissolve Parliament, whenever
the advisers of the crown- might think fit, and upon what-
ever subject they might deem it right to dissolve upon. He
never said anything that could bear that construction—no
Man in-his senses whO knew "anything of the British Con-
stitution could question the prerogative of Minis-
tOrs to dissolve ;in any state of public business, but there
happened- to be, eenditioni public business at certain
periods of the session at which the advice could not be
given and -acted upon without injury to the public: service.
When the supplies had not been voted; and, no appropria-
tion bill had been introduced, it was open to the house to
refuse their concurrence in a dissolution by withholding the
suppliestand what he said was Government could not on this
occasion dissolVe Parliament without the consent of the house.
The house might have refused to agree to the dissolution,
and they;might have gone further and addressed the Crown
in favour of the introduction of another Reform Bill by the
Government, or to dismiss the. Ministry. This would, have
been a perfectly constitutional course, and he, therefore,
repudiated the charge' that the opinion he hold was repug•
nant to the prerogative of the Crown, Or in any way con-
trary to the fundamental and practical principles of the Bri-
tish constitution. He should not have advised the course
to which he had referred; he thought it better to accept
the challenge to appeal to the people, because
he felt perfectly confident of the answer that
would be given to the challenge. Thare was
another point to which he wished to refer on this occasion.
The noble lord :the member for London and himself con-
curred in the resolutions which were proposed, and he
agreed in the general outline of a Reform Bill which was
stated a few nights ago by the noble lord. He was in favour
of a -reduction of tho county franchise, of a reduction of
the borough franchise and a transfer of seats ; but with
regard to the particular limits which the noble lord sug-
gested these principles should Le carried, he retained
the opinions which he had on former occasions expressed.
• Sir J. PAKINGTON observed that the language of a
noble lord in another place was not open to the remarks the
noble lord had made in regard to it. The same language
was used.by him (Sir J. Pakington) in that house, and he
must retain his opinion that the language of the noble lord
on the occasion alluded to was not consistent with respect to
the Crown, and did tend to call in question the prerogative
of the Crown with regard to the dissolution of Parliament.
But the speech of the noble lord in the debate upon the
second reading, and his speech on Monday last, were en- '
tirely different; and he was glad to see that the noble lord
had altered the intention which he at first expressed.
Sir G. GREY vindicated the observations of Lord Pal.
merston. Ho thought that the house had done well to leave
the responsibility of the dissolution exclusively upon the
Government ; but, in regard to the observations made in
another place, he characterise,d the notice taken there of
the noble lord's speech in the House of Commons as a most
irregular and unprecedented proceeding.
After some remarks from Colonel FRENCH,
Mr. MALINS complained of the course taken by the
Opposition in regard to the Reform Bill, and observed that
the issue before the country, in the appeal that was about
to be made, would be whether or not the people had confi-
dence in the present Ministers.
Sir G. C. Lewis quoted the precedent of Lord Grey's
Government in 1831, to show that the question which, in
the present appeal to the country, was to be placed before
the country, was, whether the Government Reform Bill
was one that should be adopted. It was a mistake to sup-
pose that anywant of respect to the Crown had been shown
by the way inwhich this measure had been treated, because
the question had been well considered on the introduction
and debated for seven nights upon the second reading.
Sir J. PAKINGTON explained that the expression of
want of respect to the Crown, as used by him, referred not
to the refusal to entertain the bill, but to the observations of
the noble lord with regard to the dissolution.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he used the words in reference to
a charge made in thathouse and elsewhere, that disrespect
to the Crown had been shown by the bill not receiving due
consideration.

Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE could make excuses for the
observations of the hon. member for Wallingford, as he had
not had an opportunity in taking part in the debate- upon
the second reading, but he protested against a printer losing
his pay by an address from that house to the constituency.
He thought the debate on the Reform Bill had better be
adjourned to the hustings.
Mr. SOTHERON- ESTCOURT characterised the
speech of the noble lord opposite, to which reference had
been made, as one of absolute defiance.

Mr. LINDSAY said he was opposed to the bill which the
Government introduced, and he was therefore compelled to
vote against he second reading, though he wished the pre-
sent Government to remain in office.
After some further discussion, the house went into com-
mittee of supply.
On the vote of £2,000,000 to pay off Exchequer Bonds,
payable in May, 1859,
Mr. WILSON complained that they were called upon to
vote, almost as a matter of form, to renew the debt, instead
of paying it off out of the ways any means of the year.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said the object of the vote was to
give authority to the Government to pay off a debt which
would fall duo when the house would not be sitting.
After some further discussion the vote was agreed to.
£13,277,400 for Exchequer Bills, charged upon the re-
venue of 159, 4125,000 on account, for payments con
nected with the revenue department, were also voted.
On the vote of £1,856,000 on account for civil service
charges,
Mr. LINDSAY proposed to reduce the amount by
ZlO,OOO, the amount proposed for Kingstown Harbour.
Lord NAAS having explained that this sum was for
works already in progress
The amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. E. JAMES drew attention to the large arrears in
the Probate and Divorce Court..

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the only remedy
was to appoint more judges. The arrangement for the
assistance of the common law judges having failed, ho
could hold out no hope that a remedy could be provided in
the present session.
After a few words from Mr. MALINS,
The vote was agreed to.
Sir J. PAKINGTON moved a vote of .£20,000 for the
navy on account of vote 5 for the scientific departments,
and took that opportunity of stating that ho should not
be able to lay on the table this session the report upon the
dockyard expenditure ; but the reports upon machinery, of
the confidential committee on the navy estimates, and the
statement of the Surveyor of the Navy in answer to the
noble lord the member for Sandwich, were ready, and would
.

be in the hands of MenbersTna few: days.
Lord C. PAGET, in explanation of the course ho had
taken on. a former occasion, denied that he had made any
charge against Sir Baldwin Walker, and observed that the
statement referred to did not substantially differ from the
statement he made to the house. Ile hoped the Govern-
ment would be induced to give more full information
in regard to the navy in accordance with a practice which
formerly prevailed.
Sir J. PAKINGTON promised during the recess to take
the subject into hia consideration.
Some further discussion having taken place;
The vote was agreed to.
£sTo,looie
ofoflolroNsvainlagriNe-soteisnonnaavccalonnesttawbliersemea!i'd.
also
os
atag rf,Loe et, to
a:--
.0,000 for naval establishments abroad.
labourers in nayai establishments at home being. Pio& d
911; 9wv944, 40)00.; for., wages for, arti Ks
Sir C. WOOD replied to the statements made- by- Sir J.
Pakington on bringing forward the naval estimates. The

right hon. baronet attributed neglect to the present nays!
administration, and a total disregard Of the coast defences.
Sir J. PAKINGTON read lengthened extracts from his
speech, and said he adhered litetally to what he stated. If
he had erred at all he had erred on the side of courtesy, for
he contended that the right hon. baronet -opposite did not,
while he was in office, take steps which were•incumbent on
him to strengthen our nary, and -adequately protect our
coast. ----
Sir C. NA-PIER saidle did net-see how the honee could
rpeoneile-- the statements_ just mule -I.)y.tvi-e -First Lords of
theAclmiralty.. Hemould.not do en, midit-was }-,is opinion
that there was blame on both sides. (Lanylt ter:) The gallant
admiral continued his observations up to a quarter to Go.chen a
cry of time arose, at which the gallant admiralloi,k up his
hat and said, ",I'll reserve the rest till to-morrow."
The debate was then adjourned.
MARKETS- (fl ELAND) BILL.
The order for the committal of this bill was read and di*.
•
charged.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS (IRELAND) BILL.
The order for the second s, readinc-
of this bill wasdis-
charged. •

REGISTRATION OF COUNTY VOTERS (SCOT-
The
order for the second ,reading of this bill was die-
charged.

COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.
On the motion of. Mr. DRU3pIONI), this bill was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. •
WESTMINSTER NEW BRIDGE BILL.
Lord J. MANNERS brought in a bill to empower hor
Majesty's Comntissioners of, Works to' acquire an additional
spacof or the western. approach'to Westminster new bridge.
The bill was read a first time.
•
NAVAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUND.
Mr. CORRY'obtained leave to bring in a bill to continue
the act for the regulatiot of annuities and premiums of thsk
Naval Medical Supplemental Fund 'Society.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT--(This Day),

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Erie.)
' WOUNDING WITH INTENT, ETC.
Robert Newmap, 49, paper-maker, whose trial stood
over from the last session,, was indicted with feloniously
wounding Jessie'Newman, his wife, with iatent to murder
her. ..

• The facts ,of the ease were fully reported hi The Sun
when the prisoner was under examination li.efore the lion.
Mr. Norton at the Lambeth police-court.
It will be recollected that he was in the constant habit
Of threatening and ill treating his wife, and his violence
rose to such a pitch, that, at last he procured a
chopper, and dealt her a violent blow, for which he was
dicted.

•
The offence was clearly proved, and the jury found lila'
guilty.

Sentence of death was ordered to bo recorded.

• NIW COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
ALLEGED CON PIRACY.
Ambrose Haynes, a solicitor, surrendered to an indict.
ment preferred against him for conspiracy.
~The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.