The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-30 00:00:00

THE GALWAY CONTRACT.

In reply to Mr. GREGORY,
Lord PALMERSTON said that, as members were aware,
the contract with the Galway Company was at an end. The
report of the committee which sat on this subject was in the
hands of hon. members, but he believed the evidence before
the committee had not yet been printed, and until her Ma-
jesty's Government had considered the evidence, as well as
the report, he could not state what would be their intention.
As he had stated before, it would be more desirable for
commercial intersts that the most direct communication
should be, provided with Newfoundland, and Ireland nem-
sarilY was the part of the United Kingdom which
was the most eligible for that purpose. The only
question for consideration was what point in that country
should be selected, but as Galway was the most central
place in regard to railway communication, it might pro-
bably be considered the most desirable for the object in
question.
LOAN FOR THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. GREGORY asked the First Lord of the Treasury
if it was true that the loan for the purposes of the United
States Government was being raised on the Stock Ex-
change?
Lord PALMERSTON said that he was not cognisant of
any such proceeding as that alluded to.
THE NEW FOREST REGULATION BILL.
Sir F. KELLY asked the Chief Commissioner of Works
(in the absence of the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment), whether it was the intention of her Majesty's
Government to proceed during the present session with the
bill for the better regulation of the New Forest?
Mr. PEEL said it was not intended to proceed with this

bill.
CONSOLIDATION FUND APPROPRIATION BILL
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Lord R. MONTAGU moved that the bill be not read a
second time until it had been printed and in the hands of
members.
Alter some remarks from Mr. Williams, Mr. Henley, and
General Peel,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the dif-
ficulty of placingthe 600 copies of the bill in the hands of hon.
members was not the matter of expense, but arose from the
impossibility of printing that number of copies Beim enough
to allow competent time fcr hon. members to consider the
figures without lengthening the session. He thought the
noble lord should not press his motion at present, but it
might be brought forward with benefit to the public service
on a future occasion.
Mr. 5. ESTCOURT considered that a week or a fort-
night should intervene between the passing of the last vote
in supply, and the second reading of the Appropriation

Sir G. BOWYER said that the practice with reference
to other bills was not to read them a second time until they
had been printed, and he did not see why they should de-
part from that course in reference to this particular bill.
He had just seen the printed form of this bill, and nothing
could be more. informal. It had been seen that it was
merely a proof, but he thought it was the duty of the Go-
vernment not to persevere in so irregular a course in re-
spect to this bill for the future.
Mr. HENNESSY said that there were no names on the
back of the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
Mr. Massey and himself (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
brought in the bill.
Mr. BAILLIE said unless the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer -would give some assurance
that the course would not be persevered in, he trusted his
noble friend (Lord R. Montague) would not withdraw his
motion.
Sir C. WOOD said that the hon. member might be de-
sirous to protract the session for a fortnight or perhaps
longer, by objecting to a practice which had not been
previously impugned. He believed. however, the hon.
member would be rather solitary in his desire to protract
the present session. (Laughter.)
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that this bill was merely to give
legal effect to the votes of supply that had already been
granted, and the course pursued was in accordance with
Parliamentary practice.
Mr. AYRTON considered that the noble lord (Lord R.
Montague) had done much service in bringing the subject
forward, and condemned the Government for not bringing
on the votes in supply at an earlier period of the session, so
as to ensure them an ampler consideration than they at
present received. However, they could not take a retro-
spective view, and he would not advise the noble lord to
press his motion at present, but hoped he would bring it
forward at an early period of next session.
Lord PALMERSTON said it was most unjust of inde-
pendent members to blame the Government for not bring-
ing on the votes of supply at an earlier period of the ses-
sion, when they were prevented doing so by hon. members
availing themselves of the privilege to bring before the house
a variety of topics on the motion forigoing into committee of
supply, which necessarily delayed the progress of the esti-
mates. The Appropriation Bill was a merely formal mea-
sure, and the house was not empowered to reject any of the
clauses it contained.
Mr. HENLEY dissented from the dictum of the Prime
Minister, and believed the members had the power to
make alterations in any bill brought before the house. He
trusted that a different course would be pursued in respect
to the bill next session.
Lord PALMERSTON explained that what he intended
to convey was not that hon. members had not any right to
reject or alter any but that by rejecting this bill
they would be rescinding the votes they had previously
granted.
The motion was negatived without a division, and the
bill was read a second time.
EAST INDIA DOAN (No. 2) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
MILITIA PAY BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
MILITIA BALLOTS SUSPENSION BILL .
This bill was read a second time.
EAST INDIA COUNCIL, &c., BILL.
The Lords' amendments to this bill were considered and
agreed to.

DRAINAGE OF LAND BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
PUBLIC OFFICES SITES BILL.

This bill was read a third time and passed.
PENSIONS BRITISH FORCES (INDIA) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.?
WILLS AND DOMICILE OF BRITISH SUBJECTS
ABROAD, &c., BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENEEAL in moving that the
house go into committee on this bill said that the object of
the measure was to settle the law of domicile, which was
at present in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was pro-
posed by this bill that no British subject should be consi-
dered a domiciled subject in a foreign country unless he had
been resident there twelve months, and he had so signified
his intention of becom'ng a resident in that country.
Sir F. KELLY said he had listened with great surprise
to the speech of his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-
General. He did not understand him to deny that the state
of the law on the subject of wills made in foreign countries
was not open to great objection. Having recapitulated the
previous attempts which had been made to legislate in this
direction, he stated that the bill which he was now ca l d
on to withdraw had been introduced by Lord Singsdone
and had passed the House of Lords, with the
entirei _
appro-
bation of the Ministers of the Crown in that house.this.Bythe law
The
grievance which he sought to wasremeeduyn
as it was supposed to exist in this country,
it existed in every other country,
ate testator, was
ry m' and certainly as
made in any coun-
try according to the laws of the will
r the cof
court of delegates,
valid. Some 30 Sears ago, however ,
se and morci re-
fect tribunal, decided otherwi ,
a most imperfect
d that wherever a person had ac-
eently it had been decide
t a will made not in
domicile in a foreign country
quired a
f that country was void. The
aceordanc© with the laws o
consequence was that
a man might make his will i:a Eng-
land, and 'file died subsequently whilst travelling abroad,
•
that will was declared to be void if a
jury should think that
ho had acquired a foreign domicile. After some further
observations on the legal aspects of the question, the hon.
and learned member concluded by pressing upon the house
the importance of the bill, the object of which was to obtain
a satisfactory settlement of the matter.
Sir G. BOWYER moved that the bill be committed that
day three months.
Mr. HENNESSY seconded the motion..
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that this bill and

the next cn the paper—the Wills of Personalty by British
Subjects Bill—were not inconsistent with each other, and
that there was nothing to prevent the house passing both.
The present bill would be of great advantage, if foreign
nations would co-operate with this country, and enter into
the conventions whichit contemplated. Undoubtedly, if