The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-03 00:00:00

ciple of responsibility and individual control were much
weaker in those exceptional cases in which, either from
the amount of capital required, or the extent of risk, or
froth some other. cause, they could not in anY other way
work. out the purpose. On this ground, therefore, he
should move, lastly, for leave to bring in a Bill to enable
private persons associating in legal partnership to sue
and be sued. He would not now enter into any further
detail, but he would now move that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider
the state of the law of partnership for the purposes
which ho had described: . •
The House then wentinto Committee on the Bill.
Mr. HAWES would not offer any opposition to the
introduction Of the Bill, which he believed was one •of
great importance, and from whiCh the commercial corn•-
munity would derive great advantage. He would re-
serve for a future occasiOn what he had to say on the
details of the measure: , He hoped, however, that the
House would not interfere 'further than the Committee
•had recommended. •
Mr. HASTIE asked whether it was intended to in-
clude joint-stock banks in the Bill?
- Mr. 'GLADSTONE said that the measure was
founded upon the recommendation of the Committee,
from the inquiries of which joint stuck banks were ex-
cludect . .

Mr. TUFNELL wished to know whether it was the
intention of Government, in their proposed Bill, to
limit the responsibility of shareholders?
Mr. GLADSTONE said there certainly was no in-
tention to limit that responsibility.
Leave was then given to introduce the Bills asked for
by the Right Hon. Gentleman;' and the House resumed.
MENAI BRIDGE.
Mr. GORE moved for a copy of any report of Mr.
Provis to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests
since the Ist day of October, 1843,, oa the Menai
Bridge.—Agreed to.
HARBOUR OF REFUGE.
Mr. GORE also moved for a copy of all letters of in-
structions to the naval officers and civil engineers ap-
pointed in 1843 to report upon the harbours of Holy-
head and Port Dynllaen, as a packet station between
London and Dublin, and as a harbour of refuge for the
Channel trade.—Agrced to.
GRAND JURY CESS (IRELAND).
Mr. WYSE then moved fur copies of the lists re-
turned by the collectors of grand jury cess for the
county of the city of Dublin, to the clerks of the peace
for the said city, containing the names of men qualified
to serve as jurors for the said city for the year 1844,
'showing the corrections and adjudications made therein
by the Right Hon. the Recorder of the said city, pur-
suant to the provisions of the Act 3 and 4 Will. IV.,
c. 91. Also, a copy of the general list of jurors, made
out from such lists by the said Recorder. Copy of the
"Jurors' Book for the year 1844," as delivered to the
Sheriff of the city of Dublin, or to his under sheriff, or
the town clerk. Copy of the ." Special Jurors' List,"
made by the said Sheriff, or, his under-sheriff, for the
year 1844. Copies of all correspondence with or by the
clerks of the peace for the said city, in relation to the re-
vision of the jurors list for the year 1844, and especi-
ally between them and the Recorder for the said city,
' and Mr. Peirce Mahony. Copies of all affidavits filed in
the Crown side of the Court of Queen's Bench. in Ire-
land, since the Ist day of December, 1843, in the cause
of " The Queen against O'Connell and others," and of
all protests made vy the clerk of the Crown, also filed in
the said cause, at the strikifig. of the jury in the month
of January last; together with a copy of the challenge
' to the jury array in the said cause, and of the demurrer
filed in reply to the same.
Lord ELIOT was understood to say that he could not
consent, to the motion.
Mr. SHAW said that as the motion personally con-
cerned him, he hoped the House would excu e him for
saying a few words on the subject. He thought that
the House had no jurisdiction in the matter.' He should
object to the House making any order of the kind. This
was a matter of judicial adjudication, and if he submit-
ted to make a return of this kind, there was no return
which he might not be called on to make. If the House
sanctioned the motion, he should, with all possible re-
spect, refuse to comply with the order.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that if the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposed the motion because there were not
sufficient grounds for it, he could understand it ; but
when the Right Hon. Gentleman took so unusual a step
of opposing it, because it was a judicial proceeding. and
that he would refuse to comply with the order of the
House, if it were made, he really thought that the
Right Hon. Gentleman was taking a ground that was
altogether untenable.—(Hear, hear.) He did not say
that the House ought to agree to the motion if the
Right Hon. Gentleman said there were no sufficient
grounds for making it; but if an order of the House were
made for similar returns from the Court of Queen's
Bench, he felt convinced that the Chief Justice would
comply with the order of the House. He would not un-
dertake to say that that House had no power to call for
notes of judicial proceedings. Such a doctrine could not
be supported. It would be lowering the authority
.of
the House to suppose that it could be so, and without giv-
ing any opinion as to whether or not the motion ought to
be granted, he must protest against the doctrine of the
Right Hon. Gentleman which denied that the House had
any right to investigate any course of conduct which he,
as a judge, might have thought proper to pursue.
Mr. SHAW said the Noble Lord was mistaken. He
(Mr. Shaw) did not deny the right of the House of Com-
mons to inquire into his conduct, and to address the
Crown for his removal if it chose, but he said they had
no right to his notes which he had taken judicially. If
the return were ordered to be made from the Queen's
Bench, he felt convinced that the judges of that court
would not do it. The Noble Lord must be aware of a
previous case in which Lord Holt had refused to obey
an order of the House of Lords for the production of his
notes upon a trial. He told the House of Lords that they
had no control over these notes. He did not deny for
one moment the right of the House to investigate his
conduct, but they had no right to call for his judicial
notes, and they would be useless, because the House
possessed no power to reverse or affect his decision in
any way. •
Lord J. RUSSELL did not mean to contend that
these notes were necessary for the House to adjudicate,
for it had no power of adjudication on the subject. But
they might be necessary for the purpose of investigation.
He would take the celebrated Macclesfield case in which
the House had called for all the notes, papers, and re-
cords of the court.
Mr. SHAW admitted the right of the House to call
for the records of the court, but he denied that they had
any right to call for a judge's notes.
Sir G. GREY did not understand' the objection of the
Right Hon. Gentleman. It might be necessary to have
the original lists and to compare them with the lists
which had been ultimately adjudicated on. It was use
less to overlook the fact that discrepant statements had
been elsewhere made on the subject, that it was matter
of dispute, and that these returns would show what
statement was the correct one.
Mr. WYSE said he must insist on his motion notwith-
standing the opposition of the Noble Lord.
Sir R. PEEL could not take upon him.to define what
were the powers of the law respecting motions, for
they very much depended on the nature of the case.
For instance if an Hon. Member were to move for the
private memoranda of a judge in a trial he could not
think it probable the House would call, for those met
moranda.
Mr. WARBURTON said a great blunder had been
committed, and it was very
.desirable to know how it had
occurred. He would advise his Hon, Friend to get
what papers he could, and if they were not satisfactory,
to move for a Select Committee.
Mr. HUTT said it did not appear that any evil would
arise from the production of the papers, and the with-
holding of them would probably create distrust where it
did not now exist.
Mr. WYSE said it was a matter of importance, but if
the returns were granted at all, they should be granted
as soon as possible ; otherwise the information would be
of no use. The Hon. Member then withdrew the motion.
POST-OFFICE.

Mr. HAWES then moved fora return of the number
of chargeable letters which have passed through the
London General Post (inwards and outwards) since the
first general reduction of postage, on the sth day of
December, 1839, dividing the time, as far as practicable,
into periods of four complete weeks each, and distin-
guishing, as regards each period, the unpaid, paid, and
stamped, and total number of letters ; also, of the esti-
mated average number for four weeks of the year im-
mediately preceding the reduction, distinguished in like
manner. Return of the number of letters which have
passed through the London District Post (exclusive of
all General Post letters) for the same periods ; and
distinguishing in the same manner as the last return.
A comparative statement of the number of letters (in-
cluding franks during the existence of the franking
privilege) delivered in the United Kingdom in one
week of each calendar month, beginning
with
November, 1839, and ending with the present time.
An account showing the gross and net Post-office reve-
nue, and the cost of management, for the United King-
dom, for each of the years ending the 5y o
January 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, and 184th da4, ex-
f
cluding from the account, whether of gross revenue or
cost of management, any advances that may have
_ been
made by the English to the.lrish Post-office, and
advances to the Money Order-office. Account, show-
ing, as nearly as it can be given, the gross amount of
postage revenue for England •and Wales (exclusive of
returns for refused letters, &c.), for the month ending
the sth day of January 1840 (during which the four
penny rate was established) ; and also for the months
ejttendingacaccnhouuoanfr
account
rthohlefes:
,te3hs:terhaspneaddnyacimyi
thene of
ending
ttsshjtebhaysnt
duthhaa
dyer
ay
pyo of
fsBjt
January2.aaon,nffiuuteaahrreyy sthlB 44da. y
Ao
nf
maden3 9d, ulrBi4nog,
1841,1842,1843, and 1844, for the conveyance of the mails
by railway in Great Britain ; distinguishing in each
instance the payments for work done within the year
from payments for work done in previous years. Return
of the number and amount of money orders issued and
paid in England and Wales during each quarter, from
the quarter ending the sth day of April, 1839, to that
ending the sth day of January, 1844, inclusive. Similar
return as regards money orders issued and paid in Lon-
don. Return by the Admiralty, showing in detail the
different items which compose the suns of 612,850/,
charged for packets, in return No. 201, of session 1843.
Return of all provincial post- offices in which, owing
to the death or resignation of the deputy-post-
master, compensations have lapsed to the revenue
since September,. 1839, showing in each case the
amount of such compensation, and the total cost of the
office to the revenue, both before and after its re-arrange-
ment ; the cost after re-arrangement being stated, first,
us originally proposed by the Post-office, second, as
authorised by the Treasury. Copy of all railway mails
as directed by the Treasury to be made in Augest,lB42;
together with an audition, showing the length of each
line as per official notice to the Company, as per Post-
office time-bill, and as per actual pßyinents by the Post-
office to the Company, past and present ; also, an ex-
planation of any discrepancy which may appear in such
perquisites, &e., for the
return. Annual return of fees,