Commons Sitting of 15 February 1859

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1o Piers and Harbours.
CITY OF LONDON UNION BILL.

  SECOND READING NEGATIVED.
  Mr. CRAWFORDsaid, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill, which was intended to obviate a great public scandal. The City of London Union consisted of ninety-eight parishes, in most of which the rates were collected by the overseers, while in others they were collected by individuals employed for that purpose. Amongst those persons a Mr. Manini had been engaged to collect the rates in nine parishes of the union. In December, 1857 Manini absconded, having with the aid and connivance of one Paul, a clerk in the office of the Guardians, embezzled a sum of £26,000, and a rate had been made with the consent of a large majority of the guardians, distributing the loss over all the parishes of the union. One of the parishes, that of St. Stephen's, Coleman Street, objected to the rate, and a case was laid before the Court of Queen's Bench. The four Judges of that court were unanimous in favour of the legality of the rate; but upon appeal to the Court of Error, it was held by the Judges of the Exchequer Chamber that the rate was illegal and invalid. The law being in this doubtful state, the guardians had introduced this Bill, which would have the effect of authorising a rate being made for the purpose in question, and throwing the charge for making good the delinquencies of Manini upon the union in general. He understood that the Bill was op-
  394
  posed partly on the ground that this sum was chargeable upon the nine parishes only with which Manini was connected and not upon the whole union. But the fact was that, whilst Manini was the officer of the nine parishes in question, the guilty party, through whom he was enabled to carry out his design, was an officer of the union. The whole of the ninety-eight parishes were represented by the poor law authorities, and the accounts had been regularly passed, and a most remarkable feature of the case was that these fraudulent accounts, extending over a number of years, purported to have been duly audited by an individual representing the poor-law authorities. The deficiency comprised £11,000 due to various parishes, for payments on account of rates in advance, £1,500 owing for butcher's meat, £1,500 for bread, £3,000 due to the contractor for maintaining the pauper lunatics of the union, besides other considerable sums. Judgments had already been entered up against the union by some of the creditors, and the effects of an execution upon the property of the union would be very injurious. The guardians had therefore met, and had decided by a majority of forty-six to three to introduce this measure. He thought sufficient reason had been shown to justify the interference of the House, and he called upon them to give this Bill a second reading, with a view to strict inquiry into the facts before the Select Committee on the Bill.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. COXseconded the Motion.
  MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDsaid, he rose to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He could well understand that the guardians by whose neglect these frauds had been facilitated, were willing parties to the Bill, but if such a principle as was involved in it were admitted at all, a Bill must be brought in, not for the City of London Union only, but for the country in general. He could name a great number of parishes in which collectors had absconded, and in which the rate-payers of the particular parishes had been compelled to contribute over again. He held that no public scandal would be avoided by the Bill. He had no sympathy with the creditors who from 1843 to 1856, instead of receiving the cheques of the Board of Guardians were content to take Paul's cheque on account, when if any one had

  395
  named such a transaction to one of the Guardians, the whole mischief would have been prevented, and £26,000 saved. It must be recollected, further, that a Court of Error had decided against the validity of the charge upon the whole union. On the part of the poor-rate payers of the parishes of the city of London, many of whom could ill afford to pay the rates to which they were now liable, he must protest against a Bill which would materially enhance the weight of their local burdens, and he should move that it be read a second time that day six months.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question put, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question.
  The House divided: Ayes 57; Noes 89: Majority 32.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, he would move the second reading of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill. He had several petitions numerously signed from the inhabitants of Liverpool in its favour.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. TOLLEMACHEcomplained that the Bill would impose an additional tax of £300,000 on the trade of the port of Liverpool without any corresponding advantage. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member for Liverpool to consent to the postponement of the second reading for a week, in order to admit of an arrangement being carried out between the Mersey Dock and certain railway companies.
  Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "on Tuesday next."
  MR. W. BROWNsaid, that there was an identity of interests which should render Liverpool and Birkenhead anxious to orward each other's interests; for the prosperity of one was the prosperity of both.
  MR. SALISBURYcontended that the Bill was a breach of faith, there having been a distinct understanding entered into that the works on the south side of the river, namely, the Birkenhead Docks, should be completed by the Mersey Board of Commissioners before any further works on the north side were commenced. He should therefore object to the second reading of the Bill.
  Mr. J. EWARTsaid, the Money required under the Bill was not for carrying on new works, but to further those in progress. It was necessary that this sum should be raised, both for the interests of Liverpool and of the port of the Mersey.
  MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he thought that the sum of £300,000 asked for might be fairly allowed. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, he must repudiate the supposition that there had been any breach on the part of the Liverpool Dock Board. It was absolutely necessary that the sum asked for should be spent at once. In five years the steam traffic of the port had doubled, and the timber trade had trebled. The question was, whether there was sufficient to justify the House in going to a second reading at once, and he hoped there was no room for hesitation.
  MR. LOWEsaid, several Committees had reported and the House had repeatedly decided, that it would not permit any fresh works to be begun on the north shore of the Mersey till the works at Birkenhead were completed. The House had well considered the question through the Committees which sat in 1855, when the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) was Chairman, in 1857 when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) presided, and subsequently when the right hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir Benjamin Hall) was at the head of the inquiry. The matter had occupied much of the attention of the Board of Trade when Lord Stanley of Alderley and himself were in that department, and remained so up to within three days of the accession of the present Government. It had been intimated by a gentleman whom he could name, that the works at Liverpool should be pushed on, but that Birkenhead might wait—that there was no occasion to care for it. He trusted that the House would not retrace its steps, but that it would stand by the weaker party, and not allow Birkenhead to be over-ridden by Liverpool.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he considered that it was of the highest importance that good faith should be observed respecting the decision arrived at as to the accommodation for shipping on the banks of the Mersey. There was no doubt that the opinion of the Legislature had been expressed that the docks at Birkenhead should be completed; but he did not find anything to justify the assertion that a public engagement had been entered into, that nothing was to be done at Liverpool till the works at Birkenhead were completed. He had examined the Report which had been laid upon the table of the House, but he did not find anything to bear out the allegation to which he had alluded. After the Bills were in the ordinary course printed and sent up to the Houses of Parliament in the usual way, an intimation was given by the Board of Trade that they would be opposed unless some arrangement were come to. In consequence of such intimation the parties met, and an arrangement was entered into. But that arrangement went no further than this—that no more money would be sought for by the Bills of 1858 for works at Liverpool than to carry out the works specified in the Bill, or until the works at Birkenhead had been fairly commenced and carried on. He found, however, that all this had been done by agreement between the parties interested and the Government Department without any notice having been given to the people at Liverpool. He thought it his duty, when he came into office, therefore, to call the attention of the Committee to those facts by stating them in the general report upon railway Bills. He received the report of those who were most competent to decide, in which it was stated that those arrangements went not beyond that of last year, and nothing was said of any future arrangements. The Committee, on the contrary, expressly recognized the right of the new Mersey board, if they should be of opinion that the increased trade required the docks to be extended either on the north or south side, to prepare a scheme for that purpose, with an estimate of the expenditure, and submit it to Parliament. He held this language both to the promoters and opponents of the Bill. He asked them whether they were really acting in good faith in carrying out the works at Birkenhead as far as they reasonably thought they ought to be carried out? He had not heard that they were not; and he did not know whether they were acting in that way or not. The next
  398
  question he put to them was, whether they had obtained all the money necessary for the Birkenhead scheme? and the last was, did Liverpool actually want the increase demanded? Those were three questions which the House had to consider. He was not one of those who thought that the trade of Liverpool should be compelled to go upon one side of the river or the other. He did not think that any direct pressure should be put on either side. Considering the way in which Liverpool was improving, he could not concur in any course that would have the effect of depriving it of any further accommodation. He should not have troubled the House with any observations upon the questions, but for the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who, he (Mr. Henley) thought, had rather overstated the case.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that as Chairman of the Committee which sat last year, he felt called upon to say a word or two. There was no doubt that a strong feeling existed in regard to this subject among the inhabitants of the counties of Lancaster and Chester, each of whom were anxious for the docks in their respective counties to be carried on as fast as possible, and of course not in a way which they considered to be prejudicial to the interests of the port. In the course of last year the persons connected with the docks on the Liverpool side of the Mersey desired to raise £800,000 for the purpose of expending it on works on that side of the river; but a distinct understanding was subsequently entered into that that sum should be reduced to £266,000; and even before the money guaranteed as necessary for the Liverpool Docks trusts was raised, a statement was to be drawn up as to the nature of the particular works which were to be carried out by that expenditure. The parties came before the Committee having agreed to that arrangement, and with the sanction of the Committee, it was determined that certain works should be carried out with that expenditure of money. The Committee were certainly under the conviction that that was the only sum of money that was to be expended upon the Liverpool side of the river, until the Birkenhead works had been advanced, and were in a shape verging towards completion. No sooner had the parties obtained their Bill under this agreement entered into at the Board of Trade, and confirmed by the it conduct before the Committee, than they

  399
  met for the purpose of framing another Bill, which they afterwards gave notice of, and under which they proposed to raise another sum of money to be laid out on the Liverpool side of the river before the Birkenhead works had been carried out towards completion. He contended, that if good faith was to be thus broken through, in the way he considered it was in this case, it was useless to enter into any arrangement with parties who came before Committees. It was now said that £300,000 was necessary for the completion of works on the Liverpool side. He asked whether such sum was necessary for the completion of old works or for the formation of new works? Although this was, he thought, a breach of faith, yet if Parliament was disposed to sanction it, the parties ought, at all events, to declare that they would not come to Parliament for more money than this, and that they would give their best energies for the prosecution of the Birkenhead works. [Mr. HORSFALL: No, no!] If the parties said "No" to such an arrangement, he thought that this legislation should not be allowed to proceed any further, for if faith were to be broken in this manner it would be useless to enter into arrangements with parties before Committees and all private Bill legislation would be useless and ridiculous. On these grounds he should oppose the second reading.
  MR. TURNERsaid, it was the misfortune of the city which he represented, and of the Manufacturers around, to be mixed up in an unpleasant contest with the Corporation of Liverpool upon this question of the management of the estuary of the Mersey. But all former greivances having been removed, it was with peculiar satisfaction he rose to co-operate with those who supported the second reading of this Bill. The only object of those with whom he acted in relation to this question was to prevent Liverpool levying an improper tax called sound dues, and to place the management of the estuary of the Mersey in the hands of an independent Board. It never was their wish that one side of the river should be fostered to the detriment of the other. They were most anxious that those works at Birkenhead should be carried out; and he believed that they would be carried out, but the trade of the Mersey was increasing so rapidly, and consequently there was so much pressure for increased accommodation, he thought it was highly necessary that a certain sum should be expended
  400
  upon works on the Liverpool side of the river.
  Question put, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes 181; Noes 102: Majority 79.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read 2à, and committed.

MILITARY EXECUTIONS IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RICHARDSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether orders have been sent to discontinue in the British service the practice of blowing human beings from guns?
  LORD STANLEY: I hope that the time has arrived when military executions will cease. At the same time, no orders have been sent out to India with regard to the manner in which capital sentences are to be carried out.

RESTING-PLACES FOR PORTERS, AND DRINKING FOUNTAINS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SLANEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the home Department if he has inquired as to the formation of resting-places for porters and others carrying great burdens near to or on the lines of great thoroughfares from the principal markets of London to the suburbs, in addition to or in place of those destroyed recently; and also, if free drinking fountains might be placed near each for the benefit of the working classes?
  MR. WALPOLE: I have made inquiries on the subject, and I find this to be the case—that it is part neither of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, nor of the police, to see that provision is made for resting-places. If the bon. Gentleman wishes that provision should be made for resting-places for porters carrying burdens, and for the establishment of drinking fountains, which in Liverpool had been found extremely advantageous, the proper course is to make application to the local authorities.

ASSIZES IN YORKSHIRE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLESWORTHsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the intention of the Government to advise Her Majesty, in accordance with the petitions to Her Majesty in Council, from numerous municipal boroughs

  401
  and other places in the West Riding, for the better accommodation thereof, to remove the assizes for that Riding from York to Wakefield?
  MR. WALPOLE: The question of the hon. Gentleman relates to a subject which excites immense interest in the West Riding; but before any decision can be come to on the claims of the different towns which desire the transference of the assizes to them, they must be all considered together at the same time. I am not prepared, however, to say that the Government has come to any decision on the subject.

DECORATIONS OF THE BATH.

  QUESTION.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War a question referring to the existing practice of requiring the Return of the Decorations of the Order of the Bath on the death of each member of the Order. It would be recollected that last Session he had called the attention of his right hon. Friend to the fact that the decorations of Knights of the Bath, worn during the lives of those who received them, were not allowed to be retained by their families after their death. He had also called to his notice another fact, that the decorations of the Grand Cross of the Bath was made of such inferior materials it was impossible to wear it. He wished to ask whether the Secretary for War had taken the matter into consideration, and was prepared to give any information on the matter?
  GENERAL PEEL: I am happy to inform my noble Friend that Her Majesty has been pleased to dispense with that statute of the Order of the Bath which rendered it necessary that the insignia of Knights Grand Cross and Knights Commanders should be returned after their death. This dispensation will apply, not only to future cases, but to the present members of the Order. It will be necessary to return the collars and badges only of the Knights Grand Cross, and in the case of promotion from a lower to a higher grade of the Order, the insignia of the lower Order would be returned. I have also to state that the stars and crosses of the Knights Commanders, instead of being of tinsel, will be made of silver for the future. I am sure every person interested in this matter must be grateful to my noble Friend for the suggestion which he made.

THE APPOINTMENT OF A MASTER IN LUNACY.—QUESTION.
MR. G. CLIVEsaid, that with reference to the question he had put yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject, he had to state that he was not aware that it was customary to give private notice of a question on occasions of this kind. It was only at half-past four of the previous afternoon that he had resolved to take the course of asking the question. He endeavoured to speak to the Home Secretary early in the evening on the matter, and did, indeed, find him in the lobby, but the right hon. Gentleman seemed too busy to attend to him. The question he now desired to repeat was, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware whether Mr. William Francis Higgins had been appointed to the office of Master in Lunacy?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, since the question was addressed to me yesterday with respect to transactions of which I had then no knowledge, I have had a communication from the Lord Chancellor, in which he has informed me that he should not have appointed Mr. Francis Higgins to the office in question unless he had been thoroughly convinced of his competency to fulfil the duties of that office. But, at the same time, the Lord Chancellor adds that it is unnecessary to enter into any controversy as to the merits of that gentleman, since, without, I believe, any consultation, certainly unconditionally and spontaneously—the moment Mr. Higgins was apprised of what had taken place yesterday in the House of Commons, he resigned the office which had been offered to him. He took that step, I am bound to say for him, not from any belief that he was unable to fulfil the duties of the office, but because, after what had occurred, he did not find it consistent with his feelings any longer to hold the appointment. I am bound to say that, in my opinion, in taking that course Mr. Higgins has acted with a due sense of self-respect; anti from what I have heard of that gentleman from many hon. Members of this House, some of whom have had official relations with him during a number of years, I am bound to say that, in taking that course, he acted consistently with the tenor of an honourable life.

SUBSIDIES TO TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD C. PAGETsaid, he wished to ask what were the intentions of the Go-

  403
  vernment with regard to granting aid in the form of subsidies to telegraph companies having communication with America or any of the British Colonies?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the principle the Government had adopted with regard to such undertakings as those alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member was this, that they would not grant an unconditional guarantee.

RATING OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he rose to inquire what course the Government intended to take in relation to making public property chargeable to poor rates?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was the opinion of the Government that they must proceed on this important subject by legislation, and the President of the Poor Law Board would take an early opportunity of introducing a Bill in reference to it.

LUNATICS.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. TITEstated, that the reasons for the notice he had given for the appointment of a Select Committee "to inquire into the operation of the laws relating to the care and treatment of lunatics, especially of those found to be lunatics by inquisition," were to be found in the fact, that late in the last Session of Parliament he had moved for a Committee to inquire into the state of the law regarding Chancery Lunatics. That Motion was received into considerable favour by the House and the Government, and he was told by the Solicitor General, who replied to him, that if he would enlarge the scope of his Motion and renew it this Session, it was most probable the Government would support him in it. The Government, however, though they admitted the necessity of a change in the law by bringing in two Bills to amend it, so far as the lunatics in public and private asylums were concerned, had apparently not concurred in his Motion, for up to last evening he presumed that it was to be opposed; but last night the Secretary of State postponed his Bills, and informed him he had resolved to support the appointment of a Committee, and to refer the Bills he had prepared to that Committee, if the House should grant it. In this state of things, therefore, it would not be necessary to do more than state very shortly
  404
  a few leading facts, and the House would be spared the longer statement he should otherwise have considered it his duty to trouble them with. It appeared, then, that the last Committee that sat on this important subject was in the year 1828; since that time there had been Commissions to inquire into the Scotch laws, and another into the Irish laws, within the last two or three years, but none what-ever in England. There were, however, many Returns, and the annual Reports for the Commissions in Lunacy now amounted to twelve. From these documents it appeared that there were at the least 23,000 registered lunatics in England alone, of all classes. There were the pauper lunatics, the number of whom was stated in the last year's Report of the Commissioners at 17,572, having in one year increased to that number from 16,637; and there were about 5,000 lunatics of other kinds. They were subject to three jurisdictions—firstly, the Commissioners of Lunacy had the charge of the pauper lunatics and of private asylums; secondly, the Chancery lunatics were under the charge of a board of visitors, with a distinct jurisdiction; and the third class was, that of the criminal lunatics. The laws relating to this subject were conflicting. In 1828 the first law of an extensive scope was passed; it was amended in 1832, again in 1835, and in 1838, 1841, 1842, and, lastly, in 1845 it was entirely remodelled. In 1853 the Act regulating the Chancery lunatics, or those found so by inquisition, was passed—an Act drawn up by Lord St. Leonards. Last Session he (Mr. Tite) drew attention to the operation of that Act, which he believed to be inconvenient and oppressive. The number of lunatics under the care of the Court of Chancery was 600, and the total amount of their property under the control of the Court was upwards of £200,000. The Act of Parliament drawn up by Lord St. Leonards did not repeal previous Acts, but unfortunately referred to them, and the provisions relating to lunatics under the care of the Court of Chancery were to be found in five or six separate Acts. With regard to criminal lunatics also, it appeared that some provision was necessary. There were now 600 or 700 of them. He thought, as a criminal lunatic was not regarded as morally responsible for the act he had committed, when he was restored to health he should be restored to society. At present there was no power to do this, except by the judgment of the

  405
  Home Secretary, and this was very seldom exercised in the matter. Another large class of lunatics consisted of those who were just above the condition of paupers. In Scotland, in every large town, there was an asylum for them; in London there were two great foundations—St. Luke's, which only took them for one year, and Bethlehem, which took them only under particular circumstances. He hoped the Committee would consider whether it was not possible to do something for that large class, who suffered extremely, as well as their families, whenever that distressing disorder overtook them. What was wanted was a more complete supervision; and the measure now required was one for the consolidation of the law, defining the functions of the several boards, which had now a distinct and divided action. The hon. Member concluded by moving—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Laws relating to the care and treatment of Lunatics, especially those so found by Inquisition,"
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, when the hon. Gentleman brought this subject before the House last year, my hon. and learned, Friend the Solicitor General on behalf of the Government, said he thought it reasonable that some inquiry into it should take place. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, in renewing his Motion, had certainly obtained a kind of pledge from the Government that they will not on their part oppose such an inquiry, provided it is conducted in a manner so as to lead to some practical and beneficial result. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I make one or two remarks on a question of so much importance to a vast portion of the community, with a view of showing what may be done and how an inquiry may usefully take place. The House is aware that there are four classes of lunatics in this kingdom—namely, first, criminal lunatics; secondly, lunatics found to be such by an inquisition under the Court of Chancery; thirdly, lunatics in private asylums; and, lastly, lunatics confined in county and borough asylums. With regard to criminal lunatics, I do not think we need interfere with the existing arrangements. With regard to those found to be lunatics by inquisition, I do think that some Amendment may be made in the law, chiefly in two respects; one with reference to the manner in which inquisitions are held and inquiries conducted. constantly extending over long periods of
  406
  time, at great expense, and indeed, I may say, to the great affliction of many people who are concerned in them. I also think that great improvement may be made with reference to the inspection, superintendence, and treatment of these lunatics; and that by providing for that superintendence and treatment in a more careful and constant manner than at present a great benefit may be conferred upon them. I then go to the other two classes of lunatics,—those who are confined in county and borough asylums, and those in private houses. Since the notice of Motion was given in the course of the summer I have felt it my duty to make some inquiries into this subject, and I own I am startled at some of the results which are the fruits of those inquiries. From the returns of the Commissioners it appears that, in the year 1852, the number of lunatics, exclusive of those in the union workhouses, was 17,412, of whom there were in private asylums 4,430—namely, males 2,331, and females 2,099; and in county and borough asylums 12,982. In the year 1857 the total number had increased from 17,412 to 22,310. Of these there were in private asylums 4,738—namely, males 2,508, females 2,230. I pause here for a moment to notice the great increase in the course of these five years—an increase little short of 5,000—and I want the House to observe this striking feature, that whereas the increase in the number of those confined in county and borough asylums was from 12,982 to 17,572, the increase in the number confined in private asylums was hardly perceptible; it was only from 4,430 to 4,738. Such was the increase in those years, and I believe it has been owing partly to the operation of legislation upon this subject by which so much better provision has been made for the poorer class of lunatics in county and borough asylums, for greater care has been taken of them, and consequently their lives have been prolonged. Then I come to the question which is, after all, one of the most important in this matter—"Of these unfortunate persons thus put under restraint, or into necessary confinement, how many of them are in the class of curables, and how many incurable!" Now, I find from the report of the Commissioners in 1857—and there is no report for a subsequentyear—that out of 21,311 lunatics in that year only 3,327 were curable, and 17,984 were incurable. Analysing these curable patients, I find that in metropolitan and provincial

  407
  licensed houses there were 917, in borough and county asylums 2,070, and in hospitals 360; so that one quarter of those in private asylums were curable, while only one-tenth of those in county and borough asylums came under that denomination. That being the state of the case—and most painful it is to any one who considers that at the present moment one in 830 of the population are unsound in their minds, and that the number is increasing at a great rate—you have a double duty to perform, partly to see how those who are incurable can be best taken care of, and partly to see how those who are curable can have the benefit of a restoration to sanity conferred upon them. Before the hon. Gentleman opposite gave notice of his Motion—on the same evening at all events—I announced my intention to introduce two Bills upon this subject. These Bills I propose, if the House will give me leave, to read a first time to-night. One relates to improvements in county and borough asylums; the other to improvements in private houses. The improvements in county and borough asylums are chiefly of a practical nature, and relate to matters which have been reported to me in the Home Office during the past year. I have noted down the matters which have been complained of from time to time, and have endeavoured to find a remedy for them. I do not think I need at the present moment detain the House with those remedies, particularly considering the course which I propose to take with regard to this Motion. That course is, so far as the Government is concerned, to accede, with the alteration of a few words in the terms of the Motion, to the inquiry which is asked for, and to refer my two Bills to the Committee which is to be appointed, in order that it may have something tangible and practicable to deal with. I am particular anxious for this, because, during the autumn and in previous years there has been a good deal of controversy upon this most painful subject, and some persons have advocated the adoption of a course which would be a retrogressive and not a progressive step in legislation. It has been contended that you ought to have public asylums for all classes of patients, that you ought to register them, and that you ought to confine no one without a public inquiry. Now I wish the House and the public to consider what would be the consequence of such a course as that. If an inquiry is asked for, for the purpose of leading to its
  408
  adoption, it is one which, I think, ought not to be conceded, because, if you once attempt to have public asylums for all classes of patients, this would inevitably follow, that those who thought that this painful malady had better not always be brought before the public eye would seek some private reception house, where patients could be placed, and once there, they would not have the advantage of the superintendence, the supervision, the care, and the control which they now enjoy in private houses. But, above all, I must say that I think you could not inflict a greater evil upon these unfortunate people themselves than by granting, in all instances, a public inquiry into these cases. The House must bear in mind that this distressing malady is often the result of most accidental circumstances. It very frequently is not hereditary in its character, and does not recur when once it has been cured. Now, by one illustration I will show the House what would be the consequence of having a public inquiry in all cases. I will suppose that this malady comes upon a person in business from over exertion of the mind, from great anxiety, or it may even be from bodily or physical ailment. That person might, under existing circumstances, be cured within a few months, and it might be known to no one in the world that he had been afflicted with this malady; but if you once establish a public inquiry all will be known; the excitement of the patient will be very bad for him, and retard, if not prevent his recovery; and when he returns to his business he will go back with a suspicion of insanity upon him, and as a consequence, I am afraid, subject to the mistrust even of his neighbours and relations. I will not trespass any further on this point, because I believe that that illustration will show what would be the evil of such an inquiry—an evil which would be increased tenfold when you applied such a proceeding to another class of cases, especially to those of the other sex. That being so I have devoted a good deal of attention to the measures which ought to be adopted for the better supervision and care of these persons, and I think the House has four things for which to provide. It has to provide that there shall be a proper guarantee for the confinement of any person in the first instance; that the houses of reception for these unfortunate persons shall be suitable for the purpose; that they shall not be confined, I was going to say, a day or an hour, but

  409
  certainly not a week, beyond the time when their recovery is clear; and lastly, that their treatment, whether curable or incurable, shall be the best which the wisest and most benevolent legislation can secure. I point out these things because I wish the Committee, to which this matter is likely to be referred, not to embark in a mere rambling inquiry, and, consequently I propose to lay on the table of the House a Bill with reference to private asylums which will, I hope, secure all four of these objects. With reference to confinement, in the first instance, I think the law is to a certain extent defective, and what I propose by my Bill as a proper guard and precaution is, that no person shall be put in confinement at all without notice of the fact being sent to the Commissioners within twenty-four hours. In the second place I propose that the justices in different counties shall appoint medical examiners for particular districts, and that when the Commissioners receive a notice that any person is put under restraint or into confinement, then within a week, not the medical officer of the house, not any person sent down from London, but the medical examiner on the spot shall inquire into the case, shall report specially upon it, and shall place the whole matter before the Commissioners. I then propose that after that is done the Commissioners shall have power either to make their report upon that case to the justices of the county, or to call upon the superintendent or proprietor of the House in which the person is confined to give further explanations. So much with regard to the reception of the patients in the first instance, and I think these checks will be sufficient. Then with regard to the houses to which they are sent, I think the present mode of forwarding the plans and estimates to the Commissioners fourteen days before the licence is granted, and then no action taken, is not sufficient. There are two modes in which the houses are licensed. The Commissioners have no jurisdiction beyond the metropolis. I propose that the Commissioners should have the power to report upon the plans of licensed houses, and to send them to the magistrates in the country, so that the latter may have the advantage of the central knowledge and experience of the Commissioners, and may apply it to their own local wants. I am anxious to read an extract from the last Report of the Commissioners, which shows
  410
  that some improvement in the law in regard to single patients is required. They say:—
  "The condition of single patients has engaged much of our attention during the past year. The lists have been carefully revised; regular returns from the persons having charge of patients have been strictly enforced; and the country has been divided into districts, so as to insure the regular annual visitation of all cases returned to our office. On the whole, the condition of the patients so visited cannot be described as satisfactory. As a general rule, the accommodation provided is quite incommensurate with the payments, which, in many instances, are very large. The necessity for our continued and regular supervision has been clearly established, and, in some instances, we have found cases of marked neglect. In two or three we have discovered that, besides the patient who has been regularly certified and returned to this office, the proprietors of houses have also had under their charge other persons of unsound mind, relative to whom no return whatever had been made. In these cases, although from the presence of circumstances of an extenuating character we have not deemed it proper to institute prosecutions for the legal penalties incurred, we have insisted, by way of warning to others against commission of the same or any similar offence, that the offenders should insert apologies in the daily and medical papers."
  In order to insure greater vigilance of inspection, I propose that, in addition to four inspections in the year by the visitors on the spot, the Commissioners should, by themselves, or by some person authorized by them, make three visits to each licensed house. I also propose that they should have the power, which they do not now possess, of calling upon the proprietors to show the accounts relative to patients, in order that they may see that their allowance is properly applied to their maintenance. The fourth provision of the Bill has been framed to watch over all cases of lunacy, with the object of ascertaining that the patients are not confined a single day when they ought to be discharged. I trust that the provisions of the Bill will effect that object. In the first place, finding, on the authority of all those best informed on the subject, that the cures which are effected are generally accomplished at the earlier stages of the disease. I propose that a Commissioner should go down within three months after the confinement of a patient and report specifically upon that case, independently of all other visits that he may be required to make. I propose also that in the course of the year subsequent to the admission of each patient the Commissioner shall be required, when making one of his usual visits, to make a specific report upon the progress of that case, so

  411
  that the Commissioners may know the state and progress of that patient's malady from the period of his restraint to the end of the first year. I think also you ought to require, in the third place, that the proprietors of these houses should not be allowed to certify any person to be of unsound mind who is to be confined in any other licensed house—in other words that you should take away from proprietors of licensed houses the power of favouring another licensed house, or of sending patients to each other. Another provision in the Bill is that the notice of recovery should not merely be sent to the friends of a patient, but that it should also be immediately sent to the Commissioners, so that they may, if necessary, take action upon it. I hope, by means of these and other provisions, that we shall throw around these unfortunate persons every check and guard that can insure the propriety of the original confinement; secondly, the suitableness of the licensed house in which they are confined; thirdly, a more careful and vigilant treatment of each particular case; and, fourthly, the dismissal of the patient as soon as his recovery has been effected. There is one other proposal, the most important of all, which I had nearly forgotten to mention. We propose that power should be vested in the Commissioners to allow the patient to be out on trial when the case admits of such a proceeding, in order that it may be seen whether the restoration to liberty, under proper precaution and restraint, has any effect in promoting his recovery. If it should have no such effect, he may then be again confined. This provision is in one of the Acts of Parliament relating to lunatics, but has not yet been extended to those confined in private houses. I should desire to confine the inquiry so that it may embrace every practical object without leading the Committee to embark upon a rambling investigation that can lead to no good result, and that must give pain to the friends of many of these unfortunate persons. I should, therefore, propose that the Resolution appointing the Committee should be in the following words, which would equally effect the object the hon. Gentleman has in view:—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Act of Parliament and the regulations for the care and treatment of lunatics."
  I propose, if the House will allow me to
  412
  introduce the Bills of which I have given notice, to refer them to the Select Committee. I believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General also contemplates referring to the Committee another Bill in reference to persons who have been found of unsound mind by inquisition under the Court of Chancery. The Committee will then have practical points before them, and if the effect of the inquiry should be to increase the comforts of those unfortunate persons, if it should improve their treatment, and, still more, if it should effect their recovery and secure their return to their families, I shall feel gratified that I have supported such an inquiry for such a purpose and with such a hope.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he had heard no allusion made to a part of the subject which he thought most important of all—namely, the case of lunatics who were under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. He supposed that when the Bill of the Solicitor General appeared, it would be seen how he proposed to deal with this branch of the question, as no inquiry could be complete without it.
  MR. TITEsaid, that the last thing he wished for was a "rambling" inquiry. He hoped his inquiry would have been a reasonable one; but he certainly had the greatest possible pleasure in acceding with all sincerity to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He therefore should gladly withdraw his Motion, with the hope that the inquiry would be at once set on foot and be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
  MR. PACKEsaid, that when they adverted to the fact that all sane persons convicted of crime were kept at the common expense of the country, it was only dealing out even justice that there should be some general scheme of maintaining all convicted lunatics. It would really be a very great assistance towards this end that there should be one general asylum for criminal lunatics.
  SIR G. GREYsaid, that Her Majesty's late Government had come to a determination that a general asylum for criminal lunatics should be erected, and a Vote for that purpose was actually inserted in the Estimates, but what progress was being made in the matter he did not know.
  Select Committee appointed,
  "To inquire into the operation of the Acts of Parliament and regulations for the care and treatment of Lunatics, and their property."

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY.

  LEAVE.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I rise to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend and consolidate the laws relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency. And I think it is due to the House that I should, in the first place, explain the reasons which have induced me to introduce to its notice a subject at once so difficult, so intricate, and so important. It happened to be my fortune, at a meeting two years ago at Birmingham for the purpose of considering questions of social science, to be placed in the chair of a section devoted to jurisprudence, and the amendment of the law. That section was attended by the present learned Attorney General, by several other gentlemen of the profession of the law, and also by many traders and persons engaged in commerce. I found in that section a general complaint of the present state of the law in relation to Bankruptcy. I suggested that the various Chambers of Commerce and Trade Protection Societies should meet with certain gentlemen at Birmingham who had studied this subject, and that they should endeavour to come to some agreement before any proposal was submitted to Parliament. They adopted that suggestion. They met accordingly in the early part of last year. They agreed upon the heads of a Bill; at a later period they drew that Bill in a proper form, and requested me to undertake the introduction of it into Parliament. As I have the honour of representing the City of London—a great body of traders—I thought I could not decline that task, and accordingly, last year—but at a period when the matter could not be sufficiently considered—I introduced the Bill which they had placed in my hands, and the provisions of which met with my full approval. In again bringing forward this subject I think it is necessary, as the matter will, I trust, receive full consideration in the course of the present year, whether by this House or by the Government, to state both what is the law which the Bill affects, and what are the changes which it proposes to introduce. The question of debt is one which, of course, has received the attention of the Legislatures of all countries. The law of England, as stated by Sir W. Blackstone, gives no less than five different writs or remedies for a creditor against his debtor. Some of these writs affect the person, others the chattels, others the land of the debtor, and some touch all these
  414
  different objects. It seems, whatever these provisions may be, whether merciful or harsh, that there can be nothing more just, nothing more due by society towards its members, than to give a remedy for those to whom any property is owing by others. But when the Legislature of England began to consider the relations of traders to their creditors, there arose other questions upon which our Bankruptcy laws are founded. There was not merely the question of whether a debtor was able to pay his creditors, whether he might at any future time have property sufficient for that purpose, but there were other questions relating to his future course and position. On the one hand it was found that traders, by collusion, by fraud, by combination with certain of their creditors, concealed or did away with their property, thereby injuring the great body of their creditors: and it was discovered on the other that the trader, who, by unavoidable misfortune was unable to satisfy the claims of his creditors, remaining liable to those debts during the whole of the rest of his life, was unable ever to regain his position and to carry on his trade in a creditable and industrious manner as he might otherwise have done. The Roman law had provided for such cases. In a similar spirit laws passed in the reign of Henry VIII., in the reign of Elizabeth, and in the reign of James I. provided for the same class of cases. The mode of providing for them was in principle that after a certain period, either by the act of the creditors demanding payment, and thereby forcing the debtor into bankruptcy, or by the act of the debtor himself, placing himself in a position of bankruptcy, all his property was at once given over to certain persons—call them as you please, and that those persons assumed from that time the power of distributing his effects among the creditors. But then, when that operation was performed, when the whole property had been fairly distributed, there came the second part of the process in favour of the debtor. If it was found that the debtor was not guilty of fraud, if his debts were owing to unavoidable misfortunes, if he had made a clean breast in regard to all his affairs, and stated unreservedly the entire amount of his property and his obligations, the law then stepped in to declare that he was free from the debts which he had incurred previous to his bankruptcy. Although he might have paid only 10 s., only 5s., or even only 2s.

  415
  in the pound, the law declared he was thereafter free, able to undertake any other matter of trade or of commerce, and could not be made liable for the debts which he had formerly contracted. This provision is, I believe, greatly to the benefit of commerce, greatly to the benefit of the creditor, greatly also to the advantage of the honest debtor, and tends very much to the promotion of the best interests of society. The mode in which the law in this respect was carried out may be described in few words. When either the creditors or the debtor wished to constitute an act of bankruptcy, application was made to the Lord Chancellor, who issued a Commission to certain Commissioners. These Commissioners appointed an assignee or trustee, in whom the whole of the property was vested, and who made, after full inquiry, a distribution of the effects, the lands, the chattels, and property of every kind belonging to the debtor, and granted a certificate by which certificate the bankrupt was set free, whether from imprisonment or from the liability to imprisonment, and thereby enabled to regain his former position and re-enter the commercial world. The laws which were made in the reigns I have mentioned, afterwards altered by an act of George II., continued in operation in the same spirit and without any great difference till the time of Lord Chancellor Brougham. Their defects were brought under the notice of that eminent man. The chief defect was that the Commissioners appointed in the way I have described were not a fixed Court; were not persons by whom the whole of so difficult a branch of law could safely be administered. They consisted of some seventy gentlemen, who were paid at first at the rate of 20 s. a-day while employed on the duties of their office, but afterwards by fixed salaries, though very small ones. Many of them were persons just come to the Bar, who had very little experience, and the whole of whose proceedings, therefore, were irregular and unsatisfactory. Lord Chancellor Brougham, with that spirit for the improvement of the law for which he will ever be memorable, and which has placed his name with those of Romilly and Mackintosh among the great legal reformers of our country, constituted by Act a new Court of Bankruptcy, and prescribed its mode of proceeding. In 1849 a general Act was passed for the amendment and consolidation of the law with respect to
  416
  bankruptcy. But this law occasioned very great complaints, and in 1852, I think, a Commission was appointed, which made its report in 1853. That Commission of which the present Home Secretary was a distinguished member, made a most elaborate Report pointing out the defects of the law, and offering many suggestions of the highest value and importance, with a view to its amendment. Many of these suggestions may have been introduced into Bills, but I do not think that the greater part of them have yet been productive of the benefit they might effect. They are, most of them, contained in the Bill which I hope to have the honour to introduce to-night; and they will, I trust, if Parliament agrees to the measures, make a very great amendment in the law. I will now state what are the general complaints respecting the present state of the Bankruptcy Law. The first complaint is the very great expense of the Court. The matter is gone into in great detail by the Commissioners to whom I have referred. I have stated that under the law before it was amended there were very great defects, very irregular modes of proceeding, and abuses, which were inseparable from the then state of the law; but the number of officers, and the delay and difficulty in the mode of proceeding have been such as greatly to destroy the remedy which the Legislature meant to give. The House, no doubt, will agree with me in the statement I have made as to the principle of these laws—namely, that the object is to obtain as quickly and as cheaply as possible a full explanation and revelation of the affairs of a bankrupt, and, having ascertained what is the amount of property he possesses, to divide that property among his creditors. This has been done in such a way under the existing state of the law that on an average no less than 30 per cent, and sometimes much more, are consumed in the expenses of the court. Therefore, for every £100 of actual assets that may come into the possession of the assignee, the creditors received no more than £70 net for the payment of their debts. I have here a statement which I copied from one of the tables given in the appendix of the Report of the Commissioners; it is the statement of Mr. Edwards, an Official Assignee, with respect to a certain sum that came into his possession in 1847. The net amount of the assets received by him was £23,029. On that amount the Court Fees were 9 per cent; the broker's and auctioneer's charge

  417
  was 5¾ per cent, the messenger's, 5⅞ per cent; the official assignee's, 5⅞ per cent; but the great charge of all was the solicitor's for law costs, which amounted to 16¼ per cent, making altogether, without the solicitor's charge, 26¾ per cent, and with the solicitor's charge, 43 per cent of the amount of the assets. I find that the same assignee gives the amount divided in a period of six years, and the percentage for those six years is 33⅝ on the amount. Now, when we are told that in Scotland all this business is done, and done effectually to the satisfaction of the people and to the satisfaction of those engaged in trade in that commercial country at no more than 12 per cent, I think the House will agree that the present state of the law here is capable of amendment. I will now explain the mode in which we propose to amend that part of the law. In the first place, we do away with the absolute necessity of resorting to the official assignee. In the former state of the law, to which I have adverted the creditors on their meeting appointed their own assignee. The persons engaged in trade in this country are of opinion that the appointment of an official assignee, however much that might give regularity to the proceedings, is a cause of very great expense, and that the official assignee, as might be expected, is hardly so diligent and so rapid in his operations as the persons appointed by the creditors themselves, and in whose proceedings they bear a part. We propose, therefore, in the first instance, that the creditor should place the whole of the sum belonging to the bankrupt in the hands either of the official assignee, or of an assignee chosen by themselves. At all events, supposing that they place in the hands of the official assignee the whole of the proceeds in the first instance, they would afterwards have full power to name an assignee of their own, and thereby be enabled to get rid of the delay and expense of the official assignee. I have, however, alluded to other officers, whose expense is very great, and who, at every step of these proceedings, diminish the estate of the bankrupt. I have mentioned the broker and messenger. It is thought that the broker and messenger might be entirely dispensed with, and that the assignee might employ persons to have the custody of the property, which is all that is required in these cases. Besides this, it is proposed, with respect to some of the expenses I have mentioned, which consist of compensation,—of payments not for
  418
  duties now performed, but for duties which were performed a long time ago by other persons then having offices in the Court, that some part of those expenses should be placed on the Consolidated Fund. It is thought—and I think reasonably—that, while other Courts in this country which administer justice are placed on the Consolidated Fund, the Court which is to administer the affairs of a bankrupt—not commercially, but judicially—should also be maintained at the public charge. I come next to the distinction, which has existed from the earliest of the Acts I have mentioned, between trader and non-trader. This state of things has given rise to a great deal of difficult discussion, and to distinctions which hardly seem valid, and which often have no foundation in reality. For instance, while an apothecary, who sells drugs, might be made at any time a bankrupt, the physician, who trades upon his skill, cannot be subject to the same law. According to an exception made in one of the Acts of Parliament, farmers and innkeepers are not liable to the Bankrupt Laws. The farrier, who converts a bar of iron into a horseshoe, may be made a bankrupt; but the farmer, who changes milk into butter and cheese is not liable to the same laws. There arise every day questions respecting the capacity and character of a person who is in debt, as to whether he ought or ought not to be reckoned a bankrupt or insolvent. What I propose on this subject is, to abolish the distinction altogether. We propose that persons in debt should all come under the same law, that there should be a law applicable to bankrupt and insolvent alike in one Court, which should make the distinction which the particular character of the transactions might warrant. Of course, there is a great difference between the case of an insolvent who has had nothing to do with trade, but has incurred debts wantonly and extravagantly, and the case of a trader who, by some failure in a well-grounded speculation, has become a bankrupt. But it is better that the distinction should be made by the Judges—should be made by the Court—and that each transaction should be treated according to its merits and character, than that an attempt should be made by law to persevere in maintaining the present distinction. Another benefit would arise from this—namely, there being only one Court, much greater economy, simplicity, and uniformity would be found in the proceed-

  419
  iags. That one Court being called by the name of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Court, or by whatever other name, would be empowered to deal with all these matters, and the persons at the head of it would be persons of high standing, fully equal to deal with all questions of Bankruptcy and Insolvency that might come before them. Another evil, which is much complained of by traders, is the distance of the present Courts from their places of residence and business. There are seven Courts in the country, besides the Courts of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in London. A trader living, for instance, in the western part of Cornwall would be put to great expense to go to Exeter in order to proceed against a person owing him a debt, and in that manner justice is frequently defeated. On this subject Lord Brougham proposed some years ago that County Courts should have jurisdiction. That proposal was objected to by the Commissioners to whom I have referred, and who gave reasons why, in their opinion, the County Courts should not administer these affairs. Nevertheless, considering how much has come within the jurisdiction of the County Courts—how much every day their business carries them into matters of considerable difficulty in point of law, and considering the very great convenience which traders would have in resorting to a tribunal within an easy distance of their own residence. I think it perfectly right that the proposal should be made in this Bill, that if the creditors on meeting think fit by a certain majority in number and value to carry the case before the County Court, they shall be empowered to do so. It is not proposed to abolish the jurisdiction of the present Bankruptcy Courts in the country. In many instances creditors may think that their cases will have a more satisfactory decision in those courts. But wherever they are of opinion that they would best find their remedy in the County Courts, it is proposed to allow them to avail themselves of it. Although it has taken a quarter of a century, with all parties concurring and no party opposition, to make the change, I believe that of late years no change has been so beneficial among our amendments of law as that which established local courts, and enabled those who were aggrieved to resort to a Court within an easy distance in order to procure a remedy for the evils under which they suffered. The next proposal of the Bill refers to another evil in the present bankruptcy law, which
  420
  is much complained of—namely, the power of making voluntary settlements. It is quite true that these voluntary settlementcy or arrangements have been very much resorted to. It is quite true that the Courts of Bankruptcy, as the Commissioners stated, have had their quantity of business relieved by the number of voluntary arrangements. It is quite true that the evils which I have mentioned have prevented many traders going into the Court of Bankruptcy; but, while this has been the case, there has been no sufficient authority or sanction given to the mode in which voluntary arrangements have been carried out. In Scotland there is such a mode, but in this country a minority of creditors—a very small minority—have it in their power to defeat any such arrangement. It has been stated, and by a person of long experience and authority upon this subject, that it is desirable that even if only one creditor should stand out voluntary arrangement should not take place—that even if only one creditor should propose that the matter should be carried into Court, it is not right to allow of any such arrangement. But that opinion is founded on the supposition that in every case the great majority of creditors wish to make some unfair arrangement which should be unknown to the public, and that the one creditor is a patriotic and public-spirited man, who wishes justice to be done, and is not contented with such a concealed and secret proceeding. But facts do not agree with this supposition. It is very often the case that these one or two creditors, who stand out, are men who wish to indulge their spite, are unreasonably obstinate, or are opposed from some caprice or other to voluntary settlements. We propose, therefore, that in cases where a majority of creditors in number, and four-fifths in value, shall agree to one of these private arrangements, then with due precautions and with sufficient sanction it shall be lawful to settle the affairs out of Court. Another complaint which has been made is with regard to the uncertainty of the punishment of fraud. Traders in the country generally complain very much—I will not say with how much reason—but they complain that in cases where they consider the conduct of the debtor has been fraudulent, undue lenity is shown on the part of the Commissioners. I own it appears to me—and I believe a very high authority can be quoted in favour of my opinion—that the best way will be that whenever there ap-

  421
  pears to be a primâ facie case of fraud, means shall be taken to send such a case before a jury; that only upon conviction by a jury shall any punishment be awarded; but that punishment, when awarded by the Court or Judge, shall be sufficient to deter persons from entering into trade, and carrying on trade in a most fraudulent manner, thereby not only cheating their creditors, not only defrauding all those with whom they are brought into contact, but inflicting a stigma and disgrace upon the commercial character of the country. With regard to what I have just stated as to voluntary arrangements, it is proposed that a memorandum shall be signed by a majority in number of the creditors and four-fifths in value; that such deed or memorandum shall be registered in the Bankruptcy or County Court district, and due publicity given to it by means of advertisement; that its provisions shall be enforceable by summary application to such court; and that to prevent fraudulent arrangements the Judge of the court shall have power to call the debtor before him and to examine him as to his conduct. The last proceeding which takes place in Bankruptcy is the certificate. According to the old state of the law, the certificate was either granted or refused. In certain cases, Where no adequate grounds for granting a certificate could be found, it was refused; but in every case when it was thought that the debtor had given a fair account of his transactions, that he had entered with honesty into his trade, and that he had been only destroyed by those revolutions in commerce which overthrow even those who carry on business with the greatest integrity,—in all such cases the certificate should be granted. It was then thought to be an improvement on the law in this respect that there should be three classes of certificates; one class of those who had got into debt by unavoidable misfortunes; another class of those who might have got into debt by unavoidable misfortunes or not; and a third class, of those who had not fallen in debt through unavoidable misfortunes. But these distinctions are somewhat too nice for human reasoning, and human affairs. In the first place, the words "unavoidable misfortune," although we apply them in charity to men who have failed in trade, to a very critical eye seem inapplicable to most cases in which, though the misfortune may not have been easily avoidable, it might have been avoided by a great degree of prudence
  422
  and sagacity. And, on the other hand, with regard to the third-class certificate, saying that the debtors' troubles were, not owing to unavoidable misfortune, affixed a stigma to a man for the rest of his life, which perhaps in many cases was unjust. We think it better to recur to the old distinction of simply granting a certificate, or refusing it. On the whole, it makes a distinction between the fair trader and the fraudulent speculator, and therefore I propose in this Bill to abolish altogether the difference of certificates. I do not wish at the present time to go into the various details of this Bill; I will only say that it is proposed in this Bill to consolidate, as well as to amend, the law of Bankruptcy; and it appears to me that those who have desired that the Bill shall be introduced in this shape have judged rightly in desiring that it should contain consolidation as well as amendment. With regard to amendment, I think there are but very few points on which there is any great difference of opinion. When I introduced the Bill last year there were many provisions of that Bill upon which there appeared to be on the part of the Government, and on the part of professional gentlemen who considered it, great objections. But many of those provisions, as I understand, are now to be adopted. If that be the case, it is better that we should attempt at the same time to consolidate the law. Of course, tile few points of difference which remain and the language of consolidation must be carefully considered, and, perhaps will be better considered by a few Members of both Houses than in Committee of the whole House. All I wish is to lay the Bill on the table of the House, in order to have it fairly considered, and hereafter, when the House has time and leisure to deal with such a subject, that all its provisions shall be considered with care and deliberation. There is no person in this country who has shown more desire for law reform than the present Attorney General and the present Solicitor General. The law officers of the Crown, I am sure, will be willing to adopt any measure which they think will be an improvement of the law, and, at the same time, raise the character of those who carry on the trade and commerce of the country. I trust, therefore, that this being a matter of deep and serious concern to all classes of the community, and one on which men of all parties must desire to see a good measure passed, I may be permitted now to introduce the Bill, and time will be

  423
  hereafter given for a fair consideration of its merits. I beg, therefore, to conclude by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was sure the House would feel that the noble Lord needed no excuse and no apology for bringing so important a subject as that of the laws relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency under their consideration. The noble Lord had stated that he had entered into communication with several mercantile communities, and that he had received their counsel and assistance in the preparation of this measure. But he thought that the authority of the noble Lord himself on this as on every other question of Law Reform, or indeed on the reform of any of our institutions, scarcely required the additional weight of the opinions, important as they undoubtedly were, of those mercantile bodies to whom he had alluded. He had listened with great interest to the statement of the different points arising on the measure proposed by the noble Lord, in order that he might judge whether the Bill now introduced corresponded in every particular with the Bill which the noble Lord introduced in the last Session of Parliament, with the principal provisions of which he had made himself acquainted. He did not, however, quite understand from the statement of the noble Lord whether various important principles on which it was proposed to legislate in the Bill of last Session were dealt with in the like manner, and without change, in the Bill now proposed. But with regard to the changes to which the noble Lord had expressly adverted, although it might he premature to enter into them until the Bill was actually before the House, he should, perhaps, be pardoned if he detained the House in alluding to one or two of the most prominent. The noble Lord had stated that he proposed to diminish very considerably the expense of proceedings in bankruptcy, but there were many other defects which it would be found necessary to remedy before he could accomplish his object. The noble Lord, as he understood, proposed that instead of every case in bankruptcy being placed under the management of an official assignee, it should be open to the creditors to place the whole administration of the estate of a bankrupt under a single assignee of their own choice. Now he doubted whether that would in any degree diminish the expense of bankruptcy, when once the affairs of a bankrupt were brought under the control
  424
  of the Court. There would be this difficulty, too, attending such a proceeding, that instead of the official assignee, an officer appointed by the Court, from whom large and ample security was taken, who exercised the duties of his office under a heavy responsibility—responsibility to the Court for conducting the affairs of bankrupts in accordance with the law, responsible for all the assets that might come to his hands, there would be substituted a single assignee appointed by the creditors, who might be in narrow circumstances, and who must necessarily leave no great business of his own if he could leave it to undertake the management of a large bankruptcy. He could not but think, therefore, that the substitution would expose the creditors to the risk of the loss of whatever funds might come into his hands. However, when the Bill came before the House, if it were found to contain any means by which a diminution of the enormous expense of proceedings in bankruptcy could be safely attempted, Her Majesty's Government—at least he could speak for himself—would be glad to adopt the suggestions of the noble Lord. The next point to which the noble Lord had called the attention of the House was, perhaps, the most important of the topics to which he had referred. He was rejoiced to hear that the noble Lord lent his sanction to the total abolition of all distinction between traders and non-traders under this law. That distinction had for many years past ceased to exist in Scotland, and he quite concurred with the noble Lord in his commendation of the Bankruptcy Law of that country. He might, however, remind the House that a measure embracing the entire Law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency had been brought before the other House by the Lord Chancellor, and would soon come on for discussion. One of the objects of the Lord Chancellor's Bill was the abolition of this distinction. That measure embraced, moreover, all the Amendments of which the law was thought capable at the present time, and he would suggest that whatever might be the merits, and no doubt they were great, of the Bill of the noble Lord, at least it was desirable that the noble Lord should abstain from pressing it forward through its future stages till ample time had been afforded to the House and the country to consider the Bill brought into the other House, so that the whole subject might be treated in the most comprehensive spirit. The noble

  425
  Lord's proposition that jurisdiction in Bankruptcy should be given to County Courts was of considerable importance. He understood it was not proposed to confer original jurisdiction, either in great or in small cases, on the County Courts, but to allow the creditors in every case to judge for themselves at a meeting whether the conduct of a case of Bankruptcy should be transferred from the Bankruptcy Court to some one of the County Courts. Now it seemed very plausible to say that whatever the creditors themselves might resolve, as they were the parties principally interested, should be done. But he did not know whether it had occurred to the noble Lord, that if a Bankruptcy of any magnitude in town or country were transferred to the County Court, he gave to the County Court in question the entire controul of the whole proceeding, the determination of every question of law and of fact, however difficult, and important, and complicated they might be, and that from the decisions of that Court, unless special provision were made for it, there could be no appeal. Whether the noble Lord had provided or not for such an appeal, of course he could not say until he had seen the Bill; but unless some appellate jurisdiction were provided for—either the House of Lords or the Privy Council—he would venture to suggest that it would be most dangerous to entrust to a County Court the decision of questions which might be (for such questions did arise in Bankruptcy) not only of the greatest difficulty, but of the greatest possible importance, both as regarded questions of law and in relation to the amount of property that might be involved. He was far from saying, however, that in some matters in Bankruptcy it would not be better to give a co-ordinate jurisdiction to County Courts—in matters, for instance, of a limited amount, and of no considerable difficulty—with an appeal to the principal Bankruptcy Court established in London, than to confer on them not only a co-ordinate jurisdiction as to amount, but a jurisdiction equal in all respects to that of the principal Court. The next subject to which the noble Lord had alluded was also one of the utmost importance, It was the question whether the creditors of a bankrupt might not, if they thought fit, adopt in all cases a voluntary system of liquidation, totally apart from the Bankruptcy Court, and with no other relation to the Bankruptcy Court, or any Court whatever, but such as might be
  426
  necessary to obtain the aid and support of its jurisdiction in carrying out the liquidation by a certain majority of the creditors in concurrence with the debtor. The great principle of all Laws of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, which prevails or ought to prevail in all commercial countries, is that when a debtor becomes insolvent, his whole property should at once pass into the hands of his creditors and be applied in liquidation of his debts under the control of his creditors, in the cheapest and most expeditious mode that the law could provide; that the honest debtor, on giving up his property to his creditors, should be at once and for ever acquitted and discharged, and that the fraudulent debtor, although also acquitted and discharged of his debts, should be adequately punished according to the degree of his offence. But when they came to apply these principles to any measure of liquidation, the greatest practical difficulties arose; and he had not collected from the statement of the noble Lord what provision he made to obviate the difficulties which must occur when either Bankruptcy or Liquidation is to be carried into effect. When the noble Lord's Bill was before the House last Session, he considered it with great attention, and it appeared to him at that time that the clauses relating to liquidation were utterly inadequate to effect the desired purpose. Probably, in the mean time, the noble Lord might have reconsidered and amended those clauses. However that might be, he should give his best attention to all the provisions bearing upon this important part of the subject, and, should they appear to him to be well suited for the purpose in view, he would do his utmost to give effect to them.
  Another subject which had been adverted to was involved in difficulties of a constitutional character. He meant the provision by which a fradulent debtor should be punished when fraud was clearly made out. The difficulty at the outset was this. A great number of acts might be done by a debtor, a trader especially, in the course of his dealings with his creditors, which, though of such a nature that it would be highly inexpedient, if not impracticable, to bring them directly under the operation of the criminal statute law of the country, yet were of such a character that it was impossible to allow such acts to pass when they were proved before a Court of Bankruptcy without some punishment being inflicted on the debtor. Such, for example,

  427
  was the contracting of a debt when it was apparent that the debtor knew he had no prospect of paying it; a fraudulent preference to a favoured creditor; or the circulating of accommodation bills. To make these offences punishable generally by the criminal law of the country, would be unjust as well as inexpedient, from the hardships thus inflicted on individuals who perhaps might never have intended to commit any offence at all, and who at all events had paid their debts before misfortune had fallen upon them. On the other hand, when offences of such a character came before a Court of Insolvency, where creditors had been defrauded and the whole estate of a trade wasted and made away with it, became just and expedient to punish the debtor under some law specially framed for that particular purpose. But then this difficulty arose:—If the offender must be tried before a Judge and jury, no bankrupt's estate would bear the expense of the prosecutions. Again, if a jury were dispensed with, it would be said, the constitution of the country was disregarded. Under these circumstances he should look with great anxiety to the Bill of the noble Lord, to see in what way these many and great difficulties were met. It had appeared to those who had paid great attention to this subject that a discretionary power should be given, subject to appeal to the Court of Bankruptcy, to punish these minor offences in a summary manner as soon as the offences were proved before the Court, and, in cases of greater magnitude, and where the estate was of value, with the consent of the creditors to bring the case before a jury. But all these were matters of detail on which he need not further trouble the House. He trusted however, that with the Bill of the noble Lord, and that introduced into the other House, they might succeed before the Session was over in perfecting a measure which would give satisfaction on this important subject to the great trading and mercantile interests of the community. He could not sit down without offering a single observation on the last point in the speech of the noble Lord, the question of consolidation. He need not say that he had now for many years bestowed the most anxious consideration on that great question. It was now under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and it was their intention, within a few days of the present period, to call the attention of the House to the whole subject of consolida-
  428
  tion. It would be to him a great satisfaction if, while they were improving the law of Bankruptcy, or any other branch of the law, they could also consolidate it. But it possibly might have occurred to those who had framed the Bill in the other House, and which the noble Lord seemed to have forgotten, that the law of Bankruptcy had been consolidated within the last few years; that there was one consolidated statute containing almost the entire provision of the Bankruptcy law as it now existed; and it would at least be inexpedient on their part to proceed with any consolidation Bill on this subject till the sense of one or the other House of Parliament had been taken on the general scheme of consolidation. The noble Lord and the House, however, might be assured that there was no disinclination on the part of the law advisers of the Crown, or on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to combine consolidation with amendment.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General that it would not be altogether in accordance with the feelings of the House to go into the provisions of the Bill at any length, and therefore he should only offer a few observations upon those particular points that had been referred to. speaking generally, this Bill had one great advantage, that it embodied all those provisions which were considered essential for their own interests by the delegates from the great commercial bodies, and contained, moreover, a complete consolidation of the whole bankruptcy law. He was very glad to hear that the learned Attorney General intended to call the attention of the House to the consolidation of the laws, and, if the House were to legislate at all, on the subject of Bankruptcy it should be done in a complete form. With respect to the provisions of the Bill he would first allude to those which gave jurisdiction in bankruptcy to the County Courts. On this point he had found throughout the north of England a very strong opinion in favour of powers of administration being given to those Courts. In that opinion he fully concurred; at the same time he also agreed with the learned Attorney General that there should be an appeal to the Chief Court in Bankruptcy. That appeal was provided for by this Bill. The real difficulty to contend with was obviously the expense attendant on the liquidation of a bankrupt's estate. It was almost impossible to estimate the magnitude of this evil at present. Generally

  429
  speaking, the expense averaged over 30 per cent, but of course if the average were over 30 per cent, the cost in particular cases must be infinitely greater, and he believed that sometimes it amounted to as much as 80 per cent. The expense, however, was not the only evil. There was the length of time in winding up cases in bankruptcy. It was an important feature in this Bill of the noble Lord that it proposed to diminish those expenses, and in order to do so it provided that a portion of the costs should be borne by the Consolidated Fund in the same way as the expenses of other courts were paid. Courts of bankruptcy were not merely civil courts, but they were courts in which great principles were laid down for the purpose of elevating the tone and character of the whole of the commercial portion of the population. Consequently it was reasonable that a portion of the expense of maintaining the land should be borne by the public in general. Another great defect in the present system arose from the small amount of control which the creditors had over the assets of the debtor. He did not agree with the learned Attorney General in thinking that the appointment of an assignee by the creditors themselves would not lead to the management of the estate in a manner at less expense, and the opinion of the commercial world was opposed to that of the learned Attorney General. The general idea was that if an assignee were appointed by the creditors, and entrusted with the duty of administering the fund, he would do it at much less cost than an official assignee would administer the assets. He did not think it would be desirable to go further into the subject at present, but he might add that as, when the Bill for the Reform of the Court of Chancery was before the House, great assistance was derived by the labours of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley), so they had a right to expect that the assistance of the noble Lord the Member for London would be of the greatest benefit to the commercial body in passing a sound and efficient measure.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, that as one of the commercial Members of the House, he would venture to offer a few remarks on behalf of the great commercial body. In the first place he might observe that the present state of the law was so unsatisfactory that not one in ten—he thought he
  430
  might say one in twenty of those who were bankrupts passed through the Court of Bankruptcy. The machinery of the Court was so cumbrous, and so expensive, dilatory, and unsatisfactory, that very few creditors were willing to resort to the Court—they preferred to wind up the estate themselves. He had expected, after the note of preparation which had been sounded, that some large and clearly-defined reform of these laws would have been brought before them that night. He expected that the noble Lord would have brought forward some broad and effective plan by which the expense and delay now experienced would have been greatly lessened; but no such measure had been laid before them. The general complaint of creditors was that they could not get at the assets of their debtors—that debtors had in the present state of the law the means of preventing the distribution of their assets, and so driving their creditors to a compromise, although they might be under the conviction that they were not obtaining all the assets of the debtor. He wished to see some strict and stringent measure proposed by which the debtor should be summarily compelled to surrender his entire property into the hands of his creditors, but he was compelled to say he did not find a single clause in the Bill of the noble Lord which would give any relief in that respect. In fact, all the defects of the present enactments would be continued in the new Act if this Bill passed. The noble Lord had alluded to the state of the Scotch law, and, if he had been so minded, he might have found something in that law to introduce into this Bill. By the Scotch law, if a confessed debt was not paid within a certain period, there was a power reserved to the creditor to register a protest, and within forty-eight hours the debtor was bound to pay the debt, or the creditor had power to place the property under arrestment; and if it were not paid within six days from that proceeding, the creditor had full power over the property and person of the debtor. As regarded the person of the debtor, he did not believe there was any desire in the community to oppress or harass hint unduly, but there was a strong desire, when a person was unable to meet his debts, that (as the Attorney General had expressed it) the whole of his property should pass entirely and promptly to the creditor. The experience of every commercial man would affirm that opinion. Again, with regard

  431
  to fraud, the noble Lord did not propose to give the Commissioners power to punish fraud, but provided that such punishment should be awarded through the medium of an action at law. Now, he would ask the noble Lord what creditor would bring an action? Who would go to the expense, or give himself the trouble to punish any individual guilty of fraud? His conviction was, no creditor would do so. Creditors were indifferent to everything but getting the most they could out of the assets. In conclusion he must express his great doubt whether the provisions of the Bill would be any improvement upon the law as it now stood.
  Leave given.
  Bill to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency, ordered to be brought in by Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. HEADLAM.

TURNPIKE TOLLS AND BRIDGES.

  COMMISSION MOVED FOR.
  MR. ALCOCKsaid, he had thought it probable that the Government would have been willing to agree to his Motion, which was—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into and report as to the best means of abolishing the tolls on the Turnpike Roads and Bridges in England and Wales."
  As, however, he understood that the Government would not accede to his proposition, it became necessary for him to ask the favour of the House for a few minutes while he stated shortly his reasons for moving for this Address. Certainly no one could be surprised at his making so reasonable a request as this after what had been done in the cases of Ireland and Scotland. Did they not all know that since last April, Ireland had been free from tolls—there was not a turnpike there. Scotland had also claimed exemption, and a Commission had been granted to inquire into the subject as it related to that country. As to Ireland, he might state that in 1855 a Commission was granted to inquire into the tolls around Dublin. The Commission reported against their continuance, and their recommendation was carried into effect in the following year. That proceeding was so satisfactory to all parties, that subsequently the same law was applied to the rest of Ireland. As regarded Scotland the Commission was now sitting, and there was also a Commission sitting to consider the state of the tolls
  432
  within six miles of the Metropolis. Now, why should not that Commission extend their labour and take into consideration the whole question of tolls in England and Wales? The Commission consisted of four men of well known ability, and possessed of great knowledge in these matters, and it would be a source of much satisfaction to them to have the opportunity of performing so great a work as that now proposed. What difficulty would there be to lay down a principle which would get rid of all the tolls, not only around London, but throughout England? None whatever. The mortgage debt on turnpike tolls in England amounted to about £5,586,000, and the interest on that debt was about £209,000 annually. Now, the real property in Schedule A. of the Income Tax Act in England and Wales was no less than £103,500,000, and a rate of 2d. in the pound on that amount produced the sum of £862,000, more than sufficient to pay for all repairs and keep turnpike roads in good order, and also to pay all the interest upon the whole amount of the debt. At the same time it would provide for the tolls levied on the bridges. He believed that if the same course were to be taken in England as in Ireland, the creditors would be willing to make a considerable reduction in their demands, and thus in a short time the debt would be much decreased. The Commissioners might easily reduce the debt of £5,500,000 to £4,000,000, especially if they were to take into account the turnpike buildings, which, if sold, would realize something like £400,000 or £500,000. In Ireland the baronies were bound by common law to maintain the roads; and he would suggest that the maintenance of the roads in this country should be made a rate on all assessed property of each Parish as provided by the common law. He did not agree with those who thought that a Committee would be better than a Commission for the object which he proposed. There had been Commissions on the subject for Scotland as well its for Ireland; and he could not suppose that a Government who were generally supposed to be anxious for popularity, which in some cases they had very deservedly gained, would persist in opposing his proposal.
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present: House counted: and forty Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock.