Commons Sitting of 21 May 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Councillors of Burghs and Burgesses (Scotland); Offences Against the Person; Malicious Injuries to Property; Coinage Offences; Accessories and Abettors; Forgery; Larceny, &c.; Criminal Statutes Repeal; Divorce Court.
3° Consolidated Fund (£9,500,000),

CIVIL SERVICE (INDIA.)

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. Alderman COPELAND,
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that by a General Order of the 1st of September, 1857, Military Officers were allowed to count as service, for retiring pension, the periods spent on leave of absence on account of wounds received or sickness contracted on field service. The hon. Member wished to know whether the Civil Servants who came home invalided, from sickness contracted during the siege of Lucknow, would have the same privilege. He (Sir Charles Wood) apprehended that what had been granted to all the Civil Servants who were in Lucknow, whether invalided or not, was leave to count one year's service towards retiring pensions.

NAVAL FREIGHT MONEY.—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if any steps have been taken (on the recommendation of the late Naval Commission), to abolish the present system of sharing freight money for the conveyance of specie, jewels, or treasure, on hoard Her Majesty's Ships; one fourth share being paid to the Admiral on the station, two-fourths to the Captain of the ship who signed the bill of lading or receipt for the same, and the remaining one-fourth share only being paid to Greenwich Hospital for the use of the institution.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in re ply, that an investigation had been instituted into that subject, among others, by a Commission appointed to inquire into the state of Greenwich Hospital, and the Admiralty did not wish to come to any decision upon the matter until they should have learnt what was the result of that investigation.

PROTECTION UNDER THE BRITISH FLAG.—QUESTION.
MR. DALGLISHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Officers commanding British Ships of War on the coasts of Naples and Sicily have received special instructions to extend the protection of the British Flag to all persons, refugees or others, who may require it?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, in reply, that he had laid on the Table of the House that evening a correspondence on the subject of the reception of refugees on board Her Majesty's Ships; and he had to state that on referring to what had taken place upon former occasions he found that there was a letter written by Mr. Addington under the direction of his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston), in the year 1849, which seemed to him (Lord John Russell) to convey the orders and instructions applicable to that or to any other cases of the same kind; and he believed the best answer he could give to the question of the hon. Gentleman was to read an extract from that communication. The noble Lord then read the following extract:—
"I have laid before Viscount Palmerston your letter of the 30th of July last, requesting, by direction of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, his Lordship's opinion on a question which has recently occurred at Naples, as to the extent
1550
to which British ships-of-war in a foreign port are entitled to receive on board and shelter the subjects of a foreign Government who may be apprehensive of being persecuted if they remain on shore.
"Viscount Palmerston directs me to request that you will acquaint the Board of Admiralty that his Lordship is of opinion that it would not be light to receive and harbour on board a British ship-of-war any person flying from justice on a criminal charge, or who was escaping from the sentence of a court of law. But a British man-of-war has always and everywhere been considered a safe place of refuge for persons of whatever country or party who have sought shelter under the British flag from persecution on account of their political conduct or opinions; and this protection has been equally afforded, whether the refugee was escaping from the arbitrary acts of a Monarchical Government or from the lawless violence of a Revolutionary Committee.
"There seems to be nothing in the present state of affairs at Naples or in Sicily which ought to make a British ship-of-war stationed in a Neapolitan or in a Sicilian port an exception to the general rule; and therefore, although the commander of such ship-of-war should not seek out or invite political refugees, yet he ought not to turn away nor to give up any who may reach his ship and ask admittance on board. Such officer must, of course, take care that such refugees shall not carry on, from on board his ship, any political correspondence with their partizans on shore, and he ought to avail himself of the earliest opportunity to send them to some place of safety elsewhere."
That letter appeared to him (Lord John Russell) to be applicable upon the present occasion, and he had directed the Admiralty to adopt that rule.

THE INDIAN ARMY.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, what amount of truth there is in certain statements made in The Times newspaper of Saturday, the 19th of May, that the regular Native army of India under British authority consisted of 250,000 sabres and bayonets; that this great Sepoy army rose in mutiny, and it has all vanished; that the army of the East India Company has dissolved, even as the Sovereignty of the Company has dissolved; and that "a quarter of a million of disciplined Native soldiers has been destroyed;" that the Company's European army has, with a strange fatality, followed the fate of the Sepoys, and disbanded themselves. Further, he wished to ask whether it is not the fact that about 11,000 of the late Company's European troops are not still embodied, comprising European regiments that have gloriously distinguished themselves in numerous battles: together with a body of artillery equal to any in the world; and whether

1551
fifteen regiments of the old Bengal army, eight regiments of Regular Light Cavalry, and fifty-two regiments of infantry of the Madras Native army, and three regiments of Bombay Light Cavalry, and thirty-one regiments of Infantry, all regular Native troops, do not still continue embodied in a state of loyal efficiency?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had no objection to answer the question of the hon. and gallant Member; but he wished to observe that if, in addition to the multifarious subjects on which he and his Colleagues at present were expected to give information, they were to be required to enlighten hon. Members on what were really matters of history, a serious impediment would be caused to the transaction of public business, which did not go on with so much speed even at present as was desirable. It was, he thought, a historical fact that almost the whole of the Bengal Native Army mutinied. Out of seventy-four regular regiments, only eleven remained faithful; four were disarmed, and had since had their arms restored. The other fifty-nine had disappeared. As to the Madras Army, insubordination broke out in one regiment; but the remainder of that force and the Bombay army had exhibited no general signs of open mutiny. It would, he held, be an act of madness to re-establish the Bengal Native Army in its former dimension. As regards the European troops, 11,000 and upwards remained in India, more than 10,000 having taken their discharge—in other words, about half went away, while the other half remained. The whole Native army of India, he might mention, amounted to the number mentioned by his noble Friend—namely, to 250,000. He hoped the reductions would proceed more rapidly during the present year.

COUNTY RATES EXPENDITURE BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he wished to know from hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, whether it is their intention to oppose the introduction of a County Rates Expenditure Bill, which he intended to introduce to-morrow?
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, that the hon. Gentleman might be pretty sure that the usual courtesy of the House would permit the introduction of the measure, but as he had not yet seen it he could not give any pledge that it would not be opposed in its future stages.

THE SICILIAN INSURRECTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. W. KINGLAKE: Sir, I wish to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him notice privately. I can assure the House that I ask the Question not from any motives of curiosity, but for a very cogent reason. The question I have to ask the noble Lord is, Whether he can give the House any information as to the light in which the Sicilian insurrection is regarded by the other Powers of Europe, and especially as to the light in which it is regarded by France?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I cannot undertake to answer the question which the hon. Member has put to me as to what the other Powers of Europe think of the Sicilian insurrection. I can only say that I am told that the vessel sent by the Austrian Government to the waters of Naples has been despatched entirely for the protection of Austrian subjects. I do not find that any of the Powers of Europe—certainly neither Austria nor Spain—intend to take any part against the Sicilian insurgents on behalf of the Neapolitan Government.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES BILL

  CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would greatly expedite the despatch of public business if the House would consent to consider the Amendments on the Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill. If there was any desire on the part of any hon. Gentleman that the Bill should be recommitted he would not oppose the Motion, but there was great delay and inconvenience attending that course. All that he had to propose was a small number of Amendments of a verbal character, together with one, the object of which was to assimilate the notice to be given by applicants for wine licences to those now given by persons applying for licences to become licensed victuallers, and these might be considered with equal convenience on the Report. He moved that the Amendments be now received.
  MR. AYRTONexpressed his surprise at the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked them to adopt. A number of important clauses were agreed to at a

  1553
  late hour the other evening, pro formâ, which required discussion. The Bill, as it stood, was full of errors and anomalies. For instance, the duty to be levied on the sale of wine to be consumed on the premises was mentioned in the clause as if applicable only to foreign wines, while the licence included both British and foreign wines. It was also necessary that the House should know whether the measure was to extend in any respect to licensed inns and ale-houses, and if not, how the duties now applicable to innkeepers' licences were to be harmonized with the new duties payable under the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid his right hon. Friend was ready to go into Committee to discuss the new clauses, but it would not be desirable to rediscuss all the clauses which the Committee had already adopted.
  House in Committee. Mr. DEASY in the Chair.
  Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, that they have power to make provision for the amendment of the Acts 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 39, and 10 and 11 Vict. c. 89.
  Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Who shall be deemed to keep a Refreshment House),
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTwished to know whether shops at which tobacco was sold would come under the operation of the Bill, as houses for the sale of refreshment and places of public resort?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that tobacco-shops ought to be included, as they would thereby be brought under the superintendence of the police, in common with other shops open at night. The Bill would be, in his opinion, defective if it did not include tobacco-shops; but the clause had better be loft as it stood, without expressly naming these shops.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Confectioners and Eating-house keepers entitled to take out Licences to sell wine to be drunk on the premises).
  MR. AYRTONsaid, there were persons who might wish to take out a licence to sell foreign wines whose rent was under £20 a year. He did not gather from the clause whether they were permitted to do so, or whether if they did so, they would have to pay the same rate as those whose rent was above £20 and below £50.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say that there was nothing in the Bill to forbid such persona selling foreign as well as British wines
  1554
  to be consumed on the promises. The rate would be according to the rent— namely, £3 13s. 6d.4 under £20; £4 4s. between £20 and £50; if above £50 of course they would have to pay £6 6s. the maximum rate.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Penalty for keeping Refreshment House without Licence, £20).
  MR. HENLEYsuggested, with reference to the powers of mitigating a penalty, the addition of the words "a sum not exceeding £20."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill, as were also Clauses 9, 10, 11.
  Clause 12 (Notice of First Application for a Wine Licence for a Refreshment House, to be given to Justices, who may object to the granting thereof, on grounds to be stated).
  MR. HUNT MR. HUNT moved the insertion of words providing that the applicant should not within three years preceding have been convicted of any offence, or have been refused the renewal of his licence for any common inn, ale-house, or victualling house.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbegged to assure the Committee that the clause had been drawn in as full and effectual a manner as was possible to embrace the views of the Committees of both Houses of Parliament which had sat upon the subject, who had held it to be of consequence that the characters of the keepers of these houses should be looked into. The clause, he believed, would supply all reasonable tests of character, and afford such facilities for rejecting persons of bad character as were capable of being practically applied.
  MR. HENLEYdid not believe the clause was worth the paper it was written on. Any person happening to fall within the personal disqualifications which it contemplated, and being what was called in "Queer Street" would feel some difficulty in forwarding his real name and place of abode, and would therefore be just as likely to send in "John Man-in-the-Moon, of Wakefield, Sudbury, Gloucester, and elsewhere," as any other. But he would be sure to look out a "mother;" such persons were always to be had for a consideration, who would manufacture pork pies one day, beef pies the next, and tripe and onions on the third. With a couple of "nice young ladies" to hand the pies, the

  1555
  establishment would make quite a respectable appearance; but he feared that whenever the policeman sent to make inquiries, pressed to see "the son" who had applied for the licence, he would be told that he had just stepped out, or perhaps that he had gone to the funeral of one of his wife's father's family, "either in or near Birmingham." Under such circumstances how would it be possible for the Magistrates to be certain of the identity of the man who had presented the requisition? He thought it would be a great advantage if this clause were expunged altogether.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHapproved the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought there was too much magisterial influence in the Bill already.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, as the clause stood a man might be a ticket-of-leave man, and yet obtain a licence under this clause. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in thinking that this clause was perfectly illusory, and that it was intended to be illusory by the framers of the Bill. He should be sorry it should go forth that the justices of the peace were only disposed to do that which was convenient and agreeable to themselves.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, it appeared to him, so far as he could understand the discussion, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) in remarking that the clause was illusory, had rather understated the case. He (Mr. Bentinck) believed the clause as it was framed to be one to enable persons of the worst description of character to open houses of this kind, which would lead to all sorts of disorderly practices, and tend to the discredit and immorality of the country. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rather anticipated those objections, inasmuch as he understood him to say that it was a mere matter of opinion whether the man obtaining the licence be a man of good character or not. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman was bound not to leave the question in so vague and uncertain a state as it then was, but to take care that the class of men to be licensed must possess a character not dependent altogether upon mere opinion, but upon fact. What was wanted was some effectual check upon men of bad character being allowed to obtain licences for those refreshment-houses. If any hon. Gentleman chose to move the omission of the clause he should be glad to support him.
  MR. LIDDELLconsidered that the clause, as it stood, would be perfectly useless.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had not done justice to the magistrates in supposing that they were only inclined to act in cases that gave them little trouble. The magistrates were not a body who were disposed to shrink from any duty because it might be a little unpleasant. What they complained of was that duties were placed upon them which it was next to impossible they could perform. How was it possible that they should obtain such a knowledge of every applicant for a licence, as would enable them to exercise their veto with propriety and justice? Then if anything went wrong great blame would be thrown upon the magistrates for a state of things it was impossible they could provide against. He thought it would be much better if these houses were put on the same footing as regarded their licences as beerhouses.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, as were Clauses 14 to 19 inclusive.
  Clause 20 (What shall be deemed Foreign Wine, and what deemed Spirits),
  MR. AYRTONsaid, this was a clause which afforded a remarkable illustration of the difference between the Bill and the reasons given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for its introduction. They had been told that the object of the measure was to encourage the consumption of French wines, and thereby to promote temperance amongst the people. But the clause now under consideration referred to an article it called wine, containing 40 per cent of proof spirits. There was no such wine manufactured from the grape. There were compounds made abroad composed of wine, brandy, elderberries, and sugar, and which came back to this country under the name of wine; because the duty was so high it was thought desirable to have the spirit as strong as possible. The clause, therefore, would have the effect of introducing into this country compounds of a vile character, and calculated to produce intemperance rather than to discourage it. He thought that, instead of 40 per cent of proof spirit, the clause ought to say 18 or 20 per cent of proof spirits, so as to accord with the natural production of wine.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the hon. Gentleman suggested lather an arbitrary Amendment when he spoke of 18 per cent. The old law of England with regard to wine was,

  1557
  that it should have 23 per cent of spirit; but the limit had now been raised to 40 per cent in the Customs. The hon. Gentleman must see that it was impossible to have one law for the Customs and another for the Excise.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the professed object of the right hon. Gentleman —namely, that of encouraging the sale and consumption of light wines—had been totally lost sight of, because the required per centage of proof altogether did away with it. He (Mr. Bentinck) had no doubt that the Bill would increase the profits of the vendors of liquors; but he felt convinced that it would not promote the health and morality of the people. On the contrary, he believed the effect of the measure would be to increase drunkenness and immorality. The right hon. Gentleman had shown, with the perspicuity which distinguished all his proceedings, that he, too, foresaw clearly what the result of his scheme would be; but he seemed to be perfectly indifferent to those results so long as it was successful in producing an increased revenue. The substitution of the word "liquor" — which substitution the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to— would cover the Bill with disrepute. It would be a disgrace to the statute-book.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHhoped the right hon. Gentleman would pledge himself that he would at the earliest moment reduce the maximum amount of proof spirit to 30 per cent. Even that amount seemed high, and he should be surprised to find that naturally so much would be produced by any grapes.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Licences to be void on Conviction of Felony, or selling Spirits without Licence).
  MR. PACKEsaid, he thought that no man who was well known to be of bad character ought to be permitted to have a licence under this clause. He would, therefore, propose to introduce the words, "or be of notoriously bad character," after the words "convicted of felony."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought this question had been disposed of in an earlier part of the evening. If the Amendment were agreed to, there would be no locus penitentiœ to any man who might have been a bad character, but who had become reformed.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HENLEYthen proposed that before the words "clerks of the peace," the
  1558
  words "clerk of assize or" should be inserted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 22 to 25 agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Hours for opening and closing Houses licensed for Sale of Wine by Retail),
  SIR MORTON PETOmade a suggestion that words should be introduced placing shops licensed to sell wine in bottle under the same restrictions as public-houses in respect to opening on Sundays,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the statute of Charles, prohibiting the sale of commodities on Sundays, would apply to wine sold in bottle, which was a commodity. If the special restriction suggested by his hon. Friend were inserted in the Bill now under discussion, such restriction would have the effect of giving the keepers of refreshment houses an advantage over persons who would sell wine in bottle.
  Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 27 to 30, inclusive.
  Clause 31 (Penalties for Offences in Refreshment-houses).
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved the insertion of words which would have the effect of leaving eating-house keepers not having spirit licences in the position in which they were now placed as regarded being obliged to send out for any wine which a customer might call for.
  MR. HARDYthought that if the Bill was to pass, it would be better to leave it as it now stood in this respect.
  MR. AYRTONmentioned that one of the largest eating-house keepers in the City had been asked why he did not take out a spirit licence. His reply was, that he preferred being without one. He did not want young men to remain after their dinner to drink, and his telling them that he had to send out for wine or spirits had the effect of making them leave immediately after dinner.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 32 to 39 inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 40 (Covenants against Houses, & c, being used as Public-houses to extend to Persons licensed to sell Wine under this Act).
  MR. AYRTONsaid, be believed it was the constant practice in leases granted by the highest personage in the realm, and by such large landowners as the Duke of Bedford, Earl Fitzwilliam, and Viscount Palmerston, to insert covenants that public-

  1559
  houses should not be erected upon their property. That was, in his opinion, a very proper proceeding, and as the clause before the Committee confirmed these distinguished persons in its exercise, he saw no reason why a corresponding power should not be vested in the country at large. He therefore proposed to strike out this clause and to insert one of a more comprehensive character, giving the power of preventing public-houses being opened in any locality to the rate-payeers of the district.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, there was nothing in the present clause incompatible with such a clause as the lion. Gentleman suggests, if he thought proper to propose it to the Committee.
  MR. NEWDEGATEexpressed a hope that the hon. Member would not oppose a clause which was inserted in the Bill for the purpose of preventing the violation of covenants.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERproposed that, as they had gone through this Bill, and they were pledged to give consideration this evening to another very important Bill—the Bankruptcy Bill—the new clauses should be discussed on bringing up the report.
  Upon the Question that the Chairman report the Bill to the House,
  MR. JOHN LOCKEasked the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to a clause he wished to introduce, repealing section 7 of the statute of the 5 & 6 Will. IV., chap. 39. It was introduced into an Act for a totally different purpose, and was never acted upon till the year 1858. The Act in question was passed to meet a legislative error with reference to spirits.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONrose to order. It was not then competent for the hon. and learned Member to discuss the clause. He must do so on the bringing up the Report.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he was in an unfortunate position, because when he was just now about to rise to put his question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to the clause, he was told he could not say anything then, but must wait till the Chairman moved that the Bill be reported, and immediately on his proposing to do so, he was again stopped. He wished to ascertain the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the clause he wished to propose.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and
  1560
  learned Member was not at liberty then to discuss the provisions of his proposed clause. He must give notice of it if he wished to bring it before the notice of the House.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, the clause he complained of crept into a former Bill, and it gave powers to the Excise to grant licences without the intervention of magistrates to theatres. Great abuses had arisen from it, and former Governments had consented to an alteration of the law with respect to that power. He therefore wished to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would oppose the introduction into this Bill of a clause repealing the one he had referred to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question involved in the clause the hon. Member sought to repeal was really one of police and good conduct, not of revenue, and therefore came under the consideration of the Home-office. If it was the opinion of the Home-office that the clause ought to be repealed, he should offer no objection. But whether it should be repealed by a clause introduced into the present Bill was another matter. He did not think it germane to a Bill that dealt with wine licences.
  House resumed; Bill reported; as amended to be considered To-morrow.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (SALARIES) BILL. — COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEwished the Attorney General would give sonic fuller explanation of the financial part of his plan of Reform in the Bankruptcy Law, and state what were the prospects of a revenue being derived from the Court itself, and what would be its ultimate effect on the Consolidated Fund. The Bill placed on the Consolidated Fund a charge of £20,000 a year; it then dealt in a sweeping manner with the existing sources of revenue from the Court; and he should he surprised if in the end the rest of the charges of the Court were not thrown on the Exchequer. Many complaints were made of the constant increase of the expenditure. A chief cause of the increase was the practice of the House itself, in continually passing Bills throwing additional charges on the Consolidated Fund, which, collectively, amounted to enormous sums. Exclusive of the compensations now charged on the

1561
Revenues of the Court, amounting to more than £20,000 a year, the expenses of the Court of Bankruptcy were £58,000. To meet this, at present there wore three sources of revenue,—the percentage fees, paid in by the official assignees, amounting to £30,000 a year; these fees the Bill swept away. Then there were the stamp duties, amounting to £14,000 a year; and lastly, the main source of the revenue of the Court, the interest of the Bankruptcy Fund Account, being the interest of £1,500,000, money in the Court, belonging to bankrupt estates invested in Consols. It amounted to about £46,000. But the new charges of the Court would be £106,000, or nearly double the existing charge of £58,000. On one hand the charge was doubled, and on the other some of the sources of income were swept away, while the Consolidated Fund would be called on to make up the difference. By the operation of the Bill, the revenue from the Bankruptcy Account Fund would probably dwindle away, and become comparatively small, as the fund was no longer to be collected and paid in by officers of the Court, but by the creditors' assignees. He thought there was cause for alarm, and he objected to the possible prospect of placing such a heavy charge on the Consolidated Fund.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the whole matter was fully discussed on the second reading of the Bill, and it was with the approbation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he proposed to transfer the retiring annuity and compensation fund to the Consolidated Fund. It was quite true that in consequence of the changes which had been made in the Bankruptcy Laws and the adoption of a new system the compensation fund had increased. Hitherto that fund had been charged on the future revenue of the Court; but that was an error which he had attempted to rectify by transferring that charge to the Consolidated Fund. The change which had taken place in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee by which trust deeds were registered produced a large sum, and if they took the average every year of those trust deeds and composition deeds, which he now proposed to bring within the range of the Bankruptcy Law, they would find that an additional revenue was produced of at least £60,000 a year. The augmentation of salaries would come out of the suitors' fund, and if any one took the trouble of
1562
looking at the returns, they would see that the augmentation of revenue was placed very much below what the additional income would actually be. He did not think that any apprehension need be felt, because putting the augmentation of revenue at £50,000 instead of £60,000 a year, there were other items which would give a sum of £80,000 a year; after abolishing the charges in the shape of per centages and stamps, there would still be a surplus of £15,000 a year. There was, he therefore thought, no fear on the score of financial grounds.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEobserved, that if the principle on which the hon. and learned Gentleman had based his calculation was right, there could be no necessity whatever for charging the Consolidated Fund with the £20,000 for compensation, because there would be an actual surplus of £15,000 per annum.
SIR FITZROY KELLYobserved, that a sum amounting to upwards of £20,000 a year had been charged by former Parliaments, not upon any sound system of reason or precedent, upon what was termed the Bankruptcy Fund, and was awarded as compensation to persons for emoluments of which they had been deprived. He thought that Parliament should, in the first instance, have placed that charge upon the Consolidated Fund. He would beg the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bouverie) to remember what the Fund was upon which these charges were placed. If there was one Fund that ought to be left unfettered, it was the Bankruptcy Fund. He could not but express his astonishment that the House of Commons, consisting among others of so many mercantile men, should have allowed this charge to continue for so great a number of years. By its means a charge fell upon the very smallest bankrupt estate. One of the greatest benefits his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had proposed by this Bill was the withdrawal of this charge from the Bankruptcy Fund and placing it where it ought to be placed, on the general funds of the country. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock seemed to have forgotten that, by a slight charge, which would scarcely be felt by any of the creditors who would come within its operation, the hon. and learned Gentleman had provided a fund largo enough to meet any deficiencies that might arise. He hoped the Committee would feel that there was no objection to the transfer of this charge, which would

1563
only be an act of justice to the commercial interests of the country.
MR. W. WILLIAMSasked, if the lion, and learned Gentleman would consent to place this amount on the Civil Service Estimates, so as to be voted annually, and that the House might see exactly how the accounts stood? Because, if it was transferred to the Consolidated Fund, the House would have no control whatever over it.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that what he desired to be done was, that Parliament should, year by year, be made acquainted with the state of these funds, and there was a particular provision requiring that a return of revenue and expenditure of the Court should be made annually, which should he in the most distinct form, specifying the various items. It was necessary that these payments should be made regularly, and therefore it would be inconvenient to have them placed on the Votes, but it would be competent to any Member of Parliament at any time to call attention to the Return, and to propose a Resolution with respect to it.
MR. BOWYERthought the charge ought to appear annually in the Civil Service Estimates. Everybody knew how difficult it was for Members to get an opportunity of bringing charges on the Consolidated Fund before the House.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in cases of compensation the grants were generally made by Parliament, and therefore the cases must already have received the assent of Parliament, as it was at the will of Parliament such compensations were granted. He thought therefore these grants were fairly placed on the Consolidated Fund. He did not see how they could be put upon the Estimates as the parties were absolutely entitled to the compensation given to them.
MR. MALINSentered his protest against the doctrine of the hon. Member for Lambeth. Why was this to form an exceptional case? By the same course of reasoning they might make the salaries of the Judges and other high officials dependent upon the vote of the House year by year. He thought these compensations and allowances were properly placed on the Consolidated Fund.
1. Resolved,
"That the Salaries, Allowances, Remunerations, Retiring Annuities, and Compensations which may become payable to certain persons ap-
1564
pointed under or affected by any Act of the present Session for amending the Law relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency in England, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
2. Resolved,
"That the Order for vesting any Estate or Interest in any Copyhold or Customary Land belonging to a Bankrupt, shall be chargeable with the same Stamp Duty as would be chargeable on a like disposition of the same Land by the ordinary mode of Assurance."
3. Resolved,
"That the following Stamp duties in lieu of Fees shall be charged in eases of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in England:—

Document.

Stamp Duty in lieu of Fees.

?

s.

d.

Every Petition for adjudication of Bankruptcy, or for arrangement between any debtor and his creditors, or for the distribution of the estates and effects of a deceased debtor subject to the repayment to the assignee by the chief registrar of one-half of the said Stamp Duty, if the assets realized under the Bankruptcy shall not exceed the sum of three hundred pounds

5

0

0

Every such Petition as aforesaid when presented to the London District Court or a County Court

1

0

0

Every declaration of Insolvency

0

2

6

Every summons of debtor.

0

2

6

Every admission of such debtor.

0

2

6

Every bond with sureties

0

5

0

Every application for search for Petition or other proceeding.

0

1

0

Every application for appointment of sitting or meeting in any matter of arrangement under this Act

0

5

0

Every allocatur by any officer of the Court for any costs, charges, or disbursements,— where such Bill of Costs shall not exceed £5

0

1

6

Exceeding £5 and not exceeding £10

0

2

6

Exceeding £10 and not exceeding £20

0

5

0

Exceeding £20 and not exceeding £30

0

7

6

Exceeding £30 and not exceeding £50

0

10

0

Exceeding £50 and not exceeding £100

0

15

0

Exceeding £100 and not exceeding £150

1

0

0

Exceeding £150 and not exceeding £200

1

10

0

Exceeding £200 and not exceeding £300

2

0

0

Exceeding £300 and not exceeding £500

3

0

0

Exceeding £500 and not exceeding£

5

0

0

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
The House resumed.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read,
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he had an important petition to present in favour of this Bill, signed by 1,000 of the principal merchants, bankers, and traders of the City of London. The petitioners stated that,

  1565
  having had time to consider the Bill of the Attorney General, they "anticipate such important advantages from the proposed changes in the law that they earnestly pray your hon. House not to allow any unnecessary delay to occur in the consideration of the measure, so that it may pass both branches of the Legislature during the present Session of Parliament." This petition was signed by nearly every mercantile house, banking firm, and largo trading house in the City.
  MR. MURRAYpresented a petition, signed by a large number of solicitors and others, setting forth the claims of the messengers in bankruptcy, and submitting that they ought not to be dismissed without due compensation being awarded.
  MR. FRANK CROSSLEYwould take that opportunity of stating that his constituents felt much indebted to the Attorney General for having introduced this measure.
  Motion made that the House do now go into Committee on the Bill.
  MR. VANCEsaid, there was no department of the law which had undergone more frequent changes of late years than that relating to bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Bills which had been successively proposed had each found considerable favour in its day, but had each proved a failure in its turn. None of them had acquired more popularity than the measure of the Attorney General, and he (Mr. Vance) believed the reason was that it extended the jurisdiction in bankruptcy and insolvency to the County Courts, which at present were very popular. He (Mr. Vance) however thought that this course would prove very unsafe, for lie did not think that the County Court Judges had sufficient experience in that branch of the law. Another reason why the Bill had been received with favour was that it threw a heavy burden upon the Consolidated Fund, and relieved the suitor in like proportion. A bankruptcy could not be administered but at considerable expense under the cheapest administration, not only on account of the strict legal investigation which must attend it, but also it forced realization of the assets which under any system that might be established would entail heavy loss on the estate. They would shortly have to deal with the case of Ireland and of Scotland in connection with the question. At present the suitors in Ireland were burdened with a large amount of fees and other expenses; but after the Bill passed for that country those
  1566
  expenses would be charged on the Consolidated Fund in the same way as was proposed with respect to England by the present measure. This Bill destroyed the distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency. He did not object to that as a general principle; but in doing so it also destroyed some of the safeguards which the status of bankruptcy and insolvency possessed. The power of punishing fraudulent insolvents and bankrupts was now to be transferred to a criminal court by the machinery of a prosecution and a jury. He considered that we derived a great advantage from the simple process of a Judge being enabled, without the ordinary forms of a Criminal Court, to remand a fraudulent debtor for a certain period. But under the proposed measure the creditors would be compelled to proceed by a trouble some and expensive machinery in a Criminal Court against the party guilty of any offence deemed punishable by the Judge. He thought that few creditors would he found to follow up such proceedings, and consequently there would so far he a failure of justice. There were some other clauses in the Bill to which he objected. At present the Judge had the power to suspend or deny the certificate of a bankrupt. By the proposed Bill, if a prosecution took place, and if a bankrupt be imprisoned for even six weeks, the Judge had no power to suspend his certificate beyond the period of his imprisonment, he must grant his certificate at the end of his punishment. Now a great many bankrupts would rather incur not only the odium, but also the unpleasantness of a long incarceration rather than be deprived of their certificate for perhaps a period of twelve or eighteen months. He further objected to the denial by the Bill of the right of appeal in certain cases. At present if a Commissioner of Bankruptcy in London refused a proof or a certificate, the party had a light to go before the Lords Justices, who constituted a Court of Appeal, and there claim a reversal of the decision of the Commissioner, not only as regarded a question of law but also one of fact. By the present measure the appeal could only be made upon a question of law or the reception of improper evidence. This Bill also restricted the right of solicitors to practise in the Court—a right hitherto possessed by them. He could not understand upon what principle the solicitors should now he denied that light, which was to be confined exclusively to

  1567
  barristers. The measure was also, in his opinion, objectionable in regard to the matter of arrangements under the control of the court. He had no objection to those arrangements, believing that they were most desirable in many cases where the expenses of bankruptcy might be avoided; but what he objected to was the privacy under which those arrangements were to be made. He thought it was desirable chat the public should receive full warning of a debtor's defalcations. By the present Bill a man might make ten successive private arrangements with ten different sets of creditors, without the public knowing anything about them beyond the circle of those same creditors. He proposed that there should be a certain publicity given to those arrangements at the time when they were effected. He further objected to the provision giving Friendly Societies an advantage over all other creditors in regard to obtaining their debts in full. He contended that the principle caveat emptor should be universally recognised in all commercial transactions. In objecting to the details of the measure of the Attorney General he did not wish to be considered an opponent of its principles, of which be approved; but if it were considered in Committee on those points to which he referred, he would rather allow the law to remain as it stood with all its acknowledged defects.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, he should cordially support the application for compensation to that valuable and meritorious class of public officers—the messengers in bankruptcy, who he considered had a strong claim upon the Attorney General in connection with the present measure. The principle bad been fully recognized in the Bill introduced by the Lord Chancellor, as well as in the measure brought into the House by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. Clauses were inserted in each of those Bills giving compensation to the messengers in the event of their offices being abolished. He was of opinion that it would be an act of the greatest injustice towards the holders of those important offices—offices which were far more important than this measure seemed to imply— if the Attorney General did not introduce clauses into his Bill giving them full and adequate compensation.
  MR. LESLIEsaid, he thought that the measure in the main was one of a salutary and valuable character. Ho, however, suggested that the Chief Judge under the Bill should have conjoined with his judi-
  1568
  cial character that of Commissioner also. Such an arrangement was likely to work far more advantageously for the public. It appeared to him that the Bill would be much better, more simple, and less expensive, if that functionary, preserving his original jurisdiction, could look over the list of bankrupts in his department and demand explanations of the parties concerned as to whether dividends had or had not been given under certain circumstances.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had received several letters respecting the position of certain officers in bankruptcy, and their right to adequate compensation under the Bill of the Attorney General. He wanted to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman upon what principle of justice or equity the messengers were to be excluded altogether from compensation. He confessed he could not understand why the principle of compensation should be admitted as regards other officials, and at the same time be considered inapplicable to the messengers, who were as useful and as faithful a body of public servants in a relative degree. He trusted that the Attorney General would see the propriety of amending his Bill in this respect.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Commissioners of the Court of Bankruptcy in London released).
  MR. WALPOLEcalled attention to this clause, as regarded the provision at the end of it, and in connection with other clauses of the Bill. It was a clause directing the jurisdiction of the Commissioners. It enacted that these officers should cease, and that they should be relieved, and their duties, "subject, however, to the obligation of performing certain duties as hereinafter described." He suggested that the latter words should be omitted. The Commissioners of Bankruptcy in London were judicial officers, receiving a salary of £2,000 a year, being a larger income than that given to the country Commissioners. Looking at the clause as it stood in conjunction with Clause 5, it would appear that the Commissioners in London, whose functions were to cease, were still liable to perform duties in the country upon a lower income than they at present possessed. The Commissioners held their office under patent from the Crown, and the House had always acted on the principle that an office held by patent could in no case be taken away without full compensation to the

  1569
  officer whose office was to cease. There were other clauses of the Bill bearing on this point, enabling the Commissioners to retire upon a pension of two-thirds of their income. He objected to that, upon the ground that such an office should not be taken away, unless upon the principle that the holder of it should have the full amount of salary which he had received. He moved the omission of the words to which he had called attention.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was incumbent on him to declare that officers of such long standing and possessing such acknowledged talent and ability, were entitled to the fullest consideration as regarded their salaries and their release from any further duties. The necessity for removing the Commissioners arose not from any complaint of the manner in which they had performed their duties, but from the defects of the system of which they formed a part. It was hardly possible to state the necessity for the change without employing language which would give some degree of pain to those eminent and able gentlemen. He could only express his regret that there should be anything in the Bill which could for a moment give rise to the idea that any reflection was intended to be cast upon them. He trusted, therefore, that this public acknowledgment of the respect to which he considered them to be unquestionably entitled for the long and valuable services they had rendered—for they had all held office he believed since 1832— would be accepted in the spirit in which it was offered. He believed them entitled to the highest consideration, and he begged at once to disclaim any intention to detract in the slightest degree from the merits of a class of men who were universally esteemed and respected. It was, therefore, with considerable pain that he wrote in the Bill the words which, if the Bill were passed, would invest the Lord Chancellor with the power of sending any one of those long-tried and eminent public servants from the scene of their official duties in London to the country; but he thought it right to submit to the House of Commons the full extent of all the judicial duties hereafter to be performed under the Bill, and to propose to make these learned Gentlemen liable contingently to the occasional discharge of those duties, leaving it to the good feeling and justice of the House to narrow the extent of those duties, if it were right that they should be narrowed. His own feeling was that not only would it be a great hardship,
  1570
  but that gentlemen would shrink from requiring any one of these judicial functionaries, who had been long employed in the administration of justice in Loudon, to go down to some remote part of the country for a month or two. He was glad that his right hon. Friend had adverted to the subject, and he should propose to alter the clause so that the London Commissioners might be liable only to discharge extra duties of the same character and quality as now in, and not out of, London, such duties being of precisely the same character as they had with so much credit to themselves and advantage to the public discharged for so long a period.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he entirely concurred in the Amendment proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge. With respect to the learned Commissioners there was scarcely one of them with whom he could not claim a personal acquaintance. Some of them had been for a great number of years in the public service, and all of them had discharged their duties in the most efficient manner, and this, in some instances, under circumstances of great difficulty. The Commissioners had, in fact, discharged these duties in a manner which had secured for them the approbation, not only of the mercantile public, but of all who were competent judges of the proper mode of conducting an official administration such as that which had been confided to them. He had known Mr. Serjeant Goulbourn from an early period of his career. That learned gentleman at one time discharged the duties of a Welsh Judge to the satisfaction of the entire Principality; and all the tests—practice at the bar in London and the provinces, and success as a Judge—had proved that he was entitled to that public confidence which he so fully enjoyed. With regard to the clause itself he would suggest for the consideration of the Attorney General whether it was really necessary to throw on the Commissioners the new obligations proposed by this Bill. It appeared to him to be a departure from the implied contract between the public and these judicial officers to impose on them duties beyond those they had contracted to perform. He was sure that the Commissioners would perform any functions which Parliament might impose on them; but certainly they should not he asked to discharge duties of an inferior character.
  MR. MELLORexpressed his satisfac-

  1571
  tion that the Attorney General had spoken in the terms he had done of the Commissioners, and had struck out of the Bill words that threw on them duties they had not contemplated. He quite concurred in the Amendment he proposed.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid: after the statement of the Attorney General he did not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors Court released).
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEasked whether it was intended to release the Commissioners of the Insolvent Court, or to continue their services?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas understood to reply, that as their duties would he performed in the Court of Bankruptcy, he did not propose to continue their services.
  Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 4 to 7 inclusive.
  Clause 8 (Appointment of Judge).
  MR. BOWYERsaid, he could not let a Bill pass through Committee, constituting a New Court to be presided over by a single Judge, without entering his protest against courts of justice having only one Judge. He thought the time was not far distant when the Courts for the administration of justice would have to be remodelled. Courts having only one Judge were formed on a vicious principle. It was vesting in one man too much power, and caused the production of too much arbitrary judge-made law. The fundamental principle of the common law was that it was within the breast of the Judge; therefore the common law was that which the Judge decided, and thus they had what was termed "a vicious circle." This made it the more important that the judicial power should not be vested in a single Judge; for when several Judges sat together, one restrained the other. Informer times it was a great object to secure the independence of the Judges, and that, so far as the Crown was concerned, had been accomplished. But he thought the Judges had been made too independent. Certainly it was said they were dependent upon public opinion and the bar. But the public knew not the law, and it was in such a state that lawyers knew little of it themselves. Then as to the bar, the influence of the Judges over gentlemen in practice was very great, and as their prospects in life depended upon being on good terms with the Judges, they did not venture to oppose the decisions
  1572
  which were come to. If an attack was made in that House upon the decision of a Judge, one barrister after another rose and said he was the most learned Judge who ever sat on the bench. If a Judge was popular with the bar he could do anything he pleased. He should have no difficulty in showing some decisions of Judges which were so monstrous that no man but a lawyer would believe them possible. He protested against the arbitrary power which was vested in single Judges, who were quite uncontrolled in court. He referred especially to the courts of equity. The system was extremely mischievous. ["Question."] It was the Question. He spoke upon a clause of a Bill which proposed to constitute a new court with one Judge. There was a greater chance of having sound decisions when three, or four, or five Judges sat together. He felt convinced the time would soon come when the whole system would have to be revised, and when the power of a Judge sitting alone and uncontrolled to decide important questions relating to the interests of fellow-creatures would be abolished. He would not propose any Amendment, because the subject he had propounded was not yet ripe for discussion; but he hoped the question would not be overlooked by the press of this country.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Rank of Judge).
  SIR FITZROY KELLYproposed an addition, providing that the Judge, if a Privy Councillor, should be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That was following the rule adopted in the Testamentary Jurisdiction Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought the Amendment interfered with the Prerogative of the Crown. However, as it appeared that words to the effect now proposed were in an existing Act, he had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 12 postponed.
  Clause 13 (Vacation Deputy).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the Chief Judge would have £5,000 for working nine months in the year, whereas his Deputy would only have £400 for doing the Chief Judge's work during his vacation of three months. If that deputy was equal to do the work of the Chief Judge, why should the country pay £5,000 a year for

  1573
  a Chief Judge? The amount of the Chief Judge's work was not stated,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the duration of the long vacation would be, as in the Court of Chancery, from the 10th of August to the 26th of October; the duration of the Christmas vacation would not extend over more than fourteen days; and the vacation at Easter would extend over eight or nine days.
  MR. HENLEYsaid it appeared, then, that the aggregate number of holidays would amount to about three months, so that the Chief Judge was to have £5,000 for nine months' work; while another person, who was presumed to be equally well fitted for the work, was to have £400 for three months. There might be good reasons for the discrepancy, but he confessed he could not see them.
  THE ATTTORNEY GENERALexplained that during the vacation the sittings of the appellate Court would be wholly suspended, so that when the Deputy was presiding, the only business would be that which might properly be transacted by a subordinate judicial officer.
  MR. MURRAYasked why, in that case, the duties of the Deputy should not be discharged by a Commissioner of Bankruptcy?
  SIR HUGH CAIRNShad no doubt the Lord Chancellor would appoint one of the Commissioners of Bankruptcy to perform this duty. It was for the interest of the public to ensure the services of the most competent persons for the high office of Chief Judge; but the competition would be considerably diminished if the chief Judge were not to have the same vacation as the other Judges. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) must not suppose that this sum of £400 would represent an aliquot part of £5,000, because the Judge, who would sit during the vacation, would put aside all the business that was not pressing and urgent.
  MR. MALINSagreed that it was desirable in the interest of the public as well as of the Chief Judge that he should have the usual vacation. The present Commissioners could not, he thought, complain, if, once in four or five years, they performed in turn the work of the Chief Judge during the vacation.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEremarked that such an arrangement would be a species of tontine, which would press very hardly on those Commissioners who lived the longest.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYexpressed a hope that some explanation would be given of the financial bearing of the Bill. They ought to know something of what it would cost the country in the shape of compensation. The charge upon the Consolidated Fund for Compensations arising from alterations in the law courts was something alarming, and the Courts of Bankruptcy and Chancery took by far the larger portion of the charge. The sums paid as compensation to officers of these courts exceeded the total amount for judicial expenditure in some of the countries of Europe. He wanted to know when they would have the opportunity of discussing this point, as he was determined to take the sense of the House upon it when the proper time arrived.
  MR. W. WILLIAMShoped the Attorney General would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wallingford. The Commissioners ought to have something to do. He remembered that at the time the Commissioners were appointed at a salary of £1,800 a year each, it was said that not one of them earned £500 a year at the bar.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the proper time to object to these compensations was when the Resolutions upon the Bankruptcy Salaries, & c. Bill was under discussion. It was a great mistake to suppose that the Court of Chancery was indebted to the Consolidated Fund. If the balance were struck, and if the Suitors' Fund were emancipated from the burden thrown upon it, the Consolidated Fund would have £200,000 a year additional to bear. The accumulated fees of the Suitors' Fee Fund ought to be dedicated to the purpose of relieving the suitors from the fees of the Court of Chancery.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that he distinguished between the charge on the Consolidated Fund, the Suitors' Fund, and the Fee Fund. What he objected to was this wholesale system of compensations.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsuggested to the hon. Member for Evesham that as none of the salaries clauses had passed the Committee this evening, the best plan would be to raise the question on the Report of the Resolutions from the preliminary Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALwished to inform the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) that there was not a word about

  1575
  compensation in the Bill from beginning to end.
  MR. BOWYERcondemned the fallacy which seemed to be generally entertained that a Judge with £4000 a year was a superior man to one with £400, whereas, although the more fortunate, he was probably the less efficient of the two. He thought that three Judges with £5000 a year divided among them would be a far better arrangement.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Commissioner of London District Court).
  SIR FITZROY KELLYurged that it was exceedingly necessary that the chief Judge should be appointed before the Act came into operation. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Attorney General to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts from £300 to £1,000 throughout the whole of England and Wales, with the exception of the London district; whether he proposed to give such jurisdiction up to £1000 to the Commissioner within the London district; and whether he was disposed to consider the propriety of constituting Norfolk and Suffolk, the outlying portion of the London district, a separate district with a Commissioner of its own.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he agreed that it would be better that the Chief Judge should be appointed before the Act came into operation, and would take power to make the appointment immediately after the Bill passed. The County Courts within the London district, but beyond the limits of the Metropolitan district, would have the power of dealing with any bankruptcy up to the extent of £1,000 assets, which the creditors, by a majority, might choose to delegate to them. He did not see the advantage of giving creditors the power of sending bankruptcies to the London District Court which exceeded £300, and were less than £1,000, because there would be no difference in the mode of administration, and very little in the amount of fees. His aim was to bring the County Courts into a state correspondent to the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland, and he did not see that any other more satisfactory mode of local administration could be provided. With regard to the suggestion to furnish certain districts with a local Commissioner, it was impossible to accede to the proposition, unless they were prepared to put the whole provincial administration in the hands of district Commissioners.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the clause gave power to appoint to the office of London District Commissioner any Commissioner of Bankruptcy or Insolvency, or any barrister of twelve years' standing. He wished to have an assurance that no new Commissioner should be appointed to the Chief Judgeship of the London district while the services of the present Commissioners could be obtained.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALinformed the right hon. Gentleman that he quite agreed with him that the present Commissioners were, of all others, the best men who could be appointed; but he could give no such pledge as the right hon. Gentleman required. He was not consulted upon their appointment, nor had he been consulted on the appointments either on the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill or the Divorce Bill. If his right hon. Friend addressed himself to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he would probably receive a satisfactory assurance.
  MR. WALPOLEthought, that of all others, the Attorney General should be consulted on those appointments. For instance, there was no one, as all the Commissioners agreed, more capable of fulfilling the office of Chief Judge than Commissioner Holroyd; and he thought they ought not to allow the Bill to pass without receiving from the noble Lord some assurance that such men would be appointed.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEhoped that his right hon. and learned Friend would give notice of a distinct clause on the bringing up of the Report, providing for the appointment of one of the existing Commissioners.
  MR. HENLEYconcurred that it was most desirable to move the insertion of such a clause, unless a satisfactory assurance should be received from the noble Lord.
  Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 15 to 21 inclusive.
  Clause 22 (Salary).
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEthought the original salary of the District Commissioners, which was £1,500, sufficient. When they were made Commissioners in Insolvency as well as Bankruptcy, £300 a year was added. But the insolvency business had since been taken from them, and given to the County Court Judges; but the Commissioners retained the higher salary of £1,800. As it was doubtful whether these Commissioners would be kept alive, he should move, as an Amendment, that the salary of £1,800 be limited "to the per-

  1577
  sons now discharging the duties of such Commissioners."
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 3, after the word "Commissioner," to insert the words "now discharging the duties of such Commissioner."
  MR. BRISTOWthought the salary of the County Court Judges, £1,500, quite sufficient for the District Commissioners of Bankruptcy.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYconsidered the Amendment premature, if the business of insolvency were to be again transferred from the County Courts. The District Commissioners had performed their duties to the satisfaction of the public for twenty-eight years, especially in the larger towns. Many of them had made considerable sacrifices in accepting these appointments.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, County Court Judges obtained £1,500 a year in what he might term a surreptitious manner. It was understood when the £300 a year additional was given to the County Court Judges that on all future appointments the salaries should be reduced to £1,200.
  MR. MELLORcomplained of the language employed by the hon. Member for Lambeth. He did not understand what the hon. Gentleman meant by the sum fixed as the County Court Judges' salaries having been increased surreptitiously. He complained also of an assertion made by the hon. Gentleman earlier in the evening that barristers had been appointed Commissioners who were not earning £500 a year by their profession before their appointment,
  MR. W. WILLIAMShad merely stated what, at the time the appointments were made, was a notorious fact. He repeated his assertion that the higher salary was carried surreptitiously, when the question was under discussion.
  MR. CLAYsaid, if the salaries of the County Court Judges had been increased the labour of the office had been increased also.
  MR. HENLEYthought if the Committee did not agree to the Amendment the salaries of the County Court Judges would, hereafter, have to be brought up to the same level. It ought to be left open to consideration whether the successors of the present Commissioners should have £1,800 or £1,500 a year.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALbelieved the ordinary meaning of the word "surreptitious" would be, that a fraud had been
  1578
  practised on the House. On whom did the hon. Member for Lambeth fix that charge? As to the salaries of the County Court Judges, he thought they had been treated in a niggardly manner. Their duties had been augmented, and they had given great satisfaction. The hon. Member probably knew men who would undertake to do the work for £500 a year; but the salary in such a position should be suited to the talent, the respectability, and the independence required in it. By the Amendment the Committee was deliberately asked to reduce the scale of judicial remuneration; but he should object to putting the successors of the Commissioners on a lower scale of salary than those who now held the office. He earnestly entreated those of the Committee who were anxious to maintain the judicial institutions of the country not to assent to so insidious a proposal.
  MR. MALINSobserved that it was most important that all judicial officers should have independence secured in their various positions, and he denied that it could be reasonably said that £1,800 was too large a salary for the services rendered by the Commissioners.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, the only fault he found with the Amendment was that £1,200 a year was not proposed by it, instead of £1,500 a year.
  MR. BRISTOWsupported the Amendment, believing the Commissioners would be amply remunerated with £1,500 a year.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 68:—And the numbers being equal the Chairman declared himself with the Noes.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, lie hoped that the Attorney General after the division which had just taken place would reconsider this question. He should not have moved the Amendment if he did not think that the salary of £1,500 a year for all future Judges under this Bill amply sufficient.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, they would have other opportunities for the consideration of this question. He, however, objected upon principle to the reduction of the salary as proposed.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the lower salary was only intended to apply hereafter to those who were appointed to any future vacancies that might arise.
  Question put. "That Clause 22 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 38: Majority 80.
  Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 23.
  Clause 24 (Appointment to Vacancies).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved a verbal Amendment rendered necessary by alterations in the previous clauses.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that the proviso in this clause raised the question, whether the bankruptcy jurisdiction should be entrusted to the County Court Judges. This subject had been carefully considered six years ago by a Commission, at the head of which was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), and which had among its Members Sir George Rose, Mr. Swainston, Mr. M. D. Hill, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, and Mr. G. C. Glyn, M.P. The Commissioners, after due consideration, recommended that the transfer of bankruptcy jurisdiction to the County Court Judges should not be made. They pointed out that there were several substantial distinctions between the two courts,—for example, that the County Courts were essentially contentious and ambulatory, while the Court of Bankruptcy was not essentially a contentious court, and ought not to be ambulatory, because its records and documents ought to be accessible. Lastly, the Commissioners urged with great force that the County Courts had only a limited jurisdiction up to £50, whereas the Bankruptcy Court had no limit to its jurisdiction, and decided most important matters without any restrictions, both in law and equity. He should, therefore, move the omission of the proviso at the end of the clause giving jurisdiction in bankruptcy to the County Courts.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, as the right hon. Gentleman had made reference to him as one of the Commissioners whose names were appended to the Report in question, he wished to assure him and the Committee generally that he continued decidedly of the same opinion as was therein expressed. He was strongely of opinion that the jurist dictions of the two Courts were of a wholly different character—the one being contentious, the other administrative. He thought that such a transfer of jurisdiction as was now proposed would destroy all the efficiency of the County Courts, which would then be unable to discharge their duties with that efficiency and propriety as had given such satisfaction to the suitors and the public generally. Looking at the 22ud, the24th, and 25th clauses together,
  1580
  he would remind the Attorney General that the Committee was asked to establish different Judges with different salaries, and to mix up the duties of the one with the other in point of jurisdiction. By Clause 22 the hon. and learned Gentleman was appointing Judges to administer matters in bankruptcy at a salary of £1,800 each. By Clauses 24 and 25, he was going to transfer to the County Court Judges a new jurisdiction in bankruptcy, and to create, by Clause 25, new County Courts with bankruptcy jurisdiction added to them. To the County Court Judges who should receive this accession of jurisdiction, a salary of £1,500 a year was assigned: the other County Court Judges would receive a salary of £1,200 a year only. The greatest confusion would ensue by the mixing up of those jurisdictions which were perfectly distinct as to authority, functions, and salaries. He was convinced that such a system would not last for two years. In the first place, the efficiency of the County Courts would be impaired; secondly, their bankruptcy jurisdiction would not be well administered; and thirdly, Parliament would have to raise all the other salaries to the level of the Judges of the District Commissioners of Bankruptcy with salaries of £1,800. There was only one mode by which they could give satisfaction to the suitors and to the public with regard to the payment of these various Judges, and that was to keep the County Court jurisdiction entirely distinct from questions of mere administration. There could then be three classes of Judges; first, the superior Judges, then the Judges of the Metropolitan Districts, who, on the ground of greater expense, & c., might receive £2,000 a year; and, lastly, a third class of judicial officers, who should all have one rate of salary, whether Commissioners of Bankruptcy or County Court Judges, who should give their whole time to the public, and be put upon an equal footing. For these reasons, which would be found stated at length in the Report of the Commissioners, he supported the Amendment.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESremarked that the great difficulty in the bankruptcy law was the administration of the country jurisdiction. He could not see any objection to transferring the bankruptcy jurisdiction in the country districts to the County Court Judges. They already had jurisdiction in insolvency.
  MR. M. T. SMITHheld that the County court Judges were at present fully employ-

  1581
  ed in discharging duties totally alien from administering the law of bankruptcy; and were, from their present occupations and previous practice at the bar, totally unqualified to administer the estates of Insolvent debtors, which in reality were the duties which under this Act would devolve upon them. As a matter of economy the proposition would he a failure, for if this function were superadded to their present onerous duties it would be necessary to increase the number of County Court Judges. The object of the Bill was to obtain a better administration of effects, and to carry that out it was necessary to appoint gentlemen acquainted with such matters, who were acquainted likewise with the principles of equity, and whose time was not taken up with other duties. If such officers were appointed it might be practical to make them ambulatory.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it would not he obligatory on the Crown, under this Bill, to appoint the County Court Judges as administrators of the bankruptcy law. It would be lawful for the Crown to do so as vacancies occurred; but the exercise of the power would, no doubt, very much depend upon the circumstances of the district and the community. In such places, for instance, as Manchester and Liverpool a special Judge would be appointed, while in other parts of the country it would be found more convenient to commit the business to the County Court Judge. He, however, believed that if there was any one part of the Bill upon which more than another the country seemed to have set its mind, it was the scheme for transferring the administration of the bankrupt law from Commissioners to the County Court Judges. The County Court Judge was, it was true, itinerant; but he could be made as stationary, for the purposes of this law, as any other Judge—and indeed, there was a clause later in the Bill to meet that objection—while, on the other hand, if it was found conducive to the due and efficient administration of the law that the sittings should be held at different places, which would sometimes be the case, then the objection fell to the ground. It was urged as an objection to this transfer that the functions of the County Court Judges were now in contentious proceedings, while the proceedings in bankruptcy were non-contentious. This was true only to a certain extent. There were many contentious questions in bankruptcy. The County Court Judges were selected from gentle-
  1582
  men of ability and experience at the bar; and he felt confident that they would give as much satisfaction in administering the bankrupt law as they had given in discharge of their present functions. He should vote against the omission of the proviso, because he believed that they would by omitting it, disappoint the reasonable expectations of the public and impair the efficiency of the Bill.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that the County Court Judges went a circuit, and generally gave only one day to each place. How, then, were they to undertake bankruptcy cases which might take three or four days to hear? Could his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General get over that difficulty, and show that the County Court Judges had sufficient time to discharge the new duty which it was proposed to impose upon them? If he succeeded in doing so he (Mr. Malins) should vote for the clause, for as it was not imperative, but merely gave the Crown the power of transfer, he did not like to vote against it. On the ground of economy, he thought the existing arrangement the better one. Let the House suppose the case of the commissionership of Liverpool becoming vacant. Well, if the jurisdiction of the Liverpool Bankrupt Court was transferred to Comity Courts it would be divided amongst no less than eleven of them. This would involve an expenditure of £3,300, the additional salary which would have to be given to the Judge of each of these courts being £300. The salary of the Commissioner was £1,800, so that there was an expenditure of £1,800, as against £3,300, in favour of a Commissioner.
  MR. BAINESwished to say that the feeling of the mercantile community was not so generally in favour of the transfer of the business of the Bankruptcy Court to the County Court Judges, as the hon. and learned Solicitor General seemed to imagine. He (Mr. Baines) had presented a petition from the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, in which an objection was taken to it, on the ground that the Judges of the County Courts were at present fully employed, and that many of them were not adequately versed in mercantile law.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, the rejection of the clause would inflict the greatest disappointment on the public. His opinion coincided with that of mercantile men, that there was not the slightest reason to suppose that the County Court Judges were incompetent to exercise bankruptcy

  1583
  jurisdiction; and, as it was the undoubted wish of the whole community that it should he intrusted to them, he should support the clause.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that even if the feeling were universally in favour of the transfer of jurisdiction to the County Courts, it was not conclusive; because it was their duty to determine what was best for the country, and to set aside the inconsiderate views of people out of doors. But he took issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman ns to the universality of that feeling. The Committee of the Liverpool Law Society had drawn up a Report on this Bill, in which they said they considered that all matters of bankruptcy and insolvency should be brought under the jurisdiction of one Court; that they quite disapproved of any jurisdiction in those matters being given to the County Courts; that they had not the proper machinery to secure the due performance of the duties of official assignee; and that the examination of the accounts of insolvents by those Courts had not been satisfactory. The City of London Committee appointed to inquire into that subject, stated that they were not prepared to give any opinion as to the competency of the County Court Judges to administer the bankruptcy law. It could not, therefore, be said that the mercantile classes were unanimous in favour of transferring that jurisdiction to the County Court Judges. The comparison drawn between the Scotch Sheriffs Courts and the County Courts was defective; they did not at all resemble each other. He must persist in dividing the Committee.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsuggested that the clause should be postponed, till some of the following clauses, having reference to the same subject, should have been considered.
  MR. MELLORalso approved the postponement.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had no objection to postpone the clause, if such was the wish of the Committee, till the bringing up of the Report.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that could not be done, as an Amendment had been made in the clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the same tiling could be effected in another way, namely, by negativing the clause now, on the understanding that he should bring it up in another form on the Report.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he should take
  1584
  the sense of the Committee on that portion of the clause to which he had referred.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in that case he should defend the clause, on the ground that it would greatly facilitate the attainment of justice. No one ventured to assert that the present state of the bankruptcy law was satisfactory. He did not charge this to the administration of the law, as far as the Court had powers; but the defects of the law amounted to an absolute denial of justice. To the bankrupt it was ruinous, to the creditor iniquitous. But what remedy could be applied? He approved the favourite modern principle—that of reverting to the old Saxon system of a provincial and local administration of justice. The County Courts were ambulatory. They could not have a better arrangement than that by which a Judge was kept itinerating in a small district, and compelled to act there according to the exigency of business. If they preserved the present system, they must continue nil the subjects of complaint now made against the existing bankruptcy law. It was not the Loudon administration so much as the provincial, of which complaint was made. What could there be better for the purpose than the County Courts? The Judges of those Courts appointed during the last two or three years, were, he could undertake to say, gentlemen equal to the discharge of any amount of judicial duty; and they had, besides, at their command an admirable local organization for administering the bankrupt law. He entirely deprecated this question being argued from a mere financial point of view. The average duties of the County Court Judges did not extend beyond fifteen days a month, and nearly half their time would be left vacant for the performance of the functions assigned to them by this Bill. The Committee must, he believed, accept the alternative of adopting the present proposal, or continuing the existing system, to which the greatest possible objection was felt by the mercantile community.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman himself proposed to continue the existing system until the present district Commissioners should die off. A provision was made in this Bill by means of which the Lord Chancellor would have power to order the district Commissioners to go about to such places as he might think proper, and that would cure a complaint now very general in the country; persons who have business to transact in

  1585
  those Courts would have a Court at their own doors instead of having to travel a considerable distance to go to those Courts. But as to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the County Court Judges had so much spare time on their hands at present, he feared that if they were to leave their own particular Courts to attend to the business of those district Courts, and their own Courts were handed over to some inferior officer, the County Courts would not long continue to give such satisfaction to the public as they now gave. He was disposed to support the Amendment.
  MR. CLIVEreminded the House that they had had a trial of migratory Commissioners in the case of the Insolvency Courts, and that the result was far from being satisfactory. It seemed to him unnecessary to appoint Commissioners to bring justice to every man's door when they had those who could do so ready at hand in the persons of the County Court Judges. He would advise the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) not to put too much faith in law societies; they did not always desire cheap law, and generally recommended centralization.
  MR. VANCEsaid, that so far from its being an advantage as was said, for the County Court Judges to go circuit, the creditors would very much prefer eases being settled in the county town.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that four years ago the sheriffs in Scotland obtained jurisdiction in bankruptcy, and the success of the experiment had been complete. There seemed to be an idea abroad that there was some mystery in matters of bankruptcy which ordinary Judges could not understand; but this was a mistake. Any Judge who was cognizant with the ordinary business of a Court of Law was able to discharge the duties of a Court of Bankruptcy. He might state that in Scotland the cost of proceedings in bankruptcy amounted to 11 per cent, while in England it was 30 per cent.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that there was a general desire that further time should be given for the consideration of the matter, and he therefore moved that the Chairman should report progress.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that no more contentious cases were ever brought before a tribunal than cases of bankruptcy. He trusted that the Attorney General would press the clause to a division.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALappeal-
  1586
  ed to the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his proposition.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he had no wish to impede the progress of the Bill, and therefore he would not persist in his Motion.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he could not, as alleged by the Attorney General, be accused of having unreasonably opposed the progress of this Bill. But the fact was, the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed desirous of having so much power in that House that he would not brook any opposition to his proposition. He (Mr. Bouverie) would protest against any system of browbeating independent Members into holding the same opinions as the hon. and learned Attorney General.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. MALINSthen moved that the Chairman do report progress.
  The House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Friday.

EXCISE AND ASSESSED TAXES ACTS.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read,
  (House in Committee).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That in lieu of the Duties now payable on Game Certificates in Great Britain and Ireland respectively, there shall be charged the following Duties of Excise:—
  For a Licence to be taken out by every person who shall use any dog, gun, net, or other engine for the purpose of taking or killing any game whatever, or any woodcock, snipe, quail, or landrail, or any conies, or any deer, or shall take or kill by any means whatever, or shall assist in any manner in the taking or killing, by any means whatever, of any game, or any woodcock, snipe, quail, or landrail, or any coney, or any deer:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  If such Licence shall be taken out after the 5th day of April and before the 1st day of November,

  To expire on the 5th day of April in the following year.

  3

  0

  0

  To expire on the 31st day of October in the same year in which the Licence shall be taken out

  2

  0

  0

  If such Licence shall be taken out on or after the 1st day of November,

  To expire on the 5th day of April following

  2

  0

  0

  MR. BRIGHTpointed out, that by a word in one of the Resolutions, a tax would be imposed on the shooting of rabbits, which was quite a new impost.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that he would postpone the Bill.
  MR. KINNAIRDthought it of great im-

  1587
  portance that the query of the hon. Member for Birmingham should be replied to.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that the Resolution was not intended to have any such effect.
  The House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Thursday.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.