COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 18 March 1861)

§ MR. MALINS
said, he hoped that, inasmuch as the Bill had undergone numerous alterations, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would allow it to be printed before the Report was brought up.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he Loped to get through the remaining clauses of the Bill in Committee that night; and be did not think it necessary to reprint it before reporting, There were only two clauses remaining for deliberation, one relating to the remuneration of messengers, 2158 the other to the remuneration of official assignees.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that an hon. Member had given notice of an Amendment to the effect that a majority of the creditors in number as well as in value should approve of any trust deed. There had been a discussion on this subject upon a former occasion, and the sense of the Committee generally was that it would be better not to limit the majority to three-fourths in value, but to take a majority in numbers as well. He would, therefore, accede to the suggested Amendment if the words were slightly altered so as to make it run "a majority in number, including three-fourths in value."

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, he wished to move another Amendment, to the effect that the proceedings by trust deeds should not be subject in ordinary cases to stamp duties.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the Amendment, which the hon. Gentleman proposed with so much complacency, would absolutely ruin the Bill. The whole cost of working the Bill rested on those fees. By the present law the poorest suitor taking an estate into bankruptcy had to pay £10 down, but the Bill would give creditors who resorted to a trust deed all the benefit of the bankruptcy law for the sum of 30s.

§ MR. HADFIELD
proposed an Amendment, the object of which was to substitute statutory declarations for oaths.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he was anxious to multiply oaths as little as possible, but some regard must be had to the general practice. The word "sworn" would include declarations by Quakers and persons who were excused from taking oaths; but he would be glad to insert the words "or certified."

MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to know on what principle the scale of stamp duties was regulated. Every small estate under £500 was required to pay a fee of £2, while large estates of £10,000 or £100,000 were not required to pay more than £10. 2159 He wished to know why the small estates were to be taxed so much out of all proportion to the large ones.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the clauses the Committee were now considering would, he anticipated, prove the most effectual in the Bill; for he believed that trust deeds would be resorted to much more often than adjudication in bankruptcy. By the present law the creditors of the smallest estate had to pay £10 on the threshold of the suit; by this Bill they would obtain all the advantages of an adjudication by a trust deed, the initial charge on which would be only 30s. So far, then, the Bill would greatly relieve the smaller estates. He had been considering how low he could put the subsequent stamp duty, and he found that he could not make it lower than £2; but the creditors would obtain for £3 10s. what under the old law would have cost £10 to begin with, besides the subsequent charges. He had not carried the ascending scale of ad valorem duty beyond £10, because cases were rare in which estates of greater value than £5,000 were administered out of Court.

MR. HENLEY
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not met his question. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, there would not be so much injustice committed in the proposed law as under the existing system. But what he wanted to know was why there should be injustice at all? He should move that the stamp duty, fixed in the Bill at the minimum of 40s., should be reduced to 20s.

MR. GLYN
said, he was disposed very much to agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley). The clause was a very important one, for it gave the power of registering trust deeds in bankruptcy for the first time. He could not see why, if they must impose an ad valorem duty for purposes of revenue, they should not charge the full amount upon estates of £20,000 or £30,000, which would principally be wound up under deeds.

§ MR. MALINS
suggested that an ad valorem duty should be charged on all estates—say 5 per cent, whatever the amount of the estate might be. Thus all estates would be taxed in the same proportion, and a large amount of revenue be produced.

MR. HENLEY
said, he thought there was a great principle involved in thus taxing poor people with a small estate heavily, because they must needs get money, and not taxing the larger estates 2160 in the same proportion. He should, therefore, move in line 23, to leave out £2, with the view of substituting 20s.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he would not object to the proposal if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to augment the subsequent stamp duties on larger estates by making £5 £10, and £10 £ 15.

MR. HENLEY
said, he would not presume to fix the exact proportions. He merely wished to raise the question that the stamp duty imposed should be graduated to the value of the estates dealt with. If the hon. and learned Gentleman at all acceded to the principle, he would leave him to settle both the higher and lower scale according to the necessities of the Court.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
believed 2s. per cent on the estates dealt with would produce the requisite amount.

THE CHAIRMAN
stated that, the maximum of stamp duty having been fixed by Resolution, it would not be competent to increase its amount in Committee on the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
admitted the reasonableness of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition in the abstract, but the effect of an ad valorem duty on large estates would be to drive them out of the Court of Bankruptcy. He was afraid it was too late to alter the lower scale, as they could not augment the maximum duty. He, therefore, trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not occasion embarrassment by persisting in his Amendment.

MR. HENLEY
said, he would be sorry to throw any difficulty in the way of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but, as there seemed to be a general concurrence of opinion on the subject, while he would not divide on his Amendment, he trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would consider the matter, and after the Bill was through Committee get a Resolution passed in the regular way increasing the maximum rate of stamp duty so as to be enabled to adopt a lower rate for the smaller estates.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, and would take it into consideration. A sum of 5s. per cent would fully answer his purpose, but he would review his calculations before pledging himself on the subject, and if it should be necessary to set up a Committee in order to carry out the alteration, he hoped to have the support of the House in doing so.

§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID
asked whether the words of the Clause were not too vague and general, and would not render necessary the formalities of the Bankruptcy Court in cases where trust deeds were executed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he did not think that there was any ground for that apprehension. The administration would proceed under the trust deed, and it would be impossible in that case to apply the same directions as were applicable where the administration was under the Court.

§ MR. MURRAY
said, he wished to point out that the clause provided no means of preventing an execution against either the person or the property of a debtor pending the twenty-eight days allowed for registering the deed of trust. Under the Bill of Exchange Act execution could be obtained in twelve days.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, there was considerable difficulty in the matter. On the one hand it was desirable to prevent a malignant creditor from defeating the whole arrangement, and on the other it was necessary to guard against fraud. If the debtor were absolutely protected during the twenty-eight days, he might avail himself of the interval to make away with his estate.

§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID
suggested that the clause should be confined to such deeds as a certain proportion of the creditors, in number and value, had assented to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he saw no necessity for altering the clause, but would consider the point.

MR. HENLEY
said, that the clause as it stood would open the door to any creditor holding a Bill of exchange against the debtor to upset the whole trust arrangement. In ten or twelve days the holder of the Bill could get a judgment and proceed to execution. But by a former clause of that measure such an execution would of itself amount to an act of bankruptcy.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, one of the conditions of the deed was that the debtor should deliver up possession of his property to the trustees, and when that was done no creditor upon 2162 a bill of exchange could touch the property. It was absolutely essential that the execution of every deed should be accompanied by delivery.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he thought the clause was most important as affecting the whole working of the system of trust deeds. If the twenty-eight days allowed for registration had not elapsed, the debtor was not protected against the execution of any creditor, and yet if a debtor gave up all his property to trustees, it would seem to be only just that all proceedings against him should be stayed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
replied, that one of the main conditions for allowing the debtor the benefit of the law was that he should be subject to examination by his creditors, and therefore it was necessary to retain him within the jurisdiction. It might occur that a fraudulent debtor might make an apparent bonâ fide distribution, and then withdraw himself from the country. It was intended that the debtor should be protected against all process except process against him as about to quit the country.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, the clause referred to a period subsequent to the filing of the deed, but the case he put was whether before the twenty-eight days had elapsed, a creditor who did not intend to come in under the deed might not take the debtor in execution?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
remarked that the registration of the deed need not be delayed for twenty-eight days. A debtor could make his offer, and if three-fourths of the creditors concurred to accept it, the deed could be registered next day. It was intended to give protection within the twenty-eight days to a debtor, except in the case of his being about to quit the country.

§ MR. BOVILL
suggested that no process should be enforced without leave of the Commissioner.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the case assumed by his hon. and learned Friend seemed to be that when a man had given up all his property a malignant creditor would go on with his action in order to take the debtor and place him in prison. But what benefit would be derive from that? If there would be none, then it was not likely any man would act in that way. Upon the whole he thought it would be best to leave the clause as it stood.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that where there were holders of bills whose names could not be ascertained, or where creditors were absent from the country, the clause would make it sufficient for the debtor to obtain the assent of three-fourths in number and value of the remaining creditors; but as there might be a cloak for fraud in that provision, by enabling the debtor to hand over the property to two friendly trustees, he should propose that the words "in either of such cases" be struck out, and that in lieu thereof be inserted, "the trustee or one of the trustees of the deed or instrument be an official assignee of the district," & c.

MR. MOFFATT
said, it was extremely difficult to say where the creditors upon bills of exchange were living when the estate came under sequestration or bankruptcy. He, therefore, would propose after the word "creditors," to insert the words "including those who would represent bonâ fide creditors on bills of exchange.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the Amendment in question would completely nullify the clause. The insertion of these words would render it imperative on an unfortunate debtor to get the eon-sent of those persons who were bonâ fide holders. They might possibly be in a foreign country.

MR. MOFFATT
said, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would devise some scheme for remedying the evil to which he referred.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
said, that the clause, as proposed to be amended by the hon. and learned Attorney General, would give a monopoly to the official assignee of the district of the trusts of all trust deeds. The creditors should have the option to choose their own trustees, in whom they could have confidence.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that he intended by the provision to effect that which in former times in bankruptcy used to be done by provisional assignment. When the creditors were ascertained and came in they could very easily elect new trustees, and the official assignee would only be removable upon application to the Court.

§ MR. BOVILL
suggested that, instead of the Amendment proposed by the Attorney General, words should be introduced making it necessary that the affidavit "shall be allowed by the Court."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he thought the application to the Court by either the debtor or creditors in such a matter would lead to inconsistency and inconvenience.

§ MR. BOVILL
said, a case might arise of a debtor who had contracted debts in the colonies in a colonial trade where he might owe a large sum, and but a very small sum in this country, and yet, by the present clause, the signatures of three-fourths of the creditors in the colonics might be dispensed with; in such a case the Court ought to have a discretion; the creditors should be at liberty to apply to the Court.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, even in that case he doubted whether the interposition of the Court would remove the evil.

MR. HENLEY
remarked, that in every case the official assignee should be a trustee.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that he had received innumerable applications from merchants and other experienced persons on the point, and the proposition which he had just made for the Amendment of the clause was one very much insisted on by them, though it had not occurred to his own mind. He would, however, withdraw the Amendment.

MR. GLYN
observed, that that portion of the mercantile body with which he had communicated had but one opinion in reference to official assignees, and that was, that with respect to trust deeds, they should not be introduced into the machinery.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
proposed the omission of words involving the distinction of trader and non trader, for the purpose of making the clause consistent with the principle already admitted by the rest of the Bill of abolishing that distinction.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
said, the Committee had now arrived at what were called the "dead man's clauses." Similar clauses had been before proposed, but never adopted. He did not think them necessary, and in themselves they were very objectionable. They were not found- 2165 ed upon any conduct of the deceased man—not upon anything done that constituted an act of bankruptcy. The clause dealt only with the assets of the dead man—with his estate; and the law of bankruptcy ought not to depart from the criteria of conduct. At the moment of death it was impossible to say whether the estate would be sufficient to pay all the debts; but by these clauses, unless it could be shown that the assets would cover all the debts, the estate might be thrown into the Court of Bankruptcy, and the family of the dead man would incur all the irksomeness of feeling caused by the proceeding. Such a proposition had never yet been entertained, and, without very good reasons, he hoped it would not be entertained now. Again, it was the essence of the law of bankruptcy to pay all the creditors equally, whatever their character might be; as far as the assets went, the debts were paid without preference. But, in these clauses, the whole principle of bankruptcy was abandoned, and the estate was to be administered on the principles of the Court of Chancery, that recognized a priority and preference of the liabilities. The Court of Chancery frequently administered estates of persons deceased, and did so by a simple process, much cheaper than that of the Court of Bankruptcy. Of that he would give an instance. It so happened that at precisely the same time an estate worth £23,000 had to be administered in Chancery, and an estate worth £17,000 had to be administered in bankruptcy. Upon the smaller estate in bankruptcy, the costs of administration were £800, while upon the other, they were only £53. Then one of the clauses provided that no order could be made under this Bill in cases in which proceedings had been commenced in the Court of Chancery. The consequence would be that, to escape the odium of a fiat of bankruptcy, a summons of the Court of Chancery would be applied for immediately alter death to bar the possibility of any proceedings in bankruptcy. Though the administration of the assets of deceased persons by the Court of Chancery was cheap and good, yet they ought not to adopt any course tending to throw every estate into that court. During a man's life it was often necessary to take some steps to prevent him from making away with his estate by some act of fraud or preference of creditors, and an application to the Court of Bankruptcy would prevent such acts; but after a man 2166 was dead no such waste of an estate could be committed. Besides, the Court of Bankruptcy dealt with debts only, and not with legacies, so that when a man died there might be two proceedings—one to determine who was to be paid the debts, and the other to determine who was to be paid the legacies. There were other objections. One was that they required County Courts to administer the assets of a deceased debtor, on the principles, and in the manner, in which they would be dealt with in a Court of Equity. For the County Courts when discharging the functions of their own proper sphere, he had the highest respect; but he should like to know how their machinery could be considered adequate to the administration of equitable assets. The clauses, he might add, to which he was referring furnished the only instance of which he was aware of provision being made for the administration of an estate without the intervention of an administrator or executor, and that they did by setting forth that in the case in which there was no executor or administrator the next of kin might be cited; the determination of the question of who was the next of kin, be it borne in mind, being frequently one of great complication, and, as a consequence, one which the Court of Bankruptcy was not the fittest tribunal to decide. And there was this further absurdity, that the clause provided for notice being given to the heir at law or next of kin, by leaving a summons at the last place of residence of the deceased person, and this it should be recollected was to be done three months after the person had died. He thought if the clause had provided that the summons was to be posted on the door of the House of Commons, it would be more likely to catch the eye of the heir at law or next of kin. The clauses had been introduced into the Bill of 1849, but were struck out; they had been referred to the Commission of 1854, but had been rejected; and he trusted that for these reasons he had given the hon. and learned Attorney General would see the expediency of omitting them from the present Bill. If not, he should when the proper time arrived, deem it to be his duty to take with respect to them the sense of the Committee.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he had come to the same conclusion as his hon. and learned Friend with respect to the effect of the clauses. They were not only useless but mischievous. The Chancery Commission 2167 had reported against them. The practice of the Court of Chancery, in the administration of the assets of deceased persons, was cheap, expeditious, and free from difficulty. He trusted, therefore, that the Attorney General would abandon the clauses.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he thought it inconvenient to go into the general question started by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) upon the Amendment before the Committee. But he would remind hon. Gentlemen that the clauses were permissive, and not compulsory. They had been long requested by the mercantile community, who had felt that if power were given to local courts to administer the assets of deceased persons it would be a great boon. If the objections to the clauses were valid, they would become a dead letter; but it was only right to give the country the opportunity of exercising an option in the matter, and thus determining whether the principle was or was not beneficial. He trusted the Committee would support the clause.

§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID
said, that, before hearing the opinions of his hon. and learned Friend opposite, he had arrived at the same conclusion as to the objections to the clauses. They were opposed to the principles which had guided recent legislation. They would create precisely the distinction between dead persons that the Bill sought to do away with, as far as might be, in the case of the living—that of trader and non-trader. They would cause the greatest doubt and uncertainty as to what court should be applied to. They would require the practice of the Court of Bankruptcy and the Court of Chancery in the same court, and, therefore, oblige County Court Judges to be as familiar with chancery law as they were supposed to be with common law. They were contrary to the principles of the Bill itself, and, he believed, would only confer a fancied advantage on the public.

MR. HENLEY
said, he thought the clauses were of a very cruel character, inasmuch as they tended to stigmatize a man after he was in his grave as a bankrupt, although when alive he might have been perfectly solvent. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite would, in his opinion, aggravate the injustice. The circumstances of a man having been suddenly smitten down by sickness, the heavy expenses attending upon his illness, his death and burial, the 2168 stamp upon the probate or letters of administration—all those expenses might so impoverish a man's estate as to render him insolvent at his death. He hoped that the Attorney General would not press those clauses.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, the object of those who supported the clauses was not to inflict pain on any person, but to ascertain the best mode of distributing a man's effects among his creditors. Those who belonged to his own branch of the profession, and who had been practically engaged in such matters, could appreciate, better perhaps than the Chancery barristers the difficulties that arose in winding-up an insolvent's estate. The opinion of the trading community had been expressed very decidedly in favour of the provisions of this Bill, and he could not agree to the withdrawal of the clauses now under discussion. Nothing had ever been a greater blessing to this country than the county courts, for it was quite horrible to remember the difficulties there used to be in the way of recovering the smallest debt, and the prodigious amount of machinery that had to be set in motion for that purpose. The measure before the Committee would prove beneficial in the same way.

§ MR. BAINES
observed that the Chambers of Commerce in Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Huddersfield, and other mercantile bodies in Lancashire and Yorkshire, had declared strongly in favour of these clauses, and wished them to be extended to non-traders as well as to traders.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
expressed a hope that the Attorney General would favour the Committee with his opinion upon the question before them. The proposition was one by which the Committee was asked to extend the powers of the County Courts, and by a side-wind to confer upon them equitable jurisdiction. That might be a very legitimate subject of discussion; but it ought to be introduced not incidentally in a Bankruptcy Bill, but as a separate measure. He, likwise, thought it objectionable to treat the estate of a deceased trader as bankrupt, though no act of bankruptcy had been committed by the man in his lifetime. Above all, he objected to extending the clauses to the non-trader, because the Committee had already discussed the extent to which this Bill should apply to non-traders, and it was not proper to make this law extend more to a non-trader after his death than during his life.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he should vote 2169 against the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Craufurd) for extending these clauses to a non-trader, for as he thought the clauses mischievous he would rather restrict them as much as possible. But he trusted that they would hear from the Attorney General whether he intended to adhere to them.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
was anxious to leave the decision upon these clauses to the Committee. He was undoubtedly pledged to them because they had been recommended to him by a large body of gentlemen of great mercantile experience. He might state, moreover, that clauses to the same effect were brought forward by Lord St. Leonards when he was Lord Chancellor. They came, therefore, with high legal as well as high mercantile authority. He did not think the clauses had been fairly represented by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast. Their principle was this—that if the adminis—trator, or in his absence the person entitled to administrate—namely, the next of kin—was in a condition upon being cited to show that the estate was sufficient to pay the debts in full, then no action could be taken by the Court. Nothing could be more reasonable than that. He admitted that he was unwilling to clothe the Court with a jurisdiction of this kind Unless he could make that jurisdiction effectual in all cases; but, although that was an excellent theoretical objection, yet practically the matter resolved itself into this, that the Court would never be resorted to except in cases where it could act effectually. So far from the clause being open to the charge of cruelty, he believed that the family of a dead man would be happy to find that his debts would be paid as quickly as possible, and their satisfaction would be increased by a saving to themselves of £100 or £200. He entirely concurred in the representations that had been made as to the immense improvement, and economy, and expedition, which had been made in the administration of estates in the Court of Chancery. He would not be afraid to make any reasonable wager that the Court of Chancery would administer an estate quicker and cheaper than it could be done by the executor out of court with the aid of an attorney. He regretted, however, that the hon. and learned Member for Belfast had not given notice of his Motion for striking out these clauses. Many hon. Members were absent who would have been present if they had known that such 2170 a Motion was to be proposed, and he appealed to the hon. and learned Member to postpone his proposition until the consideration of the Report. The whole question might then be discussed in a more satisfactory manner than at present, and he pledged himself, as having charge of the Bill, to bow to the decision of the Committee, whatever it might be.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
stated that Lord St. Leonards did not bring forward the clauses to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred when he was Lord Chancellor, but after he ceased to fill that office. Those clauses, moreover, gave not an atom of power to the county courts, and applied only to cases where an act of bankruptcy had been committed by a dead man before his death. He quite agreed that it would be desirable that the clauses-should be discussed in a fuller House, and he would delay his Motion till the Report on the Bill. There were besides a few important points remaining for discussion. One of these related to non-traders. Ha did not wish to delay the Bill, but it might be convenient to learn that the discussion on the reserved clauses would not be taken till after Easter.

§ MR. MALINS
also expressed the hope that the consideration of the Report would not be taken until after Easter.

§ MR. ROLT
said, he thought the proper course would be to postpone the clauses.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he was not very profoundly versed in these things, but he observed that the opposition to the clause came in a great measure from hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite who had an interest in the business in the Court of Chancery. He had listened to the arguments, and it appeared to him they had a fear that the business would be withdrawn from the Court of Chancery to some other court. They might think that it would be better for the public to have the business remain there, but he could not hold that opinion. He was one of those unfortunate men who had been in the Court of Chancery for a good while, and great pressure must be put upon him before he voted anything into the Court of Chancery that could be possibly managed elsewhere. He was entirely opposed to those hon. Gentlemen who wished to postpone the clause on that ground. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) said it would be a pity to pain the family of a person by making it appear that he was a bankrupt. He (Mr. Bright) hoped the distinction that 2171 had hitherto been drawn between insolvency and bankruptcy would be got rid of. Bankruptcy had been thought discreditable because the court was so bad and the law was so bad that no case was supposed to be driven into bankruptcy that had not about it something fraudulent or disgraceful; but when the law was amended, the winding up of the affairs of a living or dead person would not be necessarily considered disgraceful because it was done through means of the Court of Bankruptcy. Therefore he thought the objection of the right hon. Gentleman was based upon past opinions rather than upon the opinions that would exist when the new law should come into operation. The hon. and learned Attorney General had stated the arguments with great fairness, and he (Mr. Bright) did not know when he had heard a person having the carriage of a Bill state the pros and cons with more complete fairness than the hon. and learned Gentleman. When he could refer to the opinion of a man so eminent as Lord St. Leonards on the principle of the clause, and when the commercial community of the country by its united judgment had asked Parliament to agree to this clause, and there being no objection of any force on the part of hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, the Attorney General might be fairly expected to carry this clause into effect. With regard to postponement, he would not for a moment, when the Attorney General consented, contest the point; but he trusted, unless the hon. and learned Gentleman saw stronger reasons than were uttered that night, he would not consent to fritter away a measure of this kind, or withdraw clauses which he (Mr. Bright) had reason to think were considered of importance by a large class in the country for whose interest mainly the Bill was introduced.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he begged to inform the hon. Member for Birmingham that the class of business referred to in the clauses never brought a single guinea to any man practising at the bar. It was entirely conducted in chambers without counsel being consulted at all. They were, therefore, entirely disinterested in the view they had taken. He believed the clauses were not the Attorney General's own; they had been suggested by others, and he had little doubt the impartial judgment of his hon. and learned Friend concurred with his own in respect to them.

MR. HENLEY
said, he would remind the hon. Member for Birmingham that 2172 persons might take measures to prevent their being made bankrupts. The stigma on the cases in the court would, therefore, even be stronger than before, because it would be supposed that no case would go into the court except one which could not be arranged outside. He believed what was really wanted was that estates should be capable of being wound up locally. It mattered not whether by an order of the Court of Chancery or Bankruptcy, the desire was for local jurisdiction.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he certainly concurred entirely in the observation of the right hon. Gentleman. There was a growing feeling of the great expediency of having these estates wound up by local tribunals. It was in obedience to that general wish that he had introduced the provisions which would have the desired effect. As to postponing the clauses he could not consent to such a course. His motto was carpe diem. At the other side of Easter the House would be occupied with measures of finance and other important business, and if he were to postpone the clauses, he might find himself in the same position that he was last year, and be unable to pass the Bill. He trusted then the Committee would allow him to go through the remaining clauses to-night, and then the Report could be brought up on Thursday. The question of non-traders had been discussed very much the other night, and therefore he hoped the Committee would consent to the course which he proposed.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
said, he was ready to facilitate the passing of the clauses that evening. But he was not prepared to assent to a proposal that they should have the Report on Thursday instead of deferring it till after Easter.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he had no objection to the Amendment by which it was proposed that the words which confined the clause to traders should be omitted.

§ MR. HARDCASTLE
moved to amend the clause by inserting after Court of Bankruptcy, "or County Court," which was agreed to.

MR. HENLEY
said, that if a man died in Italy or anywhere abroad his legal representatives might be called upon three 2173 months after his death to show that he was not a bankrupt. He did not think three months a period long enough under the circumstances. He, therefore, wished to ask the Attorney General whether he would consent to make any alteration in the clause With respect to persons out of England?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he did not think the clause would touch the case of any debtor dying abroad. The clause was entirely limited to the case of debtors dying within the district of local courts of bankruptcy, or now within the District County Court.

MR. HENLEY
asked, if a man who Went abroad for a month or longer died, but who had his residence in Yorkshire, where his family were located, would be held under this Bill to have resided within the district of that Bankruptcy Court? or Was the actual personal residence of the man required?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that if a man happened to go on a party of pleasure up the Rhine, and died whilst he was itinerant and was rated as being in Yorkshire, he would come within the provisions of the Bill; but a man who went abroad and died while he was resident abroad, did not come within the Bill.

§ MR. ROLT
said, he found it difficult to understand, now that he had seen the clauses, how the hon. and learned Attorney General could ever have introduced them, or how he could have supported them by such arguments as they had heard. What was the ground of the proposed change? Was it the inefficiency or costliness of the present Court? It was admitted on all hands that the work was now done as well and as cheaply as possible. The new administration would not be more economical than the present, and it would certainly not be as efficient, because the tribunal would be utterly incompetent to discharge the duty. No change was attempted in the law of property. The administration of the assets of deceased debtors was to remain as before. The distinction between legal and equitable assets was not to be changed, and the relative rights of judgment, specialty, and simple contract creditors against such assets were not to be disturbed. No one knew better than the hon. and learned Gentleman that the subject was one of the most intricate branches of law, and required great experience and special study. Now, without undervaluing the abilities of the 2174 Judges of the new tribunal, he asserted that nineteen out of twenty of them had no knowledge or at all events no experience on the subject. What advantages were to be gained by the change? It was said they would have the advantage of local administration; but that was no argument in favour of the change, because, even if a great desire existed to have the administration brought to every man's door—and he believed that the existence of any such desire was very much exaggerated—the object in view might be attained by constituting local tribunals, without transferring the jurisdiction altogether from the Court of Chancery to the Court of Bankruptcy. The Bill was only to apply to cases in which the personal representative, next of kin, or heir-at-law failed to show that there were sufficient assets available for the payment of the debts. So that the Court would have, first of all, to decide whether the assets were sufficient, and then it could deal with the case. The substantial objection to the clause however, was that it made a change for the sake of change, taking from one tribunal questions coming properly within its jurisdiction, and handing them over to another tribunal whose business was wholly of a different nature.

§ MR. BARROW
said, he objected to the clause, because it was made to apply to land, a species of property which it was most undesirable to force into the market hastily. In many instances the heir-at-law was an infant, incapable of taking care of his own interest. The clause proposed that a petition might be presented in less than three months with the consent of the personal representative—a person whose interest probably was diametrically opposed to that of the heir-at-law.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the clause, although taken from the Insolvency Act, was unsatisfactory, its terms not being sufficiently guarded. He therefore proposed to omit it, and bring up another clause in lieu of it upon the Report.

MR. HENLEY
said, he was glad to hear the determination of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because the clause, as it stood, began by asserting that a man was of unsound mind and then provided that a justice should be summoned to examine his state.

§ MR. SCHOLEFIELD
said, he would move the insertion of words to permit of affidavits being sworn before the Commissioners for administering oaths in common law courts, as well as before Commissioners for administering oaths in Chancery.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he would agree to the Amendment.

MR. HENLEY
said, he objected to justices of the peace being liable to have persons calling at their houses at all hours to swear these affidavits. It was a very disagreeable kind of business, and had no particular connection with the duties of magistrates. Commissioners took fees, but justices could not. He supposed it was not wished to compel magistrates to set up an office in their stable yards, and to keep clerks to read over the papers.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, the magistrates Heed only sign them.

MR. HENLEY
said, he did not believe that the hon. and learned gentleman signed papers without knowing what they contained. The magistrates would have to see whether they had jurisdiction.

§ ALDERMAN SALOMONS
remarked, that if the power were taken away from magistrates it would deprive the great commercial community of the City of London of a great advantage.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that was not the first instance in which magistrates were enabled to take affidavits in matters not included in the jurisdiction of the commission of the peace. Magistrates would not often be troubled with applications to swear these affidavits, as people Would be much more likely to go to a commissioner near at hand than to a magistrate five or six miles off, with the chance of not finding him at home, but it would be very wrong to deny parties the right who had probably no other resource.

MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to put a stop to the repetition of the practice of throwing duties upon magistrates which there was no special reason why they should perform.

§ MR. VANCE
observed, that in some of 2176 the colonies there was no law of bankruptcy, but there was a law of insolvencies. He could not see how an insolvency in the colony could be administered in this country, where insolvency was about to be abolished. He thought, too, that there would be jealousy on the part of the colonies against the interference of the court in England with the administration of their local laws.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
did not think any such jealousy would exist as the clause would confer a benefit upon the colonies. At present an adjudication of bankruptcy in the colonies did not prevail in England.

§ MR. MURRAY
said, he would put the case of several partners, some resident in the colonies, and one at home. Those in the colonies might be made bankrupt, but the one in England might be winding up his affairs in a different manner. Some machinery would be required to insure all the creditors of the firm getting a rateable share of the estate.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he thought it was desirable the law should be extended, and he had no doubt the clause would be found to effect an improvement in the existing law.

MR. HENLEY
said, he doubted whether the clause would not create two independent jurisdictions, and that there might be a conflict between the colonial tribunal and the court in England.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the object of the clause was that the creditors, whether in the colonies or in England, should receive a rateable share of their debtors' assets.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, he objected to the terms of the section of the clause defining what was a voluntary preference given to one creditor over another. In the way in which the clause was framed, it would be impossible to shield persons of the highest character from an indictment for misdemeanour. Paying wages, or a tailor's or shoemaker's bill, would render him liable to such indictment. It was enough that a civil remedy existed for a civil wrong, and he objected to carrying criminal law to such an extent, and thought the 8th section of the clause ought to be struck out.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that in conformity with the recommenda- 2177 tions of the Commissioners, he had very much modified the several clauses of former Acts; but it was absolutely essential, where a debtor gave a fraudulent preference to one creditor over another, that such acts should be liable to punishment. However, he had no objection to omit that part of the section which made it a misdemeanour to have paid or satisfied any creditor.
The words "or to give an undue preference to any of his creditors, have paid, or satisfied any such creditor wholly or in part," were then struck out.

§ MR. MURRAY
said, he wished to have some definite explanation embodied in the Bill with respect to what was a fraudulent preference. At present that was very vague, and he thought that it would be for the guidance of the assignees if words were inserted to render it clearer.

§ MR. VANCE
said, he wished to propose a provision, which had worked well in Ireland, and by which a trader who should, within three months next before the filing of the petition for adjudication, dispose of any of his goods or chattels otherwise than by bonâ fide sale in the ordinary way of trade would come under the penal clauses of the Bill, and be liable to indictment for misdemeanour.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
thought that the offence alluded to was punishable under existing Acts.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that he should be happy to add a clause making it criminal for a trader to obtain goods, and pledging them for an inconsiderable sum, so as to deceive his creditors; but he thought the words proposed by the hon. Member would include any bonâ fide gift to a son or daughter.

§ MR. VANCE
said, he would reconsider the matter, and move the introduction of a clause on the Report.

MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to call attention to the power of remand granted in the Act, as he thought it would clash with the provisions of Jervis's Act, which gave to County Court Judges the power of remand for eight days only. It might happen that at the end of that time the Judge would be in another place, and it was not to be expected that the county gaoler was to go dancing attendance from one district to another; and if he was, who was to pay the expense?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the power of remand was inherent in the bankruptcy Judges; but he would consider the objection, with a view to remedying it.

§ MR. BARROW
complained that the clause gave power to the Judge to imprison in the common gaol any person disobeying his order, there to remain without bail till the Court of Chancery, sitting in bankruptcy, should make an order to the contrary.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he would consent to make the penalty legal only in cases of wilful disobedience of the order of the Judge.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, ha proposed that the clause should provide that that part of the Bill which related to the appointment of the Chief Judge and other officers should take effect immediately, but that the other parts of the Bill should not take effect till the 11th of October.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that he intended to propose a new clause in lieu of this clause. A considerable discussion had taken place with respect to the remuneration to be given to the official assignees, and it ended with the understanding that the existing official assignees in London should receive a certain salary of £1,200 a year, and that the existing official assignees in the country should receire£1,000, and that every future official assignee in London should receive £1,000 a year, and every future official assignee in the country should receive £800. With that understanding he had prepared a new clause. These officers would also be entitled to retiring pensions.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
proposed the introduction of a clause regulating the practice as regarded solicitors.

§ MR. MURRAY
objected to the proposed repeal by the Attorney General of the 247th section of the Bankruptcy Act, as it deprived solicitors of the right they had now of pleading in the Commissioner's Court.

MR. MOFFATT
said, that if solicitors were prevented from practising as advocates in the Courts as heretofore, the public would regard the change with considerable dissatisfaction.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
explained that he had no idea of depriving solicitors of any power or privilege they then enjoyed of appearing in the courts of bankruptcy without counsel, and such privileges would under the Bill remain intact. But it was proposed by the Bill to allow counsel in the court of the Chief Judge, and he was sure the solicitors did not want to appear there. The clause provided that solicitors should be entitled to practise as advocates in any district court, and that in all matters before the Commissioners or Judges in Chambers, they might appear without being required to employ counsel.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
then said, he had to propose a new clause in lieu of clause 37, struck out of the Bill. The clause regulated the salaries of official assignees, providing that in London the present official assignees should be paid £1,200 a year, and in the country £1,000 a year; the future assignees were to have £1,000 a year in London, and £800 in the country.

§ MR. MURRAY
said, he objected to the principle of paying the official assignees entirely by a fixed salary. In the Bill of last year the Attorney General proposed a fixed salary of £800, allowing the official assignees an increase on a scale of percentage, so that the maximum salary did not exceed £1,500. His objection to a fixed salary was supported by the evidence given by Commissioner Fane, and the Commissioners at Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle. Birmingham and the other districts. There was also the evidence of two official assignees, and all the other official assignees who had sent their answers to the questions submitted to them by the Royal Commissioners. The registrars had also disapproved of the remuneration being by a fixed salary, and they were supported by a majority of all the other witnesses. This appeared by the Commissioners Report to Her Majesty a few years since. If the Committee sanctioned the plan of payment by salary the creditors would have very little 2180 of the services of the official assignees, and the work would not be satisfactorily done. In fact, the creditors' assignees would do all the work and the official assignees would take all the salary, leaving their share of the work to be done by clerks. At present, there were five London Commissioners. Three of them had each two official assignees attached to his court. In the case of one of these Commissioners, he found that during six years prior to 1860, one of his official assignees had allotted to him about 348 bankruptcies and petitions for arrangement, and the other about 335. The former returned his net remuneration for the six years at £5,728 and the latter £13,287, the difference arising in his opinion from the fact that one worked and the other did not to the extent he ought. He thought that instead of £1,200 in London the salary should be £800, and the rest made up by fees, under a scale to be sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor in the usual manner. He moved as an Amendment that the £1,200 fixed by the clause as the salary of the present official assignees in London be reduced to £800.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that in the inquiry undertaken by the Royal Commission some years ago they found no question so difficult as the payment of the official assignees; but it was clearly established that if they were to be paid by salaries only there would no longer be any inducement to make them active in collecting the small debts for which they now got a commission. The Commissioners came to the conclusion that on the whole it would be better to pay the official assignees partly by salary and partly by fees. He believed now, though he could not say what was the best mode of payment, that payment by salary was the worst.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that official assignees stood in a very different position under the present Act. He had found it impossible to put a limit to their salary, and also to pay them by fees. It was, he thought, better to give these gentlemen credit for a proper and conscientious discharge of their duties, and not to suppose that they would not earn their salaries.

§ MR. MALINS
said, that in the absence of is hon. and learned Friend (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) he rose to move a clause that the messengers should receive salaries based on the amount of their fees. The 2181 messenger was an officer of considerable importance, being the Sheriff of the Court, and some of the present messengers had served for long periods, varying from forty-two years to twelve years. Their arrangements and plans in life had been made upon the calculation of a certain income, and Parliament was not in the habit of carrying out public improvement at the sacrifice of private interests. There was no reason why the same measure of justice that had been meted to the Commissioners, &c, should not also be dealt out to them, so that they should be secured something like the emoluments they had enjoyed. It was clear that these gentlemen had faithfully and diligently performed their duties, and all that he asked Parliament to do it had just done in regard to the official assignees, The messenger was, in fact, an older officer; and some of the messengers had served much longer than the official assignees. He would, therefore, move the insertion of a clause providing that every messenger holding office at the time of the passing of the Act should receive, in lieu of fees, an annual salary equal to the amount of the fees received by him after deducting his working expenses, such salary to be assessed by the chief registrar upon an average of the sums received by such messenger for the last five years.

§ MR. BRISCOE
supported the clause.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he thought that these Gentlemen might with some reason complain of the clause in the Bill; at the same time he did not think the House could agree to the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He proposed that the salary of a messenger should be estimated upon the sums he had received for a period of five years. Now, it so happened that the fees and emoluments received by messengers during the last five years had been much larger in some districts than if a longer period at another time were taken. He (Mr. Bright) understood from one of themselves that he had received between £900 and £1,000 a year for the last five years. Now, he understood their complaint, with regard to the clause introduced by the Attorney General, to be that, while it reduced their salary to a maximum point, it fixed no minimum. He (Mr. Bright) was bound to say that he thought Parliament excessively liberal with the public money in these matters, and he should be glad to see an Act passed by that House which should provide that when any amendment of the law took place, no 2182 consideration whatever should be shown for those who were affected by it, and he would have everybody to take office subject to that condition. That, however, was not the principle upon which Parliament had acted, and he generally found that the higher a man's station, and the less he had to do, the more considerate Parliament was in regard to his circumstances when any change was made. He should vote against the clause of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins); at the same time, he should receive with satisfaction any proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General to meet in some degree a case with which it was proposed to deal somewhat unjustly, considering the general policy that Parliament adopted in regard to cases of this nature.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he stated at the outset that no doubt it was his intention and expectation that the existing messengers should receive £500, without deduction, but it would be confined to the present holders. At the same time he meant to provide that all that should be received by any messenger in the London districts should amount to and not exceed £500. With regard to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins), the House had already had abundant proofs of his good-nature. All the distressed resorted to him; and he had been the friend of that ill-used body of men the proctors. Although he honoured his hon. and learned Friend very much for that good-nature, and gave him great credit for his exertions, yet his hon. and learned Friend must permit him (the Attorney General) to remind him that the very large sums which had been received by the messengers were wholly disproportionate to persons discharging duties like those of the officers of a sheriff, and their amount had arisen almost entirely from the carelessness of those who ought to have superintended the payment of fees. The fees of the messengers had frequently amounted to £1,500 a year. Now he (the Attorney General) could not recognise a title to fees which were continued to them through neglect. They ought rather to consider themselves fortunate in being permitted to retain their remuneration. There was this additional great advantage connected with their situation, that they were entitled to a retiring pension. He could not think it was right to ask the Committee to give away the money of the creditors to the messengers of the Court in a way and at a rate they 2183 ought never to have enjoyed, and which had arisen entirely from the want of proper care and proper superintendence. He hoped the Committee would be unanimous in rejecting the proposition.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he was at the mercy of his hon. and learned Friend, but the messengers had received these fees without their being called in question, and strictly in accordance with the laws of their country; and he thought that these old and faithful servants should be better remunerated than it was proposed that they should be. He was ready to withdraw the clause, on the understanding that the Attorney General should insert in the Bill the words which he had just mentioned.

§ MR. GARNETT
proposed to insert a clause having for its object to compensate registrars of county courts for the loss of any fees in consequence of the Act, such compensation to be computed upon an average of seven years immediately preceding the passing of the Act.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he thought that of all the compensations that had been proposed that was the most objectionable. He intended to emancipate the pauper debtor from the payment of certain fees. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Garnett) was that the registrars should step in to prevent an amendment in the law because it would diminish their emoluments. This was pretty much as if, when Jenner introduced his great discovery of vaccination, the whole body of surgeons and apothecaries had rushed in for compensation.

LORD STANLEY
said, he wished before the House resumed to ask a question, or rather to make an appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General with reference to what he believed every hon. Member considered to be a very unfortunate omission in the Bill. It might be in the recollection of the Committee that at an early stage of the Bill he put a question to the hon. and learned Gentleman as to whether it was his intention to introduce in the present, as he had introduced in his former measure, any clause increasing the salaries of the County Court Judges in consideration of the additional duties which it would impose on them? The hon. and learned Attorney General said, that it was not his intention to introduce such a clause, but threw out the suggestion that if such 2184 a proposition were made he would be willing to give it a fair, and, as he (Lord Stanley) inferred from the hon. and learned Gentleman's language, a favourable consideration. Acting on that suggestion it had been his intention, if no other Gentleman took up the question, to make some such proposition; but when the matter came to be considered it was obvious that such a clause could not be proposed by a private Member; for, although those salaries were paid out of the fees of the county courts, still, these fees were in the first instance paid into the Treasury, from which department the salaries were drawn by the Judges. Therefore the proposal would be one for the payment of money, and could not be made without the consent of the Crown. He would, therefore, ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether any opportunity would be given for the discussion of the subject before the Bill left the House? He (Lord Stanley) was ready to go into it at that moment; but he did not know whether that would be a convenient course, as it was obvious that a decision on it could not now be taken. He was confident that if a discussion did take place the Committee would see the justice and propriety of acceding to the demand.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he had always been desirous to remedy what he thought a great injustice in the inequalities of the salaries of County Court Judges. He was afraid, however, that the funds necessary to effect that object must come from the Consolidated Fund or from money voted by Parliament. As to the question put to him by the noble Lord the Committee might recollect that he had promised the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire to alter the clause touching the ad valorem stamps on trusts. That would necessitate a Committee. He had also proposed to recommit the Bill for the purpose of adding words in the clause relating to the messengers. Therefore, on Thursday the noble Lord might propose a Resolution to augment the salaries of those Judges, conditionally, of course, on a provision to that effect being added to the Bill. Then, when the Bill was recommitted, the noble Lord might move to add a new clause.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he was glad to find that an opportunity would be afforded of considering the claims of the County Court Judges, the justice of which had to a great extent been admitted by 2185 the hon. and learned Attorney General. The proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman was a very fair one, but he was afraid there might be practical difficulties in the way, and he should wish to hear the opinion of the Chairman of Committees on the point.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he thought it would be premature to raise the salaries of sixty gentlemen in different parts of the country until it was known to what extent the Bill increased the business they had to transact. Some of the County Court Judges received £1,500 a year, and others £1,200; and he thought that they might be content to wait another Session before they took any steps in the matter. As far as he knew there was no want of very competent legal gentlemen for those appointments when any vacancies occurred. The position of a County Court Judge was very much aspired after, and gentlemen made themselves very comfortable in that office when they got it. At the same time he had no objection to those Judges being honestly and liberally paid for the services which they rendered to the public.

§ MR. CLAY
said, if the House refused to consider the case of the County Court Judges, it would be almost the first instance in which increased duties were thrown on public officers whose salaries had been cut down. In consequence of an almost vexatious repetition of remonstrances the late Mr. Wilson had determined on reducing all salaries of this class for the future to the minimum of £1,200 per annum, notwithstanding the intention expressed by Parliament that, in certain cases, the stipend should be £1,500 a year.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he thought that an increase of the salaries of the County Court Judges should come as a recommendation from the Crown, and he wished to ask whether, if his noble Friend made a proposition on the subject, he would do so with the assent of the Government? He also wished to know whether, if a Committee were taken on the salaries and percentages, and the Bill were recommitted either on Wednesday or Thursday, it would be possible to take the Report on the same day? The proposition of his noble Friend deserved great consideration, for he could not help thinking that they were getting into a state of confusion, with regard to the Judges' salaries, which could not be conducive to the proper administration of justice. They were now about to transfer bankruptcy business to these Judges in 2186 addition to their other duties, and he thought the Committee would never give satisfaction unless they placed them all on the same salaries.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, he thought it very desirable that the Bill should not be reported before Easter. There had never yet been any discussion on the non-trading clauses; and, although it was not at present his intention to offer any opinion upon the principle of those clauses, he thought it would be for the public advantage that they should be fully and fairly discussed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, a discussion, in which several hon. and learned Members had participated, had taken place a few evenings since. His sole object was to secure the passing of the Bill in sufficient time to be considered in "another place," in order that it might not encounter the same fate as its predecessor. His noble Friend at the head of the Government had arranged to devote Thursday to the measure; and he understood from the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair that there was no objection to the course which he had indicated.

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
said, there was a general understanding that an opportunity would be afforded upon the Report for having a discussion on the non-trading clauses, and those hon. Gentlemen who had reserved themselves for that occasion would be placed at a disadvantage by the proposal to take the Report on Thursday, and, at the same time, to consider the important question raised by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn. He did not think that justice could be done to that question unless the Report was fixed for some day after Easter. No harm could arise from such a delay, for if the Report was fixed for an early day after Easter, the remaining stages might be taken before the end of April, and ample time would be afforded to the House of Lords to take such proceedings on the Bill as might appear to them to be necessary.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he did not think that the proposal to postpone the Report until after Easter was reasonable. The whole of Thursday was at the disposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and, as the question raised by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn could not occupy much time, the greater part of the evening would be available for the discussion of the non-trading clauses.

MR. HENLEY
said, it was almost unprecedented that a Bill of such importance after passing through Committee, should not be reprinted with a view to the alterations and Amendments made in it being communicated to the country before the Report was brought up. That very evening a change bearing strongly upon the non-trading classes had been introduced with the consent of the Government, and those classes, as well as the public generally, had a right to see the Bill printed in the form in which it now stood, before another step was taken upon it. Moreover, an important question had been raised by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), which required the most mature consideration. The hon. Member for Hull had very properly urged that it was unfair to place additional labour upon the County Court Judges without additional salary.

MR. CLAY explained
What he said was that it was unprecedented to give increased duties with a decrease of salary.

MR. HENLEY
said, that at all events the question was a serious one, and one which might result in a large additional charge upon the Consolidated Fund, and he, for one, could never agree that such a matter should be discussed, decided, reported, and so clinched upon one and the same day, especially since, by the rules of the House, there would be no further opportunity of considering it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the noble Lord had appealed to him to facilitate the discussion upon a proposition he was desirous of making. He felt most happy in meeting the noble Lord's wishes. He gave hon. Members opposite the credit of being in concord; but if the right hon. Gentleman was so angry at the proposition he could only say he (the Attorney General) apologized for his acquiescence in that course, and would not persevere in it if it in the slightest degree risked the passing of the Bill. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman need be afraid of the measure being passed in too great haste, for there would be an abundance of time to consider all the questions raised. All that he could say now was that he should move the bringing up of the Report on Thursday when the Amendments could be discussed.

MR. HENLEY
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had misrepresented what he intended to say. He meant to offer no objection to the consideration of the salaries of the County Court Judges. What 2188 he objected to was that the Report should be brought up so soon as Thursday, when there would be no opportunity for the country to consider the Amendments made in it together with the new propositions to be brought forward.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he thought it much better to proceed with and to complete the Bill as soon as possible. There would not, in his opinion, be any harm in postponing the question of the salaries of the County Court Judges until next Session, when they could better ascertain in what direction the additional labour fell. It might be desirable to lessen the district rather than increase the salaries.

§ MR. DEEDES
said, he doubted whether the House would have an opportunity next Session of considering the question of salary. He, therefore, hoped the noble Lord, the Member for King's Lynn, would be permitted to take the discussion during the progress of the present Bill.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
said, that generally he was not in favour of increasing expenditure, but considering the nature and amount of the duties required of the County Court Judges, and the great importance of having those duties well performed, he was in favour of increasing their salaries.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the course the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney General, proposed to pursue was regular in point of form. The House could consider in Committee the question of salaries, and if the House chose to increase those salaries, it could do so on the proposition of a Minister of the Crown, or on that of any Member of the Committee with the sanction of the Crown.