Commons Sitting of 3 June 1869

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered—First Reading—Prisons (Scotland) Administration Act (1360) Amendment* [143]; Judicial Statistics (Scotland) * [142]; Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act (1868) Amendment * [144]; Court of Session Act (1868) Amendment * [145]; Sea Fisheries Act (1868) Supplemental * [146]; Public Parks (Ireland) * [147]; Inclosure of Lands (No. 2) * [148].
Committee—Bankruptcy (re-comm.) [97]—R.P.; Diplomatic Salaries, &c. * [118]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Oxford University Statutes * [136].
Considered as amended—Election Commissioners (Expenses) * [139].
Third Reading—Oxford University Statutes * [136].
Withdrawn — Sheriffs (York County) * [102]; Burials Regulation * [33].

THE VICEROY OF EGYPT.—QUESTION.
MR. BUXTONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign affairs, Whether the Government will entertain the idea of presenting the Viceroy of Egypt with a Steel Steamer for the Albert Nyanza, as an expression of the interest taken by Her Majesty's Government in the attempt now made by the Viceroy to suppress the Slave Trade?
MR. OTWAY, in reply, said, he presumed that the Question of his hon. Friend referred to the expedition which the Viceroy of Egypt had entrusted to the command of Sir Samuel Baker. The object of that expedition, which was stated to be the suppression of the slave trade, was one in which. Her Majesty's Government could not fail to sympathize, and to which they wished every success, but the Government were in no respect responsible for it. They had been informed that the Viceroy had ordered a small steel steamer to be constructed in this country, for the purposes of the expedition; but he did not think that under the circumstances it would be a fitting; proceeding on the part of the Government to purchase that steamer for presentation, to the Viceroy.

IRELAND—UNION OF FERCAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether an application, under the hands and seals of the Archbishop of Armagh and the Bishop of Meath, was made to the Lord Lieutenant in Council on the l6th day of January 1869, to divide the union of Fercal, in the diocese of Meath and province of Armagh, into four parishes or benefices, such division having been recommended by the Commissioners of Inquiry into Ecclesiastical Unions in Ireland in their Report, dated 18th April 1831; whether the Rev. Algernon Coote, the patron of the said Union, having himself moved to carry into effect such division so soon as the living fell vacant —namely, November 24th 1868—did not consent thereto; whether the Lord Lieutenant in Council has assented to the division, and if not, on what grounds his refusal has been based; and, whether there has over before been a refusal in a similar case?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that the statements in the first two paragraphs of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman were perfectly correct. With respect to the third paragraph he had to state that the Lord Lieutenant had neither assented to nor dissented from the proposed division. The Irish Government had the matter under consideration, and when the draft Order came before the Council in the ordinary way no objection would be made to it on the part of the Lord Lieutenant.

  LIGHTHOUSE ACCOUNTS—QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Why detailed accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Trinity House, the Commissioners of Northern Lights, and the Irish Ballast Board have not of late years been laid before Parliament; and, whether he will lay before Parliament a full and detailed account of all monies received and expended during the last ten years by the Trinity House, the Commissioners of Northern Lights, the Irish Ballast Board, and by the local authorities to whom the management of coast or harbour lights in the United Kingdom is entrusted?
  MR. BRIGHT, in reply, said, he had procured a memorandum on this matter, and it seemed that detailed accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the three Lighthouse Boards were given to that House in 1860, and in a most minute form and at a very considerable amount of labour and cost. Since that time no periodical account of the receipts from those Boards, or of the tolls from each particular lighthouse had been given, the accounts having come tinder the control of the Board of Trade. Before that time each Board had its separate fund, arising from lights under its own control, and as the dues for lights were leviable throughout the United Kingdom, each Board collected the dues for lights from ships within its own jurisdiction, and afterwards made over to the other Boards the proportion which was due in respect of lights coming under their management. Thus the Trinity House collected at Liverpool all dues payable by ships coming to that port, and made over to the Scotch Board the amount of the rates collected which was due from the ships for passing the

  1207
  Scotch lights, and to the Irish Board in like manner the proportion which was payable for the Irish lights. In order to do this it was necessary to keep separate accounts of the dues collected in respect for each lighthouse, and thus it was easy to give separate Returns. When the accounts were, amalgamated, all this was changed, for it was no longer necessary to keep those separate accounts: each Board made over the dues to the common Mercantile Marine Fund, and as keeping separate; accounts was exceedingly inconvenient and troublesome, it was discontinued, by order of the Board of Trade. To re-establish them now would involve great expense and trouble to the Mercantile Marine Fund. As regarded lights established by local authorities, the Board of Trade had no control over them and such Returns as the noble Lord wished with respect to harbour lights could not be given.

IRELAND—AFFRAY AT BALLYHEIGUE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HERBERTsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is the intention of the Government to institute a Commission to inquire into the circumstance connected with the recent collision between the people and the police at Ballyheigue, county of Kerry?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that the recent collision between the people and the police at Ballyheigue had been brought under the attention of the Government by the Lord Lieutenant of the county. A magisterial inquiry was proceeding, and until that was completed it would be premature to say whether the Government proposed to issue a Commission of Inquiry.

  CLERKS TO LOCAL COMMISSIONERS OF TAXES.—QUESTION.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has considered the altered position of Clerks to the Local Commissioners of Taxes under the provisions of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill: and, whether he is prepared to give them any compensation for their loss of emoluments?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have considered the case referred to. The clerks to the local commissioners of taxes are generally solicitors, with other means of subsistence besides what they obtain by collecting taxes; they have not been paid by salary, but by the work done, and are appointed annually. Under these circumstances, I do not think them proper objects for compensation.

  INDIA—CIVIL SERVICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India. Whether there is any foundation for the Report in "The Overland Mail" newspaper of May the 28th, that objection has been taken to the admission of three of the four successful Native Candidates for the Indian Civil Service on a question as to their respective ages; and, whether, seeing that some Natives of India have great difficulty in ascertaining their exact ages according to our Calendar, it is the intention of the Civil Service Commissioners to adhere rigidly to the rule as to age in these cases?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: With reference, Sir, to my hon. Friend's first Question, I deeply regret having to say that it is true that two of the native candidates who succeeded in the recent competition for the Indian Civil Service have been held to be disqualified on the ground of age. With reference to his second Question, I have to say that the Civil Service Commissioners are absolutely bound by regulations having the force of law. They investigated this matter with the greatest anxiety, and came to the conclusion that they had no choice but to do as they have done when they were appealed to by other candidates who claimed to be, of right, among the selected fifty.

SHERIFFS (YORK COUNTY) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. F. BEAUMONTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to proceed with the Sheriffs' (York County) Bill?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, in reply, that the necessity of a Bill for the regulation of this subject had been urged on the late Government, and on the accession of the present Go-

  1209
  vernment a Bill was found partially pre- pared. Since its production great difference of opinion had been expressed among Yorkshire Members, and during the Whitsuntide Recess there was a meeting held at which the majority were opposed to the Bill, and amongst its opponents were some who had urged it upon the Government. It was a question which Yorkshiremen ought to determine for themselves; and, under these circumstances, he thought that it was better not to proceed with the measure, and he begged to more the discharge of the Order.
  Order discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

ARMY—MILITARY LABOUR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURY TRACYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the necessary work required in the external painting and whitewashing of the Royal Artillery and East Infantry Barracks at Aldershot, for the performance of which tenders have been invited by public advertisement, could not be undertaken by Military labour, under the direction of the Commanding Royal Engineer of the district; and, what would be the saving effected including advertising, if soldiers were employed to do the work, paying them by the piece according to the existing regulations?
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, in reply, that it had been found impossible to employ military labour for work such as that referred to. Such work, to be done efficiently, must be done continuously, and as Aldershot was designed for instructing the men in field movements it was impossible to give them continuous work of any sort. When this work was done by the soldiers in 1865 it took five months, instead of three, and the cost was £ 100 beyond the ordinary estimate.

  METROPOLIS —THE NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Sketch of the new design for the "Courts of Justice Building," now in the Library, and bearing the name of Mr. Street, has been approved
  1210
  by her Majesty's Government for erection on the Thames Embankment; whether he adheres to his recommendation, made in this House on the 10th of May last, that the style of the new building should be the "Gothic employed by the Italians in the early part of the 15th century;" and whether he was of opinion that the new design fulfils that condition; whether the three towers connected with the new design are intended for the preservation of documents, or to serve any useful purpose besides that of ventilation, and what is their probable cost; and, whether he will exhibit in the Library the elevation of the "River front" and "Park front" of the Westminster Palace, designed by lingo Jones, and engraved in the works of Inigo Jones, published by Lord Burlington and Kent?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that when his hon. Friend asked him if he approved of the sketch of the new design referred to for the Courts of Justice building, he would say that it was never his fortune to see a more beautiful and artistic piece of work; but he would remind his hon. Friend that the elevation was a more sketch, and is so called by Mr. Street. If the House should approve of the erection of the Law Courts on the Embankment he should think it his duty to have a model placed in the Library, or some other part of the House to which Members might have access, and so be able to form an opinion. As to the second part of the Question of his hon. Friend, he begged to say that he did not recommend that the style of the now building should be the "Gothic employed by the Italians in the early part of the 15th century." What he did say was, that he thought Gothic was the most appropriate style for the English Law Courts, but he did not advocate ecclesiastical Gothic, but said that the Italians had made use of Gothic for a similar purpose in the 15th century, and that such a building might be erected without having recourse to ecclesiastical Gothic. As regarded the three towers, as the design is a mere sketch, he could not answer the Question of his hon. Friend. With respect to the fourth part of the Question, the elevation of the River front and Park front of Inigo Jones had been exhibited for some days in the Library, whore it might be seen by his hon. Friend.

BANKRUPTCY (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)
BANKRUPTCY (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 97.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Interpretation of certain terms in the Act).
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment, not with the view of introducing into the BILL any- thing of a punitive character, but be- cause he wished that it should be declared that certain practices which had grown to be extremely common in the commercial world, and which were generally regarded as immoral, should be declared to be such, in order to put a stop to them: and there was no way so effectual for doing so as to have a declaration of their immorality inserted in an Act of Parliament. He begged to move after line 30 to insert—
  "'Fraudulent bankrupt' shall mean any one who shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have done any of the following things to the serious prejudice of his creditors, or any of them: concealed or withheld books, documents, or assets; failed to account for money proved to have been received by him; lost money by gambling or excessive private expenditure; bought goods when in desperate circumstances, and without reasonable prospect of being able to pay for them; resold, below cost, unpaid-for goods; if a trader kept no books or false ones, or intention- ally imperfect ones; failed to show a full balance of these books within two years previous; or failed to call a meeting of his creditors when last previous balance showed his estate worth less than ten shillings in the pound."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press this Amendment. He agreed that it was desirable that the offences mentioned in this Amendment should be punished; but he also agreed with the Report of the Bankruptcy Committee, who considered this matter very care- fully, that offences against the Bankruptcy Law, or what might be called the law of honesty, should be punished criminally, and not by the Bankruptcy Court. If they made the Court of Bankruptcy a criminal court, they would entirely defeat the object of the Bill. With that view he had prepared another Bill, which dealt with fraudulent bankrupts, and with the offences mentioned in this Amendment—tho concealing or withholding of books, documents, or
  1212
  assets. And by that other Bill, the Court of Bankruptcy might commit a bankrupt for having failed to account for money received by him. As to excessive private expenditure, he thought that was a matter very difficult to deal with. At all events, that matter ought to be dealt with by the Criminal Bill, if at all. The Criminal Bill provided for cases of buying goods without reasonable prospect of being able to pay for them. As a matter of definition of the words "fraudulent bankrupt," the Amendment was unnecessary.
  MR. DENMANsaid, that the Amendment was entirely beside the purpose of the Bill. There was no such expression as "fraudulent bankrupt" in the Bill, and this clause related solely to expressions used in the Bill.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, it did not follow that if this Bill passed the Criminal Bill would pass also, and he thought a Bankruptcy Bill should speak out on certain malpractices; but in deference to the views that others had expressed he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WHITWELL MR. WHITWELL moved, in page 1, after line 30, to insert—"creditor shall include a partnership."
  MR. JESSELobjected to the Amendment as unnecessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Exclusion of companies and large partnerships).
  MR. WHIT WELL MR. WHIT WELL moved to leave out at page 2, line 1—
  "'Whether corporate or unincorporate, consisting of more than seven members, in order to insert after 'company' the words 'corporate, or registered under the Joint Stock Companies' Act.'"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the reason why this clause stood in its present shape was this—the winding-up provisions of the Joint-Stock Companies' Act, 1862, specially related to all partnerships above seven. It was considered desirable by the framers of this Bill that partnerships should not be subject to two processes of winding-up; that was to say, to winding-up in the Court of Chancery and to the process of the Bankruptcy Court. It had been represented to him by gentlemen connected with

  1213
  Chambers of Commerce that it would be desirable that ordinary partnerships above seven should be subject to the Bankruptcy Law. That he understood to be a general request, and he, therefore, proposed to adopt the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend. It would be necessary in the Criminal Bill, in order to prevent a conflict of jurisdiction, to enact that the Joint-Stock Companies' Act should not apply to companies above seven.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 6 (Petition for adjudication in bankruptcy).
  MR. NORWOODsaid, the Bill as it stood fixed the amount of the debt of the creditor who could petition for an adjudication at £50; and it also enabled any number of creditors whose aggregate debts amounted to £50 to petition. He objected to both of those provisions. £50 was too large an amount to fix upon in the case of a single creditor, considering that the Bill applied to small bankruptcies as well as to large. On the other hand, he thought it ought not to be in the power of any number of small creditors, say to the amount of £5 or £2 10 s. each, to join in a petition simply because their aggregate debt amounted to £50. He had, therefore, to propose an Amendment, copied from the clause of Lord Cairns' Bill of last year, which met with approval. His Amendment was, page 2, leave out from the commencement of the clause to the word "may," in line 10, and insert—
  "A single creditor, if the debt due to such creditor amounts to a sum of not loss than twenty pounds, or two creditors if the aggregate amount of debts due to such creditors be not less than thirty pounds, or three creditors if the aggregate amount of debts due to such creditors be not less than forty pounds."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALobserved that now there must be one debt of £50, or two creditors whose debts amounted to £70; so that the present clause was in reduction of the requirements: and he did not think that it was desirable that any persons whose debts were lower than £50 should be made bankrupt. Some Chambers of Commerce had expressed an opinion that it would be desirable, but others—and notably that of Bradford—took the very opposite view. His proposition was that
  1214
  where a man owed £50 he might be made bankrupt, but that airy man who owed less than that sum should be left to the County Court, where his liability would be simply this—that he might be imprisoned if he could pay a debt and would not. This was a most important part of the Bill, and he must adhere to the £50 limit.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, it was perfectly idle to talk of putting in force the machinery of the Bankruptcy Act against a man on account of £20, when payment could be enforced from him by summons in the County Court.
  MR, RYLANDSobserved that though he might be disposed to think £50 was too high, he was not prepared to make the amount so low as £20.
  MR. MORLEYsaid, he hoped they would by means of this measure inaugurate a system less expensive, and bring in a much larger number of small estates. The proposal with respect to £20 might bear some alteration, but by making the amount £50, they might shut out a very largo number of creditors.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other verbal Amendments proposed, and negatived.
  MR. G. GREGORY MR. G. GREGORY moved to leave out sub-sections 3 and 5, and after subsection 4, insert the following subsections, numbered 5 (a) and 5 (b) respectively:—
  "5 (a). That the debtor has, with intent to defeat or delay his creditors, done any of the following things, namely—departed out of England, or being out of England remained out of England, or departed from his dwelling-house, or otherwise absented himself; or begun to keep his house; or suffered himself to be outlawed."
  "5 (b). That the debtor has filed in the Court, in the prescribed form, a declaration in writing. signed by him, and attested by a registrar of the Court, or by an attorney or solicitor, that he is unable to meet his engagements."
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he thought the clause would afford an additional temptation to the dishonest debtor.
  MR. WALPOLEsuggested that when they put such a stringent provision on the bankrupt as that he should pay 10 s. in the pound in order to obtain a full acquittance from the court and his certificate, he doubted very much whether the proposition of the hon. Gentleman would have the effect of encouraging a fraudulent bankrupt. It appeared to him that the provision would be a good

  1215
  one. If there was one thing more than another which they ought to encourage it was this—that when a man found himself in a hopeless state of embarrassment, instead of tempting him to plunge deeper and deeper into his difficulties, they should give him every opportunity of delivering up as much of his property as he then had, to be distributed amongst his creditors. Believing that the proposition of the hon. Member would have that effect he should support it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was not disposed to consent to the Amendment, because he thought it might lead to collusion.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he thought the proposition would serve indirectly to enable a man to make himself a bankrupt—a principle to which the measure was directly opposed.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he did not think the Amendment open to the objection stated; it did not enable a man to make himself bankrupt, but it would enable his creditors to make him bankrupt, if they thought fit, upon his own admission of insolvency, which seemed to be no more than reasonable. Nevertheless, if the Attorney General thought it better to compel a man to keep his house and property in order to qualify him for the Bankruptcy Court, he (Sir Roundell Palmer) would offer no objection to the principle contended for by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Then an Amendment, moved and agreed to, by which the term of two months as the period within which the act of bankruptcy must be connected was altered to six months.
  MR. G. GREGORY MR. G. GREGORY moved in page 3, line 1, after "and." leave out "must not be a secured debt," and insert, "if a secured debt must be for the unsecured balance only," leaving the party a right to petition on account of his unsecured balance.
  MR. DENMANconsidered the Amendment unnecessary. If it were not a secured debt it was an unsecured balance.
  MR. JEESELsaid, the Committee ought not to give a man with security an advantage over the other creditors without he gave up his security.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, a creditor might be secured up to a certain amount, and if
  1216
  the Amendment was carried it would put him into a better position than the other creditors simply because he had a secured debt.
  MR. MORLEYsaid, a debtor might owe £1,000, of which £300 was secured. He ought to have some remedy with regard to the £700, the balance.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, the balance could not be ascertained unless he elected to have the security valued.
  MR. PEEKsaid, it would be unjust to place a partially-secured debtor in a worse position for his balance than an ordinary creditor.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, it was a very important matter, and one of which mercantile men were probably the best judges. The secured creditor had an advantage over the ordinary creditors to the amount of his security, and the question was whether a creditor having that advantage was the proper person to judge whether it was for the benefit of the unsecured creditors to put the debtor's estate in bankruptcy. Such a man had but little to complain of if the Legislature should think fit to say to him— ''Realize your security before you put the debtor into bankruptcy." It was a matter worthy of consideration. There might be an alternative course—that of calling upon him to put a value on his security, by which he should be bound; so that, if it realized more than the value put upon it, he should account for the difference in the administration of the estate.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, a man holding security ought, not to be put in a worse position for the balance than an ordinary creditor. To put him in such a position would be punishing him for his prudence. He was in reality two distinct persons quoad, the unsecured portion of his debt he was an ordinary creditor, and pro tanto entitled to the remedies of an ordinary creditor.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, that practically if a large secured creditor was called on to realize his security it might greatly prejudice the bankrupt's estate. Take the case of a foreign banker, with bills of exchange to a large amount secured by property. The sudden realization of the property might greatly impoverish the estate.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, they were now dealing with the question whether a secured creditor should be the person to put the estate in bankruptcy.

  1217
  Having heard the suggestions offered, he would ask the Committee for time to re-consider the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Proceedings on petition).
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON MR. SERJEANT SIMON moved in line 10, after "debtor," to insert, "except where it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Court that the debtor being and remaining abroad every reasonable at- tempt has been made to effect such service, and that such an attempt came to the knowledge of the debtor, and that he purposely defeated the same."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not think the Amendment necessary, as its object would be better met by the insertion of the words in the 79th clause, "shall be served upon the debtor in the prescribed manner." He should not object to insert these words, being of opinion that the mode of service should be left to the Lord Chancellor and the Judges of the Bankruptcy Court.
  MR. G. GREGORYapproved the deciding of all these matters in the Bill rather than leave them to be dealt with by the Judges in the shape of general orders.
  MR. JESSELobjected to the proposition that matters of procedure should be regulated by the Bill instead of being left to the Judges, in accordance with the ordinary practice. Matters of substance only should be the subject of positive enactment. The question of service had always been regulated by the Court, and ought to continue to be so regulated.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALadmitted that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. G. Gregory) had raised an important question—namely, whether the House was to prescribe every detail of practical procedure under a Bill of tin's kind, or whether such details should be left to general orders by the Court. If such details were to be included in the Bill, it would probably have been necessary that it should consist, not of 105, but of 500 clauses. He had proposed what he thought reasonable, in the belief that the Lord Chancellor and the Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy would be better judges as to the rides of procedure than that House could be. All rules made would be laid before Parliament, so that hon. Members would have an opportunity of knowing them. He,
  1218
  therefore, could not agree to the Amendment, though he was willing to accept the words that the service should be on the debtor in the manner prescribed by the 79th clause.
  MR. NORWOODventured to think that the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon) was altogether outside mere procedure; it was very important, and he would therefore support it.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that this was one of the matters which might be left to rules and orders. It was almost analogous to the service of the petition in cases in the Divorce Court.
  MR. MORLEYsuggested that the wording should be "served on the debtor personally, or in the manner prescribed."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, lie would not object to those words if the Committee wished them inserted.
  MR. JESSELsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider the question.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, if they must have an Amendment, he should prefer that of the hon. and learned Member for Dover to that of the hon. Member behind him. The question had been argued some years before in that House, and it was stated truly that a gentleman going abroad for a tour might find himself in his absence made bankrupt for his tailor's bill. The House should remember the difference between a trader and non-trader, and make the rules elastic enough for both.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that both forms of Amendment illustrated the difficulty in which the Committee would be involved if it tried to do these things for themselves. It was much better to leave the Court to consider what mode of service should be adopted.
  MR. HINDE PALMERalso opposed the Amendment.
  MR. STAYELEY HILLsuggested that, instead of the Amendment proposed by the learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Simon), the words "in the prescribed manner" should be inserted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALexpressed his approval of that proposal.
  Amendment (Mr. Serjeant Simon), by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Proceedings if debt of petitioning: creditor is contested).
  MR. PEEKsaid, the chief merit of the Bill in his view was that it would give them a Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, and he wished to keep the Chief Judge as much as possible to his own proper work. If they incumbered the court, as that clause as it stood might have the effect of doing, with all questions of contested liability, it was to be feared that the Bankruptcy business, pure and simple, would be hindered. He, there- fore, moved the omission at the end of the clause of the words "either" and "the court itself," and also of the word "other."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not assent to this Amendment, which would strike out important words of the clause. It was a great part of the scheme of the Bill to appoint a superior Judge in Bankruptcy, and to have a jury to try questions in the Bankruptcy Court, which would be a valuable' improvement on the present system.
  MR. NORWOODasked whether he was to understand that if a debt over £50 was disputed the question must be tried before the Chief Judge in London, and could not be decided in the County Court?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that as the Bill stood the County Court Judge would have power to try a disputed debt to any amount. It had struck him that it might be a rather formidable thing to allow a County Court Judge to try a question of debt without some limitation as to amount; but he was anxious as far as possible, to defer to the opinion of the representatives of the commercial classes on such a point.
  MR. JESSELsaid, he thought it would be most impolitic to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts by a side wind, and this would be the result if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Surrey (Mr. Peek) were carried. He entirely concurred in the suggestion made by the Attorney General.
  MR. PEEKsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved an Amendment reserving to the County Courts the jurisdiction they at present possess to try cases of debts up to £50, but not enlarging that jurisdiction.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 9 to 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Meeting of creditors for appointment of persons to administer bankrupt's property).
  MR. MORLEY MR. MORLEY moved, in page 4, line 33, after "summons," insert "by advertisement and circular at not less than three, and not more than nine days from the state of adjudication," and suggested that the transaction should take place in an apartment sufficiently large to secure the admission of the public.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that this was a matter of detail which would be settled by the rules and regulations to be drawn up by the Judges. He hoped his hon. Friend would not, press his Amendment.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKbelieved that such matters as these would be better decided by the experience of the Judges than they could possibly be by the House.
  MR. MORLEYsaid, he had not the confidence in the rules and orders that others appeared to have; but would consent to withdraw his Amendment, in accordance with the wish of the Attorney General.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he could not support the Amendment, as the hon. Gentleman by whom it was proposed intended to withdraw it. He protested against delegating to the Judges the passing of regulations in matters relating to commerce, and with which commercial men were more familiar. He thought this looked like an attempt to delegate to others a duty which might be better discharged by themselves. It was worthy of consideration whether it would not be well to lengthen the Bill a little by embodying mere general rules, instead of leaving' them to be made by the Judges.
  MR. SERJEANT DOWSEsaid, he thought the Bill left, nothing to Judges but matters which they were the proper persons to decide, and which it was not worth the while of the House of Commons to legislate upon.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALobserved that it was nothing new to intrust Judges with the making of rules and regulations; he referred to the Common Law Procedure Act, the Di-

  1221
  vorce Court, the Chancery Courts, and the present Bankruptcy Courts; and he remarked that the experiment of trusting to the discretion of the Judges, within certain limits, had worked satisfactorily.
  MR. CANDLISH MR. CANDLISH, however, alleged that the operation of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act of last Session had been marred by the injudicious rules which had been framed under it. No Judge was more able than the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) to express an opinion on such a matter as this; and, if the House had made up its mind that it was desirable to lay down a rule with reference to a particular mode of procedure, there was no reason why it should not do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Further Amendments made.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Descriptions of bankrupt's property divisible amongst creditors).
  MR. PEEK MR. PEEK moved, in page 5, line 14, the insertion of the words "and capable of being traced, earmarked, or defined" after the word "person." There might be disputes in some cases as to whether the property was really in trust or was a fair subject of the debt.
  MR. JESSELsaid, he thought the clause might have been omitted altogether. It was now proposed to extend the law from traders to non-traders, and the only ground on which what appeared to him, a most iniquitous law had been defended was that of securing the creditors. In revising the Law of Bankruptcy, the House ought to endeavour to bring it into harmony with the law of other countries, and the rules of common sense and common honesty. With regard to visible goods, it was said, in years gone by, that credit might be given to a person on the strength of his stock-in-trade, and that it might belong to another person. But a conclusive answer to that was given by Lord Justice Knight Bruce, who said, when a case of that kind came before him—"If you gave credit on the strength of the stock-in-trade being his own, why did you not ask him whether it was his own or not?" Under the Bills of Sale Act, it was provided that if a man mortgaged or sold his goods, the sale should be registered in a public registry, and the creditor had
  1222
  nothing to do but consult that registry to satisfy himself on the point. It was not all goods in a man's possession that were subject to the law, for there were exceptions so large as almost to deprive the creditors of the benefit of the rule. In the ease of trust property, the trust was not affected by the Bankruptcy Law, for if furniture, was settled on a man's wife, the creditors could not get the benefit of the law. The law was injurious to every one; and, if he could not persuade the Attorney General to strike out the clause, he trusted lie would consent so to modify it that it should not extend to things in action.
  MR. MORLEYthought that, if the clause was intended to cover goods not belonging to the bankrupt, it should be expunged.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsupported the clause, believing that if it should be struck out the result would be an extension of commercial frauds. It would permit retail traders to have their shops stocked with goods the property of other parties, and if a man became bankrupt it would be said that the whole of the goods belonged to other parties.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALacceded to the Amendment which had been suggested, and agreed to insert after the word "bankrupt" the words "being a trader." He also consented to insert a proviso to the effect that "things in action shall not be deemed goods and chattels within the meaning of this clause." The policy of the Bankruptcy Law was this—that if a man intrusted a trader with goods and chattels upon the strength of which he obtained credit, it was but fair that when he became bankrupt those goods and chattels should belong to his creditors. That had been the law for nearly 200 years. He had heard very few complaints against that law. The effect of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel) was this, that the law was not altogether effectual because it was sometimes evaded. That was not a reason for abolishing the law. He could not go the length proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he thought they could not go further in the way of altering the law than was proposed by the Attorney General, without totally destroying credit in this country.

  1223
  It should be remembered that a year or two ago, an alteration was made in the Law of Partnership. More participation in profits used to constitute a man a partner; but now, that alone was not enough to constitute a man a partner. The consequence was that a man might carry on trade for his own benefit without being answerable for the debts incurred in that trade. The effect of that would be that the whole stock might go to the person for whose benefit the trade was carried on, who also received the whole of the profits. He thought it much safer to limit themselves to the change proposed by the clause, and even that, change seemed to require some modification. lie would suggest that the Amendment, which the Attorney General stated that, he would introduce, should be qualified by adding after the words. "things in action," the words "other than debts due in the course of his trade or business."
  The words "being a trader," inserted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALproposed to add the words—
  "Provided that things in action, other than debts doe to the person in the course of trade or business, shall not be deemed goods and chattels within the moaning of the clause."
  MR. MUNTZsaid, the change re-commended by the hon. and learned Member for Dover had been in practice in France for forty years. Credit was not interfered with in France or in the United States, where the law of limited liability was in operation, and he did not see why we should not have a law far more convenient and just than the present one.
  MR. JESSELsaid, with unfeigned respect to the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) that he appeared to have entirely forgotten the lessons of his experience. He begged to differ entirely from his hon. and learned Friend's opinion that the adoption of his (Mr. Jessel's) suggestion would destroy credit in this country. Every civilized country on the face of the globe, except the United Kingdom, acted on the principle which he had supported. He should be ashamed of his country if, for the purpose of carrying on trade, it was necessary to have a law that was not honest. Commercial men of experience did not give credit to a man merely because they saw goods in his shop windows. In giving credit
  1224
  they relied on a man's character and ability.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, if the true owner held out to the world that these goods were the property of the trader, he did not think honesty would be on the side of the true owner if he said they should not be liable to pay the debts.
  MR. JESSELsaid there was a statute of Elizabeth which applied to that case. A man who was a party to a fraud ought, of course, to suffer; but the Judges, in interpreting the statute, had gone further than the statute intended. They held that an honest man who had no intention of enabling a trader to acquire credit fraudulently should lose his goods.
  MR. SERJEANT DOWSEentirely differed from the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel) with respect to his ideas on the law of order and disposition. The Committee were not engaged in framing a commercial code. His experience in Ireland caused him to hope that that country might be exempted from any such change as the hon. and learned Member proposed. In his early professional career he practised in the Bankruptcy Court in Ireland, and he found no clause of the Bankruptcy Act more useful than the order and disposition clause. He repeatedly found that quantities of goods were allowed to be in the possession of a man for the purpose of giving him the appearance of being a rich mercantile man. When the matter came to be examined it was all a sham, no agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) that if the goods were in the bankrupt's possession by the consent: of their true owner, the owner was to blame, and the proceeds of the goods ought to be distributed among the creditors. But he thought that "choses in action"—such as stocks and shares— should be exempted from the operation of the law.
  Proviso agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to be added to the Bill.
  Clause 15 (Regulations as to first meeting of creditors).
  MR. ANDERSON MR. ANDERSON moved, in page 6, line 2, after "registrars," insert "or in his absence by a chairman elected by the meeting." In Scotland the creditors always elected their chairman.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was anxious that the registrar should be made to feel that it was his duty to attend at meetings and preside. But he would consent to the Amendment in this shape—that, in case of the illness or unavoidable absence of the registrar, the meeting might elect their own chairman.
  Words inserted.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. WHITWELL MR. WHITWELL moved, in line 5, after "debt," insert "of ten pounds or inwards.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALre- minded the hon. Gentleman that all ordinary Resolutions at such meetings were to be decided by a majority of value. It was only extraordinary Resolutions that were passed by a majority of persons, and he did not see the principle of excluding any of the creditors.
  After a few words from Mr. PEEK in favour of restriction,
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. WHITWELL MR. WHITWELL moved to leave out sub-sections (1) and (5) relating to the qualification of creditors to vote.
  After short discussion, Amendment negatived; other Amendments on clause moved and negatived.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 18 to 28 agreed to, with numerous Amendments.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit a-gain upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ADMINISTRATION ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend "The Prisons (Scotland) Administration Act, 1860," ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE. Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 143.]

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to provide for the collection of Judicial Statistics in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 142.]

  TITLES TO LAND CONSOLIDATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1868) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend "The Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1868," ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 144.]

  COURT OF SESSION ACT (1868) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of The LOUD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend "The Court of Session Act. 1868," in so far as the exemption of lighthouse keepers from serving on juries is thereby abolished, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 145.]

  SEA FISHERIES ACT (1868) SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bill to confirm an Order made by the Board of Trade under "The Sea Fisheries Act, 1868," relating to Langston, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE and Mr. John BRIGHT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 146.]

  PUBLIC PARKS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. M'CLURE, Bill to afford facilities for the establishment and maintenance of Public Parks in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'CLURE, Mr. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Mr. PIM, and Mr. MAGUIRE.
  Bill presented, and read the 6rst time. [Bill 147.]

  INCLOSURE OF LANDS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Bill to authorize the Inclosure of certain Lands, in pursuance of a Special Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 148.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock.