Lords Sitting of 11 April 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Scotland); Ministers' Money (Ireland).

WAR WITH RUSSIA—THE GERMAN POWERS—QUESTION
LORD BEAUMONTsaid: My Lords, I avail myself of the last opportunity afforded me before the recess of putting some questions to my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I can assure your Lordships that I am unwilling, as my noble Friend must be aware, either to give much attention to the telegraphic messages which are constantly arriving at this time from various parts of Europe, or to put too much confidence in the rumours which are so rapidly spread and so easily believed in a period of anxiety like the present. The noble Earl must be also well aware that even when some of these rumours and reports have assumed a certain degree of consistency, I, at least, have generally abstained from drawing premature conclusions from them, and by ill-timed discussion causing embarrassment or in any way interfering with the proceedings of Government. Having confidence in their judgment, I have refrained from putting inopportune questions with regard to the great subject which so engrosses the public attention. But as, my Lords, this is the last day of our meeting previous to the vacation, and as the reports to which I am about to refer have assumed a very serious character, and as they are not only repeated in the public journals, but also, to my knowledge, have been forwarded, and partly confirmed, by private letters, I am led this

815
day to ask my noble Friend, for the satisfaction of your Lordships, and even for the advantage of the Government itself, if he is able to lay before Parliament any documents or papers which will explain the actual state of our present relations with the German Powers. I allude in particular to that portion of the question, because I believe there can be no doubt that a new and recent protocol—more recent than that contained in the papers last laid before Parliament—has been signed by the parties forming the Conference at Vienna. And I am also further inclined to ask this question because the reports and rumours to which I have alluded have a tendency to show—and, in fact, have inclined some persons to believe—that our relations with the German Powers are not quite so satisfactory as it was hoped they would be found to be Even this very day, my Lords, a report has been spread—though it is most likely that such a report is incorrect—that the Prussian Government has broken with the Western Powers, and has actually joined the Russian Emperor. Now, of course, such a report as that can gain no credit; but though a positive rupture with the allied Powers may not be believed, there is good ground for suspecting extreme lukewarmness in their cause. I have seen, with some pain, the report of a debate which took place in the Second Chamber of the Assembly at Berlin, demonstrating, as I am sorry to say, the existence in that Chamber of a strong party very hostile to the Western Powers, and extremely favourable to an alliance with Russia. I perceive also, my Lords, from what passed on that occasion, that the party supporting an opposite policy did not carry the proposals which they thought proper to make. The feeling thus exhibited in the Chamber, and the favour with which Russian agents are received at the Court of Berlin, are of themselves sufficient to awake suspicion, and these circumstances, which are of course authentic and known, may have led to the report to which I have just alluded. That report, however, I consider to be one having a very dangerous tendency, inasmuch as it supposes a difference of opinion in Europe on the conduct of Russia, and it would be, therefore, very advantageous to Her Majesty's Government if my noble Friend were able to give a positive contradiction to it. I have also, my Lords, seen with pain—and I fear there is more truth
816
in this report—that a distinguished diplomatist, who has long resided in this country, and who has long most worthily represented the Court of Prussia—who enjoys a great European reputation as being one of the first scholars of the day—a man who is not less distinguished in letters than in diplomacy, is about to be recalled from this country by his Government. My Lords, I do not know whether that recall has any political meaning with regard to the relations between Prussia and this country, or whether it is in consequence of mere private affairs, or whether it is occasioned by considerations affecting the internal arrangements of Prussia. If my noble Friend can afford any explanation of the motives which led to the threatened retirement of Chevalier Bunsen I hope he will give it. So far, then, with regard to Prussia. I think, however, that your Lordships will be of opinion that with regard to our relations with Austria also we ought to have some information; because it appears that an alliance, defensive and offensive, has been proposed, if not actually signed, between the two great German Powers. Whatever the exact nature of that treaty may be, it is most likely that it has been communicated to Her Majesty's Government; and in that case it will be satisfactory to know that there is nothing in that treaty which can influence or impede in any way the co-operation—if it should be necessary—of the two German Powers with the two great Western Powers in ease of a prolonged state of war. There are, my Lords, some other reports from Austria, which are, also, of a very serious tendency. There is one with respect to Servia, which, though it forms a portion of the Turkish dominions, and is under the suzerainty of the Porte, has always been treated as a quasi independent Power—it is reported that a portion of that territory has been occupied by Austrian troops in consequence of certain Russian soldiers, or of persons who are agents, or who are supposed to be agents, of Russia, having passed the frontier for the purpose of raising troubles in that country. This is a report of which I have not the slightest idea whether it be true or not; but as it has been generally spread, it will be satisfactory to know whether Her Majesty's Government can afford any information in regard to it. I should further like to know, my Lords—but this, of course, is a question as to which it will remain en-

817
tirely in the noble Earl's discretion whether my wishes are to be granted or not—whether instructions have gone out to the fleet now to take an active part in the war? I ask this simple question, because I have seen several private letters from the seat of war which express a rather painful feeling that up to the moment at which they were written, there has been no cooperation or assistance given on the part of our fleet to the right wing of the Turkish army, which is now engaged in a most severe contest with the Russian forces under General Lüders. It will certainly be satisfactory to know whether or not that co-operation which, according to the judgment of the most able to form an opinion—namely, the admirals and officers in command—may be afforded, can now be confidently relied upon by our ally the Porte, and should the Turks ask of our fleet their co-operation and assistance, whether such co-operation and assistance are now likely to be given. On any points with regard to the war, I can assure your Lordships I would be very sorry to put questions such, as I said, might in any way tend to harass Her Majesty's Government. For I feel we must trust implicitly to the Government, and to those officers who are in command of our forces, on the several points, and there can be no doubt as to the appositeness of a remark made in a speech not long ago delivered, that secrecy is one of the elements of success. I, therefore, beg to be allowed to put the question to my noble Friend, and in doing so I freely admit it will be for him to exercise his judgment as to the extent to which he will concede an answer—whether he is able to lay before your Lordships such information as may be confirmatory of either the truth or falsehood of the various rumours now abroad—and also such information as it may be proper to give with regard to our actual position in respect to the German Powers?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I do full justice to the forbearance of my noble Friend, and admit that he has in general carefully abstained from putting to Her Majesty's Government any questions that might lead to embarrassment. I must say, however, that on the present occasion, the noble Lord has amply made up for any defects or delays he may have hitherto exercised in that direction by putting to me such a series of questions that my principal difficulty will be, not as to the answers I have to give, but in remember-
818
ing the questions themselves. I think the first question of my noble Friend has reference to a protocol which is said to have been recently signed and which he desires to have produced. Now, my Lords, that protocol was only signed the day before yesterday at Vienna, and as yet I have only seen the draft of it, which arrived yesterday. I think that that protocol is of a satisfactory character, though it is not precisely that which was originally desired, nor that which the Austrian Government agreed to support. But the arrangement has assumed the shape of a protocol to meet the wishes of the Prussian Government, and I must say it substantially contains everything that was included in the convention. The assent of Prussia was readily given, and, as I have just said, the protocol was signed on Sunday last; it has not, however, as yet reached England in a complete shape, otherwise there would not be the slightest difficulty in laying it upon your Lordships' table, though as soon as the House meets again, after the Easter recess, I promise to do so. With respect to the rumours to which my noble Friend has alluded—of Prussia having gone over altogether to Russia—I can assure him that there is not the slightest foundation for such a statement, or the slightest grounds for apprehending such an event. I could certainly wish that the temper and tone of the debates in the Second Chamber had been rather different from what they were; but sometimes the same feeling might be entertained with regard to what passes in your Lordships' House. But, in any case, I am sure my noble Friend does not consider that the Government is in any way responsible for the tone assumed in the Second Chamber at Berlin. Nevertheless, my Lords, I think that although that tone, and the result which has been brought about, are not what might have been expected or desired—I think that it has been quite sufficiently manifested, both by the Chamber, the press, and the public, that the state of things which my noble Friend seems to apprehend—namely, that of Prussia passing over to Russia—is quite impossible. My Lords, with regard to the rumour which my noble Friend says is circulating in London, and which very naturally gives rise to feelings of great regret, as to the recall of Chevalier Bunsen, I certainly acknowledge to have heard a report to that effect, as has also, I believe, the Ambassador himself; but he assures me that as

819
yet, at all events, he has no knowledge of the fact himself. It seems, however, that official information has been received, stating that it was likely another special mission would be sent over here of the same kind as was sent some three weeks ago, and which will probably be attended with the same results. With respect to the treaty or new convention signed between the German Powers, I am not able to give the information required by my noble Friend, because that treaty has not yet been communicated to Her Majesty's Government. All that I have learned on the subject is, that it proceeded from Austria to Prussia, being delivered by General Hess. I believe it has been concluded, though I am unable to state the exact terms of it, as it has not been communicated in its official form to Her Majesty's Government. I believe, however, it is offensive and defensive with respect to any territorial attacks made upon the German territory. With regard to our fleet in the Black Sea, I have only to say that our last information of them stated that the whole of the combined fleets were at Karvarna, and that they were at Varna before news had been received of the passage of the Danube by the Russian army. As it was expected that the passage of the Lower Danube would be attempted, the fleet moved to Karvarna; and since then, news having reached the Admirals of the passage of the Danube, they have detached steamers in the direction of Kostendjie to communicate with the Turkish military authorities, and afford them whatever assistance might be deemed necessary. As respects Servia, I have only to say that we have no information whatever of the Austrians having entered Servia. It was, however, some time since stated that communications had been received from Austria by the Turkish Ambassador at Vienna that the corps d'armée upon the frontier would enter Servia if the Russian forces crossed into that territory, or if an insurrection in favour of Russia broke out; but that that entry would be solely for the purpose of maintaining the status quo of Servia, and to support the authority of its lawful Sovereign.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BROUGHAM, in moving the second reading of this Bill, observed that it
820
was one of the series of measures which was found necessary for assimilating in some respects the laws relating to trade in Scotland with those of England. Great inconvenience had been experienced for a length of time in consequence of the differences in the two systems, and a noble Friend near him (the Earl of Eglinton) had on a recent occasion made a statement, to the clearness and ability and temperance of which even those who least agreed in his conclusions would feel disposed to do ample justice. Amongst other things the noble Earl referred to the great hardships which Scotland suffered by legislation respecting testamentary execution and the probate of wills, and stated that, in consequence of an oversight, a difference had been made in this respect between England and Scotland; probate or letters of administration in England or Ireland only being requisite to give the will effect in Scotland as regarded shares in bank and railway and similar stock; whereas in Scotland it was necessary for the execution of the will in England or Ireland, besides the probate or administration in Scotland, to take out probate or letters of administration in Canterbury or York and Armagh or Dublin. But that was not the only hardship experienced in Scotland from the difference in the law; for their Lordships were probably aware that in the year 1835 a great change took place in the law respecting arrests in execution for small debts. By that Act the power of arresting for debt, where such debt did not exceed 8l. 6s. 8d., was abolished; but what was the effect of it? According to one estimate 96 per cent of the small debts before the passing of that Act were recoverable, and by another estimate 80 per cent, the difference in the estimates being that one was calculated upon the debts obtained after judgment and the other upon those obtained without judgment; whereas after the alteration in question that state of affairs was entirely reversed, 96, or 80 per cent, being the proportion of debts rendered absolutely bad and irrecoverable by the creditor. Now, if they contrasted that with what followed upon the abolition of the arrest for debt in England, they would find that the year after the Bill of 1843, brought in by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), abolishing arrest for debt under 20 l., the table of their Lordships' House was loaded with petitions from retail traders in London and elsewhere, who complained that they would be ab-

821
solutely ruined by the Bill, which had been passed without due precaution; and the House instantly appointed a Committee, over which his noble and learned Friend presided, which Committee gave the petitioners the most complete redress, and perfectly satisfied them by the improvements immediately made in the law. It was absolutely necessary to abolish imprisonment for small debts; but the Act abolishing it in England having been passed without due precaution, so as to injure the retail traders, an immediate remedy had thus been applied. Such was not the case in Scotland after the passing of the Act of 1853 abolishing arrests for debts not exceeding 8l. 6s. 8d., and the retail traders bitterly complained of the omission; for, although 8l. 6s. 8d. might seem a small debt in any single instance, it constituted a very large proportion of debts due to retail dealers. He was now about to refer to a similar hardship, a grievance, which at present existed in Scotland from the imperfect state of the law, and which the Bill now before their Lordships was intended to remedy. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the Scotch bankrupt law as it at present stood. He had on a previous occasion during the last Session pointed out its defects in detail, and he would now mention one or two particulars in which it differed widely from and formed a contrast to our own. Looking at the discrepancies and deficiencies of the law as the result of inattention and oversight on the part of the Legislature, the remedy he would himself apply to that inattention and those acts of carelessness would be that which was recommended by the late Lord Langdale, whose name he never mentioned without bearing tribute to his great ability and, above all, to his sound judgment—a man never led away by vain speculations and theories—and he had suggested the necessity of appointing a Minister of Justice. In that opinion he (Lord Brougham) entirely concurred; he thought the appointment of a Minister of Justice would be of the utmost value; but he did not mean one who would be incidentally a Minister of Justice, one who, like his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, had an immense weight of public business cast upon him, who was the Chief Judge of the Court of Chancery, who presided over their Lordships in that House, and whose time was taken up to no inconsiderable extent in hearing appeals brought before that House, but he meant a Minister whose sole occupation should be to superin-
822
tend the administration of justice, and, above all, to give his attention to improvements in the law of the United Kingdom. Had this country possessed such an officer, the discrepancies to which he had adverted could never have been found in our laws, and the delays of which so much complaint had been made would never have taken place—he meant the delay of ten years in abolishing the Masters' offices in the Court of Chancery—a great step in reforming that court; but he was by no means certain that further great changes and amendments were not needful. The plan for the abolition of the Masters' offices was in a state of perfection in 1842, when one of the Masters (Mr. Brougham) had propounded it in detail with Lord Langdale's full concurrence; and yet for ten years afterwards did the Court of Chancery labour under the disgrace, and the suitor under the misfortune, of having these offices continued. His noble Friend (the Earl of Eglinton) had recently adverted to the office of Lord Advocate. Anything more anomalous than the present condition of that office he could not imagine. He was not going to enter at all at large into that subject, but only to remind their Lordships that the Lord Advocate was in Edinburgh, that he was an Edinburgh man, that he was a barrister at Edinburgh, that he was in the Parliament House at Edinburgh, and that he was so mixed up with the profession there that he could not get out of the trammels which bound him to it if he would. The result was inevitable, that in anything laid before the Lord Advocate, the Lord Advocate did and must lean towards Edinburgh, and towards the Parliament House. How, then, must it be with him when Edinburgh stood alone—when the interests of all Scotland and the interests of Edinburgh were different—when, at all events, there was the greatest possible desire for certain measures throughout the country everywhere but in that one part to which the Lord Advocate belonged? It was easy to see. The Lord Advocate, with all the disposition to do justice in the world, with the most perfect freedom from all undue motives, would lean towards Edinburgh and towards the profession. In making these remarks, it was scarcely necessary for him to say that he did not impute anything improper in the conduct of his most excellent and learned Friend the present Lord Advocate, with whom and whose family he had been in habits of intimate friendship for more than half a century, than whom and whose

823
family there existed neither in England nor in Scotland any persons more honest, more virtuous, more enlightened. All that he wished to impress upon their Lordships was, that it was likely, in a Bill such as that to which he asked them to give a second reading, that they would find themselves thwarted by the Edinburgh influence. By the Edinburgh influence he did not mean the general trade of Edinburgh, but only that trade which was driven in the Parliament House, and upon the present subject, even that body was not unanimous. Moreover, reverting to the subject more immediately before the House, he must beg to remind their Lordships that everywhere else there was a strong feeling existing in favour of this most salutary amendment of the law. Their Lordships would see of what importance it was to give every facility to trading operations, and, as far as was practicable, to improve the laws which regulated the commercial dealings of the various classes of the community in this country. The petitions which he had presented to the House would convince them of the greatly increasing trade between England and Scotland; one of those petitions being signed by no less than 224 great firms in the City of London who carried on trade with Scotland, the first five of those firms being engaged in commercial dealings involving annually in the aggregate 5,000,000 l. sterling, and one of them having transactions which led to 14,000 bills of exchange in a year. There were also petitions from Bradford, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool, and Birmingham, and in Scotland from Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, and other places, calling on the House to remedy the evils which they described, and praying for an assimilation in the commercial laws of the two portions of the kingdom. In other places in Scotland where petitions had not been adopted public meetings had been held in the course of the past year; so that it was plain the subject was attracting general attention, and called for legislative interference. But he would now inform their Lordships what were the leading features of difference between the bankrupt law of England and Scotland. In Scotland, in cases of bankruptcy, a trustee was appointed, who answered in some respects to our assignee, but was without the control of the court under which our assignees acted. In Scotland the trustee was the sole judge; no proof of debts was required before a public court, before the sheriff, or before the Lord
824
Ordinary; the trustee alone decided whether the debt claimed was due or not, although from him, no doubt, there was a right of appeal. The trustee was chosen by the creditors, who were canvassed for his election as constituencies were canvassed by a Member of Parliament. There were persons in Scotland who drove the trade of a trustee, and a lucrative trade. These trustees called themselves accountants, and were, generally speaking, men of respectability; but he could not but remember an old Guildhall saying, which might possibly apply to some of them, that when a man was produced as a witness who was asked what trade he was, and who replied that he was an accountant, it used to be said that this meant, he was one who would give no other account of himself. In many cases the gibe might be founded on fact; but he did not deny that the body in Scotland were generally composed of very respectable men. The appointment of a trustee, however, was in Scotland a matter of canvass, and every means were resorted to in order to obtain the majority that the law required. The consequence was, that every sort of traffic took place between the bankrupt and the trustee. The latter could hardly help leaning towards the bankrupt, who had given him every assistance towards being appointed. The result very often was, that the bankrupt's nominee was appointed the trustee, and thus the bankrupt virtually became trustee of his own estate. The system of electing trustees by the creditors had been ably exposed by the author of a pamphlet on the reform of the bankruptcy law of Scotland, who said:—
"The election of the trustee lies wholly with the creditors, a majority in value prevailing when strictly regular claims have been produced. Under this system, as presently worked, it is impossible to say that the best-qualified candidate is always or even generally preferred. The most uncertain of all uncertain things is the choice of a trustee, or the result of a contest in court for the office. Influence in obtaining votes and activity in canvassing are not always guarantees for ability and impartiality. Creditors very often experience great annoyance in the exercise of their votes, and, so far from being benefited and protected by the privilege which the law confers, they are often involved in vexatious competitions, and outwitted by the manœuvres of law agents, or the collusive partisanship of the bankrupt himself. It is not required by the present law of Scotland that a trustee shall possess any professional or other qualifications, and he is often chosen on account of his losses by the bankruptcy or other considerations wholly unconnected with the essential circumstance of his fitness for the office."

825
The trustee, in fact, might be as ignorant of accounts as of law, and yet might get himself chosen by a majority both as accountant and judge. Acting as a judge, he sometimes had an assessor in cases of great difficulty, and when he had, what happened? He knew a case in which a late learned Judge, who had now retired from the Scottish bench, once sat as assessor day after day for weeks. He gave his decision. An appeal was carried to the sheriff, and from him to the Court of Session, and thence to the House of Lords. This happened twenty-five years ago, but he remembered the case. All this litigation was paid for out of the estate by the creditors, and while it was going on there was a suspension of the distribution of the estate. Now, if this case had originally come before a Judge in bankruptcy, as proposed by the Bill, instead of being left to a trustee, the utmost delay would have been an appeal to the chief Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy. By possibility it might happen that a point of law might come up to the House of Lords; but since our Bankruptcy Act passed in 1831, there had been no instance of such a case having come to them.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that last year there had been one, and that was the only one; so that his noble and learned Friend's argument was in no way weakened by the fact.
LORD BROUGHAM: The Bill proposed to vest the jurisdiction in bankruptcy, not in a trustee elected by the creditors, but in a judicial officer. The sheriffs in Scotland were local judges, who could easily discharge, except in the two great counties, the duties of a judge in bankruptcy and insolvency, because by the last return it appeared that the total number of bankruptcies in Scotland, exclusive of Edinburgh and Glasgow, amounted to only 108, which gave only five or six cases in each year to each of the counties of Scotland. For Edinburgh and Glasgow separate judges would be appointed. This was the fundamental principle which the Bill was intended to establish; but there were other evils which it was proposed to remedy, such as the mode of going into the accounts and the administration of the estate. No doubt the law at present provided checks which, in the language of Mr. Douglas, an able and experienced accountant and trustee, would be admirable, if it were not for one unfortunate fact—that they
826
were never made use of. Mr. Douglas said:—
"Now all this would be admirable if it were not for one unfortunate act, namely, that it is never done. We do not hesitate to say that a very considerable portion of trustees presently acting under the bankrupt Statute are even ignorant of the fact of their being obliged to lodge copies of their periodical accounts with the bill chamber clerk, and of those who are aware of the circumstance few or none do it; this is, however, a trifling omission compared with some others."
For example, there was nothing more material than that the examination of the bankrupt should be public, and this the Bill proposed to provide. At present the bankrupt was examined in a back room, while other business was carried on in the front room. He was examined, not, as he had better be, by the Judge, insufficient as he was, and such as he was, but by his clerk, and was not confronted either with his creditors or with the public. It might be said the trustee was controlled by Commissioners. But what did this amount to? Three creditors were appointed Commissioners by the body of the creditors, the same body that appointed the trustee; and not only this, but practically the trustee had no small choice in the election of the Commissioners, and it was they who had the control of his remuneration. The Commissioners were to say what poundage and commission the trustee should be paid, not on the sums distributed, but upon the assets paid in, and thus they awarded the amount of his compensation. In all difficulties where he ran the risk of being questioned, the trustee. appealed to the Commissioners, who then might cover him with their shield, he having had a share in their election; but where he was not likely to be called to account he acted on his own responsibility. And then, what did he do with the funds? The Bill proposed that trade assignees should be elected by the creditors, and that permanent official assignees should also be appointed, as in England, and attached to the courts. When, in 1831, official assignees were appointed in England to act with trade assignees, their Lordships would recollect the benefit conferred by that great and salutary change. In a short time upwards of two millions were collected by the official assignees, all which had been slumbered over by the trade assignees; and a gentleman, a London banker, then in the House of Commons, who supported the Bill, said, "Though I

827
support the Bill, our house will lose 5,000 l. or 6,000 l. a year by its immediate operation, for the sums lying in our hands will be distributed." In Scotland large sums in the same way were unclaimed in the hands of trustees, or, what is the same thing, their bankers. The trustee was not forced to distribute, and he slumbered over it. The trustee collected the assets, and lodged them in a bank at interest, and this interest was not carried to the credit of the bankrupt's estate, but to the private credit of the trustee. From beginning to end a system of abuse, or, more properly speaking, laxity—for it was rather laxity than corruption—existed. The importance of the subject could hardly be exaggerated, and it excited great and anxious interest both in England and Scotland. If their Lordships should agree to the second reading, he should propose that the Bill be committed pro formâ, in order that certain amendments might be introduced. The Bill had been printed and extensively circulated among legal and mercantile bodies in England and Scotland, and the result had been that he had received a vast number of suggestions for its improvement, with some of which he agreed, and with others he was at issue, especially as to the mode of choosing the official assignee. He regarded the appointment of this officer as the corner-stone of the Bill, which it was in his Bill of 1831 for England; and he also attached great importance to the system of granting the certificate, as altered a few years after by Lord Cottenham. It was a great improvement in the law that the certificate was removed from the hands of the creditors, and transferred to the Judge of the Bankruptcy Court. Every one of the arguments in favour of these great improvements in the English bankruptcy law equally applied to Scotland, if, indeed, they were not more wanted there. He must again express his sorrow that we had no Minister of Justice in this country, for a Bill of so much importance ought to have proceeded, not from an individual, but from the Crown. It was impossible for a Member of their Lordships' House unconnected with the Government to obtain for such a Bill the reasonable chance it ought to have of passing in accordance with the wishes of the mercantile community. If his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor would consent, pro hâc vice, to act as Minister of Justice—if he could be induced to leave the delights of the Court
828
of Chancery—if he would tear himself away from it for a brief period, in order to make this sacrifice for the good of his fellow-countrymen—if he would take charge of this Bill as if it were, what it was not, a Ministerial measure, then he should be indeed delighted. He trusted that this appeal would not be made in vain—not that he (Lord Brougham) shrunk from any labour in connection with the Bill; he only shrank from the prospect of seeing so good a measure failing in his own hands, knowing his own insufficiency to do it justice.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was sure that their Lordships would all feel that no apology was due from his noble and learned Friend for the mode in which he ushered in this Bill to the notice of their Lordships. A most important Bill it was, and one to which he (the Lord Chancellor), though not a Minister of Justice, should unquestionably feel it his duty to give his best attention, and, in a great measure, his support. He should give his assent to the second reading; but his noble and learned Friend must not consider that in taking that course he was pledging himself to support the Bill in its integrity. His noble and learned Friend had stated—and as far as he (the Lord Chancellor) was informed, he believed that he had stated truly—that there were very great defects in the existing bankrupt law of Scotland, and he was himself entirely persuaded that very material amendments were called for in that law; but he was not prepared at the present moment to state precisely what might be the best mode of reconciling that country to the amendments which were necessary. He believed that the introduction of official assignees would be a step most extremely important, and in the right direction; and he believed that the giving to some court the power of granting the certificate, instead of vesting it, as now, substantially in the creditors, would also be a great improvement. But this Bill was the introduction, substantially, into Scotland of the whole body of the English law of bankruptcy, as it was embodied in the Act of 1849. Now, from what had passed upon the subject of the bankrupt law of Scotland, in the course of the last Session, he much doubted whether such an introduction of the English system in its entirety, as it was the object of the measure to accomplish, would be conformable to the wishes

829
or the feelings of the trading community of that country. He was not now going to enter into a discussion of the merits or demerits of the Act of 1849; he considered the country was under a deep debt of gratitude to his noble and learned Friend for his efforts to improve the bankrupt law of the kingdom; and in getting rid of the old system of bankruptcy in this country he conferred a very great benefit indeed on the community. He was reminded also, that the further alterations effected by Lord Cottenham, some ten or twelve years afterwards, by which the power over the certificate was transferred entirely to the Court, was another very great step. But his noble and learned Friend must pardon him for expressing the doubts which he entertained—doubts which he felt bound to express, although he was aware that he differed in opinion from his noble and learned Friend—as to the entire success of all the provisions of that measure of 1849. He would not trouble their Lordships with a parade of learning as to the origin of the bankrupt law. Down to a comparatively recent period the bankrupt law was in truth, little more than the administration by creditors of the estates of their debtors. That was substantially what was done, and it was, in fact, a matter entirely in the hands of the creditors. The effect of his noble and learned Friend's alteration, in the year 1831, had been to place this system under more effectual legal control; and although it turned out afterwards that the establishment of a court with four judges was more than was actually necessary, the substantial effect of the change was to place far greater power, in matters of bankruptcy, in the hands of a judicial tribunal than had ever been so vested before. This, be thought, was quite right, and the effect had been very beneficial. But the system had got to assume, since then, more and more of a penal character; and at the present moment the Commissioners who administered the bankrupt law exercised a very high penal jurisdiction. They had the power of sending parties to prison, in some instances for a year. At all events they had the power to send parties to prison for very undefined offences, and it was very difficult to define exactly what the Acts were which gave them that jurisdiction. They had the power also of giving what were called class certificates—those of the highest class certifying that the bankruptcy had not arisen from the misconduct or mismanagement of the trader; and there was a
830
second-class certificate to the man whose bankruptcy had been partly unavoidable and partly caused by mismanagement. He knew that his noble and learned Friend was very much wedded to the excellence of this system of class certificates. He confessed, however, that he entertained considerable doubt upon the subject; and lie knew that that doubt was shared by a very large portion of the Commissioners by whom the subject of the law of bankruptcy had been recently investigated. The Report of those Commissioners had only been placed in his hand about half an hour before entering the House that night, but in casting his eye over it he had seen that this was a subject upon which they were not agreed, and that a very large proportion entertained the doubts which he himself felt, as to whether the system of class certificates had been beneficial. On the other hand, he believed that in the City the opinion of his noble and learned Friend preponderated. [LORD BROUGHAM: It is almost unanimous.] At all events he doubted, as he had said at the beginning, whether the introduction into Scotland of the present bankrupt law of England, in all its new aspects, would be conformable to the wishes of any large proportion of the trading community of that country. There was a feeling there that by making the proceedings in bankruptcy a sort of quasi criminal investigation into the conduct of the party, the creditors would not be likely to receive so much as they might do under a different mode of examination. He believed that the proper course lay between the two extremes. But he also believed that when it came to be known in Scotland that his noble and learned Friend's intention was to introduce into that country the English law of bankruptcy in its entirety, there would be found to prevail a very strong feeling against it. He spoke not from conjecture. The petitions which were presented in the last Session plainly proved that although the people of that country wished to have the law amended, they did not wish to have it amended in an English sense. The Scotch bankruptcy law undoubtedly required amendment; and the present Bill for amending it was in such able hands that, whether it was carried out in its integrity or only in part, it was likely to be productive of so much benefit that he had not the slightest hesitation in saying, in agreeing to the second reading of the Bill, that the objects his noble and learned Friend had in view met

831
with his entire and cordial concurrence. The course proposed was an extremely reasonable one—namely, that the Bill should be committed pro formâ, and that it should then go through an investigation. No doubt, whether it was conformable to the wishes of the people of Scotland or otherwise would be made manifest before that time by petitions.
LORD LYNDHURSTasked if it was proposed to examine witnesses?
LORD BROUGHAMregretted that his noble and learned Friend (the Chancellor) had not answered the question whether he was prepared to take charge of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLORwas of opinion that the Bill could not be better placed than in the able hands of his noble and learned Friend.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday, the 27th instant.

COUNTY COURT FEES—QUESTION.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he wished to ask his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) whether he could hold out any hope of a speedy abolition of the County Court fees, as they formed a monstrous grievance to the suitors of those courts? He would say no more, but would simply refer to two or three cases to show the present working of the courts. The first statement he would read he had received from a respectable attorney in the City, who stated that in bringing an action for a client for payment of a debt of 14 l. 3s. 6d. he bad been charged for court fees only—for taxes only—the sum of 7l. 5s. 9d. This was an undefended cause in one of the County Courts of Middlesex; and he believed that if the unfortunate suitor had brought his action in the court of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), and had judgment by default, he would have been charged only 30 s., or perhaps only 12 s. 6d. [Lord CAMPBELL: Ours is the cheap shop.] It was no doubt cheap, and he hoped it was also good; but some shops sold cheap things which were very bad. The next case was one from an attorney in the country. The action was for damages for a trespass under the consent clauses of the Act—both parties had consented to the jurisdiction, and the damages awarded were 5l. They, however, did not consent for nothing, for the fees were 8l. 0s. 6d. That was the amount of the court fees and taxes to obtain a verdict for
5l.
832
damages. The third case was an action for 18 l., and the court fees were 10 l.; but those were not all the expenses, for 6l. more was added for money expended, so that to recover 18 l., the unhappy suitor had to expend 16 l. This was the way the money was extorted by the taxes imposed upon the County Courts, and these were laid on in order to pay the salaries of the Judges' bailiffs and clerks, and for the support and repairs of the court-house; but in some places—as where these cases occurred—court-houses were ready for use, and therefore no expense was incurred in erecting others; but in Cornwall, Durham, and Northumberland, there were no courthouses, and thus these fees were taken in every place and thrown into a general fund, so that the London suitors paid for the Cornwall court-house. The Government was bound to provide places for dispensing justice, and these poor suitors ought not to be called upon to pay the expenses, from which suitors in the courts above were exempt. He really thought this extortion should not be allowed to last any longer, and he hoped and trusted he might hear of its being speedily abolished. The whole fees raised by the County Court taxes amounted to about 275,000 l., while under the reduced scale of the Courts of Westminster only about 50,000 l. was raised by fees. Well might his noble and learned Friend say his was the "cheap shop," when the superior courts received 50,000 l. in fees, while the courts over which Mr. Serjeant Manning and other learned gentlemen presided raised 275,000 l. All salaries in these superior courts were paid by the State; in the County Courts the poor suitors paid them.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, that the subject which the noble and learned Lord had introduced was of much importance, but he was afraid that the answer which he had to give would hardly be such as that noble and learned Lord would consider satisfactory. It was a mistake to suppose that Government derived any revenue from these fees, or that the amount which they realised was more than was necessary to defray the expenses of the County Courts themselves. They might or might not be excessive, but at all events they were no more than sufficient for the purposes for which they were raised. Whether the public ought or ought not to take upon itself the payment of the charges to which the fees were now applied, was a question

833
fairly open for consideration; but if the public should think fit to pay them, all he could say was, that the charges were very considerable, and that the amount which would have to be provided for would be about 140,000 l. a year. It was a question for Parliament to consider whether the payment of that sum ought to fall upon the public or upon suitors. He granted that the amount which had been mentioned by his noble and learned Friend appeared to be excessive, and particularly when compared with the charges which were made in Westminster Hall. But their Lordships must see that the question was not one which could be considered in reference to these courts alone, and that it must be taken up, if at all, in connection with the whole legal and judicial expenditure of the country. The subject, he admitted, might, in that form, be a very fit one for inquiry; but, having conferred with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, he was not in a situation to promise to his noble and learned Friend any relief from those burdens which he had pressed so frequently and so strongly.
LORD CAMPBELL, having referred to the extent to which the evils of excessive fees and sinecures had been done away with in the superior courts, and acknowledged the share which that great man, Sir Robert Peel, had had in the removal of such abuses, said the Commission now sitting with respect to the County Courts would no doubt consider the subject of the excessive fees to which his noble and learned Friend had called the attention of the House; and if they could not—as he was afraid they could not—be altogether abolished, would at least recommend that they should be levied with some discrimination.
LORD BROUGHAMbelieved the Commissioners had already reported very strongly in favour of the abolition of the charges on the suitors to the extent of 125,000 l. a year.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Commissioners had not made any Report, but had agreed to certain resolutions.

MINISTERS' MONEY (IRELAND) BILL.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYmoved that the Bill be now read 2a (according to order). The noble Lord said, that the tax called Ministers' Money was levied for the support of clergymen of the Protestant Church in certain towns
834
in Ireland having large Catholic populations. It was a subject which had frequently been brought before the other House of Parliament, a Committee of which had reported in favour of its total abolition. However, it had been found that there was considerable difficulty in the way of giving effect to that recommendation, particularly as to the fund out of which the amount should be made up. It had been suggested that the deficiency should be supplied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and certainly he for one regretted that when the church cess was abolished, and the Church Temporalities Act passed, some provision had not been made in reference to this tax, which was but 15,000 l. a year. The measure now before the House, though not going to the extent which the Commission had recommended, would, he believed, remove many of the evils incidental to the present state of the law. It would exempt all houses under 10 l. a year and all new houses, and would provide that no house now assessed should be charged at a higher rate than hitherto. It would in fact relieve 30,000 houses out of 50,000, and he thought that for the sake of the Protestant Church, as well as of those who paid the tax, the House would be anxious to adopt it.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREadmitted that this tax had been the source of a great deal of dissatisfaction and of heart-burning in those towns in Ireland in which it existed. He thought that some provision with regard to it ought to have been included in the general measure which was passed some years ago, but he believed that, as a compromise, this measure would be satisfactory to both parties.
LORD CAMPBELLalso supported the measure as a compromise which he thought ought to be satisfactory, and which he hoped would have the effect of putting an end to heart-burnings and restoring peace.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday, the 1st of May next.

PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION—

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that before their Lordships adjourned, he must request their indulgence whilst he put a question to the noble Earl with reference to a measure relating to the Parliamentary representation, which it had been stated it was the intention of the Govern-

  835
  ment to introduce. Since entering the House, he (the Earl of Hardwicke) had understood that in the other House of Parliament a statement had been made leading to the belief that the measure was abandoned. He should be glad if the noble Earl would state to their Lordships whether the Bill was abandoned or not, as it would be desirable that their Lordships should receive such information from the Government, and not through the medium of the public papers? It was stated in the other House, by the organ of the Government, when the Reform Bill was introduced, that a circumstance so light as that of war should not interfere with the progress of Parliamentary reform. He was, therefore, desirous of asking the noble Earl whether it was true that the Bill was now abandoned; and if so, upon what ground it had been abandoned? He was aware, in asking this question, that the answer would probably afford a pleasure to him which might not be shared by other noble Lords.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I have always thought it desirable not to trouble your Lordships upon the subject of a measure not formally before you. The measure to which the noble Earl has referred was introduced into the other House of Parliament; and though I am ready to answer any question which the noble Earl may wish to put, I did not feel it incumbent on me to bring it before your Lordships' attention. In answer to the question of the noble Earl on this subject, I have to state, what I have stated more than once, that in complance with the declaration and recommendation made by Her Majesty in Her Speech from the Throne, that a measure for the reform of the representation of the people in Parliament should be introduced, Her Majesty's Ministers prepared and introduced a measure which, in their opinion, was likely to fulfil the object indicated by the Queen in Her Speech, and the expectations which the public had entertained with respect to it. They have seen no reason to alter the opinion they entertained respecting the character of that measure so introduced. It is true, as the noble Earl says, that the measure has been, I will not say abandoned, but withdrawn for this Session—not in consequence of any change of opinion with respect to its importance or character, but from what must be manifest to all your Lordships, that, in the interest of reform itself, this was clearly not the
  836
  time when it was advisable to press it on the attention of the House and the country. Whether that war which has prevented its progress be light or not, as the noble Earl has said, this is clear, that though I, for one, must maintain the existence of a state of war is no sufficient reason in itself for not proceeding with the consideration of measures essential and important for the interests of the country, still I must admit that, if that state of war so indisposes Parliament and the country from giving that indispensable attention to an important subject, it is quite impossible to press it upon their attention. Under these circumstances, and without in the least diminishing the importance of the subject, of which we continue to entertain the same views, or of the measure we have introduced, of which we also entertain the same opinion, we have thought it indispensable to withdraw the measure for the present Session, reserving to ourselves full power for renewing either this or some equivalent measure, as may be thought expedient, as early as the state of the public mind and of Parliament will enable us to do so with a prospect of success.
  LORD CAMPBELLobserved, that as the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) had intimated that the announcement of the withdrawal of the Reform Bill for the present Session would by some of their Lordships be heard with regret, as a friend of reform, as a friend of the present Government, and as a friend of the British empire, he (Lord Campbell) rejoiced in that announcement, and considered the postponement as manly and sensible.
  House adjourned to Thursday, the 27th instant.