Lords Sitting of 4 March 1859

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Marriage Law Amendment.
2a Burial Places.

REMOVAL OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY.
LORD LYNDURSTrose, pursuant to notice, to call the Attention of the House to the Royal Academy, and to the proposal to remove the Establishment form
1242
the National Gallery to a new Situation, and the Conditions of such Removal, and said:—My Lords, shortly after the meeting of Parliament, in answer to a question put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other House of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman stated, according to report, that there was an intention of removing the Royal Academy from their present residence in Trafalgar Square to a new site, upon certain terms which were not distinctly stated. My Lords, I consider that much misapprehension has existed respecting the tenure under which the Royal Academy hold their apartments at present in the National Gallery Much misapprehension appears to me also to exist as to the character, the duties, and the means of performing the duties of the Royal Academy, and much misrepresentation has taken place in consequence of such misapprehensions. I am, therefore, desirous to have an opportunity of entering into an explanation upon these points, because I think it will be satisfactory to your Lordships, and will redound to the credit of the society to which I have referred. I hope, my Lords, I shall not be charged with going out of my province in entering upon this subject. My justification, or rather my excuse may be, or must be, that in the course of last Session I presented a petition to your Lordships from the Royal Academy, requesting your Lordships to pass some Bill for the purpose of extending the law of copyright to paintings and other works of fine art. In consequence of this, I have received repeated communications from members of the Royal Academy, and they recall to my recollection many circumstances of my early life when I attended the lectures of Sir Joshua Reynolds, of Mr. Barry, and other professors, when I was very much associated and very conversant with the proceedings of the Royal Academy, and when I was intimately acquainted with many of its members. My Lords, there is ore circumstance, and a remarkable circumstance, that distinguishes the Royal Academy in this country from all the other academies that exist on the continent of Europe. There is not a single academy for the purpose of promoting the fine arts upon the Continent

1243
of no charge whatever to the State, and in this respect resembles many other of our institutions, which would in foreign countries look for aid to the Government, but which in this country are supported by the energy, the vigour, and enterprise of individuals. This is a peculiar characteristic of our free State, and it does, I think, great honour to the independence and spirit of our people. Some persons have said that the Royal Academy is to be considered as a society of private gentlemen united for the purpose of promoting the fine arts; while others have said that it is to be viewed as an incorporation. It is a singular circumstance, that at the institution of the Royal Academy there was an Incorporated Society of British Artists then in existence, consisting of a numerous body of professional gentlemen. In consequence, however, of disputes among that body and the disorders consequent upon them, some of the leading members applied by memorial to George III. for the purpose of establishing an academy under his patronage. After some consideration, the King assented to their request, and established the Royal Academy, exclusively under his protection and support. A code of laws was prepared under the immediate superintendence of the King, and he himself devoted a considerable portion of time to their consideration. Many alterations were proposed; but at last the code was complete, and it was then handed over under the sign manual to the Royal Academy; so that the Royal Academy exists, not as a private assemblage of individuals, but as an establishment under Royal authority, and under the sign manual. As for these laws I may describe them in a few words. The society consists of forty Academicians and twenty Associates, and it is provided that when there is a vacancy it shall be supplied by election, that election to be conducted by the Royal Academicians. But no person is allowed to hold the office of Royal Academician except with the assent of the Crown, and before he is placed in that situation he must have a diploma from the Crown, pointing out his rank and position in the society. Part of the system is the establishment of a very extensive and gratuitous school for the instruction of students in the fine arts. Certain professors are appointed, four or five in number, and also certain officers who are necessary for carrying on the establishment. I remember hearing manyyearsago—nearly
1244
seventy years ago—that the whole system and code of laws were referred to and considered by Lord Camden. I find that at this time Lord Camden was the possessor of the Great Seal, and we know, according to the practice of those days, that the Lord Chancellor was in daily private communication with the Crown. It is therefore almost impossible that a scheme of this kind should be established, and this system of laws could not indeed well be constituted, without the King taking the advice and opinions of the Lord Chancellor. I own, my Lords, that the various documents under the sign manual are not countersigned by any officer of the Crown, and there might be some doubt raised whether this Academy is to be considered an institution, patronised and under the support of the Crown in its private or its public character. My Lords, I do not think it very material to enter into these nice distinctions. What I am stating relates to the frame, the constitution, and the circumstances tinder which the endowment was placed. Now, my Lords, a word or two in respect to its local position. The Royal Academy was founded in 1768. Three years afterwards, in 1771, it was transferred from its original place of residence in Pall Mall to the old palace of Somerset House, by the authority of the Crown. It remained at the old palace of Somerset House until the new building was erected. That building, or series of buildings, was erected under the authority of an Act of Parliament. That Act of Parliament pointed out the particular offices which were to be accommodated in this building; I think they were to be ten in number; and it provided that on the site of the old palace such other buildings and offices should be erected as His Majesty should think proper to direct. It was under this reserved clause that His Majesty directed that that part of the present building which fronts the Strand should be erected for the accommodation of the Royal Academy, the Royal Society, and the Society of Antiquaries. The keys of that part of the building intended to be occupied by the Royal Aademy, were directed by His Majesty to be handed over to Sir Joshua Reynolds, who was then the President. It is clear that at that period the apartments which were assigned to the Royal Academy were held as part of the old palace of the Sovereign, and at the will and pleasure of the Sovereign. They continued in the occupation of those apartments undisturbed for a period of nearly

1245
sixty years. At the expiration of that time it was found convenient to transfer the Royal Academy from the position they then occupied, in order that other offices should be established on that position; but on that occasion a special engagement was entered into between the Crown and Parliament, in which the Royal Academy joined. By virtue of that agreement, and with the consent of the Crown, the Royal Academy was transferred to the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. It was stipulated at the time as part of the arrangement that they should hold those premises precisely on the same tenure and with the same rights and privileges as they formerly held the premises in Somerset House. His Majesty consented to this arrangement, Sir Martin Archer Shee being at that time President of the Academy. Thus the matter stands as to the right of the Royal Academy to the apartments they now occupy. They do not hold them of the nation, but of the Crown, and at the pleasure of the Crown. I pass over that part of the subject. I have stated that the Society is self-supporting; the source from which they have derived their income is the annual exhibition. The profits of that exhibition have advanced by degrees to their present amount. The average for the last ten years has reached the sum of £7,000 a year. From the very first the Academy has conducted itself in the management of that fund with great discretion. They have set apart a sum for accumulation with a view to the perpetuity of the establishment. I know, my Lords, some persons suppose that the members of the Royal Academy may apply this fund as they think proper. Some think they have distributed a portion of it among themselves. Nothing can be more unfounded. They have no power whatever over the fund. They cannot dis. pose of any part of it without the consent of the Crown. Upon one or two occasions they have advanced large sums towards the aid of the country in times of emergency. In 1798 they voted £500 for that purpose in aid of the Government. They voted afterwards a similar sum for a similar object; but the Crown refused its consent, and the money was not advanced. I have shown, therefore, that these funds are held not for the purposes of the members of the Society, but that they must be disbursed according, to regulations provided for their application. For what purpose is the fund then to be applied? There are certain officers appointed with the view to the schools
1246
and the instruction of the students; among others, a professor of sculpture, a professor of architecture, and a professor of anatomy—all branches of art necessary for an artist, the importance of which is duly recognized. These and certain other officers receive stipends on a very moderate scale for the discharge of the duties devolving upon them. But the great object of the institution has reference to the schools. The schools are on a most liberal establishment. Any of Her Majesty's subjects have a right to claim and to receive gratuitous instruction there; nothing more is requisite for that purpose than the production of a certificate of good moral character and of a qualification in drawing. With those qualifications they are admitted to the schools and are instructed gratuitously during as long a period as they think proper to remain. Many hundreds of students have been instructed in the schools connected with the society. At this very moment the number of students is something like 400. Your Lordships may ask what has been the result of this instruction? The answer is most satisfactory. During the last fifty years by far the larger proportion of eminent artists in this country have been taught in those schools. Two-thirds of the present Royal Academicans had their education in those schools. I have a list in my pocket of the names of those to whom I refer; but I could not trouble your Lordships to read them all, and to read a few would be invidious; but I will repeat in distinct and precise terms that the most eminent men that have figured in the arts of this country have been educated in those schools—that two-thirds of the present Royal Academicians were so trained and so educated. There is another circumstance worthy of mention. Not long ago it will be recollected that premiums were offered for cartoons to be employed in the decoration of the Houses of Parliament. Eleven premiums were so assigned, and more than two-thirds of them were awarded either to students of the Royal Academy or to persons who at some former time had been students of that society. I happened to be in Paris at the time of the exhibition there of works of industry and art. A room was allotted there to the leading schools, including the English; and I have reason to know that many foreign artists of eminence expressed their admiration of our native works of art there, and their surprise they had known so little of the

1247
English school. I think, then, that so far as relates to the duties of this society, and the mode of their performance of them, I have given most satisfactory evidence. My Lords, besides what I have stated as to the application of the society's funds, I must mention that there are medals and premiums awarded to students who attain a high degree of proficiency, and that there is also a fund appropriated to defraying the expenses of promising young men in travelling on the Continent for the purpose of visiting the Schools of the Ancient Masters, with the view to their improvement. My Lords, there is another application of their funds, which I am sure will meet with your Lordships' hearty concurrence. There is no profession which affords more immediate pleasure and delight than the profession of the arts; but, unfortunately, pecuniary reward to any extent does not always accompany exertion in that vocation. Occasionally from advancing life band its failing energies, sometimes from loss of sight, those who devote themselves to it are unfortunately reduced to poverty and distress. The Royal Academy also appropriates a portion of its funds to the relief of persons of that class, and of widows of artists who may have been left destitute. These are charitable objects, but they are not confined to the members of the institution, the aid is distributed freely to the profession at large; and a much larger sum is given to those members of the profession who are not and never were connected with the Academy than to those who are so connected. I find that about £400 a year is subscribed for the relief of persons connected with the institution, and upwards of £900 for that of persons in the profession not so connected. I think your Lordships will feel that that application of the funds in the manner I have described has been a correct, beneficial, wise, and prudent application, and that the administrators are deserving of our thanks for the manner in which they have exercised their rights and performed their office. My Lords, there are one or two objections which have been made to which I wish to refer before I sit down. It is sometimes complained that the walls of the Academy and the Exhibition are too much confined to Royal Academicians, members of the society. Whether that be the case or not I cannot undertake to say, nor whether the exhibition would be better and more profitable if the works of Royal Academicians were reduced in number and those of
1248
other artists admitted in greater numbers. I will not enter upon that subject, because, as it is understood that more extensive buildings are about to be erected, that complaint, if well-founded, can be removed in future. Another point to which I wish to allude is an objection which is sometimes made that favouritism prevails in the selection of the members. Where election is not made by the public voice it is impossible to say that favouritism may not sometimes exist; but here it is held in check by the voice of the profession, who have always their eyes directed towards the proceedings of the Academy, when an election takes place, and it is still further controlled by the influence and authority of the Sovereign, who must be satisfied of the propriety of each nomination, for no person elected can hold office until his election has received the sanction of the Sovereign and a diploma of appointment. But this I will say, that during the last fifty years no artist of eminence has lived in this country willing to become a member of the society who has not in course of time been elected a member. There have been one or two exceptions, the reasons for which I will not enter upon, because they are of an unpleasant character; but I say generally in broad terms, that every artist of eminence who has existed in this country during the last half century has been a member of the Royal Academy. My Lords, I feel considerable satisfaction in being able to state these facts to your Lordships, and through you to the country. Now, one word before I sit down upon the proposed change of site. I believe that as far back as 1830 it was suggested that it would be proper to remove the Royal Academy from its present position in order to afford more room for the National Gallery, and I think in 1854 Lord John Russell proposed to advance £40,000 to enable the Academy to procure another residence. What was the result of that offer I do not know, except that it was never completed; but this I do know, that it was not very favourably received by the Royal Academy, and for a very obvious reason. They have always considered themselves to be under the immediate supervision of the Crown. If they consented to receive a sum of money from the public purse they considered, and properly so, that they might be called upon from time to time by the House of Commons to make returns, to be examined, and to assume a political character quite foreign to the tranquil state so

1249
necessary for the well-being of art. Therefore I am sure the offer could not have been accepted by them. But other offers have since been made, and now it is proposed that a site should be granted in fee to the Royal Academy upon part of the ground occupied by what is known as Burlington House. No situation can be better for this purpose. They are grateful for that offer; but still they fear what I have before suggested, that a grant from the nation, unless an equivalent was offered by themselves, would place them in the position I have just mentioned. Their object is, and always has been, to remain solely under the control and supervision of the Crown. Therefore what they now propose is this—they will accept the grant upon the condition that they on their part shall he allowed to expend an amount equal to the value of the site in the construction of buildings necessary for the Academy, to be permanently applied for the purposes of art. Thus the grant from the nation will be paid for by that equivalent, because both the land and the buildings to be erected upon it are to he devoted in perpetuity to a great public object. I think that if this kind of arrangement can be carried out it will not affect the position of the Royal Academy, and they will remain, as before, under the immediate supervision, control, and government of Her Majesty. I was anxious, my Lords, to make this explanation, because I was sure, as regarded the conduct and management of the Academy, I could say nothing but what would redound to the credit of that body. I think also your Lordships will not object to the view they take as regards the proposed change of site, that the acceptance of a grant should be conditional upon the arrangement which I have mentioned. What is the precise sum they will expend I ant not prepared to state at present; but I imagine it will be some £40,000 or £50,000, which will be a complete equivalent for the land to be granted to them. I am sorry to have troubled your Lordships at such length, but I was glad to have an opportunity of addressing you upon a subject which, from the position I now stand in, and in which from the earliest days of my life I have stood in relative to these matters, naturally possesses great interest for me.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am sure the House is indebted to my noble and learned Friend for the statement which he has addressed to us. He has explained with
1250
his usual clearness and precision the various arrangements which have been made from time to time between the Crown and the Royal Academy. My noble and learned Friend has referred to the beneficial influence exerted by the Royal Academy; and, without entering into details. I think the principle is now recognized on all hands that, while the Royal Academy has no right to claim exclusive possession of this or that particular building, yet it has a right to claim on the part of the public that they shall have some means provided for carrying on their labours, from which I readily admit the public have for a series of years derived the greatest benefit. I believe my noble and learned Friend has only done justice to the zeal with which these labours have been undertaken, and to the services which the society rendered to the fine arts in this country. I should not have risen now, as there is no particular point involved in the remarks of my noble and learned Friend, but that I think it is expedient your Lordships should be put in possession of what is the real position of the Government and the Royal Academy towards each other. Your Lordships are aware that for a series of years there has been a growing feeling that the building constituting the National Gallery, occupied partly by the national collection of pictures and partly by the Royal Academy, was insufficient for both purposes, and that it was desirable to separate one portion from the other. For a long time the question has been agitated whether the National Collection should be removed and the Academy left in possession of the original site; but the result of inquiries by Commissions and Committees appears upon the whole to be that there is no site better calculated than the existing National Gallery for the exhibition of the pictures which belong to the nation. That being the case, it was thought that some other place should be found for the Royal Academy, and the society has hail under consideration the offer of other sites for a building. In that state of things the late Government purchased the valuable property called Burlington House, with the gardens and courtyard attached. In order to give some idea of the extent of space required, I may state that the superficial extent of the National Gallery is 13,000 square feet, while the superficial area of Burlington House and grounds is 143,000 feet, or nearly eleven times as much. It must not, however, be supposed that there are not

1251
numerous claims on this valuable site. Engagements have been entered into with various other societies for portions of that space. I have here a list of those societies which have received promises of accommodation. They are the Royal Academy, the London University, the Royal Society, the Linnæan Society, and the Chymical Society. But, besides these, the Astronomical, the Geological, the Antiquarian, tile Ethnological, the Asiatic, and the Water Colours Societies, which are now located in Somerset House, are claimants for accommodation in Burlington House, while strong recommendations have been made to the Government of allotting a portion of this site to the Geographical and Statistical Societies. Under these circumstances you will, I am sure, admit that it is a matter of some difficulty to meet those various conflicting claims; but the principle on which the arrangement with the Royal Academy is to be carried out has been entirely agreed upon, the settlement of details being left as a matter for future consideration between it and the Government. The principle of the arrangement is this—it appears to me to be a reasonable one,—that, in order to secure the Royal Academy from the inconveniences attendant upon frequent change of place, to afford them more ample accommodation than they now possess, and, at the same time, to provide for the public at large that amount of space which is necessary to the adequate realization of the specific objects which the Academy has in view, they should, out of their own funds, obtain for themselves a site, to be conveyed to them in freehold. whereby they would be relieved from all apprehension of future removal, while the advantage would be secured to the country of having a building suited to the purposes for which the Royal Academy is designed. The proposition made to them, therefore, was that a considerable portion of the site of Burlington House should be appropriated to their use, and should remain over to them in fee simple, upon condition that upon that site they should erect a building adapted to the purposes of the Academy, and not in its style and character incongruous with those other buildings which were now or might hereafter be erected in the same locality. Neither the precise site nor the exact extent of space to be allotted at Burlington House to the Academy has as yet been decided upon. Those points are under negotiation; but I understand that they desire to have half of
1252
the entire frontage of the present building facing Piccadilly, and also a large portion of one of its sides. Now, that application for no less than half of the site occupying 143.000 square feet is one, I cannot help thinking, with all due respect for the labours of the Royal Academy, of rather an extensive character, considering that there are six other societies to whom, as I have already said, promises of accommodation have been made, and seven or eight whose claims have been strongly pressed upon the attention of the Government. Her Majesty's Ministers, however, have deemed it right to ascertain, in the first instance, what amount of space the Royal Academy may reasonably be supposed to want; and, in the next place, before they allot them so large a portion of ground, to be assured that the amount of their funds is such as would enable them to cover, either now or at some future time, with buildings adapted to the objects of the institution, the whole of the site which they require. We have taken this course because it appeared to us it would be extremely undesirable and impolitic to assign to the Royal Academy, or to any society, a considerable space of valuable land, part of which, while they did not need it themselves, they would prevent others from occupying. Of course, so far as the advantages of securing to them a particular aspect and a sufficient amount of light are concerned—matters so necessary for the purposes of the Academy—Her Majesty's Government are disposed to deal with them with the utmost favour and liberality in making their selection of a site. The price paid for the entire site of Burlington House amounts to no less a sum than £140,600; and, if, therefore, we should comply with the wishes of the Royal Academy we should be allowing them a space of ground of the value of £70,000, which is a very considerable sum to dispose of to any one society. I think it right to make this explanation to your Lordships, and to inform you that the site to be set apart for the Royal Academy, and the principle on which we propose to act in dealing with it, have been agreed upon. As to the amount of land to be alloted to them, and the particular position which they are to occupy at Burlington House, I can only say that these are questions the solution of which must, to a certain extent, depend upon the claims of those other societies to whom promises have been made, and also upon the sufficiency of the funds

1253
of the Royal Academy to enable them adequately to occupy the ground which may be assigned for their use.
LORD MONTEAGLEwished to call the attention of their Lordships to one fact, and that was that neither the Royal Academy nor any other of the learned societies having apartments at Somerset House could have any Crown right derived from the original occupation of their official residences, the fact being that Somerset House was public property, and had been erected at the public expense. What right they had had been inferred from usage, and an occupation during pleasure and had never been confirmed by Act of Parliament, which would have been indispensably necessary to give them the vested interest which the noble and learned Lord had argued they possessed. In respect to the future, the noble Earl at the head of the Government proposed, however, most properly, in consideration of the erection of the new Gallery at the expense of the Academy, to solve the question by granting them by statute a site in fee, so that now for the first time the Royal Academy would possess an indefeasible right in the land upon which the building they occupied stood. Any title to the building in Trafalgar Square, derived from the delivery of the keys to Sir M. Shee, the President of the Royal Academy, was wholly untenable. The Crown had no power of creating such a title in that or any other way but by Act of Parliament. The building neither was nor ever could be the property of the Crown. He was glad to hear the explanation which had just been given by his noble Friend opposite, and in no portion of his statement did he more cordially concur than that from which it appeared that the Government were prepared to pay due regard to the claims of other societies, and not to allow a site of such immense value as Burlington House, situated as it was in the centre of the metropolis, to be monopolized by any one single body. The services rendered to the public by the Royal Academy were such, he was prepared to admit, as entitled them to the utmost consideration; but he regretted to hear any claim advanced of exemption from the power of Parliament. He was not desirous that Parliament should intermeddle officially in the management of the Academy, nothing could in his opinion tend more strongly to defeat the success of the negotiations now in progress or of their successful termination, than that the friends of the Academy should endea-
1254
vour to place that institution beyond the scope of Parliamentary examination and inquiry. It was contrary to our Constitution, and to their own interests that they should endeavour to do so.
EARL STANHOPE, after expressing his gratification at the statement of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, wished to observe that as far as the Antiquarian Society was concerned, they made no claim whatever upon the Government for a portion of the site of Burlington House. That society had held apartments at Somerset House, but a short time ago a new arrangement had been made with the Government, which was perfectly satisfactory to the council, and they had no intention to make any claim upon the ground at Burlington House.

SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH FROM NAPLES TO MALTA.—GUARANTEES TO TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he had lately seen a statement in the newspapers that a company which had extended its telegraphic communication as far as Sicily were disposed to carry it to Malta, but that the authorities would not permit them to land the cable upon that island. Now, he knew nothing of the merits of the company which had made this proposal, and possibly there were good reasons for refusing it; but at first sight it certainly appeared as if some monopoly were set up in favour of the existing line, that line being connected with the Submarine Company, which at present enjoyed a monopoly of the communication with France; whereas the company which sought to extend the cable to Malta was in connection with a rival line, the International and Electric Telegraph Company. The question was of some importance as a matter of principle, because it involved the mode in which the Government were to deal with the whole telegraphic system in the Mediterranean. His own opinion was that we should have done well to have Malta the centre of our telegraphic communications in the Mediterranean; and obvious reasons existed in favour of such a course. In all probability we should then have had four lines touching at this island—one from Cagliari to Malta, another from Ragusa to Malta, a third by Naples and Sicily, and eventually a fourth, which would be of still greater importance—namely, a direct line from England, pass-

  1255
  ing by Gibraltar; and in this case we should have held the key, as it were, of the whole system of telegraphs in the Mediterranean. He feared, however, that the opportunity for making such an arrangement had been lost. In a very able Treasury minute, dated February 22nd of last year, reasons were given for the decision which had been arrived at in favour of the Austrian line by way of Ragusa and Candia to Alexandria; but still he thought it of importance that no principle should be laid down which would prevent future independent communications from being made. He wished now to call their attention to the necessity of watching the extension of the system of subsidies and guarantees. The telegraphic system, and especially that of submarine lines was in its infancy. Although, owing to the failure of the Atlantic cable, such plans were now somewhat out of favour, and although it might at present be impossible to lay down cables of such length with safety and at a moderate expense, yet, looking to the progress of science, and the immense importance of such communications, it was not to be doubted that means would be found for overcoming all difficulties. If this were the case, of what importance did it become that the Government should not give premature guarantees, and should not for want of properly considering the lines laid down, prevent the future advantageous development of telegraphic communication! If the Government had no distinct plan upon which they proceeded they might find that they had not patronized the best lines, and what was still worse, that they had prevented more advantageous lines from being formed. We had already given a guarantee to the Mediterranean Extension Company—the Company which had laid down a telegraphic cable from Cagliari to Malta, and from Malta to Corfu. Then, since last Session a guarantee had been given to another and more important line of communication—the Red Sea line. Here he might remind the noble Earl (the Earl of Donoughmore), that the answer given by him upon this subject at the close of last Session was not altogether accurate. The noble Earl stated that the Government had under their consideration the competing lines, and although no decision had been come to, it was possible they might choose that by the Persian Gulf, whereas it so happened that the very next morning the newspapers stated, and quite accurately, that the Government had decided in favour
  1256
  of the Red Sea line. He (Lord Wodehouse) did not complain of that decision, which was probably the best which could be arrived at under the circumstances; and, looking to the difficulty of getting any company to undertake the work, and to the state of the money-market at that time the Government were probably justified in the guarantee they had given. It was said that the Turkish Government would proceed with their line to Bussorah, and it would then, no doubt, become a question whether some assistance should not be given to connect it with Kurrachee. Again, negotiations were in a forward state with a view to a guarantee to the Ragusa, Corfu, and Candia line; and another guarantee had been given to the Atlantic Telegraph Company. He did not know precisely what was the agreement at present existing between this last Company and the Government. The original subsidy was £14,000 from the English and one of a similar amount from the American Government; but he understood that the Company had applied for a considerable increase, and he should be glad to hear what conditions had been agreed upon with regard to it. Whatever might be the result, their Lordships would observe that these guarantees were already of considerable magnitude, and he did think that if we were to increase them some definite system should be adopted on the subject. It might be doubted how far it was politic to give any guarantees at all. In certain exceptional cases they might be necessary; but upon the whole he believed the Government would act wisely if they declined, as far as possible, to involve themselves in any such engagements. He might add that it would have been a most excellent management if some means had been found of connecting the telegraphic system with the Post Office; but he feared the time for that had gone by. He would now conclude by asking the question of which he had given notice—Whether it is true that the Proposal of a Company to lay a Submarine Telegraph from Naples to Malta has been refused by Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, upon what Grounds: Also, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant Assistance, either by way of Guarantee or Subsidy, to other Companies beyond those which have already received such Assistance.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he should be able to give a short and conclusive

  1257
  answer to the questions of the noble Lord. With regard to the first question that had been put by his noble Friend, Whether any proposal made by any company to the Government to lay down a submarine telegraph from Naples to Malta had been refused by Her Majesty's Government, and, if so, upon what grounds, he might state that there had been three applications made upon the subject by different parties for establishing a submarine telegraphic communication—not between Naples and Malta, but between Cape Passaro and Malta. Two of these were made by private individuals. They were made to Her Majesty's late Government, and were refused by them. The overtures have been repeated to Her Majesty's present Government, and they had been equally refused by them. The third overture had been made to the Government by the company to which the noble Lord had referred—the Mediterranean Telegraph Company, established for carrying out a proposed small line from Malta to Cape Passaro, a distance of seventy miles, if the company succeeded in making proper arrangements with the Neapolitan Government, Her Majesty's Government would not offer, upon their part, any opposition to carrying out the telegraph proposed; but that, on the other hand, they were not prepared to offer any aid or assistance to the Company. He thought the noble Lard laboured under a misapprehension when he spoke of what would have been the case if Malta had been made the great centre of telegraphic communication in the Mediterranean, and in expressing his belief that the accomplishment of that object had been prevented by the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to sanction a line of telegraph between Naples and Malta, and partly by their adopting the line of telegraph established by the Austrian Government by way of Trieste. Now, so far as Malta was concerned, he did not hesitate to say, that he thought it ought to be the central point of communication for the various submarine telegraphic lines radiating to and from the Continent; but for all that, he did not think it by any means followed, that because Malta should be the central point of telegraphic intercommunication, that therefore the Government should avoid availing itself of other means of telegraphic communication that presented themselves with the East, and consequently the Government had made a negotiation with the Austrian Government, by which, in conjunction with
  1258
  them, a line would be carried by way of Ragusa. He would not enter into any discussion relative to other lines adverted to by the noble Lord, but he would proceed to answer his question with regard to the Atlantic telegraph, and he was glad the question had been raised, because it gave him an opportunity of stating generally the principles on which Her Majesty's Government thought they ought to be guided in their dealings with these various companies for telegraphic communication. The noble Lord had stated that under a former arrangement Her Majesty's Government had agreed to give the Atlantic Telegraph Company a subsidy of £14,000 a year, the same sum to be received from the United States Government, but under certain conditions; and the noble Lord stated he understood that negotiations were at the present moment going on between the Atlantic Telegraph Company and Her Majesty's Government, by which it was to be agreed that a much larger guarantee was to be given to that Company. Now, in making that statement the noble Lord confounded two things together which were entirely and absolutely different—namely, subsidies and guarantees. He wished to call attention to the distinction, because it affected the basis on which the Government proceeded. The Atlantic Telegraph Company made very praiseworthy efforts to establish a telegraphic line of communication between England and America, but most unfortunately sank the whole of their subscribed capital in the attempt, and they were consequently unable, contrary to their expectations, to prosecute their undertaking effectually; and, if they were to continue their attempt, it became necessary for them to enter into an entirely new arrangement. That being the case the arrangement previously entered into fell to the ground, and became inoperative, seeing that it was granted so long only as the Company's line of communication was in process of working, and it therefore naturally and entirely fell to the ground. The Company then requested that Her Majesty's Government would either grant an additional subsidy for the purpose of raising new capital, or that they would give a guarantee on such capital as should be raised. Now, there were two kinds of guarantees, and there was also a system of subsidy, and these three modes of assisting telegraph companies were entirely and absolutely distinct from one another. In the first place, propositions

  1259
  had been made at various times from various companies, and among others from the Atlantic Telegraph Company, for what he would call an unconditional guarantee; that was to say, supposing the Company undertook to expend a certain sum of money for the prosecution of certain works, that the Government should guarantee to them the receipt of a certain amount of interest on the amount so expended. Now, although this had been done in one case, he held it to be an indefensible arrangement, because it was quite clear that if they guaranteed a company 4½ per cent for 25 or 50 years, they had no security that the work undertaken and stipulated for would be properly carried out, and they ran the risk of being compelled for a length of time to pay a very considerable sum of money for a service that after all might not be accomplished; and although the money might be expended and actually lost, the company would be receiving 4½ per cent upon its capital; so that the company would gain, while on the other hand the Government, in the event of failure, would lose, and in the event of success would have no portion of the profit, and derive no profit or advantage from the result. He thought under these circumstances, and that if this were to be the case, that it would be much better (though it was not a plan that he recommended) the Government should take entirely into their own hands the construction and carrying out of the works and the arrangement generally; because then, instead of paying 4½ per cent upon the company's capital, they would probably raise the money at 3½, and if the undertaking were unsuccessful they would lose no more by it than by the system of absolute guarantee; while if they were successful, they would derive all the profits over and above the outlay of capital. But in the other case of guarantee, the Government would run all the risk without any possibility of profit. He did not concur in the view that had been taken with regard to unconditional guarantees, as a principle upon which Government ought to proceed in reference to a national enterprise which was at present only in the cradle of its infancy. But a conditional guarantee was a very different thing. A conditional guarantee he took to be perfectly legitimate in a case where there was a considerable prospect of success, but where at the same time there was considerable risk of failure; and where, in the event of success, it was perfectly
  1260
  legitimate to guarantee a considerable and high rate of profit on the outlay, in consideration of the great amount of risk originally run by the company. In such a case he did not think it at all illegitimate to give a guarantee to a great undertaking, which if it failed the Government were not in any way responsible for, and which, if it succeeded, was likely to produce great results to the public, and great pecuniary advantage to the company. Take, for instance, the Atlantic Telegraph Company. The Government were negotiating at the present moment with that company, and the company had asked the Government for a sum of money to be expended under the supervision of the Government, and that they should have from the Government a guarantee for a certain number of years at 8 per cent on the outlay, so long as the telegraphic communication was in working order and capable of performing its functions. Now, it was highly probable that if telegraphic communication were established between this country and America by means of a submarine cable—if the company formed for that purpose, after incurring considerable risks, succeeded—he thought there was every reason to expect that the profits might ultimately become 8 or 10 per cent, or even more. If they amounted to 8 per cent—and in saying so, he was supposing that the terms were acceded to by the Government, which was not the case at that moment—but if the profits reached 8 per cent, the Government were subject to no payment whatever, while if they reached 6 per cent the Government then, on the attainment of the great and important national object, were subjected to the payment of 2 per cent and no more on the guaranteed capital. In cases where the risk of failure was great, but where the profits and pecuniary advantages in cases of success were considerable, the Government, he thought, exercised a wise and a judicious course and discretion in guaranteeing a considerable amount of interest. Then there was a third class of cases—and in these cases be alluded, not only to submarine telegraphs, but to other large matters of expenditure in connection with the Post Office and Packet Service. He thought no subsidy ought to be given, except in cases where the object in view was one of great political and commercial importance, and where it is clear that, as a mercantile speculation, unaccompanied by any subsidy, the project must inevitably fail of success. In that case I think it is per-

  1261
  fectly legitimate on the part of the government, for great political and commercial projects to make a payment wholly irrespective of the profit and loss that the company would otherwise sustain, and to pay a certain sum of money in aid of the company to carry out the object. In that case the Government knew the full loss the public had to sustain in case of failure; the loss was known, and whether the object was equivalent to the probability of loss was a matter for consideration. With regard to submarine telegraphs and cables, and Post-office and packet communication, he thought that absolute and unconditional guarantees could baldly be consented to by the Government. A conditional guarantee—that was to say, not a payment made but assured to the company, in addition to the interest given by the Government—was legitimate where the risk was great and the prospects of profit in case of success considerable; but a subsidy ought to be granted only where the prospects of remuneration in any other way were not such as to justify the matter being undertaken as a mercantile speculation, and when the attainment of important political and commercial objects justifies the payment of such subsidies from the public funds. In every proposition that may be submitted to the Government for electric telegraphs, he thought when projects were in other respects equal, the Government ought to give a preference to those schemes which provide that the whole line of telegraphic communication shall be, if not upon British territory, at least exclusively and absoutely under British control. Having stated the rules upon which he thought these propositions ought to be considered—namely, the solvency of the company, the magnitude of the object to be attained, the prospect of better offers, the risk to be run, and the interests to be served—the terms must always be a matter of calculation in each separate case; but it was impossible to lay down any rule as to the proportionate assistance which Her Majesty's Government ought to give, but he hoped he had stated distinctly the principles by which, in dealing with the subject, he thought Her Majesty's Government ought to be guided.
  EARL GREYsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction the noble Earl's statement, and thought that the principles he had enunciated were perfectly sound and right; and, above all, he had heard with great satisfaction the intimation that
  1262
  a preference would be given to those lines that would be entirely under British control. It appeared to him to have been a very great mistake in the original arrangement with the Atlantic Telegraph Company, that the line which went from one Dart of the British dominions, Valentia in Ireland to another, Newfoundland, was to be in any way connected with a foreign Government, He thought that allowing the United States Government any control whatever over any line from one part of the British dominions to another, was one of the greatest possible errors; but he inferred from what had been stated by the noble Earl, that such an error was not likely to be repeated. He concurred with what the noble Earl had said as to the conditional guarantees; but there was one precaution that had nut been mentioned; that if they secured to the Company a certain profit on their capital, it was absolutely necessary that the Government should have some control over their working expenses, and so have the means of ascertaining that jobs were not perpetrated or extravagance permitted. He could not help concurring with the noble Lord who had put the question in thinking that it was of great importance that they should, as soon as possible, have an independent sea-line of telegraph to Malta—a line from some point near the Land's End to Gibraltar, and brought up to that central point in the Mediterranean, Malta—and it ought to be accomplished as soon as circumstances permitted.
  LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEYsaid, he also concurred in the desirableness of having the telegraphic system placed under English control, and as far as possible on English territory. The monopoly that had been conferred on the Atlantic Telegraph Company had prevented any others from entering into competition with them, and that being the case he had hoped that the Government would hesitate in giving any pledge or promise of guarantee or subsidy until the Company had given up that monopoly. If the aid demanded was to be entirely contributed by the English Government, it was all the more essential that the Government should cancel the privilege of monopoly, and that the line should be under the entire control of England, and irrespective of American control altogether. He wished to know whether, in the case of the Red Sea line, there was an absolute or a conditional guarantee. From what he had heard he was rather inclined to

  1263
  believe that there was an absolute guarantee irrespective of its operation. He had always expressed an opinion that the whole of the electric telegraph communication of this country and its connection with foreign countries should be brought under the general postal arrangements, and that the expense should be defrayed by the Government. Great advantages in the shape of concentration and a saving of expense would result from such a system.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was quite ready to admit, that the terms obtained by the Red Sea Company, owing to circumstances, were of a very favourable character. In one sense the guarantee might be considered absolute on a certain amount, but, on the other hand, the Company contracted to the Government to have the line laid and placed in working order; so that it was not until the line was in that state that the guarantee of the Government came into operation. As to the Atlantic Telegraph Company, he was glad to say the Government had insisted as a first condition in the negotiations now pending that the monopoly of the Company should he abolished, and that the Government should be at liberty to sanction and assist any company which might be disposed to undertake to lay down other lines. If the Government guaranteed a particular Company, it was not the interest of the Government to diminish the profits of that Company by encouraging a number of competing lines. But the principle adopted was to repudiate any monopoly, and to hold the Government free to agree with any other Company if they should think it desirable to do so.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 (Arrest in Execution restrained)
  LORD WENSLEYDALEobjected to the clause and the clauses which followed, because they would totally abolish imprisonment for debt except in certain specified cases. He thought it was often the fear of arrest which prevented non-traders running into most extravagant expenditure, and he was supported in his objection to the total abolition of imprisonment for debt, not only by the petition which he presented to-day, but by the Reports of Royal Commissions composed of many learned men, who, in 1832, 1840, and 1854 had considered the subject. He wished to render
  1264
  the measure as effective as possible, and would refrain from moving the omission of the clause, but would leave the matter to be dealt with by his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) in considering some Amendments which he intended to propose hereafter.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2, (Present Power of Arrest unaffected in certain Cases).
  LORD TEYNHAMexpressed his opinion that in no instance ought the personal liberty of the subject to be vested in his fellow-subject, but should only be taken away under the immediate supervision of the law. In a Return just made of the proceedings of County Courts in 1857, he found that the total number of warrants of commitment issued by the registrars of County Courts was upwards of 27,000, while the actual arrests were only 10,620. So that upwards of 17,000 warrants had been held against debtors which had not been put in force. If a creditor had at his option the power of arresting a debtor, he might sell that power not only for money, but for any and everything that the covetousness of the human heart desired. That power ought never to be left in the hands of any man. He trusted that the noble and learned Lord would reconsider the clauses relative to the power of arrest, so that this power might remain from first to last in the hands of the Court.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the law was not altered by this clause.
  LORD TEYNHAMsaid, his desire was that it should be altered.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was proposed by this Bill to abolish arrest in execution, except in certain cases. There were three classes of cases in which there was arrest in execution—first, where judgment had been obtained in actions of tort: that was the law under the Insolvent Act; second, where the Judge at the time of trial, or a Judge afterwards, certified that the debt had been incurred under false pretences or breach of trust, or that the defence had been vexatious and frivolous; that was the law under the 7 & 8 Vict., by which arrest on executions for less than £20 was abolished; and third, where a creditor had reason to believe that his debtor was about to abscond; which also was the law under the 1 & 2 Vict. He could not understand, therefore, why the noble Lord should desire an alteration in the Bill for the purpose of taking from the

  1265
  creditor any power he might possess under it of arresting the debtor. If the noble Lord wished to have an alteration in the existing law, he should propose a distinct Amendment.
  LORD TEYNHAMsaid, he did not wish to do away with arrest when the debtor was deserving of imprisonment, but he wished to render the arrest certain in such a case; the arrest being always in the power of the Court alone, and execution never issuing without arrest actually taking place.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsuggested that as there were penal clauses in the Bill, it would be better that the noble Lord should propose an Amendment when they were under discussion.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 struck out.
  Clauses 14 to 92 agreed to with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 93. (Creditors may choose Trustee instead of Assignee.)
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he objected to the alteration in the law which was proposed by this clause, and which he did nut think would be conducive to the interests of creditors. The effect of the clause was that the system, which was founded by the Act of Lord Brougham in 831, with regard to official control, should be abolished. The proposed abolition of the present system of the law Would lead to much wrung being committed. On a recent occasion the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) said that he could bring as many witnesses to give their evidence against official assignees, and that they should be abolished, as could be brought in favour of their retention. Under these circumstances, let their Lordships calmly look at the question, and see upon what the arguments rested. Before 1831 the estates of insolvents and bankrupts were managed by persons selected by the creditors and under that system the funds of the estates were so badly collected and administerd that in many cases creditors, though no doubt angry at first at the loss sustained, wrote off the bad debts from their books and forget them. Upon the creation of the official assignees in 1831, those officers in a very short time collected and distributed more than £2,000,000 of money belonging to various estates which had lain neglected. It was now proposed to revert to the old system by giving the creditors power to dispense with the service of the official assignee;
  1266
  but he thought it could not be but that the creditors selected to manage the affairs would neglect, after a time, the interests of the other creditors. For that reason he could not help most deeply deploring that his noble and learned Friend had been induced to listen to suggestions to put it in the power of creditors to place the affairs of the estate under the old system if they pleased. He knew that this clause would, to a certain class of persons, be a very great sop, and that there was a wish among a great mass of professional persons to see this clause passed. But that ought to pre-eminently put that House upon their guard, and induce them to take care they did not do anything which might result in causing grievous loss to small creditors, who looked to them fur protection. For these reasons he thought this clause ought to be omitted, It was evident that the noble and learned Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor) was distrustful of the principle recognized by his clause, inasmuch as by the 95th clause he provided that the creditors if they thought fit, might appoint a Committee of their own body to check the trustee or assignee they might choose. It was a vicious principle to get rid of the public functionary in question, whose payment depended upon the realization of the property, the economy and the expedition observed in obtaining it. Now, the trustee to be appointed under the clause in question had Do such interest in the cheap or speedy realization of the property or in getting rid of the expense of litigation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the great difficulty the Government had to overcome in tins matter was to understand what was the best course to adopt among the conflicting opinions by which they were besieged upon this subject. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) had presented that evening a petition, signed by 800 merchants and bankers of the City of London, objecting to the abolishing of imprisonment for debt; last Session he (the Lord Chancellor) presented a petition signed by 4000 merchants and bankers, praying that they might have a greater control over the effects of bankrupts. In order to give their Lordships a sample of the feeling out of doors on this subject he would call their attention to a paper which had been sent to him. There were two classes of persons who formed different opinions on this subject—one desiring publicity, the other secrecy. The gentleman who sent him the paper to which he had alluded said, "he did not think any legislative

  1267
  assistance should be given to enable any creditor to control any minority of creditors, however small. He would not allow 99 creditors out of a 100 to control the hundredth man; and he believed that nothing was so agreeable to some insolvents as secrecy, and nothing so disagreeable as publicity. He considered such people to be in a conspiracy against all honest men." He (the Lord Chancellor) believed that this Bill would meet the demands of the commercial community in every possible way, inasmuch as it would combine publicity with secrecy by making it optional with the creditors to have either a private or a public investigation into the affairs of the insolvent. A noble Lord, who was supposed to represent to a great extent the views of the commercial community on the subject under discussion, (Lord John Russell) had introduced in the other House a Bill in which he had gone even further than the Government in dispensing with the services of official assignees, inasmuch as he proposed to make it compulsory on the creditors to decide whether they would choose an official assignee or appoint their own trustee, whereas the Bill of the Government left it entirely at the option of the creditors to select their own trustee or to make use of the official assignee in that capacity. His noble and learned Friend said it was very hard upon small creditors that they should be overborne by a smaller number of larger creditors, because the latter would select a man who at first would do his duty, but would gradually become negligent, and then the small creditors would be placed in the hands of a solicitor who would only work for his own advantage. He (the Lord Chancellor) had had some little experience in commercial affairs, and he always found that creditors, whether large or small, were likely to look after their own interest, and that if they were to choose a trustee instead of an official assignee, they would take care that he did his duty. The question really was this, considering the difficulties of the case, and that the greater part of the commercial community were desirous of having a greater control over their affairs titan they now possessed, had the Government not chosen well in adopting that system which they found was desired by a very considerable class of the commercial community, being perfectly aware that if they adopted a different system they would not have disarmed opposition. Under these circumstances, he trusted their Lordships would not consent to the clause being struck out.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSwas of opinion that the creditors ought under due regulations, particularly giving publicity to the transaction, to have the power to appoint their own trustees: there was no danger in these times that creditors would not look after their own interests.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he would not press his objections further.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 94 to 110 agreed to,
  Clause 111, (Estate Tail of Non-Trader Insolvent not in Possession—not to be barred without his Consent.)
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid that this and the following section would commit a most monstrous and unmitigated injustice. Under the present law an insolvent was forced to give up the whole of his property, and his noble and learned Friend did not, propose to alter that provision in respect to traders; but when a non trader became insolvent it was proposed now for the first time to enact that, if he had any real property in reversion, it should be sold at the time when it would be most convenient to himself to sell. The reason given was that otherwise "vindictive" creditors might dispose of the property at a time when it would be productive of but little advantage to the insolvent. But meanwhile the creditor might be ruined if his debts were not at once paid. What answer was it in such a case to say what the reversionary interest would produce more if the sale were delayed until it came into possession? Why, delay might ruin the honest creditor and drive him into the Gazette. In some other respects the Bill was perhaps rather too favourable to debtors; but this seemed to him the introduction of a principle which he deeply regretted should originate in this House. It would put abroad the notion that they were legislating for the sons of the landed aristocracy at the expense of the honest tradesman.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEentirely concurred in these objections to the clause. Every man who incurred debts should be liable to the sale of his property to satisfy those debts, and if any loss were sustained in selling, the insolvent must expect to bear it. He could not conceive why the debtor should be called upon to postpone his claims. Such a principle was quite unprecedented.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that as the Bill for the first time compelled non-traders to surrender their property for the benefit of their creditors, it was right that settled estates in remainder should be

  1269
  protected in the manner proposed by the clause. If the sale of a reversionary interest were forced, it might not be worth one-half or one-twentieth of the sum it would fetch when it came into possession. It did not take away the property from the creditors. Creditors were still to receive, to the extent of their claims, the produce of the estate; but they would not be empowered to sell it before it came into possession, unless the insolvent consented. It did not prevent the sale with the consent of the debtor.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, it was true that you could not now force an insolvent non-trader to surrender all his property, but you could imprison him until he did. This Bill now substantially took away the power of imprisoning for debt, and he entirely approved of the proposal; but surely it ought to be accompanied with even more stringent powers of enforcing the distribution of property. It was said that these estates would realize much more when they came into possession; but that might not happen for fifty years, and in point of fact they might never can me into possession; for if the tenant in tail in remainder died without issue in the lifetime of the tenant for life, they could not be sold at all, but would pass to the ulterior remainder. When, therefore, it was said that the sale should not be anticipated, so as to guard the interest of the debtor, non constat but that by delay that interest might become wholly exhausted. He was sure the clause would be misunderstood and misrepresented out of doors, and it would be said, not without the appearance of truth, that their Lordships were passing a law to prevent the sons of landed gentry from being imprisoned, and at the same time to prevent their reversionary interests from being sold for the benefit of their creditors.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it had been observed that a reversionary interest might not come into possession at all; but what would be the value of such an interest if it were forced to a sale?
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought the compulsory sale of reversions would be most objectionable.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 112 to 140 agreed to.
  Clause 141. (If suspended on Rehearing subsequent Creditors to prove first against subsequent Property.)
  LORD WENSLEYDALEintimated an opinion that some provision should be
  1270
  made to render liable the after-acquired property of an insolvent not-trader for payment of his debts.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the clause in its existing right seemed just and right, and therefore he trusted their Lordships would not assent to any alteration. By the existing law bankrupts were discharged by their certificate from all claim on after-acquired property; but insolvents were obliged to give a warrant of attorney before they were discharged, which allowed the creditors on application to the court to issue execution against such property. The practice of the insolvent Court had been never to touch property subsequently acquired by au insolvent's own industry, and only to require a third of other property coining to him by bequest, to be given up for the benefit of the creditors. Such a practice showed an impression that the system was not a just one, and the Government considered that when it was proposed to abolish the distinction between traders and non-traders, and to compel non traders, for the first time, to distribute the whole of their property for the benefit of their creditors, it would be Only just and fair to place them on the same level as bankrupts. Since by the alteration of the law they were about to allow the creditor to strip the non-trading debtor and turn him naked on the world it seemed to him they ought to extend to him the same benefits which were given to the trader debtor. He mentioned, on moving the first reading of the Bill, that the power of the Court to compel the application of after-acquired property principally affected small traders, as of 1,042 persons who applied last year for the protection of the Insolvent Court only fifty were non-traders and of above 4,000 who applied in the country, there was a much smaller number. There were very few cases in which the power was ever exercised, and he knew no valid reason why insolvents should not have the same benefit as bankrupts, when they were to be made obnoxious to the same liabilities.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, the blame to be ascribed to a non-trader for getting into debt was much greater than the blame attributable to a trader, and he feared the public might think the change was made to protect non-trading spendthrifts—sons of the richer classes—whose after-acquired property was now liable. Although there might be some doubt, his feelings inclined

  1271
  him to concur with his noble and learned Friend.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 142 to 146 agreed to.
  Clause was inserted, providing that in any indictment or information for misdemeanour under the Act, it should be sufficient to set forth the substance of the offence charged without alleging or setting forth any debt, act of insolvency, trading, petition or adjudication, or any summons, warrant order, rule or proceeding, of or in any Court acting under that Act.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Amendments made.
  The Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.