Lords Sitting of 3 May 1861

MINUTES.
Took the Oath. —The Lord Meldrum.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

  PETITIONS. QUESTION OF ORDER.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDpresented petitions from Leicester praying that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill might not be referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexpressed a doubt whether the petitioners were in order in giving expression to their views as to the particular mode in which a Bill under their Lordships' consideration should be dealt with in its passage through Parliament.
  LORD CHELMSFORDconcurred with the noble and learned Lord in thinking that it was not quite light that the petitioners should use language which would seem to dictate to their Lordships the course which they should take in reference to the progress of a measure under their consideration. He had himself been intrusted with a petition precisely the other way, but under the circumstances he should decline to present it.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDexpressed his regret that he should have presented the petitions in question if in doing so he had been out of order.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that he had already presented petitions to their Lordships in the same terms; but after what had been said he begged to withdraw them.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he had received for presentation to the House a great variety of petitions on the subject to which those laid on the table by the noble Duke related. Some of those petitions were from Halifax, Blackburn, Wakefield, and other places; but that to which he wished more especially to direct their Lordships' attention was from the chief bankers, merchants, and traders of every description engaged in business in the City of London; and he could confidently say, from a careful examination of the signatures, that no petition had ever been presented to their Lordships more unequivocally expressing the opinion and wishes of the whole commercial body of the City of London. The petitioners approve the several objects of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill, but they intimate that there are some details of a subordinate character into which they are of opinion Amendments may with advantage be introduced, and they express a hope—he did not go so far as to say they petition the House to that effect—that the Bill might not be sent to a Select Committee, inasmuch as such a course might in their apprehension lead to its being injuriously altered, or to unadvisable delay in passing it into a law. He had also to present a petition from the Chamber of Commerce in Manchester, second in importance only to that to which he had called their Lordships' attention, but differing from it in some respects, inasmuch as it contemplated Amendments in the Bill to which he was alluding somewhat more extensive and important than those which the London petitioners suggested. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce, for instance, expressed a strong opinion in favour of maintaining undiminished the power of the official assignee, and it was gratifying to be able to quote the authority of so influential a body in corroboration of the views on this subject which he had on a former occasion advocated in that House. The petition abstained from all reference to the question whether the Bill should or should not be referred to a Select Com-
  1476
  mittee, and, therefore, was open to no objection on points of form. He felt satisfied that there exists throughout this country an intense anxiety on this subject, a feeling of dissatisfaction at the present state of the law, or rather with many of the practices which arise under it, and that a desire is entertained that a new law should be passed similar in its character, purposes, and principles to the Bill now under the consideration of the House. At the same time it is the prayer of the petitioners that the Bill should be thoroughly examined, not for the purpose of delay, but with the object of introducing Amendments calculated to render it a practical and satisfactory measure.
  Numerous other Petitions in favour of the Bill were presented.

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN—MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCESS ALICE.
  MESSAGE FROM The QUEEN;delivered by the LORD PRESIDENT, and read by The LORD CHANCELLOR as follows:—
  "VICTORIA R.
  "Her Majesty having agreed to a Marriage proposed between the Princess Alice and His Grand Ducal Highness Prince Louis of Hesse, has thought fit to communicate it to the House of Lords:
  "The numerous Proofs which the Queen has received of the Loyalty of this House to Her Throne and of their Attachment to Her Person and Family leave Her no room to doubt of their Willinginess to concur in making such a Provision for Her Daughter, The Princess Alice, with a view to the proposed Marriage, as may be suitable to the Dignity of the Crown.
  "V. R."
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of moving an Address to Her Majesty in reply to Her Majesty's gracious Message. All matters connected with the provision for her Royal Highness which Parliament may think fit to make on further consideration of the Royal Message will be brought before your Lordships in a Bill for the purpose. I will now move your Lordships to agree in an answer to the gracious Message just received. Many of your Lordships are acquainted with the Princess Alice personally,

  1477
  and are aware that her mental and moral qualities are such as are calculated to ensure to her Royal Highness that domestic happiness which has fallen in so eminent a degree to the lot of her illustrious Mother and to her sister. My Lords, I think your Lordships will be pleased to be reminded that among the first of those Princes who came forward to maintain the cause of the Reformation was an ancestor of Prince Louis of Hesse. I am sure that your Lordships will willingly agree to this Address, because any matter connected with the domestic happiness of Her Majesty and her family will always be a matter of peculiar interest to your Lordships; and that you will the more concur in the present Address of congratulation and concurrence on consideration of the melancholy occasion on which your Lordships last presented an Address to Her Majesty. The noble Earl then moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to return Her Majesty the Thanks of the House for Her most gracious Communication of the intended Marriage between Her Royal Highness The Princess Alice and His Grand Ducal Highness Prince Louis of Hesse, to express their Satisfaction at the Prospect of an Alliance which they doubt not will contribute to the Happiness of Her Majesty, and of Her Royal Highness, and to assure Her Majesty that the House will immediately proceed to the Consideration of Her Majesty's gracious Message in such a Manner as shall demonstrate the Zeal, Duty, and affectionate Attachment of this House to Her Majesty, a just sense of the Virtues and Merits of Her Royal Highness, and a due Regard to the Dignity of the Royal Family."
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am convinced from the deep interest which your Lordships feel in everything that concerns the happiness of Her Majesty and the Royal Family that your Lordships will agree to the Address now proposed with the same unanimous assent, but with a much greater degree of satisfaction than you recently gave to an Address which you have lately presented to Her Majesty on a recent melancholy occasion. My Lords, the intended marriage just announced may not be one of so brilliant a character as that contracted by the eldest sister of the Royal Princess, but it was founded, as my noble Friend has truly said on the best of all securities for wedded happiness—an intimate personal acquaintance between the parties and a mutual affection and esteem. I sincerely trust that this marriage will be productive, both to the illustrious Princess and her consort, of the same happiness which has been for so many years enjoyed by Her Majesty, and
  1478
  which I believe is also enjoyed by her eldest daughter. I am quite satisfied that your Lordships will cheerfully concur in making such provision for the Princess and her consort as the other House may think fit to vote; and I have no doubt that the other House would act with due and proper liberality on this occasion. I have only to express my hope (which I am sure will gratify my noble Friend), that the provision made by the other House will not in the slightest degree disarrange the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or add to the financial difficulties of the country. Your Lordships will, I am certain, cordially concur in any proposal that may come from the House of Commons, and I beg heartily to second the Motion.
  Address agreed to; Nemine Dissentiente.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.
  ORDER FOR COMMITMENT DISCHARGED—BILL

    REFERRED TO SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee read.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the House go into Committee on the said Bill.
    THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I was in hopes, after the intimation that has been conveyed to me—
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite understand that the Bill is to be referred to a Select Committee. I moved that we go into Committee in point of form, and with the impression that the noble Earl would himself move the reference to a Select Committee.
    THE EARL OF DERBY: I was about to say that I was in hopes, after the intimations we have received, that the noble and learned Lord would himself have moved that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and thus have spared your Lordships the necessity of hearing a single word from me in support of my Amendment. Indeed, the announcement which the noble and learned Lord has now made renders it unnecessary for me to trespass on your Lordships' attention for more than a single moment. In the first place, I have to express my entire concurrence and satisfaction that the noble and learned Lord has taken notice of the language of some petitions which have been presented

    1479
    to your Lordships to-night. A petition has been presented to-night by the noble Baron opposite (Lord Overstone) and other petitions, couched in nearly similar terms, coming from persons of the greatest eminence and of the highest authority on mercantile law, and are on that account entitled to our most careful consideration. I have no doubt that the general expression of opinion coming from numerous bodies interested in the subject will materially facilitate the passing of any Bill that, in its main features, obtains the approbation of the mercantile community. But the point on which I think we are most indebted to the noble and learned Lord for expressing his opinion is that which refers to the impropriety of these petitioners suggesting that this Bill should not be referred by your Lordships to a Select Committee. Now, my Lords, I venture to think that, although those mercantile persons who have petitioned your Lordships may be admirable judges as to the alterations that ought to be made in the law of bankruptcy, yet, as to the mode of dealing with the Bill, or the course of proceeding to be taken on it, your Lordships do not require suggestions from any quarter. But the petition which the noble Baron has presented was sent to me this morning, accompanied by a letter from the secretary of the Mercantile Law Amendment Society, in which I am informed that that body regret to learn that Her Majesty's Government, being unable to resist my powerful influence, have consented to send this Bill to a Select Committee. Now, my Lords, while I disclaim for myself the honour and compliment which is thus paid me, of being supposed to possess an influence capable of overbearing the determination of Her Majesty's Government, I must be permitted also to repudiate, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, an insinuation so injurious and offensive to them, as that they, from fear of a political defeat on a question which really involves no political difference, should have given way and taken a course opposed to their own judgment and views. Far be it from me to taunt the Government for a single moment by supposing the possibility of there being differences of opinion between them, this way or that, on this subject. We know that on this, as on all other questions, they are united in the strictest harmony. From what quarter the Mercantile Law Amendment Society has received the notion that the Government has been com-
    1480
    pelled by my influence very reluctantly to give up their own course, I am sure I cannot say. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government have acted on the conviction that the course they have adopted commends itself most to their own judgment, and for the public interest, as the best means of dealing with a measure which contains so many complicated details. The petitioners to whom I have referred made two statements—one is that a reference of this Bill to a Select Committee would cause so much delay that it would be impossible to pass the Bill in the present Session. This anticipation shows great ignorance of the proceedings of your Lordships in Select Committees, and holds out, if it were true, a very melancholy prospect to those noble Lords who may be placed on that Committee of attending it for the three months that the Session may be expected to last. Again, they apprehend that if the Bill is referred to a Select Committee it will receive so many and such important alterations that it would not be adopted by the Government, or be acceptable to the profession at large. Now, my Lords, I must say that the anticipation is not very complimentary to the distinguished lawyer who is the author of the Bill, that its being examined by eighteen or twenty of your Lordships who are most competent, from their acquaintance with the law and practice of commerce, to consider the question, must necessarily lead to such alterations as will change the character of the Bill. My sole object in moving that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee is that a Bill containing 246 clauses, and dealing with a vast variety of the most complicated details, should be more satisfactorily, effectually, and speedily dealt with, as it would be by a Committee of eighteen or twenty members, all of them interested and familiar with these questions, and who would give their undivided attention to them, than it could be in a Committee of the Whole House, where the greater portion of the Members would be comparatively indifferent to the question, and who would probably give their votes on other considerations than the strict merits of the arguments. My Lords, it would be idle and impertinent in me to enter upon a critical examination of the various points of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, in referring to the question of a Select Committee, said that if it were referred on mere questions of detail he would not object to sending the Bill up stairs; but that

    1481
    if opposition was to be made to matters of principle it would be better that they should be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. Now, my Lords, the difficulty in this Bill is to know what is principle and what is detail. There are, however, four or five leading points of this Bill on which it is necessary that your Lordships should be especially careful. In the first place, there is the great power that is given by this Bill to the county courts—the indefinite multiplication of their functions. In the next place, there is the relative position between the creditors' assignees and the official assignees—complications between them so great as I believe will render the Bill unworkable—I mean the clause which provides that the official assignee should collect one portion and the creditors' assignee another portion of the debts on the same bankrupt's estate. Again, there is the provision with regard to non-traders, which will require the most careful consideration, both with regard to its details and its principle. Even if your Lordships sanction the principle, as I think you ought, of bringing the non-trader under the operation of the bankruptcy law, it must be made subject to such modifications as will provide for the different circumstances of the two parties. But over and above all others, there is a point which, whether in Committee or in this House, I am satisfied your Lordships will feel it necessary to make some change—I mean that provision of the Bill which makes non-traders subject to its retrospective operation. I am satisfied that your Lordships will never consent to expose parties who have contracted liabilities under a different system, by the ex post facto operation of this Bill, to penal consequences of the severest character. But beyond these questions I am satisfied that even on points of detail your Lordships will give them the most careful consideration, so that we may produce an efficientand well-considered measure. There is one other objection to which I may here refer. When my noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford) produced a measure on the same subject the noble and learned Lord now on the Woolsack proposed that it should be sent to a Select Committee, and gave as a reason for doing so that the measure had not passed the House of Commons. Now, my Lords, the strongest possible argument for sending this Bill to a Select Committee is that it has passed the House of Commons. Because we might have agreed to pass the Bill with the less
    1482
    consideration if it had afterwards to undergo the scrutiny and examination of the House of Commons. But, as it has passed through the ordeal of that House, it is now the more necessary that in this its last stage and before it becomes law it should receive the closest scrutiny and the most anxious deliberation. And, my Lords, though it is true that this Bill did undergo a lengthy and protracted discussion in the House of Commons, yet there are considerations that induce me to believe it was in the end somewhat hurried through the House. The Bill as it stands at present—as it was brought up to your Lordships—was never seen by the House of Commons. It was never reprinted after it passed through Committee. As might be expected, in such circumstances, several inaccuracies of an unintentional kind have crept in. I will mention one instance to show the incorrect state in which it has come up to us. I see that in the Amendments talked of by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that he has observed the inaccuracy to which I am about to refer. It was intended to make some distinction between the acts which constitute the bankruptcy of a trader and the bankruptcy of a non-trader. There are eight acts which are taken to constitute bankruptcy on the part of a trader; and it was intended to specify three or four acts which were to be held as constituting bankruptcy on the part of a non trader; but, as the Bill now stands worded, the non-trader will be subject to bankruptcy not only on any of the three or four acts which apply to his case, but also on all the other eight which are intended to apply only to the traders. This is one of the points on which your Lordships' care will be required. I am sure it is of the highest importance that in an Act of this kind we should use our best endeavours to send it out so perfect that we shall not be called upon perpetually for Acts to amend the Act, but that we shall send forth a measure containing all that is necessary in a bankruptcy law, and which will form a fitting preparation for that consolidation of the whole bankruptcy law which I think the Attorney General has acted wisely in postponing for the present. I hope we shall be able to send back the Bill to the other House not only relieved of its inaccuracies, but greatly improved in many of its provisions. Because I consider that the Bill will be best considered in a Select Committee up stairs, therefore,

    1483
    I move this Amendment, and I am glad to find there is to he no opposition.
    EARL GRANVILLE, who was imperfectly heard, was understood to say that there would be a unanimous agreement on the part of their Lordships to send this Bill to a Select Committee; and he was glad that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had given him an opportunity of explaining the reasons which had induced the Government to acquiesce in that step. He must say at the outset that he certainly thought it would have been a more desirable course to allow the Bill to considered in a Committee of the Whole House. He saw nothing in the constitution of their Lordships' House that made it less fitted for the consideration in Committee of a Bill of this kind than the House of Commons. Their Lordships were not more numerous than the House of Commons; he was not aware that they were less orderly in their proceedings; and while they had not so many lawyers among them, those they had were men who had arrived at the top of their profession, and were in consequence more likely to bring to the consideration of the measure a large amount of ability, experience, and judgment. Another reason why this Bill should be openly discussed in a Committee of the Whole House was that the Bill affected classes of the community who were not specially represented in that House, and he thought it desirable that clauses affecting their interests should be discussed in the House itself. The noble Earl spoke with apparent surprise of a letter which he had received that morning from a gentleman connected with the Society instituted for the Amendment of the Law, in which the writer stated his belief that the Government had been compelled to consent to the appointment of a Select Committee from a fear of the great power and influence possessed by the noble Earl. The noble Earl said he could not conceive what had put such a notion into the writer's mind. Well, he (Earl Granville) was not in the writer's confidence, but he thought it just possible that it might have come into his head and into the heads of many other persons after a perusal of a brilliant postprandial speech reported in the morning papers of yesterday. The real reason, however, why the Government agreed to send the Bill to a Select Committee was that several of his noble Friends on that (the Ministerial) side of the House—and among others his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) were of of opinion that that was the wisest course
    1484
    to pursue. He must add, that nothing more strongly induced him to consent to such a course than the statement of the noble Earl himself, that he was not actuated by any feelings of hostility to the Bill, that he did not wish to attack its principles, and that all he desired was to improve its details and facilitate its working. As the noble Earl stated, there might be an occasional difficulty in knowing what was principle and what was detail. No doubt matters of detail might be matters of great importance, and the noble Earl referred specially to four or five points which he thought called for serious consideration. Among those four or five points to which the noble Earl alluded there were at least two which he (Earl Granville) hoped the Committee would not alter. He would not object to the appointment of the Select Committee, on the understanding that if there was any point on which the Government did not agree with the decision at which it arrived they should have an opportunity of bringing the subject under the consideration of the Whole House.
    Order for Commitment discharged; and Bill referred to a Select Committee. The Lords following were named of the Committee:—

    Ld. Chancellor.

    L. Brougham and Vaux.

    Ld. President.

    L. Stanley of Alderley.

    D. Devonshire.

    L. Overstone.

    D. Marlborough.

    L. Cranworth.

    E. Derby.

    L. St. Leonards.

    E. Spencer.

    L. Wensleydale.

    E. Powis.

    L. Chelmsford.

    E. De Grey.

    L. Kingsdown.

    V. Hutchinson.

    L. Lyveden.

    L. Lyndhurst.

    L. Taunton.

    L. Wynford.

  STREET TRAMWAYS.

    QUESTION.
    THE EARL OF HARRINGTONrose to ask Her Majesty's Government the following Questions:—Are the Railways on the High Roads sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government, and made under the Control of Government Engineers? If so, are they intended to improve the Roads, to facilitate the Traffic, and to cheapen the Fares in Public Conveyances? According to present Experience, have these Railways answered? The noble Earl said he protests against a third portion of the road from the Marble Arch for a mile westward, being taken up by Mr. Train's two railway carriages, while the thousands of other vehicles that were constantly passing were

    1485
    obliged to content themselves with the remaining portion. If they could have some broad tramway, something similar to those of granite at Milan, they would probably be of considerable advantage.
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, with regard to the first question, the Commissioners of Roads had given permission to lay down these rails, and he thought rightly. With regard to the second question—namely, were they intended to improve the roads and facilitate traffic? he presumed that was precisely for which they were made. On the third question, as to the fares, her Majesty's Government could not give any opinion whatever. And as to the fourth, whether these railways have been found to answer? he might say they had been found to work well in New York and in Paris, and he did not see why they should not do so here.

    RUMOURED DISTURBANCES IN THE IONIAN ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
    THE EARL OF CARNARVONrose to call the attention of the Lord President to a recent telegram contained in the patrie newspaper, to the effect that circumstances of a serious nature had taken place in the Seven Islands, that the Lord High Commissioner had been compelled to proclaim martial law, and that the troops were quartered in the market-place and streets of Corfu on the 30th. On the next day the Moniteur had a telegram to the effect that a collision had taken place between the military and the inhabitants at Zante, in which twelve soldiers and eight civilians were killed. He thought it highly improbable that these accounts could be correct; but he desired to know if Her Majesty's Government had received any information on the subject, and if so what steps had they or did they intend to take to remedy a state of things which was certainly, if true, very serious?
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, no information had been received by Her Majesty's Government as to what the noble Lord had referred to as being contained in the Moniteur. There was a telegraph to Corfu, and the Lord High Commissioners had instructions from the Government to communicate immediately by telegraph with the home Government, in the event of anything of an important character transpiring, and as they had received no telegram, he thought it highly improbable that there was any substantial foundation
    1486
    for the rumour. He might observe that the only colourable foundation for this rumour was probably to be found in the fact that some insignificant row had been occasioned by three soldiers at one of the islands.
    House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.