Sitting of 7 February 1859

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Oxford University, v. The Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, Lord High Commissioner of Ionian Islands.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Superannuation; Manor Courts, &C., (Ireland); Highways; Markets (Ireland); Sale and Transfer of Land (Ireland); Lunatic Poor (Ireland); Receivers in Chancery (Ireland), Abolition, &c.; Tramways (Ireland); Endowed Schools.
2o Occasional Forms of Prayer.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH—ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSE-HOLD (Colonel FORESTER), reported HER MAJESTY'SAnswer to the Address, as follows:—
I have received with much satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.
I rely with confidence on your careful consideration of the Measures which will be submitted to you; and I shall at all times be ready to co-operate with you in improving and strengthening the Institutions of the Country, and in promoting the happiness and prosperity of all classes of My Subjects.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBE: I wish to put a question to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the Reform Bill. On the first evening of our meeting the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Government were ready with their new reform measure; but the right hon. Gentleman also added ("Order!")—I am trying to make my question intelligible to the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman

  141
  must not enter into any argument in putting a question.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBE: No, Sir, I am not doing so. I am only stating the reasons why I ask the question. The right. hon. Gentleman added that the Bill would not be brought in until other more important business of the country was disposed of. That has led to some misconception and some misunderstanding on the subject, and to considerable misgiving in the public mind as to when the Bill will be introduced. As I have no doubt all this can be removed, the question I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, whether it is the intention of her Majesty's Government during the present month to introduce their Bill for the amendment of the representation of the people?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The only question which was addressed to me the other night upon the subject was, whether the Government were prepared to bring in their Reform Bill immediately; to which I replied that it was not their intention to bring it in immediately, as there was other important and urgent business which required the attention of the House. I indicated at the same time some portion of that urgent business; and though it would be presumption to say how long that business would occupy the attention of Parliament, the natural inference from what I said when I referred to the Navy Estimates and to some Votes being taken in Committee of Supply to enable my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pukington) to make his statement, and to bring forward the measures which he deems necessary, was that the delay would not be very considerable. There is also other business also of an urgent character, of which my noble Friend near me (Lord Stanley) has given notice. The House can probably form an opinion of how much time will be occupied in the discussion on Indian finance. The House is as good a judge as I am of the time which these measures will require for their fair discussion. When they are settled, it is my intention to give notice of a day when I shall have the honour of bringing forward a measure for amending the representation of the people. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not in my power to fix the day; but, taking a general view as to what will be the progress of business, not only is it our intention that it shall be brought in before Easter, but we contemplate taking the opinion of the House upon the second
  142
  reading before Easter. As Easter is rather late this year, if the second reading meets that reception which we fondly anticipate, the House will have the opportunity even of making progress in Committee on the Bill before that time.
  MR. BRIGHT: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask another question. Permit me to say that what the public require is time to consider the Bill before it comes to a second reading. That is an essential thing. I would therefore recommend—("Order!") Well, if I may not recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will ask him whether he will name a day now, or state when he will name a day, when the Bill will be introduced? Because I presume that not more than one night will be taken up in the introduction of the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think I have clearly answered the questions that have been put to me. It is not in my power to name precisely the day when the Bill will be introduced; but I shall give fair notice, and shall take care that there is ample opportunity for consideration between the introduction and the second reading.

ARMY CHAPLAINS (INDIA).—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDbegged to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India what permanent increase to the regular Bengal establishment of chaplains to the Protestant troops had been made during the last twelve months, and whether it was the intention of the Government to make any further permanent increase, in consequence of the probability of a much larger number of British troops than formerly being kept in India?
LORD STANLEYsaid, that up to September, 1857, the permanent strength of the establishment of chaplains of the Church of England was—in Bengal 68, Madras 35, and Bombay 26; making 129 in all. Since that time they had been increased from 68 to 80 in Bengal, from 35 to 40 in Madras, and from 26 to 30 in Bombay; making 150 in all, or an increase of 21. The whole of that increase, except 6 of the chaplains added to the Bengal establishment, had taken place within the last twelve months. In addition, 10 supernumerary chaplains had now been sent out to meet the urgent wants of the troops, who were not placed at once on the permanent establishment, but would be absorbed into it as vacancies occurred. There bad also been an increase of Presbyterian chaplains of

143
two to each Presidency, raising the number to 13.

THE STADE DUES.—QUESTION.
MR. CLAYasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the negotiations for the relief of the ships of this Country from the Stade Dues?
MR. S. FITZGERALDsaid, the hon. Gentleman would see on consideration that it was impossible for him to give a satisfactory answer to the question. The very form of it inferred that the matter was still in an unsettled condition, and he could not, therefore, give any information with respect to it but such as might mislead parties interested, and embarrass the negotiations. In compliance with the recommendations of the Committeee of last Session, notice had been given for the termination of the existing treaty. Communications had since passed between the two Governments, but had led to no results. The question was one of great difficulty, but the Government had given and were giving serious attention to it.

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Royal Commission appointed in pursuance of a Vote of this House in the last Session, upon the subject of Harbours of Refuge, have yet made their Report, and when the same will be laid upon the Table?
  SIR J. PAKINGTONsaid, the Commissioners had not yet reported, but the matter was receiving careful attention.

  SALE OF SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS IN SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT MELGUNDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the effect of the laws regulating the Sale and Consumption of Spirituous Liquors in Scotland?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the subject had received his attention during the recess, and he had come to the conclusion that same inquiry into it was necessary. Whether this ought to be by a Committee or by a Commission he was not at present quite clear, and he could not therefore give a decided answer to the question.

REFORM OF THE CITY CORPORATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANKEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill for the Reform of the Corporation of the City of London, and when the same would probably be brought forward?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid it would be necessary to introduce some measure on the subject this Session, but in the present state of public business he was afraid it could not be brought forward until after the Reform Bill had been laid on the table.

BARRACK ACCOMMODATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. BARINGasked the Secretary of War whether the Government have taken any steps to provide new quarters for the Guards, in lieu of the Barracks in Portman Street, which have long been condemned?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, it was his intention to propose a Vote of £120,000 ill the Estimates this year for this purpose. All the available sites in the metropolis had been surveyed and reported on, and if the House should sanction the expenditure the most efficient one would be selected.

THE BILLETING SYSTEM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAUFURDasked the Secretary of War whether any and what alteration was to be made in the present Law relating to the Billeting of Soldiers and Marines?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that it would be in the recollection of those hon. Members who took part in the proceedings of the Billeting Committee of last Session, that he stated it would be impossible to make any alteration until the Mutiny Bill of the present year—the allowances to the publicans being fixed by the Mutiny Bill. It was his intention in the next Mutiny Bill to propose that, instead of 1½d., the remuneration to the innkeeper should be 4d. per man; and he should also endeavour to carry out, as far as possible, the recommendations of the Committee.

CASE OF PAUL AND STRAHAN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. SHERIDANasked Mr. Secretary Walpole whether it is his intention to recommend to Her Majesty that Sir John Dean Paul and Mr. Strahan, the late bankers, should be pardoned, on the ground

  145
  that they had already been punished to the extent demanded by the laws of the country?
  MR. WALPOLE: I have to request the attention of the House to the question which has just been put to me, and to the answer which I am about to give. The question has been put to me in a form which is not calculated to convey an accurate impression of the facts, inasmuch as it leads to the impression that Sir John Paul and Mr. Strahan have already been punished to the extent demanded by the laws of the country, which is not the case. Questions of this nature are of the most painful character to one who fills the situation which I have the honour to hold; but since the inquiry has now been made, I had better answer it publicly and at once, instead of requesting the permission of the House to refuse to do so, as under ordinary circumstances I should have done. I had better answer it, because, certainly, mistakes and great misapprehensions have occurred with reference to this particular case, and also in order that the House may be made aware that Parliament itself is partly the cause of much of the complication which exists respecting it. By the law under which Sir John Paul and Mr. Strahan were tried, and which still exists unrepealed, the offence of which they were convicted—that of selling securities deposited for safe custody with them, and appropriating the proceeds to their own use-was punishable by transportation for a term not exceeding fourteen years, and not less than seven. These unfortunate gentlemen were tried in October, 1855; and they were convicted under that law, not of one single offence, but I must point out, without any wish to press unduly upon them, of one of a series of similar offences which have inflicted an amount of misery upon hundreds of people, equal to any amount of punishment which the law as it stood could have inflicted on them. It is true that Parliament has since, unfortunately, sanctioned another law—the Fraudulent Trustees Act—without repealing the old law, which enacts for precisely the same offence the punishment of penal servitude, not exceeding three years' or not less than two years' imprisonment. It was under these circumstances that I was pressed to consider whether an entire remission of their sentence ought not to be granted to these gentlemen. My first duty was to inquire what lied been the practice of the Home Office with reference to re-
  146
  commendations to be made to the Crown where after punishments of a grave nature had been inflicted by the Courts of Justice, the Legislature had passed a subsequent enactment relaxing the penalty for offences of the like nature. I am speaking in the presence of three of the ablest men who have filled the office of Home Secretary, and they will confirm me when I say there is no instance in the records of the Home Office of any person convicted and sentenced under a particular law being held entitled to a mitigation of punishment in consequence and on account of subsequent legislation having diminished the punishment for such offences. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that most extraordinary representations have been made by friends of these parties, sometimes persons high in rank and position, attributing to me that either by a prejudiced view of the case, or by a severe administration of the law, I had imperilled the health of these prisoners, and even destroyed the mind of one of them. Such representations, totally unfounded as they were, ought not to have proceeded from such a quarter. The question then is, whether, under these circumstances, the law being complicated by subsequent legislation, and the principle of the Home office, founded on good reasons, being such as I have stated, there is any ground for recommending to the Crown, not a mitigation, for that is not asked, but an entire remission of the sentence. I wish to point out to the hon. Gentleman end to the House, and through the House to all persons who may take an interest in matters of this kind (in fact they must interest the whole community) that in ordinary cases where a series of gross delinquencies have been proved it is not usual to limit the punishment to the maximum of one offence; but for the interests of justice very often another punishment is perhaps added for a second offence, to begin when the first expires. Placed under such circumstances, I have no means of judging, except by conjecture, what the Courts would do; but I have thought it right to consult the highest authority in the land, and I am informed by him that it is reasonable to consider the subsequent law as virtually repealing the former law, and as entitling the parties convicted under the first law to some mitigation of their punishment, though not stating what that mitigation ought to be. Now, it is my duty to lay down a rule with regard to the future and with regard

  147
  to the past. With regard to the future it will be for the Court to say whether, when a series of grave offences has been committed, the punishment shall or shall not be the maximum prescribed by the Act, or whether the punishment shall be cumulative or not. I have, therefore, no difficulty with regard to the future. But, with regard to the past, I must endeavour to lay down a rule, partly by conjecture as to what would have been the punishment awarded supposing the second statute had been the statute under which these persons bad been tried. The only conclusions to which my mind has arrived are these, that if I can lay down such a rule I ought to do so; that in laying down that rule I should take special care to draw no distinction between those convicted under the statutes whether they are rich or whether they are poor, and that on behalf of myself and of every one who may hereafter hold the office which I have the honour to hold, I should request most humbly, respectfully, and earnestly the support of the House in the discharge of the duty that devolves upon that office. I hope that the House will at least feel confident that, without any partiality on the one hand, or any prejudice on the other, I shall endeavour to take care that justice is duly and properly administered, and that it will firmly give me its support as long as I discharge, to the best of my ability, this most delicate, difficult, and painful duty.

  THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.—SUPPLY.
  HER MAJESTY'S Speech considered.
  Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an indefinite answer as to the time at which the promised Reform Bill would be introduced, for he had made it depend upon two other questions, one of which related to the Naval Estimates. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what day he proposed to name for the consideration of the Naval Estimates? The right hon. Gentleman must know that it was a mere matter of calculation when these Estimates could be laid upon the table, and probably he could at once name upon what day they would be brought under the consideration of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERassured the noble Lord that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would take care that no time
  148
  should be lost. The Government had communicated to the House, with perfect frankness, their intention respecting the Bill for improving the representation of the people. He thought that the question of the noble Lord must have been prepared before the statement which he made on the part of the Government, and he thought that the question of the noble Lord must be taken to be answered by that statement.

OCCASIONAL FORMS OF PRAYER BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WALPOLE, in moving the second reading of the Occasional Forms of Prayer Bill said, he had discovered that there was another day to be added to the list of special occasions to which he had referred in moving the first reading of this Bill; he meant the 23rd of October. In looking over the Acts of Parliament by which people were required to attend church, and to abstain from all work on particular days. An act of Charles II. had been found which provided that this day should be observed, in consequence of its being the day upon which the conspiracy to seize the town of Dublin was supposed to have been discovered, and it was now proposed to repeal this part of the statute by this Bill.
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that considering that these observances were not only offensive to every Christian mind but were regarded by many as impious, it was astonishing that these statutes should have remained in existence for so many years: yet when a noble Lord attempted in "another place" to remove these absurdities, he was told that no change could be allowed, because there was no telling where it might end. He wished to know whether the present proposition had the sanction of the Church? because, if not, when the Bill reached the other House they might find their time and trouble had been thrown away. He asked were the improvements of the Book of Common Prayer to stop there? He believed that the members of the Established Church comprised only about one-third of the population of the United Kingdom. He contended that there was more unity of sentiment out of the Established Church without the Articles than within the Church with the Articles. Was it fair or right that the Established Church should preclude the whole of her

  149
  clergy from officiating in places of public worship belonging to nonconformist congregations, inasmuch as there was one common object entertained by all religious classes of Her Majesty's subjects, that of inculcating piety and submission to the laws. He wished to know whether all those portions of the Book of Common Prayer which were offensive to other religious sects were to be continued or not? In order to give more ample opportunity for the consideration of the details of the present measure, he moved as an Amendment that the second reading of the Bill be postponed to this day week.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "this day week."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that although he was unwilling to interfere with the proceedings of the Government with reference to the present measure, he should remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill had only been placed in the hands of the Members of that House that morning, and therefore there had not been sufficient time given for the consideration of its provisions. As a member of the Established Church, and taking a deep interest in everything relating to the Book of Common Prayer, he was naturally desirous that the Government should give the House ample opportunity for the consideration of a Bill of the present nature, which went to repeal certain Acts appertaining to religious services of the Church. He could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would overlook any provision that affected the interests of the Church, and the principle of the Bill had been already sanctioned and to a certain extent acted on; nevertheless, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would excuse an independent Member for expressing a wish to look into the Acts proposed for repeal before the Bill be proceeded with further.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he hoped the House would not require seven days to consider whether they should do an act of absolute common sense. Were they to stop now to discuss the propriety of abolishing such services as those for the Execution of Charles I. and the commemoration of the Gunpowder Plot of Guido Fawkes? The question did not require a delay of seven minutes much less seven days. He could not understand at all what his hon. Friend and colleague (Mr.
  150
  Hadfield) meant. The matters he had referred to concerned only those who were members of the Church of England; but his hon. Friend always prided himself on being a Dissenter. If the Church of England chose to preach twenty-four hours every day it could be nothing to him. He hoped the House would deal with the Bill like men of common sense. The Government had at last come to the conclusion that these services were unnecessary, and he trusted the Bill would be passed without any delay.
  MR. GREGSONwas understood to suggest some other improvements in the services and discipline of the Church, one of which was that the solemnization of marriages might take place at any hour of the day, instead of being confined, as it now was, to some period before twelve o'clock at noon.
  MR. WALPOLEexplained that the special services had been established and continued by Royal warrant under the sign manual. By the same authority they were now abolished. All that the present Bill did was to affirm what both Houses of Parliament and the Crown had agreed to, and to remove certain statutory obligations connected with these services. All clergymen were bound to read the Forms of Thanksgiving on certain days, and every person in the country was equally bound by statute to abstain from all kinds of trade and labour, and to attend church on certain days. Two of these statutes, in quantity amounting to two pages of a folio volume, were also appointed to be read in all churches on certain days. These obligations the Bill removed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put and agreed to.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. DILLWYN MR. DILLWYN moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to Endowed Schools. He said the measure was in effect the same as that he had introduced last year. He believed the Government did not intend to offer any objection to his Motion.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, although the Government would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, he thought it was important that further consideration should be given to its details. In assenting to the introduction of the Bill he did not wish it to be supposed that he acquiesced in all its provisions.

  151
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DILLWYN and Mr. MASSEY.
  Bill presented and read 1o.

SUPERANNUATION OF CIVIL SERVANTS.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved for leave to bring in a Bill with regard to the superannuation of civil servants of the Crown. The measure he was about to propose was similar to that which was introduced last Session, but which was then withdrawn on account of some Amendments which had been given notice of by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson), and of the desire of the House that the Session should be brought to a close; at that late period of the Session he thought it right that any Bills which were likely to promote discussion should not be pressed, and he had accordingly withdrawn it. The principal Amendments of which notice had been given by the hon. Gentleman were in reference to including in its operation the officers and labourers of the Dockyards. These officers were brought under the provisions of the present Bill, and no further opposition might therefore be expected. Hon. Gentlemen would remember that this question of superannuation had already been investigated by a Select Committee of the House in 1856. Subsequently the subject was considered of so much importance that it led to a Royal Commission which had presented two Reports, the last being in March last. The Bill he now proposed was intended to embody the recommendations made by the Select Committee and the Royal Commission. The principal heads of difference between the proposed Bill and the law as it at present stands were, first with regard to the duration of services and time of superannuation. It was intended that superannuation should commence at the termination of ten years, and that the full superannuation allowance should be granted at the end of forty years' service. Under this Bill every person in the Civil Service, of the age of sixty, would be permitted to receive his full superannuation, and at sixty-five retirement from the public service would be compulsory. This latter provision Her Majesty's Government considered to be for the interests of the public and the exigencies of the service. But if special circumstances should render it advisable that any gentleman above the age of sixty-five should remain in the public service, owing to the sense entertained of
  152
  his abilities and usefulness, power was given in this Bill to retain his services. Of course that power would only be exercised in the case of a person of rare and distinguished abilities. The most important provisions of the Bill were those which regulated the new scale of superannuation. The old scale was defective in every respect. The defects were pointed out by the Committee of the House and by the Royal Commission, and the remedies which they recommended were embodied in the Bill. One of the greatest defects of the existing system was, that superannuation being fixed, for example, at the end of a septennial term of service, the same pensions were often enjoyed by persons who had really served very different terms. These defects were remedied by the present Bill, superannuation being calculated by the yearly services of the public servants. Provisions were also inserted having reference to special circumstances; for instance, regulating the superannuation to which professional men who entered the public service comparatively late in life should be entitled. The Bill also contained provisions by which the whole of the judicial service of the country, with the exception of the Judges of the superior courts, were brought within its scope. It also provided for the abolition of offices and other matters of an analogous character, which hitherto had not been satisfactorily settled; or if so, were arranged rather by the discretion of the Treasury than by the sanction of the law. In moving for permission to bring in the Bill, he could only express a hope that it would meet with no objection, and that it would be found to give all the satisfaction which the exigencies of the case required.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he did not rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill, but he thought a part of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman required explanation. In the first place the right hon. Gentleman had said that the present Bill was substantially the same as that of last Session: but he then referred to his (Mr. Wilson's) proposed Amendments to the Bill of last Session, and stated that the present Bill included the objects of those Amendments. But if the Bill was substantially that of last Session, it certainly would not include the principle for which he (Mr. Wilson) had contended, and still contended. The House would recollect that when the noble Lord the present Secretary for Ireland (Lord Naas)

  153
  brought in a Bill on this subject two years ago, he (Mr. Wilson) called attention to one of the consequences which would follow from it—that its effects would be to do away with all distinctions between the public servants in regard to superannuation. Those who knew the circumstances under which the Bill of 1834 was brought in, knew that no persons in the civil service had any legal claim to superannuation allowance, except they had submitted to the abatements provided for under that Act: but if you repealed the enactment creating abatements, you could not deny to all persons in the public service allowances, as was done under the Act of 1834. Those who would he acted on by not going on that principle would be the most defenceless persons in the public service day labourers in dockyards, and certain persons employed in the Post-office, who at present were not entitled to superannuation allowance. He was aware that Orders in Council had been issued upon the subject; but they applied to the superior officers in dockyards, and instead of mending the case of the other persons to whom he had alluded it had only made it worse. You not only had dealt liberally and almost lavishly with superior officers—perhaps doing them no more than justice—in giving them full salary on retirement; but at the same time it had been arranged that other men in the same service should not receive more than a fourth of their salaries after fifty years' service. He knew a case of two men who had entered the same service on the same day, and who retired on the same day, both of them with unexceptionable characters, both of them having received the thanks of the Admiralty: one of them had been superannuated on £740 a year, and the other on £40 a year. That arose from inequality of the law as it now stood. He contended that as abatements had been abolished, there was no principle on which you could draw a distinction between any parts of the service. Having, however, been induced to take that step, it now only remained to do justice, and to allow the superannuation allowance to bear the same proportion to the salary, whether great or small, of every man in die public service. There was a class of men who were most injured, inasmuch as they had no superannuation allowance, and they were men in whose cause no one could be said to be interested on political grounds, inasmuch as their means were on so low a scale that they had no votes, and their advocates in
  154
  that House must be free from suspicion in taking such a course. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the persons to whom his (Mr. Wilson's) Amend ments last year referred—namely, dockyard labourers only—would he included in the Bill, and whether it would affect alike all the permanent officers, high and low? If that were so, he would he content, and he would do all in his power to assist in passing the Bill. If not, he should give notice that at the proper stage be would endeavour to introduce Amendments which would do justice to all classes of public servants.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, said, it would be more convenient to discuss the Bill when the hon. Gentleman had it in his hand, and when the House would be better able to decide on its character; but, speaking generally, he might say that the class of officers to whom the Amendments of the hon. Gentleman applied were included in the Bill. But he might add that the dockyard labourers were specially provided for by the Admiralty orders, and it was unnecessary that there should be any provision in the Bill to include them.
  MR. A. KINGLAKEsaid, that the Bill of last year was so worded that it purported to give superannuation allowances to Post-office servants in London, and excluded a large class of those servants in the country. There was caused a great disturbance in the provincial mind by this distinction, and he would suggest to the right bon. Gentleman to remove the defects of the Bill of last year, and place the official servants in the country on the same footing as those in London, which would much facilitate the passing of the Bill.
  SIR H. WILLOUGHBYwas one of those who took a fearful view of the increasing charge for superannuation allowances. He wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there was any document which he could lay upon the table which would show what would be the increased charge on the public purse if this Bill, as proposed, became law? By the Act of 1834, if any gentleman held the office of Secretary to the Treasury or Admiralty for five years he was entitled to a pension of £1,200 a year. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) that you should treat all officers, high and low, on the same principle, if you could, and he admitted that in the higher political

  155
  offices there might be some distinction made, as the tenure of office was generally very brief; but in the lower offices, such as those of Secretary to the Treasury or Admiralty, for a person who held them for five years to receive £1,200 a year pension was monstrous, and must cause dissatisfaction in the civil service, which was treated in so different a manner.
  MR. COLLIERwished to correct an error into which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen with regard to dockyard labourers,. The right hon. Gentleman said that Admiralty orders provided for them; but he believed that was a mistake, and, if so, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter, and not object to the introduction of such persons to the advantages of superannuation to which labourers were as much entitled as any other class.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in error in this respect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he wished to carry out the recommendations of the Commission which inquired into the subject, and one of its recommendations was, that whereas many officers in dockyards who were on day-pay were not entitled to superannuation allowance for the time they were on day-pay, that the time on which they received such pay ought to be taken into the calculation. With regard to labourers, they had no pension at all. He thought the principle of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Wilson), should be carried out, and that superannuation allowance should be extended to all classes of public servants according to the length of their services and the amount of their salaries.
  MR. RICHsaid, that various suggestions had been made with regard to superannuation allowances in the last ten years. Once a Motion was made by a Gentleman opposite, the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), to reduce all salaries in the public offices. But a change came over Gentlemen opposite, and they tried to get rid of the system of abatements in the civil service, and the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Cocker-mouth (Lord Naas) was carried. It was then said that this was not merely a question of abatement, but that the House would be pestered by every public servant for a pension; and they saw the beginning of that state of things now, for every public ser-
  156
  vant was claiming superannuation. He would throw out, for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that superannuation allowances represented a capital of £3,000,000. As the Government was changing their opinions on other points, perhaps they would reinstate the abatement clause, which would furnish them with an answer to every one asking for a pension.
  SIR F. SMITHwas inclined to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in error with regard to the dockyard labourers; but he hoped that the Bill would contain provisions for the protection of that class even against the Admiralty. These labourers could not possibly save anything from their pay for their old age, and therefore were persons who, of all others, ought to be considered in any system of superannuation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that he had referred to the latest copies of the Admiralty orders, which, as they bore a date so recent as October last, had not, perhaps, been seen by hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken. [The right hon. Gentleman then read from the Admiralty order in question a passage referring to the superannuation allowed to labourers and artificers.] This showed that the labourers in oar dockyards were in receipt of regulated rates of pension.
  Leave Given.
  Bill to amend the Laws concerning Superannuations and other allowances to persons having held Civil Offices in the Public Service, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE.
  Bill presented and read 1o

MANOR COURTS (IRELAND), &c.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of Manor Courts and the better recovery of Small Debts in Ireland. He said that before the in stitution of County Courts in Ireland there were a number of Manor Courts, the constitution of each of which depended on the patent granted to the owner of the manor. Great evils grew up in these courts, which were corrected to a certain extent by an Act of George III.; but they still grew up, and continued until they had reached a point at which the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland described them as nuisances of the worst description, and that the only remedy for such a nuisance was its total

  157
  abatement. They were now rendered totally unnecessary by the existence of the County Courts. He proposed to abolish the Manor Courts throughout the entire country, more especially as under the County Court Act the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council had power, when ever a case was made out for such a proceeding, to create new circuits for the Judges of those courts. The Bill proposed to give to magistrates in petty sessions a small debt jurisdiction to the extent of 20 s., with an appeal from their decision to a County Court Judge. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that many years ago a Bill was introduced for the purpose of abolishing these courts, but it was afterwards abandoned. Although he felt bound to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon his so early commencing the Irish business, yet he did not see that there was now any greater reason for introducing such a Bill than had existed for many years. Indeed, there was less reason, seeing that they possessed Quarter Sessions Courts and County Courts. He wished to know if the right hon, and learned Gentleman meant to provide compensation for the present Manor Court Judges, some of whom had held their offices for many years.
  MR. WHITESIDEwas understood to say that compensation to some of those Judges had been provided for by the Bill.
  MR. BAGWELLwould be glad to know when this and other Irish Bills would come on for discussion. The assizes would begin very early this spring, and most of the Irish Members would have to return for that purpose.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, it was his intention to proceed with the Bills he was now introducing as early as possible.
  Bill for the abolition of Manor Courts and the better recovery of Small Debts in Ireland ordered to be brought in by the ATTORNEY GENERAL, for Ireland and Lord NAAS.

SALE AND TRANSFER OF LANDS— JUDGMENTS (IRELAND).

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. WHITESIDEthen moved for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the sale and transfer of land, by simplifying and consolidating the law relating to judgments, and by providing for the protection of purchasers against Crown debts in Ire-
  158
  land. In ancient times, judgments did not affect land. In the time of Edward I. the statute of elegit was passed, which created judgments into a kind of hovering lien on all property; and though a man might sell part of his land, yet any judgments existing against him still hovered over the land. In the time of George II., judgments in Ireland were made assignable by law. The result was, that when a landowner wanted to borrow money, which he often did in those days, he sent for a stamped deed, on the other side of which was endorsed a warrant to confess judgment, which judgment was capable of being assigned, so that if it fell into the hands of a country attorney, he assigned it to a friend, who brought it into the Court of Chancery, where ruinous costs accumulated directly, leaving the debtor no alternative but to borrow a fresh sum of money on a fresh judgment. After this, a fictitious process was adopted, by which the lands came into the hands of what was called a custodian. In 1835, Sir Michael O'Loghlen endeavoured to provide a remedy for this state of things, which proved a greater evil than the one it sought to remedy—for he gave power to creditors, instead of taking a moiety of the rents and profits of an estate, as was the case under an elegit, to appoint a receiver over the whole. The result was, that the country was covered with receivers, and greater evils were produced than those which were sought to be remedied. The next Act was called Pigot's Act, being the 3rd and 4th Vict., which was also a step in the wrong direction, for it extended the lien to chattel interests, leaseholds, and terms for lives, over which receivers were appointed, and the complication was consequently greatly increased. The result was, that in 1849, a Committee of the House was appointed to consider the evils of the receiver system in Ireland, and an excellent Committee it was, the late Sir Robert Peel being a member of it, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer chairman. The Committee evidently doubted whether there ought to be so much facility given for Irish gentlemen to get into debt; but in the result it proved that even sagacious statesmen were unable to grapple with those who maintained that Ireland was not ripe for an assimilation of the law to that of England. They therefore recommended certain palliations of the existing evil, but expressed an opinion that it would be necessary to make a complete change in the entire system. He subscribed to the recommendations which

  159
  they made, founded on an opinion that nothing could be more mischievous than the existing system of the law of judgments, obtained as he had described, and the appointment of receivers under them. The Act of 12 & 13 Vict. was passed to carry out the recommendations of the Committee; and he found in it a solution of part of the difficulty, for it was enacted, that where a judgment was not for more than £150, it should not be allowed to be a lien on laud, and that not until execution had been delivered should it affect land, nor should a receiver be appointed. If this principle was good for £150, why should it not be good for £150,000? In making such a proposition he was fortified by the Report of the Real Property Commission, in which it was said that the state of the law as regarded judgments against land was most objectionable, whether as regarded elegit, or by making dormant judgments a continuing charge, which rendered land unsaleable; and they said that a judgment ought not to affect land till execution was delivered. That was the principle of his Bill. Sir John Romilly, by an Act 14 & 15 Vict., endeavoured to cure this evil, but his measure had produced greater evils than it found. The system which had been devised at a period before the Incumbered Estates Court was created was this. It was enacted that the judgment should no longer be a charge upon the land, but that the judgment creditor should make an affidavit in the office for Registering Deeds in Ireland, declaring his debtor to be possessed of certain lands, whereupon this affidavit was to be considered as a deed, of which the debtor was to be considered as the grantor, and the creditor as the grantee. By the next section of the Act, this affidavit was turned into a mortgage as soon as it was registered, and thence this Act of Parliament came to be called the Judgment Mortgage Act. All the evils sought to be removed by the first part of the Act were continued under the second part, by which the judgment creditor could obtain a receiver. But recent decisions had proved this Act of Parliament to be inoperative. The intention of it was to give the original creditor who had obtained a judgment all the rights of a mortgagee; but it had been decided that he could only take the residue of the property, after satisfying all the charges which the debtor had laid upon it; whether by registered or unregistered deeds; so that, in fact, he only stood in the position
  160
  of a judgment creditor. This had been lately further exemplified in an extraordinary case, where the creditor of a joint-stock bank had obtained a judgment against one of the public officers, and the Chancellor held it was not a mortgage to be registered against the shareholders. The result was, that no conveyancer in Ireland would allow any client to lend money on such a security. It was impossible to say what was the law on this matter, and the only remedy was to take the bold course of repealing all the statutes which related to it, and reenacting whatever was useful at the present day, giving against the personal property of the debtor all the remedies which the creditor now possessed, but not admitting the judgment as a specific security on the laud until the creditor had lodged an equitable execution, in the shape of a petition to the Landed Estates Court for the sale of the property of the debtor. This was the only remedy it was now proposed to give; and it was one in accordance with the old principles of the common law, as well as with the opinion of the Real Property Commissioners, the evidence of several eminent witnesses, and the Bill which Lord St. Leonards introduced last year, by which it was provided that a judgment should not be a lien on the land until after execution had been obtained. The effect would be to get rid of the appointment of receivers under judgments, and to simplify the whole of those transactions. He had no doubt that he had now said enough to induce the House to grant him leave to introduce the Bill.
  MR. M'EVOYexpressed his hope that the series of Bills now introduced by the Solicitor General for Ireland would effect some useful amendments of the law, and asked whether a day could yet be fixed in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would introduce the Landlord and Tenant Bill?
  MR. DOBBSbore testimony that the law of judgments in Ireland was in such a confused state that the most clear-headed man could not understand it, and he trusted this Bill would do something to consolidate the law.
  MR. MALINScongratulated the Solicitor General for Ireland on this measure, which he thought would prove most useful in simplifying the law, and abolishing a monstrous evil. There might be a hundred judgments against a debtor, and it was absurd that a mortgagee should be required to see them cleared away before he could foreclose. A judgment ought not to be

  161
  a lien on a landed estate, any more than upon the debtor's household furniture.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the Landlord and Tenant Bill would be introduced immediately on his return from Ireland.
  Bill to facilitate the Sale and Transfer of Land, by simplifying and consolidating the Law relating to Judgments, and by providing for the protection of Purchasers against Crown Debts in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for Ireland, Lord NAAS, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.

RECEIVERS IN CHANCERY (IRELAND) ABOLITION, &c.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition, in certain cases, of receivers of the Court of Chancery in Ireland. On this subject there had been several Committees of Inquiry, and they had all so unanimously condemned the system of appointing receivers that he did not apprehend any difficulty in obtaining permission to legislate on the subject. It might be interesting to state, with regard to the operations of the Incumbered Estates Court, that since it was established there had been sold no less than £23,933,566 worth of land. But a great quantity of land in Ireland still remained under incumbrances, and there were upwards of 1,100 receivers of estates in the office of the Receiving Master, besides 200 or 300 others in other Masters' offices. The receivers were obliged to enter into recognisances, and each find two sureties, so that their estates, and those of the sureties, were involved in the Chancery complication. The effect had been to complicate the land of that country to such an extent as required a strong measure now to clear it. There had been eighty-four receivers appointed during the last year, and a stop must be put to the mischief. By the present Bill it was provided that where a judgment was obtained no receiver should be appointed where the parties could obtain a sale. There would be certain exceptions, but they would be very few.
  Bill for the Abolition of Receivers under the Court of Chancery in Ireland in certain cases, and for giving further facilities to the Sale of Incumbered Estates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for Ireland, Lord NAAS, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.

MARKETS (IRELAND).

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  LORD NAAS LORD NAAS moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of Markets in Ireland. He stated that in 1852 a Commission of Inquiry on this subject travelled through the country, and visited every market town. They found in most of the small country towns a great want of accommodation for the public, and the most glaring frauds commonly practised between buyer and seller. Two Bills had since been introduced on this subject, and the present Bill somewhat resembled that of last year; though it differed from it in one important particular, inasmuch as it did not propose to deal with fairs. The reason for excepting those fairs was that they were not held so frequently as markets, that they required an extensive space, which it would be difficult to secure by enactment, and that as the business transacted thereat was confined mostly to the buying and selling of cattle, a similar opportunity for fraud did not exist; moreover, tolls had been abolished in many fairs throughout the country, and any attempt to reimpose them would be resisted by the people; it did not seem therefore, that there was the same necessity for legislation in respect of fairs as existed in the case of markets. It was now proposed to appoint a Commissioner for the regulation of markets in Ireland. The question of ownership, was, no doubt, the difficulty of the matter. It was not intended, as in the Bill of last year, to give the Commissioner power to inquire into the ownership of markets when those rights were still enforced, and which, in many cases, had been held under patent for a long series of years, and bad been made matter of family settlement; there are great objections to dealing with such questions in an arbitrary manner, or calling on the owner of the market to prove his title. The Bill provided, therefore, that the Commissioner should merely have power to see that the conditions on which the patent was held were duly performed, and that ample and convenient accommodation was provided for the public. The Bill provided that in every case in which no toll had been levied in a market for the last five years, or no right or ownership whatever had been put in force by any person, the Commissioner should have the power of inquiring into the matter, and declaring who the owner of the market should be. In such a case, he would declare that the

  163
  town commissioners, if there were any, should be the owners of the market in the town in which they had jurisdiction; and when no municipal authority existed, any fit and proper person whom the town should select, would be declared the proper owner. Power was also given to establish new markets where they were required, and to provide for an uniform system of weighing produce by pounds, stones, and hundredweights, as well as to fix penalties for fraud and misconduct in the market.
  MR. H. HERBERTpromised to render assistance to the noble Lord in his endeavours to pass the Bill, which he described as a modified portion of the Bill which he himself introduced last year; but he entirely dissented from the opinion of the noble Lord, that the fairs in Ireland did not require regulation equally with markets. He was inclined to think that the fairs required regulation more than the markets. He was astonished to hear the noble Lord say that tolls were abolished all over the country. [Lord NAAS: No, no!] He so understood the noble Lord. The fact was, that tolls were nearly universal.
  MR. W. BROWNrecommended that provision should be made for an uniform system of weights to be used in all the markets throughout the United Kingdom. He remarked, that in some towns butter was sold by one weight, hay by another, and oats by a third; the most perplexing discrepancy existed.
  MR. M'CANNexpressed a doubt as to the powers which were to be given in some cases to enable town commissioners to levy market tolls; he hoped this subject would be delicately treated, for he would as soon have the markets in private hands as in those of the town commissioners.
  Bill for the Regulation of Markets in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Lord NAAS and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for Ireland.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.

LUNATIC POOR (IRELAND).

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  LORD NAAS LORD NAAS moved for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to lunatic poor in Ireland. In 1856 a Commission was issued to inquire into the state of lunatic asylums, both public and private, in that country. The Commissioners visited all the institutions in Ireland for the relief or reception of lunatics, and, having examined all the
  164
  official persons connected with those asylums, as well as private individuals who had taken an interest in the treatment of the insane, and several keepers of private lunatic asylums, they produced an elaborate and lengthy Report, which is accompanied by the evidence they had taken. The Commissioners made several very important recommendations. He feared that it would hardly be possible in the compass of one Bill to carry out all that the Commissioners recommended, but he had incorporated in this measure most of the important suggestions made in the Report. He did not propose to deal with any other description of lunatics than the poor, for that class was quite large enough, and the considerations involved were of a character sufficiently important to be made the subject of a special Bill. Nor did he propose to deal with criminal lunatics; these are provided for in a Government asylum at Dundrum, under a special act of Parliament. The main feature of the Bill was the substitution, to a great extent, of local authority with regard to these asylums for that central and governmental authority which had hitherto existed in Ireland. The result of such substitution, he believed, would be greater economy and efficiency. Under the present system plans for the erection of costly buildings for the reception of lunatics were submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, they were erected by Board of Works, and the expense thereof thrown upon the ratepayers without their having had a voice in the matter. He therefore proposed that henceforth the direct interference of the Executive Government in the building and management of these asylums should altogether cease. He proposed that in every county visitors should be appointed by the grand jury, with authority to enlarge the old and build new asylums where necessary, and also to exercise all the powers now vested in the boards of governors nominated by the Lord Lieutenant. Where the district asylum belonged only to one county the grand jury of that county would choose all the visitors, the number to be regulated according to population by the Lord Lieutenant. Where the asylum belonged to more than one county, then each grand jury would appoint a certain proportion of the visitors; the several bodies of visitors thus appointed to become one visiting Committee for the management of the district asylum. One of the recommendations of the Commissioners, which he

  165
  regretted to say he could not adopt, was that a central board should be established in Dublin, to whom the control of these institutions should be intrusted. The creation of such central boards was always to be viewed with suspicion, and in this case it was very doubtful whether a body of that kind was either desirable or necessary. The Bill would define as accurately as possible the duties of all persons connected with the conduct of these asylums; it would provide an active, constant, and rigid system of inspection, and yearly reports from the inspectors would be laid before Parliament, The power of the central authority over these institutions would he wielded principally by the Lord Lieutenant, whose authority would never be exercised except to compel persons intrusted with the management of these asylums to conform to the regulations and to obey the law. The Inspectors would be left very much as they now were. Great pains is taken to avoid the exercise of anything like arbitrary power; and wherever the action of the central authority was likely to be objected to, the parties interested will, before the final order is made by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, have an opportunity of having their representations fully considered. The local authorities would have the power of appointing all officers, such as medical superintendents, visiting physicians, matrons, chaplains, and clerks, subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, and they would also fix the amount of their salaries under the like condition. At present the mode of admitting patients to these asylums was very unsatisfactory. Sometimes they were admitted by the resident physician, at other times by the board; and complaints were often made that equal justice was not done to patients having the same claim to be received within their walls. A power was now vested in magistrates to commit to the county gaol dangerous lunatics, who were thus frequently left in prison for a considerable period, without proper care, and were not removed until the authorities of the asylums certified that they had accommodation for them. He proposed altogether to do away with that system, which he regarded as barbarous and wholly unsuited to the present age, and to provide that on receiving information that a poor person had become insane, the relieving officer of the district, or any member of a dispensary committee, should be required to bring
  166
  the lunatic into the presence of a justice, who should call in the assistance of the medical officer of the dispensary district, and on finding the person to be insane should make an order for his admission, whereupon the relieving officer should convey him immediately to the asylum. The Bill would give the Lord Lieutenant power to remove all lunatics found in gaols, and likewise power—when sufficient asylum accommodation is provided—to remove all lunatics found in workhouses. Gaols and workhouses were most unfit places for the custody of such persons. A proper person is seldom at hand to take care of them; in the one case the poor madman was often given into the care of a tried prisoner—in the other, into that of an aged pauper. No curative treatment could be availably pursued, and consequently the least chance of their recovery was at an end. He therefore proposed, if possible, to remove all pauper lunatics from workhouses and gaols—a course which would necessitate a considerable increase in the accommodation at present afforded by these asylums, as would be seen by a consideration of the statistics furnished by the Commissioners. According to their report it appeared that there were in the district asylums 3824; in the workhouses, 1700; in the gaols, 156; and it was supposed that in the various private asylums there were about 3030 more. Of course, as the Commissioners said, it would not be necessary to provide anything like the amount of accommodation that would be required for such numbers, but it was quite clear that a very large addition ought to be made. The Bill empowered the visitors under certain restrictions to admit patients whose friends were capable of contributing towards their maintenance. The absence of anything like decent private asylums, where poor persons able to pay a small sum towards their own support could be received, was now much to be deplored. The Bill also authorized the visitors, in cases where any inmate of an asylum or his relatives were possessed of sufficient property, to proceed against them for the recovery of such sums in aid of the maintenance of the patient as the justices might think fit to make them contribute. The measure repealed all former statutes referring to public lunatic asylums in Ireland, and it furnished in the compass of one Bill a complete code in which every person, from the Inspector downwards, could see at a glance what

  167
  were his duties in connection with these institutions. The analogy of the English Act, which had generally worked well, had been adhered to in framing the present measure, as far as was consistent with the state of things prevalent in Ireland, and he sincerely hoped that with the assistance of the House this Bill, which was imperatively called for on behalf of that unfortunate class whom it had pleased Providence to visit with the most dreadful calamity which could befall the human race, and who ought, therefore, to be the first objects of their care and benevolence, would be speedily passed into a law. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to introduce the Bill.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he hoped his Lordship would introduce some provisions relating to the criminal lunatics instead of ignoring them altogether, as he had said the Bill would do. The gaols of Ireland were already sufficiently occupied, and any relief that could be given with respect to them would be a seasonable improvement. He regretted to hear that the appointment of all the committees requisite to carry out the provisions of the Bill was to be vested in the grand jury, for they were formed generally of just the kind of people who were most energetic in raking up that party spirit which it was the desire of all right-minded persons to extinguish in Ireland, and this was certain to break out in the choice of the medical and other officers attached to these asylums. Beyond these matters, he quite concurred in the necessity for such a Bill as that proposed by his Lordship.
  MR. H. HERBERTwished to know if it were intended to adopt the literal recommendation of the Commissioners that a portion of the board of visitors should be nominated by the grand juries?
  LORD NAASreplied in the negative. He must be allowed to express his surprise at the objection which had been raised by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell). If there was one thing more desirable than another, it was that the control of institutions supported by local rates should be vested in the representatives of those who had to pay for them; and he must say he was greatly astonished to hear any gentleman declare in this House a preference for appointments such as these being made by the Executive Government rather than by local bodies. The experience of Ireland showed that wherever local authority was extended and
  168
  put in action the system had worked well; and his own opinion was that it should be the object of all true Irishmen to get rid of that centralized system of Government, where the circumstances of the case permitted it to be done with safety to the public interests.
  MR. ESMONDEdid not regard grand juries in the light of representatives of the cesspayers. They were nominated by the high sheriffs; and it was a fundamental principle of the Irish grand jury law, that no money should be voted by the grand jury until it had first been assented to at a meeting of the magistrates and associated cesspayers. He trusted when the House was called upon to consider the details of the Bill the noble Lord would consent to an alteration of this portion of his scheme.
  Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the Lunatic Poor in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Lord NAAS and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for Ireland.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Debtor and Creditor.
2a Law of Property and Trustees Relief Amendment.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY.
  DEBTOR AND CREDITOR BILL.

    FIRST READING.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that in rising to call the attention of their Lordships to the subject of the Law of Debtor and Creditor, he feared he should be obliged to trespass upon their attention for a greater length than he could have wished. The subject he need scarcely remind the House was one of great importance to all, for the community might fairly be divided into two classes, debtors and creditors, and therefore it was necessary that the law relating to it should be made as perfect as possible. Their Lordships might remember that at the close of the last Session he had laid upon the Table a Bill which at the time he said must not be regarded as embodying the ultimate views of the Government, but rather as the redemption of a pledge that some measure should be produced during that Session. That Bill had been prepared by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and it was more wonderful, notwithstanding his known industry and ability. that his hon. and

    119
    learned Friend had found time amid his multifarious occupations to draw any Bill at all than that that Bill should have failed to be entirely in accordance with the views of those who would be responsible for if it passed into a law. In fact, he (the Lord Chancellor) had invited their Lordships to accept that Bill rather as a guide to the general direction in which the Government proposed to legislate than as a complete and perfect measure. During the recess the attention of the Government had been bestowed upon this very important subject, and he hoped they had now succeeded in preparing a measure which would receive the sanction of Parliament. Upon this subject there were many conflicting opinions to weigh, many hostile interests to reconcile, and various views both of theorists and practical men to be considered; but he hoped the result of the deliberation of the Government would be found satisfactory as well to Parliament as to the mercantile community. In order that their Lordships should the better understand the questions to be considered, he would briefly explain what was the state of the existing law. At present the laws relating to Insolvents and their estates were administered by two distinct and independent tribunals,—the Insolvent Debtors' Court and the Court of Bankruptcy. The Insolvent Debtors' Court might be regarded as having had its authority confirmed upon its present footing by three Acts of Parliament passed during Her Majesty's reign,—the 1 & 2 Vict. cap. 110, popularly known as the "Prisoners' Act," because only persons in custody could have the benefit of its provisions, and two other Acts of the 5th and 6th of Victoria, and the 7th and 8th of Victoria, generally known as the "Protection Acts." Under the 1st and 2d of Victoria a prisoner in actual custody might, within fourteen days from the commencement of his imprisonment, apply by petition to the Commissioner for his discharge. In the petition he must express his willingness that all his property of every description shall be vested in the provisional assignee. Upon that petition a vesting order is made, and within fourteen days from that time the petitioner is required to file a schedule containing the amount and particular description of all his property of every kind, including debts due to him, and also a list of the debts owing by him, with the names and descriptions of the creditors. Notice is given to every creditor entered in that
    120
    schedule of a day appointed for a final hearing of the case. Upon that day if the creditors offered no opposition, or if they opposed unsuccessfully, an order is made for the insolvent's discharge; but before his adjudication he is required to execute a warrant of attorney, under which the creditors are enabled to issue execution against any property which he may subsequently acquire. There is no compulsory power in the Court to force an insolvent to file a petition, but if he does not do so within twenty-one days a creditor has the power of presenting a petition to the Court, praying that the property of the prisoner may be vested in the provisional assignee. Upon that petition a vesting order will be made, and then it becomes the duty of the debtor to file a schedule, but there is no power to compel him to do so; therefore, if a debtor is obstinate, and chooses to stop in prison, he can act in defiance of his creditors, and spend his property as he pleases. That Act applies to persons of every description, whether traders or not, and whatever the amount of their debts may be. Shortly after the passing of that measure the "Protection Acts," to which he had previously alluded, were introduced. The jurisdiction under those Acts was at first given to the Bankruptcy Courts, but by an Act of the 10 & 11 Vict. it was transferred to the Insolvent Court in London and to the County Courts in the country. The mode of proceeding under those Acts is, that a debtor presents a petition applying for protection, and at the same time files a schedule of all his debts and assets as under the Prisoners' Act. This petition ought also to contain a proposal of some mode of liquidating his debts. Upon the filing of the petition the property of the debtor ipso facto vests in the official assignee. A day is then appointed for the hearing and notice given to all the creditors. Upon the appointed day, if the conduct of the debtor has been blameless, or his debts have not been incurred within any of the prohibitions of the Act, the Commissioner is empowered to award final protection; but if dissatisfied with the insolvent's conduct, he may in the first instance refuse to appoint any day for the final hearing, or upon the day of final hearing he may, on the opposition of the creditors, refuse to grant any final order. The debtor may afterwards apply for a protecting order, which the Commissioner can grant or withhold at his discretion.

    121
    During the withholding of protection the debtor is at the mercy of his creditors, but the Act contains a provision that no insolvent shall be detained in custody at the suit of any creditor entered in the schedule for a longer period than twelve months. The "Protection Acts" apply both to traders and non-traders, the latter being unrestricted as to the amount of their debts, but traders owing less than £300 are alone qualified to petition. He (the Lord Chancellor) had been under the impression, and he believed it was one generally entertained, that practically the Insolvent Acts applied only to non-traders and the Bankrupt Acts to traders; but a communication which he had received from one of the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors' Court had, to his great surprise, shown a very different state of facts. It appeared that in London from the 1st of January to the 12th of December last year there were 1,024 protection cases, of which no less than 816 were cases of traders, while the small residue only were the petitions of persons who had not been engaged in trade. In the country the facts were still mere surprising; for it appeared, from a return of country cases during two years and a half, that of 4,230 applications for protection, only fifty were those of non-traders. Had it not been for the existence of the Protection Acts, all those humble traders would have been compelled to go to prison in order to obtain the benefit of the Insolvent Act, or they must have had their affairs arranged by the expensive process of the Bankruptcy Court. Having thus explained to their Lordships the position in which the law of insolvency now stood, he should proceed to introduce to their notice the state of the existing law with respect to the administration of insolvent estates in the Court of Bankruptcy, which might be considered to have assumed its present form of jurisdiction in the year 1831. Previous to that period the estates of a bankrupt were administered in London by seventy Commissioners, composed of barristers and solicitors, whose names were distributed over several lists, and before any one of which it was at the option of the person who had the conduct of the Commission to choose the Commissioner to whom he desired the case to be submitted. By the Act of 1831, however, those seventy Commissioners in London were reduced to six, which constituted at present the maximum, number in the metropolis. A Court of Re-
    122
    view was also established under the operation of the Act as a Court of Appeal, from which tribunal, however, a right of appeal lay to the Lord Chancellor, and under certain circumstances to the House of Lords, without the necessity of submitting the case to the Court of Chancery in the first instance. With respect to the country Commissioners, he might state that it was enacted that they should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor upon the nomination of the Judges of the different Circuits, and in 1842 there were 700 of those Commissioners, who presided over 140 district Courts. He might further state that the Court of Appeal had, after a short trial, been found to be useless; that it had in consequence been abolished; that its jurisdiction had at first been transferred to a Vice Chancellor, and eventually to the Lord Justices, and the Lord Chancellor, who now, sitting either together or separately, constituted the Court of Appeal in Bankruptcy. In the year 1840 a Royal Commission had been appointed to inquire into the state of the bankrupt law, and to suggest the introduction of such amendments into it as they might deem to be necessary. That Commission issued a very elaborate Report, in which they recommended, among other things, that the country Commissioners should be reduced in number, a recommendation which was acted upon, their number having in 1842 been diminished to a maximum number of twelve. The Report contained various other recommendations also, some only of which were adopted. In 1849, however, the whole of the bankrupt law had been reviewed, and all its provisions had been consolidated in one Act, which comprised the existing code upon the subject. That was done under the sanction of a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, and he thought he could not give a better illustration of the difficulty and delicacy of dealing with this subject than by stating that this measure, framed with so much care, and which had received so much of their Lordships' attention, worked so little to the satisfaction of the community, that within four years afterwards, in 1853, another Royal Commission was issued to inquire into and report upon the amendments that might be thought necessary in the Law of Bankruptcy, and to ascertain whether or not it stood in need of amendment. At the head of that Commission was his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home De-

    123
    partment, and from them had emanated a Report containing various recommendations as to alterations in the system as it stood, which they thought it desirable to have introduced. Of those recommendations, however, the greater number had been completely neglected. If he might venture to say so, he believed that this unwillingness to alter the Law of 1849 arose from the premature consolidation which it effected. The whole system was felt to be so entire and complete that men were afraid to touch any part of it lest the whole should come down. If the Legislature had proceeded in a more cautious manner—if they had introduced only such amendments as appeared to them to be necessary, and then, after allowing time to see their working, had brought them all into one consolidated Act, he thought they would have acted much more wisely; but although the Legislature had been stationary in reference to the question, the mind of the public out of doors had been by no means inactive. Meeting after meeting to take the subject into consideration had been held throughout the country. Numerous petitions with regard to it had been presented to that House. A central meeting of delegates from all the commercial towns had assembled in London, and the suggestions which were made and the views which were propounded on those several occasions had enabled Her Majesty's Ministers at last to form some idea of what was the nature of the requirements of the commercial community in connection with the question. Those requirements they had endeavoured to meet so far as they considered them to be just, reasonable, and at the same time practicable. Now, the first point which seemed to have engrossed the attention of those among the public who had directed their attention to the subject was the existence of two distinct and independent tribunals for the administration of insolvent estates, and there had been very strong recommendations made as to the propriety of placing the two Courts—of Bankruptcy and of Insolvency—under the operation of one system. As early as 1840 the Commission to which he had already adverted had given expression to their opinion on the matter in their very able Report in the following terms:—They said—
    "It appears to us that to unite the jurisdiction on matters of bankruptcy and insolvency would, upon principle, tend much to benefit the public; but this benefit cannot, we think, be obtained
    124
    without placing all insolvent estates under the administration of one uniform system of law. We can perceive no good reason why the estate of one debtor who is unable to pay his debts in full should be administered in a different manner from that of another debtor under the same disability. All such estates should, in our opinion, be administered in some one mode which is best adapted to secure the interests of creditors, by the examination of the debtor's accounts, and the discovery and distribution of his property."
    They then proceeded to say—
    "The system of the bankrupt law with the alterations and further remedies, which we have humbly suggested to your Majesty, is well adapted to those purposes, but so long as debtors having no assets are liable to be imprisoned—and many thousands are imprisoned every year—it is practically impossible to administer such cases under a law requiring rigorous investigation of accounts, regular proof of debts, with audits, and other proceedings."
    Their Lordships would bear in mind that the Report from which he had just quoted had been issued prior to the passing of the Protection Acts, so that the only mode of obtaining the benefit of the Insolvent Act was by the debtor's first going to prison. But from the Report of the Commissioners it appears they were of opinion that, in order to accomplish the object which they had in view of uniting the Insolvent and Bankruptcy Courts, it would be necessary to abolish, or, at all events, to modify in a very considerable degree, the law of imprisonment for debt. They had accordingly addressed themselves to that point also, and stated, in words which were precisely the same as those which had been used by the Common Law Commissioners in 1832, in reference to arrests on mesne process, that—
    "The principle of the present law is to do justice by the use of the strong and compulsory means of arrest and imprisonment, applied indiscriminately. The system has been found to be productive of so much hardship and injustice that it was at last deemed necessary to mitigate its consequences by the enactment of the insolvent law. The joint operation of the two opposite processes, for the imprisonment and enlargement of debtors, has been productive of so much evil as to tend to the suspicion which seems to be fully verified by inquiry, that the mischief ought to be obviated, not by provisions designed for the mere mitigation of its consequences, but by removing its cause; that is, by limiting the power of imprisonment itself, and confining it to cases where it is warranted on the plain and just principle of preventing the debtor from fraudulently absconding, or removing his property beyond the reach of justice, or for the punishment of actual fraud, or compelling the debtor after judgment either to pay the debt or to make a cession of his property for the benefit of his creditors. Beyond this, we believe that the practice of imprisonment for debt

    125
    is neither warranted in principle nor beneficial in practice, and that, on the contrary, while the exercise of the present unlimited power and imprisonment is productive of pecuniary loss, injury, and distress to creditors as well as to debtors, it also occasions great moral evils in its tendency to subdue that proper degree of pride and honest feeling which is inconsistent with the degradation of imprisonment in a gaol, and to level the distinction between guilt and misfortune."
    With the principles which were enunciated in that portion of the Report of the Commissioners he entirely concurred, and, acting upon the suggestion there made, and in order to clear the way for legislation, their Lordships would find that the Government measure set out with various clauses which were intended to restrain, but not wholly to abolish, imprisonment on final process. For these different proposals he was happy to think that he had the sanction not only of the Commissioners upon these two occasions, but also of many members of their Lordships' House. In 1844 the late Lord Cottenham introduced a Bill for abolishing imprisonment for debt, and upon that occasion his noble and learned Friend Lord Lyndhurst adverted very strongly indeed to what he considered the absurdity of the existing division between the two Courts for administering the law of debtor and creditor, and to the injustice also of that provision by which the after-acquired property of an insolvent debtor was made liable to his creditors. In addition to the authority of Lord Lyndhurst and of Lord Cottenham he had that of the late Lord Denman, and of two noble and learned Friends whom he now saw present, one of whom (Lord Brougham) last Session introduced a Bill for the very purpose of abolishing imprisonment for debt. Thus fortified, he would call their Lordships' attention to the clauses with which this measure set out, and by which imprisonment upon final process was restrained. In future it was only to be permitted—first, in cases where there was an apprehension of the debtor's absconding, which their Lordships were probably aware was provided for at present under the 1st and 2nd of Victoria, and also under the Absconding Debtor's Arrest Act of 1851; secondly, where the debt had been fraudulently incurred or there had been a vexatious defence; thirdly, where the debt was due in respect of damages which had been recovered in any action of tort. In all other cases no imprisonment for debt would be permitted. Having thus cleared the way, it would be
    126
    seen that the Insolvent Debtor's Court, being deprived of the greater part of its functions, no longer continued to be essential. He was bound, however, to say, that long as imprisonment for debt has existed, and that Court has been intrusted with the duty of discharging debtors who were entitled to their discharge, it was quite impossible that the law could have been better administered than it has been by the present Commissioners. The Government measure proposed to establish one Court only, which was to be called the Court of Insolvency; but in abolishing the Insolvent Court they proposed not to dispense immediately with the Insolvent Commissioners. It was thought that those gentlemen might be called into active service, and might be usefully employed under the new system; and, in this way, not only would the advantage of their services and experience be secured, but the extent of the permanent working staff which would be requisite would be ascertained. One Court only being thus established for the purpose of administering one uniform law of debtor and creditor, there then arose a question of considerable interest and importance—namely, whether it was possible any longer to keep up the distinction between the trader and the non-trader. Their Lordships were probably aware that a great demand had been made for the total abolition of this distinction, and upon careful consideration the Government felt disposed to yield to that demand to a very considerable extent, though they thought—and he apprehended that their Lordships would agree with him—that it would be impossible to do so entirely. For instance, with regard to acts of insolvency, some were peculiar to persons in business, and could hardly be applied to the case of non-traders. The Government proposed, therefore, that upon these three grounds alone should the non-trader either have the benefit of the Act or be exposed to its provisions:—first, where he himself applied for the benefit of the Act, when his property might be distributed among his creditors; secondly, where he left the country for the purpose of defeating or delaying his creditors, or where being abroad, he remained there with the same object; and thirdly, where, a judgment having been obtained against him by a creditor, upon a summons issued he failed to satisfy that judgment, or to enter into some arrangement for that purpose. In these three cases only would the law be applicable to non-traders.

    127
    The last of these cases, the summons of a judgment creditor, had been introduced by analogy to a trader debtor summons. Under the existing law a creditor might go before a Commissioner of Bankruptcy, make an affidavit of his debts, procure a summons against the debtor, and the latter, if he disputed the debt, must arrange for having the case tried; or, if he admitted it, and made no arrangement for discharging it, this constituted an act of bankruptcy. The Government thought it would be a strong measure to introduce what would be equivalent to a trade-debtor summons against a non-trader, and believed they should sufficiently comply with the fair and just demands of creditors by exposing non-traders to the consequences of not satisfying debts to the extent he had described, where these debts had become judgment debts and the debtor was not prepared to make any arrangement. In bringing non-trading debtors within the operation of this Act, there had been considerable apprehension, which the Government had been obliged to meet, lest where a debtor was the owner of an estate tail in remainder a vindictive creditor should be disposed to sacrifice the interests both of the debtor and the other creditors by anticipating the period at which it would become available and during the existence of the prior estate. It was therefore thought desirable by the 95th clause to prevent a creditor from selling an estate tail in remainder without the consent of the debtor during the existence of the prior estate, but leaving the debt a charge upon the estate when it fell into possession, although the debtor might then have obtained an order for his discharge. There was another provision which would probably excite some discussion, and to which he begged attention. There was, as he had already explained, a distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency in respect to the after-acquired property of debtors. Bankruptcy set a man free, and allowed him the enjoyment of all the property acquired by him after he had obtained his certificate, whereas under the Insolvency Act an insolvent executed a warrant of attorney before his discharge, under which execution might issue against any property subsequently acquired by him. This distinction had been considered an unjust one. He had mentioned that his noble and learned Friend Lord Lyndhurst had condemned the principle and expressed himself strongly on this subject in 1844, and
    128
    the Commissioners in their Report in 1840 also adverted to it in this way:—
    "The future liability of all insolvent debtors is, in our opinion, a most unjust and impolitic law. The Insolvent Law, after interrupting a man in his business, taking all his property, imprisoning him until his place or business is occupied, and then turning him out destitute, a proclaimed insolvent and unworthy of trust, nevertheless expects him at some future time to acquire property which he is to give up for distribution among his creditors. The practical result is that he makes no exertion beyond supplying his daily wants, and too frequently becomes a permanently degraded character, his family are brought up ill—hence society loses, and the creditors do not gain."
    It might be said that the observations made applied to the case of traders, and not to non-traders. Traders being exposed to all the hazards and vicissitudes of trading, it was reasonable to expect that they should have the benefit, after having given up all their property, of being protected in respect to their after-acquired property. When they considered the practical effect of the insolvent law, as he had already explained it, the objection was very much weakened, if not altogether destroyed, because they would find the law with regard to after-acquired property applied to traders in the most humble condition of life, and scarcely at all to non-traders. As his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) reminded him, in order to obtain execution against after-acquired property, an application must be made; and it was a practice of the Court never to touch the property acquired by a man's own industry after his discharge; and with respect to property which might have come to him by bequest, or in a fortuitous manner, it was the custom only to take one-third for the purpose of applying it to his creditors; and their Lordships must be aware that it was easy to defeat the law even to this extent, by means of secret trusts for the benefit of the insolvent, or—what was disadvantageous to the insolvent—by not giving him property which, but for this unjust law, he would probably have received. He put it, therefore, to their Lordships, whether, having now for the first time brought non-traders under the compulsory powers of this Act, by which arrangement they might be forced to distribute the whole of their property among their creditors—having stripped and turned them naked out of the Court, it would not be just and reasonable to give them the same benefit which was given to bankrupts, and allow them from the time of obtaining the order of dis-

    129
    charge, to be free men—to be safe from the claims of their previous creditors, and enabled to pursue an independent course with respect to the acquisition of new property. He had thus introduced to their Lordships the mode in which it was proposed, first of all, to constitute the Court, and next the objects which administration by that Court would embrace. And now he would turn their attention for a short time to what was proposed by the Government with respect to the proceedings in regard to the administration of debtors' estates. Their Lordships were aware that many petitions had been presented to both Houses of Parliament on this subject. The great demand which the commercial community had uniformly made was to obtain a greater control over the proceedings when the affairs of their creditors were administered in the Bankruptcy Court, and in the petition which he had had the honour of presenting last Session from 4,000 bankers and merchants in the City of London this was not only particularly prayed for, but greater facilities were also desired for liquidating the affairs of debtors under proper administration. The Government have considered that the demand made with respect to the property of creditors being allowed to interpose in the management of these affairs passing through the Court is a reasonable and just one, and he would explain the mode in which it was proposed to meet that object. Their Lordships would find clauses in the Bill providing that at the first meeting of creditors for the choice of assignees, the majority in value of them might, if they chose, agree to dispense with the official assignee altogether, and allow the assignee of their choice to have the management and control of the affairs of the bankrupt or insolvent in the course of liquidation; but it had been thought that the creditors might possibly require the experience of an official assignee, and therefore they would be enabled to select that officer as their trustee, if they deemed it necessary. When, however, that officer was so selected, he became to all intents and purposes the trustee of the creditors, and lost his character as official assignee. There was another very important provision—namely, that though proceedings might have commenced in insolvency, and the Insolvent Debtors Court obtained posession of the affairs of the insolvent, yet if the creditors and debtor, in tine course of the investigation, considered that it would
    130
    be to their advantage that the affair of the debtor should be liquidated by arrangement, they might take the business away from the Insolvent Debtors Court, and convert it into a private arrangement. In accordance, also, with the wishes expressed in the petitions he had referred to, there were clauses which it was thought would facilitate the liquidation of the affairs of insolvents, under the control of the Court, but with an inspector appointed by the creditors, Their Lordships would also find some important clauses with respect to private arrangement by deed. He would not detain the House, by now explaining the nature of those various provisions, which were matters of entire detail. Therefore he would pass to the very important question respecting the certificate. Under the existing law there was a classification of certificates. There were first, second, and third-class certificates, which the Commissioners were empowered to issue according to their notions of the merits or demerits of the bankrupts. There had been no more fruitful source of uncertainty, expense, and litigation than this mode of classifying certificates with which the Commissioners were armed. Naturally enough, the Commissioners took various views, according to the different dispositions of their minds, as to what was delinquency in these matters, and the issuing of these certificates of the first, second, or third class was extremely capricious, and it was difficult to calculate what was to be expected, except from the temper and disposition of each particular Commissioner. The Commisioners had also the power to refuse certificates altogether, so that a man in that case would remain uncertificated for the remainder of his life. In framing the present Bill it was not deemed desirable, expedient, or just that a man should remain unprotected and undischarged for the whole period of his existence, without the opportunity of acquiring any after-property, and with the danger, at the same time, to which other persons were exposed who, not aware of the man's position, might deal with him and entail on themselves the consequences of dealing with an uncertificated bankrupt. According to the Bill no person would ultimately be deprived of his certificate. It was deemed right that on certain grounds the Commissioner should have the power of suspending the certificate, but, inasmuch as under the existing law when protection was denied

    131
    to a debtor he could only be imprisoned for twelve months, so it was thought that the suspension of the certificate should not be allowed for a longer period than two years. The suspension of the certificate would apply to those cases which were peculiar offences under the bankrupt law, but not to those very important cases which rose to the class of misdemeanours. For instance, the circumstance of a debtor not keeping his books properly was a very serious impediment to the administration of the estate, but still it would be harsh and severe to characterize such matters as offences, and make them liable to extreme punishment. They would, he proposed, in future be visited by a temporary suspension of the certificate—for two years as the maximum. With regard to those real offences which had always been regarded as such and treated as misdemeanours, he was surprised to find that there was a very general demand among the commercial community for a very summary administration of the law in respect to them. They thought that the Commissioners should be intrusted with summary jurisdiction, enabling them to send persons committing those offences to the House of Correction, subject, also, to hard labour, for a period of no less than three years. With great deference he must say that, though that might be an excellent remedy to place in the hands of creditors desirous of gratifying feelings excited by disappointment at not receiving their debts, he would never consent to any man being subject to an imprisonment of that severe kind unless first tried by one of the superior Courts and by a jury. Therefore he had refused to give way to that demand, and their Lordships would find included in the class of offences called misdemeanours (to be tried in a regular manner and punished only after conviction), those offences, which had been regarded as real offences on the part of a bankrupt. He would now turn from the proceedings of the Court to the officers of the Court, and first of all he would direct the attention of their Lordships to the position of the official assignee. There had been great difficulty in determining how the official assignees were to be remunerated. At present they were paid by fees, but the amount of business which they had to transact was so variable and uncertain that in some years they had very little, while in others their emoluments rose to an enormous sum, and he believed that, in the result, it was found that since
    132
    the date of their appointment their incomes had averaged front about 1,000 l. to 1,200 1. a year. The inequality between them, however, was very great, especially in the country, where their emoluments varied in some instances from 500 1. to 2,000 1. per annum. Various suggestions had been made upon this subject. On the one hand, it had been said that payment by salary would at least be certain and invariable; but, on the other, it had been urged that it would destroy a needed stimulus to exertion in getting in the effects of a bankrupt. Some parties had suggested a compounding of the two modes of provision, paying them partly by salary and partly by fees. For his own part, he thought the matter was hardly ripe at present for decision, because it was impossible to say what would be the extent of the business which the new Court would have to transact. If great facilities were given to liquidation, either by private arrangement or under the sanction of the Court, that would of course diminish what was now called bankruptcy, but what would then be called insolvency business, and therefore it was impossible to say what would be the amount of duty performed by an official assignee. But he proposed to introduce a clause into the Bill by which certain persons would be empowered to make general orders, regulating and equalizing the emoluments of official assignees, to fix a maximum and minimum, and from time to time to introduce such alterations as circumstances might seem to warrant. He did not know that any better arrangement than that, considering the uncertain and precarious character of the measure which he proposed, could be adopted at present. He would now take the case of another officer of the Court—most improperly so called—the broker. Up to 1843, the business of taking an inventory of a bankrupt's estate was the duty of the messenger who was in possession of the estate; but in that year it was supposed that it would be convenient, and would diminish the expense, if a broker were appointed to do this duty. The result had disappointed the expectations of those who introduced the alteration, for the expense had been very considerably increased, because the emoluments of the messenger had not been at all reduced, and we had had in addition the expense incurred by the broker, He proposed to do away entirely with the broker, who was improperly called an officer of the Court; he was a person

    133
    who was only casually employed, not entitled to compensation, and who might therefore be removed without difficulty. He had one word to say with respect to the messengers. He had been told, to his surprise, that some of these persons actually received as much as from £1,500 to £2,000 a year. That very morning a gentleman, practically acquainted with the subject, had assured him that such was the case, and had pointed to one messenger who had £1,500 a year, and £500 in addition, for performing a duty which properly belonged to his office. So that these persons, occupying a subordinate official position, were actually receiving more than the country Commissioners obtained. He thought something should be done with regard to them, though what that something should be must be left for future consideration. He had abstained, as their Lordships must have observed, from entering into minute and particular details of the mode in which the various provisions of this important measure were proposed to be carried out. He had thought that he should better discharge his duty, and that it would be more satisfactory to their Lordships, if he were to explain what were the leading features and characteristics of the Bill, leaving the details to be discussed in Committee. He could not, however, quit the subject without making one or two further observations. In the first place, he would venture to call the attention of their Lordships to the language and style of this measure. Those who were accustomed to the verbose and laboured character of the provisions of modern Acts of Parliament, would perhaps at first be startled, but certainly he thought in the end would be pleased, at the simple, short, and concise style in which the provisions of the Bill were expressed, rendering them perfectly intelligible, even to those who were not acquainted with the law. There was another circumstance to which he earnestly desired to direct attention, although some might, perhaps, regard it as a defect. Their Lordships would observe that this was a Bill strictly and properly for the amendment of the law of debtor and creditor, and that he had not attempted to consolidate the whole of the bankruptcy law into one system. That subject was most carefully and deliberately considered before the Government came to the conclusion that it was desirable, first of all, where such large amendments were proposed to be introduced, to see whether they would
    134
    or would not be adopted by Parliament, before they ventured to amalgamate the whole law into one consolidating measure. There was a disadvantage, as it appeared to him, in introducing into the same Bill large amendments of the law with consolidation. On the one hand, there was the extreme difficulty of understanding what part was new and what old; and, on the other, if the whole of the law, including that which was considered satisfactory, and which there was no desire manifested to change, were brought under discussion, it would be impossible that that discussion could be carried on with any convenience or advantage, unless the clearest possible distinction were maintained between that which existed and was intended to be unalterable, and that which was to be viewed as an amendment and an amendment only. He had, therefore, thought it proper, where such large alterations of the law were proposed, not to consider that they were so certain to be adopted, or that they would recommend themselves so entirely to the judgment of Parliament, that he might regard the matter as already decided, and proceed at once to a consolidation of the whole law. He had thought it would be infinitely better to submit the amendments which he proposed to introduce, separate and unaffected by other provisions, to the consideration of Parliament, and he trusted their Lordships would approve the course he had adopted. But if the amendments which lie now proposed should receive the sanction of both Houses, he trusted that at no distant time either he or some more fortunate legislator might be permitted to consolidate the whole of this important code of laws, after it had undergone the requisite revision and consideration, into one entire system, which would continue to be the governing code of the commercial community for ages to come.
    The noble and learned Lord then presented a Bill to amend the Law of Debtor and Creditor, Bankruptcy, Insolvency, and Execution.
    LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he did not intend then to enter into any discussion of the very important, difficult, and extensive subject which his noble and learned Friend had opened so ably to their Lordships. It was clear that they must wait until they had an opportunity of considering the Bill in print before they could form any opinion of the merits or demerits of its provisions. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that last Session he in-

    135
    troduced a Bill for the purpose of amending the law of debtor and creditor as regarded the distinction of bankruptcy and insolvency, and that he had withdrawn it in order to allow the Government to bring forward a measure such as that which his noble and learned Friend bad now submitted. He was glad to find that some of the most important provisions of his Bill had been adopted into the Government measure, as, for example, those abolishing the distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency; for throwing both under the jurisdiction of the same Court; and placing the trader and non-trader, so far as possible, upon the same footing. He said, so far as possible, because there were certain exceptions which made it impracticable to say, however much we might desire it, that that distinction should entirely cease. In order to exemplify the difficulty of at present fully discussing the provisions of the Bill which had been introduced by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, he would call their Lordships' attention to one manifest difficulty in the way of entirely assimilating the position of traders and non-traders as to the effect of the certificate. If a trader passed well his examination and obtained his certificate, and his future-acquired property, in whatever way acquired, was to be subject to his former debts, it was a mockery to say he had obtained his certificate, that he was a free man, and that he might go and trade again if he chose; because in fact they prevented the possibility of his entering into trade again; for who would trust a man with credit, loan, or goods, when they knew that the credit, the loan, or the goods supplied, were all liable to former creditors, who might sweep away all his property the instant he attempted to re-embark in trade? But, on the other hand, it would be equally unfair to say that if a non-trader, after obtaining his certificate, succeeded to an estate of ten thousand a year, it should not be charged with his previous debts. There was this manifest distinction between the two classes; because in 99 cases out of a 100 where property was acquired by a trader, subsequently to his insolvency, it was obtained by his subsequent successful industry; but in an equal proportion of cases of non-traders it was the result, not of his own exertions, but of inheritance or accidental circumstances. Take the case, for instance, of an eldest son entitled to inherit a large amount of property in prospectu, who contracted debts which he was
    136
    unable to pay, and came to the Insolvent or Bankrupt Court and got his certificate—would it be right to say that his certificate should protect all his subsequently acquired property, including the estate which had descended to him since his certificate? He mentioned these things to show how impossible it was they could enter upon a full and satisfactory discussion of any measure on this subject without having ample time for consideration. With regard to the classification of certificates he would remind their Lordships it formed no part of his original bankrupt law of 1831; it was only introduced in the Bankruptcy Consolidation Act of 1849, at the instance and on the representation of the commercial interest, particularly of those of the City of London. Much discussion took place upon various points connected with the subject in the select Committee, when the commercial men were ably represented by his lamented Friend, the late Lord Wharncliffe, whose diligence and ability as their representative were greatly admired. The Committee differed from those most worthy and enlightened men on some very important points; for instance, when they sought to obtain the abrogation of that most wholesome Act by which arrest on mesne process had been taken away. Their Lordships refused to alter it, even under any modification which they proposed. But after the fullest consideration of their representations, they agreed to the proposition for the classifications of certificates. Several noble Lords on the Committee were of a different opinion, and in particular his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards), since his accession to their Lordships' House, had always opposed the system; and he (Lord Brougham) must confess that the practice of the learned Commissioners themselves went very greatly to show that his views were correct, though he himself was, during the inquiry, friendly to the measure. They appeared to proceed upon such different views of the subject each from the others that it was impossible to say there was one uniform law as to the award of certificates; indeed there seemed to be a different law in each Court. The subject, therefore, was one which required reconsideration; and although he was not disposed to abolish it entirely without further inquiry, he must admit that his opinion inclined in that direction. His noble and learned Friend on the woolsack had justly observed that

    137
    one of the great difficulties of dealing with this question arose from the difference of opinion which prevailed with regard to it in quarters well entitled to respect. A Conference, which was held in London in January, 1857, under his presidency, and which was attended by deputations from all the great mercantile towns and ports of the United Kingdom, showed how great was the discrepancy between the views of these several bodies. Since that, however, there had been a greater concurrence of opinion among the mercantile community, and they had come to a conclusion in favour of a measure differing from that now introduced by his noble and learned Friend, and which was shortly to be introduced into the other House of Parliament by a noble Friend and kinsman of his (Lord John Russell), who had taken charge of it in consequence of his having presided over that section of the Social Congress in 1857, to which this class of subjects had been referred. That measure differed in some important respects from the Bill of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack; but as to the abolition of the distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency and between traders and nontraders, the two measures were, he believed, in harmony. There were one or two other points to which he would advert. Great objection had been urged, and complaint made of the expense incurred under the present system—expense that was almost fatal in cases of small estates, but also excessive under large ones, but which did not at all vary according to the amount of the estate in the way in which undoubtedly it ought to vary. This unfair pressure of expense had been found to exclude many cases from the Court of Bankruptcy that otherwise would have come into it, and to drive those cases to be settled by private arrangement which, in all probability, could the expense only have been diminished, it would have been more satisfactory to have disposed of in open court. One great head of these expenses was the heavy amount of compensation still paid to officers for the loss of their places under Acts of the Legislature. This was an expense from which present bankrupt estates ought. clearly to be relieved. Then there was another subject—the payment to the official assignees; while one received between £3,000 and £4,000 a year, another perhaps received from £300 to £400. This was an unsatisfactory and anomalous state
    138
    of things, which ought to be put an end to. Some certain salary should be paid out of the fee fund, and an addition in proportion to the sums collected by the officers, the amount being fixed at a minimum and likewise at a maximum, so as not to diminish the interest of the official assignees in the getting in of the estate. In this way justice would be done both to the public and the official assignee, and a proper stimulus given to him for the due performance of his duty. This arrangement as to fees had been found to work well in the case of other functionaries and tribunals in a far higher position than that of official assignees. It was believed that very high functionaries being paid in part by fees, or having some interest in these fees, and the fees depending on the business done, their exertions were quickened by this consideration. Looking at all these questions, he considered that it would be impossible to discuss the whole subject in the present stage of the Bill, and without a fuller and more substantial knowledge of its details as well as its main provisions. There were many things brought forward by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack in which he concurred, while there were others to which he took exception, and some on which he entertained doubts. These objections might be removed, and these doubts might cease on further examination of the Bill, and therefore he would reserve the further expression of his opinions until the next stage of the Bill, by which time he would have given it his deliberate consideration.
    LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had listened with great pleasure to the exposition of the Bill of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), because he concurred in much that his noble and learned Friend proposed to do. For example, he had himself constantly urged the abolition of the distinction between traders and nontraders—between bankruptcy and insolvency—and he had always disapproved the enormous amount of fees received in many instances by inferior officers of the Courts by which the existing law was administered. He was disposed, also, to give every facility to private arrangements; and he disapproved of the distinction attempted to be made in the various degrees of merit and demerit, denoted by the classification of certificates. But he must acknowledge that he was greatly disappointed and mortified when he heard his noble and learned Friend conclude his ex-

    139
    position by saying that his Bill was meant, not to consolidate the entire law upon this subject, but to be a patch on the existing system. His noble and learned Friend looked forward to a complete consolidation of the law at some future period; but why was it to be deferred? His noble and learned Friend had the opportunity now within his grasp, and not to avail himself of it would cause great disappointment to all persons who took an interest in the amendment of the law. The existing Bankruptcy and Insolvency Acts contained between 200 and 300 sections, and as his noble and learned Friend's measure proposed to repeal or alter about 150 of them, it would be quite as easy to reconstruct while improving the law; and he hoped it was not too late for his noble and learned Friend to apply himself to the larger and more desirable work. First thoughts were often the best, and he thought the scheme proposed by his noble and learned Friend towards the conclusion of last Session was, on the whole, a better one than the present. The improvements his noble and learned Friend had suggested were certainly very considerable, and seemed to deserve the approbation of their Lordships; but still he thought, instead of amending the existing system, they should have a new code by which they might hope to place the law of debtor and creditor on something like a satisfactory footing.
    LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he would not enter into any discussion either on the merits or demerits of the measure, reserving it for future consideration. As regarded the question of consolidation or amendment, the true principle of consolidation and amendment was, that when you were consolidating, if there were no amendments except what were formal or very small, it was better to introduce the amendments and consolidation together; but when there were extensive amendments, the only businesslike and workmanlike way was to introduce the amendments, and the moment they became law then to frame a consolidated Bill and pass it into law the same Session—a course that had been successfully and satisfactorily followed out in the case of the Merchant Seamens' Act of last Session. There was much in the Bill which he entirely approved, whilst on the other hand there was a good deal as to which he entertained considerable doubt. That a young man should be able voluntarily to take the benefit of the Bankrupt Act and get off scot-free, was a thing
    140
    everybody would deplore; but whether it was an evil that must be submitted to in order to obtain great advantages was a question for further consideration. He would say no more on the present occasion, except that he thanked his noble and learned Friend for introducing the measure.
    Bill read la.
    House adjourned at Seven o'clock, until To-morrow, half-past Four o'clock.