Sitting of 10 February 1859

MINUTES
. NEW WRITS ISSUED.—For Worcester County (Eastern Division), v. Colonel Rushout, now Lord Northwick; for Hythe, v. Sir John Ramsden, bart., Chiltern Hundreds; for the West Riding of the County of York, v. Viscount Goderich, now Earl of Ripon.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Municipal Elections; County Prisons (Ireland).

NAVAL ESTIMATES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the day on which he will bring forward the Naval Estimates and
  220
  make the statement of which he had given notice?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: As at present advised, I propose to make a statement of the views of the Government on the Naval Estimates on Friday, the 25th inst.

"THE GARDEN OF THE SOUL."

  QUESTION.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, is the Garden of the Soul issued to any soldiers in the British Army by authority of the Secretary of State for War; and is that book purchased and distributed at the cost of the State?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he believed that the Garden of the Soul was the Prayer-book in use among the Roman Catholics. A certain number of copies were therefore distributed to the Roman Catholic soldiers, and it followed that a portion of this work was purchased and distributed at the cost of the State. He had made no alteration whatever in the practice of the War Office on this subject. The sum of £2,000 was voted every year for the distribution of religious books to the army, and a certain proportion of this grant was devoted to the Roman Catholic soldiers. The Vote in question appeared in the Estimates, and the hon. Gentleman could object to it when the Army Estimates were before the House, if he thought proper.

SAVINGS BANKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREERsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he intends to introduce any Bill this Session to increase the security of depositors in Savings Banks; and whether the Government propose to indemnify, in whole or in part, the depositors in the Tralee and Killarney Savings Banks for the losses they sustained by the failure of those banks.
  MR. WALPOLEreplied, that although the question was one not strictly affecting his Department, he could inform the hon. Member that the subject was at the present moment under the attention of the Irish Government.

THE TROOPSHIP "GENERAL SIMPSON."

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SMYTHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India the name of the owner or owners of the troop-

  221
  ship General Simpson, which left England for Calcutta on the 8th of August last with draughts of Her Majesty's 80th and other regiments on board, amounting to upwards of 400 men, and which reached Calcutta on the 22nd of December; whether it is true, that, although the contractor is bound to have provisions and water for 140 days on board, officers, soldiers, and crew were placed for several weeks on short allowance of both food and water, the lower tier of water tanks having been found empty; and, whether any explanation of the unusually long voyage of the General Simpson (137 days from England to Calcutta), and of the circumstances alluded to, has been given to the Indian Department?
  LORD STANLEY:—The owners of the troopship General Simpson are Messrs. Fernie, Brothers, of Liverpool. The General Simpson was engaged for the transport, from Gravesend to Calcutta of 10 officers and 402 men, being draughts for fourteen different regiments. She sailed on the 8th of August, and arrived at Calcutta on the 22nd of the following December, having been 137 days out. The owners were bound to take out provisions, stores, and water for the soldiers, as well as for the crew, for 140 days. Previous to starting the vessel was visited by the embarking officer, and he verified that the proper quantity of provisions was on board. No papers have been received at the Indian Office from Calcutta, where the final settlement of the freight is made, on the subject of this ship, and I am therefore unable to explain the reasons of this unusually long voyage. On the 7th inst. a letter was received at the India Office from the Deputy Quarter Master General containing the following report from the officer who commanded the troops on board the General Simpson:—"The troops were without porter for the last six weeks of the voyage. The provisions very good except porter. Troops placed on short rations of water—an unusually wet passage." It appears that neither the owners nor brokers of the ship have yet received intelligence beyond the following by the last homeward mail. "Simpson was just towing up the Hooghly, and had been spoken a few days before, short of water." No further explanation can be given, but under the circumstances I have thought it right to institute an inquiry.

  MARINE ENGINES.—QUESTION.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if any ten-
  222
  ders have been recently given out for Marine Engines; and, if so, whether the Marine Engineers of the river Clyde have been asked to tender?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that tenders for Marine Engines had been lately called for to a large amount; that a larger number of manufacturers than usual had been invited to tender; and that among them, was one manufacturing firm upon the Clyde—the Messrs. Napiers and Co.

  THE SUGAR DUTIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether there is any foundation for the report in The Times, that he is about to propose an alteration in the sugar duties?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:—I have observed the statement in the city article of The Times to which the hon. Gentleman refers—namely, that it is in my contemplation to deal with the sugar duties, and to establish an equal duty upon all sugars. I have only to say at present that there is not the slightest foundation for the statement.

COUNTY PRISONS (IRELAND).

  LEAVE.
  LORD NAASsaid, that the Acts relating to Irish county prisons were fourteen in number, and that considerable difficulty having arisen in their interpretation the consolidation of these statutes was much needed. He proposed to repeal all those Acts and re-enact the law in one concise code, so that all the functionaries of these establishments might be able to see at a glance what their powers and duties were. In addition to this, there were some changes urgently required, to which he wished to draw attention. At present the Board of Superintendence was appointed by the grand jury twice in every year. He proposed that the appointment should be made only once a year—at the spring assizes, when the greatest number of grand jurors attended, and when the subject could be more fully considered. He proposed to make it mandatory on the Board of Superintendence to appoint a deputy-governor, a schoolmaster, and a schoolmistress, in addition to the present gaol officers, and to give power to the Board to fix the salaries of all the officers. He proposed that the Board of Superintendence should lay before the grand jury an estimate of the sum necessary for defraying the ex-

  223
  penses of the gaol for the ensuing year, and that the estimate so submitted should be noted by the jury as an imperative presentment. Great inconvenience was now felt with regard to the mode of procedure as to the salaries of the officers of gaols. According to the present law they could not be paid as their salaries became due, unless there happened to be a balance in the treasurer's hands of the sums left over from the last levy, so that they had often to wait a considerable time before they were paid. He thought they ought not to be in a different position from that of other public officers, but should receive their salaries half-yearly or quarterly, as they became due. Although the state of the Irish gaols was generally very good, and although there were as good county gaols in Ireland as in any other part of the Queen's dominions, still there were a few lamentable exceptions to that state of things. The establishment at Waterford was deficient in almost every requisite for the proper conduct of a gaol. There was little accommodation, no provision for instruction, and even a deficient supply of water. The gaol of the city of Kilkenny was remarked upon by the Inspector General in his last Report as equally deficient, and such was its state of over-crowding and want of accommodation that only a fortnight ago, as Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, he was obliged to make an order for the removal of prisoners to the county gaol. He proposed in this Bill to lay down all the requisites necessary to the proper conduct of a prison, and to give power to the Lord Lieutenant to declare, after notice, that unless those requisites were fulfilled the prison complained of should not be a legal place of detention for the county or city to which it belonged. In a subsequent clause the Lord Lieutenant had power to order the grand jury to provide accommodation in such cases, and there was further power that, in the event of the grand jury refusing, the Lord Lieutenant should appoint Commissioners to provide proper accommodation. While the condition of the county gaols was generally very good, the condition of the bridewells in Ireland was as bad as could possibly be, and he referred the House for proof of that statement to the last Report of the Inspector General on prisons. The bride-wells were 113 in number. In not less than fifty-three there was no supply of water; all of them were small, ill-ventilated, dirty; no means of classification ex-
  224
  isted in any, and many of them were totally unfit for the detention of prisoners. It was contrary to law confine prisoners in them after trial, but they were frequently detained in them a considerable period before trial. It was a barbarous thing to confine prisoners in such horrible places as many of the bridewells of Ireland were, and he proposed to adopt somewhat the same plan as he had stated with regard to gaols; namely, to define certain requisites and to give power to the Lord Lieutenant to close these bridewells if the provisions of the law were not fulfilled. These were the principal provisions of the Bill. It had been prepared with great labour and pains, and be hoped it would receive the support of the House. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to introduce a Bill for consolidating and amending the laws relating to county prisons in Ireland.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he did not rise to offer any objection to the introduction of the Bill. At the same time he must say that it appeared to him to contain a most objectionable principle throughout; namely, that it gave the Executive Government a power of taxation for the whole of the year by the election of the Board of Superintendence at the spring assizes. That would render it incumbent on the grand jury to levy the expenditure for the twelvemonth instead of, as now, for the half-year. He also objected to the powers given to the Lord Lieutenant to compel presentments and to tax the counties ad libitum. Such an objectionable doctrine had never been submitted to in England, and he hoped it would never be permitted in Ireland. The prisons up to the present time had been managed by efficient officers, and he saw no reason to change the system of payment. On the whole, while he thought the consolidation of the laws on this subject would be an advantage, he hoped that time would be given for the due consideration of the details of the Bill, which were extremely important.
  LORD NAASsaid, that he proposed to lay down distinctly in his Bill those requisites which the House would see were absolutely necessary. The same power they now possessed would be left to the grand jury for carrying out necessary orders. It would only be in the case of the grand jury refusing to comply, not with the will of the Lord Lieutenant, but with the law of the land, that the Lord Lieutenant would be empowered to step in. He believed that if any bon. Gentleman would read that part

  225
  of the Inspectors of Prisons Report which referred to the present condition of the bridewells he would not come to the conclusion that it was asking too much, that the Government should be invested with this power. He did not apprehend that this measure would cause additional taxation, but believed that the ratepayers would find it, in the end, conducive to economy.
  Leave given.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord NAAS and Mr. WALPOLE.
  Bill presented and read 1o.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. CROSSsaid, he ruse for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Municipal Elections. So long as bribery and corruption prevailed at Municipal elections it was vain to expect purity of procedure at Parliamentary elections. The Municipal Corporations Act had certainly made provisions fur the prevention of corruption at the elections, but practically that Act had remained a dead letter, because the penalties were too severe, and the mode of recovering them too expensive. He, therefore, proposed by this Bill to make the penalties light, and the mode of recovering them summary. It might be said that another measure would shortly come before the House, dealing with the subject both of Municipal and Parliamentary Elections; but it might be long before the Bill would be introduced, and, after all, its provisions might not be materially different from those he proposed. There were other provisions for the saving of expense in the erection of polling booths, by requiring that notice should be given of the names of all candidates to be nominated before the election, so that there would be no need to erect polling places if there was to be no contest; also provision fur saving of expense in the drawing up of the burgess list, and for dividing those boroughs into wards which were not already divided. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to introduce the Bill.
  MR. GILPINseconded the Motion.
  SIR G. PECHELLsaid, there were many Amendments which might he introduced into the Bill, such as lowering the qualification of three years' residence to One year or nine months, prohibiting expenditure in the conveyance of voters to the poll, and others, which would make it much more valuable.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he hailed with
  226
  satisfaction any attempts to improve the law relating to Municipal elections, but he would suggest to the hon. Member that the only real mode of remedying the evils connected with them was to take the vote by ballot. That would afford a good test of the working of the ballot in Parliamentary elections.
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, he hoped that, as the Bill was a very important one, time would be given to consider it before the second reading.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought there was one defect in the Bill as brought forward. He thought the Bill might go a little further, and take in municipal corporations, where there was a deal of jobbery. Members of town councils were prohibited from supplying articles to the corporation, but this was systematically broken through. The penalty being recoverable in the superior courts, it was too cumbrous to be put in frequent operation. If the penalty were lowered, it would be much more effective, He (Mr. Griffith) would suggest to the hon. Gentleman to alter his Bill so as to take that in.
  MR. CROSSsaid, he proposed to move the second reading that day fortnight.
  Leave given.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr CROSS, Mr. GILPIN, and Mr. COLLINS.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.

STATUTE LAW COMMISSION.

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he rose to move for a Return relating to the Statute Law Commission, as he thought it was absolutely necessary that a detailed account should be given of the very large sums of money expended by that Commission. When the Commission was first appointed, Parliament voted large sums every year to defray its expenses; but of late, in addition to the annual Votes, large stuns were drawn from the Civil Contingencies—a most unconstitutional proceeding. Thus an unpopular and unsatisfactory Commission drew money without the sanction of Parliament. The Commission had already sat six or seven years, and, so far as he could judge, had actually done nothing whatever, He wished to know what course Her Majesty's Government intended to pursue with regard to the Commission, and also with regard to the Consolidation Bills which had been so long promised. He regretted that he did not see the hon. and learned Attorney General in his place; but some member of

  227
  Her Majesty's Government would perhaps answer his question. Last Session the notice paper was continually blocked up from week to week, and at last from day to day, with no less than nine Consolidation Bills, proposed to be brought in by the hon. and learned Gentleman. This year the hon. and learned Gentleman had changed his plan. He had given notice of only one Consolidation Bill. Was that an indication that the Bills of last Session were not fit to be introduced at all? He had very little faith in the Commission producing Consolidation Bills that would become law. It seemed to have contaminated even the Attorney General, for two years ago he made a very long speech on asking for leave to introduce two Consolidation Bills; but those Bills, in spite of repeated promises, were never introduced, frequently as he (Mr. Locke King) had urged him to bring them in. He now asked if the Government was in earnest about the consolidation of the Statute Law, and when the long-promised Bills would be introduced?
  MR. HADFIELD,in seconding the Motion, said he thought it was not so much of the expense as of the unproductiveness of this Commission that the country complained. There was nothing whatever to show for all the money that had been expended. It was discreditable to the country that the revision and consolidation of its laws had been so long delayed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That there be laid before this House, a Return showing the total sum which has been voted for the Statute Law Board and Statute Law Commission, from its commencement to the present time.
  "Accounts, in detail, showing how that amount has been expended.
  "Of the Sums which have been paid to Drafts. men out of Contingencies for drawing Consolidation Bills.
  "Return of the tames of Draftsmen employed to prepare Consolidation Bills, and the Fees paid, or to be paid, to each Draftsman.
  "And, Copy of the Minutes and Proceedings of the Statute Law Commission (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 78, Session, 1855)."
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have no objection to this Return, except as to the form of it. Part of the papers for which the hon. Member for East Surrey moves has been already printed by order of the House, and therefore, if he will give me leave, I will put in the Speaker's hands a modification of his Motion, with the view of preventing unnecessary expense. The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions—one with reference
  228
  to the Commission, and the other with reference to Consolidation Bills relating to the criminal law. Now, with reference to the Commission, I think, notwithstanding the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, (Mr. Hadfield) that a vast deal of very useful information has been furnished by the Commission, and that Parliament might safely and wisely act upon that information in the future. But, considering the difficulty of carrying on the Commission in the form in which it has been carried on, and the expense occasioned by Consolidation Bills, I think it will be better to act upon the information already afforded by the Commission before we put the country to any further expense in employing them to obtain further information. Her Majesty's Government are therefore considering whether the labours of the Commission may not be stopped for a time. With regard to the other question—namely, the consolidation of the criminal law, I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that the series of Bills which are shortly to be introduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for England will not merely consolidate but most carefully revise the English and likewise the Irish statutes relating to the criminal law. The alterations which are going to be made by that series of Bills (which will be submitted to the House to-morrow se'nnight) will, I believe, be an immense improvement of the statute law. Of course I can hardly be expected, nor indeed ought I, to state what those improvements are; but I hope the hon. Gentleman will be in his place, because I think he will be satisfied that, in point of fact, Her Majesty's Government will put the statute law of the country into a much better shape than it has hitherto been. I believe I have answered the only question which the hon. Gentleman put to me with reference to the Commission. I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield somewhat exaggerated the public opinion as to the Commission when he said that the public complained that the Commission had been of no advantage to the country.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he wished to ask if the form in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give the return would show the total expense of the Commission?
  MR. WALPOLE: Yes, the first order will show the total sum.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEobserved that the first part was printed so far hack as 1857, and the sole object in giving the return in the form proposed by his

  229
  right hon. Friend was to save the expense and trouble of reprinting.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.
  Accounts ordered,—
  "Showing the total sum which has been voted for the Statute Law Board and Statute Law Commission from its commencement to the present time.
  "Showing how that amount has been expended.
  "Of the Sums which have been paid to Draftsmen out of Civil Contingencies for drawing Consolidation Bills (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 214, of Session 2, 1857).
  "Return of the Names of the Draftsmen employed to prepare Consolidation Bills and the Fees paid or to be paid to each Draftsman.
  "And Copy of the Minutes and Proceedings of the Statute Law Commission, in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 78, of Session, 1855."

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND).

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  MR. GREERsaid, he wished to move for a Return of a copy of a judgment of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, delivered on the 4th of November last, in the case of the Rev. Dr. O'Fay against Major Burke, on a petition for specific performance of an agreement for a lease; and for a copy of the judgment of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Justice of Appeal, confirming the Master of the Rolls' decree.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That there he laid before the house, a Copy of the Judgment of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, delivered on the 4th November last, in the case of Rev. Dr. O'Fay against Major Burke, on a Petition for a specific performance of an agreement for a lease.
  LORD NAASsaid, he believed thsre was no official record kept of the words used by the Judges of those Courts in giving their decisions, and therefore no means of giving the Return moved by the hon. Gentleman. But, in reference to the case itself, he had that morning received two letters, which he wished to make public as soon as possible, in justice to an absent man. The case between the Rev. Dr. O'Fay and Major Burke had attracted a good deal of attention, and the action was brought by a Roman Catholic clergyman against Major Burke, for the purpose of endeavouring to enforce an alleged agreement for a lease, said to have been made between the plaintiff and the father of Major Burke. It was tried before the Assistant Barrister, who decided in favour of the defendant. An appeal was then brought before the Master of the Rolls, and subsequently to the Court of Appeal, by both of which Courts the decision below
  230
  was confirmed. In order to show the opinion entertained by the Lord Chancellor on the case, I will read to the House an extract from his judgment, in which his Lordship made use of the following remarkable observations:—
  "It was to be regretted that before the notice to quit was served, the case was not fairly submitted to Major Burke, who, it did not appear, was made aware before the civil bill proceedings of his father's letter or the other correspondence. He (the Lord Chancellor) could not believe, if the matter had been fairly laid before Major Burke, a British officer and a gentleman, that he would be indifferent to the considerations of good faith and honourable feeling. He thought the opportunity still existed for an amicable arrangement, and he hoped he was not overstepping his duty in suggesting to Major Burke that, under the circumstances, he would best maintain the character of a British officer, the cause of justice, and also the rights of property, by making such an arrangement as to the possession of the farm as would give the petitioner the benefit of the expenditure he had honestly made, with the reasonable expectation of being sufficiently secured. However, in all cases where parties dealt solely on good faith, which it was most desirable should be observed between landlord and tenant, a Court of Equity could not interpose."
  In consequence of these observations, and of representations made to Major Burke by his friends, that gallant officer gave instructions to his solicitor to write to the reverend gentleman, offering to make to him every reparation in his power. The following letter, which he (Lord Naas) would read, in justice to Major Burke, was forwarded by his solicitor to Dr. O'Fay:—
  "65, Upper Gardiner Street, Dublin, Feb. 2, 1859.
  "'O'FAY v. BURKE.'
  "Rev. Sir—The decision of the Court of Appeal in the cause petition instituted by you against Major Burke having been communicated to him, I am authorized to inform you that it is not his intention to act thereon, or to disturb you in the possession of the lands in question.
  "Although the result has established Major Burke's rights to the fullest extent originally claimed by him, he has no desire to take any further steps in the matter, and he will therefore permit you to remain in possession during your life of the house and farm at the same rent as heretofore, upon your executing a formal agreement to that effect.
  "I am further to inform you that it is not Major Burke's intention to require payment from you of the costs of the trial in Galway, amounting to £56 15 s. 1d., and for which an execution was had against you.
  "I am, Rev. Sir,
  "Your most obedient servant,
  "THOMAS DENNIS O'FARRELL.
  "The Rev. Michael Jos. O'Fay, Rue Castle, Craughwell."
  This, he thought, under the circumstances, was as much as Major Burke could be ex-

  231
  petted to do, and he was sorry the letter was not received in the spirit it deserved, as appeared from the rev. gentleman's reply:—
  "Rue Castle, Feb. 4.
  "Sir—In reply to yours of the 2nd instant, I beg to say that both you and your gallant Sepoy Major, aided and assisted by the unjust laws of my poor country, have already deeply wounded me to my heart's core. Nevertheless, I feel, thank God, under better treatment, that I am now convalescent, and therefore I beg to decline your salvo, as it comes too late.
  "I have the honour to be, Sir,
  "Your obedient servant,
  "MICHAEL JOSEPH O'FAY.
  "Thomas D. O'Farrell, Esq., Loughrea."
  Major Burke is now absent from this country. He had thought it necessary to make these observations, in justice to a gentleman whose conduct had been severely commented on, who he knew to be an honourable and humane man, and he trusted that the House would be satisfied that he had done all he could do to make due reparation for any injury that he unintentionally may have inflcted on Mr. O'Fay.
  MR. GREERsaid, he had no personal acquaintance with any of the parties concerned in the matter. He had received no information as to the merits of the case, except that which he had just heard, and that which he had obtained from the newspapers. But the facts, he thought, were calculated, if properly presented to the Members of that House, to put them in possession of the circumstances of one of a class of cases that occasionally occurred in Ireland, and enable them the better to judge of the relations existing between landlord and tenant in that country. They would then be more competent to determine upon what measures would be necessary to improve those relations. It was for that reason he wished to place on record the opinions of three eminent Judges as to the state of the law in that country. If no official record of the words of the Judges' decisions were kept, he apprehended it was the practice of the Judges in important cases to make notes of the judgments they were about to deliver, and to read those notes as their judgments. With regard to the letter of Major Burke or his solicitor, read by the noble Lord, he was willing to admit that it treated the matter in a very handsome manner, by offering to make reparation for any wrong that had been inflicted, and he deeply regretted that it had not been received in a proper spirit. As, however, he did not bring forward this Motion with the view of casting blame
  232
  upon any party, that letter did not alter the state of the case further than this, that if the return were ordered, he should have no objection to the letter being appended to it. He trusted, therefore, that there would be no objection to the production of the documents referred to.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would submit to the House whether any good object could be effected by the House making an order for the transmission by the Judges of copies of the judgments they had delivered in the matter in question. He did not know what the practice was in Ireland, but in this country very many judgments were pronounced without any notes whatever. Generally speaking, there were shorthand writers engaged in all important cases, who took down accurately what the learned Judges said, and he had no doubt if the hon. Gentleman were to write to the parties interested in the case they could supply him from that source with full information on the subject. He would put it to the House, therefore, whether it was consistent with their usual practice to issue an order to one of Her Majesty's Judges to transmit a copy of judgment which they did not know had any existence whatever.
  MR. GREERsaid, he might refer to the case of "Stubbes v. Hornsby," in 1853, relating to the Drainage Act, in which an order similar to that for which he moved had been made. He believed, if the order were issued, it would not be considered an inoperative order.
  MR. BAGWELLobserved, that the hon. Gentleman having made his statement, it would perhaps be more conducive to the public interests to withdraw the Motion, particularly as the Attorney General for Ireland was about bringing in a Bill on the subject of the relation of landlord and tenant in that country.
  MR. GREERsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock.

MINUTES
. First Sat in Parliament.—The Earl of Ripon—after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Trading companies Winding-up; Coalwhippers.

VOTE OF THANKS TO GOVERNOR GENERAL OF INDIA, &c.

  LETTERS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House, That he had received a Letter from The Viscount Canning, Go-
  212
  vernor General of the British Possessions in the East Indies, dated Allahabad, 30th June, 1858, inclosing a Letter from The Lord Harris, dated Government House, Madras, 19th June, 1858; also a Letter from The Viscount Canning, date Allahabad, 2nd July, 1858, inclosing a Letter from the Lord Elphinstone, dated Matheran, 16th June, 1858; also Two Letters from The Viscount Canning, dated Allahabad, 11th August, 1858, inclosing a Letter from Sir John Laird Muir Lawrence, G.C.B., dated Murree, 31st July, 1858, and also inclosing a Letter from General Sir Colin Campbell, G.C.B., and also a Letter from The Viscount Canning, dated Allahabad, 15th September, 1858, inclosing a Letter from Henry Bartle Edward Frere, Esquire; in return to the Thanks of this House and to the Resolutions of the 8th of February, 1858, communicated to them in obedience to Orders of this House of the said 8th of February:
  The said Letters, being read, were Ordered to lie on the Table, and to be entered on the Journals.

  PRINCIPALITIES OF MOLDAVIA AND WALLACHIA.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsaid, with the permission of the House he wished to put a question to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs concerning the Convention signed in Paris in August last, relative to the organization of the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. He wished to ask his noble Friend whether the election of one person to the office of Hospodar of the two Principalities was not inconsistent with the letter as well as the spirit of that Convention? The third Article declared:
  "The public powers shall be confided in each Principality to a Hospodar and an elective Assembly, acting in the cases provided for in the present convention, with the concurrence of a Central Commission common to both Principalities."
  The Article 22 said:—
  "The budget of income and that of expenditure prepared annually by each Principality under the direction of the respective Hospodars, and submitted to the Assembly, which may amend the same, shall not be definitive until after having been voted by it."
  Again the 44th Article declared that:—
  "The Commander in Chief shall be appointed alternately by each Hospodar when there shall be occasion to assemble the militias. He must be a Moldavian or Wallachian by birth. He may be superseded by the Hospodar who appointed

  213
  him. In such case the new Commander in Chief shall be appointed by the other Hospodar."
  There were various other Articles, from which it was quite clear that it was intended by the framers of the Convention that there should be two Hospodars, one for each Principality. It was well known that there was a difference of opinion among the Powers parties to the Treaty of Paris in 1856, some of them desiring that the two Principalities should be united, others that they should be kept separate. The recent convention at Paris, he apprehended, was the result of a compromise agreed upon by all the Powers; and he trusted those Powers would enforce the bonâ fide fulfilment of the conditions on which they guaranteed the political existence of those newly constituted States, and would not permit them to alter by any subterfuge the relations in which the Principalities stood towards each other under the Convention. That Convention was signed not more than six months ago, and therefore could not be considered as either old or obsolete. It was not many days since Her Majesty informed Parliament, in the Speech from the Throne, that the Rouman Provinces, as the Principalities were now called, were proceeding to establish, under the Convention of August last, their new form of government: but this statement had, it appeared to him, been falsified, by the Assembly of Wallachia electing the same person as Hospodar who had been already elected for Moldavia. He could not doubt that the Powers would take the measures requisite for carrying into effect the spirit of the Convention; but it would be satisfactory to the House to be made acquainted with the view which his noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) took of the matter to which he had pointed his attention. He did not wish to enter into any discussion of the provisions of the Convention, or of their adaptation to the condition of the people of Moldavia and Wallachia, but he nevertheless wanted to ask the meaning of one of its Articles, the forty-sixth, which declared that—
  "All Moldavians and Wallachians shall be equal in the eye of the law, and with regard to taxation, and shall be equally admissible to public employments in both Principalities."
  It then proceeded to qualify that declaration, by stating that,—
  "Moldavians and Wallachians of all Christian confessions shall equally enjoy political rights. The enjoyment of those rights may be extended to other religions by legislative arrangements."
  214
  Now, it might be that the Jews, of whom there was a large number in the Principalities, would be deprived of all political rights under that Article of the Convention. And this, notwithstanding the provision that these rights might be extended to other classes, by legislative enactment, for he apprehended the Jewish inhabitants there must be prepared to encounter a somewhat strenuous opposition, when they asked for a participation in political rights enjoyed by all the rest of the people in the country, inasmuch as the metropolitan was president, and the diocesan Bishops ex-officio members of the Elective Assembly in both Provinces. He could hardly suppose that his noble Friend, who not long ago joined in advising Her Majesty to assent to a Bill enabling Her Majesty's Jewish subjects to sit in Parliament, had recommended Her Plenipotentiary to agree to a clause in the Convention which went to exclude the Jewish inhabitants of Moldavia and Wallachia from the enjoyment of political rights in those Principalities. He hoped his noble Friend would give some explanation of the meaning of that clause, and be able to say that there had been no intentional violation in it of the principle of religious liberty.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that a few nights ago his noble Friend crossed the House, and had with great politeness informed him that it was his wish, unless it should be attended with inconvenience to the public service, to put a question to him (the Earl of Malmesbury) with respect to the Convention signed at Paris in the month of August last, in reference to the future government of the Danubian Principalities—whether it was not inconsistent with the spirit and letter of that Convention that one person should be elected Hospodar of the two Provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia? He, in reply, told his noble Friend, and, as he hoped, with equal politeness, that it would be inconvenient for the public service that he should answer the question; and he was somewhat surprised to find that his noble Friend, after having received that answer, should still persevere in putting his question in the presence of their Lordships, inasmuch as he had naturally supposed that he would not put it after he had learnt that it would not conduce to the promotion of the public interest that it should, under present circumstances, receive an answer. He was sorry to have again to inform his noble Friend that it

  215
  would not be convenient for the public service that he should give any opinion with respect to that particular clause of the Convention which related to the election of Hospodars for the Principalities. Looking at the events which had taken place, it was more than probable—he might even say that it was nearly certain—that the Conference would again assemble, or, at all events, that the Powers who had signed the Convention would have to consult together again and to determine the meaning of that and some other of its clauses. Under these circumstances, he was sure his noble Friend would see that it would not be desirable for him (the Earl of Malmesbury) to anticipate, by any specific declaration of opinion in their Lordships' House, the discussion which would probably take place elsewhere. The same observation would apply to the question his noble Friend had put to him with respect to the eligibility of Jews to political offices in these Provinces.

TRADING COMPANIES WINDING-UP BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANGELLOR presented a Bill for the Incorporation, Regulation, and Winding-up of Trade Companies and other Associations. It would not be necessary on the present occasion that he should trespass at any great length upon the time of the House, because it would be found that his statement would be chiefly historical and referred mainly to a consolidation, with very few alterations and amendments indeed, of all the existing laws upon the subject. On the introduction of the Bankruptcy Bill the other evening his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice complained very much that he did not propose to consolidate, as well as to alter and amend the law on the subject. Now, he might perhaps explain that there was a very material difference between the present Bill and that which he submitted for the amendment of the Bankruptcy law. The latter measure had for its object a complete alteration of the system as contained in the Bankruptcy law of 1849, and in introducing it he ventured to say, and still was of opinion that, when you were making a very great alteration in the law, it was not desirable, until you knew whether the amendment you proposed would be accepted by Parliament, to consider the system as complete, and to propose consolidation. But he had intended
  216
  to explain that, if those alterations in the law to which he asked their Lordships' assent received the sanction of both Houses of Parliament during the present Session, he hoped that he might then be able, before the termination of the Session, to introduce a Bill for the consolidation of the whole of the Bankruptcy law, and he did not despair of yet accomplishing that object. With regard to the present measure, their Lordships would find that the alterations which were proposed in the state of the present law were all of minor importance and related principally to details. He would now endeavour to explain to their Lordships how the law stood with regard to the regulation and winding-up of Joint-stock companies, so that the nature of the measure which he now proposed might be more perfectly understood. Until the year 1844 there was no Act of Parliament which regulated associations of large numbers of persons for trading purposes. Such associations were dealt with just as private partnerships, and hence great inconvenience was found to result, when their affairs got into the Court of Chancery, from the necessity of summoning so many individual partners, and of introducing so many interests; which rendered it very difficult to deal with these companies. In 1844, therefore, was passed an Act for the incorporation and regulation of joint-stock companies, by which, under certain restrictions, parties were enabled to associate, to register that association, and thereupon to sue and be sued through a public officer. In the same year an Act was passed to facilitate the winding-up of joint-stock companies unable to meet their engagements. This was accomplished through the medium of the Court of Bankruptcy, and the Act might be called the creditors' Winding-up Act. In 1848 was passed another Act, which might be distinguished from that just mentioned as the shareholders' Winding-up Act. Under that Act any shareholder might petition the Court of Chancery for an order to wind up the company, and then followed various provisions, an official manager being appointed, all the shareholders being made contributaries, and calls being made upon them, until all the debts of the company were as far as possible satisfied. The creditors, however, were no parties at all to this winding up under the Act of 1848. If bankruptcy had intervened before the petition for winding up was presented, there could their be no petition of this

  217
  kind except from the official assignee acting under the orders of the Bankruptcy Court. But it might happen there had been a petition for winding up under the Act of 1848, and then a bankruptcy might take place under the Act of 1844, and a collision of jurisdiction thereupon arose, of which, perhaps, their Lordships might have some recollection from the proceedings connected with the Royal British Bank, in which there was a contest between the Bankruptcy Court and the shareholders under the Winding-up Act, which led to enormous litigation and expense, and, it must be added, to very great scandal. The creditors were no parties to the proceedings for winding-up companies under the Bill of 1848 until 1857, when an Act was passed which enabled the Judge or the Master to call a meeting of the creditors, and to require the creditors to appoint a representative, who should act for them in the proceedings under the winding up. The intention of the Legislature was, that the two systems should thus be drawn into one. But until 1855 the shareholder of a company was liable to the full extent of his means for all the company's debts. Creditor after creditor might sue the same shareholder if he were a wealthy person, and he, on the other hand, had the greatest possible difficulty in getting contributions from his co-shareholders. In 1855, however, the Limited Liability Act passed, by which shareholders were allowed to limit their liability to the amount of their subscriptions; and in 1856 all the Acts for the formation, the regulation, and the winding up of companies were incorporated and consolidated. The object of this Act was to make incorporation the principle upon which these partnerships should be regulated, to prevent the personal liability of each shareholder, and to provide for the winding up of companies. Two modes of winding up were provided for in the Act of 1856—one being a voluntary, the other a compulsory process under the orders of the Court of Chancery. In either case liquidators were appointed; those persons being the nominees of the parties interested where the winding up was voluntary, but where they were appointed under the orders of the Court they acted as officers of the Court and according to its directions. That Act of 1856 did not apply to banking or insurance companies; but in 1857, an Act passed to enable banking companies to register themselves with unlimited liability, and in the same or the
  218
  following year, another Act was passed to enable banking companies to register with limited liability. The only companies therefore, excluded from the operation of these Acts were insurance companies. They seemed to be excluded on the notion that there was something peculiar in the nature of their business, which ought to prevent them from having the benefit of the Act; and he believed that in a Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons it was stated to be necessary to repeal the Act of 1844 before insurance companies could be brought within the operation of the provisions he had referred to. He did not think it necessary to mention the few other Acts which had been passed, one of them for the purpose of compounding in some degree the two systems of voluntary and compulsory winding up; by directing that where proceedings began under the voluntary system, but the creditor afterwards petitioned, the voluntary proceedings should be continued, but under the control and direction of the creditors. All these different Acts of Parliament, to the number of thirteen he proposed to consolidate in the Bill he now presented to their Lordships. Only such companies as had a share capital had hitherto been enabled to take advantage of the Acts from 1844 downwards, and there had been great difficulty in bringing the Act of 1856 into operation, as the companies taking advantage of it had to observe all the regulations in the Act of 1844. The leading feature of the proposed consolidating Act was to enable all companies, whether having a share-capital or nut, to take advantage of the Act to be registered, to become incorporated, and to have facilities for winding up in case of necessity. The Bill would embrace mutual building societies, mutual loan societies, and insurance companies, because there was no reason now that the Act of 1844 was to be repealed, why insurance companies should be excluded from the operation of the present Bill. Their Lordships were aware that the present companies were established on the principle either of limited or unlimited liability. With respect to the unlimited, the persons who dealt with them had only to ascertain the shareholders, and if they found them to be men in whom they could have confidence, of course they would trust the companies. With respect to the companies of limited liability, persons intending to deal with them looked to the registry of shareholders,

  219
  to the calls made, and to the circumstance of whether the shares were paid up or not, because they knew that if shareholders had paid up all their shares the liability ended, and they trusted the company then at their own risk. But it was proposed to include in this Bill a kind of intermediate companies—namely, companies where the shareholders guaranteed, in the event of the winding up of the concern, to contribute a certain amount beyond their shares for the purpose of liquidation. Probably the provision Would not be of any great effect, but it was desirable that in every possible way every description of company should be brought within the compass of the Bill. The other matters in the Bill were so entirely matters of detail, and would be so much more properly dealt with in Committee, that if he addressed their Lordships with respect to them, he conceived he should be occupying the time of the House unnecessarily. The Bill was a consolidation of all the provisions contained in all the former Acts, and included every description of company. The noble and learned Lord concluded by presenting the Bill, and moved that it should be read the first time.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he entirely agreed that the nature of these Acts warranted consolidation; he also agreed in his remarks respecting the Bankruptcy Bill, but must also say it was not unusual to make alterations and amendments sometimes to a considerable extent in a consolidation Bill.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.