Sitting of 9 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Inclosure (No 2.); 2° Queen's Prison; Clearance Inwards and Lien for Freight.
3° Indemnity; Mines Regulation and Inspection; Metropolitan Building Act (1855) Amendment; Burial Grounds (Ireland) Act (1856) Amendment: Bleaching and Dyeing Works.

HOUSES OF REFUGE.—QUESTION.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether there will be any objection on the part of the Board to introduce a Clause into the Poor Law Bill, or Poor Law Amendment Bill, which would render it legal on the part of Guardians of the Poor in England and Wales to expend Poor Rates in relief to women and girls who may be received into accredited Houses of Refuge, or Homes, for the purposes of moral and industrial training?
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that he was aware of the scheme to which this question referred, and that it was favoured by some very excellent and benevolent individuals, and on that account it had received the very attentive consideration of the Poor Law Board. He was bound, however, to tell his hon. Friend that it was the opinion of those who had had most experience in the administration of the Poor Law, as well as those on whose legal advice the Board depended, that this scheme was beyond the province of the Poor Law, and almost at variance with its purpose. The
1618
Poor Law only undertook to relieve destitution and to take charge of the children of destitute persons. The proposal of his hon. Friend was for the purpose of applying the rates for the maintenance of adult persons not under the supervision of the Guardians, and in places not subject to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates. The Legislature might change its policy in this respect, but he could not but think that the greatest care would be required, if it did so, to guard against some of the evils to which farming the poor was formerly subject, and which rested upon somewhat the same principle.

KENSINGTON GARDENS.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to put a question to the First Commissioner of Works on a subject which had excited much interest—it was, Whether he proposes to make a road through the centre of Kensington Gardens, as was stated, joining Tyburnia to Belgravia, and going over the site of the Exhibition building? He would also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make such a road without previously coming to Parliament for its sanction.
MR. COWPERsaid, he had no intention at present to do what the hon. Member had mentioned.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman means to apply for the consent of Parliament in the first instance.
MR. COWPERsaid, he had thought it unnecessary to say that if any money was required for any works in the Park, he would certainly think it right, upon the whole, to ask the House to vote the money before he spent it.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (SALARIES, &c.)—RESOLUTIONS.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th June],
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee on Bankruptcy and Insolvency [Salaries, &c] in the first Resolution, as amended, 'That the Salaries, Allowances, Remunerations, and Retiring Annuities, which may become payable to certain persons appointed under or affected by any Act of the present Session for amending the Law relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency in England, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.'"
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, as some days have elapsed since the vote of the 25th of June, it may be convenient that I should state to the House the course which I intend to adopt to repair the mischief done by that vote. It will be recollected that the vote was taken upon a Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby), proposing to omit from the Report on Salaries the word "compensation." At the mention of that word the House fell into a fit of indignation. It was idle to attempt to tell them, as I did, that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill created no new compensation, that the compensations spoken of in the Report of the Committee were the penalties paid for the sins of a past generation, because they were created in 1831, and that the Bill now before the House did nothing but what was recommended by a Commission presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) as being a measure dictated by ordinary justice. It was of no use to tell the House that. The House was determined to omit the word "compensation," and accordingly that word was struck out of the Report. Now, one object of the Bill for the amendment of the law of bankruptcy and insolvency which I have introduced is to relieve suitors in bankruptcy from an enormous burden of fees which ought never to have been imposed upon them, and part of those fees were created for the purpose of answering these very compensations. The fees which I propose to remit will amount to very nearly £90,000 a year. Undoubtedly, they ought none of them to have been imposed, but when they are to be abolished it becomes necessary to provide from other sources the sums raised by them. The only step which I took to encroach upon any other fund was that recommended by the Commission of throwing those charges which were a legacy from the bad state of things altered in 1831 upon the public, instead of leaving them to be borne by the suitors in Bankruptcy. In consequence of the vote of the House it becomes necessary to alter altogether the arrangements of the Bill. I am, however, able to do so without much inconvenience; and it would not, therefore, have been that cause which induced me at the moment to hesitate as to going on with the Bill. But, Sir, I took that vote as an indication of the temper of the House. I had met with three adverse divisions. I had received
  1620
  from the opposite side of the House the most generous and the most enlightened support. I am indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns), to the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside), for such assistance; but the adverse divisions were all called for and headed by hon. Gentlemen who sit behind me. Nothing would induce me to proceed with the Bill unless there is some confidence in the Government and some confidence in its author. It is a Bill which not twenty Gentlemen in the House have read, and which certainly not twenty understand; therefore, if every hon. Gentleman is to do that which is right in his own eyes, whether he understands the matter or not, it would be of no use to attempt to proceed with the measure. I could undoubtedly meet any ordinary opposition; but the blows which I have received have come from familiar friends in whom I trusted. What probability is there of success? I am opposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), although I believe there is not a single merchant or manufacturer in that place who has not petitioned in favour of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Nottingham (Mr. Mellor) also went out with the majority, yet from the town which he represents I have received the strongest entreaties to go on with the measure; nay, on the part of the whole commercial world there is, as far as I see, with the exception of some matter of detail, the greatest anxiety for the passing of this Bill. We have had two nights, and have got through twenty-four clauses. Unless, therefore, there is a general disposition to put confidence in the Government, to trust to the attention and care which have been used in preparing this Bill, and to place that confidence upon the approbation which has been given to it by the public, who are infinitely more concerned in it, and have been infinitely more diligent in its study than have hon. Members of this House, I must give up the attempt to pass it as a hopeless task. In the hope that such confidence will be extended, and that we shall proceed with a desire to pass it, I am willing to go on with the Bill.
  The arrangement which I propose in order to remedy the mischief which the hon. Baronet somewhat unconsciously did

  1621
  is this—I propose to leave the additional salaries of the County Court Judges, if the House shall think fit to pass them, charged upon the Consolidated Fund, but I also propose to give to that fund a very large compensation for that small additional charge. The House will recollect that the County Court Judges have been treated with some little inequality—I may say with some degree of unfairness. They are divided into three classes; some receive £1,500 a year, another small class receives £1,350, and another £1,200. Now, it being the object of the Bankruptcy Bill to give additional labour in bankruptcy to these Judges, and especially to those who receive only £1,200 a year, I propose to make the salaries of all County Court Judges £1,500 a year. In return for this it has been felt that the fees of the County Courts would well bear some augmentation. At present 10 d. in the pound only is paid for each plaint; it is proposed to increase that to 1s. At present nothing is paid for the service of a summons, and in consequences summonses are frequently taken out vexatiously. It is proposed to impose a small charge upon the service of a summons, and so numerous are these summonses that this trifling additional impost, which has been recommended by fifty County Court Judges out of fifty-seven, will bring into the Consolidated Fund about £34,000 a year, the charge which I propose to throw upon it amounting to only £10,500. If, therefore, that be done which the House is aware depends upon the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor, the Consolidated Fund, instead of being a loser, will, in fact, be a considerable gainer. The other measure which I shall ask the House to adopt is this—I shall leave the compensations and retiring annuities created by the Act of 1831 charged where they now are. I propose that a statement of accounts shall be laid before Parliament on the 1st of March every year, and that a vote for any deficiency which may exist, never exceeding the amount of compensations and retiring allowances, shall be taken on the 1st of April. In that way I expect to enable the Court of Bankruptcy to diminish its fees to the amount of about £90,000 per annum. Those fees may be described in few words. There are stamp duties now paid to the amount of £26,000 a year; I propose to reduce them to about £5,000. There is a heavy percentage paid upon estates in bankruptcy, which, upon an
  1622
  average of seven or eight years, amounts to about £38,000. I propose to take that away altogether, because the practical effect of its continuance would be to keep very large estates out of the court. In addition, there are large and oppressive percentages received by the official assignees; they amounted last year to nearly £51,000. I propose to abolish these altogether. Of course in making these large reductions I reckon upon a considerable increase to the income of the court, which I expect will be made by bringing all trust deeds and deeds of composition within the reach of the law of bankruptcy. It will be recollected that the great feature of the present Bill is to make the law of bankruptcy part of the ordinary law of debtor and creditor. As the matter now stands you cannot have the aid of the law of bankruptcy without not only going into the court, but administering the whole of the estate in the Court. It frequently happens, however, that you want the assistance of the law of bankruptcy for a particular purpose only. I propose to give that benefit to all trustees, creditors, and parties to deeds of composition upon their paying a very inconsiderable stamp duty, and registering the deeds in the Court of Bankruptcy. At present a great part of the insolvency business is conducted in a very irregular manner. All insolvencies of any magnitude are made the subject of private arrangement, and there is no record kept of the state of solvency or insolvency among non-traders. Under the improved system which I propose there will be a perfect record. According to the best returns trust deeds and deeds of composition amount to between 8,000 and 9,000 per annum. In future they may not exceed 6,000, and I propose to derive from them, in the shape of a graduated stamp, a sum amounting to about £60,000. In return for that small payment, they will get the whole benefit of the law of bankruptcy; they will enjoy the advantage of acting under the direction of the court, and, upon the whole, I have no doubt that the deficiency which I should otherwise have in my income will be amply provided for. I trust, therefore, that we may now go on with the Bill, and do what we can to rescue this great mercantile nation from a reproach which it bears, I am sorry to say, in marked contrast to other nations—that, while it is the greatest trading country in the world, its law of bank-

  1623
  ruptcy and insolvency is in a most imperfect and even disgraceful condition. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving that the first Resolution, as amended, be agreed to.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYdenied that the Amendment he proposed and carried on a former occasion involved any "mischief" whatever. It simply affirmed the principle that it was not desirable to connect Amendments of the law with immense charges upon the Consolidated Fund. He had no wish, for his part, to oppose the Amendment of the law now proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General, though he thought a Bill containing 540 clauses was a rather dangerous sort of Amendment, likely to afford considerable employment to gentlemen of the long robe. It appeared to him that the Attorney General would derive from the compensation account, which amounted to a very large sum, and from the fees which he proposed to establish under the present Bill, a sum amply sufficient to cover all charges.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEremarked, that the House ought to be much obliged to the hon. Baronet opposite for having brought forward his Amendment. It was quite clear that the fees in the Bankruptcy Court ought to be charged with the compensations, and if it turned out in the long run that some small balance was not provided for, then it would be for the House to consider whether it would make up the deficiency. That was a better course than placing a fixed charge on the Consolidated Fund. He wished entirely to disclaim that any Member on that side of the House had been moved by a factious feeling in the course they had taken; but it was not reasonable to expect that a Bill containing 540 clauses should be taken on the ipse dixit of any person, however distinguished.
  MR. BARROWsaid, the administration of the law had been loaded from time to time with useless sinecures to a most disgraceful extent, and upon a former occasion he had thought it his duty to protest against the transfer of a sinecure of that description from the fee fund of the Court of Bankruptcy to the taxpayers of the country. He doubted very much whether it was desirable to increase the tax on the poor suitors of the County Courts in order to relieve the rich suitors of the Bankruptcy Court, and he was very much disposed to vote against that portion of the
  1624
  measure which proposed to draw into a sort of central vortex a vast number of transactions which parties now arranged in private in order to save the expense of the law courts.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that though he was one of the unfortunate individuals who voted against the scheme of compensation which had been proposed by the Government, he was not anxious to escape the censure which the hon. and learned Attorney General had distributed. He thought, when the comprehensiveness of the scheme of the hon. and learned Gentleman was considered, and that it might include every one, from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the poorest curate, and from the highest Duke to the dweller under the poorest roof, the Attorney General need not doubt that he should get plenty of fish into his net; and, if that were so, he thought it was rather too much to expect that everybody should take the clauses of this Bill for granted. The Bill would affect a very great number of people, perhaps without one in ten of them knowing how they might be brought under its provisions. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be prepared, therefore, to expect some degree of opposition. Any person who had incurred encumbrances for the last twenty years might find himself drawn in under this Bill, and might have to pay additional interest in time of pressure, to escape from the effect of its provisions. Whether the scheme would work well, time alone would show; but, at any rate, a sufficient number of persons might be brought within its operation.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that in his original proposition the hon. and learned Gentleman had calculated far too much upon the ignorance of the House; and the House had acted most commendably in protecting the pockets of the public.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

  BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    House in Committee.
    Clause 28 (Addition to the Salary of the County Court Judges).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALproposed to omit that clause, and to bring up a new one instead, the object of which would be to give to certain of the County Court Judges an addition of £300 a year to some,

    1625
    and of £150 to others, with a view to giving them all £1,500 a year.
    MR. MALINS: Then we are to understand that the salaries of the County Court Judges are all to be uniform?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes; uniform throughout.
    MR. BAINESsaid, there was a certain class of County Court Judges that had already £1,500 a year, on account of the great amount of business they had to discharge. In Yorkshire, for example, he knew that the Judges had an enormous amount of business cast upon them. Now, by the present Bill an additional burden would be cast upon them. He thought it hardly fair that such an increase of business should be put upon them without giving them additional compensation.
    MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that some time ago the Government had given a distinct assurance that the successors of those Judges now receiving £1,500 a year should only be paid £1,200. As regarded the County Court Judges generally, he believed that not half of their time was occupied. In all probability the additional business that would be cast upon them by this Bill would be very little.
    MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, he did not think that the County Court Judges were at all overpaid for the duties they were expected to discharge. In Yorkshire he knew that the time of the Judges there was fully employed.
    MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, the 25th Clause gave the Government the power to create additional districts where the duties were more than one Judge could fairly perform. From Returns which had been submitted to the House he gathered that whilst some of the Judges were occupied from 150 to 200 days in the year, others were only engaged from 100 to 150 days; whilst one was occupied only 94 days per annum in the duties of his post. Under these circumstances he thought it could hardly be said that the Judges were overworked. The Metropolitan Magistrates had more disagreeable duties to perform, and had only £1,200 a year, whereas it was proposed that all the County Court Judges should have £1,500.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be kind enough to explain what in his judgment would be the additional charge placed upon the Consolidated Fund by the new clause lie intended to bring up. He concurred
    1626
    in the opinion that the salaries of the County Court Judges should be placed on a uniform footing. He hoped, however, that the Bankruptcy Bill would not be like the French Treaty—the more they knew of it the worse they would like it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the whole charge thrown on the consolidated fund would be £11,700. There were at present eighteen County Court Judges in receipt of £1,500 a year; four who were receiving £1,350; and thirty-seven who were paid £1,200. If the clause he intended to bring up were adopted, these thirty-seven gentlemen, together with the four who stood between the favoured and the degraded class, would all receive £1,500. The County Court Judges were of great public utility, and he should be glad to make their salaries commensurate with their utility. A man might be a grocer or a cheesemonger without education, but he required considerable education and considerable experience to become a County Court Judge. In his opinion, no money was better spent than that paid in performing the first duty of a Government—the administration of justice; and, although it might be stigmatized as a lawyer's job, he should call economy there a most miserable economy. The reason why the salaries of the County Court Judges had been fixed at a uniform rate of £1,500 a year was because it was desirable that no distinction should be made between those who at present received that rate of remuneration, and the County Court Judges who were paid only £1,200 a year, and who, being located in purely country districts, would have a greater amount of labour thrown upon them under the operation of the Bill than would be the case with their brethren whose courts were situated in populous town districts, where there were Commissioners in Bankruptcy fully competent to discharge the duties of their office.
    MR. MALINSsaid, that on a former occasion he had expressed a doubt as to the propriety of extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts. Having considered the subject further, however, and communicated with many persons of experience, he was compelled to admit it was a matter of the greatest importance that the business should be brought home to the doors of the suitors: that in many cases the present system amounted to a denial of justice; and, therefore, in order to effect that object, it was absolutely necessary to extend

    1627
    the jurisdiction of the Bill to the County Court Judges. In regard to the salaries of those Judges, he was glad to find the hon. and learned Gentleman about to give effect to a proposition which he (Mr. Malins) had supported some years ago—namely, uniform salaries to the County Court Judges. He differed altogether in opinion from the hon. Member for Lambeth as to the standard of compensation for those Judges. A gentleman who was obliged to travel frequently long distances from his wife and family in order to act as Judge of some of those courts, was really as much entitled to the highest salary as one who was compelled to sit so many hours each day in a court situated in populous districts. If it were desirable to have competent and educated men as Judges of those Courts nothing could be more short-sighted than to cut down their salaries to an amount that would prevent them maintaining that position which they ought to occupy in society.
    MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the County Court Judges who were now in the receipt of £1,500 a year, were men who had their time fully occupied, and who had to administer every description of law. That being so, he should like to know how it could be considered expedient to add to their labours unless they were accorded increased remuneration. If such a course were persevered in, the result would be that the business would not be done, and that these Gentlemen would very properly say that they had not engaged to discharge the duties which under the operation of the Bill would be cast upon them. When the hon. Member for Lambeth made himself the judge of intellectual excellence he appealed to a different standard from that adopted by other men. In regard to the qualities necessary for the efficient discharges of the duties of a County Court judge they were of a peculiar and superior order. The County Court Judges administered chancery law, common law, admiralty law, and every other species of law common to this country, and they had not the aid of a Bar, which was often of the greatest importance and assistance to the Bench. For his own part, he could not understand why the administrators of justice in Westminster Hall were not chosen from their body rather than from among the Members of that House belonging to the legal profession.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman
    1628
    the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) to the effect that the County Court Judges would be disposed to strike if required to do increased work, tended to place the Committee in a position of some difficulty in dealing with the clause. He might add that the Attorney General appeared to him to have used an awkward phrase when he spoke of one class of those Gentlemen—those who received only £1,200 a year—as "degraded." Holding that opinion, the hon. and learned Gentleman must be prepared to use similar language in the case of the County Court Judges who received £1,500 a year, as compared with the district Bankruptcy Commissioners, whose salary was £1,800 per annum.
    MR. ROEBUCKrepeated that they could not impose further work on the County Court Judges without their either refusing to do it, or doing it inefficiently.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he understood the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman to come to this: that it was improper to put any bankruptcy business on the County Court Judges at all. But the Bill provided a way to meet the difficulty. He quite agreed that in many districts the County Court Judges were fully employed, perfectly competent to do their work, and did their work extremely well. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, in proposing to transfer the bankruptcy business to the County Courts, made the best choice he could. On a vacancy occurring in the office of district Commissioner the executive would have the power of transferring the bankruptcy business to the County Courts, and making a new arrangement of the County Court district, and appointing a new County Court Judge. At present they were enabled, with a salary of £1,500 a year, to command the services of some of the most superior men at the Bar; it was a competent and sufficient salary; the only demur he should make was as to the salary of the district Commissioners who received £1,800 a year. He thought it desirable to have a uniformity of salary. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would consider that point. As he read the Bill it was not proposed at once to equalize the salaries of all County Court Judges, and to transfer bankruptcy business to them, but only as vacancies in the office of district Commissioner occurred. It was the more necessary that as the process came into operation only gradually there should be a uniformity of salary.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, with regard to the equalization of the salaries of the district Commissioners, he undoubtedly hoped that whenever a vacancy occurred, it would not be filled up, but the business allotted either to the County Court Judge or to another Commissioner. But if that were not the case, no doubt the new district Commissioners ought to be put upon an equality with the County Court Judges. In reply to the observation of his hon. and learned Friend he wished to observe that by the present state of things jurisdiction in insolvency was vested in the Court Court Judge. The Bill took away the distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency, and all that description of business which was now administered under the description of insolvency, and which, in future, would be known by the name of bankruptcy, must, of course, at once pass to the County Court Judge. In all cases where the property to be administered was less than £300, it would be competent for the district. Commissioners to transfer the case to the County Court Judge, and in all cases where the debtor was in prison the petition was to be presented in the County Court. By the 30th Clause the Judge of the County Court was to have like jurisdiction, and to perform the same duties as were now fulfilled by the district Commissioners.
    Clause postponed.
    Clauses 29 to 31 agreed to.
    Clause 32 (Registrar may act for the Judge in certain cases).
    MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he objected to the business of the County Courts being delegated to deputies. It was proposed by this clause to allow registrars of County Courts to sit and dispose of cases under 40 s., or where the debts were admitted. It was not the amount in issue that regulated the importance of a case, as instanced in the case of shipmoney. If the business increased beyond what it was possible for the Judge to dispose of, the districts should be subdivided, and new Judges appointed under the 25th Clause.
    MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, the clause involved a very serious innovation. Four-fifths of the business in the County Courts arose out of eases where the amount in dispute was under 40 s. It was proposed that the decisions of the registrar should be subject to appeal to the Judge—a provision which was a satire upon the clause. Cases under 40 s. often involved
    1630
    as important and difficult questions as cases of higher amount; and the judgments of the registrars, who were not judicial officers, would create dissatisfaction among the poor, who were, on the other hand, quite content with the ruling of the Judges.
    SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDthought the clause opposed to the very principle of the County Court jurisdiction,—namely, that of deciding questions of small amount without disproportionate expense. The more unlikely litigants were to have the assistance of advocates possessing competent skill, the more indispensable it was that the Judge himself should have that qualification. It would be better to create additional County Court Judges, as provided by the 25th clause.
    MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the whole tenor of the Bill was that the poor man was to be satisfied with an inferior Judge.
    MR. COLLIERrecommended the serious reconsideration of this clause. He concurred in the transfer of the business in bankruptcy to the County Courts, but he thought that advantage would be bought at too high a price if it was essentially necessary to alter the principle of the County Courts Act. He hoped the clause would not be pressed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the clause did not propose to make this transfer to a deputy without the intervention of some authority. He never would have proposed such a clause. A deputy was only to be called in where the Lord Chancellor thought it absolutely necessary. Nine-tenths of the cases consisted in the Judges sitting in court and using such a stereotype phrase as "You must pay 2s. 6d. a month." Nevertheles he recognized the force of the objections which had been raised, and he would consent to the omission of the clause.
    Clause withdrawn.
    Clause 33 (Jurisdiction of the Court).
    MR. MURRAYproposed the omission of the word "creditors," which, if retained, would have the effect of making all creditors, whether they chose to come in under the bankruptcy or not, subject to and bound by the jurisdiction of the Court.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the object of the clause was to give jurisdiction to the Court of Bankruptcy in favour of strangers; that was to say, that any individual having a question with the assignees of the bankrupt, or the creditors of the bankrupt, might come into the Bank-

    1631
    ruptcy Court, and have the question tried. The omission of the words would cramp the jurisdiction of the Court, and its retention would extend it. The retention of the word could not do harm, and might be useful in many cases.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he was disposed to think that the retention of the word would effect an alteration of the law of bankruptcy; and trusted that the Attorney General would not introduce any such alteration of the law.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not think his hon. and learned Friend fully appreciated the clause, which was intended to facilitate the proceedings of parties claiming against the assignee, against the creditors, and against the bankrupt. However, if there was any difficulty about the retention of the word in the minds of hon. Members, he would defer to that objection, and consent to its omission.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also Clauses 34 to 39.
    Clause 40 (Country Vacations).
    MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that by the clause provision was made for a vacation for the Commissioners. The salary of the Commissioner was £1,800 a year, £200 a year for a substitute during his vacation. Now the County Court Judges, who did a great deal more work than the Bankruptcy Commissioners, had no vacation unless they paid for it. Why should there be any difference made?
    MR. HENLEYobserved, that the district Commissioner of Bankruptcy was to have £1,800 a year; and, when he took his holiday, £200 were to be paid to his deputy; so that his salary became £2,000 a year. He thought that if the Commissioner of Bankruptcy wanted a deputy, he should pay for one out of his salary.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would be glad to assist the hon. and learned Member, when he should bring forward a Bill to emancipate the County Court Judges from the sad position in which they were represented to be. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) expressed his opinion that the Commissioner of Bankruptcy should pay his deputy; but it would not do to allow any one to be chosen as deputy by the Commissioner. The deputy must be a person in whom confidence could be placed.
    MR. HENLEYreplied, that he had said nothing about the Commissioner appointing his deputy. What he said was, that if the Commissioner wanted a vacation, he might pay for a deputy; and the appoint-
    1632
    ment of the deputy might be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.
    MR. MALINSsaid, the Bankruptcy Commissioners, if they had to pay for their deputies, would, in fact, receive only £1,600 a year. They were appointed at a salary of £1,800 a year, and he thought that amount ought not to be diminished. The country ought to give them some rest without making them pay for that rest out of their salaries.
    MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the County Court Judges had to administer laws of the greatest importance, and replete with questions quite as difficult as any which came before the Commissioners of Bankruptcy. What was sauce for the gander was sauce for the goose, and it was unjust for the Attorney General to favour one class of functionaries, and turn his back on another.
    SIR FITZROY KELLYthought it was premature to raise on this clause a discussion as to the emoluments and labours of the County Court Judges. The Bankruptcy Commissioners, by virtue of several Acts of Parliament, received £1,800 a year, and he did not think it would be just to diminish that amount by making them pay for the services of deputies during the vacation. If the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield would at a future stage propose a clause to afford some rest each year to the County Court Judges, who were overburdened with work, by enabling them to appoint deputies whose services should be paid for by the country, that clause should have his cordial support. The County Court Judges had performed their work in a manner so satisfactory that he was certain a clause of that nature would receive the general snpport of the two Houses.
    MR. BARROWcontended that a Commissioner's salary was intended to pay him for the whole of his time, and if he wished for a vacation he ought to pay for a deputy. It was desirable that every man should have a holiday from time to time, but it was not right to call on the State to pay for it. That was the principle adopted in the cases of the County Court Judges and of coroners.
    MR. VANCEobserved, that it was only by the casting vote of the Chairman a majority of the Select Committee which had inquired into that subject had decided that the Commissioners should receive a higher salary than the County Court Judges; and he thought it would be great

    1633
    extravagance to augment further the advantages of the Commissioners by providing them with deputies at a cost to the public of £200 a year.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 38: Majority 2.
    Clause 41 (Jurisdiction above Three hundred Pounds).
    SIR FITZROY KELLYsuggested for the consideration of the Attorney General whether it was expedient to adopt the amount of assets as the sole criterion of the importance of the case. Perhaps in the majority of cases the amount of assets was the best test, but it might happen that a bankrupt with little or no assets had incurred enormous liabilities, and there were clauses in the Bill rendering a bankrupt liable to prosecution, or to the summary jurisdiction of the Court for contracting large debts without the means of payment.
    MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the provision looked very like an experiment in corpore vili. Great questions of law had been determined upon cases involving £5 or £6. It was a mistake to suppose that people having small sums in litigation ought to have an inferior tribunal to decide their rights. The sum of £100 to one man was of the same value as £100,000 to another, and justice ought to he done indifferently. There ought to be a Court to deal with all cases of bankruptcy without regard to the amount of assets.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALwould move the omission of the words "in any case" in the 13th line of the clause.
    MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he must press for an answer to the objection that there should be any limit, and that small cases, which might involve great questions of law should be disposed of in an inferior court.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he did not consider the County Court Judges to be less capable of administering justice than the Commissioners; and the County Courts were tribunals which possessed the great advantage of dispensing justice in the cheapest and the most expeditious manner.
    MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought it ought to be made imperative that all cases under three hundred pounds assets should he tried by the County Court Judges.
    MR. VANCEremarked, that it would
    1634
    be impossible to make the amount of liabilities the criterion. The assets could be very easily ascertained, but it was clearly impossible to find out the liabilities until the bankruptcy had proceeded a considerable length. The proof of debt was left to the registrar in bankruptcy, subject to the control of the Court; but where a right was to be maintained with regard to property, of course, the question would come before a Court of a superior description.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he wished to make a few observations on the policy of the clause in answer to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) and Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). There was undoubtedly great difficulty in determining what should be the criterion of cases to be transferred to the County Court. But as a general principle it might be held that wherever there was a small estate there was very little judicial business to be done. It was true that the smallness of the estate was no criterion of the questions which might arise with regard to liabilities, but the smallness of the estate would probably render questions about the debts and liabilities of very little importance, and very unlikely to be struggled for. He did not find, therefore, any better rule which could be laid down as to what cases should or should not be transferred to the County Courts than the rule which was expressed in this clause. As to the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, there was something in the nature of that hon. and learned Gentleman which led him to follow his disposition to find fault, even at the expense of consistency. He could not understand how the hon. and learned Member, who had constituted himself the advocate of the County Courts, could prove that to send a bankrupt whose assets were under £300 before one of the Courts, was giving him an inferior measure of justice. The great qualification of justice was that it should be freely and easily obtained; and if there was one feature in this Bill which above all others had called forth the marked approbation of the public, it had been the disposition to give every facility to creditors to transfer these cases to the administration of the County Courts. He had himself said again and again that he hoped the day would come when the whole provincial or country administration of justice

    1635
    would be centred in these courts. Any points of difficulty, in a case where the assets were under three hundred pounds, would, no doubt, be discovered before the chief Court was called on to make the transfer; and, as the authorities had a discretionary power, their decision would be influenced thereby.
    MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he could not pretend to cope with the hon. and learned Gentleman in sarcasm; but he must express his inability to discover why there should be two jurisdictions—one inferior, and the other superior. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thought the County Court Judge the superior jurisdiction, then he conferred a benefit on the poor, and a hardship on the rich.
    Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 42 to 45 inclusive.
    Clause 46 (Appeal).
    MR. HENLEYasked if there was to be no limit to the power of appeal? However small the matter might be, as the Bill stood parties disposed to litigate might take it to the superior Courts, and he wished to know whether that power was to he guarded in any way?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that was a very important question. It was extremely difficult in bankruptcy to put any limit to the right of appeal. Questions of very great importance might frequently arise on a proof of debt of £20. Anxious as he was not to give any encouragement to litigation, or to open the door to mere vexatious proceedings, he was quite unable to lay down any rule for fixing the limit.
    MR. MALINSsaid, he agreed that it would be undesirable to place any restriction on the right of appeal.
    MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought the poor man ought, in some way or other, to be protected from the unreasonable appeals of the rich.
    Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 47 and 48.
    Clause 49 (Appeal from Judge).
    SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he wished to introduce an Amendment by the insertion of the words in line 26, "That the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy may, if he think fit, request the assistance of one or more of the Judges of the superior Courts of common law." The new Judge in Bankruptcy would be placed on the same footing as regarded rank, jurisdiction, and salary, as the ordinary Judges of the Courts of common law and the Vice-Chancellors, and looking at the importance of many of
    1636
    the cases that would come before him, and the difficulty of the questions which he must decide, he did not see why he should not be allowed the same assistance as was given to the Vice-Chancellors and to the Judge of the Court of Probate. That would secure speedy, as well as cheap and satisfactory justice.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was sensible of the value of the aid such a provision would give to the Judge in Bankruptcy; but as complaints had been made of the excessive occupation thrown on the Judges of the common law Courts, and of their being required to assist in the Divorce Court, he shrank from asking them to incur this additional task. As they would probably on that very account be relieved, this Session, from attending in the Divorce Court, it would be inconsistent to cast upon them the duty of attending in the Court of the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy.
    SIR FITZROY KELLYremarked that the inconvenience in the Divorce Court arose from the fact that a particular class of cases were by the Act necessarily to be heard by the Judge ordinary, and a Chief Justice, and a Puisne Judge, while many of those cases were of a nature that the Chief Judge alone could decide.
    MR. MALINSsaid, he thought it was advisable that the new Judge should have the power of calling in a common law Judge to assist in hearing a particular case argued.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would agree to the Amendment.
    MR. MALINSsaid, he had to object to another point in the clause. It proposed that when an appeal was to be carried from the Court of Bankruptcy to the Lords Justices, the appeal should be made on a special case prepared by the Chief Judge. Now he contended that the Judge whose decision was appealed from ought to have no voice in framing the appeal. The right of appeal ought to be free and unrestricted. Besides, the preparation of the special case involved much inconvenience, and he had known instances in which more time was occupied in framing the case than in arguing it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that while admitting that obstacles lay in the way of getting up special cases, he was at the same time of opinion that they acted as powerful auxiliaries in the promotion of economy. The point was here however, he was ready to admit, well worthy of consideration; and he would

    1637
    cheerfully abide by the decision of the Committee. It would be derogatory, however, to the Court of Bankruptcy to suppose that the Judge, whose decision was appealed from, would state the case in any other than an impartial manner.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would reconsider the question. There were considerable objections to that part of the clause. In the first place, it changed the present practice of the law, which undoubtedly allowed of an appeal to the Lords Justices without the preparation of any special case. He could understand the latter portion of the clause which required the preparation of a special case in making an appeal from the Lords Justices to the House of Lords, because the appeal in that case would be on a point of law or equity, and they might be very properly called on to state a case for the consideration of the House of Lords. But an appeal to the Lords Justices would be an appeal not on the law of the case but on the facts, and if the appeal were on the facts a special case could not be settled. In settling the facts they would settle the case. There was another consideration. They allowed an appeal from the country Judges to the London Judge without any special case, and he could not understand why they should make any difference in an appeal from the London Judge to the Court of Chancery.
    SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he was in favour of the clause as it stood.
    MR. COLLIERsaid, he should oppose the preparation of a special case being rendered necessary, as he knew how inconveniently it worked in the common law Courts.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would assent to the Amendment.
    MR. MALINSsaid, he would then move the omission of all the words after "order." The Attorney General, according to the previous Amendment, had given up the principle of the clause, which was to restrict the right of appeal; and he did not see, if there was to be an open appeal to the Lords Justices, why there should not also be an appeal to the House of Lords.
    MR. MELLORsaid, he trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would not consent to the Amendment. In matters of this sort it was really essential that there should not be a multiplicity of appeals. In bankruptcy it was specially requisite that there should be a speedy and final deter-
    1638
    mination; and one appeal was quite sufficient.
    MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he thought in mercy to suitors, there should be some end of litigation, and the Lords Justices, with all the facts before them, were perfectly competent to pronounce a final decision without any appeal to the House of Lords.
    MR. MALINSsaid, the Irish Bankruptcy Act gave an appeal in the manner proposed by his Amendment.
    MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, as the Bill stood there was an appeal in a country case, first to the Metropolitan Commissioners, then to the Chief Justice, then to the Lords Justices, and, finally, to the House of Lords. He thought that there ought to be some restriction put upon the power of appeal.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he could not support the present Amendment. There was no analogy betwen the cases contemplated by the Bill and ordinary questions arising at law or equity between one man and another, where there might be little harm in the litigants fighting as long as it suited them. But it must be remembered that the winding-up of a bankrupt's estate was suspended by an appeal, and that until the rights of the parties were determined, hundreds, or it might be thousands, of creditors, could not get a shilling of dividend. In a case of bankruptcy, it was necessary to cut the knot and divide the estate; and he thought it would be quite sufficient if the right of appeal was given within the limits contained in the clause.
    MR. MALINSsaid, that as the opinion of the Committee was against him, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 50 to 66 inclusive.
    Clause 67 (Evidence, how taken).
    SIR FITZROY KELLYmoved, in line 5, after "oath," to insert the words "in open Court."
    MR. ROEBUCKasked the Attorney General to consent to the omission of the words, "or by interrogatories in writing." The system of taking evidence by interrogatories was at once the most incomplete, the most confused, and the worst that could be resorted to. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman was not about to perpetuate it by his Bill.
    MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he concurred in the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield.
    MR. MALINSsaid, he thought that as

    1639
    a general rule vivâ voce evidence was the more satisfactory; but he would not remove from the Bill the permissive power of taking evidence by interrogatories.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALexplained that it was by no means intended to render the system of interrogatories general, but there were particular cases in which it was necessary to have the power of taking evidence in that manner. It was only proposed to put the Courts of Bankruptcy in this respect on the same footing as Courts of law.
    SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he thought it would be better to leave it to the Court to decide in which way evidence should be taken in each particular case.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALpointed out that for the most part proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court were analogous to those before a superior Court of common law sitting in banco, and it would therefore be wise to give the Court the power of taking evidence by affidavit.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 68 to 72 inclusive agreed to.
    Clause 73 (Registrars of the Insolvent Debtors Court).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would propose to leave out of the 3rd line the words "Registrars and Taxing Officers," and in the 4th line the words "as such," thereby transferring those officers from the Insolvent Debtors' Court to act in the London District Court of Bankruptcy, and to add "in such manner as the general order of the Court shall direct."
    SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he fully concurred in the propriety of transferring these officers instead of superseding them, and so avoid compensation, but he thought the question of the salaries they received, together with the extra large fees, should be considered and revised. He believed that there was no such officer, to speak technically, as a "registrar of the Insolvent Debtors' Court."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the salaries of these officers would be as before. If there was in reality no "registrar," the person so transferred under such misnomer, if it were found to be such, should be correctly described.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 74 (Registrars of the Insolvent Debtors Court).
    MR. VANCEproposed to amend the clause by transferring the right of nomi-
    1640
    nating these officers from the Lord Chancellor, as proposed by the clause, to the Judge of the court.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had placed the power in the Lord Chancellor's hands, as he objected to giving it to the chief Judge.
    MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, the registrars of the Court of Bankruptcy had large salaries and little to do. He recollected being upon a Committee which recommended that the number of these officers should be curtailed. At that time there were seven registrars, and the number had continued to be seven ever since. The next clause provided that the number of these officers might be increased if need be, and he thought that there ought to be a clause declaring that the number might be reduced if need be.
    MR. ROEBUCKremarked that by doing away with the official assignees they would put an end to a great improvement effected by a past Bill. In his opinion the Bill was an attorney's Bill, and that the official assignees were done away with in order to forward the interests of the attorneys.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALstated that the duties of the registrars would be considerably increased by the Bill. They would be constantly employed, and would be the means of saving a great deal of the expense and delay now attending the Bankruptcy Court. Still, while power was taken to increase their number there should also be a power to reduce it, and by another clause that power was given.
    SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he believed that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was under some misapprehension as to the existing number of registrars.
    Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 75 and 76.
    Clause 77 (Appointment and Payment of a Substitute during Temporary Absence of Commissioner or Registrar).
    MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, he should move the insertion of words providing that the amount paid to the deputy in such a case shall be deducted from the salary of the officer in whose absence he shall act.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought the Committee had gone far enough in this direction, and that in common charity and kindness the House ought to allow the salary of the deputy in such cases as were contemplated by the clause.
    MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, they

    1641
    ought to be just before they were generous. The principle of the clause—that of providing substitutes for public officers, to be paid out of public money—was entirely new. If adopted it might be extended in future to the army and navy, and even to the gentleman who was known to be the Attorney General's principal aid, but whose name was described generally in terms more forcible than polite. A salary might hereafter be demanded for him.
    MR. MURRAYsaid that a provision was introduced into the Bill brought forward last Session by the noble Lord the Member for the City (Lord J. Russell) which required the payment of substitutes out of the salaries of those for whom they acted.
    MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he also believed the principle to be entirely a new one. There was no difficulty in the legal profession in finding a substitute in cases of illness. He moved the omission of all the words in the clause after the word "Act."
    Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 39, to leave out from the word "Act," to the end of the Clause.
    MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought that the fact that the registrars would have to pay for the substitutes would greatly conduce to their health, and he therefore hoped the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock would persist in his Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was no use to expect the House of Commons to be humane and generous, when they were imbued with the spirit of economy. He had pledged himself to adopt the provisions of the noble Lord's Bill. He was sorry to find the words which had been read in the Bill, and he should reluctantly withdraw from his intention of dividing the Committee.
    MR. WALPOLEsaid, he was obliged to take the unpopular side, as he was in favour of the clause as it stood. In other parts of the Bill it was provided that the registrars should attend every day in the year, with the exception of Christmas Day, fast days, and holidays. He would, therefore, appeal to the justice of the Committee, and ask whether persons, so occupied, ought not to be provided with some relief; especially in the case of illness, or any other reasonable cause. In the case of the Commissioners, the Committee had very properly refused to pay for a substitute for them during their vacation; but where a clerk was required to attend every day,
    1642
    and through sickness was rendered unable to attend for a few days, he thought it hard that a substitute should be paid out of his salary.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, it was the first time he had ever heard of stopping the salary of a Judge in the event of illness, and a higher power appointing another person to receive the amount so confiscated.
    MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he should support the Amendment. If a clergyman were ill, he had to pay for a substitute out of his small stipend. If a recorder were ill, he had no substitute provided by the State; and as a recorder himself, he should be ashamed to ask the Government to pay for his deputy. If for illness, or other reasonable cause, another Commissioner or Registrar could be appointed at the public expense, it would lead to great abuse.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 117: Majority 10.
    On Question that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
    MR. CLAYsaid, he should take the sense of the Committee on the Question, with a view to negative the Clause. The registrars would then stand in the same position as recorders and others.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would not have introduced this provision, had it not been to secure the constant administration of justice, and to prevent any of the courts being shut up in the absence of a Commissioner or Registrar, on account of illness, or other urgent reason. He believed that the provision met that exigency in a satisfactory manner; but he could not consent to its adoption, except in its original form. He trusted that the Committee, having struck out the provision for the payment of a substitute, would omit the clause altogether. He should certainly take the sense of the House on that question.
    MR. WHITESIDEremarked that, under the Irish Bankruptcy Law, the Lord Chancellor had power, if an official was not able to attend the court, to appoint a deputy, and assign the sum which he was to receive out of the salary of the gentleman whose place he filled. Such was the actual state of the case; although the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) had shown good reasons why it ought not to be so.
    MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, it was very

    1643
    easy for the hon. and learned Attorney General to speak of the House of Commons being seized with a fit of economy, and to be generous at the expense of the public. But he should remember that it was a common thing at present for a Commissioner of Bankruptcy or a Police Magistrate to sit for a brother official; and there was no reason why the same custom should not prevail under this Act. He feared the payment of deputies would lead to great abuses.
    MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that the hon. and learned Attorney General had just shown something of the same temper in giving up this clause that he had displayed the other day, when defeated on another part of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman really must not expect that 150 or 160 Gentlemen, however great the deference and respect they might be disposed to pay to his opinion, were to be absolutely guided by his judgment on every minute point of the Bill. They would form opinions for themselves and would act on those opinions, even in opposition to him. His hon. and learned Friend possessed greater experience than he did—probably on all subjects but one, and that was the difficulty of working a very long Bill through the House. Perhaps he would allow him, therefore, to warn him that he would not accomplish that operation unless he endeavoured to consult and conciliate those who were opposed to him. The provision now in question was merely the re-enactment of a clause in an existing Act, with the addition of the "tailpiece," which the Committee had just struck out. It was only an enabling clause to authorize the Lord Chancellor to appoint a deputy for a Commissioner or Registrar; and it was very unreasonable for the hon. and learned Attorney General to ask the Committee to take altogether from the Lord Chancellor the power of appointing a deputy, because the Amendment had been carried. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider the matter.
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had never heard a more unreasonable or unjust attack than that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), and he was sure he could not have been in the House in the early part of the evening. The right hon. Gentleman had, from one circumstance, pronounced an opinion which those hon. Members who had been in attendance the whole evening knew to be un-
    1644
    sound. He could himself bear witness to the fact that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, five or six times in the course of the evening, had, in the most conciliatory manner, yielded to representations and adopted suggestions coming from both sides of the House.
    MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought it would be better to pass the clause than expunge it. If one of the Judges wanted a fortnight's holiday, or wished to be married, it was only reasonable he should apply to the Lord Chancellor and obtain the appointment of a deputy for the brief interval.
    MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he held that, as the money part of the clause was struck out, it would be right to strike out the clause itself.
    MR. PULLERsaid, he should like to know for whose benefit this clause was to be struck out. He thought it not desirable to bind men to the wheel so tightly, and he should oppose the striking out of the clause.
    MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he would recommend the Attorney General to follow the analogy of the Irish Acts. There were two sets of precedents in Ireland. By the County Judge Acts the Lord Chancellor could appoint a deputy to the Judge and assign him a portion of his salary; but by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Acts the Lord Chancellor could give the deputy all the powers and the salary of the principal. The Attorney General would do well to adopt the latter principle in the present Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock he wished to say that he was not aware he had ever shown any indisposition to deal with the arguments urged against the Bill. The Committee, however, had quarrelled with the Attorney General, because he would not accept their Amendments. He, on his part, did not quarrel with their opinion. If they had the power to carry their views against him that power must be enforced. But why did the Committee quarrel with him? He thought he heard no reason given for an opposition that had lost him a night, and cost him two divisions. The only cause he could give for the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) was that he did not like to see the Attorney General have his own way. From communications received from the right hon. Gentleman that evening he thought there was peace between them. If, however,

    1645
    the right hon. Gentleman liked war he was ready to meet him. But, when the right hon. Gentleman boasted of his skill and experience, he (the Attorney General) needed not to be vainglorious, but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the House sat in 1857 until late in August to pass a Bill that was advocated by the Attorney General, So much for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock. To pass to a more important matter, he thought it unkind, unreasonable, and impolitic to impose upon a sick Judge the obligation to appoint a deputy, whom he would have to pay. ["No!"] That, at all events, was the object of the words, "which deputy he is to pay." He could not consent to follow the Irish precedent quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he must, therefore, give the Committee the trouble of dividing.
    MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to inquire whether the interpretation put by the Attorney General upon this clause was correct? By the clause the Lord Chancellor had the power to appoint a deputy, but he had no power to pay him, or to make the registrar pay him. Therefore, if the Lord Chancellor appointed a barrister it would be without the slightest possibility of paying him.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he had been under the impression that it was intended to propose the omission of the last two lines of the clause, in order to propose the insertion of other words, to the effect that the Lord Chancellor, after appointing a deputy, was to have the right to pay him out of the salary of the person in whose place he was appointed. He would sooner see the clause struck out than such an insertion adopted. It was now proposed, however, to maintain the clause with the omission of the last two lines, and then the Lord Chancellor would have the power of appointing a substitute, but no power of paying him. Therefore no substitute would be appointed except by the request of the Judge, and if the Committee agreed to let the clause go in that form he saw no harm in it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he also had spoken under the same impression, that it was intended to insert other words substituting the power to pay the deputy out of the Judge's salary. If, however, it was proposed to leave the clause as it stood after the omission, he should not object to it.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. ROEBUCKmoved that the Chairman report progress.
    MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he wished to make his peace with the Attorney General. He had not intended to say anything personally offensive to the hon. and learned Gentleman, from whom he had received much personal courtesy. If the House wished to make real progress with a Bill there was no hour like that between 12 P.M. and 1 o'clock A.M.
    MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he believed that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock had given the House the benefit of his attendance at 10 o'clock. For himself, however, he had been in the House since noon. Human nature would not bear such long and late hours, and as his (Mr. Roebuck) was a very feeble human nature, he had moved that the Chairman report progress.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he wished to know when the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed to go on again with the Bill. The Committee were approaching the 150th Clause, which raised a question of principle—namely, how far it was desirable to extend the bankruptcy law to persons not traders. The principle was of such general importance, that it was desirable to discuss it at an evening, and not at a morning sitting.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he hoped they would proceed with the Bill on Thursday morning. The more important portions of the Bill, relating to the extension of bankruptcy, would be reserved for the evening sittings; but the ordinary clauses could be proceeded with at the morning sittings.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, he doubted whether anything would be gained by taking up the Bill at a morning sitting. It was straining the working powers of the House too much to have three morning sittings in the week. There were so many hon. Members engaged on Committees and in the law courts that to go on with the Bill at morning sittings would be tantamount to passing it through almost at the dictation of the Attorney General.
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that in a Bill of that magnitude there were necessarily matters of great importance, and others of lesser moment. The latter might with advantage he proceeded with in the mornings, and those of greater importance postponed for the consideration of the House in the evenings. He hoped, therefore, that the House would go on, on Thursday morning, with those portions of

    1647
    the Bill to which no great exception was taken.
    MR. E. P. BOUVERIEreminded the Committee that the time for again taking up the Bill could only be fixed when the Speaker was in the chair.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress.
    SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEexpressed a hope that so important a Bill would not be fixed for Thursday morning. There were clauses in it that would require the serious consideration of all the Members of the House, and many could not be present at a morning sitting.
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could only repeat what he had before said, that when they came to important questions on which a difference of opinion prevailed, those questions could be reserved for the evenings.
    MR. WHITESIDEsaid, there were important questions coming before the House on Thursday evening, to which they would be expected to devote all their energies, and in these circumstances he objected to this Bill being proceeded with at a morning sitting on that day.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That this House will, upon Thursday next, at Twelve of the clock, again resolve itself into the said Committee."
    The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 66: Majority 69.
    House adjourned, at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Local Taxation Returns.
2a Naval Discipline.

ITALY.—EXPLANATION.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he wished to call the attention of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) to the impression that was made, adverse to some highly respectable persons, friends of his own, by the disparaging tone in which his noble and learned Friend spoke the other evening of some correspondence that had been addressed to him by certain gentlemen in Florence. How did that correspondence originate, and what was its nature? It was conveyed to him by persons in whom he could place as much reliance as he could in any one in this House or in his noble and learned Friend himself, and it related to the acts and proceedings of the Provisional Government in Tuscany—a Provisional Government which was supported and nursed mainly by the action of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. That Government had gagged the press so that not one word was allowed to appear in public except what was favourable to the acts of Baron Ricasoli, and therefore his correspondents were compelled to transmit their statements to him in order that they might be read in the House of Lords. But now the Provisional Government was at an end; and what had since happened? In a newspaper, which had been started by the most eminent men in Florence within the last six weeks, all the statements of his correspondents with regard to the misdeeds, the duplicity, the tyranny of the Provisional Government were fully substantiated. Had the Government denied the facts? On the contrary, after a vain attempt to suppress the paper, they bought up the printer and the other printers in the town to refuse to print it. But here, too, he

1609
was glad to say they failed; so that the newspaper which contained this exposé of the deeds of the Provisional Government, after having been suspended for ten days, was now in such credit that it was published daily instead of, as at first, three times a week. The result, then, of the discredit which had been attached to the statements of his correspondents was that they were substantiated in a newspaper published by some of the first men in Florence. He might also state that he had foreseen, and had warned the House from the beginning, that the only result of our interference in Tuscan affairs would be the strengthening of the Mazzini party. That party was now growing stronger and bolder than ever, and the last account he had received from Florence was that no fewer than three barricade committees had been formed in that town. Discredit had also been thrown on some statements he made on the authority of the French newspapers with respect to atrocities committed in Sicily; but these statements were confirmed the day after he made them by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, though he said the acts were not traced to General Garibaldi. Now, he never said that these outrages were the acts of the Government or that they were the acts of persons acting under the Government. But what he said, and what he would repeat was, that when the regular Government was suspended, then every person acting at all was acting under the authority of General Garibaldi; and he did not think when a person assumed responsibility such as General Garibaldi had done, and great atrocities were committed, it was enough to say that the reports of the British Admiral on the station were to the effect that Garibaldi was perfectly humane and moderate. He never meant to dispute that, for he knew nothing on the subject, but Garibaldi ought not to put himself in a situation of such responsibility if he could not prevent the crimes that were committed by those under him. It was unnecessary to assure his noble and learned Friend that he did not mean to bring any charge against him, but he thought this explanation was due to those respectable persons who had corresponded with him, and whose statements, though they had been discredited at first, were now so completely substantiated.
LORD BROUGHAM:—I am sure my noble Friend and the House will acquit me in anything which I said from intend-
1610
ing to cast even the slightest imputation on my noble Friend himself. Correspondence undoubtedly means letters received as well as sent; and when I described the very small value which I attached to the correspondence of my noble Friend I meant letters which he had received, and not letters which he had sent. Of those I had no means of judging, except from my entire confidence in my noble Friend, and whatever statements were conveyed in those I am quite certain would be accurate. The value which I attached to the letters containing the details referred to by the noble Marquess was certainly of the very smallest, and nothing which has now fallen from my noble Friend has inclined me to raise that estimate. My information from Florence is diametrically opposed to that of my noble Friend—though I have no doubt whatever that he will attach as little value to my correspondence as I have attached to his. I believe that the Government of Florence is not subject to the imputations cast upon it by the correspondents of my noble Friend, but that it is perfectly free from those charges. As to that celebrated individual—not more celebrated than he deserves—General Garibaldi, I am exceedingly glad indeed to hear that my noble Friend does not at all impute to him those excesses which he says have been committed in the course of the revolutionary proceedings which have taken place in Sicily. However, I did not quite so understand my noble Friend on a former occasion, and to-night I thought that, if he did not actually quite charge these excesses upon General Garibaldi, he more than insinuated that he is answerable for them. I suppose my noble Friend means that a man who is in supreme power is answerable for everything which is done during his dictatorship; but in no other sense can General Garibaldi be answerable for any of those offences to which reference has been made. My noble Friend seems to be under the impression that the Secretary of State admitted those excesses the other night in the other House of Parliament, and also that General Garibaldi had something to do with them; but my belief is that he peremptorily denied it, as I do now upon his authority and upon the authority of all others who have any knowledge of the matter. There is no cause known in history which has met with more universal acceptance than the cause of the Sicilians, with General Garibaldi at their head, against the tyrant of Sicily and his

1611
emissaries, whether in the shape of sbirri or soldiers—the soldiers, I verily believe, but for a season about to remain in allegiance to him. I am told there is a constitution about to be imposed, not upon Sicily, for that is out of the question, but upon Naples; in my firm belief, and in my entire and hearty hope and prayer, such constitution will utterly fail to save that detestable tyranny.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYhad never said that General Garibaldi was personally answerable for the outrages that had been committed. What he did say, and what he now repeated, was, that when a man, in violation of the law of nations, assumed absolute power, either in Sicily or elsewhere, he rendered himself responsible for all the outrages that were committed. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, did not trace those outrages to General Garibaldi personally; but he did not deny that outrages had been committed. One word more as to his correspondents. The noble and learned Lord said, that what he had heard made no difference in the value he imputed to these statements. What, no difference! when he informed him that every word in those statements had been confirmed and repeated in a Liberal newspaper published in Florence? In 1848 his noble and learned Friend spoke strongly against the revotionary spirit; and the other night his noble and learned Friend stated that he did not retract or change one word of what he then said. All he had to say was, that if his noble and learned Friend's opinions were not changed, he had greatly changed his mode of giving expression to them.
LORD BROUGHAMwished to add one word only with regard to General Garibaldi. His noble Friend said that he had proceeded in violation of the law of nations to liberate his fellow-subjects.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY: Not his fellow-subjects.
LORD BROUGHAM: His countrymen, then.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY: Why his countrymen?
LORD BROUGHAM: Because he is an Italian. He could only say that if the law of nations was to be enforced to the perpetual subjugation and misery of nations, the sooner they had as little as possible of the law of nations the better.
LORD WODEHOUSEwished to call attention to one phrase made use of by the noble Marquess, that the noble Lord, the
1612
Foreign Secretary, in the other House, said he could not trace the outrages committed in Sicily to General Garibaldi. That was a phrase which would imply that his noble Friend had a suspicion of General Garibaldi's connivance in those outrages, though there was not sufficient evidence of the fact. His noble Friend's expressions, however, went much further than a denial of any proof that General Garibaldi had connived at those excesses. Not only was there no connivance, but he had done his utmost to prevent them; and by the last intelligence, it appeared that he had recourse to severe measures for that purpose. But when a man was placed in the position of General Garibaldi it was not surprising that he should not be able to prevent the commission of everything of which he disapproved. He certainly deserved the highest credit for the generosity and moderation which he had displayed. It must not be forgotten, too, that if some outrages had been committed in the excitement of a revolution, outrages had been previously committed by the Royal troops, which were perfectly well known to all the world, and which were unsurpassed by anything of which the oppressed people of Sicily had been guilty.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET,in moving the second reading of the Bill to amend the laws relating to the government of the Navy, said that it was nearly a century since the Act was brought in which at present governed the discipline of the navy, and the changes of the law and the progress of public opinion with regard to the service, rendered it very desirable that Amendments should be introduced and the law revised. Neither offences nor punishments were clearly defined. A paper which was in their Lordships' hands showed the spirit in which it was intended by this Bill to deal with the subject. It was proposed to deal with it on principles of justice and humanity, without relaxing in any degree the discipline of the navy. The men would know what punishments they incurred, and that the object was to keep good order among themselves, without which they could have no comfort or safety on board ship. With an ill-disciplined crew, the insubordinate and disorderly shirked

1613
work, and, as the work must be done, it fell upon the orderly and subordinate. It was, therefore, in the interest of the orderly men that the disorderly should be punished. It was proposed to diminish the almost universal punishment of death which stood in the old code. It was never inflicted in a great many cases, and it was desirable the men should know what in those cases their punishment really would be. He had received a great many suggestions from officers who were competent to form a sound opinion upon several of the details, some of which he intended to adopt. After the second reading he should propose to go into Committee pro formâ, in order to introduce those Amendments, and the Bill might be debated and re-considered on going again into Committee on a future day. There were many reasons why it was desirable to pass the Bill this year. They had heard with regret of disturbances in vessels both at home and abroad, and he was told that one great fault of the present law was that the petty officers, who stood between the officers and seamen, and on whom good discipline in great measure depended, though protected on board ship, were not protected sufficiently on shore. They were often injured and insulted on shore by the men, whose conduct they had found fault with on board ship. The Bill, therefore, contained a clause by which martial law would be extended to protect the petty officers on shore, as well as on board ship. The continuance of corporal punishment in the navy was a question which he had considered very carefully, and had heard fully and fairly discussed among naval officers. The conclusion at which he had arrived was, that to transfer the power of inflicting corporal punishment from the captain to a court-martial would be to diminish the authority of the captain and to endanger the discipline of the service. The nearest approach which could safely be made to such a system was to provide—as was done in the present Bill—that, except in the case of open mutiny, no man should be subjected to corporal punishment by the commanding officer until the case had been inquired into and reported upon by one or more officers appointed by the commander. By that means the responsibility would be to a certain extent divided between the captain and one or more of his subordinates. He proposed that arrangement rather for the protection of the captain than of the men, as it would re-
1614
lieve him of that personal odium which he was at present apt to incur if he inflicted corporal punishment. Their Lordships were, no doubt, aware that seamen were now grouped in two classes, and that first-class men were not liable to corporal punishment at all till they had been reduced to the second class. Every precaution, therefore, had been taken to place corporal punishment on a safe footing. He was certainly not prepared to give up this mode of punishment, as certain persons who called themselves the "friends of the sailor" demanded. He believed that its abolition would be a positive misfortune to the well-behaved men, and would lead to great inconvenience at sea, as confinement would be almost the only substitute.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEagreed with the noble Duke as to the importance of the subject; but he was of opinion that the discipline of the navy was equally, if not more, dependent on the character and conduct of the officers in command than upon the code of laws under which they acted. Informing an opinion on this question, the public had not made sufficient allowance for the peculiarities of the naval service, and had been too prone to consider the Articles of War on the same ground as the general law of the land. The effect of popular opinion acting on the successive Boards of Admiralty had been to render it extremely difficult for officers to carry out the naval code of laws and to maintain the discipline of the service; and that influence could only be met by the establishment of a detailed system of discipline, and by the personal example of commanding officers in sharing the same privations and restrictions as their men. Let the officers show that they were determined to maintain discipline; but at the same time let them make it apparent that they themselves took their share of that discipline. He owned that the language of the existing Act of Parliament, which had been in force for a hundred years, was too general and comprehensive, and that it was desirable that the particular offence and the punishment attached should be clearly defined. He had, therefore, no objection to the measure of the noble Duke as a whole, although there were points in which it I might be improved. He highly approved the manner in which the noble Duke proposed to deal with the distinction which prevailed between offences committed on shore and on board of ships. The exemp-

1615
tions from martial law which a seaman at present enjoyed when he quitted his ship certainly tended to unsettle him on his return on board, and not unfrequently petty officers who attempted to enforce very strict discipline were assaulted by the men when on shore. A marine who misconducted himself on shore was liable to the same punishment as on board. Not so the seaman, who was amenable only to the civil law for his conduct on shore. One result of this was, a threat to a petty officer to retort upon him when he landed has the effect of deterring him from discharging his duty. The Bill gave power to the Lords of the Admiralty to suspend, annul, or modify any sentence passed on any person subject to the Act, except the sentence of death, which could only be remitted by Her Majesty. He objected to any proposal to constitute the Lords of the Admiralty an appellant court. The naval officers who composed a court-martial were generally quite as good judges as the Lords of the Admiralty, if not better. An appeal from a court-martial was always open to the Crown, and, although he wished to see an appellate jurisdiction established, it ought to be entrusted, he thought, to men learned in the law, and not to the Admiralty. Great objections were properly entertained to the 15th section of the 49th clause, which set up within the walls of the ship a court for the judgment of offences. The clause said:—
"Except in case of open mutiny no man shall be sentenced by the commanding officer to corporal punishment until his offence has been inquired into by one or more officers appointed by such commanding officer, and the guilt or innocence of the prisoner reported to such commanding officer."
He objected to this clause, thinking it desirable to retain in the hands of the captain the sole power, conduct, and management of the ship from first to last, together with the full responsibility of such command. The captain might himself see an offence committed, and yet under this clause he would be unable to punish the offender until his guilt had been inquired into by these officers. Such a regulation would diminish and injure the authority of the captain, and have a prejudicial influence upon the discipline of the ship. At present an interval of forty-eight hours elapsed between the sentence of corporal punishment and its infliction, so that ample time existed for inquiry and reconsideration. He trusted that the House
1616
would not agree to this inquiry by junior officers; there were several clauses in the Bill which required the most careful consideration, either before a Select Committee or in Committee of the Whole House.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, this Bill proposed to remodel the whole law upon this subject. He did not object to many of the alterations; indeed he approved of some of them being made, but others would require some notice in Committee. In his opinion it was absolutely necessary, for the good of the ship, that the captain should have complete command over all persons in the ship.
VISCOUNT MELVILLEobjected to that part of the Bill by which an officer might be dismissed the service for what was called an "error of judgment." He thought this a very severe penalty.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETwould consider the various suggestions that had been made, with a view to their adoption in Committee if they were deemed advisable. If the Bill was sent to a Select Committee upstairs, and noble Lords attended to it for a day or two, he had no doubt that it might be considerably improved.
Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

LAW AND EQUITY BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that to his great regret the Select Committee to which this Bill was referred had struck out several most valuable clauses, but he hoped the House might before long be induced to adopt them. The Bill as it stood still contained important amendments of the law which he believed would be found beneficial in practice, and he therefore submitted it to the favourable consideration of their Lordships. Two clauses had been omitted by mistake, and he believed there was no objection to their introduction.
  LORD BROUGHAMshared in the regret expressed by his noble and learned Friend at the decision which had been arrived at by the Select Committee. He hoped that next year, his noble Friends who had overpowered the Lord Chancellor and himself in the Committee would come to, he would not say a wiser, but a different opinion.
  LORD CHELMSFORDdissented from the view taken by the noble and learned Lords who had just addressed the Committee. He believed that the Bill had been much improved by the omission of the clauses referred to; those which remained would doubtless prove exceedingly useful.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the supporters of the Bill in its original shape had been only compelled to yield to what lawyers called the vis major, which could not be resisted.
  Amendments made. The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow Half-past Ten o'clock.