Sitting of 11 February 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Markets and Fairs (Ireland); Births, Deaths, and Marriages (Ireland); Bankruptcy and Insolvency; Chatham Dockyard Enlargement; Royal Marine Barracks (East Stonehouse, Devon); Post Office Savings Banks; Red Sea and India Telegraph.

DISQUALIFIED WITNESSES.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he rose to ask a Question of the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to a case that lately occurred in the County Court of Rochdale, where a witness on a trial on a question affecting her own property, was asked a question which she could not answer in the way she was expected to do. The question was whether she believed in a future state of rewards and punishments, and because she was not able to say that she did believe in them, the Judge announced that she must be nonsuited, and he was reported to have added words to the effect, that if she chose to outrage society by her opinions she must take the consequences. Now, the question he wished to ask the right hon. Secretary of State was, Whether, in his opinion, considering this case, any alteration in the law of evidence was likely to be made; or whether under circumstances where life was endangered, character insinuated away, or accusations made against a person which involved social degradation, that person would not be allowed to give evidence because he was not able conscientiously to declare that he believed in a future state of rewards and punishments?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the question, as he apprehended it, was this, whether, in a criminal case, a witness who did not believe in a future state of rewards and punishments, and who was, therefore, incapacitated from taking an oath, should yet be allowed to give his evidence, subject to the disadvantage of not having been sworn. He could only say that the hon. Baronet had not given him notice of the question, and his attention not having been called to the subject, he was unwilling, on a professional question, to give an answer off-hand. If his hon. Friend would repeat his question on a future day he would then endeavour to give him an answer.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNY: I give notice Sir, that I shall ask the question again to-morrow.
MR. BRIGHT: In reference to the statement of my hon. Friend (Sir John Trelawny) I understand that the Judge of the County Court afterwards said that it was a mistake to say that he had used the words, "If the witness would outrage society she must take the consequences." He either explained away or denied those words, and as my hon. Friend has quoted them, I think it is only fair to the Judge that this should be told.

THE CORPORATION OF LONDON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to introduce during the present Session any Bill to reform the Corporation of London?
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: It will be my duty Sir, before long to ask for leave to bring in a Bill relative to the question of the present Coal Duty, but it is not my intention at present to introduce any Bill on the subject of the Corporation.

  PROPERTY TAX AND PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLES WYNNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the measure which he proposes to introduce for the uniform assessment of the County Rate and Poors Rate upon a common basis, provision will be made for enabling the County Committees to have access for their guidance to the Property Tax Returns in each parish?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Bill was printed, and would shortly be delivered. It did not contain any such clause as the hon. Gentleman described; but there would be no objection to introduce, he understood, such a clause, provided it was limited to Schedule A.

  MILITARY HOSPITAL, GREAT YARMOUTH.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY STRACEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it be in contemplation to abolish or remove the Military Invalid or Convalescent Hospital, which has been in operation at Great Yarmouth for the last three years; and if so, what are the reasons?
  MR. T. G. BARING, in reply, stated that the Military Invalid or Convalescent Hospital, which had been in operation at Great Yarmouth for the last three Sessions, belonged to the Admiralty, and had only been lent for the use of the military service. The Admiralty now desired to have the Hospital restored to them, and, as soon as the necessary arrangements were made, it would be handed over to them by the War Department.

SUPPLY.—INDIAN FINANCE.
Resolution, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty" reported.
MR. H. BAILLIE: Sir, I wish to take this opportunity to ask a Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India, and in so doing, it is necessary that I should advert very briefly to a state-men the made to the House the other evening, with respect to the present state and condition of Indian Finance. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion informed the House that he was about to raise a loan for the service of the Indian Government, but he cautioned the House not to suppose that this loan was about to be raised for the purpose of meeting any deficiency in the revenue of India. He said that this loan was about to be raised for the purpose of enabling the Government of India to meet the payments on behalf of the Indian railways. Now, that statement may be perfectly accurate, but at the same time standing by itself, and without any explanation, it is very much calculated to mislead the public. The case of the Indian railways is this. The money for the Indian railways is subscribed by the public in this country. As soon as the money is raised it is paid into the hands of the Indian Government, and the Indian Government make use of that money—it goes into the general treasury, and they make use of that money for their own purposes, and whether it is spent in England or whether it is spent in India is a matter of no importance whatever. But the Government, of course, become liable to pay the instalments to the contractors of the railways in India whenever they become due, on account of the works in India. Now, Sir, there appears to be some doubt —several people whom I have spoken to entertain considerable doubt—as to the meaning of the Secretary of State. If, as I believe, the Indian Government have received this money, and have used the money, and now find that the calls upon them will be greater than they anticipated —if that be the case, then it is clearly and obviously a deficit of £3,000,000 in the Indian treasury. But if, on the other hand, these people have not paid the money into the hands of the Government, and if the Government are about to raise a loan because the shareholders in the Indian railways decline to pay up their shares at the present time when the rate of interest is 8 per cent; then if the Go-

275
vernment raise a loan for the purpose of paying those shares for them, it is nothing more or less than a bonus to the shareholders not to pay their money until the rate of interest shall fall from its present high rate to 3½ or 3 per cent, and when they may do so with greater facility. Now, I am at a loss to understand which of these two cases is the real one that we are to take, because no explanation whatever was given by the Secretary of State at the time; but if the first supposition is the correct one, namely, that the Government have received the money, but that they had a deficit in the Exchequer, and are unable to pay it, then clearly the Indian deficit this year, instead of being £6,000,000, as stated by the Governor General, will be £9,000,000. Now, let us just take a glance at the present state of the Indian Revenue. Among the papers which have lately been sent to this country by the authority of the Governor General, is the Report of the Financial Secretary of the Government, in which it is stated that the deficit for the year 1860 61, will, on the 30th of April, which is the end of the financial year, amount to upwards of £6,000,000. Now, the question is, how is that money to be provided? If the first supposition is correct, than the deficit is £9,000,000, of course, £3,000,000 will be provided by the loan, and £6,000,000 will, as I understand, be provided out of the balances in the Indian Treasury. That may be, of course, one mode of meeting the difficulty, but at the same time we must bear in mind that the Indian Government, under the circumstances, will commence their financial career in 1861–62, with the balances in the Exchequer reduced by the sum of no less than £6,000,000. The right hon. Secretary of State then proceeded to give the House some rather loose calculations with respect to the future prospects of the Indian Government. He told the House that the Indian Government had been able to reduce the expenditure during the last year by no less than £3,300,000, and that if the increase of taxation and reduction of expenditure next year should be equal to what they were last, then there would be an equilibrium and balance between the revenue and expenditure. Now, that Statement also is rather difficult to understand. We know that the deficit is £6,000,000, and the right hon. Gentleman says if that £3,300,000 of the expenditure be reduced that would not of course
276
meet the deficit, but he adds £2,700,000, I suppose for what he means by an increase of taxation to be obtained. Then, in that case, the equilibrium will be established. This, of course, is a proposition very easily to be understood. But what has struck me as very peculiar in that statement is the great discrepancy between his view and that of the Governor General of India. Now, Sir, I have already referred to the documents which have been furnished by the Governor General of India, and I will read to the House an extract from those documents, in order that they may see how very different the view of the Governor General is from that expressed by the Secretary of State. This is the statement of the Financial Secretary, Mr. Lushington, dated the 19th of November, and published by authority of the Governor General. He says,—
"That although he has made every possible effort to effect a reduction of the public expenditure, although he has deferred not only necessary and public works of all kinds, but works calculated directly to improve the revenue (to the execution of which Government is more or less pledged, and on some of which large sums have been expended) are suspended to such an extent, that an outlay of no less than £8,000,000 sterling would be required to complete them; and although he has made an appeal to all his subordinates to cut down their departmental estimates to the lowest possible figure, yet the deficit for 1860–61, exceeds £8,000,000 sterling, being equal to more than 16 per cent on the total expected income from all sources."
I will leave the House to decide whether that is the statement of one who thinks he will be able to make a similar reduction next year, and at the same time to augment the taxation of the country by the amount of £2,700,000. In fact, I do not understand how the taxation can be increased by that amount, for surely the right hon. Gentleman could not expect the income tax to produce anything like that amount. The fact is, that the whole statement of the right hon. Baronet rested on two important "ifs;" and I will venture to add a third, and that is, if the Government maintains the European Army in India at its present amount, namely, 100,000 men, no such result as that he anticipates can possibly occur. Now, Sir, we may perhaps excuse this little flourish of the Secretary of State, when we consider the peculiar time at which the statement was made, The statement was made in this House on the eve of raising the loan. A question was very conveniently put to the Secretary of State by the hon. Member for London

277
(Mr. Crawford). No doubt the Secretary of State was very glad to "make things look pleasant;" and, no doubt, the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford), when he was told by the Secretary of State that there was no loss of interest on Indian securities, was very glad also to make things pleasant; and, no doubt, between them they concocted the question put to the Secretary of State. Now, I do not mean to say that the folks in the City of London are caught with chaff, but this I do say, that the speech of the Secretary of State did produce a great effect in the City of London, so that the loan, when it came out next morning, rose suddenly no less than 3 per cent, and that at all events is a proof of the great confidence which they entertain in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, as well as of great confidence with regard to the security of our Indiam empire. That, at least, must be a very gratifying reflection for the Secretary of State. Sir, having made these observations, I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has any objection to lay on the table of the House all the financial correspondence which may have taken place between himself and the Governor General of India since the last Session of Parliament?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that there was one insinuation contained in the speech of his hon. Friend which he thought had hardly been intended—namely, that he was induced to make a statement which was not true in order to raise the probable price of the loan which was contracted next day. [Mr. BAILLIE: "No, no!"] That the effect of the statement which he made was to raise the opinion of the public as to the state of the Indian Finances and of Indian credit he had not the slightest doubt, because for some weeks there had, to his knowledge, prevailed most unjust and unfounded opinions upon those subjects, and under those circumstances he had only done his duty in making that statement. He should have grievously erred if he had asserted anything but what he believed to be strictly accurate, but he could assure his hon. Friend that the statement which he made was entirely borne out by the despatches from India. His hon. Friend had fallen into the mistake of confounding balances with the actual income and expenditure of the State, and if the House would permit him he would shortly restate what he said upon a previous occasion. He then distinctly stated that he was going to raise
278
a loan not for the service of India, but to make good an excess of expenditure in India, and a deficiency of payments in this country on railroad account. His hon. Friend had stated correctly that all the money required for the construction of railroads in India was raised by subscription in this country and paid into the Home Treasury; but it was by no means a matter of indifference whether the expenditure for which it was to provide was to take place in India or in England, If the expenditure was in England the money was paid in and then drawn out in England to pay the contractors or others to whom it might be due. If the expenditure occurred in India the money, instead of being remitted to India, as it naturally would be if there was no connection with the Government, was applied to Government purposes in England; and the money which the Indian Government would naturally have remitted to England to provide for those expenses was retained in India and applied to the construction of the railroads there. This was merely a cash transaction rendering unnecessary a remittance either way, but it had nothing to do with the income or expenditure of India. At the end of last Session he stated that he expected payments on account of railroads from this country, amounting to £7,000,000, and an expenditure in this country of £2,500.000, and in India of £4,750,000, £250,000 of this latter sum being provided by a reduction of the railway balances. If that had been the only amount drawn from the Indian Treasury for railway payments in that country he should have received from that country a remittance of about £1,250,000, for the purpose of defraying expenditure on Indian account in England. Circumstances, however, had been such that the expenditure on railway account in India would probably amount to £6,000,000, thus exactly absorbing the sum which he expected to receive from that country, and he was, therefore, obliged to borrow in this country in order to make good the deficiency. Up to this time the payments on account of railroads in this country amounted to £4,500,000; and he anticipated that by the 30th of April he might possibly receive £1,000,000 more. This would make five millions and a half instead of seven. The balance of £1,500,000 for which he was thus obliged to provide, added to the million and a quarter of which he had already spoken, made £2,750,000, which approached as closely as possible to the three millions

279
he had been obliged to borrow to put the finances right at the end of the year. His hon. Friend would see that this had nothing to do with the income and expenditure of India; it was merely a cash transaction. Last year he had stated in detail to the House the prospects of Indian finance. He bad told them that there would be a deficiency in 1860–61 of more than seven millions. To meet this he hoped, before the 30th of April, there would be receipts from income-tax to the extent of one million; while a reduction would take place, not on the whole expenditure, for in the Civil Department there would be some increase, but the military expenditure would be diminished by £800,000, more than he had anticipated. According to the last Estimate from India, the deficit at the end of this year would be £5,574,000. The statement put forward in India was erroneous to this extent—that it included in the disbursements upwards of £700,000 on account of compensations for losses sustained during the mutiny, which formed no portion of the annual expenditure, but, being taken from the Treasury, reduced the balance accordingly. The deficit, on what he might fairly call the income and charge of India for the present year, was £5,574,000, or, in round numbers, £5,500,000. This was very much better than he had anticipated when making his statement in August last. He now came to next year, as to which his hon. Friend said he did not understand on what grounds he had arrived at the conclusion that expenditure and income would about balance each other. The deficiency of £5,500,000 in the course of the present year would be partially met by the anticipated produce of £3,500,000 from the new taxes. Of this £1,000,000, as he had said, would be received in the course of the present year; but deducting the balance of £2,500,000 from the deficit of £5,500,000, it left £3,000,000 to be provided for. He had every reason to hope that the reduction of military expenditure was proceeding at such a rate in India that next year they would be able still further to reduce it by £3,000,000. In 1859–60 the Military Estimates had been reduced by £3,500,000; £3,300,000 had been struck off in 1860–61; and in 1861–62 they hoped to reduce the amount by a further sum of £3,000,000. If, therefore, an increase of £2,500,000 was obtained, and at the same time a reduction of expenditure to the extent of £3,000,000 took place,
280
his hon. Friend would see that an equilibrium of income and expenditure would be established. He hoped he had succeeded in rendering his statement intelligible to the House, but in order further to elucidate his meaning, and to put hon. Members in possession of all the information which he himself had received, he was ready to lay on the table all the despatches which had passed between his department and the Governor General of India since the close of last Session.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he had no wish to prolong a rather irregular discussion on Indian finances, but he was unwilling that an erroneous impression should be created by the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverness shire, who had stated that shave-holders in several Indian companies declined to pay up their subscriptions.
MR. BAILLIEdenied that he had made a statement to that effect.
MR. CRAWFORD: I took down the hon. Gentleman's words.
MR. BAILLIE: Then you took them down wrong.
MR. CRAWFORD: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the shareholders were declining to pay up their subscriptions under the contract they had entered into.
MR. BAILLIE: No, I did not say so.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he merely wished to observe that the money had been advanced by the shareholders on the security of the Government guarantee, and not on the prospects of the railways themselves. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India had taken the proper course in coming to the public himself as a borrower of money for the purposes of the railways, rather than, by raising the rate of the guarantee, still further to have depreciated the value of railway stock.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know whether certain railway companies, not having funds of their own, had not come to the Government for advances. In putting that question he was referring in particular to the Madras Railway Company and the Bombay and Baroda Railway Company. He understood that the resources of those companies had become exhausted, and that they had applied to the Government for money to enable them to complete their undertakings. This, if true, was a most important circumstance, because the funds to be dealt with would in that case be raised, not by the share-

281
holders, but from the Indian Exchequer. The State would, moreover, run the risk of advancing money upon lines which were not under Government control. That would be a fatal blot, and one that must entirely change the character of the railway system. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had made rather a prosperity speech, with regard to the prospects of Indian Finance. In a statement put forward by the Governor General, the income for the year 1860–61 was calculated at thirty-nine millions and a fraction; while the expenditure was taken at forty-five millions and a fraction—thereby leaving a formidable deficit. In the contrary opinion just expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, he wished to know whether he had taken into account the famine with which a large tract of Indian territory, particularly in the North-Western Provinces, was afflicted? It was difficult to overlook such a misfortune as that; but the right hon. Gentleman had not even alluded to it in asking the House to believe in his pleasant dream of a financial equilibrium in 1861–62. For his part, he did not in any way join in such sanguine expectations. The Governor General in his statement alluded to the home charges, amounting to £6,983,000. Such an extraordinary sum required explanation; and he therefore wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would place on the table of the House a document, showing in detail the expenditure of these charges. It would also be desirable to know what amount had been spent on the passage of officers and troops between India and this country, as he was informed that this item amounted to half a million, one third of which charge, he believed, was paid in this country, and the other two-thirds by the Indian Government. He was glad that the right hon. Baronet had volunteered to produce the official correspondence necessary to place the matter rightly before the House, because, sooner or later, he feared the United Kingdom would be called on to make good the financial position of India.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman was enabled to confirm the statement made last year that there was a prospect of revenue and expenditure becoming equalised in India. Nineteen months ago he had published a pamphlet (and he had gone over the figures with his right hon. Friend), in which he showed that, if the Secretary of State would only exercise the power he possessed, he
282
could have compelled a readjustment of Indian Finance even before the period at which it was now thought that desirable event might take place. Under the old system every member of the Court of Directors had the power of introducing any subject and putting it to the vote of the Court. Unhappily, that was not the case now, otherwise more extensive reductions might have already taken place; but he had no doubt whatever of the correctness of his light hon. Friend's anticipation—namely, that the finances could be brought to a state of equilibrium, provided that the necessary reductions took place. In 1857 the revenues were £31,000,000, and then there was a balance of two to four lacs of rupees in favour of the Government. At present they were £39,000,000, independently of the income tax; but he believed there were now 100,000 European troops in India to do that which less than 50,000 did in 1857, when the mutiny was crushed; the Bengal Native Army of 100,000 men annihilated, and our power maintained, and now we had neither a Bengal Native Army nor a Native prince to oppose us, and the maintenance of 100,000 European Troops was a waste of the finances of India. He wished to observe that there was now in India a latent feeling the existence of which was dangerous. It existed in the Native mind, and was owing to the manner in which the income tax was levied. He had letters from various parts of the country—letters which spoke of the sentiments of the people from one end of India to the other—stating that the agents employed in levying the income tax did so, in many instances, under distraint, and exercised their powers in a very tyrannical manner. He regretted extremely that that dangerous tax had ever been introduced into that empire, for it might have been done without. He thought that the system under which the railway companies paid in money here, and payments were made for them by the Government in India, was one which afforded great convenience and effected a considerable saving. A somewhat similar arrangement was formerly made, before the introduction of railways, with the mercantile community, who received bills drawn on India for money paid here. Indeed, such a thing as sending home bullion from India had for many years been almost unknown.
Resolution agreed to, Nemine Contra-dicente.
Committee appointed for Wednesday,

RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

  RESOLUTION REPORTED.
  MR. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to ask a Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was Whether it was really proved that the Telegraph Company had been in complete operation during a period of one month? Certainly he did not remember that any communication with India had been carried on for a month by means of their telegraph.
  THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that in the statement which he had made a few nights before he had rather avoided attempting to make any precise statement on the part of the case which formed the subject of the hon. Gentleman's question, because it might involve matters of much nicety, on which the opinion of the law officers would have to be considered, and he thought that matters of this kind would be better examined by the Select Committee to whom the Bill was to be referred. What he apprehended to have been the case was this, that each of the six sections into which the line was divided had been in operation for the minimum term, but that the entire line had not been in operation for that term.
  Resolution reported—
  "That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to Guarantee to the Red Sea and Indian Telegraphic Company a minimum dividend of four and a half per cent per annum upon a certain amount of capital, bonâ fide called upon for the purpose of the said Company's undertaking."
  Resolution agreed to; Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. PEEL.
  Bill "for Amending the Red Sea and India Telegraph Act, 1859," presented and read 1°.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS (CONSOLIDATED FUND.)—REPORT.
Resolution reported—
"That it is expedient to charge upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the deficiency, if any such should arise, in the sums which may be held on account of Post Office Savings Banks, to meet the lawful demands of depositors in such Banks, in the event of their being established by Law."
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, that though this stage of the proceeding with reference to the proposed scheme was
284
rather formal, he thought it well to remind the House that they had no knowledge of the Bill which it was intended to found on the Resolution. They were, in fact, voting that they would go into the discussion of a matter on which up to that time, they were perfectly ignorant. It was a signal instance of the necessity that existed for an examination of some of their forms by the Committee which had been appointed on the business of the House. It was perfectly true that what they were about to do in this case was formal; but on the Resolution, which for the second time they were about to pass, a substantive proposition, in the shape of a Bill, would be founded. No one, who had heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman could doubt that if that Bill passed, it would be pregnant with important results. Under its provisions the Government would be founding banks of deposit on a gigantic scale, and thus a risk would be encountered which many might think dangerous; and another important result of the measure would be its effect on the present savings-banks. He did not wish to be understood as throwing any obstacle in the way of any proposition which might be useful to the working classes. He merely wished to draw attention to the fact that by a merely formal proceeding they were laying the foundation for very important consequences. The merits of the right hon. Gentleman's (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) scheme was another question, and one that was not then under discussion, for the House were, in fact, ignorant of it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman must have made his remarks without having heard the precise terms of the Resolution, the reception of which was the question now before the House. Undoubtedly it had sometimes happened that the House was called on, in the case of money Bills, to assent to preliminary Resolutions for very large propositions, which appeared to assert, and positively did assert, certain positions of great importance, before the House knew the manner in which they were to be carried out; but in the present case the House was not called on to do anything of the kind. The Resolution now before it was a hypothetical one. It did not involve in any degree the sanction of the House to the Bill which he intended to propose. All it asserted was this, that if these Post Office Savings Banks were to be established, the charge should

285
be made one on the Consolidated Fund; but the question whether there were to be Post-office savings-banks—which was one of great importance—was in no way whatever decided by the Resolution.
Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY, Mr. CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. PEEL.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY.

  FIRST READING.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I hope the Bill which I am about to move for leave to introduce will be brought before you under happier auspices than its predecessor of last year. At the same time I must say that, while I regret the necessity of abandoning the unfortunate Bill of last Session, I have been very much consoled by the reflection that in preparing the present measure I have had to direct my attention to a number of topics to which I felt it necessary that greater consideration should be given; and I hope that I have succeeded in framing a measure which you will receive with greater favour than you were disposed to show to that which pro-ceded it. You will recollect that the two chief objections urged against that Bill were its late appearance and its ponderous dimensions. The first I have obviated by introducing the Bill at the present moment. With respect to the second I have deferred to the opinion then expressed, and surrendered my own judgment to the feeling that prevailed; and I am happy to say that the Bill which I now propose to introduce is less by one half than the Bill of last Session. But you will do me the favour to recollect that the Bill which I then introduced was a consolidating, as well as an amending measure. The law of bankruptcy is entirely lex scripta. It is wholly composed of statutory provisions, and those provisions are to be found scattered over a great number of Acts of Parliament, all of which must be consulted in order to obtain a just idea of the law. As there exists a general opinion that Acts of Parliament ought to he consolidated, I felt last year that it was my duty to attempt to consolidate into one Act the whole of the written law on the subject of bankruptcy. The present, however, is only an amending Bill, and is therefore of a fragmentary and disconnected character, the provisions of which cannot be at once perfectly understood, from the want of those
  286
  lights that might be cast on them from other statutes which are left untouched. In framing the present Bill I have entirely abandoned consolidation, though I must frankly confess that my own feelings and sentiments are all in favour of a consolidating measure; but it is at all times desirable to propose that which is likely to pass, and if I can succeed in inducing you to pass this measure during the present Session—a measure more than ever demanded by the great body of the mercantile community—it will in some future Session probably enable us to consolidate the whole law of bankruptcy, of which this Bill, if it receives your approbation, will form an important element.
  I will very shortly remind you of the important principles which it was desired to establish and carry into execution by the measure of last year. You will remember, probably, that one of the great evils which I thought called for a remedy was the confusion that now exists in bankruptcy between the judicial and administrative functions of the Court. These are, in point of fact, so mixed up and blended I together that the one has no order, or economy, or regularity, and the other has neither dignity nor efficiency. One object of the last Bill, therefore, was to separate the judicial from the administrative functions; to bring home to the abode of the creditors all those duties touching the administrative part of the law which it is necessary should be discharged in the first instance; and, at the same time, to give to the judicial functions of the Court that uniformity and certainty of decision, and that elevation of judgment, which would wipe away the reproach that now attaches to the law as it stands, and render it more satisfactory and respected. One of the other features of the late measure was to restore to the creditors of the bankrupt the power of settling their own affairs. The principle on which the law of insolvency rests is, that the moment a man becomes clearly insolvent his estate belongs to his creditors, and the creditors are the parties who should be consulted as to the mode of administering and disposing of the estate. Unfortunately, the history of the law shows that, partly from the apathy of creditors, and party from other causes, great evils existed in the modes of administration formerly followed. Great changes were made in the hope of remedying these evils; but, nevertheless, it was found that creditors refused to avail them-

  287
  selves of proceedings which they fancied to be injurious to their interests. There was an enormous amount of formality and technicality, and whole legions of officials were brought into existence, who destroyed that property which it was their avowed province and duty to protect. To remedy these evils was one of the objects of the Bill of last year, and all that it was hoped to accomplish bythatBill in this respect will be embodied in the present measure. Another object of that Bill was to effect a reduction of the great expense incurred by the law charges of the Court of Bankruptcy. It is quite unnecessary that I should justify the introduction of a measure on this point, because the evil is universally admitted; but I shall shortly enumerate to the House some of the different sources of that expenditure, which exists in consequence of those changes that have at different times been made since 1831. On every estate brought into bankruptcy there is a considerable sum to be paid on its first introduction; then there are charges for the messengers, gentlemen who are receiving very considerable incomes for the performance of very slight duties; then there are fees paid to the auctioneer, the broker, and the accountant, fees on public sittings, registrar of meetings, and fees for sittings; the building fund, ad valorem per centage fees on the assets to the official assignee; the effect of the whole being to drive away from the Court of Bankruptcy the administration of large estates wherever possible. Besides these there are allowances to the bankrupt for maintenance, allowances on a dividend and excepted articles, and solicitors' charges. Probably it will be remembered that last year I showed, from returns before the House, that the collective charges on the administration of estates in bankruptcy amounted to not less than 33 per cent. Another object of the Bill of last year was to establish an effective system of audit and the control and superintendence of creditors through the medium of official assignees; and also to inform creditors, by the transmission of proper accounts, of the amount of the estate and the manner of collection, while at the same time it abolished many of the formalities by which an oftentimes unnecessary publicity was provided. Another object of the Bill of last year was the subjecting the insolvent or bankrupt, when applying for his discharge, to a proper tribunal, with the power of punishment in cases of fraudulency, and I am quite sure
  288
  that all those who through the usual channels of information have had their attention called to the vast commercial frauds of the last year or two, will be ready to admit that this power ought to be most ample. All these different objects it has been my endeavour to provide for by this Bill. But, before entering more particularly into that point, I may be permitted to say that, in presenting this measure to the House, I present it as in my judgment the best that is attainable under the circumstances of having to abandon all attempts at consolidation. Any one who approaches this subject with the intention of reforming the law, finds the ground covered by establishments which have been again and again modified, until the Legislature has become, in regard to bankruptcy, jealous and suspicious of all further attempts at reform, and is adverse to permitting any expenditure of public money in this direction. Under these circumstances little can be done except to modify that which now exists. Undoubtedly, by giving away money under that odious name "compensation," it would be possible to build up a much simpler form of administration of this important part of the law. Whatever, too, may be done by way of enactment, a great deal is requisite for the reform of the administration of bankruptcy, which must be left to the prudence, care, and superintendence of the creditors themselves. No Act of Parliament can supply that want of care, attention, and supervision, and whatever safeguards Parliament may devise, if the creditors are apathetic or indifferent to their interests, if they show a perfect disregard whether they will or will not call for accounts, and examine the conduct of their debtors, we may expect to see the frequent exhibition of things that shock the feelings of morality and integrity that ought to prevail, we may expect to see enormous defalcations, or some great and outrageous instances of commercial delinquency, such as have lately been made manifest, and which have, unfortunately, remained unpunished. While, therefore, much may be done by the Legislature, much will still remain to be done by those who ought to watch over their own interests.
  I will, first, direct the attention of the House to the alterations proposed to be made in the formation of the Court and the manner of administering the law; and I will then give a sketch of the procedure in bankruptcy as it will exist under this

  289
  Bill, if it should be passed. I will then pass on to another and separate branch of the subject, and consider the propriety of abolishing the present jurisdiction for the examination and discharge of insolvent debtors. I. thought last year that it was desirable to have one law of insolvency, and to subject the trader and the non-trader to one uniform system of administering the law if they became insolvent.
  The House will recollect that it received last Session with approbation the proposal to give a Chief Judge to the Court of Bankruptcy. At present the law is administered by numerous Commissioners, and, as to a portion of the cases, by the County Court Judges. It was thought that there was great difficulty in obtaining uniformity of decisions unless there were some ready means of approaching a court of appeal. The House was unanimous in thinking that it would be proper to have a Chief Judge at the head of the administration of bankruptcy to secure uniformity, certainty, and dignity. I have, therefore, retained that portion of the plan of last year. One of the proposals of the Bill of last year was, however, to abolish at once the five London Commissioners and to place two other Commissioners in their room. That proposal involved, of course, the necessity of giving to those gentlemen for the rest of their lives retiring annuities to the full amount of their present salaries. That proposal did not appear acceptable, and I have thought it right to continue these Commissioners in precisely the same situation as at present. Their duties under the present Bill will not probably be greatly augmented, considering the appointment of a Chief Judge and the proportion of labour that will fall on his shoulders. That will be, at all events, for the House to determine, but I propose, in the present Bill, to retain that part of the existing system without any alteration. The Bill of last year proposed the abolition of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and with it the removal and discharge of the Commissioners of that Court. One of the Commissioners, Mr. Serjeant Murphy, has since died. Another Commissioner was appointed in his place, but on the understanding that if it pleased Parliament to put an end to the Court he was not to be entitled to any compensation. At present, therefore, so far as compensation is concerned, there is but one Commissioner of the Insolvent Court, and if the present scheme is carried into effect, it will leave the administration of justice,
  290
  both in bankruptcy and insolvency in the London district, in one and the same Court. That district is exceedingly extensive, stretching from the extremity of Norfolk on one side to the borders of Hampshire on the other. There will, therefore, be in the London district a Chief Judge, and five London Commissioners to discharge the duties of the law of bankruptcy and insolvency. Another part of the Bill proposes to augment the jurisdiction of the County Courts. By the former Bill power was given to the creditors to take the administration of bankruptcy from the District Courts to the County Courts, It provided, however, that those estates only should be transferred by consent of the creditors from the Bankruptcy Courts to the County Courts where the assets do not exceed £1,000. I have since thought that no reason exists for that limit, that the creditors were able to judge for themselves on this point, and had the right to do so. I, therefore, propose to continue to the majority of the creditors the power of removing an estate from the Court of Bankruptcy to the County Court without any limit in point of amount. Under the former Bill it was proposed that the County Courts should have the right to take administrations in Bankruptcy where the assets did not exceed £300. It has, however, been represented to me that it is difficult to say whether the assets do or do not exceed £300, and I propose that all petitions for removing bankruptcy shall be presented in the first instance to the Court of Bankruptcy, except in those limited cases where the debts of the trader do not exceed £300. The facility of applying to the County Courts has led to many endeavours on the part of fraudulent traders to escape from justice, and I have therefore thought it right that all petitions for adjudications of bankruptcy, except in those smaller cases where the debts do not exceed £300, shall be presented in the first instance to the Court of Bankruptcy or the District Court. These are the material changes in the structure of the Bill, and these are all the differences that exist on this part of the subject between the Bill of last Session and the present.
  I now come to the procedure in cases of bankruptcy. I have thought it most desirable to secure to the creditors of an insolvent the opportunity of determining whether they will enter the Court of Bankruptcy or not. The great fault of the present system is, that the creditor cannot get

  291
  the benefit of the provisions of the Court of Bankruptcy without entering the walls of the court. There is, also, the further evil that once within the walls he cannot escape until he has paid the uttermost farthing. He must remain there until the whole of the estate has been ground down, collected, and administered. But I think it right that, with the consent of a certain portion of the creditors, a man who is an honest trader, or who, not being a trader, is an honest debtor, shall have the opportunity of surrendering his property and having it duly administered without incurring the opprobrium and stigma of having gone through the Bankruptcy Court. It is necessary to approach this part of the case with very great caution, because, if you give to the trader any protection during a certain period of time while he has solicited, or has represented that he has solicited, the consent of his creditors, you have suspended during that period the right of the creditors, and, unless care be taken, the opportunity may be converted into the means of defrauding the creditor by the debtor, and a great deal of injury may be done. I have endeavoured, as well as I could, to provide a remedy for this, and, while the creditors' rights are suspended, there will nevertheless be a provision in the Bill enabling the debtor's estate to be administered under a private deed without the necessity of an adjudication of bankruptcy. I attribute great importance to this scheme, and consider that a great part of the utility of the measure will depend on the possibility of working this portion with convenience and success; and, though, no doubt, it may on many occasions be desirable that, while the rights of the creditors are protected, the estate should be wound up without the debtor being subject to the opprobrium of passing through the Bankruptcy Court, yet I provide in the Bill that the creditor or debtor may at any time pass over the boundary and go into the Court of Bankruptcy, in order to meet any emergency or necessity, or to have a determination on any question which may arise in the administration of the estate under the trust. In effect, therefore, all the remedies in Bankruptcy will be applied to that state of things without the necessity of proceeding to an adjudication. But, supposing a petition presented for adjudication, and that the debtor is adjudicated a bankrupt, the next form of procedure by the Bill is that there should be an immediate meeting of the
  292
  creditors, at which meeting it should be decided whether the administration of the estate should continue in the Court by which the adjudication had been pronounced, or be transferred to any other Court, as, for example, the County Court. As the same time, the creditors would have the opportunity of receiving any proposal of the debtor, and of determining whether the estate should go on in bankruptcy, or be wound up by a private deed of arrangement. Therefore, at the very first meeting—and there would be power to call any future meeting for the same purpose—an opportunity would be afforded to the creditors of deciding which was the best mode of administering the estate. Then, with regard to the proofs of debts—a proceeding at present attended with much unnecessary expense and great vexation—I have introduced, in conformity with general recommendation, a most simple mode of procedure. A written declaration, containing a statement of account, vouched and signed by the party, is, when unopposed, to be taken as equivalent to proof, and to have attached to it the same force as a formal affidavit, a penalty being attached for any false statement. With respect to the meeting of creditors I have also given most ample power that registrars should be authorised to attend at any convenient place, in order that the administrative business may be proceeded with. On this part of the subject I entertain very sanguine hopes of amendment, founded in a great degree on the experience derived from the Court of Chancery by the adoption of a more simple mode of proceeding. The facility and economy that now attend the administration of estates in Chancery, are matters of the utmost surprise to those who are familiar with the former mode of proceeding in that department of justice. I believe that at present the administration of an estate belonging to a deceased party in the Court of Chancery is effected more quickly and more economically than it could be effected even by private hands. I will refer the House to the evidence given before a Commission which sat a short time since, by the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle upon-Tyne (Mr. Headlam) in proof of the excellent and economical administration of the Court of Chancery as compared with that of the Court of Bankruptcy. Another point to which I wish to call attention is the position in which the creditors' assignees and the official assignees will be placed by the Bill. All

  293
  acquainted with this subject know that official assignees were introduced in 1831, in consequence of the great evils which were felt, chiefly from what I have denominated the indifference and carelessness of the creditors, under the previous system. The official assignee was invested with the right to receive the whole estate, and the consequence was that creditors found themselves, in their own opinion, entirely excluded from their proper position with respect to control over the administration. There has, therefore, been a general cry to be emancipated from the control of the official assignees, as great as there had been previously for relief from the maladministration and neglect incidental to the former system. I have endeavoured to provide a mode of proceeding which should be something between the two propositions. I hope the House will agree with me in thinking that it is proper to leave to the creditors' assignees the right of receiving, applying, and administering the estate; but that it is most essential that there should be an efficient auditor, active inspector, and vigilant superintendent over the creditors' assignees—able to ascertain, and who would have an interest in ascertaining, that the property was received by them and taken into hand for the benefit of the creditors. I propose, therefore, by the Bill, that as soon as the creditors' assignees should be chosen and appointed, the functions and duties of the official assignees should cease with respect, to the collection and distribution of the'? property, save in one particular. I have found by an examination of the returns that small debts — debts not exceeding £10—due to bankrupts' estates are collected by the machinery in the power of the Court with infinite economy, and therefore I propose to continue to the official assignees the power of collecting debts not exceeding £10. With regard to the rest of their duties, I wish to make it incumbent on them to require periodical accounts from the creditors' assignees, to audit them, and send copies to every creditor who has proved a debt of £10 or upwards. The creditors' assignee will also have to return quarterly accounts of the estate, and those quarterly balance-sheets will be audited with the aid of the official assignee. The next point of the procedure after the ordinary meetings of the creditors, is that of the discharge to be granted to the bankrupt, and here the Bill which I am now seeking to introduce will be found
  294
  to differ materially from the measure of last Session. It has appeared to me, upon much consideration of the subject, that an obligation should be thrown upon the Commissioners and upon the Chief Judge, whether there be any accusation by the creditors or not, of examining with care and attention the conduct of the bankrupt. Supposing, therefore, that there is an accusation by the creditors, or supposing the Commissioner to whom the matter may be committed thinks it right that the conduct of the bankrupt should be brought before the Chief Judge, the question of the discharge will, in the London district, be brought, in the first instance, before the Chief Judge for decision; I propose to arm the Chief Judge with two kinds of authority. In the first place, I give him authority to examine the conduct of the bankrupt in all cases of misconduct not included in the list of offences which the law treats as misdemeanours. The House is probably aware that, according to the existing law, the conduct of the bankrupt may be the subject of examination by the Commissioners, and that the certificate to be given to the bankrupt varies according to the opinion so formed of his conduct. There are three kinds of certificate—those of the first, those of the second, and those of the third class. The first class is a declaration that the insolvency of the bankrupt is attributable entirely to unavoidable misfortune; the second class states that it is attributable not entirely to unavoidable misfortune; while a certificate of the third class sets forth that it is attributable wholly to causes other than misfortune or accident. I am told, however, that practically the distinction between the different classes of certificates is almost wholly disregarded; that it is of little more use than if the certificates were written on so many pieces of white, or red, or pink paper. The bankrupts receive their certificates and go back to the commercial world apparently as much entitled in the one case as in the other to obtain credit. Hence, I have thought it better to persevere in the proposition which I made last year that these certificates should be wholly abolished. I do so with the more confidence now, because I believe it is necessary that something more stringent, something more definite, something the effect of which may be more severely felt, should be placed in the hands of the Judge than the mere power of giving a certain description of certificate. I have therefore described a

  295
  number of instances of misconduct which are not characterized as misdemeanours, but which are treated as grave offences, warranting the judge in refusing or suspending the order of discharge, or in committing the bankrupt to prison for any period of time not exceeding one year. Among the offences so enumerated is one which I should have been very glad to make a criminal offence if I could have found the means of defining it with that amount of accuracy with which every criminal offence ought to be defined. I mean the creation of fictitious capital, the trading with false capital, principally produced by the excessive use and unjust application of accommodation bills. That, in point of fact, is nothing more than a mode of obtaining the means of trading by fraudulent pretences, and ought in the excess to be punished as fraud. But the difficulty is in making criminal that which is so only in the excess, because the excess is incapable of being defined in words, although no man can hesitate about recognizing it when it comes before him in actual business. It is impossible to assert that being a party to an accommodation bill shall, of itself, be an offence; yet no man of any information on the subject can hesitate to say that such a system of trading by accommodation bills as that which has been exhibited in the public journals, in connection with a recent case of bankruptcy, amounts to one of the worst description of offences. I have not hesitated, therefore, to give the Chief Judge, who will be a Judge of the highest rank, the power of inflicting a sentence of imprisonment for twelve months in those cases of delinquency which are not included in the list of offences amenable to the criminal law. I do so with less hesitation, because the existing law gives the power to a creditor, if he pleases, of inflicting a greater amount of imprisonment. The law as it at present stands is characterized probably by as much inhumanity and, at the same time inefficiency and impolicy as any law that could be devised. If the Commissioner suspends a certificate, or refuses it for any limited time, during that period any creditor may apply to the Commissioner for a certificate of his debt, and upon that certificate he has a right to commit the bankrupt to prison. Then, at the end of the imprisonment, which is an imprisonment for a limited period, any other creditor may proceed against the bankrupt in the same way, and subject him to a similar incarceration. I
  296
  think that, if the delinquency of the bankrupt is such that it is just to expose him to the penalty of imprisonment, that penalty ought not to be left at the caprice of any creditor who might be prompted by malice or a vindictive feeling; while, on the other hand, I am equally of opinion that it is not fair that the creditors should be made the agents and instruments of inflicting a criminal sentence. Such a sentence, to have any effect in the way of deterring from similar crimes, ought to come from a Judge of the highest dignity. I therefore propose to take away the power of imprisonment now given to the creditors, and, in cases where the Judge shall be of opinion that the order of discharge ought to be refused or suspended, to give him the power of inflicting the amount of imprisonment I have mentioned. I have also thought it right that the same Judge— namely, the Chief Judge—should be armed with authorty to try the bankrupt for any offence of which he may be accused, because in handing the bankrupt over from the Court of Bankruptcy to a criminal tribunal there is not only very considerable difficulty in causing proofs of the offence to accompany the accusation, so as to enable them to be brought forward in the manner required by any ordinary criminal court, but there is great injustice in subjecting the estate to all the expense and delay incident to that description of prosecution. I have thought it right, therefore, as we propose to place at the head of the Court of Bankruptcy a Judge of the highest rank and character, the equal of any of the Judges of Westminster Hall, that such Judge should have the power of administering this part of the criminal jurisdiction. The Bill provides that, if the bankrupt desires to be tried by a jury, he shall be tried by a jury in the ordinary manner; but that if he does not desire to be so tried, then the Judge is to examine his conduct, the Commissioner who has had the immediate prosecution of the matter sitting as the assessor of the Chief Judge. The final sentence is to proceed from the Court so constituted, no appeal being allowed to any other tribunal. From the decisions of the Commissioners in the country and County Court Judges an appeal to the Chief Judge appears to be desirable, but from the sentence of the Chief judge in this matter I think it right that there should be no appeal. I think these provisions are not more stringent than the absolute necessity of the case requires. I hold that justice

  297
  should be certainly adminstered in a manner in which humanity and consideration may be united with necessary severity, and so as to operate more efficiently than the present system. I have mentioned to the House the procedure applicable entirely to the case of traders.
  It was part of the proposition of last year that the non-trader also should be brought within the area of the same tribunal. That was a proposition which, I believe, as far as general discussion has gone, has received the approval of, I may say, nearly all who have attended to the subject. The true policy of the bankrupt law is, I believe, that every species of encouragement should be given to a debtor the moment he finds himself in a state of insolvency to do that which justice requires, namely, to divide his estate equally among his creditors; but I must beg you also to observe that, with the exception of the trader, in the case of the non-trader the whole tendency of your law as at present established is to produce the very opposite result. You admit of execution against the person of the debtor: you admit the debtor being consigned to prison on that execution, but for what purpose? You cannot for one moment say that he is sent to prison for punishment. You have not been administering the criminal law at all. He is sent to prison at the pleasure of a creditor. Well, the creditor has become his creditor by his own voluntary act. To every debt, in that sense of the word, there are two parties—the man who contracts it, and the man who permits it to be contracted. The creditor, of his own accord, willingly gives credit—to what had he the right of trusting at the time he gave it? He trusted, of course, to the solvency and means of the individual. In the very nature of the contract, it is impossible to suppose that the power of consigning the debtor to prison ought to be regarded as one of the natural rights of the creditor. Consigning the debtor to prison cannot be justified on any other consideration than this, that it is a means of compelling the debtor to give up his property for payment of his debts. But if you can accomplish the same thing without imprisonment, the imprisonment would remain without reason to justify it. The imprisonment of the debtor is undoubtedly the means of rendering the debtor useless to himself and a burden to the community. To the creditor it produces no good; to the State at large it is an unmitigated evil. The debtor is de-
  298
  moralized; he is in a state of idleness and depravity frequently while in gaol; he comes out of gaol a worse man than he entered it. The whole process, therefore, is neither more nor less than a process of unmitigated evil, unless you say it is effectual as a preventive to men getting into debt. But I say you are not justified in imposing any such law with a view to prevent that consequence when men only get into debt with the consent of their creditors; and if the creditor consent, the act of the creditor entitles him to nothing more than the aid of the law, in the most expeditious manner, to get at the property of the debtor and divide that property equally among his creditors. But here, again, you give every temptation to fraudulent preferences, you stimulate the debtor to do that which in bankruptcy the Judge would stigmatize with the imputation of fraud. I cannot illustrate more forcibly the opinions that have prevailed on this subject, and dictated by good policy as well as humanity and justice, than by taking the liberty of reading one or two passages from the reports of various Commissioners who have considered the subject. In the Report of the Common Law Commissioners in 1832, the result of the law is thus accurately described: —
  "The practical effect of the law of arrest on final process, combined with the insolvent law, is the imprisonment of numbers merely to be discharged without opposition at the end of a few weeks. The consequence is misery, waste of funds, and multiplied frauds and perjuries. While no benefit arises to the creditor, the arrest, imprisonment, and expense are ruinous to the debtor. In short, the ordinary consequence is disappointment and loss to the creditor, destruction to the debtor."
  I say this is a correct view of the case; statistical returns prove it in the strongest way by the number who are committed to prison, the short time they remain there and then are discharged; not one estate in 250 profiting thereby. You are bound by the principle of your law of debtor and creditor to give the creditor the most available remedy, but it so happens that the most available remedies to the creditor are those which are most consistent with humanity and justice to the debtor and the general benefit to the State at large. You tell the insolvent debtor that he shall be released and discharged on surrendering his property—why, then, do you make it a necessary condition that be shall go to prison before he surrenders his property? You have felt the injustice and have modi-

  299
  fied the operation of these laws by various Acts, which have had in them, perhaps, more humanity than consistency, and which were not quite impartial. You will recollect the Act of Parliament that was passed for an object I will not stop to explain, and which is commonly denominated the "Gentleman's Act." That is an Act by which in reality the insolvent may get the benefit of bankruptcy without going to prison. It was an Act, however, available to very few, but it is sufficient to establish that the Legislature, in passing it, at the same time condemned the general system, because it has by that and other protection Acts in effect declared that if a man will communicate with his creditors, and get the assent of a certain number and surrender his property, his person shall be free from arrest. Now, all I desire for the benefit of non-traders is this, that the law should give them an opportunity of at once surrendering their property; and upon that surrender and free discovery, that they shall be protected from arrest. This is the first thing, therefore, that is proposed, and for the benefit, I trust, of the non-traders. I will venture to add one or two more extracts from the Report of the same learned Gentleman to which I before referred, in order to vindicate the proposition I have laid down. In another part of the same Report I find this statement:—
  "Thousands are every year imprisoned and discharged, not only at great pecuniary cost, but at a moral expense infinitely more detrimental to the interests of society."
  Another Report was made in the year 1840 by the Commissioners appointed to consider the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Laws. The Report is signed by Mr. Justice Erskine, previously Chief Judge of the Court of Review, Mr. Evans, Mr. Fonblanque, and Mr. Holroyd, Commissioners of the Court of Insolvency, and Mr. William Crawford, Mr. Wynn Ellis, Mr. Benjamin Hawes, junior, Mr. G. C. Glyn, and Mr. John Horsley Palmer—a combination of authorities of the highest character. There are two passages I would read:—
  "It appears to us," the Commissioners say, "that to unite the jurisdiction in matters of bankruptcy and insolvency would, upon principle, tend much to benefit the public, but this benefit cannot, we think, be obtained without placing all insolvent estates under the administration of one uniform system of law. We can perceive no good reason why the estate of one debtor (a trader) who is unable to pay his debts in full should be administered in a different manner from that of another debtor not a trader under the same disability."
  In whatever aspect, therefore, the law is
  300
  regarded, I cannot but think that you must arrive at the conclusion that the greatest injustice is under the present system done to the non-trader, and, in reality, the greatest injury inflicted upon the creditor; because, as matters now stand, the former is led to submit to considerable sacrifices from time to time, frequently even to commit fraudulent acts, in order to evade the penalty of imprisonment; so that, instead of deeming it to be his interest to make an honest surrender of his property to his creditors, every species of inducement is held out to him to do that which under a just and politic administration of the law of debtor and creditor might not occur. That hundreds and thousands of debtors should be imprisoned only, as it would seem, to keep up a costly tribunal for the purpose of their discharge from confinement would appear to be the very extreme of folly. If, then, the case be as I state, it becomes the interest of all parties to place the law of insolvency upon the same footing as that of bankruptcy. It has, however, been made manifest to me since last year that some degree of odium attaches to the word "bankruptcy," in general acceptation, and that that circumstance was likely to become such a bugbear as to frighten hon. Gentlemen from a calm consideration of the question and a recognition of the beneficial results which I anticipated from the changes in the law which I then proposed. I have, therefore, been desirous of embodying in the present Bill words which should be certain and unmistakeable, as defining the test of insolvency as applied to non-traders; so that the law of bankruptcy might be brought into operation in such cases only upon the most distinct evidence of general inability to meet one's just claims. Now, I think the House will agree with me in the opinion that one of the greatest subjects of reproach in connection with cases of this description with which we have to deal is that which results from the habit which exists among men who happen to be involved in debt of withdrawing their property from this country and seeking a residence in some part of the Continent, where they may enjoy it, thus defrauding their creditors of that which ought to be distributed among them. We are all perfectly well aware that there are abroad certain localities which are well known as being the places of refuge of English debtors, and that being so, I have made the first test of insolvency

  301
  in the present Bill the absconding from the country with the deliberate intent of defeating or delaying one's creditors in the prosecution of their just claims, and the remaining abroad with the same object. But now comes the question, what shall be the overt act which shall meet with general acceptance as evidence of the malus animus—of the intent to defraud? In dealing with that question, in which you have to collect from the acts of the debtor the proofs of the animus by which his absence from the country is influenced, I have been desirous to render it necessary that a certain process should be gone through. It now frequently happens that the declaration of bankruptcy constantly takes place behind the back of the debtor; but I shall require by the Bill that the petition be served at the last abode of the debtor. If there are any means of ascertaining the place of residence of a debtor abroad, I also give to the Court of Bankruptcy the power which is now possessed by the Court of Chancery and the courts of common law, to authorise the service of process abroad. I think, then, that the House, on an examination of the provisions of the Bill, will ultimately be of opinion that it will be impossible for any man to be declared an insolvent upon the ground of fraudulent absence from the kingdom without having a fair opportunity of knowing what is about to be done with respect to him, of entering an appearance against the petition, and of proving that he in reality was animated by no fraudulent intention in taking up his residence abroad. The next test of bankruptcy which I would make applicable to the non-trader is the fact of a creditor having obtained a judgment against him in accordance with the ordinary process of law or equity, and being unable to find him to enforce that judgment, and I propose that under those circumstances an opportunity should be afforded him of appearing to answer the demand, and of giving either satisfactory security to the creditor or proving that he was not liable to be called upon to liquidate the claim made upon him. If that be not done you will I think agree with me that a criterion of general insolvency is furnished which makes it the duty of the debtor to deliver up his property for the payment of his liabilities, and which renders it incumbent upon the framers of the law to enforce that surrender. Another test of insolvency is the fact that the debtor being a non-trader has been arrested
  302
  on final process, and is placed in prison, where he lies for a certain time. Every hon. Member at all acquainted with this subject must be aware that it has not been unusual for persons so situated to prefer to remain in gaol and enjoy their property there, to giving up that property to be distributed among their creditors. The most absurd part of the English law with respect to this particular point is this—that it seems to assume that when you have got the body of your debtor you have obtained satisfaction of your debt, and if by any accident you lose the body the debt is satisfied, thus reminding one of the doctrine attributed to the Roman law of sanctioning the division piecemeal of a debtor among his creditors. The test of insolvency which I have last mentioned may be made the occasion of a petition for adjudication of bankruptcy being presented against a non-trader, and the result would be that his estate would be administered on the same principle as that of a trader. Touching upon this part of the question, we are naturally led to ask the very important question, whether in altering the law of bankruptcy we ought to import into the amended system that principle of the law of insolvency which makes the future estate of the debtor liable for his debts, or whether it would not be more advisable to extend to the non trader the benefits of that humane principle of the bankruptcy law which gives the debtor an unqualified and general discharge for the future upon his giving up the entire property in his possession to satisfy the claims which exist against him. For my own part, I confess that I do not think a man, if he chooses to give credit, is entitled, morally or upon grounds of good policy, to anything more than an equitable distribution of all the means in the possession of his debtor at the time when he gives him credit. It is not, it seems to me, a just or a politic course so to legislate as to induce a creditor to speculate on the future prospects of the person whom he trusts. All just systems of law have annulled the credit so given. We know that in equity all bargains with expectant heirs upon the security of their expectations, and all contracts relating to future acquisitions of property, are regarded as unjust; and I feel therefore confident that the House will be of opinion that a debtor, having once honestly delivered up to his creditors all the property which he possesses, ought not to be liable to be pursued by them

  303
  through life, and to be called upon to surrender that which he may afterwards secure to satisfy their claims. That is a principle on which the House will have to decide. I have the greatest possible confidence in a general Committee of this House. I know of no more searching tribunal for the examination of such a question; and this, as well as all the main provisions of this Bill, I shall submit unreservedly to discussion in Committee, accepting altogether that which its wisdom and sense of justice may approve. I must, however, tell you that in that part of the measure which deals with the orders of discharge of bankrupts, whether traders or non-traders, I have given to the Chief Judge in case of any delinquency, the power of annexing to such orders of discharge conditions affecting future acquired property. It will be for you to determine the prudence and propriety of that course: but the Bill proposes, as a penalty upon the bankrupt trader or non-trader, that in cases coming within just censure, such censure shall involve the liability of future acquired property.
  Now, it may be asked whether this Bill goes the length of totally abolishing imprisonment for debt. My answer to that is that I regret it does not, I have hesitated on this point from a fear that if I had pledged myself to such a proposition I might not have found it accepted as satisfactory by this House. But I will tell you what I have done, and which in reality will, I trust, arrive at the same result, although it is not the same thing in name; neither is that boldly avowed which reason, justice, and policy appear to me to demand. The course adopted by the Bill is this:—In the first place, every pauper debtor, who, on account of his poverty, cannot petition for an adjudication of bankruptcy against himself, has the power of presenting a petition to a County Court, and of presenting it at the expense of a fund provided so long ago as the 33rd of George III, for promoting the discharge of pauper debtors. That is one of the modes by which I hope to relieve the gaols of some of their present occupants. But another mode is this:—The gaoler, by a provision of the Bill, is required to make out on the first day of every month a return of all prisoners in his custody for pure debt, or rather simply on account of debt, and to forward this return to the Chief Judge in the London district, or to the Commissioner in any country district of bankruptcy. On
  304
  the receipt of that return notice is to he sent by the clerk to the execution creditor and the detaining creditor of every such person; and on the expiration of ten, or not more than twenty days from the date of the return, a registrar will examine every prisoner, whether there be a petition or not. The registrar will have power to make an adjudication—in other words to make an order vesting the estate of the prisoner in the official assignee—and, if he thinks fit, to grant the prisoner an order of protection—that is, a qualified discharge. When that machinery is in operation, I believe it will be impossible for any man to remain in prison simply on the ground of debt for a longer period than from fourteen to twenty days. And, if that be so, I think it will follow that no creditor would; be willing to commit his debtor to prison; for he pays a considerable sum for that privilege or source of enjoyment, if it be such, and he would hardly avail himself of it when his debtor would be released from prison in the manner I have described. The House will recollect that prisoners for debt in this country are now divided into two classes. One of these classes, and by far the most numerous, are those who are imprisoned by the orders of the County Court Judges, for there is a species of imprisonment which must be called penal, not being for pure debt, inflicted by the sentence of a County Court Judge, or of a Commissioner of Bankruptcy, in cases of small debts which are found to have been contracted either under circumstances of fraud, when the debtor had no probable means or expectation of being able to pay, or under some other species of falsehood or delinquency. Now, of course, it would be very wrong to interfere with that description of criminal imprisonment; and, therefore, I do not propose that the registrar who attends for this gaol delivery of debtors should have any power to release persons so committed to custody. But for pure debt, for debt unaccompanied by these circumstances of fraud or reproach, no man will be permitted to remain in prison; but, whether he will or no, will be discharged, and his property, if he has any, taken from him and made available for the benefit of his creditors at large. These, then, are the principal provisions, some of which were included in the former Bill. I have only to add that connected with the additions made to the former measure there is this important circumstance:—I have mentioned my great desire to facilitate the pro-

  305
  cess by which debtors, without incurring the reproach of bankruptcy, should be enabled to surrender their property for division among their creditors. But it repeatedly happens, and it cannot be otherwise, that the debtor cannot accomplish this, because he is unable to ascertain who are his creditors at the time, so as to obtain the assent of the required majority for a composition or arrangement. Every trader, for instance, is probably liable upon promissory notes or bills of exchange which are circulating about, it may be in foreign parts, and the holders of which cannot be discovered and communicated with in a short period of time. I have, therefore, introduced this provision, that, if the debtor obtains the required majority of those creditors who can be ascertained, and is willing to make the trust deed or deed of assignment, run in a very simple form, it shall be as effectual and complete a discharge and protection to him as if he had gained the assent of all his creditors. The simple form in which the deed shall run is to this effect, that he conveys all his estate and effects to certain trustees, to be by them collected, applied, and administered exactly as if, at the date of the deed, he had been regularly adjudged a bankrupt. It is impossible to quarrel with such a deed on the ground of length, and yet it is a complete assignment on trust. With regard also to deeds of arrangement after bankruptcy, I have incorporated some provisions from the Scotch system, in order to facilitate a change from the process in bankruptcy to proceedings by private arrangement. Such is the measure which I submit to this House for its approval. It must be recollected that we have at present a most artificial system. It is impossible, as I have already said, to sweep that system entirely away, and substitute for it a perfectly new one. All we pretend to do is to remedy its worst defects, to remove its undoubted grievances, and provide the means whereby, without incurring the expense of all its present formal modes of proceeding, the creditors may easiest obtain the property of the debtor for the satisfaction of their just claims. If these provisions work well and satisfactorily, I venture to anticipate that the charges of bankruptcy, where bankruptcy exists, will be diminished by one-half; but I hope that bankruptcy will seldom be resorted to, and that only in case of absolute fraud and delinquency. I hope that the mode of administering debtors' estates by private
  306
  arrangement, incorporating, as it does, all the principles and appliances of the law of bankruptcy, will be the general rule, and the formal process of bankruptcy the exception. You cannot have a better illustration of the present unfortunate state of the law than is presented by the contrast between the number of cases of bankruptcy and the cases of composition. It proves to you this great truth, that whenever your law is not in harmony with the exigencies of society—it has the effect of driving the people out of the courts of justice into the by-ways which are still open to them, in order to secure those advantages which they ought to be able to obtain in a more legitimate manner. The cases of composition are estimated to amount to between 8,000 and 10,000 a year; while the bankruptcies and arrangement under the control of the Courts seldom exceed 1,000 or 1,100 in the same period. This only shows the great preference among creditors for private arrangements, even although under the present state of the law the trustee in such a case cannot have the expeditious remedy which this Bill will afford, and, although the only mode of securing the due performance of the trust is by a resort on the part of the creditors to the Court of Chancery against the trustee. In spite of these disadvantages, creditors have preferred to incur all the inconveniences of deeds of private arrangement. Not that the law of bankruptcy itself is wrong, but that there are impediments to its proper administration. I have thought it right to address myself to aid that which appears to be the general impression among the commercial community, and which in the abstract nature of things must be most desirable; for if a debtor comes and surrenders his property, and is willing to account, what do you want with a Bankruptcy Court? It is quite sufficient that there should be a facile remedy to compel the administration and performance of a trust when it is once created. Upon that ground, therefore, I trust that that portion of the Bill which applies the law of bankruptcy to deeds of trust and composition, and admits of the parties to them being placed in the same relative position, and subject to the same jurisdiction as if there had been actual bankruptcy; as if the trustees were assignees, and as if the creditors claiming under the deed had proved in bankruptcy, I say, I trust and believe that portion of the Bill would be found most useful and efficient.

  307
  It is upon that portion of the Bill that, as a question of finance, I hope to meet with the approval of the House. At present the House is aware that the Court of Bankruptcy is in constitution self-supporting. I do not propose to interfere with that principle, except in two particulars—one with respect to the salary of the Chief Judge, which I propose shall, like the salaries of other Judges employed in the administration of public justice, be paid out of the general revenue of the country; and the other is the unfortunate portion upon which the former Bill in a great measure suffered shipwreck. In the former Bill I proposed, in conformity with the recommendation of the Commissioners, and in conformity with repeated suggestions of former Commissions—that the compensations granted in 1831 to officers who were then discharged from their duties, and which compensations were charged upon the bankruptcy fund—most unjustly, as I think, because it made future generations of creditors pay for the faults of the law, and the improper mode of its administration previously existing—I proposed that those compensations should be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund. The House did not agree to that proposition, but did, I think, agree that the compensation should be defrayed by annual votes of Parliament. I hope hon. Gentlemen who listen to me will understand that my Bill creates no compensations at all, I am only dealing with compensations given nearly thirty years since, and I am only acting in accordance with common justice, in order that we may accomplish that result, without which all reforms are idle—namely, the introduction into the administration of the law of bankruptcy, the principles of economy and cheapness which are absolutely necessary, for if you tax creditors to the extent of 33 per cent, as at present, you compel them to resort to other remedies rather than seek one of Her Majesty's courts of justice for relief. The Bill will, I trust, be in the hands of hon. Gentlemen by Wednesday morning, and I trust that if they give me leave to introduce it now, they will accompany that favour with another, by permitting the Bill to proceed with all possible expedition, and I hope that, with the assistance of the House, the Bill will before we part for the Easter holidays have gone through Committee, and may be transmitted to the other House before the end of the next ensuing month. I have now only to thank the
  308
  House for its kindness in listening to me, and trust that it will not consider me to have unnecessarily trespassed upon their patience. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by formally moving for leave to introduce a Bill to Amend the Law relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency in England.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he felt authorized in the name of commercial communities of this country, to tender their thanks to the hon. and learned Gentleman for bestowing so much care and attention upon this important subject. He was glad to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to proceed with the Bill expeditiously, and hoped, as this was no party measure, that hon. Members on both sides would assist in that desirable object, even if one or two morning sittings should be necessary for the purpose. He was glad to find that the old objection against submitting non-traders to the same law as traders had not weighed with the Attorney General, and, for his own part, he believed non-traders would benefit by the change. Let non traders keep accounts and exercise caution in making contracts as commercial men were obliged to do, and there was no reason why an exclusive law should be created for them. He rejoiced, too, to hear the learned Attorney General's opinion on imprisonment for debt, as, from his experience, he had arrived at the conclusion that the system should be got rid of as soon as possible. It was gratifying to find that there was a prospect of diminishing the expense of winding-up bankrupts' estates, which was now more than 50 per cent of the assets distributed. In fact, at present the remedy was worse than the disease, and it would be better to let the creditors scramble for the bankrupt's property than subject it to such a monstrous tax. The Bill might require amendments in Committee, but he was sure they would not be of a formidable nature, and he would afford every assistance in his power to enable the measure to pass the House.
  MR. MALINSobserved, that although that was a stage of the Bill upon which there could be no difference of opinion, yet he could not refrain from expressing his satisfaction in listening to the statement of his hon. and learned Friend, and his concurrence in the principles which were involved in this Bill. He had, however, heard one thing in which he did not concur. Many of the provisions of the Bill had already received the sanction of the House;

  309
  for instance, the House was unanimous last year in approving of the principle of a Chief Judge, and in that of abolishing the distinction between certificates; whilst the part of the Bill upon which the great difference of opinion prevailed was that which he regarded as one of the most important provisions of the measure, namely, that with reference to non-traders. He recollected that the Bill was now so guarded and protected in that respect, that non-traders would be subject to no injustice, for they could not be made bankrupt on any debt but a judgment debt, while there was complete security for their having notice before proceedings could be taken. He interpreted the empty state of the benches usually occupied by country Gentlemen as an indication that their alarm had been removed, and that they would not offer any very formidable opposition. He thought that there could be no difference of opinion, when the matter was seriously considered, on the question whether the law of debtor and creditor, both as regarded traders and non-traders, should be uniform. The true principle was, that all persons should be bound to surrender their property to creditors if they became insolvent; and that, having done so, they should he completely absolved from all liability, and should be restored to a capacity to trade as soon as possible. He regarded with great satisfaction that portion of the Bill in which it was proposed to give to the Judge the power of making future property liable to debts which had been incurred. A nobleman, for instance, might get into debt recklessly, leading people to believe that he had large property, when, in truth, the property which he already possessed was small; and he (Mr. Malins) most cordially agreed that in such a case future acquired property should be made liable. The only part of the statement of his hon. and learned Friend on which he looked at present with distrust was that which proposed to abolish the office of official assignee, or at all events greatly to diminish their powers; because he understood that hereafter official assignees would he rather in the position of auditors, with a power of collecting small debts, than persons having that control over creditors' assignees which was at present possessed. He thought the House would do well to bear in mind the advantages which had followed the appointment of an Accountant General in Chancery; and it appeared to him that it would be equally valuable to
  310
  have the assets of bankrupts placed in official hands rather than in the hands of trade assignees. These, however, were matters of detail which could be considered in Committee. He quite concurred in the necessity of going on with the measure as speedily as possible; but, at the same time, he would suggest that his hon. and learned Friend should fix a moderately distant day for the second reading, so that the country might have, first, an opportunity of considering the detail's of the measure. In the meantime he must congratulate the country on the course of practical legislation on which it seemed to be this year embarking, in lieu of discussing mere theoretical questions which everybody detested, and knew would have no valuable result.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, it would ill-become one who was unacquainted with the principles of law to offer any criticism on the luminous speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General; but, as he represented the largest commercial city in the world, he should fail to do justice to their feelings if he did not take the earliest opportunity of tendering to the hon. and learned Gentleman their thanks for the manner in which he had dealt with the question. He agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) that it was not a question of party politics. The notice was now in the hands of the House, and he hoped Parliament would, as soon as possible, pass the Bill into law.
  MR. WALPOLE:—Sir, I very much concur in the observations which have fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. This Bill is one upon which no party question arises. It is a Bill of the utmost moment to the commercial classes, and it should be proceeded with in a temper and with an expedition to enable it to pass into law. With that object in view, I do not quite subscribe to the observations of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins), inasmuch as I think it better that the second reading should be put for an early day, and that the Committee should be postponed to such a period as will enable those who take an interest in it to examine the details of the measure. That there may be no mistake upon the points which will arise on the second reading, I will state briefly what I consider are the objects of the Bill. I conceive those objects are, first, a speedier and more economical administration of the bank-

  311
  ruptcy laws; second, as a consequence of that, increased facility to private arrangements, compositions, and agreements between creditors and debtors; third, a gradual approximation to the abolition of the punishment of imprisonment as the means of obtaining satisfaction for a debt; and fourth, a gradual assimilation of the laws of bankruptcy and insolvency, so that the same principles shall apply in future to the trader and non-trader. These are the four great points involved in the Bill, and it is obvious that if hon. Gentlemen agree mainly on those points, the second reading may be fairly assented to on an early day, and the details considered when the Bill has been in the hands of the public. I will not enter into any discussion of those points at the present moment, because I think it is almost unfair to the hon. and learned Attorney General that we should throw doubts on portions of the Bill until we are satisfied from examination of the Bill itself that those doubts are well-founded. The luminous exposition which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made of the whole of the measure, also, is such as to preclude the possibility of cavil at this stage. If I throw out one or two suggestions it is more with a view to keep them open for myself in future discussion, than anything else, for in the general objects of the Bill I most heartily and entirely concur. The points which I should like an opportunity of considering are these:—First of all, with regard to the administration of the law, whether it would be wise to place the administration of bankruptcy in the County Courts—whether we cannot acquire a facility of administration independent of those courts. The reason that I have a doubt on this point is that the County Courts are, and ought to be, kept as litigant courts. The Court of Bankruptcy is essentially an administrative court, and there must be great difficulty, though I do not say it is impossible, of reconciling those two kinds of jurisdiction in the same court, without detriment to the court to which the jurisdictions of the other is transferred. I entirely approve, also, of the provision that where a debtor has been guilty of misconduct the Court should have power to come upon any property which he may subsequently acquire, so that he should not be able to defeat his just debts by his misconduct. As to the mode of trying offences, I am not quite sure that I understood my learned Friend. It seemed
  312
  to me that he proposed that a case of misconduct should be sent, if the debtor demanded it, to a Court of law where it would be heard before a jury, but that where no such demand was made by the bankrupt, the ease should be proceeded with before the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy. I would suggest that such cases should not he removed from the Bankruptcy Court, but that the Chief Judge should have in all cases the assistance of a jury. I would confine the trial to the court that is to administer the property; but I think it is due both to the Judge and to the bankrupt that the assistance of a jury should be called in. I will not go into the grave question of the gradual abolition of the punishment of debt, nor the equally, if not more important question, of the assimilation of bankruptcy and insolvency, because my learned Friend has treated those subjects so clearly, and has alleged such forcible reasons for the propositions he has made, that with proper precautions, I think they must recommend themselves to general approbation. I will say no more, except that I hope my learned Friend will receive such assistance as the House can afford him in promoting this measure, and that, after all the changes that have been made in the law of bankruptcy, and after all the dissatisfaction that has been expressed as to the administration of a matter so important to a mercantile people, he may be able to identify his name with a measure that will be at once satisfactory and permanent.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in trusting that the learned Attorney General would be able to proceed without delay to the second reading of the Bill. He would not utter a word that might be deemed fulsome praise of the Attorney General for the very lucid manner in which he had explained the measure to the House. There were one or two important principles involved in it which would require the serious consideration of the House. One of these was the new plan which, he believed, would be an improvement, of allowing creditors to settle their own affairs among themselves. It must not be forgotten, however, that, although the system of official assignees had proved costly and troublesome at the first, it had led to the collection of large amounts and long arrears; and that cases were well known where creditors' assignees had retained large sums in their possession for a

  313
  very long period without distributing them among the creditors. Abuses of that nature might, however, be guarded against by a stringent system of audit. There were, he conceived, safeguards in the present Bill which entirely removed the just objections urged against the assimilation of bankruptcy and insolvency in the measure of last Session. He approved the power which the Judge was to have with regard to property afterwards acquired. It would be the duty of the Judge to consider, not merely whether the debtor had contracted the liability in a fraudulent and improper manner, but also whether the creditor's share in the transaction would bear investigation—for if there were extravagant and fraudulent bankrupts on the one side, there were also grasping and avaricious creditors on the other. The Courts of law and equity frequently brought to light the most monstrous conduct on the part of creditors against young men with expectations of future means. He himself had been concerned in one case in which a debt of £25,000 was alleged against a young man who had declared to him on his honour that the only portion of that sum he had ever received was £500, which had been advanced by a Jew money lender; but by renewals and interest the debt had risen from £500 to the enormous amount he had stated. If non-traders were to be brought under the bankruptcy law they ought to be protected from the extortion of avaricious and usurious creditors, and he believed the measure of the learned Gentleman would secure that end.
  MR. TURNERsaid, he was glad to see that there was no room this year for the reproach which had been cast upon the mercantile community for having caused the failure of the Bill of last year, by abandoning it to the bickerings of the lawyers. That night the representative of a great commercial constituency bad been amongst the first to rise and express his approval of the Bill. It was all very well for the lawyers to discuss these questions, but the commercial men were those who were chiefly interested in them. The lawyers were, in fact, the cats, and the traders the mice. What the mercantile community sought was, that where a bankruptcy was due to misfortune the bankrupt should receive honourable acquittal, and that the creditors should be enabled to realize speedily and inexpensively whatever property was left. He could express general approval of the Bill of the learn-
  314
  ed Gentleman, and he hoped its progress would not be delayed. If misfortunes occurred, mercantile men were perfectly ready to allow their debtor to be honourably acquitted; all that they wanted was, that a debtor's estate should be promptly realised and equitably divided, and which he believed the measure of the Attorney General was well calculated to secure.
  MR. MELLORobserved, that he thought the present Bill steered clear of all those objections raised against the Bill of last year, and that it would be likely to pass without serious objection. That portion of the Bill which gave power to creditors to make arrangements particularly met with the approbation of his own constituents.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wanted to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General what he meant when he said that his Bill was not a Bill which gave any compensation for losses created by the Bill itself? He not only took away the power of the official assignees, but their means of support also; and he would ask what he proposed to do for the remuneration of those persons whose services we had had for many years. They certainly could not be turned adrift without any compensation. He had only one word to say as to the statement of the hon. Member for Manchester, who, on speaking of the commercial men and the lawyers, had compared them to cats and mice; the lawyers being the cats and the commercial men the mice. He would only remind the hon. Member that he placed commercial men in the category of vermin.
  MR. PAULLsaid, he agreed that it was most desirable that the Bill should be proceeded with early in the Session, and he would suggest the hon. and learned Attorney General should induce his colleagues to reserve, after going into Committee, one day in each week for the consideration of the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the manner in which his humble effort to amend the laws of bankruptcy and insolvency had been received. As the measure was one almost entirely of detail, he should not consider that its second reading pledged the House to anything more than the simple proposition that the law and the administration of the law of bankruptcy required amendment. He had quite felt the force of the doubt which had been suggested by his

  315
  right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge as to giving jurisdiction in bankruptcy to the County Courts; but his right hon. Friend would observe that he gave to those Courts no greater powers than they already possessed, except as concerned that voluntary jurisdiction, if he might so express it, which they would receive by the vote of creditors. If the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) referred to the reports of the speeches which were made upon the measure for establishing official assignees, he would find that those officers were appointed upon the hypothesis that the income received by them in London would be about £800 or £1,000. The returns which had been made by themselves for a series of years showed that the income received by them in London had been about £1,100 a year. This Bill proposed to make allowances to official assignees, which would give them in London a maximum of £1,200, and in the country of £1,000 a year—a standard exceeding that of their own returns. They would also be relieved from the responsibility—which some of them had severely felt—of being liable to the costs of suits that might be brought against them; and, therefore, he thought that the proposition which was to be made would leave them little grounds for complaint. The Bill which he introduced last year was allowed to be read a second time pro formâ, and under those circumstances he should venture to ask the House to allow him to take the second reading of this Bill on Thursday; not that there might be a debate, but that the House might more rapidly go into Committee, where there must necessarily he much discussion. In Committee he trusted that the Bill would receive such consideration that we might not two years hence find ourselves in such a situation as that in which we now stood with reference to past changes in the law.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and MR. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (IRELAND).

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Ireland. He thought he should not be
  316
  justified in detaining the House at any length in endeavouring to point out the advantages to a country of a general system of registration. In whatever light regarded, the advantage of a general system of registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages was universally admitted by all civilised countries, and it would be, therefore, only a waste of time for him to trouble the House with any general observations with reference to it. In every country in Europe the system existed, but in this kingdom they had not been quick in adopting it. In Scotland the system of registration had been in existence for not more than eight years, and it was with very great surprise that the representatives of different parts of Europe who attended the International Statistical Congress, which met in Paris a few years ago, found that no system of registration had hitherto been established to show the number of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Ireland. He was sure it was the desire of Parliament to extend the system to Ireland, and it was the more important that the Bill should be passed this Session, for, as it was intended this year to take the census, the commencement of a fresh decade would form a good starting point for a new system of registration. He would now say a few words as to the mode in which this was to be done. He would speak first of the Births and Deaths. In England the clerks of the various unions were the superintending registrars, who received the reports of the parochial officers who conducted the primary registration in their several districts. In Ireland there already existed admirable machinery for carrying out a similar system by means of the clerks of Poor Law Unions and the officers of the medical districts. He proposed that every Poor Law Union should be the district of a superintending registrar, and that every medical district into which the unions in Ireland were divided, should be the district of a registrar, who was to collect the statistics. There were 163 unions in Ireland, and in each union there would be the office of a superintendent registrar. There were between 700 and 800 sub-divisions of unions into medical districts in Ireland; but it might be found necessary again to subdivide some of the larger medical districts, for the purpose of registration, so as to bring the machinery more nearly home to the people, so that there would be somewhat more than the number of 700 or 800 registration districts throughout the coun-

  317
  try. As for the machinery to be used, it was proposed that the clerks of unions should be, in almost all cases, the superintendent registrars, and that the medical gentlemen of the various medical districts should be the persons charged with the duty of actually obtaining the statistics immediately from the population. He assumed that the remuneration to be made them, calculated according to the English scale of remuneration, would be an adequate inducement to those gentlemen to accept the office of registrars. It was intended that the clerks of unions should be the superintendent registrars, and that the actual statistics should be obtained by the medical gentleman; and he thought that, besides other advantages of employing the local agency of persons familiar to the people, and trusted by them, great public advantage would result from enlisting in the service of the State, for an object so conducive to social and sanitary science, the members of the medical profession, who might be expected to bring some most useful qualities to that task. The same arrangement that worked so well in Scotland and England might be expected to work well in Ireland, and the Registrar General in England had lent the valuable aid of his experience to devise this measure. It was proposed to make it compulsory on the surviving relatives, or on the occupier of a house in which a death should have occurred, to give notice to the district registrar; or the medical adviser would be subject to the same provision. The district registrar would make a half-yearly return to the superintendent registrar, in the shape of a duplicate of the entries he had made; and the superintendent registrar would make a similar return half-yearly to the Registrar General. The whole result of these statistics would be laid before Parliament, in the same manner as the statistics collected in England by the Registrar General. He had now to approach the most difficult part of his measure, the registration of marriages. With regard, indeed, to the marriages of Protestants, no difficulty would arise, as their registration was already provided for by law, and it would not be necessary to interfere with that which at present existed. But a question arose, how were the statistics of Roman Catholic marriages to be obtained? He proposed that the State should furnish to the Roman Catholic clergymen duplicate books, in which they would have to make entries recording the
  318
  marriages lawfully celebrated by them; and he trusted that, looking to the great advantages which this system was to confer on the community, they would not object to return copies of those duplicates to the local officers, the superintendent registrars, who would generally be the clerks of the unions, persons selected by the ratepayers or their representatives. The registers of Marriages would thus be sent in to the Registrar General in the same way as Births and Deaths. Thus a complete system of registration would be supplied, without trespassing on the feelings of any class or section of the community. With regard to the cost of it, those charges which in England now were defrayed by the Consolidated Fund should, in the same manner, in Ireland, fall on the Consolidated Fund; while those charges which in England and Scotland fell upon local rates should be defrayed in Ireland by the guardians of the poor. Such was a brief outline of the Bill he asked the House to entertain, and he hoped it would receive careful consideration, and that they would this year establish a complete system of registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages throughout the United Kingdom. He would now move for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he highly approved the establishment of a correct and uniform system of registration in Ireland, but he was afraid that there were some parts of the Bill which would require alteration to make it generally acceptable. He did not object to the machinery it was intended to employ, so far as the clerks of the unions and the dispensary gentlemen were concerned. He thought, however, it would popularise the system if the appointment of the registrars were to be vested in the Boards of Guardians. But there would be great objection, he should imagine, on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy to be made the responsible officers of a Government which took notice of them in no other way, subject to a variety of pains and penalties, for the paltry remuneration of 6d. per entry, which, on an average, would amount to about 20 s. for each clergyman. It would be better to require the parties themselves to take a certificate from the officiating clergyman to the registrar and register their own marriages. The penalties imposed on a Roman Catholic clergyman for the celebration of a mixed marriage were inflicted neither on Protestant nor Pres-

  319
  byterian clergymen. The continuance of the Act by which these were imposed was a disgrace to the statute-book, and its abolition had been recommended in 1858 by a Committee of the Dublin Statistical Society, composed of gentlemen of eminence, the majority of whom were Protestants. But, although the Act was one which he personally felt ought to be disregarded as long as it remained in force, clergymen either did not dare to disobey it, or, if they did, wore prevented from recording the marriages in the registers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of amending the Act in the particulars to which he had called attention.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, when the Bill was before the House last Session, he had spoken to the Attorney General for Ireland with reference to repealing the Act which made it penal for a Roman Catholic priest to celebrate mixed marriages, and the learned Gentleman replied that in his opinion there would be very great difficulty in approaching the repeal of that measure. He (Mr. M'Mahon) told his hon. and learned Friend that he should endeavour to obtain a Committee of that House in order to have the matter discussed, and to have that statute repealed. There was one other matter to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There were at present registrars of Marriages in Ireland but not of Births and Deaths; but by the provisions of this Bill those Gentlemen would be deprived of their offices. He considered that difficulty might be met if the right hon. Gentleman would allow those gentlemen to continue to hold their offices, and to act as registrars of Births and Deaths as well as of Marriages, or if not, that some compensation should be made to them for being deprived of offices which they had held so long.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Bill did not interfere with the registrars. It left them entirely untouched, so that no case for compensation would arise. With regard to the question of mixed marriages, all he could say was, that the Bill had been most carefully framed so as not to impose any difficulty or any penalty upon Roman Catholic clergymen. It was true that certain statutes imposed the penalty of felony on Roman Catholic clergymen who celebrated mixed marriages. For his own part he had no wish that any penalty or disqualification should apply to Roman Catholic clergymen which did not apply to clergymen of
  320
  the Church of which he was himself a member. But the House would be aware that there was a great difficulty connected with the marriage question, and it was not possible to deal with a part without bringing up the whole subject for discussion. His endeavour in this measure had been to frame a Bill which should steer clear of this difficult question. He wished to promote a most useful and important matter, to have a proper system of registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, in this census year 1861, and to provide a cheap and efficient means whereby the legitimacy of children might be proved. This was important not only to the peer but to the peasant, who, he was happy to say, was frequently receiving from his relatives in other countries, humble legacies which he might wish to leave to his children. In order to obtain this boon, he had endeavoured to steer clear of the law of marriage.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CARDWELL and Mr. BAGWELL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

FAIRS AND MARKETS IN IRELAND.

  LEAVE.
  MR. CARDWELL, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of Markets and Fairs in Ireland said, it related to a subject of great importance to Ireland, which, however, was surrounded by difficulties; and he should have to throw himself upon the consideration and indulgence of Irish Members when the Bill came into Committee. He would not dwell upon the great importance to an agricultural community of having an effective regulation of those places where they dispose of their produce. Although Ireland was happily becoming more and more a commercial country, yet, for some time at least, the extension of agriculture must remain the great object of interest for the people of Ireland. The subject of Fairs and Markets in Ireland had for years attracted the attention of Parliament, and so recently as 1852, during the Viceroyalty of the Earl of Eglinton, a Commission was appointed to inquire into the subject. In the following year they presented a Report, in which they stated that they had held public sittings in ninety-four towns; they had examined upwards of 700 witnesses, and they found the subject regarded as one

  321
  of great interest by all classes, both mercantile and agricultural. They found that the owners of markets were generally willing to afford that accommodation which the traffickers required, and which was not now afforded, provided they got security for their rates and tolls. The traffickers were ready on the other hand, to pay reasonable tolls, provided they obtained in return that fair accommodation to which they were entitled. But it happened, when the ancient grants under which a great number of these fairs and markets still existed were granted, people were not so clearly informed on the subject as now. And, consequently, the Commissioners reported that in the 349 market towns which existed, and the nearly 1,300 fairs, there was every variety of tolls. They spoke of unreasonable tolls, not warranted by law, charter, or usage, and of tolls collected in the most arbitrary and oppressive manner. From these no remedy could be obtained except by a proceeding at law of the most costly character, quite out of the reach of the poorer classes; and therefore redress was practically impossible. The Commissioners further reported that this went to so great a length that at last there grew up au organised system of resistance, with such effect that in many towns in the northern and eastern parts of Ireland no tolls were collected. Nor did the evil terminate when the tolls were abolished, for it was found that those were the worst markets whore the evil had been violently redressed, and that in them were practised the grossest frauds upon the poorer classes. Now, he did not know whether, for purposes of legislation, all should be taken exactly as it was in the Report, although he believed it to be correct; but so much was beyond dispute, that there was a state of things most inconvenient both to buyers and sellers, it being for the manifest interest of both that the best accommodation should be given in the markets which they frequented. More than two centuries ago this subject attracted the attention of Government. As long since as 1640 a Bill passed through the Irish House of Commons to remedy the very evils of which they were still complaining at the present day. The contemplation of the past might lead them to this conclusion, that it was not reasonably to be expected that in the compass of one Bill a remedy could be found for all the complicated evils which existed. And, therefore, he had arrived at the conclusion that the principle on
  322
  which the Bill should be framed was that principle of modern legislation, by which each locality was allowed to take the thing into its own hands, and to apply the remedy best adapted to its own case. He had accordingly given power to the individuals interested to obtain the aid and cooperation of Parliament for the purpose of giving statutory authority to local regulations. He proposed that in every fair and market a limited time should be allowed to the person known as the owner of the market to put the statute into operation; but if he failed to do so within the time required, then it should be open to the public of the district to take the matter out of his hands and to put the statute in operation for themselves. For the purposes of the Act the "public" would be either two justices of the peace in the neighbourhood of the market or fair who might certify that the provisions of the statute had not been complied with, or a certain number of persons who commonly resorted to the market. Those persons would have a right to make application to the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and his Excellency would be authorized to direct a local inquiry, and, by order in Council, to bring the particular market under the operation of the General Markets Act of 1847, or of such portions of that Act as it might be thought advisable to apply to it. If the order in Council touched nothing beyond what was contained in the schedule of the present Bill, it would have a binding force proprio vigore. In cases in which bind was to be taken, the subsequent ratification of Parliament might be necessary. Indeed, under the Local Government Act, the rule was to apply to Parliament in such cases, and it appeared to him that it would be right to follow the precedent. He proposed that in cases in which there was a vested interest in tolls the party who claimed it might make an application to the Judges of the Landed Estates Court, in order to establish his title, and then the tolls would be regulated so as to furnish an equivalent for the rights thus established. In other cases, the rates in the schedule to the Bill would be the maximum to which the tolls could be raised, and the object of the tolls, would be merely to pay the necessary expenses for the accommodation of persons resorting to the market. For the summary adjustment of disputes, prevention of fraud in weights and measures, and matters of that kind, a cheap and easy remedy would be provided. Uni-

  323
  formity of weights and measures was a matter which all classes in Ireland desired. By the Act of last Session the difficulties had been removed, which the limited powers given to the constabulary had previously created. The Bill, therefore, contemplated the establishment in every fair and market of weigh-masters, who would be charged with the duty of keeping proper weights and measures, and who would weigh commodities for a small charge. The whole scope and object of the measure would be to provide a cheap, easy, and expeditious machinery by which, through the medium of local legislation, persons should be enabled to deal with their own interests, and settle their own affairs in their own way. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to introduce the Bill.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, the Irish Members were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having brought in the Bill early in the Session. It would not, however, be complete without something were done by the Government for the purpose of introducing greater uniformity into the system of weights and measures throughout Ireland. At present, wheat, oats, and potatoes were sold by barrel, which differed in almost every county and market town.
  MR. M'MAHONobserved, that for the last four or five years, in compliance with the wishes of his constituents, it had been his duty to resist the Bills introduced on this subject. The present measure, however, was likely to be more favourably received than any before proposed. Substantially, it copied the Local Government Act of England, giving power to localities to adopt the provisions of a general Bill, and that principle would, he believed, be regarded as satisfactory. With regard to the tolls to be levied in the markets, he suggested that some person should be appointed by the Crown to watch the claims made in the Encumbered Estates Court, so that in all such cases the public might be represented.
  CAPTAIN STACKPOOLEwas understood to say that compensation ought to be provided for discharged officers.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, be could not gather from the statements of the right hon. Gentleman that the provisions of the Bill were as extensive as the proposition laid down by the late Attorney General for Ireland, who had been removed to another and a better place.
  324
  However, were that so or not, he trusted that the same course would not be followed as last Session—he meant the introduction of Irish measures at the beginning of the Session to be thrown out at the end. He thought the Bill ought to contain clauses to enable persons in possession of tolls to dispose of their rights in them.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he thought when the Bill was examined it would be found to meet the requirements of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken, and he tendered them his thanks for the manner in which they had received the measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the better Regulation of Markets and Fairs in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CARDWELL, and Mr. BAGWELL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

CHATHAM DOCKYARD ENLARGEMENT.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill enabling the Admiralty to acquire property for the enlargement of Her Majesty's Dockyard at Chatham, and to embank part of the River Medway and for other purposes connected therewith. The immediate object of the Bill was to enable the Admiralty to enclose St. Mary's Creek, near Chatham, with the ultimate object of enlarging the Dockyard in that direction. When the Naval Estimates were brought in he should be prepared to state the amount that would be asked for for this purpose, and describe the plan of the works proposed.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he was glad the noble Lord intended to introduce this Bill. No arsenal required enlargement so much as Chatham. In the last Session he had himself brought this subject under the consideration of the House and Her Majesty's Government; an enlargement of the Dockyard at Chatham was proposed so long ago as 1814, and he believed the plan then suggested by the late Mr. Rennie, the great civil engineer, was the best ever devised. No doubt, the Government had some other plan to bring forward, but in a great work of this kind plans ought to be called for from the most eminent men of the day, and thoroughly discussed by the Government or a Committee of the House, that they might know exactly what they had to deal with. The propriety of ac-

  325
  quiring the land he perfectly admitted, and he should, therefore, support the proposal; but he hoped the plan of the works in detail would be laid before the House, before the Government asked for a Vote of Money to carry them into execution. If the arsenal of Chatham had been extended some years back, the country would have saved the immense outlay of money at Woolwich, Deptford, and Sheerness; the two first undefended, and the latter incapable of adequate defence, except at an unjustifiable outlay. Chatham, with proper works, could be better defended even than Portsmouth. No doubt, a large amount would be demanded, both in the present and succeeding years, to divert the Medway, embank it, and enclose St. Mary's Creek; but if it be intended to increase the Navy by the addition of large vessels, they must enlarge their docks to receive the ships of increased dimensions. There was no locality better adapted for such docks than the Medway; but the Government should make certain that the river was not silting up, and that the present depth of water could be preserved by dredging. He hoped the House would be well-informed of the extent and plan of the works to be carried out.
  MR. WHITEobserved there were only seven hon. Members present on the Opposition side of the House, and about a dozen on the Ministerial benches, most of them Members of the Government. He supposed the noble Lord's eloquence had been frozen by the empty appearance of the House; but he ought to have told them a little more about the Bill he asked leave to introduce; other Government measures that had been introduced that evening had been explained at length. He should not be surprised if hon. Members were told next year this was part of the £75,000,000 they were spending; and it would be thrown in their teeth that they were not in their places when the Bill was brought in, doing their duty by watching the action of an extravagant Government. When the noble Lord was asked why the Admiralty had dismissed a large number of the workmen at present employed in the dockyards, he stated that the Government were now building ships in private yards. If experience had shown that ships could be built more cheaply in private yards than in Government establishments, the noble Lord ought to give good reasons when he asked for an extension of the dockyard system. He (Mr. White) thought
  326
  the whole system a blunder. When the noble Lord was on the other side of the House he was most eloquent in denouncing it. He proved satisfactorily that vessels could be built cheaper and better in private establishments than by the Government, or, if not better, certainly cheaper. The noble Lord ought to have given some explanation of the plan before asking the House to consent even to the introduction of the Bill. But in the present state of the House he would not divide against it.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the reason he did not raise a discussion on the subject at present was that in a few days the Navy Estimates would be proposed. He should then have to ask for an inconsiderable sum of money, which, however, he was bound to say, would be only for the Commencement of a very large work. It was his intention also to lay before the House at that time a general plan of that work. He could not promise to produce a plan minute in all its details, but it would be sufficient to give the House a general idea of the whole plan proposed by the Government. The object of the Bill was not to enable the Admiralty to purchase more than a very small portion of land, and he doubted whether it would be necessary to purchase any. The main object of the measure was to enable the Government to reclaim St. Mary's Island, by which ran a creek little used, but which it would be necessary to appropriate for the purpose of enlarging the dockyard. He assured the House he would not conceal from it any of the ultimate intentions of the Government.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord CLARENCE PAGET and Mr. WHITBREAD.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

LAW OF LUNACY.—QUESTION.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would beg leave to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he proposed to bring in any Bill or Bills for amending the laws relating to lunatics, pursuant to the Report or recommendations of the Select Committee made to the House last Session?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, a Bill on the subject to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was in preparation, and he hoped to be able to give notice of it upon an early day. He would take that opportunity of stating that he believed the Lord Chancellor intended to introduce a Bill in

327
the other House of Parliament relating to Chancery lunatics. That would be a separate measure.
House adjourned at Ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Statute Law Revision
2a Indictable Offences (Metropolitan Districts).

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED— FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR presented a Bill having for its object clearing the statute-book of a mass of useless matter, which, he said, was a preliminary stage in the grand work of the consolidation of the statute law. It was not possible to make much progress in that important undertaking without knowing exactly what the statute law was. The Statutes at Large now occupied more than forty most ponderous quarto volumes. In most countries laws that were obsolete, or had gone out of use were considered as repealed, and ceased altogether to be binding; but in this country an Act of Parliament remained in force until it was expressly repealed. Many of these quarto volumes consisted for the greater part of Acts of Parliament now no longer in force, some of which had been repealed by implication, and some had become obsolete by disuse. The object of this Bill was expressly to repeal those Acts which might be considered to be now no longer in force, so that there might be an expurgated edition of the statute-book. We had fallen into a most vicious system in legislation of introducing into Acts of Parliament a provision repealing so much of any former Act as might be inconsistent with the present Act, and there was no editor who would like to take on himself the responsibility of publishing an edition of the statutes which would con-
  268
  tain only just those portions which were actually in force. This Bill had been very carefully drawn by Messrs. Reilly and Wood It had been circulated during the recess to all the public offices, and they were asked whether any of the Acts proposed to be repealed were still in force or were of any utility, and the answers received from them in reply showed that it would require very slight amendment. The result of the repeals proposed by the Bill, if they were agreed to, would be that the statute-book would be reduced to one-fourth of its present bulk. The noble and learned Lord then presented a Bill for repealing divers Acts and parts of Acts, which have ceased to be in force.
  Bill read la.

SALMON FISHERIES IN SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSSsaid, it would be remembered that last Session a Select Committee of their Lordships' House was appointed to inquire whether, having regard to the rights of property of the Crown and individuals, it was expedient that any legislation should take place for the regulation of salmon fishing on the sea-coasts and rivers and estuaries in Scotland. That Committee sat for sixteen days, and, after hearing evidence, expressed the opinion, "That, with a view to the improvement of the Salmon Fisheries in Scotland, all cruives and fixed engines of whatever kind, both in the rivers and in the seas, should be abolished, and, at all events, no new fixed engines of any description should be permitted to be erected;" but, fearing that it would not be practicable to carry out so comprehensive a mea-sure, they unanimously agreed upon a more moderate Report, and concluded by recommending "that a Bill should be introduced by Her Majesty's Government in the next Session of Parliament in conformity with their Report." He wished to ask whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill into Parliament this Session founded upon the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords upon Salmon Fisheries in Scotland? The Commissioners appointed to inquire into the English salmon fisheries had, he believed, made their Report, and, if so, he would also ask the noble Duke whether that Report would be laid before the House.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that it was the intention of the Government to

  269
  introduce a Bill on the subject of Salmon Fishing in Scotland, and the Bill would mainly be founded on the Report of the Committee. The clauses of the measure were now under consideration. He could not say that they would entirely carry out the views of the Committee, but the leading provisions were founded on the Report. When the Bill would be introduced he could not exactly state, but at all events it would be brought forward in time to allow of its discussion in both Houses of Parliament. With regard to the second Question asked by the noble Lord, he was unable at this moment to answer it, but would do so on a future day.

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTIONS IN SPAIN.—THE PROTESTANT ALLIANCE.

  PAPER MOVED FOR.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYrose, in pursuance of notice, to move for a copy of a Memorial from the Protestant Alliance, presented to Lord John Russell, on the subject of the alleged religious persecutions in Spain. The noble Marquess said, that when he gave notice of his intention to move for the copy of the memorial he mentioned to his noble Friend (Lord Wodehouse) that he would, at the same time, ask whether Her Majesty's Government assented to doctrines which were stated as facts in that document. The memorial, after setting forth certain alleged cases of persecution, went on to say that in the instance of another individual, a man much respected, he had been punished "solely for being a Christian, and for quitting the Church of Rome." Now, any person reading these words would perceive that they would be interpreted by Roman Catholics as implying that, in the opinion of the memorialists, a Roman Catholic was not a Christian, and that the words were calculated to give offence to a proud and high-spirited people such as those of Spain. He understood that his noble Friend was inclined to give another interpretation to these words. If so, and if the memorialists did not intend to convey the meaning which he (the Marquess of Normanby) had cited, he could only express his regret that they should have expressed themselves in such a manner as to be liable to misconstruction, and that they should, as they too often did, use language which was calculated to defeat rather than promote the objects which they had in view. Had the memorialists stated that the individual's
  270
  sole offence was quitting the Church of Rome, he could understand that that might not be objectionable; but to say that he was punished "for being a Christian, and for quitting the Church of Rome," seemed to lead to the inevitable conclusion that the memorialists were of opinion that members of the Church of Rome were not Christians. As the words stood their plain meaning was that the man had being punished for being a Christian, and the intervention of the Foreign Secretary was asked for on this ground. Then the memorialists went on to express their fear lest persecution should extend to other towns, and they said that many Christians in Malaga were much alarmed. The phrase "many Christians in Malaga" seemed to point to the time when there were Moors as well as Christians there, else the conclusion to be drawn from the whole memorial was, that the members of the Romish Church were not Christians. Such a construction had been put upon these words, and he was sure that if this memorial were put into the hands of our Minister at Madrid, and it were shown to the Spanish Government, they would regard it as insulting. An injudicious use of expressions such as these was not likely to advance the objects which the society had in view, and abroad was calculated to produce a most unfavourable impression. The noble Marquess then moved an Address for
  "Copy of Memorial from the Protestant Alliance Society presented to Lord John Russell on the subject of Alleged Religious Persecutions in Spain."
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he had no objection to produce a copy of the memorial; but really he was at a loss to know how the intentions of the memorialists could be misapprehended. What led to their adoption of this particular form of words he could not, of course, say; but, no doubt, they meant that the person who had been imprisoned wa3 a good Christian, and was only punished because he had embraced Protestant principles. At all events, I the Foreign Secretary was not to be held responsible for particular expressions contained in any such document. He would leave the interpretation to the noble Earl I (the Earl of Shaftesbury) who had signed I it, and who was present.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that as his name was appended to the memorial he might, perhaps, be permitted to I make one or two remarks. He could assure the noble Marquess that it was not

  271
  the intention of himself or of any of the memorialists to convey the notion that Roman Catholics were not Christians. By the laws of Spain no religion was tolerated but the Roman Catholic; and what the memorialists meant to convey was this, that although a person left the Church of Rome, he did not by any means lose his Christian character. If this were so, the man was persecuted for being a Christian who had left the Church of Rome. He thought the grievance of the noble Marquess—if it were one—was not worth occupying their Lordships' time.
  THE MABQUESS OF NORMANBYremarked that, if the memorialists had meant what the noble Earl now stated, it was a pity that they did not express themselves more clearly. He could not see the use of some of the words employed unless they had a meaning. They said that a man was punished "for being a Christian, and quitting the Church of Rome." If they meant merely to state that the man was punished "for quitting the Church of Rome," why did they not state so simply? Did not, he asked, the words "for being a Christian" mean something? He was satisfied when his noble Friend declared that it was not the intention of the memorialists to assert that the Church of Rome was not Christian; but he regretted that they had thought it proper to use words which, he was quite sure, would he interpreted by many as he himself had understood them. Supposing the Foreign Minister here was about to act upon the representations made to him, it was surely as well that he, too, should see that the memorial was not worded in an offensive manner to the Foreign Government whose conduct as to their own subjects was called in question.
  Address agreed to.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.