Sitting of 21 February 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—2° Markets and Fairs (Ireland); Offences against the Person; Larceny, &c.; Malicious Injuries to Property; Forgery; Coinage Offences; Accessories and Abettors; Criminal Statutes Repeal; Law of Foreign Countries.

IRISH BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
In answer to Questions from Lord NAAS,
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that he proposed to take the second reading of the Births, Deaths, and Marriages (Ireland) Bill on Tuesday next, in order that the Bill of his noble Friend and his own might come on for discussion together. With regard to the Markets and Fairs (Ireland) Bill, he would, with the permission of the House, take the Second Reading that evening, and postpone going into Committee until after Easter, when hon. Members would have returned from the Assizes.

AFFAIRS OF ITALY.—QUESTION.
LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, that bearing that atrocities had been, and were

709
likely to be, committed by the Sardinian Government and Army in Southern Italy, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will use its influence with His Majesty King Victor Emmanuel to prevent bloodshed in his present hour of success, and will instruct its Diplomatic and Consular Agents to keep it fully informed of the measures ordered or adopted by the present de facto Government of Southern Italy, for the purpose of re-establishing order?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I have not thought it necessary to use any influence with King Victor Emmanuel to prevent bloodshed. I should say that, generally, the Sardinian troops have shown as much humanity in victory as they have displayed courage in the contest; but there have certainly occurred cases which it was painful for an army to deal with, and with which the Sardinian army have dealt in a very severe manner. For instance, it appears that orders were sent out—I cannot say by whom, but orders, proceeding from Gaeta and Rome—according to which brigands, convicts, and persons of the worst character were armed in parts of the kingdom of Naples, and committed great atrocities. In one case, they seized a young man, of the age of nineteen, the son of a person known for his liberal opinions, put out his eyes, and then burned him by his own fire. Atrocities of this kind, frequently repeated, induced the Syndics of the town to arrest these brigands, and put them in irons; but presently there came an order from Gaeta that they should be let loose again. They then committed other similar atrocities, and when the troops of the King of Sardinia came there they were seized, tried by a military commission, and shot. Atrocities of that kind, my noble Friend must be aware, cannot be dealt with according to the usual laws of criminal justice, or the usual proceedings of one regular army towards another. It is certainly very greatly to be lamented that, as there is now no army in the field to oppose that of the King of Sardinia, encouragement continues to be given—no longer from Gaeta, to be sure, but from Rome—to persons of the very worst character, who commit acts of brigandage and robbery in the villages, and put to death, in the most cruel manner, any persons who are supposed to differ from them in their opinions as to who should be King of that State. I can only say that I think it would be almost an affront to the
710
Government of the King of Sardinia to preach humanity to them. I believe that it is the wish of the King of Sardinia, as he has shown repeatedly by the orders which he has given, that, while war is carried on, it shall he conducted with humanity; and, I trust, from a letter with respect to the siege of Gaeta which I received this morning from a correspondent, which says:—
"Indeed it is a great blessing to have done with the siege of Gaeta, and you will see, as I before predicted, the whole kingdom of Naples, or rather Southern Italy, will settle down into a state of tranquillity nearly equal to that of Tuscany, Romagna, and Bologna."
that encouragement will no longer be given to the robberies and murders which have for some time been committed in Southern Italy.
LORD JOHN MANNERS:— Will the noble Lord allow me to ask a question as to the information which he has just given us; whether that information appears in any of the papers which have been laid upon the table of the House, or from what source it comes, and whether he will be willing to communicate to the House any papers in which it is contained?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: The information came to me from the Sardinian Minister. I have no documents to produce, but I certainly believe that it is true information.
MR. HENNESSY: Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will inform us when he intends to ask for a Committee of Supply, as we can then discuss these things in a more regular form.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot give any positive information, but I had understood that it was intended to propose a Committee of Supply on Monday next. At any rate, information as to when it is to be taken will be given to-morrow.

AUDIT OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it would not be possible to curtail the time now allowed by Law for the audit of the Army Accounts, so that the Account of Army Receipt and Expenditure might be presented at the same time as the Account of Naval Receipt and Expenditure; and whether any steps

  711
  have been taken, or are in contemplation, for giving effect to the recommendation of the Committee on Public Monies with respect to the audit of the Miscellaneous Expenditure?
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he wished to know whether his right hon. Friend was also prepared to inform them what course he meant to pursue with respect to the general recommendations of the Committee on Public Monies, and more particularly with respect to the appointment of a Finance Committee, consisting of Members of that House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that with respect to the first Question of his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), and also with respect to the Question of his right hon. Friend behind him (Sir Francis Baring), he had to state that it would not be practicable to bring within the same limits the army and the navy accounts. A period of eight months was allowed for closing the accounts of the naval receipts and expenditure, and at the end of that time they were forwarded to the Audit Office for investigation. But the law allowed twelve mouths for closing the accounts of the army expenditure. He was not prepared to say that it would be found permanently necessary to maintain that precise difference of time between the two cases. But there was no doubt that, owing to the greater diversity, extent, and complexity of the operations and the expenditure of the army abroad, it would require a longer time to bring up and close that account than the naval account. He did not, however, see any great inconvenience in that, because the final intentions of that House and of the Government were that those accounts should be referred to a Committee. The Committee would entertain them successively, and might proceed to deal with the naval accounts during the interval which would elapse before the army accounts were produced. At present every effort was being made to expedite the preparation of the army accounts, so that they should soon be better able to judge in what time they could be completed hereafter. With respect to the general recommendations of the Committee, he had to state that they had been very much considered by the Government during the recess, and it was their intention to propose certain Bills to Parliament for the purpose of giving effect to those recommendations. There was one portion
  712
  of them which was in its nature separate from the rest, and with which he proposed to deal first, and by a separate Bill; he meant the recommendation which related to Exchequer Bills, and which would involve several changes in regard to those instruments. He hoped to be able to find an opportunity in the course of next week of submitting to the House certain Resolutions, which would be the foundation of the change which he contemplated, and which would make those Bills a charge on the Consolidated Fund. With regard to the other leading recommendations of the Committee—namely, those which related particularly to the audit of the miscellaneous expenditure, and some other points—there was a Bill in preparation for the purpose of giving effect to them; and he would be in a condition, he hoped, to bring it under the notice of the House as soon as the progress of other public business would permit. Then there remained behind the question of the appointment of a Committee of that House for the purpose of reviewing the public accounts from year to year after they had undergone inspection at the Audit Office. That Committee could not be brought into full operation as respected the whole of the public accounts for, he was afraid, at least two years from the present time, because if by law they were able to apply the principle of audit, as recommended by the Committee, to the miscellaneous expenditure, the first year's expenditure to which it would apply must be that of 1861–2, inasmuch as it would not be desirable to begin with an arrear, and the time for bringing it to a close would be the 31st of March, 1862. Time should afterwards be allowed to close and bring up the accounts, and send them before the Audit Office; and then they could not come before the Committee until the Session of 1863. But there was no reason that he was aware of, why, in this Session they should not appoint a Committee, if it should be the pleasure of the House, to whom they would entrust the duty of reviewing both the army and navy expenditure. If they did that the Committee would then, in all probability, be in a condition to apply themselves with greater care to the question of the miscellaneous expenditure after they had become thoroughly familiar with the question of the army and navy expenditure. He believed the answers he had just given embraced all the material points of the questions which had been put to him.

  DIVISION OF LABOUR IN THE PUBLIC OFFICES.—QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would now beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, for introducing into the Public Offices a better system of division of labour?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that all he could then state upon the subject was this. The hon. Baronet had given them his valuable assistance, along with other Gentlemen, in the investigation of the subject, which was one of very great difficulty; but the Government did not yet feel themselves in a condition to move in it before they had brought it under the notice of the principal permanent officers of the civil service. He could not say they had yet arrived at any result which would justify him in holding out any immediate prospect of making any progress in the matter. But the attention of many of the most eminent and experienced of the civil servants was being directed to the subject, and the Government were very desirous of arriving as soon as possible at such a decision as the circumstances of the case might require.

  THE INDIAN NAVY.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Is the Indian Navy to be abolished as a War Service, and converted into a mere Transport Service; if so converted, will the Officers be given the option of retiring on a liberal pension according to their length of service; if the service be kept on a war footing, how will it stand with regard to the Royal Navy, and will its services be confined to the Indian seas; and is it the intention of Government to build any more vessels expressly for the Indian Navy, or to make any more special appointments to that service; or, in other words, will it be suffered to die out?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that, in answer to the Question, he had to state that the Government intended to reduce the expenditure of the Indian Navy. In consequence of the force not being any longer required in the suppression of the slave trade along the eastern coast of Africa which has ceased to be a petty trade carried on by Arabs only, and is now a trade to the West Indies carried on under the flag of European nations, it would be diminished in number, and would, consequently, become less expensive. No ships
  714
  had been built for that service, and no appointments had been made in it since he had taken office. A portion of the force, however, would still be maintained for the purpose of making surveys, removing troops, and for the protection of our interests in the Persian Gulf.

ALLOWANCES TO WITNESSES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALGERNON EGERTONsaid, lie would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is prepared to alter the present scale of allowances to witnesses at Sessions and Assizes?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had frequently had interviews with deputations from South Lancashire and from the West Riding of Yorkshire, comprising gentlemen of great weight and experience, in order to represent to him the inadequacy of the general allowances to witnesses in prosecutions at the assizes and sessions. Those expenses were at present defrayed by a grant of that House, and any increase in them would consequently become a burden on the Public Exchequer. The subject was one of great difficulty, whether it were considered as leading to a general increase under that head in all counties, or as a variable scale involving different rates for different counties. He could only say that he had not yet come to any satisfactory conclusion upon the subject; but he could assure the House that he had it under his careful consideration.

  CHURCH RATE RETURNS.—QUESTION.
  MR. PACKEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Return of Parishes in which Church Rates have ceased to be collected [Addressed for on the 25th day of January, 1860] will be laid upon the Table?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the House would probably recollect that last Session an Act had been passed giving the Secretary of State the power of obtaining a general Return of all Local Rates, embracing Church Rates. Formal papers had been sent out to all the parishes under the provisions of that Act, and the information which would thus be acquired would be more comprehensive than any that had yet been obtained in this country. The Returns were at present coming in, and he hoped he should be able to present them before the end of the Session.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—QUESTION.
  MAJOR GAVINsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is his intention to proceed with the Fishery Bill placed on the Table of the House at the end of last Session?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid the Bill of last Session was prepared by the Fishery Commissioners, under the direction of the late Government. He had communicated with the Commissioners on the subject, and had been informed that they had received many suggestions, which, in the shape of an altered Bill, would probably be laid on the Table of the House in the course of the present Session. But the Commissioners were very anxious that their Report should be printed and in the hands of hon. Members before the introduction of the Bill for Ireland. He might take that opportunity of stating that the Bill of last Session would, if carried, have effected an alteration in the Law of Property, and not merely affected the mode of administration of it. That was a thing which, he believed, the Commissioners did not intend to advise.

VENTILATION OF METALLIC MINES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How soon the inquiry promised last Session into the state of ventilation, and the great loss of life consequent on labouring in tin, iron, copper, and other metallic mines, will be made?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that in the course of the discussions last year on the Bill regulating coal mines a promise had been made on the part of the Government that an inquiry would be instituted within some reasonable time into the state of the ventilation and the labour of metallic mines. He had not yet entered into any arrangement for the purpose of making such an inquiry, but if it should be the general wish of the persons engaged in that branch of industry to have that inquiry, and if it should appear that it would lead to any beneficial results, he would be prepared to take the necessary steps for effecting that object.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 51 to 55 agreed to.
  Clause 56 (Deputy for Chief Judge),
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, it was pro-
  716
  posed by the Bill that in the temporary absence of the Chief Judge one of the Commissioners in Bankruptcy should preside. But, as the principal business of the Chief Judge would be to hear appeals from the decisions of these Commissioners, he thought it very undesirable that one of their number should act as his substitute. With a view, therefore, to secure uniformity of ruling, of the entire absence of which the mercantile public at present complained so grievously, he moved, by way of Amendment, that one of the Queen's counsel, or a serjeant-at-law, should be appointed to preside in the absence of the Chief Judge.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would look into the clause with the view of seeing whether an alteration might not be made to remove the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 57 to 62 inclusive agreed to.
  Clause 63 (Persons refusing to answer may be ordered to pay costs),
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he wished to propose the addition of the words, "provided the person shall be compellable by law to answer such question or to sign such examination."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in framing the clause it was assumed that the Judge would not order the payment of costs until he had satisfied himself that the question or examination was such a one as the person could be compelled to answer or sign. He had, however, no objection to the Amendment.
  Clause as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 64 to 67 agreed to.
  Clause 68 (Issues may be directed),
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had great doubt about the propriety of the clause. The 67th Clause empowered the Chief Judge and the Judges of the Court of Appeal in Chancery to direct questions of fact to be tried before themselves, and the clause under consideration allowed them to direct issues to be tried in any Court of common law, either before a Judge of assize in any county or at the sittings in London and Middlesex. If there was one thing more than another which ought to be observed in law reform (and no one would give a more cordial assent to his proposition than the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite), it was that every Court ought to be sufficient of itself, and by itself, to determine any question within its

  717
  jurisdiction which was submitted to it; and he was afraid that if they permitted issues to be tried in the way authorized in the clause, they would be Bending issues for trial which might just as well be tried before the Court. He quite admitted that it might be advantageous to send down a case into the country to be tried instead of trying it in London, and thus save the expense and inconvenience of bringing all the witnesses up here. To that extent be thought the clause might be useful.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought they ought to put the greatest confidence in those who had the administration of justice in their hands, and leave them to act, in many cases, according to their discretion. Contingencies might arise that would render the sending of these issues to the courts necessary; and therefore he thought the power of doing so should remain.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, be did not wish the hon. and learned Attorney General to give up the clause, but to put in some words to limit as much as possible the sending of issues for trial.
  MR. MALINSproposed that the words "in cases of necessity" should be inserted; and observed that, at one time, in the Court of Chancery it was a general rule, when points of law arose, to send an issue to the common law courts, but now it was only done in cases of absolute necessity.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, be had no objection to insert in the clause the words "if required by circumstances."
  MR. WALFOLEsaid, the insertion of those words would meet his views.
  Clause as amended agreed to; as were also Clauses 69 to 73.
  Clause 74 (Appeal from Commissioners and County Court Judges),
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he thought it desirable that a right of appeal should be given with respect to cases now pending, as well as with respect to cases that might arise subsequently to the passing of the Act.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he thought some Such Amendment as that proposed by his hon. and learned Friend was necessary. The decision of the Insolvent Court was final. There was no appeal from the judgment of the Commissioner. A case had lately arisen in which the Chief Commissioner of the Insolvent Court decided upon disposing of a sum exceeding £5,000 belonging to a Mr. Dyson, who had be-
  718
  come insolvent a second time. The Vice Chancellor had decided that the money belonged to the purchaser of Dyson's property, and not to Dyson; so that while the Court of Chancery decided the money belonged to A, the Chief Commissioner ruled that it should be given to B. He, therefore, hoped the learned Attorney General would propose some words to remedy that inconvenience.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the matter was undoubtedly one of great importance, and he would, therefore, propose to add after the words "under this Act," in the third line of the clause, the words "including decisions and orders in all matters pending in bankruptcy or insolvency at the time of the passing of this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 75 (Mode of Appeal).
  MR. MALINSsaid, he thought that in all matters the appeal should be independent of the permission of the Judge appealed from, and he suggested that the time within which an appeal could be taken should be forty-two, instead of twenty-eight days.
  MR. MOFFATTmoved as an Amendment, to leave out the words, "on the hearing thereof no new evidence shall be received without leave of the Judge."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the provision was a very salutary provision, for unless some such restriction existed a great temptation was held out, he would not say to perjury, but to strain the evidence in order to supply the defects in making out the case on a first hearing. Nothing, too, was more likely to lead to litigation and expense than permitting parties to come in with fresh testimony. He preferred the term in the Bill of twenty-eight days to the forty-two days suggested by his hon. and learned Friend, especially as the Judge had power to extend the period.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 76 to 80 agreed to.
  Clause 81(Abolition of distinction between Trader and Non-trader).
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that as several hon. Members who wished to take part in the discussion of this important clause were absent, he would suggest the postponement of the clause for the present, and that notice should be given of its coming on.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there was a full House at five o'clock, and

  719
  it was known that the Bankruptcy Bill was the first order of the day, while it was then only six o'clock. It was impossible to discuss the clause at a more auspicious time.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he was glad the hon. and learned Attorney General had refused to postpone the clause. It was of the very essence of the Bill; it was known it was coming on, and if hon. Gentlemen would not stay for it, even till dinner time, their absence was the best proof of their assent to the clause.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he should have been glad if the hon. and learned Attorney General had postponed the clause, and given the public a little more time for consideration, before so important a principle of jurisprudence was finally settled by the House. The popular argument was that no distinction should be made between the trader and non-trader, but that distinction could not be given up with a due regard to the principles of jurisprudence. The distinction was contained in the codes of all nations, and was founded on principles of public policy. The law of insolvency which applied to persons who were not traders was grounded on different principles and a different spirit from the law of bankruptcy. The spirit of the law of insolvency was favourable to the debtor. Insolvency originally meant a cessio bonorum, and was introduced as a favour to debtors, who, by giving up their property, were enabled to withdraw themselves from the very stringent laws against debtors. The law of bankruptcy was laid down by a statute passed in the reign of Henry VIII., which was very much of a criminal statute. It was introduced, not for the relief of debtor, but for the benefit of creditors, to whom it gave extraordinary remedies, founded on the peculiar circumstances of trade, which, being dependent on credit, could not he carried on without a punctual discharge of the trader's obligations. The law of bankruptcy applied to the trader, and made him answer on oath every possible question with regard to his means, got hold of all his property, cut it up and distributed it among his creditors with circumstances certainly of very great severity. That was necessary in the case of a trader, because trade could not be carried on without credit, and credit could not be maintained unless the creditors had such extraordinary remedies afforded by law. These principles were laid down by
  720
  Blackstone, and in the French code the distinction between trader and non-trader was also to be found, bankruptcy applying to the first and not to the other, and the best commentators on the French Code agreed with Blackstone on this subject. The present Bill, therefore, removed a landmark of jurisprudence by confounding the trader with the non-trader. He hoped the Committee would consider the great vexation and trouble it would cause persons, who were not traders, to be brought under the law of bankruptcy, which had been described as a fearful legal instrument with all kinds of engines for cutting up a debtor, and distributing all he possessed among his creditors, and he likewise trusted that the landed gentlemen would carefully consider before they subjected themselves to powers of so exceptional and tremendous a character. The clauses might be made the means of great annoyance and cruelty, and something very like extortion, and I might place persons of property in very disagreeable predicaments. He had read last year a very able, witty, and pointed article in The Times, which went, he thought, to prove beyond doubt, that the law of bankruptcy ought not to be applied to non-traders, although, he regretted to say, the writer had carried out his views to no practical conclusion. The article, however, had awakened public attention to a great extent on the subject; and he, believing that the principle involved in the clause required still further consideration at the hands of the Committee and the country, deemed it to be his duty to move that it be postponed.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the remarks of the hon. and learned Baronet were addressed to the merits of the clause, and certainly not calculated to prepare the Committee for the Motion he had made. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Baronet would deem it necessary to persevere in his Amendment.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERintimated his intention to persevere in the Amendment.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he was quite certain it was the general feeling of the public, who had considered the clause, that it ought to be omitted from the Bill. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not risk the success of his measure by insisting on the clause. At all events, he hoped he would postpone its consideration until some other night. It was not usual, nor was it, indeed, decorous, for persons who had no knowledge

  721
  of the legal profession to rise and speak on Bills of this sort. They must be pardoned if they trusted to the opinions of the legal advisers on their side of the House, and did not read such Bills with the accuracy they ought to do. That was the reason why the provisions of the clause had escaped the notice of many hon. Members when it had come under the consideration of the House last Session. He hoped that the clause would be postponed.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, although he concurred in the opinion that the fullest Parliamentary notice had been given of the intentions of the Government in regard to the progress of the Bill that night, yet, after what had happened, it was equally clear that, owing to some misapprehension, there was not that general comprehension of that important clause which was essential to a proper discussion of its provisions and a satisfactory settlement of the points involved. It was certainly one of the most novel and important provisions of the Bill. He should not presume to suggest a postponement of the clause, believing that the hon. and learned Gentleman had good grounds for proceeding if he were so minded. But in order to prevent unnecessary divisions he would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, after all, time would not be gained by adopting the course recommended by his hon. and learned Friend. If, on the other hand, the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the fair exercise of his discretion, were determined to proceed with the discussion, he feared that they should prepare for warm discussions upon that particular clause in the next stage of the Bill, ending probably by a division or a series of divisions. Under such circumstances, he apprehended, very little time would be gained by proceeding with the clause after a very desultory conversation, to be followed afterwards by more full and mature discussions upon the same clause, terminating probably in divisions of the House.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was quite sure that the noble Lord would be the last person in the House that would lend himself to any obstructive measure, or to any Parliamentary tactics that were not quite regular. But he was sorry he could not answer the appeal made to him. It would have given him great pleasure if, consistently with his duty, he could acquiesce in the proposition for a postponement of the clause. He might appeal to
  722
  the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Truro (Mr. Montague Smith) the other night as evidence of the arrangements made for the discussion of the clause on that evening. He believed he was also warranted in saying that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) was also prepared for the discussion of the clause that night. He felt that, if he acceded to the proposition, he should be giving up the night to no purpose. He should postpone his observations upon the merits of the clause itself until the Amendment was disposed of. Whilst he tendered his thanks for the courtesy shown him in the last Session, as well as the present, he was pained at being compelled, from a sense of duty, to refuse compliance with the request made to him.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, they were told that there was a great difference between the measure of last year and that before the Committee. There was certainly some difference between the two measures, but many hon. Members were wholly unaware of the mischief which might be concealed under the garb of legal phraseology. The Attorney General certainly denied there was any such thing to he feared. He (Colonel Dunne), however, thought that before they went further into a discusssion upon this clause those hon. Members on his side of the House, at all events, should have an opportunity of consulting lawyers in whom they confided. He candidly confessed he had — in common, he believed, with every country Gentleman on his side of the House—a general distrust of all the proceedings of the hon. and learned Attorney General—and he thought an opportunity should be afforded for the lawyers on the Opposition side of the House to express their opinions upon the measure.
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, he was of opinion that there was no possible reason for the postponement of the clause. It was well known that this question of trader and non-trader was the great point to be discussed that night.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSobserved, that after what had been said, he would take leave to impress upon his hon. Friend that under the circumstances it would but be a waste of time to oppose the clause in the present stage of the Bill, and that it would be much more advisable if they would reserve their opinions upon the question at issue, until they had reached the next stage. He trusted that the clause would

  723
  be now allowed to pass, if possible, sub silentio.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 82 (Act of Bankruptcy by Non-trader),
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, the case of non-traders was one of peculiar difficulty. He had, however, always entertained the view that to a certain extent it would be a benefit, and not a disadvantage, to non-traders to be subject to the bankrupt laws —and the only question was to what extent. It appeared to him that a very plain and simple line could easily be drawn and adhered to. Whenever a judgment debt had been recovered against a non-trader, so that the creditor was in a position to put him in prison and keep him there for a length of time, which he could only leave as an insolvent debtor; the best thing that could happen to the debtor would be that his creditor, in consequence of the judgment, should have the power, without the formality of putting him in prison, of making him a bankrupt. The Attorney General had adopted that principle; but he (Sir Hugh Cairns) was sorry to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman went further. That a judgment creditor should sue out a capias requiring a debtor to appear and show cause why he should not be made a bankrupt was quite right, and the best thing that could be done, for if a bankrupt were thrown into prison he was of no use to himself or any one else; but by the 82nd and following clauses the hon. and learned Attorney General introduced a larger and more dangerous element. Under the Bill as it stood, any person who went beyond the realms with the intention of defeating his creditors could be adjudged a bankrupt. That was an excellent rule with regard to a trader, because he was bound to a particular place of business, or to have a properly accredited representative on that place; but the case of the non-trader was entirely different. He was not bound to any particular place, nor was he bound to pay his debts to a day; and, therefore, it would be introducing an extremely dangerous principle to enable a creditor to make a non-trader a bankrupt simply upon his own statement that he was abroad for the purpose of defeating his creditors. What would be the consequence? The creditor would go before a Judge and tell a plausible story—they always did so—that to the best of his belief So-and so had gone abroad to avoid
  724
  his creditors. The Judge was perfectly helpless in the matter, and he would be obliged to say, "This is the only evidence I have in the matter, and I must presume the man has gone abroad to avoid his creditors." But he might have gone abroad for a variety of motives, none of which might have been that of avoiding his creditors. He wanted to know why a non-trader who happened to be out of the country should be in a worse position than a non-trader in the country. They could not make the latter a bankrupt unless they had a judgment against him, and as there was power at common law to direct the service of a writ abroad, a non-trader resident abroad could be proceeded against under the judgment debtors clauses. He would, therefore, venture to suggest to the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he could not avoid a great deal of opposition to that and the following clauses, and take an important, practical, and safe step in the matter, by confining the case as regarded non-traders going abroad to what were called the judgment debtors summons clauses.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that the very luminous argument of his hon. and learned Friend perfectly illustrated the fact that they could not bring the case of the non-trader into the same position as that of the trader without gross impropriety. Let people consider what it was to be brought under the saws and harrows of the bankruptcy law. To a person of high rank, the very fact of being a bankrupt was a slur and a stain, and a thing which, in the history of a family, looked very ugly. Now, that might happen to a man whose means were far beyond what he owed, but who might be obliged to leave the country from some temporary embarrassment, or might be abroad at the time of the embarrassment, though perfectly willing to pay his debts. It was different with a trader, who ought to be in his place of business, or have some one there to represent him. A man of landed estate, who was a non-trader, was not under the same obligation to remain in the country, and, if compelled to do so, it would be a great restraint upon the liberty of the subject. He thought such a principle ought not to receive the sanction of the Committee, unless it were shown that the administration of justice in the ordinary courts, in cases of debtor and creditor, was not sufficient, as regarded non-traders, without resorting to the extraordinary and

  725
  exceptional remedy given by the law of bankruptcy.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that as there seemed to be an understanding that there should be a deliberate argument upon that matter at a future stage, he would not attempt then to reply to the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast. He would merely say that, if non-traders could not abscond from their creditors, or if judgments could be recovered against them, he should he content with the debtor summons clauses. The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Dundalk had asked a question, and he would beg leave to answer it by another. Did the hon. Baronet believe that there were no people belonging to this country abroad who had taken away their property, evaded their creditors, and lived abroad for years in shameless extravagance, whilst their defeated and disappointed creditors were unable to evade the shame? If the hon. Baronet believed there were no such persons, his position and his argument were consistent; but if he believed there were such persons, then he ought to join with him (the Attorney General) in attempting to put an end to such disgraceful transactions.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General had spoken of a man going abroad and taking with him all his property, and leaving his debts unpaid. Now, he wanted to know if a man had carried all his property abroad what was the use of making him a bankrupt? If he had property in England, that property was liable to his debts. There were various Acts of Parliament to facilitate the service of process on persons abroad, and if he had property in England, it could be seized by the ordinary law, and the bankruptcy law was not necessary in such cases. And the notion of preventing a man from going abroad by making him a bankrupt, was very much like attempting to catch a bird by putting salt on its tail.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that there were many cases in which there were persons who had debts and also property, and the question was whether they would allow them to retain the property and leave the debts unpaid. That was the simple question which they were discussing. The principle of justice required that those who had debts and property should apply the property to pay the debts. There could be no doubt that it would be useless to
  726
  make a man a bankrupt who took all his property abroad with him; but what the hon. and learned Attorney General meant was, that there were those who with large debts went abroad to avoid payment, and who, instead of taking all their property with them, drew it from England as it became due. If the law of England, then, were in such a state, ought it to be allowed to continue? Was he wrong in stating that such a state of affairs existed? Was it not possible that at the present moment a man might have thousands a year in landed property, and have it transmitted to him at Paris and Rome, where he lived in luxury, while his debts remained unpaid? If that could be the case, would any man say that it ought to be continued? How was such a man to be reached? They could not get a judgment against him—he was out of their reach; and within his own knowledge there were a great number of cases in which gentlemen had told him that they were in a state of starvation in consequence of the credit given to landed proprietors who absconded, and were living abroad. He thought too that there was protection enough thrown around the debtor by the clauses. If a debtor was abroad, the Court must be satisfied that he had absconded, and was remaining abroad for the purpose of avoiding the payments of his debts; and after service of the process, he must also have 60 days' notice before any proceedings could be taken against him. Ho had told the hon. and learned Attorney General last year that his Bill required more protection for the non-trading debtor, but that had effectually been given by the present measure. The clauses were of great importance. They were framed not for the benefit of creditors only but also of debtors; for he (Mr. Malins) believed that a greater benefit could not be conferred upon a man in a state of insolvency than to make him a bankrupt, and give him the opportunity, if he were a honest man, of beginning the world afresh, and he felt satisfied that the Legislature would be taking a course likely to restore a healthy-state of society by acting in such a spirit. To postpone the clauses would be to destroy the essence of the Bill, and if they were given up he should no longer care a straw for it. He had heard with astonishment that country gentlemen had not had sufficient notice of what was intended by those clauses, as the hon. and learned Attorney General had most lucidly explained their tendency when introducing the Bill.

  727
  He (Mr. Malins) should support the clauses, as he believed that they were calculated to base the law of debtor and creditor upon a rational principle, and in that conviction he should give the Bill his strenuous approval.
  MR. A. TURNERremarked that whatever distinction might be established between traders and non-traders, he hoped that in one respect both would be treated alike. When either a trader or a non-trader incurred a debt, as an honest man, he was bound to pay it. The hon. and learned Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) said that a man who went abroad, and who did not pay his debts, might by this clause he placed in a position he did not like. No doubt, a trader was bound to be in his place to pay his debts; and he could not understand why a non-trader, having gone abroad and made no provision for the payment of his debts, should complain that he was made a bankrupt.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDmaintained that the distinction taken by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast was a good one, because, in case of a man going abroad drawing all his income from this country, it was perfectly easy to bring an action against him, serve process abroad, and obtain judgment exactly in the same manner as if he resided in England. The allegation was that in case of the absence of a person from this country, an affidavit by a creditor that the debtor was abroad with the intention of delaying his creditors would be sufficient to put the Court in motion. He was of opinion that if there was no evidence on the other side, an affidavit, in which the creditor stated that to the best of his belief A. B. was abroad for that purpose, although it might be perfectly false, would be quite enough to constitute an act of bankruptcy. Such was the impression which had been conveyed to him by men of considerable eminence at the bar, and he should like to know whether or not it was correct.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Malins) had not dealt with the real point before the Committee. The question was, whether the ordinary process of law in the case of non-traders was insufficient to enforce the payment of debts, and therefore justified the application in reference to non-traders of the extraordinary and stringent remedies of bankruptcy. They all knew that, with regard to traders, the ordinary administration of the law was not sufficient. But he wanted to know why the ordinary adminis-
  728
  tration of the law was not sufficient. His hon. and learned Friend put the case of a man who drew his rents from England and lived somewhere abroad, and did not pay his debts. He (Sir George Bowyer) did not justify that; but if there were such a case, they might serve him with process abroad, and proceed to judgment and execution, and thus stop the rents in England. Bankruptcy was wanted in order to administer the law for particular purposes— namely, the purposes of trade; but if a man was not a trader, those reasons for bankruptcy did not exist. He thought the proceeding now proposed was like attempting to catch a bird by sprinkling salt on its tail.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he could not but express surprise at the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford. That hon. and learned Gentleman had effectually answered his own arguments, for he had eulogized in magniloquent phrase the reforms in the Court of Chancery, and proved most convincingly that there was no necessity for the clause under discussion. The Bill unfairly enacted a heavier penalty against the non-trader than against the trader. A non-trader coming into possession of a heavily-encumbered estate, and striving, foolishly perhaps, to keep up the establishment maintained by his father before him, might become temporarily overwhelmed with debt, and then this measure would inflict on him all the irreparable evils of bankruptcy. Such a person would be not only punished as a trader for his folly, but he would be injured in another way. By making him a bankrupt, his character would be taken away, and he would lose his social position. He fully admitted that if persons went abroad, taking all their property with them, and at the same time leaving their creditors to starve, the law ought to be altered to meet such cases. But when the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford levelled his remarks against the landowners, had he forgotten that it was no novelty for young men to be ensnared and pressed on to ruin by usurers? Had the hon. and learned Member, however, never heard of lawyers helping young men to ruin? It was not always the tradesman who ruined the landowner. No, frequently, and more frequently than the hon. and learned Member would like to admit, the lawyer.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESdenied that the Bill, as the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) seemed to think, laid a

  729
  trap for the landed gentry of England. It was only when a man either went abroad to defraud his creditors, executed a deed for the same purpose, or lay in prison fourteen days to evade payments of his debts, that he would be liable to be made a bankrupt. It was derogatory to the landowners of England to appeal to the Committee to throw out the clauses out of regard for persons coming within such a category. He hoped none of the landed gentry would be guilty of the deliberate fraud which would be necessary to bring them under this clause. It would be a national disgrace if any landed gentleman could be found to do so. The system of commerce and credit did not depend on the bankrupt law, as some hon. Members seemed to suppose, but upon the character and respectability of those who engaged in mercantile transactions. Nobody in business trusted another man simply because he knew he might make him a bankrupt. This clause would operate as a safeguard to expectant, heirs, who could now be put in prison by usurers under the Insolvent Act. Such young persons would not be so likely to incur debts for which they might be made bankrupt. The hon. and learned Baronet, using an elegant ornithological metaphor, said that the remedy proposed in the Act would be like trying to catch birds by putting salt upon their tails; but the hon. Gentleman was wrong in his notion; because if a person were adjudged a bank rupt he was bound to surrender, and if he did not surrender he would be a fraudulent bankrupt. But a fraudulent bankrupt would be delivered up under the extradition treaty; and therefore the bird would really be caught. Last Session the Bill was rather a startling one, but he was sure that hon. Members would see that, surrounded by the safeguards now introduced, the landed gentry would have no cause to fear the alteration of the law.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he sincerely wished well to the Bill, and, therefore, he regretted that the first few words he should have to say with respect to the measure should assume something like the aspect of objection. He entirely agreed in the principle of the abolition of the distinction between trader and non-trader. It had long been abolished in Scotland, and might be effected in this country without any evil consequences. A measure of that kind, however, required the utmost forethought and attention, and no such provision should be introduced into our law
  730
  without being accompanied with all the safeguards which the ability of the hon. and learned Attorney General would so well enable him to throw around it. There were one or two points of importance in the clauses now under consideration, to which he would call attention. No doubt, when it could be made out to the satisfaction of a Judge, or proper tribunal, that a person was really residing abroad, or had gone abroad, with intent to delay his creditors, such a person, whether trader or non-trader, ought to be brought within the operation of the bankruptcy laws. But there was some danger, inasmuch as personal service might be dispensed with, that a gentleman, who, for perfectly legitimate reasons, might have resided for years abroad, and without the means of receiving notice of what was going on against him might, on the affidavit of a creditor, that he was abroad for the purpose of avoiding his creditors, be made a bankrupt without the least suspicion on his part that any steps were being taken against him, and without his being guilty of the offence imputed to him. There was no exception, in that respect, as to any description or class of persons. Take, for instance, the case of an officer in the Army, who might be serving in China, India, or any distant colony, and necessarily abroad in the discharge of his duty, and who might owe a debt, or a few debts, of no great magnitude—the creditor might obtain judgment, and within a very short time convert that judgment into a fiat, and make the officer bankrupt. Ho thought some clause should he introduced for the protection not only of officers of the Army and Navy, but that numerous class of other persons who are engaged in our Colonies and elsewhere abroad in the public service, such as Ministers and Consuls. Any of these persons might owe debts in this country, which it was quite right they should be obliged to pay, by judgment and execution, and by the enforcement of the judgment in the country in which they were. But really, to say that every gentleman residing abroad, if he happened to owe debts in this country, should be liable within a short time, with or without personal service, to be made a bankrupt, did appear to him full of danger. He thought clauses might easily be introduced giving the Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy large discretion as to the circumstances under which he should issue fiats in bankruptcy against persons who were abroad

  731
  in the public service, or continuously residing abroad. He hoped, before these clauses again came under the discussion of the House, the learned Attorney General would turn his attention to the question, whether some exception could not be introduced, some safeguard and protection provided for the numerous class of persons to whom he had referred, and who certainly ought not to be liable to the Bankruptcy Act.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the discussion had made a very great impression upon his mind as to the necessity for the Committee upon Public Business, which had been recently appointed, and as to the advantages which the House was supposed to possess in discussing the clauses of a Bill of great extent in Committee. Whether they were now discussing a clause or not was not very apparent. The hon. and learned Attorney General had declined to discuss the clauses, because hon. Gentlemen who might be expected to oppose them were not prepared to state the full grounds of their opposition. The consequence would be that after passing all these clauses at the proper time when, if at all, they should be minutely analyzed and discussed, it was to be expected that a future time there would be a fuller debate upon them at a stage when the House would not be in Committee, and when the clauses could not be properly analyzed, the result of which might lead to the passing of an imperfect and unsatisfactory measure. He regretted, therefore, that they were not proceeding now to discuss each clause at that—the proper time. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last had forced that observation from him, for he had discussed all the clauses relating to that branch of the subject, instead of addressing himself to the particular clause before the Committee. In fact they were discussing the general principle, whether non-traders should be put upon the same footing as traders, or, at least, whether the laws relating to the two classes should be assimilated. But that principle ought to have been discussed upon the second reading, or upon the clause which led to that assimilation, and then there would have been a chance of arriving at a clear result. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) opposed the principle of such assimilation, while the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) supported it. But if he were in favour of the principle, why did he not apply himself to what was the main
  732
  object of discussion at that moment—namely—whether the application of that principle was sufficiently guarded in extending it for the first time to the case of non-traders? Had the discussion taken place on that basis, they would have made advantageous progress with the Bill; but as they were now proceeding, the consideration of the protections which the non-trader ought to have would be postponed to a time when they could not discuss them satisfactorily. He was in favour of the principle of assimilation, and also of the clauses in the Bill relating to judgment-debtor summons. He held that they ought to proceed on the principle that whenever a judgment was obtained against a non-trader, or whenever a debtor became liable to have a judgment against him for the payment of a debt which he refused to pay, then the law which was applicable to him should be assimilated to the law applicable to the bankrupt. He had guarded the phrase because he entirely agreed with what fell from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) as to how the non-trader ought to be protected. The non-trader ought to be pot in the position either of one who had had a judgment against him and who refused to pay his debt, or of one against whom a judgment might be obtained, but who evaded his creditors in such a manner as to prevent them from getting it. If the hon. and learned Attorney General would proceed on that principle, then he would go along with him to the full extent of the measure. But in Clause 82 the non-trader was not put into the position of one who had a judgment against him. The creditor was allowed to present a petition to the Court of Bankruptcy for the payment of the debt, or rather for an adjudication in bankruptcy against the debtor. He would advise the hon. and learned Attorney General to make Clause 82 applicable to the trader only, and, when they came to the clause relating to non-payment after the judgment debtor summons, to introduce another clause, drawn from Clause 82, to facilitate the creditor's process against a person who was residing abroad for the purpose of avoiding payment of his debts, and to enable the creditor to obtain judgment on proof that the debtor had received due notice of the claim against him. As the clause stood, the debtor might be made bankrupt before it was known whether or not he would pay his debts. The presentation of the petition was a stigma

  733
  upon him which ought to be removed. Let the process be improved, let it be made to reach the man, whether he went abroad with or without his property, in such a manner that the moment judgment, or what was equivalent to it was obtained, the creditor could proceed upon it, and if he would not pay what he owed, the whole of his property should be taken for distribution among the creditors. Let everything be done to make the process speedy and effectual when once judgment had been obtained, but let the debtor have an opportunity of answering the claim before the stigma was placed upon him. If the hon. and learned Attorney General would adopt that suggestion, it would remove every objection to the assimilation of the two classes; and unless he did so many cases of hardship would undoubtedly arise. For instance, a gentleman might go abroad owing sundry debts, small in amount, but in the aggregate sufficient to render him liable to be taken into the Bankruptcy Court under the measure. A petition might be presented against him while he was abroad praying that adjudication in bankruptcy might be awarded against him, and the stigma might be fixed upon him before he knew anything of the proceedings, or had an opportunity of arresting them by instructing his solicitor to pay the debts. As the discussion of the principle involved in the clause had been postponed to another time, he would content himself with throwing out these suggestions to his learned Friend, who would, he hoped, consent to afford the non-trader the protection to which he was entitled. From the consideration which he and his learned Friend the Member for Belfast had bestowed on this question when in office, he was satisfied that the principle he had indicated was the right one, and it was upon that principle that they had intended to found the measure which they then had in contemplation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he entirely concurred with his right hon. Friend, and he lamented that the noble Lord should have warned the Committee against proceeding with a discussion which the House would never be in a better position to undertake, as was proved by the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite Indeed, he should earnestly solicit a continuance of the debate after the luminous speech of his right hon. Friend. With the spirit of that speech he entirely concurred. Indeed, had he been admitted into the se-
  734
  cret counsels of his right hon. and learned Friend, he could not have had a more perfect agreement with him than that which was expressed on the face of the Bill. He understood his right hon. Friend to lay down the principle that a non-trader ought to be put in the position of a person who had had a judgment recovered against him, or against whom a judgment might be obtained. It was entirely with reference to the latter position that the 82nd Clause had been framed; and it was because the law would have been defeated bad the remedy been confined to the judgment-creditor that it had been extended to the man who was entitled to become one, although not yet in that position. A creditor was placed by the 82nd Clause in exactly the condition of one who had a right to obtain a judgment against a debtor. In 1852 the Common Law Procedure Act was passed for the purpose of facilitating the service of process; and accordingly it was laid down as follows—that when the defendant in an action, being a British subject, was out of the jurisdiction of the superior courts, it should be lawful for the plaintiff (that is, the creditor) to issue a writ of summons, and that the time for the appearance of the defendant should be regulated by the distance from England of the place where he was residing; and on the Court or Judge being satisfied that the cause of the action had arisen within the jurisdiction, and that the writ had either been personally served on the defendant or reasonable efforts had been made to do so, and that it had come to his knowledge, and that the defendant either wilfully neglected to appear to such writ or was living out of the jurisdiction of the Court in order to defeat and delay his creditors—then the Court, being satisfied of these things, was entitled to award judgment against the defendant. In the present measure he had done the very same thing. The creditor was, under this clause, placed in precisely the same position as a creditor who was now entitled to have judgment given; but instead of the execution being for the benefit of the individual creditor who happened to be first in the race, it would be an universal execution which would secure a just and equal distribution of the property of the debtor among all his creditors, all of whom were equally entitled to judgment. That universal execution would be carried out under the name and by the law of bankruptcy; and the clause under consideration only applied to the absconding debtor the existing law,

  735
  and laid down the principle that when a creditor had proved the position of his debtor to be such as he had described, he should be entitled to process, not limited to himself alone, but universal and general, for the benefit of all the creditors who were in a similar position. These were the grounds upon which this clause was brought forward, and he hoped that his right hon. Friend, whose objections were those of a lawyer and a statesman, would feel that this was a sufficient answer to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Mr. S. FitzGerald) had expressed a fear that a creditor would, under this clause, upon producing an affidavit containing the bare expression of his belief that his debtor had gone abroad, or remained abroad, with intent to defeat or delay his creditors, be entitled to an adjudication of bankruptcy. He could assure his right hon. Friend that he had been misinformed. The mains animus of the debtor in going or remaining abroad must be proved by overt acts, either of commission or omission; and, without evidence of such acts, no tribunal would act upon the mere belief of the creditor. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) had objected that the presentation of the petition would attach a stigma; but it must be observed that the petition was nothing more than a process of debt, nothing more than a writ; it was not a matter of publicity or notoriety, and could not be entertained by the Court unless it was accompanied by prima facie evidence that an act of bankruptcy had been committed. The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) asked, why not have the ordinary process of law? Did he not know that in nineteen out of twenty of such cases as the clause was intended to meet, the ordinary process of law was mocked at and evaded? When debtors went abroad they frequently put their property into the hands of some other person, who was the visible holder, but yet held under some secret trust. There were cases, also, in which friendly creditors entered into possession of estates, allowing the absconding debtors to receive the incomes from the land. Until they could get the debtor and examine him and make him answer questions, the power of obtaining execution and sequestration was utterly useless. Such was the fact, and it was in order to put an end to that state of things that the clause had been introduced.
  736
  The Bill would not be more stringent than common honesty demanded, and he trusted that he should be supported by the Committee in his attempt to bring the law of England into conformity with the character for honesty and integrity which the country had long enjoyed, but with which its laws had hitherto been far from corresponding.
  MR. ROLTsaid, he did not think the non-traders of England were liable to the imputation of want of honesty to which they had been subjected by his hon. and learned Friend. As, however, the Committee had adopted the 81st section he would not go into the general question, but would confine his remarks to the clause under consideration, which did not appear to him to afford sufficient protection to the non-trading portion of the community. By the clause it was proposed to make it an act of bankruptcy in a non-trader to go abroad with intent to defraud his creditors, or, being abroad, to remain there with a similar object, and, on application, supported by satisfactory evidence, power was given to the Court to order that a copy of the petition should be served upon the debtor, and that the debtor should appear with certain restrictions as to time and place. Such an application must necessarily be an ex parte proceeding, and nothing could be easier than for a man disposed to do so to give evidence sufficiently strong to induce the Judge to issue the order. Much would, of course, depend on the individual Judge, but in the great majority of cases all the obtainable evidence would be the oath of the applicant himself that the debt was due, that he had requested payment, and that on the following day his debtor left the country, as he was satisfied, and swore to the best of his belief, with the object of evading payment. As regarded the service of the petition, it was to be assumed that the Judge would grant a reasonable time; if, for instance, the debtor were in Paris, a fortnight would probably be allowed him to make his appearance. But, if service could not be effected, then the clause directed—with a variety of alternatives which might be read as if in a parenthesis—that, if on hearing the petition the Court should be satisfied that an act of bankruptcy had been committed, such debtor should be adjudged a bankrupt. The Committee would perceive that here both the proceeding on which the order was obtained in the first instance and that on which the ultimate ruling was obtained, were in

  737
  their very nature ex parte, and thus a debtor who never had the least intention of defrauding any one, but simply happened to be absent for a time, might be adjudged a bankrupt without ever being heard in his own defence. A creditor had simply to say—"The last place I heard of my debtor, was so-and-so; I have inquired there and cannot find him; nobody knows anything about him;" and the impossibility of proving service was shown. In dealing with evidence of that kind it was not necessary that the creditor should be always unscrupulous; he might be hot or hasty, or there might have been some quarrel about his particular debt. The remedy suggested by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) would go far to meet the evils arising under the clause; and he did not think that the objection had been adequately met by the hon. and learned Attorney General. He ventured to submit that it was not enough to take the same proceedings to make a man a bankrupt which sufficed to procure a judgment. Let the Common Law Procedure Act be followed in the first instance, and then, on stringent proof that a debtor had exhausted his remedy on a judgment, and could not by means thereof obtain payment, let him apply to the Court for an adjudication of bankruptcy. If some further safeguard than was provided by the clause did not exist, persons living abroad would be placed in great peril; for he was sure the experience of his hon. and learned Friend would supply quite as many instances as had come under his own observation—where a case made on ex parte application was wholly displaced the moment that the other side had an opportunity of being heard.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, what he had suggested was, that before a non-trader should be liable to the bankruptcy law, be should be in the position of a person who had judgment against him, and yet refused or declined to pay his debt. The difference between that and the measure as it stood was, that in the one case they would give every opportunity to a man to pay his debts before proceeding in bankruptcy; whilst, in the other, they allowed the creditor to proceed ex parte, though the debt might not have been demanded, and due diligence might not have been used to get the debt. The whole proceeding might be behind the back of the debtor. It was not a proceeding by writ to get the payment of his debt, but a petition to
  738
  subject the debtor to an adjudication in bankruptcy. He would therefore move that words to the following effect be introduced into the first rule after the words "probably be found:"—"And also that the creditor has demanded or used due diligence to obtain payment of the debt; but that he is defeated in that object by some act or acts of bankruptcy committed by the debtor." All he desired was, that the debtor should have due notice of the steps being taken with regard to him.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the creditor must begin by proving that he was unable to obtain the debt by reason of the absence of the debtor; and by the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Walpole) Amendment, he would be required to show that he was unable to obtain it by reason of an act of bankruptcy on the part of a debtor. One of the rules already annexed to the clause, declared that the Court "shall, if satisfied that an act of bankruptcy has been committed, adjudge such debtor to be a bankrupt." This condition appeared to him sufficient to provide against the danger apprehended by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to ask whether, by the rules under discussion, anything more need be proved by satisfactory evidence than that the debtor was in a particular foreign place?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied, that the creditor was required to prove that fact, in order to get from the Court an order that a copy of the petition should be served upon the debtor in the place in which he was proved to be; but after service of the copy was effected, or proof given that service could not be effected, the Judge must be satisfied of the commission of an act of bankruptcy before be could adjudge the debtor to be a bankrupt.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDremarked, that what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General only showed the extreme danger of the clause which the Committee had now under consideration. As had been observed by one of his hon. and learned Friends, it would be difficult to say what might be the interpretation which particular Judges would give to the clause. One might require less and another more evidence before making an adjudication. An exemplification had taken place in the course of the discussion. The hon. and learned Gentleman—who might at some time be called on to preside over the juris

  739
  prudence of the country—said that under the clause it would be necessary not only to have the affidavit of the creditor that the debtor was abroad for the purpose of evading payment, but also proof of overt acts of bankruptcy. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns), who might also, in time, preside over the jurisprudence of England, was of a totally different opinion. In the case of a trader nothing was easier than to show overt acts. If he shut up his place of business and left the country, that might be considered an overt act; but it was perfectly possible for a non-trader to close his house and proceed to a foreign country without any intention of committing an act of bankruptcy. He had no objection to the assimilation of the law as between traders and non-traders, but be was inclined to believe that the only safe mode in which the bankruptcy law could be applied to the latter was by providing that it should be preceded by a judgment.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, the clause now under consideration dealt with persons who were abroad, but it did not provide that any previous notice should be given to them of the proceedings about to be taken, nor did it provide that a previous application should have been made to them for payment of the debt. It did not even require that any primâ facie proof should be given that an act of bankruptcy had been committed. The hon. and learned Attorney General had, no doubt, said, referring to the latter part of the clause, the Court of Bankruptcy must be satisfied that an act of bankruptcy had been committed. That was true, but that was not till after the order was made for the service of the petition, and he thought that no step should be taken till after the act of bankruptcy was proved in the first instance. He concurred in the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. He would venture to suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General), that the application should be made only after the recovery of a judgment, or that the clause should be amended by the introduction of the words proposed by his right hon. Friend.
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, he was opposed to making non-traders bankrupt; but if a nun-trader were to be subject to the bankruptcy law at all, his absconding without paying his debts should be regarded as a test of insolvency, as it was in the case of a trader. It was neces-
  740
  sary however, in the case of non-traders to take great care to ascertain that the person leaving the country without paying his debts, did so with a fraudulent intent. Some protection in that respect was evidently necessary, and was desired by those who were favourable to the principle of the clause on both sides of the House. He was not satisfied with the Amendments which had been proposed, and the subject required more consideration than could then be given to it. He would, therefore, suggest that the hon. and learned Attorney General should, now he had had the opportunity of hearing this discussion, withdraw the clause for a time, in order to remodel it, and bring it up in a more perfect form for discussion on some future occasion. Under the third rule, if the abode of the debtor could not be discovered, service at his last known place of residence in this country was to be deemed, as it was termed, "good service;" and, after a lapse of sixty days, the debtor not appearing, he was to be adjudicated a bankrupt. That was not just, as it was highly probable that, in many instances, notices so served would never reach the person for whom they were intended. A gentleman, for instance, might have his last place of abode at a lodging-house, and the proprietor would take no interest in the matter; or he might give up his house and the new tenant know nothing of him.
  MR. PULLERsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney General, had, in his opinion, fully established the necessity for making non-traders liable. No doubt, the difficulty was the fencing of such a step with proper securities. He thought the conditions upon which the bankruptcy was to be adjudicated ought to be modified. For instance, where it turned out that the information was incorrect upon which an order to serve the notice abroad bad been obtained, then the creditor ought to be compelled to make a service at the last known place of abode of the debtor. In every case there should be either actual or constructive service; but if the House looked at the 4th rule of the 82nd section they would see that there were three cases provided for—the case of actual service, the case of constructive service, and the case in which service directed to be made abroad could not be effected; those three ought to be reduced to two, by expressly requiring that in the last-mentioned case

  741
  there should be service at the last known residence. He thought, moreover, that whenever the creditor was allowed to serve a copy of the petition at the last known residence of the debtor, he should be compelled to publish a notice in the Gazette, because it might often happen that there would be friends of the debtor in England, who, for his honour, would come forward and arrange with the creditor if they were aware of the debt. Again, the Act ought to provide that, if any person has been made a bankrupt in ignorance of the fact, and without having been actually served with a copy of the petition, he should be at liberty on returning to England to prove that such was the case; and having done so, and paid his creditors, the bankruptcy should forthwith be annulled.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that they had had much discussion on the subject, the sole object of which was that the non-trader should be properly protected. By passing the clause, however, they simply declared what was an act of bankruptcy on which a man might, on inquiry, be adjudicated a bankrupt. A desire had been expressed that the Act should only be applicable to non-traders after a judgment had been obtained against them. The only object of that could be to ensure to the debtor due notice. The second rule provided that
  "Such order shall limit a time after such service within which the debtor is to appear on such petition, such time to depend on the place or country within which such petition is to be served,"
  to that he proposed to add the words, "but in no case shall it be less than sixty days." That would afford all the protection that was necessary. He objected very much to the proposition that the creditor should have to get judgment before he could avail himself of this Act; for it placed him in the disadvantage and expense of having to go through two processes to effect one end. Without putting the creditor to that trouble and expense, he thought the Amendment he proposed would secure to the debtor sufficient notice. He would, therefore, propose that the notice should not he less than forty or sixty days in the first instance.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in the Bill of last year it was required that the mains animus—the fraudulent intent—should be proved, and this year he had added a provision that the creditor should also show that he had exhausted
  742
  every means in his power of giving notice to the debtor. All these clauses were intended for that purpose, in order to secure full notice to the debtor. After all the proof had been given it was still necessary to prove the act of bankruptcy. Further security he did not see how he could give, but he would consider the clauses, and if he could insert any words to remove the species of nervous apprehension which seemed to be felt by hon. Gentlemen opposite he would do it.
  MR. BOVILLpointed out that the Attorney General would find proper words in the statute of 1852, which might be adapted to this Bill. What was wanted was that these proofs should be given before the writ was issued.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 83 (Lying in Prison and Escaping out of Prison),
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that by the clause it was enacted that a debtor lying in prison for fourteen days should be deemed to have committed an act of bankruptcy. He thought a distinction ought to be drawn between the case of a trader lying in prison and that of a non-trader. It might happen, for instance, that a young man might be thrown into prison for damages in an action, say for breach of promise, or other breach of social duties, and though he might have ample means to disharge his liability, fourteen days would be too short a time to allow him to realize them. The case of traders and non-traders was very different, and a distinction ought certainly to be drawn between them in this respect. He would suggest an extension of the time in the case of non-traders, and with that view he should move to insert the words, "extending the time in the case of non-traders to lying in prison for three calendar months."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the point involved was a delicate point, and he should be happy to adopt the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend, and make the distinction between the trader and the non-trader; but a great difficulty would arise when they came to consider the latter clauses in the Bill. One of the principal points of the Bill, and that which he much favoured, was the endeavour it made to lay a foundation for the abolition of imprisonment for debt. He thought that any debtor who had been in prison for fourteen days might, at the end of that period, be discharged from prison on an adjudication of bankruptcy being made against him by one

  743
  of the registrars, who would attend the gaol for the purpose. In his opinion it was a useless thing to send a debtor to prison. The present law was that if a man remained in prison for twenty-one days it was an act of bankruptcy. He thought it desirable to shorten the time to fourteen days, for no man would permit himself to lie in prison for that period if he had creditor money to discharge the debt. He believed that a great part of the arrangements of the Bill would be destroyed if it were decided that the long period of three months in prison should be required in the case of a non trader. He should be glad if the clause were agreed to upon the understanding that it should be considered on a future occasion.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, he thought the time allowed to non-traders should be longer than was provided for in the clause. The time for making arrangements was so short that many persons who wished to avoid the discredit of being declared bankrupts would not have it in their power to do so.
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHpointed out the real distinction which existed between a trader and a non trader, the former of whom was bound always to have within his reach the means of paying his debts, while a non-trader was different, and very often could not realise his property. He thought it unfair that he should have all the stigma of a bankrupt attaching to him merely because he was occupied more than fourteen days arranging his affairs in prison. At the same time he was of opinion that three months was too long a time to allow.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had no opinion to give on the particular proposition made by the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone; but he thought that if the non-trader was to be absolved from his debts in the same way as the trader he ought to be brought under the full stringency of the law. Commercial men had given evidence before a Committee of that House to the effect that there was a lower tone of commercial morality in this country than on the Continent, and the reason they assigned was that of the looseness of our bankruptcy law. On the Continent none but a trader could be discharged from payment of his debts; but in this country a person known as a non-trader could, by buying and selling some one article, get into the Bankruptcy Court, and there free himself from the payment of his debts. They were now, by this Bill, putting it in the power of every non-trader to be absolved from his debts,
  744
  and in that case they ought to bring him under all the requirements of the law of bankruptcy. He was afraid we were going in the direction of the immorality of the United States; not in the direction of the morality of the Continent of Europe.
  MR. BARROWsaid, that hon. Gentlemen had not looked to the practical view of the subject. It appeared to him desirable both for debtor and creditor that the non-trader, whose property generally was not of so convertible a character as that of the trader, should have a longer period than fourteen days to make arrangements either to dispose of his property or to raise money for the payment of the debt. He thought that three months would be too long for that purpose; but, on the other hand, the time allowed by the Bill was too short.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment if the hon. and learned Attorney General would give the non-trader the option of finding security.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would reconsider the subject and bring up an Amendment on the Report.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to, as was Clause 84.
  Clause 85 (Trader Debtor suffering Execution to he Levied),
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to have an explanation of the clause, which was not clear as to the comparative position of creditors who received money or seized assets from a debtor after bankruptcy.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the principle of the clause was that if a man permitted his property to be taken in execution and sold, that was to be taken as an act of bankruptcy. A subsequent part of the clause provided what should be done in the event of there being no adjudication. Great care was taken to treat the seizure and sale so that the notoriety of it should be accepted as notice of an act of bankruptcy. If the debtor were adjudged a bankrupt within thirty days from the date of seizure, the money received by the execution creditor must be paid by him to the assignee under the bankruptcy.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that among the disadvantages of this not being a consolidation Bill was that of being obliged to look back to the Bankrupt Act now in force to see how the clauses of the present Bill would work.
  MR. HODGKINSONsaid, that if a creditor, in the exercise of his rights, ob-

  745
  tained an execution against a debtor, it was, no doubt, undesirable he should have an opportunity of monopolizing the estate to the prejudice of other creditors. But it also seemed desirable, on the other hand, that the creditor who brought an insolvent debtor to a reckoning should not be placed in a worse position than the other creditors by the expenses he had incurred being added to his debt. He, therefore, would move to add at the end of the clause, "but in all cases in which an execution shall be levied, the costs of such execution and of any seizure and sale thereunder shall be a first charge upon the goods seized and upon the proceeds of the sale thereof, and may be deducted from such proceeds."
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, the law had hitherto favoured the active creditor, and his costs ought to be secured to him.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he believed that the usual course was for the sheriff to deduct the expenses of the sale and seizure out of the proceeds and to hand over the clear balance to the execution creditor. He thought the Amendment was unnecessary.
  MR. HODGKINSONpointed out that the costs incurred by the execution creditor subsequent to the judgment would still be unprovided for.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that the subsequent costs amounted to hardly anything. He suggested that some provision should be made to meet a state of things which often happened in the Metropolis. The large drapers, and other wholesale dealers, who wished that this Bill should become law, and who also, he believed, desired the passing of a Bill by which every insolvent estate should pay 20 s. in the pound, were in the habit of setting persons up in their own business, retaining a warrant of attorney, and selling up these persons if necessary. That was an abuse which should be guarded against.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 86 and 87 agreed to.
  Clause 88 (Debtor Summons),
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALproposed to insert the following words after the word "execution," in the first line of page 22:—"in respect to any debt amounting to £50 or upwards."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESobserved that the clause provided "that every judgment creditor who is or shall be entitled to sue
  746
  out against a debtor a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum or to charge the debtor in execution shall be entitled, at the end of one week from the signing of judgment, to sue out against the debtor, whether he be a trader or not, a summons called a judgment debtor summons, &c. He proposed to allow more time to non-traders, and should move to insert the words "at the end of one calendar month" in respect to persons not being traders.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would assent to the Amendment.
  Clause as amended agreed to.
  Clauses 89 to 115 agreed to.
  Clause 116, (Persons Imprisoned under County Court Acts are not to be Released),
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the release given to all other debtors who surrendered their property made the retention of the power of imprisoning debtors by the County Court Judges an anomaly. They had provided for paupers getting out of prison, and for turning out of prison those persons who did not wish to leave it. But another class of persons, principally the working classes, appeared to be exempted from all benefit of the change in the law. Why should those who came under the jurisdiction of the County Courts he alone liable to imprisonment? Every other class, by surrendering their property, could absolve themselves from the operation of the law except those who contracted debts under £20. The law ought to be the same with respect to the man who owed a few shillings as the man who owed £10,000.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not propose to interfere with the power of legal imprisonment by a Court in cases of fraud. That power the County Courts would retain; the cases in them were not all cases of pure debt.
  MR. COLLIERsaid, an Act passed last Session of Parliament, which he brought in himself, limited the jurisdiction of the County Courts in the matter of imprisonment for debt.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the jurisdiction of the County Courts to which he alluded was still in existence, and if the law of imprisonment was to be brought into consistency the clauses to which he referred in the County Courts Act must be repealed.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 117 agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

MARKETS AND FAIRS (IRELAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.
  LORD NAASsaid, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but to make a few remarks upon the details of its machinery, in the hope that his right hon. Friend would see cause to alter some of them in Committee. The subject was one that had occupied attention in Ireland for a great many years. In 1852, when he had the honour to hold the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, a Commission was issued to inquire into the question, and their Report certainly showed the need of legislation. But the subject was surrounded with difficulties, for while on the one hand the interests of the public were to be consulted, on the other were the vested rights of the owners, which had never been interfered with. The Bill now before the House proceeded on a somewhat different principle from any that had gone before it. Former Bills appointed certain persons as Commissioners to inquire into the management of markets and fairs, who were to he recognized officers of the Government, and subject to the control of the Executive. But this Bill proceeded on a somewhat different principle, and provided that on representations being made by persons claiming to be the owners of fairs by local traders, or by twenty inhabitants, or by two justices, the Lord Lieutenant should have power to order a local inquiry to he made. Now one of the greatest objections to this Bill was, that the mode of conducting that local inquiry was not laid down, neither is it shown who the inquiring Commissioners are to be. The result of the inquiry would be an Order in Council, which would give extensive powers in the creation of bye-laws, the regulation of tolls, and generally the application to a particular fair or market of the clauses of the Markets Consolidation Bill; and, therefore, he contended that the inquiry itself ought to he conducted by some person of weight, and authority, and experience, skilled in law, and in whom the public would have confidence. Former Bills provided that the Commissioner of Inquiry should be a barrister of ten years' standing; because very important questions would have to be decided by him, and he ought to have that experience which would result from conducting his inquiries over a
  748
  great number of markets, and ensure a similarity of decision where cases were alike. But he could not learn from the Bill to what class of persons it was intended that the Lord Lieutenant should delegate these important inquiries. There were also great omissions in the Bill. By a former Bill it was laid down that in no case should increased tolls be taken until increased accommodation was provided, and that was really the most important part of the matter. It was perfectly futile to leave that question to be the subject of a bye-law. Minute legislation is impossible; but it most dangerous to leave great principles in a Bill of this kind to be decided by bye-laws. Then, again, there was no provision for uniformity of weights and measures in Ireland. These weights and measures differed in adjoining counties in the most extraordinary manner, and produced all sorts of mistakes. Then there was no provision for market statistics, which, he thought, would he a valuable addition to the agricultural statistics now taken. He also regretted that his right hon. Friend had thought it necessary to mix up the question of fairs with markets; becauses the abuses in fairs were not so flagrant, and interference with them is encompassed with difficulties. He made these remarks in no hostile spirit, but he hoped they would he considered before they got into Committee on the Bill.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he objected to the Bill being read a second time before hon. Members had had an opportunity of communicating with their constituents. He had only been able to obtain copies of the Bill on the previous Monday or Tuesday; he sent them down to all the boards of guardians in Tipperary, but had not yet received answers. He was wholly in ignorance as to the opinion of his constituents. The Bill itself was short, but it incorporated the provisions of many other Acts. He feared that the working of the Bill would he extremely unwieldy and expensive. He would suggest the postponement of the second reading.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought a Bill of the kind before them was greatly needed in Ireland, and should, therefore, be sorry to allow a stage to be lost on that occasion, especially as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had shown so fair a spirit in inviting opinions and suggestions from the Irish Members. At the same time the powers which the measure vested in the Executive ap-

  749
  peared to be very extensive. It was, for example, rather a strong proceeding to enable the Lord Lieutenant, even in Council, to shut up a fair. When any fair or market was found not to be wanted it generally had a tendency to shut itself up
  LORD JOHN BROWNEpointed out the injustice that would be done by the provisions of the Bill, as they at present stood, to the owners of tolls and customs which were to he abolished, and a rentcharge granted in their stead. He also suggested that in Committee some clause should be insetted for establishing a uniform system of weights and measures for Ireland. As an example of the present state of things lie might mention that in some parts of that country a barrel of potatoes consisted of 24 stone, in others of 48 stone, and in others again of 64 stone. Such discrepancies produced the most ludicrous mistakes in the agricultural statistics of the country.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, he rose to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would postpone the second reading until after the ensuing next assizes in Ireland which was about to take place, and would require the attendance of most of the Irish Members in that country. Not a single Member connected with Ireland doubted the necessity of introducing such a Bill, and they all felt indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the labour he had bestowed upon it. He thought, however, that the nature of the tribunal which was to adjudicate upon the various rights connected with fairs and markets should be more distinctly pointed out. The 4th Clause provided that the Lord Lieutenant might order a local public inquiry to be made, but who the parties were who were to conduct that inquiry was not stated. It was important that they should be competent persons, and some precaution ought to be taken to obtain an uniformity of decision in the different comities and towns. He found that on receiving the report of that unknown authority the Lord Lieutenant had the most unbounded powers with regard to fairs and markets. He trusted that some provision would be introduced in the Bill for assimilating weights and measures in Ireland, as great inconvenience now arose to buyers and sellers, in consequence of the present anomalous state of things.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, the people of Ireland were generally in favour of the Bill, and the principle of it had been adopted by Irish Members and the House on two oc-
  750
  casions. Nothing could be fairer than the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to read the Bill a second time then, and not to take the Committee until after Easter. That delay would give ample time for hon. Members to attend the assizes, and for persons in the different towns to examine the details of the Bill.
  MR. BLAKEadvocated proceeding with the Bill at once, as he thought it an excellent one. Any alterations that might be deemed necessary could be effected in Committee.
  CAPTAIN STACKPOOLEsaid, he also hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into his consideration the propriety of having some constituted authority to decide in matters of fairs and markets.
  MR. HENNESSYremarked, that a very ancient usage in Ireland was to be set aside by the present Bill. The tolls which were now payable on cattle after they had been sold at fairs or markets were made payable by the Bill immediately the gronud was occupied. That would press heavily on a class of persons called jobbers, and upon the poorer peasantry, because, under the system which at present prevailed in Ireland, no toll was paid if the cattle were not sold. He hoped that the Government, in deference of the wishes of a majority of hon. Members, would postpone the second reading.
  MR. M'MAHONobserved that no hon. Member who had as yet spoken upon the subject had pointed out any objection to the principle of the Bill. Hitherto, the general complaint of the Irish Members was, that measures relating to their country had been postponed to a late period of the Session, when there was no opportunity for considering them in their details. He trusted that, as the Bill before the House was an exception to the general rule, they would throw no impediments in the way of its progress. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would press it forward, and refuse to jeopardize it3 success by dealing with the question of weights and measures, which might wait for a more suitable period. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, as he was thus far giving Ireland the benefit of English laws, that lie would give to corporate towns the right to establish fairs and markets without waiting for the authority of the owners of those markets.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, that no one attached more importance to the Bill than he did, and therefore he should be the last

  751
  person to throw any difficulty in the way of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. At the same time he felt he should he doing injustice to his country if he did not tell him that this Bill was scarcely known in Ireland. He was convinced that the right hon. Gentleman was actuated by the purest motives to advance the interests of the country. He trusted, however, that under the circumstances, a measure of so much importance would not be pressed forward with inconvenient speed.
  MR. BEAMISHsaid, he trusted that, notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the Government would proceed with the Bill. The principle of the Bill only was then under consideration, and ample time would be given for the discussion of details at a future time. The right hon. Gentleman was very anxious to meet the views of the people of Ireland, and no impediment ought to be thrown in his way,
  Mr. CARDWELLsaid, that before the Session began he was very much pressed in Ireland to take the earliest opportunity of introducing the measure; and when he obtained leave, ten days ago, to bring it in, he was then urged to carry it through the various stages as quickly as possible. He believed that the most convenient course would be to read the Bill a second time before the House became engaged with the Supplies, and before Irish Gentlemen left to attend the assizes, and to postpone the Committee till after Easter. He denied that the Bill committed the exercise of great powers to a vague and indefinite body. There could not be a more definite or better known tribunal than the Privy Council of the Lord Lieutenant, to whom the working of the measure was intrusted. As to the local inquiry, it was believed to be better to have an investigation on the spot by gentleman of local standing and experience than by Commissioners in Dublin. Then it was said that they were going to impose tolls without any reference to the accommodation provided; but the contrary was expressly provided, as the Bill expressly laid down that the tolls should not exceed the amount specified in the schedule, and that they should not exceed the amount that was necessary to defray the cost of the accommodation. With regard to the subsequent ratification by Parliament, no doubt on that complicated subject, and also with compulsory powers for the taking of land, he did not think the House would be satisfied to leave
  752
  it to the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and therefore it was proposed that there should be a local inquiry by order of the Secretary of State, but that that inquiry should have no effect till it had received the subsequent sanction of Parliament, to be obtained without any expense to the parties interested by the Bill brought in by the Secretary of State. His noble Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) had complained that the Bill contained no provision for collecting agricultural statistics. It would be perfectly easy to raise that question in Committee; but his experience was that legislative compulsion in such matters was generally found to fail. So long as agricultural statistics were given voluntarily rapid progress was made in their collection; but when an attempt was made to compel people to give them by law the thing broke down. As to uniformity of weights and measures, nobody could be more sensible than himself of the inconveniences of the present irregularity; and he believed that the Bill would have an important effect in promoting uniformity. There was, however, already a law in existence which provided that weights and measures should be uniform, but he did not believe that it was possible to enforce it. Every hon. Gentleman who heard him filled his cellar with wine, not one bottle of which was of the legal measure. Did any one propose to visit them with fines for buying and selling except by the imperial gallon? Nothing was easier than to draw clauses of that kind, nothing less easy than to carry them into effect. Due regard had been paid to vested interests, and the power of taking land compulsorily was to be exercised according to the practice now followed in England under all local improvement Bills. The measure conferred no power or patronage upon the Executive Government: it proceeded entirely upon the principle of local desire and local agency, and he trusted that it would be allowed to pass into law.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2°.

BANK OF ENGLAND PAYMENTS BILL COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
On Motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair,"
MR. BASSsaid, he regretted that some hon. Members of experience had not gone

753
into a discussion of the Bill upon the second reading. Though the Bill had met with no consideration in the House, it was one, nevertheless, which excited deep interest out of doors. They were about to surrender to the Bank of England the control of the monetary affairs of the kingdom for twenty-five years. It was true that the Bill related only to the management of the public debt; but any person who considered the matter practically would see that those parties who, for twenty-five years, would have the control of the public debt, must, of necessity, at the same time have the control of the other departments of the monetary affairs of the country. Now, he would ask whether the management of the Bank of England hitherto had been so satisfactory, or whether it was then so satisfactory, as to induce the House to give them so large a power for so considerable a space of time? The House would be aware that, in 1858, very soon after the crisis which was then just past, the Bank established certain rules with regard to discount, with the avowed object of removing the chances of those violent fluctuations from which the money-market had been suffering. But what was the fact? Why, since that time the fluctuations had been greater and more violent than at any other period, except in the case of an extreme crisis. Since January, 1860, there had been thirteen or fourteen changes of the rate of discount. The year 1860 began with the rate of 2° it ascended to 4 and 5, fell again, and now stood at 8 per cent. And this, he believed, was the cause of a great pressure upon the money-market, with loss occasion for such a pressure than had ever before occurred in the history of the country. Then, again, the Bank thought to ensure greater regularity in the Value of money by depriving their competitors in the discount trade of any assistance. That might be a convenient arrangement for getting business to the Bank; but he was told by one of their competitors that it compelled the discount houses to keep an amount of reserve in consequence, which had mainly contributed to the present difficulty with regard to money matters. But the Bank had alleged, as an excuse for these operations, that the discount houses were most imprudent and adventurous in their advances. well, what had been guilty of like imprudence. In the case Which had occupied a good deal of
754
public attention for the last few months, the Bank of England led the way to giving credit to the greatest impostors that had almost ever figured in the commerce of this country. Engagements were entered into on its behalf to advance to Streatfield and Co., a short time before their failure, £180,000; and though he admitted to be when taken, the Bank would not have lost anything: yet so complete was the confidence which the directors felt in the house, that to the many applications which were made to them, the reply was invariably given that the solvency and respectability of the firm were undeniable. He hoped the Canceller of the Exchequer would explain to whom the Bank of England—which had the power of raising and depreciating the value of money at will, and, as rumour affirmed, by very small majorities—was responsible, and whether, in case it was to lose the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman or his successors, it would be possible to exercise any control over the management of the issue and currency departments?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman, at a period of great pressure, and of uncertainty consequent on the duration of that inconvenience, should have availed himself of the opportunity to make some remarks on the state of the money-market, in connection with the Bill before the House. The hon. Gentleman apprehended that Parliament, by giving its assent to certain arrangements with the Bank in relation to the management of the public debt for twenty-five years would, either by direct engagement or by some indirect implication, continue to the Bank the certainty of its present position for some years to come in regard to the other important functions which it discharged as the banker of the public, and likewise as the great agent in making the issues of the State. So far, however, from any new title being conferred upon the Bank through the medium of the Bill in reference to those other great and important branches of its duties, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the very reverse was the case. It had hitherto been always the subject, more or less, of doubt, whether the remuneration given to the Bank in respect of its management of the debt was not to be considered as part of the permanent privileges conferred by

755
its charter. By the present Act, however, the question had been severed and detached from any other portion of the business which the Bank performed for the public. Both in the Acts of 1844 and 1834 the agency of the Bank, and the remuneration that it was entitled to receive for discharging that duty, were referred to in terms which the Bank, if it had been inclined to an illiberal course of action, and to stand on its extreme rights, might, perhaps, have contended, did not in honour and good faith leave Parliament at liberty to interfere. The change would, no doubt he most weighty and momentous, but the transaction itself was perfectly simple. The conduct of business between the public and the bank rested on its own merits, and was confined exclusively to its own objects, and had no connection or concern whatever with the business of the Bank as the public banker, or with regard to issues, or yet with regard to the quasi-trusteeship which the Bank, under the loan Acts, seemed to discharge towards the public creditors. In the future, therefore, no such entanglement could arise as was deprecated by his hon. Friend, who rightly regarded it as a great evil and inconvenience. In stating that the other functions of the Bank, as guardians of the public purse and with reference to issues, had been entirely separated, he did not not mean that Her Majesty's Government contemplated making any proposals on that head. The position of that question was clearly understood between the Government and the Governors of the Bank, and would be found stated in the official correspondence. As to the general comments of his hon. Friend on the present state of the money-market and the conduct and policy of the Bank of England he would not attempt at such an hour (a quarter to twelve o'clock) to enter into a question of such great moment and of such profound difficulty. But in reference to one portion of his hon. Friend's remarks impugning the conduct of the Bank in relation to a particular house, he must be permitted to express his regret that before making a statement so seriously affecting the policy and something more than the policy of the Bank, he bad not given some intimation to the hon. Gentlemen connected with the Bank in that House, in order that whatever explanation the case admitted of might at once be given. As regarded the general proceedings of the Bank of England, he thought his hon. Friend, with the clear and accu-
756
rate knowledge of the case which he possessed, would admit that the period through which they were passing had been one of peculiar difficulty; for although it had never assumed the character of a sharp and sudden crisis, for a considerable time there had been a sort of zigzag movement in the value of public securities which had passed on and off, and had been most trying to the Bank and to those with whom they had commercial relations. He believed, too, that if they were to consider the conduct of the Bank as a banking establishment, under those trying circumstances, they would find it to be the opinion of the commercial world that their recent proceedings had, in general—he spoke not of particular cases—been characterized by great prudence and a determined regard to keep their resources in a solvent position, available for whatever circumstances might arise. As regarded the rule of which his hon. Friend (Mr. Bass) complained, and under which the power of discount, except at certain periods, had been withheld from important bodies, who, no doubt, as his hon. Friend said, were competitors of the Bank, that was a question which he supposed, before any long time had elapsed, would be more fully opened and discussed both there and elsewhere; but he was bound to say he believed that in the adoption of that rule the Bank were not governed by any narrow regard to their own interest; but that, considering the public trust attached to them and their public position and power over money proceedings, their desire had been to act in the spirit of the law, and to prevent, if possible, the recurrence of those crises on which they all looked with dissatisfaction, and under which the suspension of the law had several times become necessary.
MR. BASSsaid, he wished to explain that he had mentioned to an hon. Gentleman then present the circumstance which he had just stated to the House, and it would be in the power of that hon. Gentleman to make any explanation which he might consider necessary.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he believed that the hon. Gentleman alluded to him; but he did not know how far he (Mr. Bass) was entitled to call on him for an explanation respecting a conversation that had taken place at a dinner table in the refreshment room of that House. If conversations held under such circumstances were to be reported and explained to that House, there would soon be an end to anything like

757
confidential or private conversation between two hon. Members. He was perfectly con-tent with the defence of the public conduct of the Bank of England made by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but his hon. Friend (Mr. Bass) bad complained of the fluctuations in the rate of discount by that establishment. Surely his hon. Friend did not mean to say that the Bank exercised a control over the demand for and value of money?—that they made the price of money in this country! His hon. Friend was a large manufacturer —a manufacturer of an article which was in extensive use; but no effort on his part could control the consumption of or demand for that article. All the Bank affected to do was to follow the demand and to regulate their price accordingly. As regarded the proceedings of the Bank, to which his hon. Friend more particularly referred when he complained of their not placing money freely at the disposal of other dealers in money, he bad to make this remark—though he did not mean to put forward the matter as one of discussion in the House—that persons engaged in banking business, whether as discounters or holders of bills, ought to bold in their hands convertible securities which they could al-ways have available in cases of emergency, It was not a proper course in large establishments, instead of holding their own money in reserve, to call on the Bank of England in times of pressure. The Bank of England had been guided by a strict regard to what they considered to be the public interests. He repudiated the charge that they had been influenced by selfish ones. They were sensible of their responsibilities—they acknowledged them; and should always act accordingly. With regard to the Bank's transactions with the commercial establishment alluded to by his hon. Friend, his hon. Friend did not know the nature of that case. It was true that the Bank had been led into the same errors its others—they bad been misled by the credit which that establishment got in this country; hut the Bank of England had this merit—that in lending money they got good security, and it was a fortunate circumstance that they were not losers. The private transactions of the Bank in their private capacity, however, were not subjects for discussion in that House on occasions like the present; but if a Motion impeaching their conduct were brought forward, those who conducted their affairs would be found quite ready to meet it.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he could not allow the speech of the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Crawford) to pass unnoticed in one respect, namely, when he compared the Bank of England to the private commercial enterprise of his hon. Friend (Mr. Bass), which was open to the competition of the whole world-—when it was the fact that under severe pressure the Government were compelled to abrogate a law which had failed in its object—that object being to prevent panic, and to protect the commercial community from disaster arising from this cause. The next great point, in his opinion, would be finally to terminate the existence of that law, which was assailed by the universal clamour of the commercial public.
MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, he was glad to hear that the provisions of the Bill did not at all bind the Government to maintain the privileges conferred exclusively upon the Bank of England. No doubt a good deal of dissatisfaction was felt respecting them in the country; and the value of money, from whatever cause, was certainly more uniform before the time when the Acts conferring their privileges on the Bank were passed than it had ever been since. He only regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made this arrangement for so long a term as twenty-five years.
Motion agreed to; Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Payment for Management of Public Debt),
SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, be would propose an Amendment to the effect that the arrangement should continue ten years instead of twenty-five years. It was his opinion that if the longer period were continued in the Bill it would be found to hamper future Chancellors of the Exchequer.
MR. BUCHANANsaid, that in consequence of the twenty-five years clause there was a strong impression that the present arrangement in reference to issues and other matters was to continue as it then stood. There was also a general impression against the Bank of England having, as it virtually bad, the power of fixing the price of money in times of crises. That impression would be got rid of if a number of joint stock banks had similar power with the Bank, instead of the Bank of England having a monopoly. He should

759
support the Amendment if the Government were not already committed to the bargain with the Bank, in which event it would be too late to alter it.
MR. HANKEYsaid, that any person who heard the discussion would suppose that some new privileges were to be granted to the Bank, though such was, in. fact, not at all the case. The arrangements in reference to the Bank were made solely with the view of consulting the public convenience. When loans were made to the Government it was for the convenience of the contracting parties that the arrangements connected with the payment of interest and transfer should be undertaken by the Bank of England; but the Bank was not a party in any other way to such arrangements. Money was obtained on better terms when it was known by the lenders that in all future time there would be one fixed place at which the business connected with those loans would be transacted—where the transfers would be made and the dividends paid. From 1808 to the present year the existing arrangement had continued in force, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had now thought fit, on behalf of the public interest, to make a certain reduction of the charge for the management of the debt; and, instead of leaving the arrangement as it is now for an indefinite and uncertain time, he had fixed it for twenty-five years, and if, at the close of that period, it should be thought proper to make a further reduction in the charge, he would be able to bring the matter before Parliament and make a new proposal to the Bank. It should not be forgotten that the proposed arrangement had nothing to do with the Government deposits, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be at perfect liberty to bring before the House the whole question of the issue of notes. If it were considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made an improvident bargain with the Bank as to the management of the public debt, the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) had a perfect right to complain of it, but he (Mr. Hankey) did not understand that the hon. Member made any such charge. On the other hand, it was not fair to criticise in the way uow done the conduct of the Bank of England with regard to its private transactions. Hon. Members might as well bring charges of the same kind against the London and Westminster or any other joint stock Bank. Whenever the Bank of England
760
was arraigned in its public capacity he should be quite ready to enter into the question. He would not say that the proposed arrangement was not a very hard bargain for the Bank, but he would say that it was highly advantageous for the public.
MR. BASSdesired to know whether the House was to understand that those gentlemen who represented the Bank of England were dissatisfied with the arrangement. [Mr. HANKEY: Hear, hear.] If so, let the House cry quits, and get rid of the bargain. [Mr. HANKEY: Hear, hear.] He had been rebuked for discussing mattersntot before the House, but the repre-sentaives of the Bank were not without notice that there was great dissatisfaction in reference to certain matters connected with the Bank. They might suppose, from what they had heard from hon. Members, that the Bank derived no advantage from their management of the public monies; but he (Mr. Bass) found that during the last two years the Bank had had about £7,000,000 of public deposits in their hands. He should be glad to learn what service they had rendered in return? He felt quite sure that they could not come to any other conclusion than that the Bank was the largest monopolist in the country.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that though he objected to the arrangement, he did not do so on the precise grounds that some hon. Gentlemen did. Instead of attacking the directors of the Bank, it would be better to attack the law under which they acted. It was Lord Overstone and his followers, with their theories of the convertibility of the note, who were to blame. In voting for the Amendment, he did so because he believed if they succeeded in limiting the present arrangement, it would be a step towards altering the present monetary system.
MR. FINLAYsaid, he was not sure that the Bank management was advantageous to the country at large. On the one hand, if the Bank charter were put an end to in the course of a few years, what would become of the proposed arrangement? But, on the other hand, if the arrangement was so hard upon the Bank of England, why should the Bank Directors object to limiting it to ten years instead of twenty-five?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to separate the subject of issue from the general question. It was perfectly open to the House to deal

761
with the question of issue and everything which related to it and the public balances when they pleased and as they pleased. He hoped that whenever they came to the subject of issue, they might adopt such legislation as would secure the full fruits which had already been achieved by the wise measures of former statesmen, and not undo what they had accomplished. He did not clearly understand the object of the proposed Amendment, whether it was that the arrangement was too favourable to the Bank, or whether it was supposed that it would hamper Parliament in any other transactions and arrangements of other kinds in future. If the bon. Member for Coventry feared that by implication the arrangement would tend to impair the freedom of Parliament, he could only say that that freedom was acknowledged by the Governors in their correspondence with him. The Governors accepted his letter to them as the understanding, and with fairness and moderation added that they were very much induced to accede to the reduction of charge by the fact that they would be enabled greatly to economize. Their letter was a complete acknowledgment of the separation which now, for the first time, was effected between this and other subjects in which the Bank discharged duties for the Government. The success of the Motion would simply have the effect of cancelling his labour, and reverting to the present Act, with which he believed the Bank were perfectly satisfied, as they obtained under it a greater profit by £50,000 a year. He did not consider that the terms imposed were bard terms. In his opinion they gave the Bank adequate and liberal remuneration, but he must say he believed it was the wish of Parliament and the commercial world that that principle should direct their proceedings. If the term of twenty-five years was an advantage to the Bank the public gained, in the first place, a clear saving of £50,000 a year. It likewise gained a material increase of service; and, thirdly, an advantage which he deemed of great importance—namely, that by this arrangement they entirely extricated the whole subject of remuneration for management from the influence of those complicated considerations which were involved in the structure of the Loan Acts. There had been a great change in the relative positions of the Bank and the Government since the Bank got its charter, and the Government began to borrow.
762
Governments of all kinds, and especially a dynasty with a most unsettled tenure, were in exceedingly bad odour with the mercantile world. The monied men of those times would not believe the Government on its oath; and no wonder, seeing that not long before that worthy Sovereign, Charles II., had thought fit to lay big bands on the money of the London bankers. It was then the capital object of State policy to find a body of undoubted wealth, solvency, and character which would stand between the Government on the one side, and the possessors of money on the other, and would say to the moneyed men, "We will stand sponsors to you for the Government." It will be seen from the Loan Acts that the original position of the Bank was not, as now, that of the agent for the Government; but it was a sponsor and trustee for the Government, securing it that credit which it could not secure for itself. Though the position of the Bank had changed, the form of the Loan Acts had not changed; and those who looked even at the most recent Loan Acts would see that they not only constituted the Bank an agent to pay the dividends, but they continued it a corporation until the loan then made was paid off. The remuneration for managing the loan was given in the same Act. Under these circumstances it was open to the Bank to say, "This remuneration is part of the compact of the loan." That, however, would have been an extremely illiberal claim, and the Bank had shown a proper regard for its true and permanent interests in not pressing it. It was fair to the Bank to state that, some ten years after the arrangement in force was agreed on, both the Bank and the Government submitted to their respective legal advisers the question whether the bargain between them with respect to the remuneration was one which it was open to the Government to propose to Parliament to alter, or whether it could not be altered without the consent of both parties; and both the legal advisers of the Bank and the law officers of the Crown answered that the arrangement was a permanent one, which could not be altered without the consent of the Bank. Having made this explanation he hoped the bon. Gentleman would not persevere with his Amendment, and thus prevent a new arrangement being made which was equitable to the public and fair and liberal to the Bank.
MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, he hoped, after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his hon. Friend would not persevere in his Amendment. It appeared that the twenty-five years had had something to do with the bargain, and as it did not affect the issue department he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.
House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES,
PUBLIC BILLS.—3ª Indictable Offences (Metropolitan District); Fictitious Savings Banks; Constructive Notice Amendment.
FICTITIOUS SAVINGS BANKS BILL.

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD MONTEAGLE,in moving the third reading of this Bill, said that it had no relation to those excellent institutions the penny savings banks, which had been established with most beneficial effect, they did not within the category of those aimed at by this Bill, because the money was invested, through the medium of the branch banks, in the public securities, as was required by law. Persons interested in them, therefore, need not apprehend any inconvenience from this measure. On the contrary, they should be glad to see it passed, as there were a number of pretended savings banks of a most unsafe character which would be affected by its provisions. One bank he had heard of raised money by shares, engaging to pay 4 per cent to the shareholders, and 3| per cent to the depositors. Any one in the slightest degree acquainted with these matters must know that it was utterly impossible that these professions could be realized. The Bill proposed to allow these banks a certain time to wind up their affairs; but if, after that period, such banks persevered in acting in a manner so injurious to the ordinary savings banks, they would under this Bill be liable to punishment for a criminal act; and it was to be hoped that they would take warning, and not by their obstinacy expose themselves to such punishment.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

FORTY SHILLING FREEHOLDERS.

  RETURN MOVED FOR.
  LORD STRATHEDEN:* My Lords, the notice I have given is to call attention to the Report of the Committee of last year on the Reduction of the Franchise, and to move for a Return of the Forty Shilling Freeholders, by which I mean the freeholders above and at that value, in every county of England and Wales. If the notice only furnishes to those who took an active part on the Committee an opportunity of stating the impression they derived from it, I shall not repent of having

  699
  put it on the paper. Those noble Lords will, doubtless, recollect that this is the very moment when such impressions may be brought before the public with advantage. Situated as we are, on the question of Reform, the attitude of the country, of Opposition, and of Government, is neutral and deliberative. All three may very soon be forced into a different one, which those noble Lords would seek in vain to influence or modify. Beyond this, it should not be forgotten that the immediate purpose of the Committee vanished, because the Bill it was intended to throw light upon expired before its labours were concluded. Considering that fifty-four witnesses were called, that three thousand seven hundred and seventy questions were put, and that the inquiry stretched into a period of above two months, those labours ought not to pass too soon into oblivion. I meant, at first, to touch upon the evidence of the revising barristers who were summoned; but, on reflection, I will leave that point to those by whom they were examined. My further observations will be directed to support the Return for which I move; and here perhaps, the noble Lord the President of the Council will grant me an indulgence, which it would be too sanguine to expect from many of your Lordships. The ground on which I ask for the Return is one which will enable me to go into the present aspect of the question. The ground is, that as we cannot stand still for any time after the four schemes which different Governments have offered, occasional Reform and comprehensive legislation are the only lines open to the country, while it is clear the country drifts towards the former; that some reduction of the franchise will be necessary; that changes of the borough franchise are beset by difficulties almost insurmountable, and on this point the evidence before your Lordships is instructive; that the county franchise is a safer field on which to move at first, but that it cannot be approached until you have a document to show the number of the freeholders compared with the number of the occupying voters which a twenty pound or ten pound limit would occasion. As regards the borough franchise, it is clear to all who are conversant with it, that you must either keep it as it is, advance it to a point by which the power of the middle classes would be neutralized, or introduce the inequality between those above a certain rental, and those beneath it, which great reasoners have pointed to,
  700
  but which the public has not yet considered with attention. It would probably be granted that the country franchise is entitled to precedence in the question. It would probably be granted, too, that to stand still altogether beyond the present Session is impossible, after the hopes which Governments have raised and the engagements which they have entered into. But men may differ still whether occasional Reform or comprehensive legislation is the system to be followed, although they clearly see that there is no escape from these alternatives, inasmuch as a Government could only withhold the one by giving or by promising the other. Occasional Reform, as far as I can judge, means that course of dealing separately with the features of the subject according to the exigencies of the time and the opinions of the country, which Lord Palmerston declared to be his policy just before the general election of 1857, from which, last year, his Government departed; but from which nothing tends to sever him at present. In favour of that policy there is one well-known presumption, although too much weight ought not to be attached to it. It has been already sanctioned by the Legislature. On this principle the Irish franchise was extended in 1850 by the influence of one Government; the qualification of Members was, in 1858, abolished with the sanction of another. The country has already, therefore, entered on the line I have adverted to, in the only changes it has yet thought right to make in the Reform Act. A more grave presumption by far in favour of that policy is, that a new and comprehensive, or, as it is sometimes termed, a reconstructive settlement, has been attempted four times with uniform reproach to all the Governments who ventured upon it. It is needless to remind you that the Government of 1852, after finding its scheme an object of severe animadversion from every quarter of the press and of the public, in ten days renounced the desperate position it was placed in; that the Government of 1854 was forced by a concurrence of all parties to withdraw their measure of Reform, on the eve of the Russian war, and never regained the credit which they lost by this unfortunate and ill-timed proposition; or that the Government of 1859 was outvoted on the second reading of their measure, and in vain appealed to a general election to reverse the judgment of the House of Commons. It is still necessary

  701
  to remind you of what occurred in 1860 on this subject. The reception by which these new settlements of Reform were strangled in their cradles, cannot be ascribed to want of talent in the Cabinets which framed them. It cannot be ascribed to any temporary causes. The more their failure is examined, the more it will be traced to causes which survive, and of which, whenever such attempts are made, the operation may be confidently reckoned on. At any time they must array against them the hostility of Parliament, because they threaten dissolution. At any time they must excite the Opposition of the day into activity, because on projects so ambitious and so vulnerable, far more than on any other, the Government advancing them may he successfully attacked. They must, also, to some extent, create disunion in the Cabinet which forms them; because, unless there is an object to pursue, and a principle to go upon, as there was in 1831, but does not seem to be at present, no twelve statesmen can entirely agree on what ought to be the nature of the settlement. They must excite some degree of popular resentment out of doors when they affect stability and permanence, and when certain changes are excluded from them which interest electors more than any other changes, hut which the leaders of our day are not disposed to sanction. But when the line of occasional Reform is contrasted with that of a now settlement, it suggests another observation. It was the line of policy conceived to be established, as far as their opinions are on record, by all enlightened statesmen, as well as the community in general, from 1832 to 1851. Except among the school who openly avowed that their object was to concentrate the power of the State in the working-classes by means of suffrage, equal on the one hand, universal on the other, no one ever heard of a new settlement till the Minister of the day in 1851 engaged himself to offer one. The shock which all Europe received from the fall of the French throne in 1848, extended its vibrations to this country- It roused into activity passions which had slept, and forced upon the Legislature topics which for many years had been forgotten. But there its power ended. The fever which it led to had subsided, the agitation it encouraged had passed by, before the Minister, in 1851, explained to a resenting House of Commons that a new settlement would soon impend on the Reform Act. From that
  702
  time and under that authority, no doubt the prospect was indulged in. But now, such language is renounced and such a part has been abandoned, it is not unnatural that the public should relapse into the mode of thinking which nothing else had interrupted; that they should hold a new settlement of representative arrangements as uncalled for, and believe that separate reforms will do all their interest requires, and all their interest admits of. The convulsions of 1831 and 1832 were the price advanced for many caculated benefits. But among those calculated benefits there certainly appeared to be, if you examine the opinions of the period, immunity in all time to come, not from the existence—not from the discussion—but at least from the supremacy above all other matters, of that inflammatory topic which had brought society to the verge of civil war, and placed the country in the feeblest position it could hold towards European Powers. From 1833 to 1851 the intention of the country seemed to be not to resist organic change when prudence sanctioned its adoption, but never to allow itself to be again engrossed in a general and overruling agitation of the question upon what ground to form its representative assembly. Whether or not the intention was a wise one—if it was only clouded for a time by unfortunate events, and by untoward pledges—if the events have passed, and if the pledges are exploded, there is nothing to prevent it from again recovering the firmness and distinctness which originally marked it. When it has twice led to practical results without the medium of disturbance, while four times a tentative departure from it has been at once calamitous and fruitless, we cannot blame the country (even if we differ from it), for reverting to its first ideas, corroborated by its subsequent experience. But these are mere presumptions which ought not to hurry my noble Friend too far towards the line I have submitted to him. He has a right to ask, and he is bound indeed to do so, what are the precise and tangible advantages it has over the attempt at a new settlement. At the very outset, I remind him it does not bring about the dissolution of the Parliament which acts upon it. In 1850, when the Irish franchise was extended, there was not a whisper of dissolving. In this place it may be frankly said, that frequent dissolutions (not to speak of all their obvious disadvantages) reduce the value of

  703
  the House, which they affect by reducing the mass of Parliamentary experience included in it. Beyond this, occcasional Reform, not vitally endangering the Government which offers it, may be offered with security according to the real convictions of those by whom it has been framed. Individuals might be found, perhaps, so high minded as to think that the Bills of 1852, of 1854, of 1859, and of 1860, all represented the ideas and judgment of their sponsors. But who would face the ridicule which such a view declared would bring upon him in any circle where political events and motives are alluded to? And is the character of leading men of no importance to an empire? But, assuming that a general revision of our system could be offered without an eye to anything beyond the welfare of the public, may it not be too great and too unjust a burden for the hurried and pre-occupied capacity of Governments, who would prosper in the safer, but not less noble flight, of amending it from time to time with the effective aid of both Houses of Parliament? In the next place, a separate Reform is not a barrier to other measures of importance. The Irish Bill of 1850 was carried in the same year with an Act as grave and as much controverted as any which had passed since 1833,— the Act for giving institutions to Australia. The Bill of 1858, which I referred to, was carried in the same year in which India was transferred by legislation to the Crown: night after night being spent in arduous battles on that subject. The comprehensive Bill of 1860, although it never passed into Committee, threw out every other measure except those relating to the Budget, along with which it was proposed. But these considerations may be set aside as insignificant, compared with one I might allude to. Occasional Reform can never add to our foreign difficulties, whereas large and much debated schemes must inevitably aggravate them. So long as the world contains aggressive powers, and the country is resolved to stand by its allies, we cannot afford,—and this my noble Friend will admit more readily than others—to be a weak, embittered, and disorganized society. Such any large and comprehensive project of Reform, such any new settlement of 1832, such any scheme resembling the four which are discarded, must have —to speak with caution and reserve—a tendency to make us. A reconstructive Bill, however well conceived must, in some
  704
  degree, array class against class, and party against party. When the country is divided and convulsed, it cannot be so powerful against any Government which threatens Europe and itself, as when it still retains its harmony and firmness. While land is aiming at concessions, while boroughs are trembling for existence, while interests are struggling for ascendancy, while Opposition sees its way to power, while public men are looking to elections, a strong national conviction upon foreign questions cannot be supported. In such a case the energy and spirit of the country has already found an object and a channel. I am not giving speculations of my own, but am referring to what not many years ago was shown to be the deep, the genuine and the instinctive judgment of the empire. Why with one voice did they sweep away the ill-starred Bill of 1854? Because they knew it would divide them, and that division would be fatal to their interest. But it was not only in 1854 that the state of Europe was at variance with the reconstruction of our Legislature. 1852 found us engaging in a similar adventure. It also found a military despotism suddenly restored, which, however friendly it might be to us, increased the call on our vigilance, induced the country to revive a long abandoned force, and made disunion more than ever out of season. In 1859 a continental war began at the same moment with the general election, which a reconstructive measure had produced. And few deny that such a general election was a heavy blow to our influence in Europe. In 1860 reconstruction was again the business of the Session. Nice and Savoy were annexed, and the boundaries of France extended for the first time since 1815, while that business consumed the time, degraded the authority, and hung upon the energy of Parliament. If, indeed, the Powers of the world were ready to suspend intrigue, diplomacy, and war, while our reconstruction was proceeding; if history entered into an engagement to stand still until a final project had been carried, the case would be a different one. But an Empire like ours is too extensive in its parts, too varied in its interests, and has too many points of contact with other portions of the world to give a reasonable prospect of the vacancy and freedom a reconstruction calls for. The person who looks forward to it may well remind your Lordships of the benighted countryman in Horace, who stood by rivers

  705
  in the firm belief that they would rapidly exhaust themselves—
  "Rusticus expectat dum defluat amnis."
  As yet, however, all the comprehensive projects have been announced beforehand by long engagements of the Governments intending to propose them. As a nation, we have, therefore, had the curious temerity to inform the keen and waking Powers which observe us at what exact time Great Britain will be paralyzed and weakened; when the occupation of a territory will be prudent; when rapine will be safe; when the flames of European war may be judiciously and seasonably kindled; as if the laws of human nature would be reversed for our advantage— as if the blindness and simplicity of one State would be corrected by the virtue and forbearance of another—as if the disposition of the world to abstain from all proceedings adverse to the country, would be proportioned in a scale to our reckless invitation of them. But such a view may be exposed to the reply that these considerations were as applicable in 1831 as at this moment, and that if they had been suffered to prevail the Reform Act would not have been carried. But at that time the Continent was not so near as science has now made it. And, as regards foreign policy itself, it stood in need of a large organic measure to release and to advance it. Under the old system we could not follow the ideas which Mr. Canning had impressed upon the country, when that system was no longer swayed and mitigated by his genius. In order to return to those salutary principles, of which he was the author, which, from his death in 1830 were eclipsed, but which have never since been interrupted, a sweeping change was indispensable. No doubt the country had other ends still more immediately before it; and ends for which occasional Reform would not have been sufficient. The country wanted to transfer power from one class to another; to create an epoch in our history; and at a single blow to put an end to the dominion of proprietors in boroughs. It wanted to destroy interests which only popular excitement could assail, to reverse the state of parties in the Legislature, to pave the way for measures previously impossible. In a word, it wanted to achieve what, as far as we can judge, it is now inclined to prohibit. And if the ends are opposite the agencies may vary. While it appeared at all to clash with the defence of what occurred in 1832,
  706
  my noble Friend would not be able to accede to the position I have urged upon him as regards the effect of comprehensive schemes on our policy in Europe. But he will see that they are reconciled. After all that we have learnt since 1848, one sentiment alone could induce him or any other statesman to look with favour on another trial of such projects; the hope which once prevailed and lingers yet perhaps, that, if adopted, it would long endure and bring about a strict repose upon these questions. If we recur to facts it will be seen that such hopes have not a shadow of foundation. In 1832, the causes and incentives which urged on a great organic change were nearly all removed by granting it. In our time the causes which still appear to tend towards such a measure, would not, in any manner be affected or extinguished by it. In 1832 they were the desire of new laws, and the desire of improved administration. In our time they are the recurrence of commercial panics, physical distress, and Euorpean revolution; together with the constant action upon Governments of a party in the State which no comprehensive scheme is likely to enfeeble. After 1832, organic rest prevailed, because a long series of legislative problems occupied that party, as it did the other friends of general improvement. After a new settlement enacted in our day, unless it has the magic power to annul all that thirty years have given to the statute book, there will be no such field for the activity of Parliament. Why then, should we think that the influence, whatever it may be, from which this settlement arose, would not at once disturb it? In the general election of 1847 Reform was scarcely mentioned. Before the Parliament which met at the close of that year expired, the pledge to alter the Reform Act vitally was given. The Government of 1846 came in with the clearest understanding that organic change was not to be its policy, and by that very Government the present difficulties of the question were created. Where is the security for permanence?—as it clearly does not rest in the intentions of our statesmen, or in the language of our people. Is it in the generous forbearance of the democratic party? In that party there are men, no doubt, well known for sense and moderation. But my noble Friend, well versed in these events, will not forget that from 1848 downwards, under the lamented Mr. Hume, that party solemnly engaged itself in nu-

  707
  merous divisions and debates to labour for the full extent of the organic change which he demanded, and that consistency and honour will forbid them to accede to any other settlement. Would you look for your security in general concurrence not to touch these questions? For such a plan has been alluded to. Will all the rising spirits in our schools and universities—will all the coming Members of our metropolitan constituencies join in this concurrence? and if they do not, what can be its value? In 1847 there was such a concurrence, so far as it can happen in the country. And what did it amount to? The more we look into the past, the more it will occur to us that there is no security whatever, the very Session after a comprehensive measure has beeen carried, against the movement for a second one. But setting this aside, and taking a more favourable view of what might happen, if a new settlement was not at once exposed, gibbeted, and torn to pieces by another, to what would it be a preface, except occasional Reform whenever unforseen facts, or party circumstances, called for it? Might we not begin at once with that which, after any large and comprehensive scheme has been adopted, we shall enter on? Have we not already formed the necessary basis for amendments? Or, if we have not, when shall we arrive at it? No doubt such a line would be impossible for Governments, if it combined against them the democratic party in the Legislature, But that very party owes to it the only triumphs which have fallen to them. They, too, like older parties in the State, have found in reconstructive schemes a source of failure and disaster. They have rejected with aversion or indifference the four which Governments proposed to them. If they desire organic change, they value still more nearly the power and name of Britain in the world, which I have shown that projects of this kind endanger and dishonour. And if the system of occasional Reform was not adapted to their sympathy, it would not, in August, 1859, have found in Mr. Cobden out of doors a far more powerful exponent than it has had in me to-night before your Lordships. I have only, therefore, to revert to the position which I started from, that such a line ought to be seriously contemplated, if not at once embraced; that the reduction of the county franchise is the step which circumstances indicate;—that jus-
  708
  tice to the freeholders is in the way until its influence upon their power has been estimated;—while it happens that no return of their number can be found in the papers which of recent years have been presented to the Houses. Whether or not the noble Lord may deem it right to grant such information, if the train of reasoning which I have most imperfectly endeavoured to convey to you, allowed a place among his thoughts, and, strengthened by the range of practical experience which he can bring to bear upon it, should urge him long to pause and deeply to reflect before again resolving to give his high authority to any reconstructive scheme to alter the Reform Act;—the Motion I submit may not be altogether useless to the country.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the information required by the Return was already before the House, though in a form mixed up with other matter. But if the noble Lord wished to obtain it in a separate form, there could be no objection to the Return.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.