Sitting of 18 July 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Metropolitan Building Act Amendment; Public Works (Ireland). 3° Removal of Scotch and Irish Poor; Dublin Revising Barristers; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Act Continuance; County Cess (Ireland) Act Continuance; Local Government Act Amendment.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £110,098, to complete the sum for the Treasury Chest.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he rose to complain of the manner in which the Government dealt with the Treasury chest. As was known to hon. Members, the amount voted for the Treasury chest formed a fund to meet expenses not otherwise provided for by the Votes of the House. Out of that fund, however, payments had been made for several years past without the knowledge of Parliament, which was contrary to every sound rule of financial policy recognized by this country. Even some of the Native troops in India had been kept up at the expense of the Treasury chest, and the amount which had been laid out, and which had never been refunded, amounted to £118,000. These were matters which required explanation.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to inquire how it was that there had been a
1074
loss to the Treasury chest by the exchanges with Hong Kong?
MR. PEELsaid, that the commissariat officers abroad drew upon this country for payment of the troops, and generally when specie was sent from this country to places abroad the transaction was attended with profit. Putting the case of China aside, it would be seen by the Estimate that there was a net gain at other stations of £11,000. But in China the dollar was the medium of payment, and the dollar was obliged to be issued to the troops at the rate of 4s. 2d., but as there was an exceptional value attached to the dollar in China, it being in the year 1859–60 equivalent to about 4s. 10 d., the rate of exchange was unfavourable to this country to the amount of £101,240. In addition to that a quarter of a million had been more recently sent from this country, and as the dollar was then worth 4s. 5d., there was a loss to the Treasury of £16,860. With reference to what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby), he knew that there were some advances out of the Treasury chest yet to be settled; but the subject had been under the investigation of a Select Committee of that House, and it therefore was unnecessary that he should go into the subject at that time. That Committee, he believed, had reported, but he had not yet seen their Report.
MR. HENLEYinquired what was the amount of the drawing in relation to which there was a loss of over £100,000?
MR. PEELreplied, three quarters of a million.
Vote agreed to, as were also the three following Votes:—
(2.) £5,000, Zambesi Expedition.
(3.) £5,500, to complete the sum for the Niger Expedition.
(4.) £2,000, North-Western Australia Expedition.
(5.) £21,400, Captured Negroes and Liberated Africans.
MR. CAVEcalled attention to what he considered the extravagant manner which was adopted to carry out what was, no doubt, a very good object. When a vessel of war captured a slaver, she was taken into Sierra Leone or St. Helena. The captured negroes had to be maintained there until a vessel was sent from this country to convey them to the West Indies sometimes for months. He thought the prizes should be sent direct to the West Indies, by which all the expenses they were not put to would be avoided. It had

1075
already been decided that when a vessel was taken, as slavers generally were, without papers or colours, she might be dealt with as belonging to no nation, and it could not be said that in any case the negroes exercised any choice in the matter. It was a simple question of economy.
MR. PEELsaid, that it was necessary to take the prize to the nearest British island where there was a court to adjudicate upon the capture. In many instances the slaves were not in a condition, when the vessel was seized, to be taken to the distance of the West Indies.
MR. CAVEsaid, that might be so sometimes; but in many instances the voyage down the Trade winds to the West Indies would be shorter than beating up to Sierra Leone or St. Helena.
Vote agreed to, as was also
(6.) £4,750, Mixed Commissions, Traffic in Slaves.
(7.) Motion made and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £128,143, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
MR. DODSONsaid, he wished to call attention to the appointment of Consuls at inland towns in Europe. The duties of Consuls were described as of three kinds, "commercial duties," "notarial duties," and "State duties." These duties were more or less in a great measure, if not almost entirely, connected with the affairs of shipping. But when they put Consuls at the inland towns of Europe they were little else than agents for persons who were travelling or for commercial houses at home. If agents, however, were required by commercial houses, they ought to pay for them themselves, and not charge the expense to the State. If such agents were required by the Government to collect statistical or other information, they ought to be called statistical agents or some other name which should not throw dust in the eyes of the country. The Consuls at inland towns in Europe were nine in number. They were at Moscow, Leipsic. Frankfort, Cologne, Ghent, Milan, Seville, Rome, and Warsaw, and only the other day an attempt was made to have one appointed at Pesth. The Committee which had considered the subject under the Administration of the Earl of Derby were of opinion that the consulates at Leipsic, Frankfort, Cologne, Ghent,
1076
Seville, were useless, and might well be abolished. Taking the case of Leipsic, for example, he would ask, what was the importance of having a Consul there? The fair was declining, and British goods now found their way by a different route, so that a Consul was less wanted than be fore. If a Consul was wanted at Leipsic, a Legation at Dresden could not likewise be required. At many places where Consuls were stationed the duty might be transacted by clerks attached to the Embassy, as at Paris. The noble Lord had told them that the greatest economy would be practised in the appointment of Consuls; but he declined to abolish the consulate at Leipsic, and only last autumn a Consul General had been established at Milan at a salary of £800 a year. Since the establishment of the kingdom of Italy a Consul General in that town had become, in his opinion, entirely useless. After being six months in his office that Consul General wrote home that he had no information to give the Government—that he could give no statistics on commercial matters, as all goods came to Milan by way of Genoa, where they paid duty, and it was there the required information could alone be given. In fact, the Consul General referred the Government for information to an article written by the The Times' correspondent at Turin. He hoped also that some information would be given why Consuls were maintained at Moscow, Leipsic, Cologne, and the other places he had named.
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained of the appointment of Vice-Consuls at Venice, Lisbon, and Manilla, as unnecessary, as their offices must be perfect sinecures. Again, there was no necessity for a Vice-Consul at Hamburgh. No doubt they carried on an extensive trade with that place, but the duties had hitherto been discharged by a Consul at a salary of £1,500 a year. He found also that there was an addition of £500 a year for a residence for the Consul. Instead of a reduction in the expenditure for Consuls, there had been a large addition, amounting to £5,000 or £6,000 a year. In the United States, with which the country had so large a trade, there were fourteen Consuls, costing £25,000 a year, while in Turkey there were fifty-one, costing £25,000 a year.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the Committee which sat on the subject had made valuable recommendations, some of which

1077
he had endeavoured to carry out. One of the recommendations of the Committee was that allowances should be made to Consuls, and that the fees they received should be paid over to the Treasury. That had been carried out, and in the year 1860 there was remitted to the Treasury a payment in fees of £44,000, and in the year 1861of £9,000. In consequence allowances had in some instances been given—as at Hamburg, for example, where a Vice-Consul had also been appointed. He had to state generally that he was constantly being importuned to appoint new Consuls in various parts of the word—at Liberia for instance—but his uniform course had been to make no new appointments that were not called for by absolute necessity, and to abolish as far as possible the number now in existence. The hon. Member (Mr. Dodson) thought it was not necessary to have Consuls in the inland towns. But, not to speak of the commercial interests they might have to attend to in those towns, they had political duties, sometimes of an important character, to discharge. At the same time wherever it was thought practicable these consulships would be abolished. It was not intended, for example, to appoint any new Consul at Ghent, and at Paris the duties of the consulship would in future be done by the librarian attached to the Embassy. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Consul at Leipsic ought not to be retained, and he urged, very truly, that the importance of Leipsic as a commercial mart had very much diminished. Looking at the mere claims of Leipsic, a Consul there would perhaps not be necessary, but there were other grounds on which his retention could be advocated; and here he would make a general observation that would apply to many such cases. We had great diplomatic establishments at the various Courts of Europe, by which the relations between our Government and the authorities of those places were kept up. Our diplomatic agents had intercourse with the Ministers for Foreign Affairs connected with the Governments to which they were accredited; but there was a great deal going on in Germany, for example, partly connected with commercial and manufacturing interests and partly connected with political affairs, on which it was desirable to get information, and he found that it was from our consular agents, who were in communication with the middle and other classes of society, that much of this information could be ob-
1078
tained. Much valuable information was from time to time given to the Foreign Office from that source. There were at that moment important questions pending with regard to trade and commerce between France and the Zollverein. The German manufacturers complained that, owing to our commercial treaty with France last year, they were placed at a great disadvantage with regard to the introduction of their manufactures into France, and on that point there was a good deal of discussion going on in Germany. Now, it was important that we should know what was going on with regard to the question. It was our interest to see that our manufacturers were not placed at a disadvantage, and, therefore, any information on the subject that could be communicated to the Foreign Office was useful. With regard to Cologne, a Consul was, perhaps, not of much use there, in so far as trade was concerned; but it was an important central point for conveying messages to different parts of Germany. The attendance of a Consul at Moscow was necessary, in order that our Ambassador at St. Petersburgh might be furnished with information of the transactions that take place in Central Russia. At Warsaw the Consul was a military officer, whose services it was important to retain. The Russian Government had never made any objection to our having that officer there, owing, he believed, to the judicious appointments that had always been made. With regard to Milan, he would not say that it was necessary to continue a Consul permanently there. At the same time so great a change had taken place in the affairs of Italy that it was very important we should in the meantime have as much information as possible as to the effect produced by that change. The importance of Lombardy was such that he thought it desirable to have a Consul at Milan to give all the information that might be required, but it was not intended that the appointment should be a permanent one. He had even been pressed to appoint a Consul at Florence, which he did not agree to. The Consul at Seville was not necessary, and the office should be abolished on a vacancy occurring. There were other exceptional cases in which it was thought proper to continue for the present the consular establishments now existing, but these would from time to time be abolished. He could not, however, hold out the expectation that any great reduction of expenditure could be effected; he hoped

1079
a reduction would, in course of time, take place, but he did not suppose that it would be very large. With regard to Turkey, he would make this general observation, that all the Powers of Europe had Consuls in numerous places throughout that empire, and that those Consuls exercised political functions to a very great extent. He lamented that the system had gone so far as it had done, but it would be plainly impolitic to leave British interests in those places unprotected, and to have the complaint made that French and Russian and German subjects were protected, but that there was no official to look after the interests of British subjects. If there was to be any change of the system it must be a gradual one, but he hoped it would be made through the increased efficiency and purity of the Turkish Administration, which would render the presence of so many foreign Consuls unnecessary in Turkey.
Mr. WHITEsaid, that he was astonished at the confession made by the noble Lord that our diplomatic agents abroad could not get the information that was desirable from the commercial classes, and that it was necessary to have recourse to Consuls for that purpose. This was a very humiliating confession for a Minister to make, though he could not altogether share in the opinion which it implied, for he was bound to say that some of the most valuable Reports on commercial matters ever published came from aristocratic members of the diplomatic body. As an instance he would refer to the Report on wines by Lord Chelsea. Neither did the justification which had been offered for the maintenance of consulates in the inland towns of Germany appear to him satisfactory. He begged, on the part of the mercantile community, to repudiate the assertion that mercantile men derived benefit from the consular Reports from the interior of Germany—mercantile men were too much alive to their own interests to be dependent upon such information. Nothing could be more absurd than the maintenance of a consulate at Leipsic. Germany, in his opinion, would furnish a field for the diminution not only of the Consular but of the Ambassadorial Service.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, that he did not agree with the hon. Member for Brighton that the consulates ought to be abolished in the inland towns of Germany. Information of a valuable character was continually received through their instru-
1080
mentality; and without their aid the Government would be often ignorant of important facts necessary to guide their judgment and influence their action. He did not think that, any great economy could be effected in the reduction of the Consular Service, but at the same time they should be on their guard against any large increase in those establishments.
Mr. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he trusted nothing would induce the noble Lord to discontinue the Consular Establishments in the inland towns of the Zollverein. The commercial interests of the country were immensely affected by the negotiations which were now going on between France and the Zollverein, and it was of the highest importance that they should be carefully attended to. He trusted that the result would be the same as that to which he had lately called attention in the case of Belgium, and that our manufactures would be placed in as advanageous a position as those of France.
Mr. FREELANDthought that the Committee were much indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Sussex for having directed their attention to the Consular Service. He was glad that his hon. Friend had not proposed at present any reduction in the Consular Establishment in the Levant. Still, that was a part of the world in which our Consuls were very numerous, and in which Consular interference was regarded with peculiar jealousy. We had sixty - two Consuls in the Levant, and others in Tripoli and Egypt, He hoped, however, that the new Sultan by his reforms and by the introduction of better laws, would render Consular interposition less necessary, and that ultimately the number of Consuls might be reduced. He was sorry that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had not been able to give them more satisfactory reasons for the appointment of a Consul at Leipsic. He thought that our diplomatic staff at Dresden might manage to do all that we required in those parts. There was one point which had not been alluded to, and that was the permission given to some Consuls to trade, which ho thought objectionable. No fixed rule appeared to be adopted. At St. Petersburgh, where there was much business, the English Consul was allowed to trade, but not at Odessa, where the public business was less. So, too, at Trieste, where there was much business, the Consul was allowed to trade; but not at Venice, where there was less business.

1081
He thought that no Consul ought to be allowed to engage in trading operations. The business of a Consul was to facilitate commercial intercourse, and to supply for the benefit of the country appointing him the earliest information on commercial matters. If, however, he were a trader, he might have a private interest in keeping back that information for his own advantage. A trading Consul, too, was more open to suspicion, and less likely than one not engaged in trade to get reliable information. He thought that the employment of foreigners as Consuls was objectionable, and that trained and educated Englishmen should be preferred. He hoped that the Government would look well to the con sular establishment, and that ultimately they might reduce the number of Consuls without impairing the efficiency of the service.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he thought that hon. Gentlemen had scarcely made themselves acquainted with the recommendations of the Committee upon the consular service. It was quite impossible to rearrange a whole establishment such as that which they had in the various countries abroad. If, for instance, a man had received his appointment years ago with liberty to trade, if that liberty was taken away, something must be given to compensate him for the loss. The result of that short discussion convinced him that some of those who had engaged in it had not watched the course of the Foreign Office for some years; for its policy of late, whether the Earl of Clarendon, the Earl of Malmesbury, or the noble Lord opposite had been at its head, had been marked by a desire to sweep away every unnecessary appointment in the consular service. The number of appointments abolished within the last ten or twenty years would surprise any hon. Member who would call for a return. The House, however, would entertain a wrong impresion if it supposed that the sweeping away of all unnecessary consulates necessarily implied any large reduction in the Estimates. The great increase in the cost of living that had taken place of late years in every part of the world had rendered the consular service one of the worst paid that could be named, and in some cases men of education had found it impossible to discharge the duties required of them without falling into debt. There could be no worse principle followed than that of underpaying their public servants,
1082
as it had the effect of excluding those who were not possessed of ample means and admitting only those who had. He was afraid that, notwithstanding the sanguine expectations of the noble Lord, the expense of our consular establishments would rather be increased than otherwise.
Mr. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) as to the importance of maintaining Consuls for the purpose of transmitting statistics upon commercial matters. Leipsic, being a central place, appeared to him to be a point from which the commercial transactions of Germany could most readily be watched. It should, however, be a great object with the Foreign Office to observe the changes which I were daily taking place in the relative importance of towns, owing to railway and other causes, and to make the necessary alterations in the service which those changes might require.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he was much afraid that the maintenance of Consuls at Leipsic and other similar places in Germany would not affect the object which the hon. Member for Bradford had in view—the maintenance of our commercial interests. He objected strongly to the appointment of a Consul at Reunion, where our trade was very insignificant. He also objected to a Consul at Frankfort, and he should, therefore, move for a reduction of the Vote by £2,300, being the sum appropriated for Consuls at Reunion, Frankfort, and other places.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £125,813, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
CAPTAIN JERVISobserved that it was very difficult for a diplomatic agent to obtain that commercial information which, i in many cases, it was very essential the country should have. Nor had they the same opportunities of gaining that intimate knowledge of the commercial feelings of a people which Consuls had. He expressed his conviction that the noble Lord in two late appointments at Leipsic and Japan had been influenced solely by a desire to benefit the public service.
MR. TURNERsaid, he should vote against the Amendment. He did not think it desirable that economy in the I matter should be carried to too great an extent, and he did not think it would be

1083
prudent to put an end to the consulates to winch he referred. He did not think Consuls should he prevented from trading, unless they were paid such salaries as would support them creditably without it. At the present moment it was of the utmost importance that we should have consular agents in every part of Germany.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that there were two points on which he felt bound to give some explanation. One had been raised by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith) with regard to the appointment of a Consul at Reunion. He would admit that as regards the trade between the country and Reunion, it would he quite unnecessary to appoint a Consul. He was afraid, however, that the hon. Member had not attended to what had been going on recently, especially with reference to a decree of the Emperor of the French, or he would not have called in question the propriety of appointing a Consul for Reunion. The system of contracts by which the French colonists procured labourers from Africa; it was found tended to produce great abuses in the interior and on the coast of Africa, and the result was the late decree of the Emperor of the French on the subject. There had been a great many communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France on the subject, the result of which was that there should be extended to Reunion the same advantages that were enjoyed by the Mauritius—namely, that coolies who were engaged as labourers should be permitted to go to Reunion on the same terms on which they were sent to the Mauritius. But at the Mauritius there was a proper instituted authority to see that no abuses took place, and the Government of India naturally wished that at Reunion the interests of the coolies should he protected in the same way, and that their contracts should he fairly carried out, and that they should have liberty to return home when the period of their contracts expired, or in the event of the terms to which they agreed not being fulfilled. The course which appeared to Her Majesty's Government the best to secure those objects was that there should he a British Consul at Reunion to whom the coolies might make known any complaints that they might have to make. It was for the purposes of humanity that the Consul was appointed, and he thought they might congratulate themselves upon having arranged a convention of that nature with the French Government. An hon. Gen-
1084
tleman had asked what was the principle upon which they proceeded in saying that certain Consuls should be allowed to trade and others should not. The general principle was a very simple one. It was supposed that where there was a considerable amount of British trade it justified the appointment of a Consul, at a salary that would enable him to live in the place. Where, however, there was very little trade, the question was whether they should appoint a Consul who should be allowed to trade, or have no Consul at all? For instance, if he were to propose to that House that in every place where they had a Consul there should be a salary attached that would enable the person to live without trade, the increase of the consular estimates would be very great. The Government, therefore, laid it down as a rule that where there was sufficient trade to support a Consul he should not be allowed to trade, but where the amount of trade was not considerable there should be a Consul appointed at a small salary who should be allowed to trade. There was at present a Consul at Frankfort, but whenever it should be vacant it was intended that no new Consul should be appointed.
MR. G. W. HOPEremarked that he should support the appointment of a Consul at Reunion as necessary for the security of the coolies.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that as the coolies were sent from India for the advancement of French interests in Reunion, he did not think the people of this country ought to be saddled with the cost of looking after them. He would not, however, divide the Committee. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(8.) £64,646, Establishments in China, Japan, and Siam.
COLONEL SYKES,complained of the disparity of the allowances for the diplomatic services in China and at Japan. In China, where the work of the embassy might he regarded as very small, in consequence of the recent treaty, the allowance was £8,500, with a numerous staff, while at Japan, where the duty was one of great difficulty and. risk, the allowance was only £2,500, and the appointment only that of a Secretary of Legation. He recommended a general revision of the whole of the Diplomatic and Consular Establishments in China.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he could only say that, in fixing the comparative

1085
amounts proposed to be taken for China and Japan, regard had been had to the numbers, size, and importance of the two places, rather than to the merits of the individual. He was happy to say that accounts had been received on the previous day from Mr. Bruce, at Pekin, of a most satisfactory nature. He stated that the officers of our mission at that city were received and treated there without any of that strangeness and wonder which had hitherto been exhibited, and there was every prospect that the commercial relations of this country with China would be established on a better footing than they had ever been before.
In reply to Mr. WHITE,
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he was responsible for the appointment of Mr. Oliphant. He (Lord John Russell) had formed his judgment of Mr. Oliphant, not from any private knowledge of him, but entirely from the accounts he received at different times from Lord Elgin in regard to his qualifications; and his published works showed him to be a man of no common talent and ability.
Vote agreed to, as was also
(9.) £30,000, to complete the sum for Ministers at Foreign Courts).
(10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
" That a sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of Special Missions, Diplomatic Outfits, and Conveyance of Colonial Officers and others, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
MR. W. WILLIAMSdrew attention to the expenditure under this head, and said that he could not conceive what we wanted with seven Diplomatic Establishments in Germany.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGIIBYsaid, he would ask for an explanation of the large charge for brokerage.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that it very often happened that information which was not given at Vienna or Berlin was obtained at the minor courts. They were all separate and independent States, in friendly relations with this country, and it was a great advantage to keep up the missions at these Courts. The contingent expenses in Turkey had, no doubt, been very large; but that arose from the anomalous state of that country. With regard to the item for commission, he had not the explanation immediately before him, but he had no doubt it arose from the difficulty of obtaining money.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDexplained that the charge was mainly occasioned by the difference in the rates of exchange.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that they had paid over £500,000 for the Diplomatic and Consular Service. That was a monstrous expenditure. Yet when anything really important had to be transacted a special agent had to be sent for the purpose. Whether it was a commercial treaty or something to be done at Vienna, an extraordinary minister or agent was appointed. He should move that the Vote be reduced by £20,000.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, the Vote was important as it was the introduction of a new principle, having for its object to get rid of the Vote for civil contingencies. The Committee was asked, however, to vote a lump sum, and he wanted to know how the account of the expenditure was to be stated?
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he expected that the Vote was for the payment of expenses already incurred. If not, he thought they should have some explanation of it.
MR. PEELsaid, that the Vote had been taken out of the Vote for Civil Service contingencies, on the recommendation of the Committee on Miscellaneous Expenditure. It was impossible to give the precise items of expense which might be incurred, but if the Committee wished, there could be no objection to a statement of the expenditure being prepared at the end of the year. Of course, the Vote for Civil Service contingencies had been reduced by the amount of the Vote.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he thought the explanation unsatisfactory.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to point out that the expenses of the last three years, averaging between £66,000 and £67,000 a year, were printed in the Estimates as a foundation for the present Vote, which was only £50,000. That was curious, as well as satisfactory, unless there should be "a little bill," showing itself by and-by in another place.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLpointed out that it would be impossible to give an estimate of the expenditure under this Vote. It was impossible for him to say that a Special Mission would not be necessary in September or November. What had been done in the Estimates, therefore, —namely, taking an average—seemed to him the fairest way of putting the Vote.

1087
With regard to the salaries of the diplomatic body it was true they were scarcely under the control of the House. But there had been hardly any increase in them since they were fixed thirty years ago. He noticed that when the House had taken similar things under its charge they had materially increased.
Motion made, and Question,
"That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of Special Missions, Diplomatic Outfits, and Conveyance of Colonial Officers and others, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
£put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(11.) £60,000, North American Boundary Commission.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved that the amount was very large, and that he wished for some explanation.
MR. PEELsaid, it was incurred for the settlement of the territorial boundary of the possessions of Great Britain and the United States west of the Rocky Mountains, in accordance with the agreed extension on the forty-ninth parallel of latitude. An expedition had been sent out, consisting of Colonel Hawkins and fifty men of the Sappers and Miners. Colonel Hawkins had £1,200 a year, and the men 6s. a day. He believed that the large expenditure had principally been caused by the great cost of provisions and the difficulty of communications. The Treasury had, however, written to Colonel Hawkins to know whether the work had not been carried far enough to allow of the return of the expedition. He understood that two-thirds of the distance had been accomplished.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked, if the right hon. Gentleman could state the entire sum that would be required?
MR. PEELsaid, that Colonel Hawkins had expressed his belief that the bulk of the expenditure had been incurred.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he believed the Commissioners were agreed as to the line they were to draw, but they entertained considerable doubt how far they ought to go to in expense in the erection of permanent works in connection with impassable forests and morasses. The Government could only recommend them to observe the utmost possible economy.
Vote agreed to.
£145,140, to complete the sum for Superannuation and Retired Allowances.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would submit that barrack-masters, many of whom
1088
had been distinguished officers, should be entitled to receive a higher amount of retiring allowances.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought that the claims of those officers should be dealt with by the Secretary of War, and not by the Treasury.
MR. PEELsaid, that the retiring allowances of the barrack-masters were in the Army Estimates, and not in the Civil Estimates, and he was not aware that they were under the control of the Treasury.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again this day.

OPERATIONS IN CHINA—ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THANKS.
MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House, that ho had this day received from Vice Admiral Sir James Hope, Knight Commander of the Bath, Commander in Chief of Her Majesty's Naval Forces in the East Indies and China; and from Major General Sir John Michel, Knight Commander of the Bath, commanding Her Majesty's Troops in China, the following Letter in respect to the Thanks of this House, which were communicated to the Officers in command of Her Majesty's Naval and Land Forces in China, in obedience to the commands of this House of the 14th day of February last.
Letters read, as follow:—
" Imperieuse, Hong Kong,
"24th May, 1861.
" SIR,—I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Letter transmitting the Resolutions of the Honourable the House of Commons conveying their Thanks to the Flag Officers, Officers, Seamen, and Marines belonging to the Naval Force employed in the recent operations in the North of China, and you will pleased to acquaint the House, that I have ordered the same to be read publicly by the Commanding Officers of the respective Ships of the Squadron, to their Officers and Ships' Companies assembled on the quarter deck.
" I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your most obedient, humble Servant,
J. HOPE,
Vice Admiral and Commander in Chief.
" To the Right Honorable, the Speaker of the House of Commons."
" Head Quarters, Hong Kong,
"25 May, 1861.
" SIR,—I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Letter, and the accompanying Resolutions of the Honourable the House of Commons, agreed to on the 14th February last.
"Having communicated to the Army in China these Resolutions, whilst returning their thanks,

1089
in the name of that Army, 1 solicit that you will express to the Houourable House the sense entertained by them of the distinguished honor thus conferred.
" I have the honor to be Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
J. MICHEL, Maj. General, Comg. H.B. M's. Troops in China.
" To the Right Honorable the Speaker of the Honourable the House of Commons."

TRADE MARKS BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read,
MR. HADFIELDsaid, lie wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, whether he intends to proceed with this Bill?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the Trade Marks Bill had given rise to a good deal of discussion, and the measure was not at all likely to he carried during the present Session. The Government were of opinion that some legislation was necessary to prevent the use of forged Trade Marks, but there was great difference of opinion among the traders as to the precise form of the provisions of the Bill. The subject had never been inquired into by a Select Committee of that House; and it had been suggested that the present measure should he withdrawn, and that a Bill should be brought in the first thing next Session, and that it should be referred to a Select Committee in order that all interests might be fairly heard and discussed. He thought, therefore, the proper course to pursue would be to move that the Order for Committing the Bill be now discharged.
Committee put off for three months.

INDIAN MEDICAL OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, When his promise to place the Medical Officers of Her Majesty's Indian Army upon a perfect footing of equality with Medical Officers of Her Majesty's British Army will be carried into effect; and to inquire the reason why the Medical Officers of Her Majesty's Indian Army are deprived of Commissions according to their relative rank, which are granted to Medical Officers of Her Majesty's British Army; and, if it is the intention of Government to adopt any measures to prevent Medical Officers of Her Majesty's Indian Army being superseded by the Medical Officers of Her
  1090
  Majesty's British Army of equal standing standing in the service?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was not aware of any promise he had made on the subject; but what he had done was that a Queen's warrant was sent out to India, putting these Officers on a footing of perfect equality in point of rank with the other Officers. He apprehended that what his hon. Friend referred to was their being placed below Officers of the Queen's Army of the same standing. That whole subject of the medical service in India had been referred to the consideration of the Governor General, and he was waiting for his noble Friend's opinion.

EDINBURGH POST OFFICE.£QUESTION.
MR. BLACKsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If he has received any Tender for building the General Post Office at Edinburgh, and if he has any objection to state what has been the cause of the delay in proceeding with the execution of the plan, and if there is any prospect of its being speedily commenced?
MR. COWPERreplied that about a fortnight ago he had employed an authorized surveyor to take out quantities and make specifications. When that process was completed tenders would be called for. The delay that had arisen was from a desire to combine handsomeness in building with convenience and economy, and he believed the delay had contributed to both objects.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, On what day he intends to introduce the usual Continuance Bill relating to the prevention of Corrupt Practices at Elections?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would state on Monday whether it was possible to proceed with the Bill on this subject now on the Paper. If not, it would then be necessary to introduce a Continuance Bill.

STATUES OF BRITISH SOVEREIGNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is true that the four Statues to be erected in the Royal Gallery, for which £3,200

  1091
  have been voted, are to be the Statues of William IV., George IV., James I., and Charles I.; and, if so, whether such selection is in accordance with the pledge given to the House by the Commissioner of Works, August 3, I860?
  MR. COWPER: Sir, I cannot plead guilty to having been so sanguine as to give what my hon. Friend has called a pledge on such a subject. When a Member of the Government obtains a Vote from Parliament any explanation he may give in reference to that Vote may fairly be considered a pledge, which ought to be rigorously and scrupulously observed. And I trust I shall never be open to the charge of having swerved by one hair's breadth from any pledge that I may give. I must remind my hon. Friend that the case to which he has alluded is the opposite of this. No Vote of money was obtained from the House, and I made no explanation with reference to an expenditure that was not voted. All I did was to explain why I withdrew the Vote, and did not ask the House to come to any decision on the subject. This is a matter that rather concerns my personal reputation, and I may, therefore, be allowed to state a few words in explanation. Last year the Estimates contained an item for a series of statues of British Sovereigns to be placed in various parts of the Palace of Westminster, and reference was made in that item to the Report of the Fine Arts Commission of 1845. The House was rather alarmed at agreeing to this item, for fear of being considered to adopt all the recommendations of that Commission, and of pledging itself to the erection of forty of these statues. That objection on the part of the House was felt to be valid, The Government did not wish to pledge the House to carry into effect the whole scheme of the recommendation of the Fine Arts Commission and the Vote was withdrawn. It was considered desirable that a portion of the whole number should be selected, and I withdrew the Vote, with the view of considering whether it would be possible that a selection could be made that would be generally acceptable to the House. When the Fine Arts Commission met I called their attention to the subject, and they considered whether such a selection could be made as would be generally acceptable to the House. I never pledged myself that such a selection would be made, but only that I would consider "whether a selection could not be made that would be
  1092
  acceptable to the House." That pledge was redeemed. That selection was considered, and the Commission were of opinion that it was inadmissible. Therefore, I kept my pledge, which was to have a selection considered, for I never was rash enough to pledge myself that a selection would be made that should be generally acceptable to the House. Indeed, I could not have answered for the Commission to that extent. The Fine Arts Commission met. They had first to decide on what principles any selection should be made. Was it to be founded upon the personal qualities of various Sovereigns, or the greatness of the events that occurred during their reigns, or their political tendencies? The personal qualities of the Sovereigns were not, in the opinion of the Commission, the cause of their being represented in this building. The original intention of decorating this House and of encouraging artists could be appropriately attained by statues of Sovereigns, as illustrative of the history of the country. All persons of education, required to know the names of the Sovereigns and the period of their reigns, and it seemed to the Commission of Fine Arts that the right view was not to select any Sovereign who had more admirers than another, but to take them in chronological order as illustrative of the history of the country. This view was taken in the Report of the Fine Arts Commission, which lay upon the Table when this Vote was on the paper. I remember I stated that the view I took was that the Commission had made their selection according to chronological order, and not in regard to the personal qualities of the Sovereigns. The completion of the series was left open to future consideration. The House determined that a certain sum should be given under the direction of the Fine Arts Commission for the erection of statues of four British Sovereigns. The House can in future either increase the number or leave the series incomplete.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he had another question to put. He would beg to ask, Whether, when the Government the other night refused to give any information as to the names of the Sovereigns selected by the Fine Arts Commission, the right hon. Gentleman had not at the time in his possession the Report of the Fine Arts Commission, which stated that they had given two of these statues to Mr. Theed and two to Mr. Thornycroft; and whether the statues are not those he had mentioned?
  MR. COWPBR:I had in ray possession what every lion Member of this House also had in his possession—the Report of the Commission of Fine Arts, which I now hold in my hand. I thought the House understood that the money would be spent under the direction of the Commission of Fine Arts, arid this Report enabled them to judge how far the Commission of Fine Arts had decided upon the statues.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished also to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. [" Order, order !"] It bore directly upon the question before the House. Was it intended that Cromwell should have a statue?
  MR. COWPER:I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the Report of the Fine Arts Commission. If he will read that Report, and it is not very long, he will know as much about the matter as I do.

OUDE—THE INDIAN ARTILLERY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any Reply has been received from the Governor General of India to the fifth paragraph of the Secretary of State's Letter of the 22nd of December, 1860, relating to certain claims on the late State of Oude; and, if not, whether he has any objection peremptorily to call the Governor General's early attention to the subject? He would also beg to ask, whether it is intended to place the Officers of Her Majesty's Indian Artillery Regiments, who are now on Staff and Civil employ, on the seconded list, as is the case with the Officers of the Royal Artillery when so employed?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, no information had yet been received from India on the subject of the hon. Gentleman's first question. With respect to the second, he might state that the Officers of the Indian Artillery now employed on the Staff would be placed in the same position as all the other Officers of the Indian Army—that was to say, they would have the option of rejoining their corps or retaining their present employments. The Officers not on the Staff would be placed the same as other Officers.

  THE DUKE OF MODENA—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:Sir, I have to ask the favour of the House to grant me their attention for
  1094
  a few moments, while I make an explanation of a statement contained in a speech I delivered some time ago, not so much on my own account as because it concerns the feelings and character of a person of eminent station, and who also has been unfortunate—I mean the late Duke of Modena, now expelled from his dominions. There was a debate in the beginning of the month of March, in which much was stated on the subject of the conduct of the Italian Governments; and it has only been within a few days—the last ten days, I think—that I received a representation from the Marquess of Normanby to the effect that he was prepared to contradict, and wished me to withdraw a certain charge—one of several—and which he regarded as the principal that had been made by me against the administration of the Duke of Modena. Sir, the substance of that charge as I intended to give it, was this—that while the Dake of Modena had refused the benefit of ex post facto mitigations of the criminal law to persons who might have profited by them, he had applied ex post facto aggravations of the penalties awarded by the criminal law to those who had incurred them. The case I quoted in particular was this—that whereas the law of Modena forbade the application of capital punishment to persons under twenty years of age charged with homicide, the Duke of Modena issued an edict altering that law in the case of a certain person named Granaj. Now, in what I said with regard to Granaj I did not intend to convey to the House the meaning that that person was executed. I have no knowledge on the subject. What I intended to convey was that he was brought within the scope of the law awarding capital punishment, but I had no knowledge on the question whether he was executed or not. What I wish to state to the House at present—and that is my explanation—is that I believe that person was not executed, for so far as the evidence in my possession goes, what appears to be the cass that this young person, for so he was described, was sentenced to the galleys for life. I should be extremely sorry if I had said a word that could be construed to mean that the young man was actually executed, because I entirely admit that the most rigorous accuracy ought to be observed in matters of this kind, and in the statement I then made I did no more than quote from evidence in published documents which were accessible to every

  1095
  Member of this House. Sir, the Marquess of Normanby has also expressed a desire that I would withdraw what I regard as the principal part of the charges—namely, that capital punishment was made applicable by the Duke of Modena to young persons charged with homicide through the means of an ex post facto law. I am sorry it is not in my power to withdraw that charge, for although I certainly think that I put on the particular document that I quoted a construction stronger than it necessarily or naturally bore, yet the evidence in support of that charge is abundant, and it is to be found in two pages of the document I quoted. In the month of November, 1857, the Duke of Modena issued a decree establishing in his dominions or capital, I forget which, a state of siege, which, as hon. Gentlemen know, answers the same purpose.
  Mr. DISRAELI:I rise to order with great regret. I understood the right hon. Gentleman rose to make some statement with respect to some previous expression in a speech which he made in this House. There is no question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman is now getting into matters that probably may lead to controversy, and it would be much more convenient for him to take advantage of this opportunity of giving notice for tomorrow, and then he can enter into any statement he likes.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I have taken this course after consulting authority. I am not about to enter into any argument whatever, but I am simply stating facts which are explanatory as to what has fallen from me on a previous occasion.
  MR. DISRAELI: The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman referred to certain documents which he said were in everybody's possession. They are not in my possession, and I understand that the documents are inaccessible, therefore, it is inconvenient for the right hon. Gentleman to found an argumentative statement on documents that are not in our possession. There were many other facts to which we might refer, as, for instance, the right hon. Gentleman referred to an edict, and that might lead to considerable controversy. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is with pain I interpose. At the same time I think the House will feel that when explanations are made it is desirable that the question should be fairly entered into.
  Mr. SPEAKERsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke to him on the subject, he had stated that if the object was simply a matter of personal explanation the course which he had pursued was the most convenient. If, however, the House objected that it might lead to discussion, it would be more convenient to defer the explanation till the next day.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERsaid, that it had occurred to him that it would be highly irregular to raise a discussion on a speech of his own on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. He bowed, of course, to the authority of the Speaker, though he was afraid that to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bucks would tend considerably to widen the field. He would, however, with the permission of the House, complete the statement on going into Committee of Supply the next day.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Order for Consideration read.
  Amendment in page 1, line 7, to leave out "Judges and "
  The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the first Amendment, upon which he should ask the House to offer an opinion, was that which would have the effect of striking out from the Bill the clauses relating to the Chief Judge; and, whether for good or for evil, materially affecting the character and scope of the measure. He proposed to take the sense of the House on this important point, at the very first part of the Bill in reference to which it was possible to raise a debate upon it. The Bill under discussion had been introduced into the House by his predecessor in office, who had, since, received at the hands of his Sovereign the highest distinction of his profession, and who was then discharging the exalted functions of his new position to the great advantage and satisfaction of the country. It was a measure differing essentially from that which had been brought forward in the previous Session, which had for its end the consolidation of the whole law relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency; whereas the Bill of the present Session was simply directed to the object of so amending the existing law, as to make it more conformable to the wishes and wants of the community. Having passed through the House' of Commons with singular unani-

  1097
  mity—only one or two divisions, he believed, having been taken upon its provisions—it was introduced into the Upper House; and he was confident there was scarcely a lawyer, or a representative of the views of the mercantile world, who did not believe that the Bill as it then stood effected great amendments in our bankrupt law; while it would, if passed in that shape, have given, he felt assured, the utmost satisfaction to the great majority of the public. The measure, however, had been materially altered in its passage through the House of Lords, and it was with the Amendments there introduced into it that he was about to deal. Those Amendments were several; but it was to two of them, that which related to the office of a Chief Judge, and that which referred to the creditors' assignees, that he desired in a special manner to invite attention. To the former he would for the present confine his observations. Hon. Members were aware that clauses providing for the appointment of a Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, equal in station to his brethren in Westminster Hall, defining his duties, and settling the amount of his salary, were embodied in the Bill as it went up to the other House of Parliament. Those clauses, however, that House had thought proper to strike out; on the ground, he believed, that if passed into a law they would saddle the country—for the salary of the new Judge was to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund—with an expensive functionary, for whom no duties adequate to his station and salary would remain to be discharged. Now, his own opinion was that the Bill, deprived of those clauses would be—he would not say absolutely useless, but devoid of a machinery which was essential to its satisfactory working; while he was strongly of opinion that there was no good foundation for the assumption, that the new Judge would not find, in the performance of the duties of his office, as much work as the most competent and able man could satisfactorily discharge. In dealing with the point in the House of Lords, reference had been made to the appellate jurisdiction which the Bill proposed to confer on the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy; and it was said, in support of the views of those who objected to the creation of a Chief Judge, that the Lords Justices, who constituted at present the Court of Appeal in Bankruptcy, had been occupied, during the whole of the last year, only fifteen days in disposing of
  1098
  the business which came before them in that capacity, while the number of appeals was only forty-five. From those facts the inference was drawn that, under the present Bill, no larger amount of appellate business would have to be dealt with, and that the Chief Judge would, therefore, have very little to do in that respect. But nothing could be more fallacious than such a view of the case. It was very easy to keep down the number of appeals. If they made the appellate tribunal sufficiently costly, and if they interposed a sufficient amount of delay in the hearing of cases on appeal, they might keep the number of appeals within very moderate limits. He thought, however, that the House would not think of keeping down the number of appeals by having recourse either to costliness or to delay. There could be no doubt that the present Court of Appeal in Bankruptcy was both costly and dilatory. Somewhere about £60 was either the smallest or the average expense, which must be incurred in carrying an appeal before the Lords Justices; and, considering that the Lords Justices, although appellate Judges in Bankruptcy, had very extensive and important judicial functions of another class to discharge, it could not be expected that they would at once and summarily address themselves to appeals in bankruptcy, to the neglect of their more ordinary business. It was to be expected, therefore, that time, more or less considerable, must elapse before an appeal could be brought on for hearing; and he was informed by those who were practically conversant with the matter that, as an ordinary occurrence, months elapsed between the lodging of the complaint against the decision appealed against, and the final adjudication by the Lords Justices. But a great part of the business of the Chief Judge would consist of appeals: and the whole of his business would be bankruptcy business. There would be nothing, as in the case of the present appellate court, to delay the hearing of appeals: and he had no hesitation in saying that a slight glance at the Bill would satisfy any one that, in future, appeals in bankruptcy would be not only without delay, but also without unnecessary expense. There was another important observation on this point. It would be admitted that the number of appeals must bear some proportion to the gross number of cases brought before the various tribunals from which the appeal lay; and he thought he could satisfy the

  1099
  House that the general business in bankruptcy, out of which the appeals must proceed, would in future be largely increased. In the first place, a portion of the Bill with which no fault was found in the other House was directed to putting an end to the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, by abolishing the distinction between trader and non-trader. The effect of that would be that the business affecting insolvent debtors, which had heretofore been transacted by the Insolvency Court, would be transferred to the Court of Bankruptcy, more than doubling the ordinary number of applications to that Court. In 1860 about 2,820 petitions were filed in the Insolvency Court by imprisoned debtors; and of these 820 were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court in London, which extended from Norfolk on the one side to Hampshire on the other. These 820 cases would now fall within the jurisdiction of the court of the metropolitan district, over which the Chief Judge was to have a general control. Of the prisoners who appeared in the same year, 833 appeared in the London Court, and 1,883 in the different courts throughout the country; and of the estates which were realized, 129 were realized in the London Court and 119 in the country. The proceeds whereon dividends were declared amounted, in the London Court, to £20,247, and in the County Courts in the country to £15,790. The amount of scheduled debts in the London district was £365,760, and in the County Courts it was £169,845. The debts satisfied by payment or otherwise amounted to £24,431 in the London Court, and to £12,876 in the provinces. These figures made it manifest that the destruction of the Insolvency Court, and the transfer of its jurisdiction to the Court of Bankruptcy, would of necessity lead to a very considerable increase in the business of the latter, the number of insolvencies being very much larger in the course of a year than the number of bankruptcies. In 1860 there were cases of bankruptcy and petitions for private arrangement to the number of 1,336; but the cases of insolvency were more than double that number. The addition to the business of the Court being thus considerable, the number of appeals might be expected very largely to increase. In addition to the business that would arise from the destruction of the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, a variety of business was provided for the Chief Judge by the Bill, which would find him tolerably
  1100
  sufficient employment. For instance, there was the duty assigned to him of transacting business at chambers, under the 59th section. He had no doubt the result would be a most useful employment of a considerable portion of the Chief Judge's time. Every lawyer was aware how very important was the business transacted by the Judges at chambers. If the Judge were created, it would be found that, apart from his appellate jurisdiction and his business in Court, there would be a great amount of business that might be advantageously disposed of by him at Chambers, and which could not in any other manner be so conveniently despatched; and there was provided by this Bill the means of having recourse to the Chief Judge for his advice, assistance, and control, inexpensive in the last degree to the suitor and the insolvent estate. Clause 61 enabled any party to take the opinion of the Judge on any matter that might arise in the course of the proceedings, or on the result of the proceedings. It would be a great advantage conferred both on debtors and creditors, on the occurrence of any legal difficulty or impediment, to have the opportunity of prompt recourse to a competent tribunal, and to obtain the benefit of a deliberate adjudication from a Judge of distinguished position and character. This, therefore, would be another source of a very considerable addition to the ordinary business of a Chief Judge in Bankruptcy. Again, under Clause 67, the Chief Judge might direct any question of fact to he tried before a special or common jury, and he was to preside over their deliberations. Although, in conducting an estate of any considerable amount through bankruptcy, it was found that questions of legal nicety did from time to lime arise, it was equally well known that very often the most important questions of fact also arose, and at present the mode of disposing of them was highly inconvenient. It could not be doubted that it would be of great advantage, with reference to questions of fact, to have an opportunity afforded, at an early stage in the proceedings in bankruptcy, for a competent Judge to summon a jury and preside over their deliberations, and thus be the means at once and for ever, to the satisfaction of all parties, of disposing of such questions. But that was not all. Still further demands would be made on the time of the Chief Judge, for the purpose of determining questions that might arise on deeds of arrangement.

  1101
  The number of deeds of arrangement being already exceedingly large, it might be expected that they would still continue to be considerable, and many disputed questions of law or fact, arising out of their doubtful construction or confused Ianguage, would necessarily have to be determined. As against the 1,000 bankruptcies in the course of a year no less than 14,900 deeds of arrangement between debtor and creditor were found to be executed. A formidable multiplication of business might, therefore, be anticipated from that source. The Bill required all such deeds of arrangement to be registered, so as to be brought, as it were, under the notice of the Court, whose opinion and direction in respect to them the parties interested would have full opportunities of obtaining. It might be said, indeed, that the Lords had left these provisions practically untouched; but it should be remembered that they had struck out that part of the measure which created that tribunal and that Judge by whom, and by whom alone, these very extensive and novel powers could be beneficially exercised. Nor was that all. There were yet higher functions and duties which it was proposed the chief Judge should perform. Of course it was impossible to make men moral or honest by Act of Parliament. All that could be done was to express disapprobation of certain acts, as being unfair or immoral, or at all events illegal, and then to attach to those acts adequate and appropriate punishments. This course had been followed in the original framing of the Bill; and by it it had been sought to introduce important changes into what he might call the code of commercial morality. In England various acts of delinquency were made misdemeanours and rendered punishable as such, while other acts, less grave indeed, but still highly culpable, would be visited with punishments of considerable severity. It had been originally proposed by the measure, and assented to by the House, that that new and important criminal jurisdiction should be to a great extent vested in the Chief Judge. It was well known that a very large portion of the contested business in bankruptcy arose in connection with the applications for orders of discharge; and a very considerable amount of the cases which found their way, under the existing state of things, into the present Court of Appeal turned upon questions of that description. Having regard, then, to the enlarged and novel jurisdiction
  1102
  which this Bill would create, having regard also to the success, so much to be desired, of the experiment it contemplated for the improvement of the commercial morality of the country, it was of the last importance that the Judge who would be called upon prominently to wield these extensive and stringent powers should be a Judge of the highest rank and competency. His authority was one which, unhappily, they must expect would be frequently invoked; and that authority, without intending any reproach whatever to the present Commissioners in Bank ruptcy—could not be safely confided, except to an officer of the first judicial station and attainments. It was of great importance to secure uniformity of decision, and this would be accomplished by the appointment of a Chief Judge. He believed that, as far as might be among lawyers, there was unanimity among the members of his own profession on the clause providing that there should be a Chief Judge; and, without any disrespect to those hon. Members of the House who did not belong to the legal profession, he must be excused for saying that the subject was better understood by those who were lawyers than by hon. Gentlemen whose habits and associations were commercial. At the same time there appeared to be a very general concurrence on the part of the mercantile community in favour of that provision of the Bill being restored. A petition on the subject had been, within the previous few days, presented to that House by one of the hon. Members of the City of London. The signatures to that petition were great in number, and included the names of bankers and merchants of the highest eminence in this, the commercial metropolis of the world. The petition had 200 signatures attached to it, and of these twenty-six were the signatures of banking firms in the Metropolis; the remaining 174 were those of merchants whose names were a guarantee that they were fully competent to understand the provisions of the Bill. The petition stated that since the Bill had left that House several of the most valuable portions of it had been removed. It then went on to pray that provision might be made for several amendments in the law; and it especially prayed for the appointment of the Chief Judge, stating—
  "At present the law is administered by five different Commissioners, sitting in the same building, and frequently giving most conflicting

  1103
  decisions, thereby involving great uncertainty, while the only appellate jurisdiction,—namely, that of the Lords Justices, was one of a most expensive character."
  He believed that there was no good foundation for the presumption on which the clause for the appointment of the Chief Judge had been struck out in the other House. The argument mainly relied on was that there would be but scant employment for a Chief Judge; but, as under this Bill every County Court would be a Court of Bankruptcy, and as there were about sixty County Court Judges who heard cases at some 400 or 500 places, if there was only one appeal in each year from each of the County Courts, the Chief Judge would not be left in want of occupation; were he to hear appeals only. Believing, on the whole, that the Bill would not work satisfactorily if there was not a Chief Judge, he ventured to move that the House disagree to the Amendment of the Lords relative to a Chief Judge in Bankruptcy.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. BOVILLsaid, that, if there was that great unanimity of the lawyers and of the mercantile community in favour of the appointment of a Chief Judge which the Attorney General seemed to suppose, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have no difficult in procuring the restoration of the clause. He could, however, assure his hon. and learned Friend that there were lawyers both in and out of that House of some distinction who entertained an opinion on the subject exactly contrary to that which he had just expressed. There were lawyers of great eminence in the country who had pronounced an all but unanimous opinion in condemnation of the clause which his hon. and learned Friend so strongly supported, for when this question was under discussion in the Select Committee of the House of Lords there were present:—the late Lord Chancellor. Lord Cranworth, Lord St. Leonards, Lord Wensleydale, Lord Chelmsford, and Lord Kingsdown — no mean authorities on a question of judicial appointments, no mean exponents of the opinion of the most eminent lawyers of the day—and, if he was rightly informed, the omission of the clause for the Chief Judge was proposed by Lord Cranworth, and agreed to by the other noble and learned Lords, the late Lord Chancellor being the only dissentient. That was the unanimity that prevailed
  1104
  among those who had no interest except in the due administration of justice. His hon. and learned Friend was not more fortunate in regard to the opinions of the mercantile community. On the Committee to which he had referred there was one name that stood high as an authority among the commercial classes—he meant Lord Ovcrstone—and the rejection of the clause appointing a Chief Judge met with the approbation of Lord Overstone. Indeed, among all the Members of that Committee, including noble and learned Lords of all sides in politics, there was an unanimity of opinion for the rejection of this clause, with the exception of the Lord Chancellor. But his hon. and learned Friend referred to a memorial which had been addressed to the House by a body of merchants in the City of London, who objected to the present system, and preferred a Chief Judge because of the expense attending the present system of appeals. But the expense of the appeals had no reference to the question at issue, for nothing would be more easy than to transfer the simple and inexpensive mode of appeal provided in the Bill to the present system of appeals to the Lords Justices. These petitioners had evidently been misled on the supposed difference of the expense. Other opinions altogether in favour of striking out the Chief Judge clause had been expressed by the mercantile community. The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce had carefully considered the matter, and he would refer the House to the petition which his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool had presented to-night from them. They objected to certain alterations that had been made by the Lords, but they did not object to the striking out of the clause for appointing a Chief Judge. There was also an important petition from Manchester, signed by forty-eight of the principal firms in that city. They not only did not object, but they stated their opinion that the appointment of a Chief Judge would be an useless expenditure of the public money, as the Lords Justices disposed of the appeals in a perfectly satisfactory manner, and they had ample time at their disposal for the purpose. There was also a standing Committee representing various chambers of commerce—he would not read all the names, but the list comprised those of Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Leeds, Hull, and Sheffield, besides the comparatively minor towns of Wolverhampton, Co-

  1105
  ventry, and other places; they stated certain objections to the Lords' Amendments, but they did not object to the rejection of the Chief Judge. He had listened with great attention to what he might call the laboured exposition which his hon. and learned Friend had given of the duties which the Chief Judge would have to perform. But his hon. and learned Friend forgot that there was another important body beside the Judge. There were the Commissioners in Bankruptcy, and when his hon. and learned Friend argued that the House of Lords had struck out the clause relative to the Judge, and that there was now no one able to exercise jurisdiction in regard to these deeds of arrangement, he was greatly mistaken. The clause set forth that "the Court" might do such and such things. That Court existed and exercised its functions by the Commissioners of the Court. What was the origin of the appointment of this Judge? In the Session of I860 a Bankruptcy Bill was introduced as a measure of consolidation. On that occasion it was proposed to appoint a Judge, but to abolish the Commissioners; while the objection to the present measure was that it kept both the Judge and the Commissioners to perform their functions at the double expense to the country. All the arguments used by his hon. and learned Friend as to the duties of the Judge and the extent of his business were addressed to the Legislature in 1831, when Lord Brougham proposed to pass his great Bill appointing permanent Commissioners and a superior Court of Bankruptcy, to consist of four Judges. It was then asserted that it was necessary to have a Court so constituted as to command respect. It was said then, as it was said now, that the business was so large that it was necessary to have a new court. There were, then, to he Commissioners and a superior Court of appeal, consisting, not as was now proposed, of a single Judge, but of a regular court of four Judges, in order that their decisions might command the respect of the country. The experiment was tried, and the four Judges were appointed; but in the course of a few years several of the Judges were pensioned off, a single Judge was found sufficient to do the whole work, and soon afterwards the single Judge was abolished also. The Commissioners were found to perform their duties so satisfactorily—the appeals from their judgments were so few—that from sheer want of business the Court was actually and en-
  1106
  tirely abolished. But if a Court of Appeal was necessary why need they have recourse to a new court? The Legislature had already selected for its Court of Appeal one of the best courts that could be provided—a court that was presided over by two of the ablest lawyers in the country—who had ample time, opportunity, and ability to decide all cases that came before them—he referred to the Lords Justices, who were now constituted the Court of Appeal in Bankruptcy. Was there any one bold enough to say that that was not a satisfactory Court of Appeal? Had there been a single complaint as to the mode in which the appeal business had been administered by the Lords Justices, or had they delayed the decision in any cases that had come before them? Why, the appeal business had given them fifteen days' occupation out of the whole year, and the number of appeals had been forty-two. Did that show any ground why a new Judge should be constituted? Did his hon. and learned Friend know the position of some of the Courts of Chancery? Did he know that some of the Vice-Chancellors and the Master of the Rolls had sometimes to close their Courts for want of business? Did he know that the Vice-Chancellors had the power to act as Judges of the Court if necessary? The fact was that there was abundance of judicial power to deal with these cases. If they wanted a new Judge, let them give an additional Judge to those Common Law Courts which were so overwhelmed with arrears that two Courts would scarcely be sufficient to perform the duties now thrown upon one. The Government were now proposing to put the country to the expense of £5,000 for the Judge, together with the salary of the registrar of the Judge, in order to perform those duties which up to the present moment had been amply and satisfactorily performed by the tribunal of the Lords Justices. But, putting the Lords Justices aside for the moment, he would ask this question—What opinion would be entertained throughout the country of the decision of any gentleman who was raised from the ranks of the Bar, if that decision were given in opposition to the judgment of such men as Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, for instance, who had acted for the last thirty years in his capacity of Commissioner in Bankruptcy, and who had made the study of that branch of the profession the business of his life? Would such an opinion command the respect of the country?

  1107
  Then his hon. and learned Friend went very laboriously through a vast mass of duties which he said the Judge would have to perform. He would not attempt to follow him through them all. He would content himself with one or two instances. He would remind the House that the Bill as it went to the House of Lords not only provided for an appeal from the Commissioners to this new Judge, but further, for an appeal from the Judge to the Lords Justices. So that if he differed both from the Commissioners and from the Lords Justices he would have no power of control, for the Lords Justices would overrule his decision. His appointment would be useless at the best, for if he agreed in opinion with the Commissioners his judgment would add no weight; if he disagreed, and his judgment was appealed against—as in such a case it would surely be—his interposition would only add to the expense and delay. The scheme of the present Bill was founded on the Bill of 1860, and transferred to gentlemen who held the office of registrars the greater part of the business in bankruptcy now transacted by the Commissioners, and he should like to know what the Commissioners would have to do. The 59th Clause of the original Bill provided that the Chief Judge and Commissioners should respectively sit at chambers, and what the House of Lords said was that if the Commissioners were fit for that duty let them perform it without the Chief Judge. His learned Friend had spoken of the probable increase in the number of appeals, and referred to the insolvency jurisdiction and to the number of cases likely to arise from deeds of arrangement. But who could say before-hand that there would be this increased number of appeals? And with respect to the insolvency cases, in a great many instances the assets were very small and insignificant, and the House might depend on it that, however numerous the bankruptcies and insolvencies might be, there would not be found, unless the estates were worth fighting for, any great number of appeals. The House was called on to sanction a new Judge with £5,000 a year, on the mere allegation that there might be an increase of appeals, though in the Divorce Court, where the necessity for further judicial power had been actually felt, the Government did not propose to supply that want. He thought that, in respect to the Bankruptcy Court, it would be ample time to appoint a new
  1108
  Judge when the necessity for one was by experience rendered manifest. If this increased number of appeals should arise the Lords Justices would be found able to go through them, and, if necessary, they could have the assistance of one or two of the Vice-Chancellors or of the Master of the Rolls. The next matter touched on by his learned Friend had reference to the trials by jury; but it should be borne in mind that the Lords Justices, and the Commissioners also, had power to try by jury, just as much as the Judge; and that many important questions constantly arose out of bankruptcy cases, which the Judge in bankruptcy would have no power to try. Such, for instance, were the cases in which persons, being neither creditors or debtors, and over whom the Bankruptcy Court had no jurisdiction, complained of the seizure of their property, and brought their actions in the ordinary Courts. The advantages of uniformity had been much dwelt on, but they might have both uniformity of decision and sound judgment form the Lords Justices. He contended that the Commissioners in Bankruptcy formed a perfectly fit tribunal for the cases which would come before the Court. Not a word of complaint had been made against them personally, although it had been said that they had no sufficient occupation, and that their duties were for the most part mere routine. However, when any important case requiring decision came on, they were there to hear it, and they had discharged their duties with satisfaction to everybody. It was now proposed to substitute a Court of Appeal, which would be worse than that now existing, composed of the Lords Justices. Moreover, the cost of appealing would be the same, whether the Court consisted of two Judges or of one. He, therefore, submitted to the House that there was no sufficient reason for restoring this clause. The decision of the Lords had been all but unanimous, five ex-Chancellors being of opinion that the appointment of a new Judge was unnecessary. Their opinion was confirmed by the petitions from Manchester and Liverpool, and he trusted that the House would agree to the Lord's Amendments.
  MR. COLLIERsaid, he did not think that the House would be much influenced in its decision by the opinion of lawyers on either side. The question was whether reasons had been given to induce the House to alter its unanimous opinion on this subject, and he certainly thought,

  1109
  after careful consideration, that no sufficient reasons had been given. The changes proposed in the law could not be carried satisfactorily into operation unless the Court of Bankruptcy were presided over by a superior Judge. It was absolutely necessary that the Court should have a head, or it would break down under the new labours imposed upon it. Even at present the Court was not remarkable for uniformity of decision, or for the order which prevailed there; and under the new jurisdiction it would become confusion worse confounded, unless a Chief Judge were appointed. Parliament was about to enact changes in the law of bankruptcy as important and extensive as those effected in the law of probate and divorce. There those changes had been eminently successful, mainly because they had been carried into effect by a Judge of the first class, who, by the exercise of great judicial ability and great patience and labour, had established a new system harmonious in itself and in harmony with the rest of our jurisprudence. If, however, the administration of the new law of divorce had been intrusted to a set of inferior officials, accustomed only to the old law, and whose decisions differed from each other, there would have been confusion instead of harmony, and instead public satisfaction murmurs of discontent. The application of the bankrupt law to nontraders might, it was thought, be harsh and injurious, and an attempt had been made to guard against that danger; but the safeguards which the House could invent were comparatively valueless without the most important of all safeguards—the administration of the law by a Judge of the highest ability and learning. He doubted whether, if the House had believed that the law would be administered by Commissioners, they would ever have abolished the distinction between traders and nontraders. He had no wish to speak in disparagement of the Commissioners, but neither their position at the Bar before appointment, nor the mode in which they had transacted their business since, marked them in the estimation of the profession or of the public as first-rate Judges. Their decisions had been notoriously conflicting, and those decisions had never carried any weight or authority in Westminster Hall. After the passing of the Bill most important questions would speedily arise upon the interpretation of the new law, and it was essential that they should be so decided as to prevent future litigation. It was said
  1110
  that the Commissioners had long experience of the old system; but he doubted whether this would be the best possible qualification in the working of the new. They would have to learn and to unlearn much, and the latter was a very difficult process. He was far from saying that they would not be useful under the guidance and superintendence of a first-rate Judge, but it would not be prudent or safe to leave it to them to carry out the great and important changes now effected. Again, it was desirable to appoint a Judge now rather than when confusion should have arisen; to use a sporting figure, there ought to be a first-rate whip to start the new team. With regard to the trials by jury which had been proposed, the Commissioners had never charged a jury in their lives, and some, possibly, had never seen one. The House of Lords, therefore, feeling that it would be Commissioners, had struck out the trial by jury altogether. It was true that the Lords Justices were empowered to call a jury; but would that provision work? An attempt had lately been made to transplant trial by jury into the Court of Chancery, but the exotic did not flourish there; it withered and died; and he had heard that the last jury-box had been removed from the last Vice Chancellor's Court on the motion of a learned friend of his that it was a nuisance, and ought to be taken away. Much could not be hoped for, then, from trial by jury before the Lords Justices. As to the new criminal jurisdiction created in bankruptcy, and the power of obtaining the opinion of the Court upon the statement of a special case, the Commissioners could not be properly instructed with such functions. Commissioner A might give one opinion on a special case, Commissioner B another; and, if there was a tertium quid, Commissioner C might give a third. The uniformity of decision which would be secured by a first-rate Judge would here be wholly wanting. Then, again, an important jurisdiction would arise—that of determining all disputes under deeds of arrangement. If all these functions were intrusted to the Commissioners, the change in the law, instead of being a success, would turn out a disastrous failure. It had been said, to his surprise, in "another place" that a new Judge would not have enough to do, and that he would only have appeals to occupy him for fifteen days in the year, the appeals before the Lords Justices only occupying that time; but his hon. and

  1111
  learned Friend the Attorney General had shown conclusively that the number of appeals would double and quadruple under the new system. Increased efficiency in the tribunal would create increased business; and, for his own part, he should not be surprised if the number of appeals increased tenfold. But the new Judge would not only hear appeals; he would have an extensive original jurisdiction. In the first place, he would have to hear all the opposed orders for the discharge of bankrupts within the London district. That business alone would occupy him a great portion of the year, and in such cases it would be very desirable to have uniform decisions. Besides that trials by jury would give an original jurisdiction, which it was most important to encourage. Every tribunal should have the power to deal complete justice between the suitors. It was not right to hand suitors over from one jurisdiction to another, and the Court of Bankruptcy ought itself to determine, as far as it might be, every disputed question which arose in the cases before it. Then there was the criminal jurisdiction, and the opinions upon special cases, besides which the Chief Judge would also have to sit in chambers for the purpose of superintending and controlling the administration of the law. It appeared to him that, in order to secure the beneficial object of the Bill, it was necessary to have a new Judge of the first class, whose time would be fully occupied by the business that would come before him as any Judge in Westminster Hall. Nay, it was probable that in a year or two he would require assistance. He hoped that House would adhere to its original opinion, and if they thought it was right to vote £5,000 a year for the administration of public justice the House of Lords, notwithstanding its new-born zeal to protect the national finances, would not venture to resist an improvement in the administration of the law, which, however unimportant to themselves, materially concerned the great middle class of the country.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he had not, like some of his hon. Friends, changed his opinion upon this subject, and, therefore, thought that a Chief Judge ought to be appointed, and that without such an officer the Bill would be worse than useless. The bankruptcy laws had for a long time worked badly, and there had been a great outcry against the system. In 1856 he called attention to the evils, and he then sug-
  1112
  gested that the only way by which they could be removed would be to entirely abolish the Commissioners, and to begin with a new system, and appoint a Chief Judge in bankruptcy, with the rank and emoluments of a Judge in Westminster Hall. In the Bill which his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, introduced last year, that suggestion was carried out; and it was proposed to abolish the office of the Commissioners, giving them a retiring allowance of full pay, and appointing a Chief Judge. That plan would have cost £10,000 a year for the Commissioners and £5,000 for the Judge. On that occasion no opposition was raised to the appointment of the Chief Judge by the hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), or the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns). The clauses passed the House without a dissentient voice. How was it, then, there had been such a sudden change in the opinions of the hon. and learned Member for Guildford and the hon. and learned Member for Belfast? The hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) and himself adhered to their opinions. They were not made of such changeable materials. Nor could the unanimity of opinion of five noble and learned Lords, who had for years withdrawn from the practice of their profession, induce him to depart from conclusions which were founded on his daily experience. He had the utmost respect for the learned Commissioners by whom the law, as it at present stood, was administered, but then he quite concurred with those who said that their decisions did not constitute an authoritative exposition of our commercial law, and it would, he contended, be impossible to secure the services of a person of the requisite judicial weight if only a small salary were given. The same course ought to be adopted with regard to the Court of Bankruptcy that was adopted with regard to the Court of Chancery in 1852. Before that time the Court of Chancery was a disgrace to any civilized community. In 1852 the entire system was changed, and now the Court of Chancery was a credit to the country. He repeated that unless the Court was removed to Westminster Hall, to the other Courts of law, and placed under a Chief Judge, instead of the existing five Commissioners, the Bill would be a failure. He would rather see the Bill withdrawn altogether than assent to an arrangement by which they should continue the Commissioners for the

  1113
  present, and consider hereafter the expediency of appointing a Chief Judge. In two successive years the Bill had passed through the House with the clause appointing a Chief Judge without any opposition, and he was at a loss to understand why it should be opposed by any hon. Member upon that occasion. It was supported, moreover, not only by the merchants and bankers of the city of London, but also by the great mass of mercantile authority throughout the country. The Chief Judge would have plenty to do. As the Bill abolished the Insolvency Court, and transferred its jurisdiction to the Court of Bankruptcy, there would of necessity be many more appeals than heretofore, and from that source alone the Chief Judge would get abundance of employment. It was absurd to suggest that the Vice Chancellors could assist the Lords Justices in hearing appeals in bankruptcy. The Courts of the Vice Chancellors were overwhelmed with business, and neither they nor the Master of the Rolls could undertake any other duties. He thought that the Commissioners ought to have been allowed to retire; but their retention would not interfere with the duties assigned to the Chief Judge, and the Bill provided for the reduction of their number form five to three. For these reasons, and because he believed the Bill would not work without a Chief Judge, he hoped the House would disagree with the Lords' Amendments.
  MR. ROLTsaid, he wished to state, very briefly, the reasons which induced him to think that it would be wise in the House to agree to the Lords' Amendments. Nothing could be more unwise than to tamper year after year with the constitution of the tribunals of the country, and to make changes which those who proposed them represented as not final, which were introduced for a temporary purpose, which were adopted with a view to expediency, and which did not carry into effect the views of their authors. Last Session the Bankruptcy Bill was introduced with a distinct statement by the hon. and learned Attorney General that his object was to place the ordinary and original jurisdiction in bankruptcy, as far as the metropolitan district was concerned, in the hands of a Chief Judge, putting an end to the Commissioners. To that measure there could be no reasonable objection, but to retain the original jurisdiction in bankruptcy with the Commissioners, and at the same time to appoint a Chief Judge was a proposal to which
  1114
  he, for one, could not assent. It was only necessary to refer to the changes which had been made in the constitution of the Court of Bankruptcy to see that it was now proposed to go back to a system which had been already tried and had failed, and to be satisfied that we shall have to tamper again with the constitution of the Court in the course of a few years. What were the changes which had been made during recent years in the constitution of the Court? At the beginning of the reign of William IV. the Court of Bankruptcy was instituted with one chief Judge, three other Judges, six Commissioners in London, and a certain number of Commissioners throughout the country. By the 10th and 11th of the Queen the Court of Review was abolished, and the powers were to be exercised by one of the Vice Chancellors. After that, a Consolidation Act was passed, and the London Commissioners were reduced to four. By the 14th and 15th of the Queen the jurisdiction of the Vice Chancellor in bankruptcy was transfered to the Lords Justices of Appeal. All these various changes had taken place in the constitution of one tribunal, and they were again going back to that system which had been the first in the series of changes. The whole had been a tentative proceeding, and hitherto had not succeeded. The system of a single Judge, not having Commissioners with him, had not yet been tried, and had much to recommend it. He entirely agreed with many of the arguments which had been urged in its favour. The system of bankruptcy might be consolidated, having regard to what was done in the Court of Probate, with great advantage. Instead of having Commissioners all over the country the formal business might be done by registrars with a Chief Judge in London, with whom they might communicate, and the experiment of such a system might judiciously be first tried in the London district. This was the Government scheme of last year. But if they went on tampering with the constitution of the Court, by merely going now backwards and now forwards, there could be no hope of real progress; they never would get at a trial of that system which it was evidently the desire of the Government to promote. It would be far better and wiser to continue the present system a little longer, in order to see what new business would be introduced by the new measure. The extent of that new business, he believed, had

  1115
  been greatly exaggerated by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier). The change was comparatively small and unimportant, as far as the duties of the heads of the Court were concerned. It would not so add to the duties of the Court that it would be impossible it should continue for a reasonable time to see what machinery might be wanted to carry into execution the changes in the law now effected. Nothing could be more easy or natural. There was a tribunal already consisting of Commissioners and a Court of Appeal. As far as the Court of Appeal was concerned every one admitted that it was a competent Court, and since the Government though approving of the abolition of Commissioners were not willing now to press such a measure, the obvious course was to continue for the present the existing judicial machinery. It was a mere hallucination on the part of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to speak as he did of the delays before the Lords Justices. If parties were not ready with their appeals delay must of course intervene; but when parties were ready their cases might be always put on the Bankrupt paper for hearing and be heard within a week. The cases were always put in the paper and disposed of on the second day appointed for hearing, if not on the first. But, said his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, here was another dreadful abuse, an appeal cost £60, and, therefore, they must have a Chief Judge. There was no logical connection whatever between the two, nor did his hon. and learned Friend say for how much less than £60 he supposed important questions could be brought before an appellate Court for decision. The question was reduced simply to this—Should they when introducing changes in the law of bankruptcy be governed in deciding on the requisite judicial machinery, by the extent to which these changes would introduce new work? Let them, first of all, see how the new work could be disposed of under the existing machinery, and, having ascertained the extent of the new duties, then let them come forward with a measure to constitute the Court once for all, if a reconstitution shall be necessary. But do not let them tamper with the Court on the present occasion, admitting as they must that the alterations is not to be final. Constant appeals to what he or any other Member had said or thought in regard to that measure were wholly beside the ques-
  1116
  tion. He had, however, always been disposed to support the original view of the Government for a Chief Judge without Commissioners as an experiment in the London district, and he still believed that when the present measure had been fairly tried, the time would arrive for having a Chief Judge, and for remodelling the constitution of the Commissioners and Registrars.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, the House had hitherto had very much of a legal discussion on this question, and he trusted it would now give him, as the representative of a commercial community which took a great interest in bankruptcy reform, a few moments' attention while he stated the views entertained by his constituents. The hon. and learned Member who spoke last advocated a Micawber-like mode of dealing with the subject, thinking that they should wait a year or two until they saw what might turn up. That would not be a very expedient course. If they waited a year or two, they would be told that the question was settled as lately as 1861, and that it was too soon to interfere with it. His constituents were not favourable to that suggestion. On the contrary, they desired him to state that any alteration of the law of bankruptcy which did not embrace the appointment of a Chief Judge would be wholly unsatisfactory to the mercantile community, and they would far rather the Bill should be altogether lost than passed into law without that provision. There was almost perfect unanimity of opinion on that matter in the City, as indicated by the petition he had recently presented, to which 800 signatures had been appended, and amongst them those of twenty-five of the principal bankers. Sentiments nearly identical to those of his constituents had been expressed, by petition and otherwise, in all other parts of the country, with the single exception of Manchester, and, perhaps, also, of Birmingham. At the late meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, held to discuss this subject, and which arrived at conclusions favourable to the measure as approved by that House, among the principal towns represented were Belfast, Bristol, Coventry, Dundee, Glasgow, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, Norwich, Wolverhampton, &c. With respect to the opinion of Manchester, he wished to draw attention to certain facts connected with the expression of that opinion. In February last certain mercantile firms in Manchester addressed a memorial to the hon. and

  1117
  learned Attorney General on the question. In April they also addressed a petition to the other House, complaining of the uncertainty, expense, and delay at present attendant on proceedings in bankruptcy, asking for increased facilities for arrangements, and declaring that the standing and character of the Courts ought to be improved, and that uniformity in the administration of the law ought to be secured. But how could such uniformity be secured while the law was administered by five or more different persons? The existing Commissioners were not responsible for the defective state of the law; but the creditors of a bankrupt did not know into whose court they were going; they said that if they only knew that, they could form some idea of how the case was likely to be settled; and, in short, the whole matter was now a perfect lottery. Besides that, there was an utter want of dignity about the existing tribunals, which deprived them of that public respect which ought to be secured for any court of justice. To return to the petitions from Manchester. Attached to the first of those petitions there were 62 signatures; to the second only 48. He had a memorial from a gentleman representing one of the large mercantile bodies at Manchester; and, although that and another body had about 1,500 or 1,600 firms belonging to them, only 48 out of that number prayed that House to agree to the Lords' Amendments. These 48 firms, he understood, represented property to the amount of £14,000,000; but he was assured that £200,000,000 more nearly represented the property held by the 800 firms whose signatures were appended to the petition in favour of the Bill; and he earnestly prayed the House to give due weight to the opinion so forcibly expressed by that petition.
  MR. HORSFALLobserved, that he would not have said a word on that occasion had the hon. Gentleman confined his remarks to his own constituents; but the hon. Gentleman had spoken also for Birmingham and Liverpool. And in justice to the hon. Gentleman he must state that he thought he had been somewhat deceived by the circular he had received from the deputation of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. He had himself received a similar circular, and he found, on inquiry, that Liverpool was not represented in it at all. The Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool had spoken for itself; its petition to the House was in reference to one clause
  1118
  only of the Lords' Amendments, the clause which referred to creditors' assignees. As to that clause, the petition affirmed the principle laid down in the Bill, but on the question of the appointment of a Chief Judge it expressed no opinion whatever. On that point he believed that opinions in Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham were very much divided. Had he himself felt any doubt on the subject, the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Guildford would have satisfied him that the appointment of a Chief Judge would be neither more nor less than a waste of the public money.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he believed that the trading classes in Manchester were not opposed to a Chief Judge, though there was, no doubt, great division of opinion upon the matter. He had been urged on various occasions by his constituents to support the Bill, and he had acted in accordance with their wish. Still, he thought that no one section of the community ought to decide the question, but the great and disproportionate cost of the distribution of bankrupts' assets under the existing system was an unanswerable argument in favour of the Bill. Of all the plans proposed for the distribution of bankrupts' estates the plan embodied in the Bill was the best. If they were to go on spending 50 per cent of a bankrupt's estate for distributing it, they had better, like the Americans, have no bankruptcy law at all, but let the creditors scramble for it.
  MR. TURNERsaid, he had felt for some little time, owing to the number of questions which had been addressed to him, as if he were upon the hustings in the face of his constituents. It certainly was not very flattering to the ability of hon. and learned Gentlemen at the other side to hear them all referring to a petition from forty-eight individuals, as if it contained rules which ought to guide the conduct of the House. The forty-eight firms which had signed the petition in question were all of the highest respectability, and doubtless represented, as they stated, £14,000,000 of credit given, though he hoped for their own sake they would never be obliged to collect them in the Bankrupt Court. But he must be excused for saying that such an amount, large as it undoubtedly was, by no means represented the entire wealth of Manchester. In common with the hon. Member for Liverpool he could state that great diversity of opinion existed on the subject among his constitu-

  1119
  ents. For a long time serious complaints had been made of the delay and expense of proceedings in the present Courts of Bankruptcy, and the attention of the Chambers of Commerce had frequently been directed to the fact that but a small percentage of the sums collected under that system found their way into the pockets of the creditors. One of the forty-eight gentlemen to whom reference had been so freely made told him that his objections to the appointment of the Chief Judge would be greatly lessened if that dignitary were really efficient, and if arrangements could be made by which he would go circuit through the different provinces, like the other Judges. He should give his vote in favour of the Bill in its original shape.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the debate rendered it evident that diversity of opinion did not merely exist out of doors on the question, for arguments more conflicting and contradictory he had never listened to. He certainly had been surprised at the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford), for, not content with putting forward his own views, he set to work to dissect the opinions of others. That did not show a very great confidence in his own arguments; and, moreover, when central bodies met in London and petitions were presented nearly in the same words, those who were acquainted with the way such things were managed did not attach as much weight to their decision as if the petitions had been the result of spontaneous action. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) said it was most important for the non-traders that there should be an efficient Chief Judge. But the question immediately presented itself who was that Chief Judge to be? Were the judgments of any barrister of twelve years' standing likely to be received with more confidence than those of the Lords Justices? Such a Judge would be an unknown quantity against two good ones; and, as far he was concerned, he should be very willing to trust any interest he might have in the hands of the Lords Justices, who, he believed, formed a very safe tribunal. Then the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) thought the Bill entirely wrong, but it was not possible to understand the force of his reasoning. The hon. and learned Member said that five years ago he had declared that the Commissioners, who had little to do, and did that little badly, ought to be abolished. But now he declared his wil-
  1120
  lingness, not only to retain those Commissioners, but to employ a Chief Judge to assist them. The hon. and learned Member contended that those who had not before opposed the clause were now precluded from doing so. But he maintained that on a subject where such great diversity of opinion existed, both in and out of the House, and where the measure had come down from "another place," supported by such a weight of authority, those hon. Members who previously had no very strong opinion on the subject, but were now forced to look at all the arguments on both sides, might not unreasonably exercise an independent judgment. The strongest argument, however, in favour of the appointment was that of the hon. and learned Attorney General—that he would have plenty to do; and he (Mr. Henley) wished to call the attention of the Attorney General and the hon. Member for Manchester to this point. The Attorney General had argued that it was a mistake to suppose the Chief Judge would have nothing to do, and, referring to the jurisdiction which was to be given to the County Courts, had calculated that if there was one appeal from every place at which a County Court Judge held his sittings they would amount in number to not less than 500 per annum. That must be a great consolation to the country districts, but if there was to be no delay in disposing of these cases they would want more than one Judge. The real question at issue was, had they now sufficient judicial power to dispose of the appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy? If it was sufficient, all parties were agreed that the existing tribunal was a good one. Until it was tried we could not tell whether it was sufficient or not. If it was found to be insufficient it would be easy to add a Judge, but if a Judge was once appointed he could not be got rid of without a superannuation allowance. That process had been gone through once within thirty years, and those who recollected that occurrence were naturally rather shy of appointing a high judicial officer until it was clear that his services were required. As far as his information went he believed that the existing judicial power was sufficient, and before appointing another Judge he should like to see it tried. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) had referred to the jury trials for the various misdemeanours which were created by the Bill. As the measure left that House the Judge who was to direct the

  1121
  prosecution of the bankrupt was also to preside at his trial. For his own part he approved the change which had been made by the House of Lords, and thought that it was more consistent with justice that a man charged with a crime should be sent to be tried by a perfectly independent tribunal. For these reasons he thought that the alteration which had been made in the Bill was a good one, and should vote in favour of the Amendment of the Lords.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, the existing system had been weighed in the balance during the last twenty years, and had been found essentially wanting. It was said that insolvency in the country had decreased, but he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that it had enormously increased, and chiefly in consequence of the defective state of the law on the subject. In almost every case of insolvency the party called his creditors together, and offered a larger sum in the pound than they knew they could get through the Court of Bankruptcy; and although they might consider in many instances that it was less than it ought to be, it generally happened that they accepted the offer. Every creditor knew that the moment an estate got into bankruptcy he lost all practical control over the assets of the insolvent. The Commissioners were excellent and worthy men, but the public had not faith in their surveillance and control over the official assignees, and the result was that a very small proportion of the cases of insolvency went into the Bankruptcy Court. Under the Bill as it passed that House he believed there would be a general resort by creditors to the Bankruptcy Court; and for himself, he thought that if they did not introduce a Chief Judge who would obtain the confidence of the mercantile community they had better abandon the Bill altogether.
  MR. WALPOLE: I think it is a great misfortune that the debate on this subject should not have been taken in Committee. It is a still greater misfortune that we should now have to argue the question on an Amendment which has been introduced in a Select Committee of the House of Lords, and which has never been fully discussed in either House, instead of considering it in Committee with a view to ascertain whether we have made the best provisions for carrying into effect a new law of great importance. The consequence has been that neither the mind of this nor the other House, nor the mind of the country, has been called to the matter. The ques-
  1122
  tion, therefore, is one of first impression, and has never been discussed. Treating it as such, I am bound to look at it without regard to anything which has passed before, since nothing has passed in parliament before, and to consider whether we really require a new Judge, with a salary for £5,000, to superintend the adminstration of this law when it is first set on foot. From all I have heard in the course of the debate this appears to be clear, that to introduce the great alterations which you are attempting with regard to the assimilation of Insolvency and Bankruptcy and the practical abolition of imprisonment for debt without a superintending Judge would be very disadvantageous. To that extent, therefore, I am in favour of the measure as originally sent up to the House of Lords. I am bound, however, to ask myself the question which my right hon. Friend has so forcibly put to the House—whether, this measure being purely tentative and experimental, and not a final settlement of this great and difficult question, is it right to saddle the country with the expense of a new Judge, unless we are absolutely certain that a new Judge will be required? My own opinion, unquestionably, is that the necessary superintendence may be obtained in the same way which was once adopted before, of grafting the Judgeship in Bankruptcy on one of the Vice Chancellors for the time being. I think we had better do that in the meantime, and thus secure all the advantages of an able superintending Judge to keep the law uniform, without committing ourselves to a new appointment, which we might afterwards have to recall. Whatever may happen with regard to this particular Motion, the course I shall think it right to take will be clear. If the question should be negatived I shall be content to leave the matter for one year under the superintendence of two of the ablest Judges on the Bench, the Lords Justices of Appeal, trusting that after that experiment you will see whether it is necessary to appoint an independent Judge for the future. If, on the other hand, the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General should be carried, I think it will be very questionable whether, when we come to Clause 3, we ought not to amend it by omitting the words creating a new Judgeship, and inserting words to the effect that one of the Vice Chancellors for the time being shall be the Chief Judge in the Court of Bankruptcy. I am aware

  1123
  that some doubt has been entertained whether an Amendment of that kind can be proposed after the Lords have rejected the clause; but I believe that precedents have been discovered which show that it is in the power of the House to adopt it.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Sir, I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken in thinking that it is very much to be regretted that this subject was not discussed in this House on a former stage by those who are the opponents of the proposition made by the Government. But I cannot admit that the mind either of Parliament or of the country has not been addressed to the principle. All was done which it was possible to do no the part of the Government to impress on the mind of the House that this was an important part of the Bill. Its policy and object were clearly explained by my noble Friend the present Lord Chancellor. Nor was it introduced suddenly. It was contained in several former propositions on the subject, it has been years under discussion, and not a single voice has been seriously raised against it. The mind of the House has been as far addressed to the subject as is possible without opposition from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. Still further from the truth is it that the mind of the country has not been called to the question. For years the country has been knocking at the door of the House, proclaiming the failure of the old system, and demanding a reform. The whole mercantile community were urgent in their demand for a change, and insisted that no time was to be lost. Nay, so urgent were they that they even complained of the unavoidable delay which occurred in giving the measure proper consideration. That demand was not an idle one. It was supported by the remarkable fact that for a series of years the business in bankruptcy had been declining, and that by the side of the system was growing up, in enormous proportions, a substituted system of private arrangements, which withdrew the liquidation of insolvent estates altogether form the cognizance of the law. Such a state of things spoke volumes as to the absolute necessity of reorganization and reform. What was the cause of the state of things? I will appeal to the most unfavourable witnesses we can discover—to those forty-eight Manchester firms whose single voice in the whole mercantile community of the kingdom is now raised in
  1124
  favour of the Lords' Amendments. These firms tell us now that the Lords Justices do the business perfectly, and that no other Judge is required. But on a previous occasion, when these petitioners had to unfold the tale of their grievances and describe the remedy they sought, they complained of the uncertainty of decisions, and submitted that among the great desiderata of a just reform were uniformity of decision and standing, character, and dignity of the Courts. What did that mean? What could it mean, except that there should be a Judge to preside over the administration of this branch of Justice, in order to reduce incoherence and inconsistency to order and uniformity? The rest of the mercantile community have taken that view of the matter, and to no point has the attention of the country been more fully directed.
  In approaching this subject with a view of repairing the evils of which the petitioners complain, we should endeavour to prune away all the abuses we could discern, and to meet the reasonable wishes of the mercantile community as far as possible. At all events, we should aim at removing any impediments which prevent the whole business of bankruptcy and insolvency from being brought within the scope of one law, and at giving unity, consistency, and authority to the administration of this department of justice. To effect this it is necessary to have a head, a centre, a presidency, a ruling genius to control the operation of the system, and such a head the Government propose in the person of the Chief Judge. To strike him out of the scheme is to reduce it to the same disorder and confusion which you find in the existing arrangements, and which it is your object to put an end to. The way in which this House—I will not say has proceeded, but is asked to proceed, by those who support the Lords' Amendment, is most singular. Last year a Bill was introduced which proposed to abolish the Commissioners, and to put them on pensions, and have a Judge. No one objected to that abolition, or to the Judge, only you would not pension the Commissioners. This year the Government is not departing from that principle, but, deferring to the views of the House, by an arrangement which after all is only of a temporary character, they propose a transition of a more gradual character in lieu of the more abrupt transition provided by the Bill of last year. They do not depart from the principle of authority—from the

  1125
  principle of unanimity; but they say, "Since the House does not like pensions we will retain the Commissioners, and make use of them as long as they will give their services to the public. The transition shall be gradual, but the Commissioners shall no longer be independent units, each revolving in his own orbit, and all utterly ignoring each other. All shall be subordinate under one chief, who shall reduce to order that system of which he is the head." The Bill provides for the reduction of the number of Commissioners as vacancies may happen. Power in taken in the Bill to retain a maximum number of three Commissioners, but the Bill does not stop there, for Clause 23 gives an elastic discretion to reduce the number below that maximum, if it be shown by practice that the business can be conveniently discharged by less then the three; and in order to facilitate the reduction, and to pave the way, if it may be fond convenient, to the ultimate abolition of the Commissioners altogether, there is a machinery for employing the registrars in all ministerial, and not properly judicial, business which can be discharged by them. The Bill, therefore, contains within itself the elements of a self-regulated system, which will, in the course of nature and necessary events, bring you to the point to which you would have been brought by the Bill of last year. Last year the House would not have a Judge with the Commissioners pensioned off. Now some hon. Gentlemen will not have a Judge with the Commissioners working till they die off, or until they are by other means gradually reduced. Is that because they like Commissioners? I have not heard that stated. Of course, as regards the Commissioners themselves there is no voice raised against them. The faults with which we are endeavouring to deal are faults of the system. and those learned gentlemen are not to be held responsible for them; but no one has held that it is desirable to maintain the present system of Commissioners. I have not heard a word which would indicate that. I must express my concurrence with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, that it is a misfortune that we do not know on what principle the Lords proceeded. I cannot help thinking that this part of the case did not receive the consideration to which it was entitled; and to this we may, in a great measure, attribute the alteration which we now ask the House to remove,
  1126
  and which I venture to think was hastily and unadvisedly introduced. But my right hon. and learned Friend who last addressed the House said that this was an experimental measure, and was accordingly to be treated in an experimental way. I deny it. This is not an experimental measure in any sense but that in which every measure of reform is experimental. In the working every reform may be found to have weak points and strong points; and in that sense every measure of reform is experimental; but in no other sense is the scheme now before the House experimental. It is the result of long and matured consideration. I entirely protest against the notion of dealing with this, the cardinal point in the system, as if we were merely throwing it loose on the world to see how it would work, and then, in the next Session of Parliament introducing another and a different plan. It was not with that view the Government introduced this measure. I believe it was not with that view the mercantile community in general approved it, and I venture to state that it was not with that view it was passed through this House. I have been greatly puzzled by some things which have fallen from those speakers who have upheld this Amendment. They have not said expressly, "We agree with the Lords. We do not like the Judge. We wish for another system." Not at all, There is hardly one of them who, if in a year or two he found himself an occupant of the bench on which I have now the honour to sit, might not say, "I thought all along that the Judge was the right thing, but at the same time I considered it more prudent to wait till some experience had been had under the new Bill." Those hon. Gentlemen seem to bear in mind the maxim of an ancient master of politics as well as of rhetoric, who recommends us always to hate as if we knew that some day we would have occasion to love. Those hon. Gentlemen, if in a few years they find themselves in the position in which we now are, and if they find the country knocking at their doors and saying, "This system won't work without the head which you cut off from it." may reply, "We never seriously doubted that from the beginning, and now that experience has proved that we were right we are willing to appoint a Judge." I venture to say that the present is the time, that the necessity is now as clear as it will be then. We are now dealing with the subject, and I think the

  1127
  country will have a right to cry shame if we do not deal with it in a manner that will give our new system the best chance of success.
  The hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill) says, "What are you doing? You are appointing over again the old Judge in Bankruptcy whom you appointed in 1831, and who worked so ill that you had to abolish him a few years afterwards. You are giving him the same functions." Now, is that a fact? For the argument is good for nothing if it is not the fact. It is not a fact. The functions are as different as any functions can be. I will enumerate very shortly the more important duties of this Judge. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) seemed to forget some of them. He spoke as if this functionary would have nothing to dispose of but appeals; but this Bill provides for a very large amount of original jurisdiction of a most important character which is to be discharged by this Chief Judge. I will take first what is, perhaps, the most important point—the clause with reference to the discharge of bankrupts, who will hereafter include nontraders and insolvents as well as traders. Every case of a contested discharge falling within the London district will be of necessity referred to and tried by the Chief Judge, and also if the Commissioner who shall have the administration of the case shall find that there are any special circumstances which, though there may be no opposition, appear to form a well-founded objection to an immediate discharge, it will be his duty to report those circumstances, and reserve the question for the determination of the Chief Judge. What is the existing system with respect to certificates? There are five Commissioners, and there may be, and practically there are five different rules as to the principle upon which certificates shall be given. If there is any question more difficult than another it is the question of conduct which arises on granting a certificate. One Commissioner will give a first class certificate in thirteen cases out of which another would give such a certificate in only one. Such is the want of method, unanimity, and uniformity which now prevails. And yet the branch of the administration of justice with which we are now dealing is one on which it is not too much to say commercial morality depends in a very high degree. The object of the
  1128
  bankruptcy law is to give a free and full discharge to any honest bankrupt; and, in order to prevent the operation of that law being a premium on dishonesty, it is necessary that its administration should be very carefully and ably conducted. What more important function can be imagined than that which occupies so considerably the time of the Commissioners at present? And I know that very many of the cases of Bankruptcy which come before the Lords Justices are questions of certificate, which are singularly ill-adapted for appeal, on account of their peculiar nature. This original jurisdiction of a most important character, affecting the reputation of every one brought under it, and the whole commercial morality of the kingdom, is by this Bill brought primarily in contested cases, and in uncontested cases, by the report of the Commissioners to the Chief Judge. The effect of the Lords' Amendment is to throw it back on the five Commissioners, not sitting as a Court, but each applying one-fifty of a principle or one-fifth of a rule, or five different principles and five different rules; so that it will be a toss up, a game of chance, of haphazard, whether a man who has conducted himself in a questionable manner shall get off free, or be punished leniently or severely, if punished at all. If upon any one point it is necessary to concentrate the power of a single mind of high ability, and possessing the confidence of the public, it is upon this point; and this seems to have been entirely lost sight of in the Lords. It seems to have been lost sight of in the debates which have taken place here; and, if anything could add weight to this consideration, it is that you not merely abolish by the present Bill the classification of certificates, but substitute for it a system of penal process. Not only is there a clause which provides for the trial of a bankrupt if he stands accused of any offence against the law as it at present stands, but there is an independent particular enactment against new offences, for which, with his consent, he may be tried by the Chief Judge, according to the proposal of the Government; or by the Commissioners, according to the proposal of the Lords; and, if he do not consent, for which he may be sent to be tried in other courts of the realm. Rules and principles are for the first time embodied, so to say, in the penal laws, by which the conduct of a trader is to be tried and deter-

  1129
  mined in this court: not offences for which he may be tried anywhere else, but mercantile offences, for which he may be tried there, and for which he may be punished expressly on a penal principle, not by qualifying the certificate or for a time suspending protection. The Lords have sent back that clause, leaving that also to each and every one of the five independent Commissioners. But I think the House of Commons will be of opinion that this is a jurisdiction which ought to be intrusted to the hands of a Judge of the highest standing, of the highest character, and of the highest authority, who shall administer justice in manner calculated to give satisfaction to the people at large.
  The other duties are very important, though not so important as this, and I only pause to advert to them for the purpose of correcting the notion that the Lords Justices will do whatever the Chief Judge would have done, and which is left now unprovided for by the Amendments. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has pointed out the different special matters upon which the attention of the Chief Judge would be employed otherwise than by way of appeal. Under the 61st Clause he was to have particular points of law upon the administration of the estate referred to him. That is not to be done by the Lords Justices. It is now to be done by each of the five Commissioners, who may certify five different ways, and bring the law into greater confusion than at present, instead of giving it greater clearness. The trial of issues is left otherwise. That is to take place before the Lords Justices. But I have not heard by hon. and learned Friends who are acquainted with the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery express an opinion that the Lords Justices are likely to devote much time to the trial of issues of fact with juries. They have shown no disposition, at all events, to avail themselves in other cases of the power to summon juries which they possess, and I do not think that without great interference with their business they could do so. Special cases are also to go to the Commissioners, if there is no Chief Judge. With regard to appeal business, you enlarge the number of courts from which those appeals will come; and I will here make a few observations to bring clearly under the view of the House the various sources of increased business which seem to be left entirely out of sight when it is supposed that there will be
  1130
  only the same business to discharge as formerly, and that it is sufficient to rely on the same staff. There is the transfer of insolvency in the first place, in which there is no appeal at present. Some hon. Gentlemen seem to think that it works very well. Perhaps they think that you may very well abolish appeals. No doubt if there are no appeals you will not have the trouble of providing for them. But I cannot help thinking that, now you let in the non-traders, and include the whole property of the country, from the highest Peer to the lowest peasant, it will be a startling thing if you contend that no appeal is necessary, or that no appeals may be expected. You must bear in mind that the effect of the non-trader clauses is entirely new, and that previous experience in matters of insolvency cannot be applied either to the number of cases, or the importance of the question, or the amount of the property. Then there are all the composition deeds, amounting, upon an average of ten years, to 10,000 a year. These, in addition to the 1,000 or 1,100 cases of bankruptcy, are all to be swept in and made subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. In every deed you may deal with matter for a whole Lost of Chancery suits; and can it be supposed that this will not be a source of important business, for which provision must be made, and with respect to which the appointment of a Chief Judge is essential? Take into account besides the increase of bankruptcy business in general which must arise from the beneficial effect of these improvements, and the facilities which will be given to the public to come into bankruptcy in one shape or another, and who can possibly doubt that the machinery of the Bill will and must bring under cognizance all the business of insolvency throughout the kingdom? When these things are considered, surely the policy of having a Chief Judge, as originally proposed, is more than amply justified. Surely I have shown that in striking out the Chief Judge you strike out the regulator of the whole system. The argument against it assumes the failure of the Bill. But why it should fail I do not know. It is a Bill the substantive provisions of which have passed both Houses. If anything causes it to fail it will, undoubtedly, be striking out the regulator. But, unless you assume that the Bill will fail to bring business and to satisfy the wants of the community, it is clear you are strangling it, crippling it, destroying its chance of

  1131
  success, by leaving out those means which are provided to secure a consistent, uniform, dignified, and authoritative administration. I wish the Lords Justices were here to speak for themselves. I am very sure that their Lordships would be surprised to hear that they are to do all which you call on the Chief Judge to do. Not a word which can be said of the manner in which their Lordships have discharged these duties hitherto can exceed their deserts. But their bankruptcy business is of a different character, and has reference to matters of far less importance and magnitude than those which you throw upon the Chief Judge. They have discharged no part of the original jurisdiction in bankruptcy, nor is it proposed to give it to them. But I venture to say, if the increase of business takes place, which it is impossible to doubt will take place, unless the Bill is a total failure, and if there is a proportionate increase of appeals, those appeals will absorb the whole time of the Lords Justices, and turn them into a Court of Bankruptcy. They were not established by Act of Parliament to be a Court of Bankruptcy. They were established to assist the Lord Chancellor, and any attempt to overload them with bankruptcy business will, in truth, be simply destroying the valuable machinery which the Legislature has created for a different purpose, and throwing the business of the Court of Chancery into confusion, merely to avoid giving a head to the Court of Bankruptcy. And I take the liberty of saying one thing, which is consistent with the most profound respect for the Lords Justices personally, and for the manner in which they have discharged their dutied:—You never can expect from a Court which has other functions the same efficiency in the particular duty of superintending the general administration of such a system as bankruptcy, as you may expect, and doubtless will find, from a Judge whose office makes it his duty to attend exclusively to that particular thing. Bankruptcy before the Lords Justices is a secondary object, and so must be. When it comes before them in the way of appeals, doubtless they give precisely the same attention to it as they give to other business; but the duty of general superintendence, the duty of being the head of a system, cannot with any prospect of beneficial results be appended to another system entirely alien form bankruptcy. The other proposal made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the
  1132
  University of Cambridge is, I take the liberty of saying it, even more objectionable than to rely on the Lords Justices. His proposal is that one Vice Chancellor or the Master of the Rolls shall have united to his present jurisdiction the duty of discharging all the functions which this Bill proposes to throw on the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy.
  MR. WALPOLE:I did not propose all the functions as proposed by the original Bill, but as amended by the Lords, which is a totally different thing.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL:I understand my right hon. Friend to mean exclusively the appellate functions. To give the appeal business to one Judge in the Court of Chancery would not in the least degree promote either the speedy or efficient administration of the business, while it would most materially interfere with the proper business of the Court of Chancery. So far from adding to the bankruptcy jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, it would rather be convenient to remove from it a class of business akin to bankruptcy—namely, the winding-up of insolvent joint-stock companies—a species of business which would be better discharged by the Court of Bankruptcy. It is a great mistake to imagine that because in any given year some particular Court for a short time may not be fully occupied, that, therefore, the Court of Chancery has too much strength for its business. It is true that in the early part of this year business was slack in the Rolls' Court; but that was not owing to any permanent cause. The Judge of that Court, a man worthy of the name he bears, who for a long period has discharged his duties in a manner combining perhaps in a degree not exceeded by any other Judge, despatch, accuracy, and safety of decision, transacted the business with such despatch and efficiency, that the incoming business did not equal the outgoing. But such a state of things in a short time tends to alter itself. Nature abhors a vacuum, and this vacuum soon filled itself up. The suitors soon find out where their business will be rapidly transacted; and this state of things very shortly ceased to exist. Nor is it at all consistent with experience that the permanent feeders of the business of the Court of Chancery will so far fall off as to make it probable that one of the Judges who for the last ten years has been fully occupied will hereafter be found to be insufficiently occupied.

  1133
  Let me ask, in conclusion, whether the House wishes to deal in a merely experimental spirit with this important matter? If a Chief Judge be necessary this is undoubtedly the time to appoint him. When you are launching a new and important reform, which must increase the business, and which must require concentrated administration, that is the time to apply this remedy. No course that I can imagine would be more unwise than to wait till the success of the measure has been imperilled by leaving out the condition under which alone it is likely to have eminent success, and when the public are discontented and the whole matter is at sea again, then to say we will consider whether we cannot patch the system up by appointing this Chief Judge. I find no reason or principle, nor do I find any authority in favour of such a course. But one single mereantile body has said a word in favour of such a proposal, and that body testified against it before it became a matter of political controversy in the House of Lords. The other mercantile bodies are against it. It is clear that the London district is most interested in the matter, and one is not surprised, therefore, to find the London merchants confident in favour of a Chief Judge. I am justified, therefore, in saying that there is no trace of an adverse opinion existing in any part of the country. You have no single reason against the proposal except the authority of those eminent names which in the House of Lords appear to have given their sanction to this Amendment. For those learned persons I entertain so profound a respect that I am not inclined in any way to under-estimate the weight due to them. But when we have their opinions without their reasons, when we are not aware how far the subject was considered by them, or how far they were led to suppose that the opinion of Manchester and Lancashire was adverse to the Government proposal, I cannot think that the mere authority of those eminent names ought to overrule the weight of experience, of principle, and of necessity, and of the long and deliberate consideration which the subject received before the Bill was sent up to the other House of Parliament. This House, at all events, having sanctioned the proposal for reasons which have not yet been answered, would, I think, do very far from well if it were not now to express its adherence to its original decision.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: Sir, I will begin the very few observations I have to address
  1134
  to the House by welcoming back to our councils the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, the advantage of whose advice we have enjoyed before, and may now congratulate ourselves on again possessing. In order to narrow the discussion as much as possible it will be desirable to consider what the precise question before us is, for I have observed in the debate a tendency to go wide of the point—though certainly not on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed us—and to travel into a general disquisition on the imperfections of the bankruptcy laws. The only question before us on this Motion I take to be this—whether, having already in the London district five Commissioners of bankruptcy with salaries of £2,000 a year, it is wise and expedient, by was of experiment, to add a Chief Judge whose jurisdiction for by far the greater part of the time will be co-ordinate with that of the five Commissioners, and who will, in fact, simply be, so far as the greater part of his duties are concerned, a sixth Commissioner for the London district? The view of the mercantile bodies on this question of a Chief Judge is, of course, of great importance, and I am free to confess that the greatest attention ought to be paid to their opinion on the matter in which, after all, they are the most deeply interested. But most of those who have observed on those expressions of opinion of the mercantile community have fallen into a great error. Take, for instance, the petition from the City of London. They ask that the Lord's Amendment as to a Chief Judge may be disagreed with; but for what reason? They say that there are already five different Commissioners, coming constantly to conflicting decisions, and, therefore, they want a Chief Judge. But did these petitioners know the real state of the case? Were they informed that the very thing to which they object is the very thing which will exist a week after this Bill passes? Were they informed that if this Bill passes without the Lords' Amendment there will be not only five Commissioners, but a Chief Judge in addition—six Commissioners in all, with co-ordinate jurisdiction within the London district, who may, if they please, come to six different descisions—with this addition, that the Chief Judge, when he is tired of sitting a co-ordinate Commissioner, may sit to rectify by way of appeal those things which have hitherto been rectified by a tribunal which at least has

  1135
  given as much satisfaction as the new Judge can expect to give? The petitioners evidently conceive that if they get a Chief Judge they will get rid of the Commissioners. But that is by no means the case. The Commissioners will be like the old man of the mountain, in the story, sticking fast to their shoulders. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General went too far in suggesting that this Bill was a transition Bill, gradually getting rid of the Commissioners, for it gives power, when the Commissioners have sunk down to three in number, to make new appointments to keep them up to that number. Therefore, when that time arrives the merchants of the City of London will have three Commissioners coming to different decisions instead of five. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) says he finds a great want of dignity in these Courts at present; but the same objection will apply to them when this Bill passes. This Bill gives them increased jurisdiction, and, if that increased jurisdiction does not increase their dignity, the hon. Member's objection will remain all the same. The hon. and learned Solicitor General says that the petition of the forty-eight Manchester firms is the only voice that has been raised on the part of the mercantile community in favour of the Lord's Amendment. The hon. Member for the City of London, too, surprised me when he spoke of the Associated Chambers of Commerce coinciding with the trades of the City of London. I hold in my hand a petition agreed to at a special meeting of the Standing Committees of Associated Chambers of Commerce. The first of these bodies is the Chamber of Commerce of Belfast, not on account of its importance, but as a matter of alphabetical arrangement. Then comes the Chambers of Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, Southampton, Wolverhampton, and a number of other places. What does this petition of the Associated Chambers of Commerce say? It takes up all the Amendments of the House of Lords, and objects to some of them, but does not say one word against the Amendment striking out the clause relative to the Chief Judge, leaving it to be assumed—and it must be assumed—that they are quite satisfied with the Amendment of the other House, and that they have not one word to say against it. But the matter does not rest there. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) says that the town of
  1136
  Liverpool and the traders of Liverpool are very much divided on this subject. Nor is there a clear and unequivocal voice from Manchester, for that town also is divided on this question. Inasmuch, then, as the petition of the traders of London is founded on a misconception, as the petition of the Associated Chambers of Commerce indicates no objection to the Amendment, and as the towns of Manchester and Liverpool are divided in opinion, we must conclude that either a large portion of the mercantile community look with satisfaction on the rejection of the Chief Judge clause, or else that they are entirely indifferent on the subject.
  My hon. and learned Friend says that some of those who objected to this Bill did so on grounds inconsistent with the course taken by them last year on the Attorney General's Bill. I beg to correct my hon. and learned Friend on this point. What seemed to me an undoubted benefit was that the Bill of last year swept away these Commissioners, and gave one uniform and unvarying tribunal for the London district. By this means the co-ordinate jurisdiction was got rid of, and on this ground expressly I and others approved this Bill. But in the Bill of this year several hon. Members on this side of the House disapproved that part of the Bill which combined the Chief Judge with the five continuing Commissioners. As to the appellate authority of the Chief Judge we have evidence that proves almost to demonstration the amount of his duties. I will take, for example, the appellate jurisdiction of the Lords Justices, and ask—can anything be more of a mockery than to appoint a Chief Judge for the sort of appellate jurisidiction I am going to describe? The Appellate Court in Bankruptcy sat last year fifteen days and heard forty-two cases. That was the whole of the appellate business. The hon. and learned Attorney General says that the number is probably few, either because the cost is great, or the delay is considerable. I challenge both statements. I do not know the cost of an appeal in bankruptcy, but will the hon. and learned Attorney General point out one sentence in the present Bill that lessens the cost of appeal? There is not one word that deals with the question of cost, or that makes an appeal a shilling cheaper than before the present appellate tribunal. If such a clause were introduced, the only result would be that if appeals could be made less expensive before the Chief Judge

  1137
  they could be made less expensive also before the Lords Justices; and if the hon. and learned Attorney General should apply such a clause to the reduction of the cost of an appeal to the Lords Justices, he would be taking a step in the right direction. The hon. and learned Gentleman is also under an error when he speaks of the delay in the Appellate Court of the Lords Justices. The fact is that whether an appeal be put down on Monday, Tuesday, or any other day, if the parties are ready to have it heard it will be heard on the following Friday. There is, therefore, no delay before the Lord Justices. All the Judges that might be created could not expedite matters more, for the state of business is such that when an appeal is ready to be heard, it is heard at once and disposed of. But the hon. and learned Attorney General suggests that there is going ot be a great increase of business, and it is, therefore, assumed that there will be more appeals. The hon. and learned Gentleman reminds us that the Chief Judge will have jurisdiction over appeals from sixty County Courts. I hope that by increasing the tribunals we are not about to increase the number of appeals, because that would be an ill compliment to your tribunals. I will assume, with the hon. and learned will increase so as to be double what it is at present—that there will be eighty cases instead of forty, occupying thirty days instead of fifteen. But is not the Court of the Lords Justices perfectly able to give thirty days and dispose of eighty cases with the same satisfaction as forty cases? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I did not say there will be double the amount of business merely. but that there will be a very largely increased amount of business.] I took down the hon. and learned Gentleman's words, and I understood him to say that the "business might be taken as at least double." But if the matter is thrown loose again I am at liberty to speculate that the business will be double, and that the appeals will be double in number; and I say that if that is all the appellate tribunal will have to do you do not want a Chief Judge with £5,000 a year, and all the costs of a new Judge to do it. The hon. and learned Solicitor General says it is an evil to have five different Commissioners, because they have five different standards as to the conditions on which certificates ought to be
  1138
  granted. The certificates are of different classes, and each of the Commissioners took a different view of the merits of the bankrupt, one Commissioner giving one class of certificates and another Commissioner another class for similar cases. But that clause of the former Bankruptcy Bill is abolished by this Bill, and that removes the difficulty about the Commissioners granting certificates of various classes. But the matter does not rest there. The hon. and learned Solicitor General says that uniformity will be attained by the one Judge, and that general system of discharge for bankrupts will prevail. But by the Bill the original jurisdiction of the Chief Judge in granting certificates is confined to the London district. What, then, is the bankrupt to do at Liverpool, Manchester, and other towns; and what uniformity do you secure with regard to certificates in all those towns? It is a delusion, and we are asked to pay £5000 a year for that which does not exist. There may, indeed, be some uniformity with respect to four or five Commissioners in London, but with respect to the sixty County Court Judges, and the six or seven country Commissioners, the Chief Judge will not have the slightest original jurisdiction over the grant of these certificates. It is said that, as any one will be at liberty to consult the Judge on a point of law, the result will be that great uniformity will be produced, as there will not exist the varying opinions at present given by a number of different Commissioners. But is the House aware that the meaning of this consultation is simply this, that any person during the proceedings is to be at liberty to take the opinion either of the Judge or of a Commissioner? Will that arrangement produce uniformity or that identity of decision which the hon. and learned Solicitor General says is likely to arise from it? The next point dwelt on by the hon. and learned Solicitor General has reference to the trial by jury; and the House has been told that a new system is about to be introduced, analogous to the system in the Divorce and Probate Court, by which a great deal of business is to be done by trials by jury. It is contended that for the satisfactory despatch of this branch of the business it is necessary to have a Judge at the head of the Court. Now, is the House aware of the whole extent to which trials by jury were applied in bankruptcy? The Court of Bankruptcy has no jurisdiction a

  1139
  all except over the bankrupt, the bankrupt's assignees, and any persons who choose to come in and submit to its jurisdiction; and it is the rarest possible thing for people voluntarily to submit to the jurisdiction. The facts in dispute in bankruptcy generally relate to fraudulent preference or the real ownership of certain property, and these questions are never tried in the Bankruptcy Court, but are tried by actions at law. It is not in the nature of bankruptcy that there should be once in a month, I may almost say once in a year, any question of fact relating to the bankrupt which can be susceptible of being tried by a jury. So much for this point about the trial by jury, which is almost a delusion, but the greatest delusion of all is involved in the proposition respecting the punishment of bankrupts for misdemeanour. I admit that if the facts warrant the statement which had been made there would be a case for a Chief Judge, because it is said that a new principle is to be introduced into the system of bankruptcy—namely, that the bankrupt is to be punishable for offences for which he was not punishable before, and the Court of Bankruptcy is to have a criminal jurisdiction it never before possessed. The hon. and learned Solicitor General says that the House will not trust these extensive powers to any one but a Judge of the first standing. How stands the fact? Is the House aware that all over the country, excepting only in that one spot characterized as the London district, these great powers so pompously paraded as a reason for a Chief Judge are given by the Bill, as prepared by the Government, to the sixty County Court Judges and the country Commissioners, without any original jurisdiction in the Chief Judge to control any one of them? Therefore, the idea that, as great powers are handed over to the tribunal for the first time, the tribunal must be a first-class one is altogether fallacious, as may be seen by reference to the end of the 164th Clause. In these cases there can be no appeal to the Chief Judge, for the Government surely do not mean to say that they intend to introduce appeals in criminal cases, after a decision by a jury. It is idle, therefore, to say that a Chief Judge is wanted for which the Chief Judge is required? The House has been told that there are to be a great number of deeds of arrangement; that the parties to those deeds will require
  1140
  to consult the Judge from time to time; that questions will arise which will have to be decided; and that it is highly desirable, for the sake of uniformity, that the Chief Judge should have original jurisdiction over them. But the Bill does not affect this. The sixty County Court Judges and the Country Commissioners have exactly the same power in this respect as the Chief Judge, and not one iota of uniformity is secured by the appointment of the Chief Judge, as far as regards original jurisdiction. As to the appellate jurisdiction, uniformity can be secured through any appellate jurisdiction, and I think I have satisfied the House that the present appellate tribunal is able to do its business efficiently. Therefore, I charge the Government with being experimentary. I do not desire to appeal to great names; but, I ask, what was the course pursued in the other House with respect to the Amendment under consideration? It is said that this has been made a political question; who has made it so? Who proposed the Amendment in the other House? It was a noble and learned Lord of great learning and experience in bankruptcy jurisdiction, whose eminent judicial talents and abilities will always cause him to be regarded with the greatest possible respect. That noble and learned Lord, acting in political concert, not with those who sit on the Opposition side of the House, but with the Government, proposed the Amendment, which was supported by the most eminent legal authorities who adorn the Senate, sitting in the other House. There was no division on it, and with the exception of the late Lord Chancellor, who, if he had had the opportunity of expressing his opinion by a vote, would probably have voted in favour of the Government Bill, all the members of their Lordships' Committee appear to be unanimous in supporting the Amendment. Therefore, if authority and freedom from political motive can commend any change, this change comes down to the House of Commons with the full weight of such recommendation. We are now at the end of the Session. Next year a consolidation of the law of bankruptcy is promised. If the Government then bring in a Bill abolishing the power of the Commissioners they shall have my hearty support; but I do protest against throwing the whole administration of the bankrupt law into confusion by creating a sort of unmeaning, undefined, co-ordinate jurisdiction, which

  1141
  will be the result if the present proposal be carried.
  Question put; the House divided:—Ayes 173; Noes 129: Majority 44.
  Further Consideration of Lords' Amendments deferred till Monday next.

DURHAM UNIVERSITY BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he objected to the principle of the Bill. The Durham University, which with its large endowments ought to present great advantages to the youth of the North of England had become, as it was prophesied by the late Lord Durham it would become if not conducted in a liberal spirit—a mere manufactory of the lower order of clergy. During the thirty years of its existence the number of students had been gradually decreasing. He contended the University had been a total failure, as he believed the inquiry proposed by the Bill would prove a complete sham. The present Bill was actually less liberal than the Act of 1832, which professed to constitute a University for the advancement of learning generally, while this Bill had for its first object the promotion of religious teaching. He thought a much wider inquiry than that proposed should be instituted, and, therefore, he should move that the House resolve itself into Committee that day three months.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,'"
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the powers given by the Bill were necessary for its object. But if it could be shown that it could receive Amendments in Committee, the hon. Gentleman could then propose them. If the Motion succeeded the only result would be, that a practical proposition to reform the University of Durham, in the same manner as Oxford and Cambridge, would be rejected.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, he should move that the debate be adjourned. The Bill ought to have been introduced three months ago.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he should oppose the adjournment.
  MR. FENWICKsaid, he thought the discussion of the Bill must be long one. He hoped the House would consent to adjourn the debate.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that practically, those who refused to continue the debate for an hour must wish the House to sit three months longer.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he did not wish to continue the debate if the House consented to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 116: Majority 95.
  MR. FENWICKsaid, he would take that occasion to state that while the endowments of the University of Durham amounted at the present moment to upwards of £12,000 a year, the number of students did not exceed forty, an educational result which he could not but characterize as extremely unsatisfactory. The cause of so great a failure in that respect he attributed to the connection of the University with an ecclesiastical body. The Bishop of Durham, who had extensive duties in the administration of the affairs of his diocese to attend to, possessed the power of appointment in the case of the Professors of Divinity and Greek, the former of whom, it appeared, had an income of £4,700 a year, irrespective of the amount derived from tuitions. The question for the House to consider was how could the endowments of Durham University be made most available for the purposes of education. Some of the Commissioners named in the Bill were men of great learning and of practical wisdom, but surely the Bishop of the diocese could not be expected to strip himself of valuable patronage for the purpose of reforming the University. Unless the University were made subservient to the material interests of the district; unless it were thrown open to all classes instead of being confined to one, it would be vain to attempt passing a Bill like the present. The only effect of such a measure would be to make Durham University a bad imitation of Oxford and Cambridge, and in a few years fresh legistion would be necessary. The Bill, in short, was a sham, and in its present shape could do no good. It would be far better, in the first instance, to appoint a Commission simply to inquire and report.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, that if Durham University had proved a failure, as alleged by the hon. Member for Sunderland, that was a reason why the House should go into Committee on the present Bill. He had no doubt that a Commission of inquiry would have been acceptable to the University authorities, but the Government had come to the wise conclusion that the returns already before the House afforded sufficient grounds for immediate legislation. The hon. Member for Sunderland had greatly overstated the revenues of the University; nor was it correct to say that the cause of the failure of the University was its connection with an ecclesiastical body. It should be recollected that the University was founded by the Dean and Chapter out of their own funds. Of late years it was true that there had been a falling off in the number of students, but the University had connected itself with a distinguished medical school at Newcastle, and the students there, sixty-five in number, ought to be reckoned as belonging to the University. There was no religious test, as had been asserted, on the admission of students to that University. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter-after Two o'clock,

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Offences against the Person; Municipal Corporations Act Amendment; Salmon Fisheries; Parochial and Burgh Schools (Scotland); Irremovable Poor; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Public Works and Harbours.
2a East India (High Courts of Judicature); East India (Civil Service); County Voters (Scotland); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; White Herring Fishery (Scotland); Vaccination.
3a Chatham Dockyard Enlargement; London Coal and Wine Dues Continuance.

VOTE OF THANKS (CHINA.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House, That he had received Letters from Vice-Admiral Sir James Hope, K.C.B., and Major General Sir John Michael, K.C.B., in return to the Thanks of this House and to the Resolutions of the 14th of February last, communicated them in obedience to the Order of this to House of the said 14th of February: The said Letters being read, were Ordered to lie on the Table, and to be entered on the Journals.
ASSIMILATION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCEDURE.

  PETITION.
  LORD BROUGHAM presented a Petition from Bezer Blundell, praying that a measure may be passed to enable defendants in prosecution for Libel to be examined on Oath. The noble and learned Lord said, that in 1851 he had the great satisfaction of effecting, with their Lordships' concurrence, the most important change and improvement which had for many years been introduced into the procedure, indeed, he might say, into the jurisprudence, of this country—the allowing parties in all civil suits whatever to be examined as witnesses, and compelling them to be examined at the instance of their adversaries. The effects of the change had proved most beneficial in all civil suits, and he had decided to extend it partially to criminal cases, by giving the option to the defendants to be examined if they chose, submitting themselves, of course, to the sifting of cross examination, which any innocent person must rather desire than wish to avoid. The objection taken to this proposal, when he had introduced a Bill on the subject, was that any person who declined the leave to be examined would be supposed to do so from consciousness of guilt. He (Lord Brougham) owned that this did not much change his opinion, because it would only serve to convict the guilty. The petition which he now had to present afforded a strong illustration of the bad state of the law in this respect. It was from Mr. Blundell, and the facts stated in it strongly supported his (Lord Brougham's) view of the subject, and showed the necessity of a change in the law. Mr. Blundell, in his endeavours to improve the administration of the County Court, became involved
  1048
  in a correspondence which, it was alleged, partook of a libellous tendency. Proceedings were taken against him, and Mr. Blundell offered to deposit £100, to cover the costs of his adversary, if he would allow the action to be brought in a shape which would admit of his being examined. That proposition, however, was declined, and an indictment was brought against him not only for libel, but for an attempt to extort money. The latter part of the case broke down, and an acquittal was directed; but the charge of libel was persevered in, and, as Mr. Blundell was unable to be heard in his own defence as a witness while his adversary was allowed to be favoured, he was convicted though he could have proved the truth of the statement. His only remedy, as he was advised, was to prosecute his opponent for perjury, who would, in turn, be debarred from giving evidence in his own behalf. Mr. Blundell complained of this state of the law of libel, and asked that defendants might be heard in their own behalf. For his own part, he would be prepared to go further, and to extend the principle to all criminal cases.

EAST INDIA (HIGH COURTS OF JUDICATURE) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that when the present Secretary of State for India introduced in "another place" his measure of 1853, he stated that, in consequence of evidence which had been given before Committees of both Houses, and in consequence of the opinion of Members of the India Council, the Government had come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to make an effort for the amalgamation of the chief Courts of Judicature which now existed at each of the Presidency towns. But it was thought desirable that, before taking any steps to carry out the alteration suggested, measures should be adopted for the improvement of the civil and criminal procedure, and a Commission was appointed to report upon the subject. That Commissions had drawn up a plan which had been sent out to India. The code of civil procedure had been passed by the Legislative Council, and the reports of its working were most satisfactory. The code of criminal procedure was now passing the Legislature,

  1049
  and would, no doubt, become law in the course of the present year. A penal code for the whole of India had been passed, to come into operation on the 1st of January next. The Government, therefore, were now in a position to redeem the pledge given in 1853. That was the object of the present Bill. At the present moment there existed for Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay two principal courts of judicature, one called the Sudder Court and the other the Supreme Court. In the one the Judges were selected from the Indian civil servants, and in the other they were English barristers. Both Courts exercised a similar jurisdiction, although within different limits. The Supreme Court of Calcutta exercised a jurisdiction of a personal description in regard to Europeans all over India, except in the Presidencles of Madras and Bombay, so that every European, whether in the service of the Government or not, charged with a criminal act, must be taken to Calcutta to be tried. The Sudder Courts exercised a certain amount of superintendence over the proceedings of the Courts in the Mofussil. Now, while it was most desirable that in a Court of last resort there should be combined the advantages and powers possessed by both these Courts, and that it should unite to the legal knowledge and judicial training of English barristers the knowledge of the language, habits, and feelings of the Natives which was possessed by the Civil Service Judges of the Court of Sudder Adawlut, it was equally desirable that the Courts which exercised a superintendence over the inferior Courts should in part consist of persons who had received the training and possessed the knowledge of an English barrister. It appeared to the Government that if the two Courts were amalgamated their supervision might be extended, and the exercise of justice by person well trained in the law would be secured in different parts of the country, thus remedying a great evil of the present system, and providing better security for the due administration of justice. Opinions had been given in favour of the amalgamation of the Supreme and Sudder Courts by many whose judgment in the must have the greatest weight, and amongst them Sir Edward Ryan, who at the time he expressed his opinion was Chief Justice of Bombay, and Sir Frederick Halliday, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. The noble Earl having read extracts from the evidence of these gentleman, proceeded to say that
  1050
  by this Bill they proposed to abolish the existing Supreme Court and the existing Sudder Court, and to form in lien of them a High Court of Judicature, to be established as the Supreme Court originally was by letters patent. With respect to the qualification of the Judges, it was proposed to take for the legal class the same standard as existed for appointments to the Supreme Court—namely, they must be barristers of five years standing; as to the Civil Service Judges nearly the same standard as existed for the Sudder Courts—namely, they must be of ten years standing in the service, three of which must have been passed as Zillah Judges; or they must have been Judges of an inferior Court for five years, or pleaders in the Supreme or Sudder Courts for ten years. One third of the Judges (including the Chief Justice) were required to be of the legal class, and one third of the Civil servant class. Her Majesty's Government had been anxious to take power for the Governor General, if he should think fit, to appoint certain Natives who had served in the lower Courts of India, Judges of this Court. Lord Canning and other authorities were of opinion that Natives who had acquired experience in the present Courts should be eligible for the highest judicial appointments, and that some of them would be found capable of sitting side by side with British Judges. A very necessary and salutary provision was made for sending Commissioners to try cases in parts of the country distant from the ordinary Courts; and also for the exercise by the High Court of a general supervision over the other Courts in the country, which would places the Chief Justice somewhat in the position of a Minister of Justice. He believed that this measure would improve the administration of justice in India, strengthen the highest Court of judicature in that country, and elevate the character of the other Courts by placing them under its Supervision.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD BROUGHAMleft it to those who were experienced in Indian affairs to deal with the Bill at large. There was, however, one provision upon which it required no local knowledge of India to express a decided opinion, and which he trusted would be erased from the Bill. He alluded to the provision that the Indian Council should have power not only to appoint the salaries of Judges upon their entrance into office, but from time to time

  1051
  to alter those salaries; the effect of which would be that the emoluments of the Judges would depend upon the pleasure of the Council. It was obvious for what purposes that power might be used, and the proposal was as novel as it was objectionable. He hoped it would be struck out of the Bill.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that the construction put upon the clause by his noble and learned Friend was certainly not that contemplated by the Government. What was intended was that the power to alter the salaries should not apply to Judges who had been appointed, and whose salaries had been fixed, but only to those who might be "thereafter appointed." That was certainly the intention of the clause, and he would be glad to consider any words which the noble and learned Lord might propose to make it clearer.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH:I so far concur with the noble Earl (Earl de Grey) that I think it would certainly be a considerable improvement if the Supreme Courts of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay had given to them the power of despatching one of their members into the Mofussil, for the purpose of trying charges against Europeans. That object might be accomplished without any difficulty by having a single Judge for the purpose at each of those Courts. But it would be advisable, also, to give that Judge the assistance of some person, such as one of the Judges of the Sudder Courts, conversant with the laws, customs, and language of the Natives. Otherwise, the Judge of the Supreme Court despatched to the Mofussil would be completely in the hands of the interpreter and lower officers of the Court, who would probably be bribed by one, and possibly by both of the parties in any case he had to try. This Bill goes very far—indeed, like the other Bills—it goes far beyond the necessities of the case. The noble Earl told us that on the Report of the Law Commission which sat some twenty years ago, and on the evidence which was taken in 1853, Sir Charles Wood in the latter year announced his intention at some time or other of introducing a Bill of the same tendency as the present. Your Lordships, however, knew perfectly well that to give evidence on the general subject and to give evidence as to a Bill actually before Parliament are two very different things. If this Bill had come up early in the Session, I think your Lordships could not have refused—what I would even now propose
  1052
  were it possible—that it should be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of hearing the opinions and statements, not only of Judges who have exercised authority in the Supreme Court, but of the many learned persons, for learned they are, who have officiated as Judges in the Sudder Courts, and in different parts of the country. We should then have been prepared to decide on this measure with a knowledge of the subject which we have not at present. The state of the Session, however, renders it impossible for us to avail ourselves of that assistance. The idea of this measure is by no means a new one. The Government, indeed, seem to be in possession of a great many exploded ideas which are quite of old date. I can recollect this notion twenty or thirty years ago; and it was weighed and considered and rejected during that period, till it was at length taken up by Sir Charles Wood. I well recollect the very long speech which the right hon. Gentleman made when he first brought the proposal forward, for I calculated that its length was about equal to one of my wars. The Gwalior war consisted of two battles, fought in one day, and the length of the fighting part of that war fell considerably short of the length of Sir Charles Wood's speech. In 1830 Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone was examined on this subject, as well as on the constitution of the Council, and he gave a decided against the union of the Supreme Courts and the Sudder Courts. Even on the subject of the Council I consider Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone's opinion as valuable as any we possess; but with respect to any matter connected with the jurisdiction of the Courts and the administration of justice, there has been no man at any time whose opinion deserves so much respect as that of Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone. He was himself a lawgiver—a great lawgiver—not merely a very able man, but one to whom the people of India were extremely attached, and he was not likely to be opposed to any alteration which would be of advantage to them. Yet, with all his knowledge and with his philosophical mind, he decided that it was not expedient to unite these Courts, and the reason which he gave was that it would introduce into the Mofussil all the technicalities of the English law. I wish those of your Lordships who are connected with Scotland to consider what would be your feelings now if any Government were to introduce into Parliament a Bill for uniting

  1053
  the Courts of Scotland to the to the Courts of England, and making those Courts consist of three times the number of persons of which they consist at present. What would be your feelings if not only barristers of five year's standing, and gentlemen of the Faculty of Advocates, were supposed to be capable of all possible functions, but persons in a similar position to the Judges of the Zillah and Small Cause Courts were declared eligible to be appointed to the highest Court of judicature—such as Chairman of Quarter Sessions, County Court Judges, and persons of an inferior description who by rural courtesy are called lawyers? But all those persons may be introduced into this Court in India, which you will observe is the Court to which all the Courts throughout India, European and Native, are to appeal. I can imagine great objections to such a fusion of Scotch and English law, and no doubt great inconvenience would result from it. But how infinitely small would be the inconvenience of that amalgamation compared to the inconvenience of the amalgamation which is now proposed. The Judges to proceed to the Mofussil are to form a Court capable of infinite subdivision by their own authority. There is to be one Judge, or two Judges, or three Judges, as they please; and all these different Courts are to exercise the whole appellate and original jurisdiction now possessed by the Sudder Court and by the Supreme Court. English lawyers know nothing of the language of the people. They know nothing of the law by which cases are to be decided. They know nothing of Hindoo or Mahommedan law. They know nothing of the various regulations which, during one hundred years, successive Governors General have, with great zeal, introduced. They know nothing of the customs of the country or the habits of the people. They know nothing of the laws of caste; and these gentlemen are to be sent into the Mofussil to give satisfaction to the Natives in the administration of the law. I think that if it were desired to devise a system which would produce discontent from one end of India to the other, and degrade the administration of justice, it is that system which is provided by this Bill. But if that is not a sufficient objection, as I think it is, give me leave to draw your Lordships' attention to the financial working of this Bill. With the exception of the noble Lord who has introduced the Bill, I doubt whether any of your Lordships have looked into it
  1054
  to see what will be the cost, and what will be its particular effect upon the expenditure. Three Courts are to be established, and a fourth may be established, and, probably, will be established for the North-Western Provinces. To show the animus with which the Bill was introduced, when it was presented to the House of Commons there was no limit as to the number of Judges. The House of Commons, with rare economy, limited the number to fifteen for each of the four Presidencies. The number of Judges by whom appellate jurisdiction is to be exercised is by this Bill sixty. How many Judges are there now? At Calcutta there are three, at Madras two, and at Bombay two, making seven in all. Of the sixty Judges twenty must be barristers. Thirteen barristers of five years' standing are to go out to India as Judges. Every one of those gentlemen, of necessity, in order to induce them to go and to place them on a level with those who are there, must have £5,000 a year. There are eighteen Judges in the Company's courts; therefore, only two have to be added to complete the twenty who must be covenanted servants. How is the intermediate body of twenty to be made up? No power is given to the Governor General to make an original appointment. It is a greater violation of the principle of Government and the proceedings of Parliament than has ever occurred since the rejection of Mr. Fox's India Bill. It places India patronage of great value in the hands of the Crown. It takes from the Governor General the power of rewarding good judicial servants, and it transfers all the appointments to England. You may depend upon it that it is impossible great mischief under such circumstances should not follow. The result will be, and I believe the result intended is, that the third body of twenty Judges shall also be barristers of five years' standing, and that, in the first instance, thirty-three barristers will have to be sent to India with £5,000 a year each. Observe what is the present charge of judicial administration in India. In the accounts lately presented it is £4,230,000; but from that charge we may fairly deduct the charge for police, and a small charge of about £90,000 incurred in the year under review—1859–60—on account of the mutiny, making together £1,837,000. So that there remains as now expended on account of the administration of justice £2,393,000. Let us see what is the expense of the Supreme Courts already. The salaries of the seven

  1055
  Judges amount to £44,000. I have no objection whatever to that; but there are other very large charges for contingent expenses. The contingent charges of the three Courts are £83,500 a year, in addition to £44,000 paid in salaries. And the result of the operation of this measure will be this—there will be added to the present expenditure, great as I have shown it to be, the salaries of thirty-five Judges. Their salaries will amount to £175,000, and of that sum £165,000 will go to barristers of five years' standing. But there will be a charge for contingencies connected with these different Courts, and I venture to say it is a very low calculation to put it at £2,500 for each of the thirty-five Judges. If I were to take the average of the same charge for the present Judges, it would be £12,000 a year each; but taking it at £2,500 a year the total sum which this Bill will cost when carried out is £262,000. I do entreat your Lordships not to proceed further without considering what you are about, and hearing the evidence of competent persons as to the expediency of adopting this particular mode of carrying into effect the amalgamation of the Courts, even if it is right there should be an amalgamation at all. As the Bill stands, it appears nothing more than an enormous job for barristers. What effect it will have in India I know not; but this I know—that, if Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone's opinion be correct, it will produce the greatest discontent and dissatisfaction, and will not further the ends of justice. Recollect that for the first time there is introduced into this measure a provision giving to the Crown, and taking from the Government of India, a very large and most important patronage, the appointment of all the higher officers in the judicial establishment. I cannot consent to that innovation, nor can I consent, without much further information from the most competent authorities, to adopt the principle of the noble Lord's Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEbelieved that it was the opinion of those who had most experience in hearing Indian appeals in the Privy Council that the Supreme Court at Calcutta had worked in an admirable manner. It was a matter, therefore, of very serious moment to attempt to alter a Court of such a character. Nevertheless, he hoped that the Bill would pass without any great alteration. In one or two points it certainly did require alteration. He objected strongly to the provision at the end of the second
  1056
  clause, that one-third of the judges should of necessity be members of the Civil Service. Such a provision was entirely at variance with common sense, and seemed to him equally extraordinary and unconstitutional. He should have thought that the provision should have been just the other way—namely, that not more than one-third should belong to the Civil Service. The whole civil Service did not number more than 470 members, for notwithstanding the great increase of our Indian territories very immaterial additions had been made to the service. The proviso really enacted that one-third of the Judges should not be trained lawyers, for three years' service in a Zillah Court could not qualify a man to be Judge in a Supreme Court. It was quite right that the courts should be open to the Civil Service, and that members of that service when they showed themselves qualified for high judicial office should be raised to the bench; but he objected to making it imperative that one-third of the Judges should be taken from that service, whether or not it could afford men properly qualified. All the ablest men of the judicial department were taken from it to be placed in political and fiscal posts. He objected also to the clause which provided that the Chief Justice as well as the other Judges should be removable at the pleasure of the Crown. That was a most unconstitutional proposal. It was said that this had always been the case; but India was then governed by the Company, and the Queen's Judges were, therefore, independent of the Indian Government, and stood between the Company and the people. He submitted that it was desirable to perpetuate as far as possible that independence, for there was direct evidence on record that the Indian Government had not unfrequently attempted to influence their judicial officers in the discharge of their duty. The Enam Commission Commissioners had been exchanged two or three times because their decisions were not in accordance with the designs of the Government. He hoped that their Lordships would consider the two points he had mentioned when the Bill was in Committee. In opposition to the opinion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough), he believed that sending the Judges on circuit would be of great use, and he repeated that, as far as he could judge, the present Supreme Court was held in high estimation.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the

  1057
  noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) had objected to this Bill, that it would amalgamate two Courts which at the present moment had different modes of procedure. The fact was, however, that at the present moment there was one civil procedure in India applicable to all Courts; there was about to be one single criminal procedure, and after the 1st of January next there would be one penal code applicable to all classes in that country. The noble Earl's analogy, therefore, drawn between the proposal made in this Bill and a proposal to amalgamate the Scotch and English Courts entirely failed. The practice of the two Courts would, in point of fact, be the same even if they were kept separate. Then the noble Earl seemed to suppose that the Government were going to appoint sixty Judges under this Bill. This estimate proceeded upon the supposition, which was really quite preposterous, that it was proposed to appoint at once the whole of the fifteen Judges in these Courts. The words of the clause, however, were "not exceeding fifteen." The noble Earl said that forty out of the sixty might be barristers. Now, he did not think he need seriously answer an insinuation that the Bill was introduced to enable the Government to send out forty barristers from England to be Judges in these Courts. It was not the intention of the Bill that two-thirds of the Judges should be English barristers. One-third of the members of the Court were to be Civil Servants, and for the remaining appointments, besides the English barristers who would be eligible, two other qualifications were specified; so that the noble Earl's charge manifestly had no foundation. At present there was no limit by law to the number of Judges in the Sudder Courts. At Calcutta there were five, and within a recent period there had been ten; but those Judges had been appointed under peculiar circumstances, the amount of business being such as to render their appointment necessary. At that time there were thirteen Judges, ten in the Sudder and three in the Supreme Court. It might thus seriously interfere to impose a limit; but there was not the least intention to appoint sixty Judges, and incur the enormous expense which the noble Earl seemed to fear. Their number would be fixed as at present, according to the requirements of the service, with this difference—that, whereas the number of the Judges in the Sudder Courts might now be increased to any ex-
  1058
  tent by the addition of temporary Judges, a limit would be imposed under this Bill. It should be remembered that these Courts were to exercise jurisdiction throughout the whole of India. The duties of the Judges would be most important and various, and, that being so, it would not be right to impose a narrow limit on the discretion of the Indian Government in this particular.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwould offer a few words in explanation. This Bill amalgamated the Sudder and Supreme Courts, the result of which would be that each would bring all its Judges and all its jurisdiction into partnership. The Sudder Court decided causes which came before it on appeal according to the law which prevailed where those causes were originally heard, which was the Company's law. The Supreme Court decided the causes which came before it according to the Queen's law, which differed materially from that of the Company. Now, when the two Courts were amalgamated they must adjudge the case according to the law of the Court from which the appeal proceeded; and how would the Bill operate in this respect? First of all, the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Calcutta, of whom it was said that a Bill had been introduced specially to put him down, was at his discretion to direct in what manner the Court should be division surely meant that there should be a Queen's Judge and a Company's Committees, or else there would be no amalgamation; and f they had an English barrister sitting along with one of the Company's servants, this would practically be analogous to the amalgamation of the English and Scotch Courts, because here would be two Judges, neither of whom was acquainted with the law known to the other, and who would have to decide a case which might involve either kind of law. Another point was the number of barristers who might be appointed Judges under this Bill. When the measure was introduced into the House of Commons there was no limit, no check, to the expenditure that might be made under it on lawyers. But the House of Commons limited the number of Judges to fifteen. There were certain small Courts in India; and there were, besides, persons who acted as pleaders before the Sudder Courts; but he did not these intermadiate bodies.

  1059
  The Bill reminded him of the section of Westminster Hall which he had once seen; the two outside facings of the hall were of find stone, but the middle was filled up with bad rubble. He thought it quite impossible to come to any conclusion but that the Crown was to appoint the whole sixty judges, for the Government General could only nominate when there was a vacancy. He had told their Lordships what might be done under this Bill, and that was a Parliamentary view to take; it was their duty to be suspicious; confidence was not their duty; and he saw nothing in the way in which the Bill was framed to inspire confidence in those who framed it.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, there was one point to which he wished to call attention. The Judges of these Courts were to consist partly of Natives, who might be Hindoos or Mahommedans, and they might, from the way in which this Bill was framed, have to exercise their office of Judges in matters ecclesiastical. The Bill abolished the present Court of Appeal in matters ecclesiastical, which was a Court of delegates consisting of three members of the Civil Service in each of the Presidencies. He thought it was desirable that some change should be made in the Bill before it was passed, in order to prevent Native Judges having to exercise jurisdiction in ecclesiastical mattes.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I think it would be a matter of deep regret if anything that has occurred should prove an impediment to the progress of this Bill, which, I think, will distinguish the present Session, by discharging one of the greatest obligations you owe to the people of India. Since I have had the honour of holding a seat in this House, I have listened on several occasions with the pleasure and admiration which all must feel to the speeches of the noble Lord on my left 9the Earl of Ellenborough). But i must confess I do not think the speech he has made this evening is distinguished by so much candour or, I will even say, with much respect, by so much knowledge of the subject as generally mark the speeches of the noble Earl. The noble Earl spoke of the Supreme Court in the several Presidencies as if it had not now to administer Native law; but the Supreme Court has an area of jurisdiction within which come the great cities of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. Within that area the judges of the Supreme Court administer not only
  1060
  English but Native law. One principal topic of the noble Earl's speech has been the ignorance of the English barristers, and their unfitness to administer Native law satisfactorily. Yet the present state of the administration of justice in India is this—there is a Supreme Court within whose jurisdiction come the chief towns of the Presidencies; beyond them there is a local jurisdiction that I may describe as divided into districts, each having a Zillah Judge, who decides both in civil and criminal cases. From these judge there is an appeal to the Sudder Adawlut, and, with great deference to the noble earl, I must say that, thought in theory this Court may have some original jurisdiction, it is practically confined to matters of appeal. What is the result? That, with regard to the Natives beyond the limits of the towns, there is one Supreme Court to administer the law, and with regard to the Natives within the limits there is another. And with regard to British subjects, if they are within the limits of the Presidency towns they are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; but if they are beyond those limits they are subject to no jurisdiction except the limited powers the 53rd of George III. gives to local magistrates of the Mofussil. The result is there is a most unjust and unreasonable distinction between the Natives on one side and the Europeans on the other; one is placed on a different footing from the other. Can this be satisfactory to the Natives of the country? Have you any greater hold, or ought you to seek to have any greater hold, over the Natives of the country than by an elevated, impartial, and pure administration of justice? Can that be attained while you have one law and one administration for the Native, and another for the European? That defect the Bill is proposed to remedy. The noble Earl says, how can we send out English barristers, of five year's standing, to administer Native law? But the Judges in India—I may appeal to the example of Sir William Jones—have been distinguished by the assiduity with which they have cultivated a knowledge of Native law, as much as by the impartiality and skill with which they have administered it. It is true that the Bill merely provides that the barristers who may be selected for these appointments must be of five year's standing; but the noble Earl will permit me to remind him that this is the minimum qualification. It does not mean that young

  1061
  men are always to be selected, though a barrister of five years' standing may frequently have a great amount of practical experience in his profession. The late Mr. Justice Patterson had practised below the bar, and laid the foundation of his great reputation by attaining great knowledge of the law, so that when he was elevated to the Bench he was only a barrister of a few years' standing. It would be an unwise thing to require such a number of years' standing for an English barrister as would preclude the possibility of selecting a young and talented man. Now, the manner in which these Judges are to administer the law is this:—A certain number of covenanted servants, and a certain number of Natives, are to be nominated as judges; circuits will be established, and commissions, sometimes of European, sometimes of Native judges, according to the exigency of circumstances, will be sent into the Mofussil districts to regulate, control, and set right what may be required in the administration of justice. The noble Earl has drawn a striking picture of the good things which this measure will provide Earl, however, has much exaggerated the generosity of the Government to English barristers, and I am quite sure when his speech is read it will make many months water in Westminster Hall, the Sessions House, and the Four Courts, in expectation of such good things as fifteen judgeships, each with £5,000 a year. Then—which is an extravagance that, with my little knowledge of India, I hardly anticipated7mdash;the noble earl says each of these Judges will have £2,500 whenever they go a circuit, or make a journey into the Mofussil. If this is the anticipation of the noble Earl, it is by no means the anticipation of the Government. There are at present eight Judges in each of the Presidencies, five in the Sudder Court, and three in the Supreme Court; and I have yet to learn that the judges of the Sudder Court each receive £5,000 a year; and I do not find that this Bill will make any alteration in that respect. On the contrary, its language has been studiously selected to avoid any such obligation. But I do not think that is the mode in which a great question of this kind should be considered. We are providing for the administration of justice among many millions of people. Undoubtedly we should not approach that subject by first making an estimate of what it will cost,
  1062
  but we should approach it in order to establish such a staff of Judges as may be required by the exigencies of the case; not, I admit, beyond the exigencies of the case, but such as is absolutely required for the performance of the duties. Such, undoubtedly, we are under obligations to consider, and that obligations, I submit, no consideration of money should induce us to forbear from acting upon. It was said by the noble Earl that a gentleman of great ability and deserved reputation (Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone) gave an opinion some years ago to the effect that it would not be desirable to attempt to amalgamate the modes of administering the English and Native law. Now, let us consider what was the ground for that opinion. The noble Earl gave us a reason for that opinion, but that reason, I am happy to say, no longer exists. Mr. Elphinstone, who is frequently cited upon this subject, said he should be sorry to carry the English mode of administering justice into the Mofussil, because it would take with it all the technicalities of English procedure. I agree with him that, if the technicalities of English special pleading existed now as they did at that time the opinion was given, administering justice in the English form would inflict those technicalities upon the Natives of India. But the noble Earl forgets that the Government have delayed the propositions contained in this Bill until they had previously prepared the way by the formation of a simple code both of civil and criminal procedure7mdash;a code which we have already tried and found to give satisfaction—a code which combines the merits of cheapness and expedition, as well as the means of simplifying the administration of justice. I think, therefore, the mode of dealing with this subject which the Government have adopted is one consistent with their duty and the proper administration of justice in India. I am particularly desirous that this should be done, because I think the Native laws will, under this form of administration, be fully developed, and in a manner consistent with the results of experience and the improved state of the English jurisdiction. There are a variety of cases in which, without altering the Native law, but adhering to it in all respects in regard to possession and the rights of property, yet as to contracts and mercantile usages there are an infinite number of cases in which the Native law would be improved by being administered under an improved system. Of the various

  1063
  points which have been urged in debate there only remains, I think, that mentioned by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde)—the removability of the Judges at the pleasure of the Crown. The noble Marquess will be relieved of a great part of his apprehensions when he is reminded that, although it has been customary to make the offices of colonial Judges dependent upon the pleasure of the Crown, yet, in reality, there is a rule which has been laid down, which practically gives those Judges the same security as the English Judges; and I remember a case in which the removal of a Judge was reversed, because that rule had not been adhered to—which is, that whenever a cause of complaint is raised against a Judge, that cause of complaint should be brought under his notice, in order that he might have an opportunity of being heard in his defence antecedently to any steps being taken to remove him from his office. The position of a colonial Judge is, therefore, nearly correspondent with that of English Judges, who are removable only upon an Address to the Crown by both Houses of Parliament, and I think the rule I have mentioned is quite sufficient to ensure security in the case of Indian Judges. In conclusion, I may advert to the point raised by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), and I would remark that there is no more common mistaken than to suppose that the word "ecclesiastical" now involves anything that is spiritual. There is no ecclesiastical jurisdiction existing now in England beyond what is exercised by civil courts. The last blow was struck when I had the honour of carrying through Parliament the Testamentary jurisdiction Bill and the Matrimonial Causes Bill. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction here referred to is a testamentary jurisdiction and a matrimonial jurisdiction. A spiritual jurisdiction relates to question between a Bishop and his clergy, or between the clergy themselves. However, in order to prevent the possibility of alarm upon the subject, I can assure the right rev. Prelate that it is the intention of the Government to strike out the word "ecclesiatical" and substitute the word Having now referred to the various points that have been mooted I have only further to apologize to your Lordships for trespassing to apologize to your Lordships for trespassing at some length upon your patience.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVICE) BILL.

  SECOND READING
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONrose to move the second reading of this Bill, which, he said, was the last of the series of Bills relating to India which the Government had submitted to Parliament this Session. The first object of the Bill was to confirm a number of appointments which had during a long space of time been made by the Government of India, but upon the legality of which great doubts had been cast. By an Act passed in 1783 covenanted Civil Servants alone were to be appointed to posts in India; but, as the limits of our Indian Empire were extended, and the demand upon the covenanted service increased, the number of Civil Servants was found inadequate, and other persons were appointed. Various attempts were made to justify the proceeding. It was held that in non-regulation provinces, which had been added since 1793, the provisions of the Act of that year did not apply. It was also held that, provided an appointment was not eo nomine in existence in 1793, the restrictions of the Act did not apply. To meet the case, it happened frequently that offices were abolished and re-created under a different name, in order to enable uncovenanted servants to be appointed. Thus, an assistant-collector was changed into a deputy-collector. Under the Act of 1793 the postmaster and other officers should be members of the guaranteed service, and even the Military Secretary ought to be not a military man but a covenanted Civil Servant. In consequence of some doubt which arose with regard to an appointment in Bengal, Lord Stanley, who was then at the head of the Indian Administration in this country, caused the opinion of the law officers of the Crown to be taken, and their decision rendered it perfectly clear that under the Act of 1793 not merely the appointment of military men to civil offices, but, likewise, the appointment of Natives to such offices as that of Principal Sudder Ameen was altogether illegal. It was consequently manifest not only that steps ought to be taken to legalize the appointments already made, but that the powers of the Governor General for the future ought to be clearly defined. No one could desire that military men should be excluded from civil and political appointments, which they

  1065
  had filled in various parts of India with the greatest advantage to the public service; or, on the other hand, that certain appointments should be closed against the Natives of India. The object of the Bill, was, consequently, to legalize appointments which had already been made, and to provide that, in future, particular duties might be performed by members either of the covenanted or uncovenanted service. But when such a serious alteration was made in the law of 1793 a question naturally arose as to the position of the Civil Servants. He need not detain their Lordships by dilating on the claims of these public officers, nor by expressing his admiration of the great services which they had rendered since India was first brought under the rule of this country. The Indian Civil Service had produced men of the highest eminence in all the branches of statesmanship, who had done honour not only to India but to England also. It was, consequently, the absolute duty of the Government, when interfering with the law of 1793, to determine the position in which Civil Servants would in future be placed. In deference to representations made by the Civil Servants, the Secretary of State for India had introduced into the Bill a schedule of offices which to be reserved exclusively for Civil Servants, except in cases where the Governor General, for special reasons, felt it advisable to appoint some person outside their number, and in those instances the appointments were to be only temporary till they obtained the approval of the Secretary of State at a meeting called to consider the appointment. That such an exceptional power ought to exist was shown by the case of Colonel Durand, of whose political experience, and great knowledge of the Natives Lord Canning would have been unable to avail himself under a strict interpretation of the Act of 1793. Sufficient cheeks were imposed upon those appointments by the fact that a residence of seven years in India was necessary as a qualification, and that the persons selected would be required to possess an acquaintance with the Native languages. The Bill in its present shape had obtained the approval of the representatives of the Civil Service, having been altered in accordance with their suggestions, and received the unanimous support in "another place" of Members of both political parties. He,
  1066
  therefore, trusted their Lordships would not object to its being read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, every Governor General desired to have the most absolute freedom of selection in filling up the offices at his disposal, and would, no doubt, rather exercise the powers given by the Bill than content himself with those which he possessed under the existing law. But, whatever political advantages might be derived from the measure, he did not think it was just. It was directly in contravention of Parliamentary pledges; it interfered with Parliamentary right, and, unless the Members of the Civil Service were content to waive their privileges, Parliament should continue to extend to them all the advantages they at present possessed. No acts of illegality committed by successive Governors General could in any manner detract from offices. He doubted whether the supposed benefits would result from this Bill, and whether the moment Civil Servants ceased to enjoy the exclusive possession of office in India the same disposition would continue on the part of the people of this country to offer themselves as candidates for that service. If the effect of this new law were materially to diminish the number and to lower the qualifications of persons desirous to fill situations in India, very great mischief would be done. Gentlemen who came off second best at the very strict examinations in this country would set off to India and endeavour to get in at the back door, having failed to get in at the front. Having lived through the prescribed term of years—and with their qualifications they would have no difficulty in obtaining employment in the interval—there was nothing to prevent them from obtaining office, and, perhaps, from distancing in the public service those gentlemen who at the competitive examinations had obtained a greater number of marks. The noble Earl had spoken of the securities provided under the Bill against any impropriety of conduct on the part of the Governor General in appointing persons on special grounds; but he should wish to be informed what security existed against improper appointments in the non-regulation provinces. He looked with extreme regret on what he regarded as steps towards the lowering, if not the extinction and supersession of the Civil Service, in which he

  1067
  recognized a body of independent English gentlemen of honour and integrity; and he doubted extremely whether, under any altered system which might be devised, public officers equally distinguished and equally capable of carrying on the government of India would be obtained.
  LORD LYVEDENobserved that the explanation which the noble Lord gave of the objects of the Bill to legalize appointments hitherto made of doubtful legality, and to a certain extent to open the service to uncovenanted servants, was a correct description of the measure as it was first introduced; but it had been materially altered in the House of Commons. Objections were urged to the Bill in its original from that the uncovenanted servant was not subjected to the same tests upon entering the service as the covenanted servants, and also that they were not prohibited from receiving bribes and taking presents, which for the sake of the purity and morality of the service ought to be the case, especially if these appointments were thrown open to them. The Secretary of State had some private conference with those who advanced these objections, and the result had been a complete alteration of the Bill, making the covenanted service even closer than it was at present. The schedule which had been inserted was proposed so late in the passage of the Bill that it had not received due attention in the other House, and it required a great deal of examination before it should be permitted to become law. When they came into Committee he should propose to strike out the second clause and the schedule, and the thought that there would be ample protection remaining for the covenanted servants. The Civil Service was, as every one knew, a very eminent body, but he did not think that on that account the Governor General should, in all cases, be bound to appoint persons belonging to that body when a person better fitted for the vacant office was to be found elsewhere. In this Bill there was no sort of sanction or authority given for the appointment of Natives; the consequence of this would be to place them further than ever from employment. If it was intended to exclude them it would be fairer and franker to say so at once. If not, why were not offices selected for competition at Calcutta whereby they might be admitted? they were not even named in it. But what he objected to in the Bill was its complete alteration without any reason being assigned, and he
  1068
  hoped that it would yet be restored to its original shape.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that this Bill was opposed by two noble Lords on opposite and contradictory grounds. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) alleging that the Bill was unjust because it opened the Civil Service of India, and his noble Friend behind him (Lord Lyveden) objecting that it rendered that service more close. Neither of these objections, however, was well founded. In the first sentence of his speech the noble Earl said that it would be an advantage to the Governor General to be able to appoint any person he pleased to any office which might be vacant. If that were so, then he could not admit that there was in any body of men a vested right which could preclude Parliament from giving to the Governor General as much of that power as it thought it safe to vest in his hands. The original object of making the Civil Service close was to protect the patronage of the Directors against the interference of the Governor General. Now, however, our object was to secure for the Civil Service in India the greatest number of the best men that could be got. The admission to that service was not obtained by competition, and, although he was not prepared to maintain that that system was a perfect one, yet he had always been of opinion that it was much superior to the old plan of patronage. It was surely important that, if the Governor General found one Civil Servant more competent for an office than another, he should be able to appoint him to it; and if there was a gentleman in India not in the public service who was competent to the conduct of public affairs it was certainly for the advantage of the public that he should be placed in an office where his talents might be employed. This Bill was undoubtedly a compromise between the principles of his two noble Friends, one of whom looked upon the Civil Service as a vested interest, and the other thought that the service, to a great extent, should be open. It left the Governor General as free as he was in practice, and more free than he was by law, to appoint to offices persons not belonging to the Civil Service. At present he was not by law entitled to appoint any person not a member of the Civil Service to many offices, but practically he exercised that power. It was now provided that Civil Servants should have the first claim if fit men were to be found in the service, but

  1069

  in default of finding such persons the Governor General was empowered to appoint the fit persons. As to the history of this Bill, it was true that the schedule referred to had been introduced to meet the objections of the Civil Servants in this country; but all that it provided was that the offices mentioned in it the Civil Servants should have the first claim. The Governor General might, however, appoint even to those offices persons not connected with the covenanted service, provided he could show to the Government at home sufficient reasons for the appointments, and the Government approved of them.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEbelieved that no Governor General could carry on the Government in strict conformity with the Act of 1793, for it was impossible that the members of the covenanted service should fill all the offices under the Government of India. He understood that not only had Lord Dalhousie and Lord Canning applied for military officers to fill what were really civil offices, but the commander of the forces in India had been obliged to refuse the number Lord Canning required. So far, therefore, as the Bill opened up the service he cordially approved of it. He was, however, disposed to move an Amendment in Committee, with the view of restoring the Bill to its original shape, so far as it referred to the duration of residence in India and required to entitle a person to be employed by the Governor General. He would propose that instead of seven years the period of time in India should be five years, which, he thought, would be quite long enough. He had, however, a more serious complaint to make against the insufficiency of the Bill. He thought that they had rather debarred than assisted the Natives entering into the Government service by this measure. There had been Parliamentary as well as Ministerial promises given from time to time to the Natives that they should be advanced to greater employment in the service of the Indian Government. The pledge had never been redeemed. It was mere mockery to tell the Natives that they might come over to this country and undergo an examination for Government offices. He submitted that public examinations should be opened in India for Natives, and that when they had qualified themselves by passing those examinations they should be eligible at once for employment by the Government in almost any office. It was not right, nor safe,
  1070
  nor honourable to palter any further with this question.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.
  THE EARL OF DERBYasked upon what day it was proposed to go into Committee on the two Bills? There was still a good deal of business before the House. He should certainly think it would be better to refer those Bills to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House; but, at this advanced stage of the Session, there might be some risk of losing the Bills altogether by such a course. At the same time, considering what had passed that night in reference to them, it was obvious that the details required mature consideration. As it was likely that many Amendments would be proposed it was desirable that the Committee should be appointed for such an hour in the evening when the attendance of Members of their Lordships' House would be more numerous than it was at present, rather than to bring on the discussion at such a time when the Ministerial side of the House would be represented by seven or eight Members, and the opposite side by only, perhaps, two or three.
  EARL GRANVILLEproposed to take the Committee on both Bills on Thursday.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

EDUCATION—SCHOOLS IN SOMERSETSHIRE.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLSmoved for a Return of the parishes in the county of Somerset, with a population less than 600, which received Government aid for the schools therein. The right rev. Prelate said he was induced to move for this Return in consequence of the statement made the other evening by the noble Duke who presided over the Colonial Department, on the authority of the Report of the Education Commissioners. He did not wish to say anything against that Report. On the contrary, he believed it to be a most able one. That Report, however, referred to certain tables which were drawn up by Mr. Stevenson in 1857, founded upon the authority of the Inspector's Reports in 1856. In that Report he found it stated that there were 71 schools in the county of Somerset under registered or certificated teachers. He had, however, before him a statement fully authenticated, that instead of 71 such

  1071
  schools in that county there were no less than 156. The Report went on to say that there were 282 parishes in the county, with a population of 600 and under, only one of which received Government aid. He had a paper before him, drawn up by Her Majesty's Inspector, which stated that, so far from it being a fact that the number was only 1 in 282 of these small parishes receiving Government aid, the number was really 1 in 9 1/2. He thought that a Report dated so far back as 1856 ought not to have been relied upon. It was also stated that in the county of Dorset the number of schools receiving Government aid was 1 in 17, in Devonshire 1 in 122. Seeing the mistake which had been made in regard to the county of Somerset, he tested the truth as regarded the county of Devon, and he found that the numbers should be 1 in 15. It should, however, be recollected that in many small parishes there were schools established by resident proprietors who neither sought or would receive Government aid. There were also in Somersetshire, a number of very small parishes where the children were educated to a certain point, and were then able to go to neighbouring and larger parishes where there were schools having certificated teachers, and receiving assistance from the Privy Council; and thus these small parishes benefited by Government grants. It was with the view of ascertaining the the real facts of the case he now moved for the Return of which he had given notice.
  Moved,—
  "That there be laid before the House, Return of the Parishes in the County of Somerset, with a Population of less than 600, which receive Government aid for the Schools therein."
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEassured the right rev. Prelate that in the allusion which he had made to Somerset he had not the slightest intention of throwing any aspersions upon that county. His simple object was to explain why the Commissioners thought that the Privy Council system required some further assistance, and was not as complete as it was generally supposed to be. The inquiry of the Commissioners had extended over two years and a half, and the statistics collected at the commencement of their labours could not be perfectly accurate when they presented their Report; but in the Report it was stated that the Returns had been made two years previously. With regard to Somerset, the figures were made up in 1857; but in
  1072
  the case of three counties, which he quoted, at the close of 1858, the right rev. Prelate had transposed the mode of making the calculation. It was not based on a percentage, but on the number of schools receiving aid in a given number of small parishes. He had inquired at the Privy Council Office what alteration had taken place since the Return he quoted had been made, and he found that in 282 parishes in Somerset, with less than 600 inhabitants, 19 schools were receiving Government aid on the 31st December, 1860; so that 18 must have been added to the one which was returned in the table and referred to in the Report. He still maintained that there was an enormous deficiency of education in the smaller country parishes. He was aware that there were schools not included in these Returns. Upon many estates schools were supported by landlords, and he had every reason to believe they were well conducted; but it was worthy of consideration whether it was not better to place them under Government inspection. He hoped his explanation would be satisfactory; but if the right rev. Prelate had any wish to have the names of the nineteen schools there would be no objection to give them.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, that the greatest possible caution should have been exercised by the Privy Council in taking action upon the Report referred to. In Somerset there were a great many small parishes having the farmer and clergyman as the only residents, and no children to go to school; and many parishes where, with excellent schools, no inspector was admitted, because the patrons would not submit to their dictation. The gross number of 282 parishes with less than 600 population was, therefore, capable of a considerable reduction when discussing the general provision made for education in the small parishes of that county. The reason why the landowners in the west of England had been slow to place their schools under Government inspection was that they were very much alarmed at what were called the "management clauses;" but the progress of time has very much lessened their objections, and the regulations have been much mitigated and improved, and he was inclined to think that the time had come when they ought to consider whether Government inspection would not be a very good thing for them. One measure which, no doubt, would very much conduce to more schools being placed under

  1073
  inspection would be for the Government to furnish on a single sheet of paper all the requirements they would exact from those who desired to receive assistance. He must once more protest against the suggestion of the Commissioners to make schools a charge on the county rates nothing could be so injurious to education. He found on inquiry more reasons to doubt the assertions of the Assistant Commissioners who was employed in the western district.
  THE BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLSexpressed himself satisfied with the noble Duke's explanation.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow Half-past Ten o'clock.