Sitting of 21 March 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Consolidated Fund (£3,000,000).
2o Admiralty Court Jurisdiction; Smoke Nuisance (Scotland) Act Amendment.

THE MAYNOOTH GRANT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid that, seeing the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in his place, he wished to ask him, Whether it was his intention to introduce again this Session the Bill for repealing the Grant to the College of Maynooth
  MR. SPOONER: I beg to inform the hon. Gentleman that it is not my intention to bring on that question. I may, perhaps, be allowed to state, shortly, my reason for not bringing it on. [Cries of "Order, order!")
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to enter into explanations.
  MR. SPOONER: I wish merely to say that my reasons for not doing it are these, that I feel myself totally incapable from the state of my eyes to read those documents which it will be necessary to lay before the House when bringing forward the question.
  MR. WHALLEY: Then, I beg to give notice that I shall shortly after Easter ask leave to bring in a Bill on the subject.

LORD CLERK REGISTER IN SCOTLAND

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government have come to any decision with regard to the vacant office of Lord Clerk Register in Scotland
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was the intention of the Government to abolish the office of Lord Clerk Register in Scotland, in accordance with a communication made by the Treasury to the Home Office two or three years ago, the office being one to which no substantial duties were attached. He was unable to state the precise mode in which the abolition would be carried into effect, but he apprehended it would be necessary to bring in a Bill, and, if so, it would be introduced shortly after Easter.

ELY TIDAL HARBOUR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GORE LANGTONsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade,

  155
  Whether the provisional sanction of the Board of Trade has been given to the Company incorporated by the Ely Tidal Harbour and Railway Act, 1856, to act as a pilotage authority within the Bristol Channel; and if so, can the Local Act, 47 Geo. III., c. 33, s. 9, be repealed provisionally, or is a provisional sanction by the Board within the powers granted to it by the Ely Act
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that an offer had been made by the Board of Trade to sanction the Company incorporated by the Ely Tidal Harbour and Railway Act as a pilotage authority within the Bristol Channel for a limited time and on certain conditions. The power of giving that sanction was within the Ely Act, which was subsequent to the Act 47 Geo. III., and, therefore, the power could be exercised by the Board of Trade without infringing the latter act.

BRITISH SUBJECTS IN JAPAN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can inform the House of the circumstances under which a British subject has been tried at Kanagawa by a Court composed of the Vice-Consul and three Merchants as assessors; whether the Court so composed agreed in the decision come to, and if the sentenced pronounced by the Vice-Consul was fine, deportation from Japan, and three months' imprisonment at Hong Kong; and, lastly, whether the Court at Hong Kong have pronounced the imprisonment unjust and illegal, in consequence of which the British subject referred to has been discharged from imprisonment
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, in answer to the question of his hon. Friend, that the circumstances under which a British subject was tried at Kanagawa were briefly these:—Mr. Moss, the British subject referred to, had gone out shooting, and had killed a wild goose or some other bird. On his way home, when he arrived at Kanagawa, he met certain persons employed by the police of that district, who advanced towards him with their swords. He cocked his gun, and threatened to fire if they advanced; but some other persons behind, employed by the same authorities, took away his gun, which in the struggle went off, and inflicted serious wounds on one or two persons who tried to take it
  156
  from him. The Japanese seized him and carried him to a place of confinement, from which he was rescued by the British Vice Consul, who took him to his own house. According to the Treaty and to the Orders in Council he was there tried for the offence of having gone out with his gun, and also for the offence alleged by the Japanese, of having deliberately fired at those Japanese who were wounded. The British Vice-Consul had two assessors for the purpose of this trial. It did not appear that the Vice-Consul thought Mr. Moss guilty of the crime alleged by the Japanese—namely, that he had fired deliberately at these persons—but the Vice-Consul referred to an order for notification, issued in 1859, to the effect that it was not lawful, according to Japanese laws and customs, either to carry firearms or to go out in pursuit of game without permission, and he also found that his resistance to the police authorities was likewise a violation of the general order which had been given by the Government. The Vice-Consul, in consequence of these offences, condemned Mr. Moss to deportation from Japan, and also to pay 1,000 dollars as a fine. The two assessors dissented from this judgment, and refused to concur in the sentence. The matter was, therefore, according to the treaty, referred to the Consul General, Mr. Alcock, who said that the two assessors were not competent in any way to give an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Mr. Alcock thought the punishment too mild, and he added to it three months' imprisonment at Hong Kong. Mr. Moss was accordingly sent to Hong Kong; but when he arrived there it was found that the warrant of the magistrate was informal. It professed to be given upon the authority of the Order in Council, which Order in Council was repealed, and there was not, therefore, any justification for the sentence of imprisonment. Mr. Moss was thereupon liberated, not at all upon the merits of the case, but from this technical defect. He was sorry to say that the conduct of Mr. Alcock on one side and the opinion of the British merchants on the other had led to a good deal of discussion and ill-blood in Japan. Mr. Alcock's representation was that between the question of conforming to the Japanese laws and customs on the one hand, and a certain liberty to the British subjects on the other, a line ought to be drawn; but he said that many of the British subjects in Japan thought themselves

  157
  entitled to violate the laws of that country, whereby they excited on the part of the Japanese a great deal of resentment and complaint. The merchants, on the other hand, said it was absurd to suppose that all the Japanese customs, their mode of dress, and various other things were to be observed by English residents. That might be perfectly true on their part, but he must say he thought that Mr. Alcock was quite right in saying that while on the one hand a fair liberty should be allowed to British merchants and others engaged in their common pursuits, yet that to set at defiance the laws and customs of the Japanese was a course of conduct that was calculated to lead to very serious results. With respect to the legal question, that must be referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and he could, therefore, offer no opinion upon it, nor could he give the papers until that opinion was given. These, however, were the facts, and he must say he should very much lament if the conduct of the English residents in Japan should neutralize the good effects which the active commerce springing up between the two countries could not fail to produce.

  IONIAN ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that the Reply to the Message of the Lord High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands to the Representative Chamber of the Legislature declared that the English Protectorate ought to be regarded as the only cause of the miseries of the Ionians; that a Deputy demanded that the question of Annexation to Greece should be put to the vote; and that, in consequence of these and similar manifestations of opinion, the Ionian Parliament, which had only just met, was prorogued for six months by the Lord High Commissioner; and whether he has any objection to lay upon the table any official information which the Government may have received with respect to such prorogation
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, it was true that the Lord High Commissioner had prorogued the Ionian Assembly, which met on the 1st of the present month, and he would briefly state the circumstances which led to that prorogation. The Address in answer to the Speech of the Lord High Commissioner was brought up by the Committee of the Assembly, and it stated various vague and unfounded charges in respect to the Protectorate,
  158
  against which the Lord High Commissioner was prepared to protest when the Address should be presented, but which did not form the ground of the prorogation. In the meantime, however, two long documents were laid on the table, and stood among the Orders of the Day for discussion. These had been presented by two Members—one proposing that the Assembl3', acting without the other branches of the Legislature, should call on the Ionian people to declare, by universal suffrage, their desire for union with Greece; and the other proposing an Address to the peoples and Governments of Europe, invoking the aid of Christian Europe in favour of the emancipation of the Hellenic race and the removal of the Turkish Government from Europe. Upon this the Lord High Commissioner addressed a Message to the Assembly, warning it of the unconstitutional nature of the proposals, and appealing to its prudence and patriotism to remove those propositions from the Order of the Day and proceed to the business of legislation. That appeal did not succeed, the Assembly not complying with the advice given it, upon which the Lord High Commissioner reluctantly exercised his constitutional power and prorogued the Assembly for six months, a measure which the Lord High Commissioner stated was favourably received in Corfu and produced no sensation whatever. With respect to production of the information asked for, he assured the House that the correspondence would add little or nothing to the statement he had made, and to what had appeared in The Times of that morning, but if the hon. Member moved for copies of the correspondence the Government would have no objection to lay on the table the substance of the information.
  MR. MAGUIREthen gave notice that, as early as possible after Easter, he would move for papers and correspondence relative to the mission of the right hon. William Ewart Gladstone to the Ionian Islands in November, 1858; also for Papers and Correspondence in continuation—namely, from the arrival of Sir Henry Storks in Corfu on the 16th of February, 1859, to the latest period, including those in relation to the prorogation of the Legislative Assembly in March, 1861.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he wished to asked the Under Secretary of State for

  159
  the Colonies, Whether the consent of the Legislature of Newfoundland has been or would be asked before concluding the Convention now in course of negotiation between the Governments of England and France on the subject of the Newfoundland Fisheries
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the hon. Gentleman, no doubt, alluded to the assurance given to the people of Newfoundland in 1857 by Lord Taunton, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, to the effect that no modification of their territorial or maritime rights should take place without their consent being first asked and obtained. The Convention in course of execution with the French Government was for the preservation of the national maritime rights of France, and did not interfere with the territorial or maritime rights of Newfoundland. The object was to define and secure to each country its just rights. Lord Taunton's promise was not in the least interfered with by the negotiations, nor was there anything in them, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, at variance with its spirit. The Convention, therefore, would not be submitted to the Legislature of Newfoundland.

DEATH OF THE DUCHESS OF KENT.—CLOSING OF PLACES OF AMUSEMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BERKELEYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Dement, Whether he is aware that all the London Theatres under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain were closed on last Saturday evening out of respect to the memory of Her Royal Highness the late Duchess of Kent; whether he is, likewise, aware that all the Music Halls, Salons, Casinos, and the Alhambra in Leicester Square were open upon that day; and whether any attempt will be made by the Executive to prevent the opening of such places on the evening of the funeral of Her Royal Highness; and, if legal means are not existing to accomplish this, whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill for the better ordering of such places of amusement
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that instructions were given by the Lord Chamberlain for closing the theatres on Saturday last, and he had no reason to doubt that those instructions were all duly complied with. As to that class of entertainments
  160
  afterwards referred to in the question of his hon. Friend, he could only say that neither the Lord Chamberlain nor the police had any control over them for the purpose of closing them upon such occasions, and, therefore, no steps were taken to close them on Saturday last; and for the same reasons no steps would be taken for closing them on Monday next. With respect to the final question of the hon. Member, he observed that near the end of last Session he introduced a Bill, giving to the Lord Chamberlain certain powers with respect to places where theatrical entertainments were performed, but which did not come within the definition of theatres. That Bill was not proceeded with on account of the late period of the Session, and of objections made to some parts of it, but it would be his wish to ask for leave to re-introduce it after the holidays.

  BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (STAMP DUTY).—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had to move the following Resolution:—
  "That, in addition to the ordinary Stamp Duty, there shall be charged an ad valorem Stamp Duty of seven shillings upon every hundred pounds of property comprised in every Trust or other Deed or Instrument required to be registered by any Act of the present Session for amending the Law relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency in England."
  The object of the Resolution was to fix maximum of duty; but its precise amount would be open to discussion when the clause was brought up to be added to the Bill.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he objected to the amount being 7s. as excessive, and he would propose that 5s. should be substituted for 7s.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he must remind the hon. Member that 7s. was not the minimum but the maximum amount.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Resolved,
  "That, in addition to the ordinary Stamp Duty, there shall be charged an ad valorem Stamp Duty of seven shillings upon every hundred pounds of property comprised in every Trust or other Deed or Instrument required to be registered by any Act of the present Session for amending the Law relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency in England."
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow at half-past four of the clock.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  MR. BRISTOWproposed the introduction of the following clause to follow Clause 138:—
  "No bankrupt shall, after an adjudication in Bankruptcy, be liable to any action at law or suit in equity (whether commenced prior or subsequent to such adjudication), for the breach or non-performance of any covenant or agreement entered into by such bankrupt in any existing lease or agreement for a lease."
  Clause brought up and read 1o.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the state of the law upon the subject was that if a bankrupt had a lease it was competent to the assignees to decline to accept it. In that case the lease remained in the bankrupt, and he was still liable to all claims that might arise out of the covenants of the lease. That was rather hard. The clause, however, was imperfect, because if the assignees rejected the lease and the bankrupt was to be released from his covenants it ought to be surrendered to the lessor. He (the Attorney General) would take care that the subject should be considered in "another place" if the hon. Gentleman would agree not to press the clause at the present moment.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would look well to the clause, as it might well be that it would give the bankrupt a power to retain possession of the premises without paying rent. The clause provided that the bankrupt was not to be held liable for breach of covenants; and they all knew that the payment of rent was a material part of most covenants. It ought to be fixed that the lease should in all such cases be surrendered to the lessor.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman opposite that he should leave this matter in the hands of the hon. and learned Attorney General, who would either in that House or in "another place" introduce a clause to give effect to the principle which had been enunciated either here or afterwards in "another place." There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and which might be effected by the insertion of three words. It might happen that a bankrupt had borrowed money and insured his life, giving a bond to pay the premiums as a collateral security, The
  162
  bankruptcy would, of course, dispose of the debt; but unless some provision were introduced the creditor might still compel the bankrupt debtor to continue to pay the premiums, although he held the policy as security for a debt which no longer existed. Now, be thought that from both liabilities the bankruptcy of the debtor ought to free him, and that his hon. and learned Friend would do well to prepare a clause giving effect to that view.
  MR. BRISTOWsaid he would, on the understanding that the hon. and learned Attorney General would attend to these points, withdraw his clause.
  Motion by leave withdrawn: clause withdrawn.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he would propose that the following clause should follow Clause 163:—
  "With respect to all persons heretofore bankrupt, and whose certificates of conformity shall hare been refused. it shall be lawful for the Court, at any time after the expiration of three years from the time of, and notwithstanding such refusal, to hear and determine the application of any such bankrupt for an order of discharge; and thereupon, if the Court shall think fit, to grant an order of discharge either absolute or subject to any condition or conditions, in the same manner as if the bankruptcy of such applicant had taken place after the commencement of this Act."
  According to the present practice of the Courts, one Commissioner would refuse five times as many certificates as another; and the Court of Appeal had no power to give relief where a Commissioner had refused a certificate. The consequence was that the greatest hardship had to be endured. He knew of a case where a gentleman who had been a partner in a bank had been unfortunate and he failed. The Court of Appeal was unable to reverse the decision of the Commissioner, although the only charge brought against the bankrupt was that the Bank had given credit too freely, and the result was the unhappy gentleman had been an exile during ten years, and was not in a position to do anything to earn a livelihood. He contended that, however great a man's crime might be, there was a time when he ought to be set free from the consequences of it. There was a term to the punishment of a felon, and he saw no reason why a bankrupt should not have his capacity to trade restored to him after the lapse of a certain period.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the present Bill altered altogether the system of granting certificates, and, unless

  163
  something were done with regard to bankrupts who were now refused certificates, it would be impossible for them to make an application to the Court. He thought, therefore, that the proposed clause was reasonable and just, as well as merciful, and he had much pleasure in giving his assent to it.
  MR. MURRAYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had done a work of charity and mercy in proposing such a clause.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. LEVESON GOWERmoved the insertion of the following clause:—
  "The Court out of the estate and effects of the bankrupt, shall order payment of all such parochial rates as may be due from him at the time of his being adjudicated a bankrupt."
  At present Queen's taxes were entitled to a priority in the distribution of a bankrupt's estate, but no provision was made for the payment of local taxes. The object of his clause was to do away with that distinction.
  Clause brought up, and read 1o.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, if the hon. Gentleman would add to his clause the words "provided such rates shall have become due during the twelve months immediately preceding the bankruptcy," he had no objection to it.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he thought the collector of rates should not have longer grace than a landlord, who was only entitled to six months' rent in cases of bankruptcy.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he also thought taxes and rent ought to go together. If six months were given to the landlord the same period should be allowed to the parish. He must say he thought six months would be a much fairer time than twelve months; because no parochial rates ran on for more than twelve months, at least they ought not. He should move to substitute "six months" for "a year."
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would adhere to his own proviso.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause read 2o, amended, and added.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would move a clause authorizing the trustee or assignee under any deed to sue in his own name for the debts and demands of the bankrupt or insolvent, and providing that the production of every such deed shall be evidence of the due execution thereof without further proof.
  Clause brought up, and read 1o.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALexplained that provision was already made by the Bill for effecting the object to which the first part of the Amendment referred. It was expressly declared that the trustees and assignees should have the same powers, rights, and privileges with respect to the recovery of debts as were exercised by the assignees in bankruptcy. The assignees in bankruptcy could sue in their own name, and, therefore, the clause he had quoted gave power to the trustees appointed by this Bill to sue in their own names. He must, however, decline to assent to the proposal at the latter part of the Amendment with respect to the production of the deed being evidence of the due execution thereof, as it went far beyond the scope of any clause in the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the said clause be now read a second time."
  Put and negatived.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he rose to move the following additional clause:—
  "If any debtor shall at the time of adjudication, be liable upon any bill of exchange or promissory note in respect of distinct contracts as member of two or more firms carrying on separate and distinct trades, and having distinct estates to be wound up in Bankruptcy, the circumstance that such firms are in whole or in part composed of the same individuals shall not prevent proof and receipt of dividend in respect of such distinct contracts against the estates respectively liable upon such contracts."
  The object of the clause was to alter a rule which had been established in bankruptcy by a course of decision, and which had been regretted by almost every Judge, because it placed the bills of exchange of this country in an unfavourable position in the market as compared with those of other countries where no such rule of law prevailed.
  Clause brought up, and read 1o.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he approved of the clause, and was obliged to his hon. and learned Friend for his suggestion. By the existing practice a man might hold a bill of exchange against traders who were members of two distinct firms, thinking that both firms were liable to him for his debt; bnt if they both happened to become bankrupt the unfortunate creditor could come upon the estate of one only. The English law did not recognize a partnership as a legal person. They could not take out a fiat in bankruptcy against a partner, quâ partner; they must make the person individually liable. Hence arose the difficulty

  165
  in the matter. He thought that the clause ought to he carried even further than his hon. and learned Friend proposed, in order to meet the case in which a debtor was both a sole trader and a member of a firm. He would, therefore, move the insertion after the words "wound up in bankruptcy," of the words "or as a sole trader and also as member of a firm;" and, likewise, the insertion after "the same individuals" of "or the sole contractor is also one of the joint contractors."
  Clause read 2o amended, and added.
  Clause 12 (Appointment of additional Registrars),
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he wished in line 7 after the word Bankruptcy to insert the words "or the additional duties imposed upon the Registrars by this Act."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought it would be sufficient to state "having regard to the state of business."
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 18 (Duties of the Taxing Master),
  MR. MURRAYsaid, he wished to propose Amendments the effect of which would be that the taxation of solicitors' bills in the district court, instead of being settled by the local registrars, as proposed by the Bill, should be in all cases settled in London. He had before him a report of a case from which it appeared that a local registrar, whose name be would not mention, had improperly allowed himself certain fees, and the bill allowing such charges fell to the registrar's own duty to settle. The Commissioner had acknowledged that the registrar was in fault; but he said that the money having been refunded that was enough, and no more notice need be taken of the matter. Such a state of things ought to be avoided. His object also was to secure uniformity of charge in London and the country.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 7, after the word "Act," to insert the words "or any other Act in force relating to Bankrupts, and also."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was not sufficiently experienced in the subject of taxation of costs to pronounce at once a decided opinion. There would be, no doubt, some convenience accruing from the hon. Gentleman's proposition, but it would also involve additional expense. Whether the benefit would outweigh the additional expense was the point to be considered, and he should wish to hear the
  166
  opinion of other gentlemen connected with the legal profession.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Attorney General to the direction in the 27th Clause, that the taxing master of the Insolvent Debtors' Court should be transferred to the Court of Bankruptcy to be employed in such manner as general orders should direct. He wished to know what duties that gentleman would have to perform.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that with reference to the proposition of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Murray) he begged on the part of the profession in the country to say that there were strong objections to it. If all the law charges of the various bankruptcy cases throughout the country were to be referred to the metropolitan office, the consequence would be that in the majority of instances there would be ex parte taxation, as there would be no person opposing the party who sent in the bill, and who would, therefore, have the ear of the master. In every minute case a bill would have to come to London to be taxed, and he was sure the cost thus incurred would be greater than the benefit.
  MR. MALINSobserved that all common law bills were taxed in London, and there would be some advantage in having an uniform system of taxation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, amongst other reasons, as the notice of the Amendment had been given only that morning he could not accede to it.
  MR. MURRAYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 40 (Retiring Pensions to Officers),
  MR. MALINSsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment with reference to retiring allowances. As the matter now stood, retiring allowances were only to be given to those who had seen twenty years' service and had reached sixty-five years of age. He could instance the case of gentlemen, however, who had served since 1832, and yet, in consequence of not being sixty-five years of age, they would not be entitled to any retiring allowance. He suggested, therefore, that words should be inserted which would make thirty years' service equivalent to being sixty-five years of age. His Amendment was to insert the following words:—"Or shall have been appointed to such office in or previous to the year 1832."
  MR. MURRAYsaid, he should support the Amendment.
  MR. CRAWFORDalso expressed his approval of the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there was some difficulty in regard to laying down a principle of this kind. The House had already laid down the principle that an officer should not be entitled to retire with a retiring allowance unless two conditions were fulfilled; one, that he should have served twenty years, and the other, that he should have attained the age of sixty five. The proposition of his hon. and learned Friend was to introduce into the clause a privilegium in favour of A. B. or C. D. If the House chose to introduce those words for the purpose of meeting particular cases he, individually, would make no further objection. He had discharged his duty to the House in pointing out to it the exceptional character of the Amendment.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the Committee were now suffering from the inconvenience of the Bill not having been reprinted since it had passed through Committee. Such exceptional legislation was very objectionable, and the Government ought to inform the House what officers would be affected by the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought that such explanation should come from the hon. and learned Member who had moved the insertion of the words.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that the Amendment he had moved referred specifically to Mr. Whitmore, one of the official assignees, who had served the country for twenty-nine years, and was now anxious to retire.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 62 (Parties, &c., not attending liable for contempt),
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he wished to amend the Clause by striking out the words "sitting at chambers," so as to give the registrar authority to take the oath wherever he might be employed at the time.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 82 (Act of Bankruptcy by Non-Trader),
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that the clause mentioned certain Acts which in the case of persons not traders might lead for the first time to an adjudication in bankruptcy. The difference between the trader and the non-trader had already been pointed out. It was the duty of a trader to be at his place of business, and in his absence
  168
  to leave his servant or some other person there to represent him. But a non-trader was under no such obligation, and no suspicion need necessarily arise from his being out of the country. Although, therefore, it might he desirable to introduce non-traders into this Bill, the Committee ought at the same time to proceed with caution, and to take care that sufficient safeguards were provided for their protection. The clause as it stood, however, appeared to him to be deficient in this respect. If a non-trader, who might be a Member of that House, happened to be out of the country, a statement might be made behind his back to the effect that he had gone away with the intention of defrauding his creditors. All the person who made that statement would really have to do would be to say that he did not know in what part of the Continent the non-trader was to be found, and then he would ask the Judge to be allowed to serve the petition at his dwelling house, which might be shut up, or only in charge of a servant. The consequence might be, therefore, that when the gentleman returned from his continental tour the might find that he had in his absence been adjudicated a bankrupt, though he had not left the country with any idea whatever of defrauding his creditors. By the Amendment, which would give an additional safeguard, he simply proposed that in all cases there should be a personal service upon a debtor. The debtor would thus have an opportunity of coming forward and being heard before he was adjudicated a bankrupt. As they were bringing non-traders for the first time under the operation of a law of this description he thought the proposal was a very fair one, and he hoped it would be agreed to by his hon. and learned Friend. He would, therefore, propose after "Provided always" in line thirty-one, to leave out to the end of the clause and insert—
  "That before any adjudication in bankruptcy shall be made against the debtor under this section the following rules shall be observed:—1. A copy of the petition for adjudication shall be served personally on the debtor, either within the jurisdiction, or in such place or country, or within such limits abroad, as the Court shall, upon application for that purpose, direct. 2. Such copy petition shall have endorsed thereon a memorandum, in a form to be settled by the general order, specifying the time within which the debtor is to appear on such petition; and such time shall, when the service is to be made abroad, be the time which the Court shall think reasonable, having regard to the place or country where the service is to be made. 3. In no case shall the

  169
  time for appearance be less than thirty days after service. 4. If at the expiration of the time limited for appearance the Court shall, on the hearing of such petition, be satisfied that an act of bankruptcy has been committed within the meaning of this section, it may adjudge such debtor to be a bankrupt."
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press the Amendment. He could not understand why non-traders should be allowed to contract debts to any amount, and then have so many privileges thrown around them. The payment of just debts ought to be as strictly enforced against the aristocracy and professional men as against any other class. A trader was presumed by law to be always at his place of business, but a non-trader who was up to his ears in debt might be wandering up and down the country like an Arab, and there would be the greatest difficulty in finding his locus in quo. He held the doctrine that every man who had contracted a debt ought to pay for it, and he had no right to go from home on pleasure until he had done so. They ought to make a non-trader keep books like a trader, and if he could not pay his debts he ought to be brought before the Bankruptcy Court. Sir Samuel Romilly was the first person who had tried to break in upon the existing system, and carry out the principle contained in this Bill. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would not agree to the Amendment.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he had no doubt that the additional safeguards proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast in the case of non-traders would be useful, and he trusted they would be agreed to. They showed, however, the inexpediency of including non-traders under the bankruptcy law, inasmuch as they could not be dealt with in the same manner as traders. No one denied that the non-trader should pay his debts as well as the trader, hut that was not the question. The question was whether non-traders ought to be brought within an exceptional system of legislation intended for traders? With respect to persons not traders the ordinary law of the land was applicable, which compelled a man to pay his debts, and if it was shown that the law of debtor and creditor was in any way deficient, he was ready to assent to further powers being granted; but it was another thing to apply to a non-trader that peculiar system of bankruptcy, which was founded on the exigencies of trade. It appeared to him that
  170
  the non-trading clauses ought not to be introduced into the present measure, which was a Bill for the amendment of the law of bankruptcy, but the hon. and learned Attorney General, if he desired to pass those clauses, should embody them in a separate Bill. He trusted that there would be another opportunity for considering this important subject, and that the Bill would be reprinted.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would agree to the Amendment proposed by Sir Hugh Cairns.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALexpressed his intention to do so.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was very glad to hear that, because no man ought to be condemned as a bankrupt before he had been heard. No doubt all persons ought to pay their debts; but there was this difference between trading and non-trading debts—that time was the essence of a trading debt, it being always contracted to be paid within a certain time; but with a non-trader's debt it was not so, there was no specific contract to pay in any given time.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to put this case:—Suppose an officer in the army was sent to India for a lengthened period, and suppose some one out of pure malice should say that officer owed him £100, and should serve him with a notice such as that proposed by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, to return borne and answer the accusation brought against him;—if through being under orders to stay in India he was unable to answer the citation, would he be made a bankrupt?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that out of respect to the hon. and learned Member he would answer his question. It would be utterly impossible to declare the officer bankrupt if be were abroad on foreign service, because no man could be declared a bankrupt who was not proved to have gone abroad and to be remaining abroad with intent to delay his creditors. It would be just as preposterous to attempt to make a man who was abroad in the service of the Crown a bankrupt as it would have been to have taken out process against the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Roebuck) when he visited Austria the other day. With respect to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) if he had read the Bill with attention he would have seen that the trader and the non-trader were placed on entirely the same footing.

  171
  The only question involved in the present discussion was how to fix the intent of the debtor to defeat or delay his creditor—what evidence should be required. Given the intent, then all sides agreed upon the course to be pursued. But it was contended that the evidence applicable to a trader ought not to be applicable to a non-trader as to the intent. Now, he had admitted the justice of the Amendments proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) and that personal notice should be given to the debtor of the proceedings against him before adjudication was made, but he did so on one condition—namely, that the hon. and learned Member would agree to an addition which he would propose, and which should form the fourth rule, to the effect that if personal service had not been effected the Court must be satisfied that every reasonable effort had been made to effect the same, and that the attempts to serve such person had come to the knowledge of the debtor and had been defeated by his conduct"
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he was willing to make such addition to the rules. Where a person was endeavouring to avoid a bankruptcy he thought a substituted service might be allowed.
  MR. WALPOLEremarked that he also concurred in the addition proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that although he wished to see the Bill passed with all reasonable expedition, still he deemed it desirable that the particular clause under discussion should he carefully considered. It had been assumed by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that no process in bankruptcy could be issued against a naval or military officer on foreign service unless he had either gone abroad or could be proved to be remaining abroad for the purpose of defeating his creditors. But even under the present clause there was another ground upon which all persons, whether traders or non-traders, residing in England or in a foreign country might be made bankrupts, and that was if they should, with the intent of defeating their creditors, make what was termed under the bankruptcy law a fraudulent conveyance or gift of their goods or estates or any portion of them. Thus, if an officer employed in India, being obliged to remain there for a considerable number of years, should convey away any portion of his property, or should make a settlement upon his family which though looked
  172
  upon as entirely blameless among persons in ordinary life were yet under the operation of the law of bankruptcy deemed fraudulent as against his creditors, he would be liable, under the present clause, to be made a bankrupt. Such a person, moreover, was to be served with a notice, not to show cause by affidavit, but to appear personally in this country, under the penalty of having a judgment obtained against him. He trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General, before the Bill was sent to the other House, would consider the condition in which such an officer would be placed. The hon. and learned Gentleman should remember that the clause before the House applied not only to naval and military officers on foreign service, but to all descriptions of persons employed under the Crown whose duties might oblige them to go abroad and remain abroad for a considerable time, as well as to a number of individuals who, although not in the public service, might have occasion to reside abroad, but without any desire to evade the payment of their just debts. He entirely concurred in the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast. It would do something, but he was afraid too little, because it provided only one among the many safeguards without which an important and excellent Bill would be productive of numerous evils to many classes of persons in this and other countries.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he wished as a strong supporter of the non-trading clauses to congratulate the Committee and the country upon the fact that they had at last arrived at a general concurrence that sufficient safeguards were thrown around non-traders. No doubt persons who were not in trade were to be treated more leniently than those who were; but, with that exception, the principle was now generally recognized that those who were unable to pay their debts, having had a reasonable opportunity of arranging with their creditors, and having failed to do so, should be compelled by process of law to cede their property for the benefit of their creditors. He thought what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk proceeded very much on a misapprehension of the language of the Bill. He had proceeded on the assumption that personal appearance was meant. He did not mean anything of the kind. Every bill in chancery, every writ in common law, as served, had an endorsement to the effect that the

  173
  person who was served must appear within a certain time, or judgment would be given against him; but it did not mean that he must appear in person. The particular clause referred to did not come into operation against a non-trader unless it was proved he had gone abroad to defraud his creditors; and then he had not less than thirty days to enter an appearance by his lawful agent or solicitor.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he wished to know who would have to pay the expenses of the service abroad of the petition. Those expenses would, doubtless, be considerable. He would not assent to the definition of the word "appear," which had been given by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), that the appearance might be by attorney or agent. At all events, the doubt which existed on the point ought to be cleared up. He believed that such a power of bringing a debtor from abroad might be improperly made use of for vindictive purposes—in fact, a man might be ruined by being brought back, although he was at the time a solvent man. If the Attorney General wished to bring the non-trader under the operation of the bankrupt law, he should do it in a Bill restricted to that one subject, and not at the fag-end of a Bill to Amend the Laws of Bankruptcy.
  Clause amended and agreed to.
  Clause 83 (Lying in Prison and escaping out of Prison),
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he wished to add at the end of this clause—
  "No debtor shall be adjudged bankrupt on the ground of having lain in prison as aforesaid during fourteen days, unless after he shall have been summoned he shall not offer such security for the debt or debts in respect of which he is imprisoned or detained, as the Judge, commissioner, or registrar, whose duty it would otherwise be to adjudicate, shall deem reasonably sufficient."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was much obliged to the hon. and learned Attorney General for the fair spirit in which he had met the objections which had been made to portions of the Bill. He had now made it uniform, and no person was now to be adjudged a bankrupt until he had been heard.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, it was clear from the 94th section that the appearance of the person charged with an act of bankruptcy must be personal; and, therefore, he repeated that if a man went abroad he would always be liable to be brought back by any ill-conditioned person who chose to swear that he had left the
  174
  country for the purpose of evading the payment of his debts.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that would be a very serious thing if the fact were so; but Section 95 expressly declared that no person should be obliged to appear personally who could allege a lawful impediment. He would, therefore, only have to send home an affidavit stating the fact.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he was much obliged to the hon. and learned Baronet for calling attention to the point; and he should be glad to know how it was to be made to appear whether an impediment was a lawful one or not. He hoped the question would be clearly settled.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the whole case had been fully heard in Committee, and, he submitted, it was not competent to raise another discussion on the question now.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman rather hard and sharp in his practice. He had brought in a very large Bill on a very important subject, and it had been carried through the House at a pace almost unprecedented. ["Oh, oh!"] They might say "Oh, oh!" but he should like to know how many Gentlemen understood the Bill. The Attorney General was going actually in the teeth of justice; but when the Bill went to "another place" it would be treated in a very different manner. It would undergo a great deal of discussion elsewhere, and if it were now passed hastily when the Bill was sent down to them again they would have another opportunity of discussing it.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman has had the opportunity of discussing it.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 101 (Debts contracted before the Act not to support an adjudication in case of Non-trader),
  MR. MALINSsaid, he rose to move the omission of this clause, which, so far as non-traders who had contracted their debts before the passing of the Act were concerned, rendered the Act a nullity. It was now settled that non-traders were to be subject to the bankrupt laws, and that if a non-trader went abroad for the purpose of defeating or delaying his creditors, that that was to be considered as an act of bankruptcy on his part. Well, it was a fact that there were a great number of persons who, having property and having debts, had already departed the country, keeping their property, but leaving their debts. That

  175
  was a great evil; and it was with a view of meeting it that he proposed the omission of the clause. It was said, however, that they ought not to make ex post facto laws; but were they not creating ex post facto legislation every day? He had lately brought before the House the case of a gentleman whose salary they had cut down by two-thirds after forty-two years' service, and his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) had thereby saved a little money, but at the expense of a great injustice. Or let him take the case of a felony. Suppose that an act was made felony, that a man would never be allowed to escape on the ground that his offence had been declared to be such by an ex post facto law. It was altogether a maudlin sentiment. He did not know how the clause got into the Bill, or how it was supported by his hon. and learned Friend. He was sure it was utterly beneath the breadth of his mind. He was as anxious as any man to maintain vested rights, but when he knew that men were living abroad defying their creditors, and living in the daily practice of fraud and chicanery, then he cared not for the name of an ex post facto law—he would make the law strong enough to reach them.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 101.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had chosen to make a personal allusion to him. He talked of a gentleman whom he (Mr. Henley) had helped to deprive of his salary. [Mr. MALINS: Emoluments.] The gentleman to whom allusion had been made had not been in the receipt of a salary but of fees, which from accidental circumstances had grown much more remunerative than when he first took his situation. He could not, therefore, blame the Legislature for restoring matters to a proper footing. But what was the hon. and learned Gentleman's next illustration? He said that if a certain act were created a felony it would have a retrospective effect. Now, he would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman—he was a lawyer, an hon. and learned, and he ought to know—did he ever know a case that when a new felony was created it was made to apply to persons who had done that act before the passing of the law? He had not intended to take any part in the discussion of the clause, but after the hon. and learned Gentleman had appealed to him, and after the curious illustrations he used in support of his argument, he
  176
  could not avoid saying a few words. He would only further remind the hon. and learned Attorney General that when he introduced the Bill he said that, with regard to certain matters, and this one now under discussion among them, the Bill would not have a retrospective bearing. That was in the nature of a pledge, in reliance on which the Bill had met with little opposition.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he should support the omission of the clause, as he did not see that its continuance was in accordance with either justice or equity. He knew that the Chamber of Commerce in the city he represented complained year after year of a law which protected persons holding judicial offices in courts of law from arrest as they were going to or returning from court, which enabled them to evade their creditors, and this applied to several persons about the courts in Dublin that it would not be convenient to name. He could not see any possible hardship in the omission of the clause.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would yield to the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford and omit the clause. The real fact was that if it were not for the large class of non-traders who evaded payment of their debts, there would be no necessity for the non-trading clauses at all. Gentlemen resident in the country had nothing whatever to fear from the operation of the clause. Before sitting down he must say a word as to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield's observations about the sharp practice in passing this Bill. There was no sharp practice at all; and he could only say it would be well if the courtesy and urbanity shown by the hon. and learned Attorney General were imitated by other hon. Members.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he had made no charge of discourtesy against the hon. and learned Attorney General. He believed there was in the House a pretty strong feeling as to the general demeanour of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and in that feeling he for one concurred. He understood the English language well enough to know that this praise of the Attorney General was a covert attack on him (Mr. Roebuck). He knew very well that when a gentleman had nothing else to do in the House he could always gain a little popularity by abusing the Member for Sheffield.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought it would be better to retain the clause.

  177
  They were now about to make a material alteration in the law, of which he for one had always been a warm supporter, as he had no fear whatever of the consequences of assimilating the law that applied to traders and non-traders. Still, as it was a considerable alteration in the law, he entreated his hon. and learned Friend not to depart from that form of the Bill which had been rightly adopted in the first instance. Much unnecessary indignation had been expressed about the non-trading portion of the community wishing to evade payment of their debts. The clause simply said that no debt incurred anterior to the Bill should be sufficient to support a petition for an adjudication of bankruptcy, and the House should remember that it would not preclude a creditor from bringing an action against a debtor; and if he obtained a judgment, then all the machinery of the Act would apply. All that the retention of the clause would do would be that the creditor could not obtain an adjudication of bankruptcy without bringing an action.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he thought that if the Bill were made retrospective in one case it ought to be made retrospective in all. He was glad to see that the majority of hon. Members were in favour of expunging the clause.
  MR. HALIBURTONdenied that a debtor's power of going or remaining abroad to defraud his creditors was a vested right. He called it a vested wrong. He trusted that the clause would be withdrawn. The objection now raised was not admitted when they abolished arrest for debt on mesne process, and yet that was as much an ex post facto law as the one before them. The class of persons to be affected by the clause were people who had contracted debts and left the country for the purpose of evading their debts and drawing their substance in this country. They were a class who were no credit to their country, and were no credit to any nation where they resided. Everybody acquainted with the Continent must be aware that English debtors living there were a disgrace to this country.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALacknowledged that in bringing forward the Bill he had used the expression referred to by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire. He had then been apprehensive whether they could settle in a satisfactory manner the terms and conditions on which non-traders should be subjected to bankruptcy. Undoubtedly, however, if the clause remained
  178
  in the Bill, the benefit of the measure might enure to the next generation, but would be comparatively lost to the present. That conviction had been strongly impressed upon him by numerous letters which he had received from tradesmen representing that many persons, some of them of considerable rank, had gone abroad, and from their place of refuge there sent word to their creditors that they meant to stay away until they accepted 5s. or 3s. in the pound. The objection had been taken that the omission of the clause would render the Bill retroactive. It was the first time he had heard the complaint against retrospective legislation urged in regard to mere improvements in procedure. For the last twenty years we had been amending and simplifying the procedure of our courts in relation to the enforcement of contracts. The rules of evidence, too, had been revised, and a man could now be called as a witness in his own case. But nobody had contended that that change should not apply retroactively to existing debts or contracts. There could be no earthly reason why, in simplifying and amending the procedure in bankruptcy a principle should not be applied which had been recognized in every other case. He should therefore submit the question to the unfettered judgment of the House, expressing his individual opinion that the benefit of the Bill should be felt immediately, and not postponed to an indefinite period.
  Question, "That Clause 101 stand part of the Bill,"
  Put, and negatived.
  Clause 116 (Persons imprisoned under County Court Acts not to be released),
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he should move the omission of the clause as unjust to small debtors. At present the law provided that no non-trader could be discharged from the payment of his debts. He might be protected from imprisonment, but his property for all time to come was liable to make good the claims of his creditors. The change proposed was that no person owing more than £20, who surrendered his property, should be liable for his debts unless he had contracted them by fraud, or had committed some fraud upon his creditors. In those cases the Court might order discharge, on condition that the future property of the bankrupt should be liable. But persons who owed less than £20 who had no property to surrender, and who were subject to the jurisdiction of the county courts, remained liable to be ordered to pay their debts by

  179
  instalments out of their weekly earnings and to be imprisoned from time to time for periods not exceeding forty days each time, if they were in default, so that two persons might be in prison. He would put a case. Suppose one man who had contracted a debt of £5, and had been committed by a County Court Judge; and another who had contracted two debts of £5 and £20, and had, likewise, been committed. The man who owed £25 upon the two judgments would be visited by the registrar in bankruptcy, and invited to leave the gaol, but the man who owed £5 would not be noticed by the registrar, and would be left in prison. The law would subject the poor debtor to long terms of imprisonment and make all his future property liable for the payment of his debts, while any debtor who had the opportunity to incur debts above £20 would be exempted from future imprisonment and entirely acquitted of his debts, if he surrendered the property of which at the time he happened to be possessed at any moment he choose to elect for making himself bankrupt, or when his creditors chose to do so by demanding payment. It would be deplorable if it went forth that they were going to legislate in that manner. He proposed to place all classes of Her Majesty's subjects upon the same footing. The Attorney General, when making the change with regard to debtors above £20, could not defend upon moral grounds, the proposition to leave the law with regard to small debtors exactly as it was before, and he hoped, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman would assent to the omission of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 116,
  MR. CONINGHAMseconded the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Acts of Parliament which had established county courts had introduced, whether rightly or wrongly, also the principle of penal imprisonment, and he could not, in a Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill, deal with penal imprisonment as with ordinary imprisonment for a breach of contract. But the Amendment, moreover, was not limited to the removal of the anomaly, if it were possible, between the position of the poor man and the position of the wealthier man, but would place him under the obligation of delivering from prison every person who was committed to prison by a County Court Judge. The County Court Judge, it should be remem-
  180
  bered, had no power to imprison for debt simply, but only when he found the debtor, in incurring the debt, had obtained credit under false pretences, or by means of fraud or breach of trust, or had wilfully contracted the debt without any reasonable expectations of being able to pay it. Unless the whole county court system was to be pulled up by the root it would be impossible to alter that. A man was committed to prison by the County Court Judge for debt, who founded his order upon some malpractice on the part of the debtor. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that such a man should be discharged by the registrar under the Bill then before the House, but the machinery of that Bill was inapplicable, because debtors could only be discharged under it after a declaration of bankruptcy, and where would be the use of declaring a man a bankrupt who probably had not 5s. in the world. It had been deemed right to accompany the county court jurisdiction with peculiar powers, and to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman would be to destroy that jurisdiction by a sidewind. The question must be brought before Parliament in a different shape. He could not assent to the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he hoped the House would agree that this question should not be dealt with in this incidental manner.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General was right in saying that the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would destroy the county court system; but there was one way in which the object of the hon. Gentleman to place rich and poor debtors—so to speak—upon the same footing could be attained. Under the county court system men were committed to prison not only for fraud, but also for contracting debts without at the time having reasonable expectation of being able to pay them. In the Bill before the House provision was made for fraud, but why should it not be made a penal offence on the part of the bankrupt to have contracted debts without reasonable expectations of payment? A provision of that kind would place both classes upon the same footing.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought if the Bill passed in its present shape there would be such an. anomaly between the condition of the poor debtor and the richer debtor that it would soon have to be remedied. The hon. and learned Attorney General had stated that there were two causes for

  181
  imprisonment by County Court Judges—fraud or contracting debts without reasonable expectation of payment; but unless he (Mr. Henley) was mistaken there was another power of imprisonment exercised by County Court Judges, in cases where they thought the debtor had the power to pay and did not pay. It was a difficult thing for a Judge to know whether a poor man earning weekly wages was in a position to be able to pay. As a visitor of the gaol of the county with which he was connected, he could state that one-half of the persons confined for debt were detained under county court commitments. Now, when they were providing a stringent remedy in respect of property, he thought all imprisonment for debt should be got rid of, except for fraud in its largest sense. A County Court Judge at present made an order upon a man to pay, and if he did not pay he was, by a very summary process, sent to the county goal for a certain number of days, and when they had expired he did not get free, for he might be committed over and over again. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would consider that subject.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he wished to inform the right hon. Gentleman that the commitments which he was referring to were made because the County Court Judge found that after the order for payment the debtor had sufficient means of satisfying the debt. In the 117th Clause of the Bill before the House he had introduced a provision for the purpose of mitigating the hardship, by directing the County Court Judge, in inquiring whether the party since the judgment obtained against him had had sufficient means to satisfy that judgment, should take into consideration all other debts and liabilities which were pressing upon him.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not think the statement of the Attorney General exactly met the case. To talk of other debts and liabilities on the part of a poor labouring man was out of the question. Often when a poor debtor was brought before the County Court Judge, the Judge, with uncertain knowledge, decreed that the debt should be paid in a certain manner, and if the debtor failed to so discharge it he was imprisoned.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, it was evident that there existed a distinction between two classes of debtors which the Legislature ought not to sanction. The contractor of a large debt was whitewashed by the
  182
  Bankruptcy Court, but the small county court debtor was liable to be continuously committed to prison at the discretion of the Judge. This was a hard case where there was no fraud, and the anomaly ought to be removed. The object of getting this clause struck out was for the purpose of introducing another that would meet the case.
  Question put, "That Clause 116 be part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 84; Noes, 53: Majority, 31.
  Clause 141 (Pay, Half-pay, and Pensions of Bankrupt to be applicable for Creditors),
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to amend this and the following clause which had reference to debtors holding positions in Government departments. The Bill provided that all persons holding situations in public companies, or private firms, or any other situation, should obtain the benefit of the present Bill, and should not be liable to pay their debts out of their future earnings. But he could not understand upon what principle one class of the community should be exempted from its operations. Why should a distinction exist between those employed in the public service and those employed in the offices of a bank or railway company? How could they distinguish between a man who earned a salary and a professional man or trader? After a discharge every person ought to be in precisely the same condition. But with regard to persons in the public service conditions were attached, they were to be absolutely on the discretion of the Judge and liable for the payment of their debts out of any future salary they might receive. No other class was placed on that footing, except that if they had contracted a debt fraudulently, their future property was made liable. He proposed to amend these clauses by inserting at the commencement: "When the discharge of a bankrupt shall be conditional, as hereinafter provided," that then the future salary should be made liable for the payment of his debts, but if he obtained an unconditional discharge that then the clause should not apply, thus getting rid of this unjust and anomalous distinction.
  Amendment proposed, at the beginning of Clause 141, to add the words "When the discharge of a bankrupt shall be conditional, as hereinafter provided."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would ask whether it was right that a

  183
  public servant with say a salary of £1,500 a year, who had passed through the Bankruptcy Court, should he left in possession of his whole income. The clause provided that in such a case the Judge should be empowered to appropriate a portion of the bankrupt's pay, emolument, or pension for the benefit of his creditors. In the case of an annuity held independently of office it would be sold for the benefit of creditors, and if a man had an annuity subject only to the performance of certain services he ought not to be exempted. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to give the Judge power to divest the bankrupt of part of his annual income only in the event of misconduct. To that he could not agree, believing that a man with a settled income who had incurred debts should be forced to reduce his expenses, and to devote a portion of his future salary to the payment of his debts. As to clerks or others in private establishments, they held their offices at the will of their employers, but a public servant continued in his office quamdiu se bene gesserit, that was practically for life.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that when a poor man, whose wages were 20 s. a week, came into the County Court the Judge would, perhaps, order him to pay 10 s. a week towards discharging his debts. Why should not the same rule be applied to persons in receipt of salaries? For his part he did not understand the difference between wages and salary. No doubt salary was a finer word, and some people liked to use fine words; but they ought to deal equally between the rich and the poor.
  Mr. BARROWsaid, he wished the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment, to show that the House was ready to do justice between the rich and poor. A sinecure was to be created by this very Bill; if the holder of that sinecure should be an extravagant man and be unable to pay his debts, would the hon. Gentleman allow him to enjoy his sinecure without deduction?
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  Clause 159 (Proof in respect of Unliquidated Damages),
  MR. MURRAYsaid, he would move the insertion in the clause of the words, "Provided that in case all necessary parties agree, the Court shall have power to assess such damages without the intervention of a jury or a reference to a Court of law."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 163 (Rules as to granting Orders of Discharge),
  MR. AYRTONmoved, in lieu of the word "property," to substitute the words "touching any salary, pay, emoluments, profits, wages, or earnings, which may afterwards become due to the bankrupt."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 207 (Creditors of deceased Debtors may petition the Court of Bankruptcy for distribution of the Estate of the deceased)
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he was about to propose the omission of the Clause 207, which, together with the next eleven clauses were called the dead men's clauses. The clauses extended to non-traders as well as traders. They provided that in the case of every man who died owing debts there should be the power, within three months after his death, of summoning his executor before a commissioner in bankruptcy, or the county court nearest the place where he had resided. The executor would be obliged to make it clear to the Judge that the property of the dead man was more than sufficient to pay all his debts, otherwise the Court was empowered to order the estate of the dead man to be wound up in bankruptcy—in other words, by an ex post facto operation of the law to throw upon his memory and upon his family the stigma of bankruptcy. There could be no doubt about the extent to which that might be carried. Suppose the case of a merchant at Liverpool who died in large business, and who, perhaps, at the time of his death had outstanding debts in the shape of unpaid bills, &c., to the amount of £300,000 or £400,000; he had a residence in Cumberland or Staffordshire. Three months after his death his executor was summoned before the County Court Judge, and unless the executor could make it clear to the Judge that the property of the merchant, in whatever part of the world it might be, was sufficient to pay his debts, the deceased was liable to be stigmatized as a bankrupt after his death, although during his lifetime he had done nothing whatever upon which you could lay your finger and say that he had made himself liable to the bankrupt law. Such a proceeding was entirely new to our law, and was altogether foreign to the law of bankruptcy, which proceeded distinctly upon the ground that some act of bankruptcy had been committed by a man in his lifetime—that he had done or confessed something in his

  185
  lifetime which, in the eye of the law, amounted to an act of bankruptcy. What could be a more cruel injury to the family of the man whose case he had supposed than to have it declared after his death that he had been a bankrupt, and that his property was to be wound up in bankruptcy? Again, the clause was unnecessary. In the case of a living man, who was squandering his property, it might be necessary for the sake of his creditors that his property should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court. But when a man died there was an end of that necessity. The man being dead, he could no longer spend any portion of his property, and his executor would be answerable to his creditors for the distribution of his property amongst them. While the clauses were undergoing discussion in Committee, some hon. Members were deluded with the idea that it would be an advantage to have a deceased debtor's property who bad resided in a country district distributed amongst his creditors by a local court, instead of incurring the expense of coming up to London for that purpose. But the truth was that nothing could be more inconvenient than the state of things which these clauses would produce; for, in the case of a merchant, who had had dealings to the extent of millions with creditors in various parts of the country, or, perhaps, in America, the application might be made to the county court nearest to his country residence; and the consequence would be that all his creditors would be put to the trouble of going to that local court to prove their debts. It might be desirable to give County Court Judges a jurisdiction in the cases of small estates, but it would never do for large ones, and even in the former case the law ought to be amended by a separate enactment. The only result would be that, in order to escape the annoyance executors would resort to the Court of Chancery to administer an estate, and, instead of securing anything like a local administration, most of the large estates would be administered in the Metropolis. For these reasons he hoped the House would reject the clauses.
  Amendment proposed to leave out Clause 207.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the clauses had been introduced into the Bill expressly at the wish of the mercantile community, and in fulfilment of a pledge given to a mercantile deputation, and he trusted that pledge would not be departed from, because objec-
  186
  tions were taken to them. That being so, he thought the country ought to have the opportunity of judging whether the objections were as true in practice as they appeared plausible in theory. It was urged in objection to the clauses that there was a mode of administering the estates of deceased persons, whose property was not sufficient to pay all their debts, in an exceedingly economical and satisfactory way in the Court of Chancery. He was willing to admit that; but why should there not be a means of administering those estates in local courts? Why were people to be dragged into the Court of Chancery, and not to have the opportunity of deciding whether the Court of Chancery was really and truly so beneficial and economical as was contended? There was a strong feeling against that court, founded on the past no doubt. However far recent performance may have gone to remove the opprobrium which had attached to that court, there were still many who would rather lose all their property than go into that court. The only objection which he saw to the clauses under discussion was the introduction of the principle of marshalling debts which held good in the Court of Chancery. That doctrine had no place in the present Courts of Bankruptcy, where the object was to make a fair and equal distribution of the debtor's assets among his creditors. No alteration of that principle was proposed by the Bill in the case of living debtors, and he could see no reason why the assets of a deceased debtor should be subjected to a different rule. With regard to the stigma which it was said would attach to the deceased debtor under these clauses, what was the case in the administration of estates in the Court of Chancery? In that court the names of deceased persons were just as much subject to the stigma of insolvency: for advertisements continually appeared calling upon people to come and prove their debts in the Court of Chancery. The stigma, if stigma there were, could in no case be imposed on any person by the mere operation of the Bill; it could only be the result of his own acts during his lifetime. In the opinion of the mercantile community the clauses would be a most decided boon to the country. The system had been applied in Scotland for many years and had worked well, and he did not see why the experiment should not be tried on this side of the Tweed.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he believed that if the mercantile community to whom the

  187
  hon. and learned Gentleman referred were aware of the full effect of these clauses they would be the first to object to them. The object of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was to provide a remedy for a grievance of a small kind that no doubt existed, but in applying that remedy the clauses were made to embrace cases and would lead to inconveniences that his hon. and learned Friend never contemplated. There were certain small estates in the country that might, on the death of a person, be administered in a local court instead of being taken into the Court of Chancery. To enable that to be done was the real object of the clause now before them, and it was a good object, but it was one which should be carried out by a separate Bill, and in a manner that would not be anomalous to the law of bankruptcy and inconsistent with one of the main objects of the present Bill, which was to give to debtors and creditors the power of adjusting their affairs out of court. Under the clauses executors would be compelled within three months to go into the Court of Bankruptcy, or, if they did not choose to do that, they must go into the Court of Chancery, in order that the stigma of bankruptcy might not be affixed to their deceased relatives. Heretofore, when a person died the law had given his relatives a proper time to look about them, and see how his debts might be paid, and the residue preserved for the benefit of his family. They were now about to say that, instead of allowing a reasonable period, they would only give three months for the purpose. What would be the effect among the mercantile community? A person might have left plenty of assets, but his executors would be compelled to realise. They must accordingly force sales and inflict an injury on the estate, and, moreover, deprive the surviving relatives of that surplus which they ought to enjoy. To avoid that early process against the estate in three months, parties would be driven into the Court of Chancery for self protection; and thus the very thing which it was desired to avoid would be promoted by these clauses. As the administration of deceased debtors' assets were to be administered according to the equitable principles of the Court of Chancery, which required some of the nicest decisions of a court of equity, they would overload the County Court Judges with an equitable jurisdiction of the most difficult kind. Those Judges were not trained up to this administration, and, as
  188
  a consequence, their decisions would not give satisfaction to the people of the country. If he had continued to practice in that Court, and had wished to see the business of the Court increase, without reference to the public advantage, there was nothing he should have more desired to see than clauses like the present, which would force many of the estates of the kingdom into the Court of Chancery. No one had been more anxious than himself to support the Attorney General in the main objects of his Bill, and if he might make an appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be to withdraw these clauses from the present measure, since they had nothing to do with the Bankruptcy law. Let his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General thereafter bring in a measure dealing with this particular subject, and there could be no doubt he would be supported by the House in carrying it.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would not consent to withdraw the clauses. Their effect had been well considered by the mercantile classes, who knew what they were asking for. In proof he might state that he held in his hand a circular with respect to retaining the clauses in the Bill which bore the signatures of upwards of thirty of the principal banking houses in the City of London, in addition to those of bankers and others all over the country. In fact, there was hardly a monied establishment of any position or character throughout the country whose name did not appear on the paper as having given expression to their desire to see the clauses retained, knowing that an attempt would probably be made that night to exclude them.
  MR. HADFIELDsupported the clauses, and said that no less than 10,000 mercantile firms in the country were in favour of them. The mercantile community had pressed the hon. and learned Attorney General very much upon those clauses, and no less an authority than Lord St. Leonards was in favour of them.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that undoubtedly the clauses could boast an illustrious parentage. They had been recommended by one of the most illustrious lawyers in the kingdom, now a member of the Upper House. They were introduced with the almost unanimous consent of the great body of mercantile men. He had given a promise, in deference to their representations, to introduce the clauses into

  189
  the Bill, and that promise he had fulfilled. But if his advice were taken his hon. Friends who approved the clauses would do well to agree that a limitation in point of amount should be set upon the operation of the clauses, which would then work very usefully and economically. Hon. Members would do well to remember how limited would he the utility of the clauses if they were left in unchecked operation. One of the great advantages of the Court of Chancery was that after the decease of a debtor, if the executors had reason to believe that the estate was about to be torn to pieces by actions for debt, they could come into court to save expense, and get an order for the equal administration of the estate. Accordingly the Court of Chancery restrained the creditors from bringing these actions, but the County Court had not that power. At the same time he could not agree that clauses of this kind had no place properly in the Bill, because the clauses were distinctly limited to cases where the estates were shown to be insolvent. It would be seen that by the 211th Clause any attempt to carry an estate into a local court would prove abortive if the executors came forward and showed good reason for believing the estate of the debtor would be of sufficient value to pay the debts in full. Consequently the clause would only apply to insolvent estates. Nevertheless he would earnestly request his hon. Friends around him to accede to the proposition which he was now about to make—namely, that the operation of the clause should be limited to cases where the assets of the deceased debtor did not exceed £500, and were insufficient for the payment of his debts. At the same time, if his suggestion should not be assented to, he would abide by the pledge he had given to introduce these clauses.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that no doubt what his hon. and learned Friend had proposed would be a modification of and greatly improve the clause. He thought it, however, so essentially vicious in principle that nothing would satisfy him but its being expunged altogether.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he hoped the House would agree to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and he, therefore, would move formally a clause carrying out the suggestion that hon. and learned Gentleman had made.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he should like to ask Mr. Speaker, whether it was competent, upon a Motion being put that
  190
  a clause should stand part of a Bill, to move an Amendment upon that clause? He apprehended that the only Motion which at present could be decided by the House was, whether or not that clause stand part of the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the question then before the House was whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, and unless the hon. Member who had proposed that the whole clause should be rejected, should consent to withdraw that Amendment, no other amendment or the clause could be proposed.
  Question put, "That Clause 207 stand part of the Bill: "
  The House divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 135: Majority 16.
  On the Motion of Sir HUGH CAIRNS, the Clauses from 207 to 218, being the whole of what were known as "the dead men's clauses," were then struck out.
  Clause 246 (Misdemeanours),
  MR. VANCEsaid, he proposed to add, at the end of the clause, the words—"If, being a trader, he shall, within three months next before the filing of the petition for adjudication, pledge, or dispose of, otherwise than by bonâ fide sales, in the ordinary way of his trade, any of his goods or chattels which have been obtained on credit, and remained unpaid for."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought the Amendment unnecessary, but would not object to it, as it would do no harm.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he thought it should extend to non-traders.
  MR. MURRAYsuggested a verbal Amendment in the clause by inserting the word "transactions."
  Clause amended and agreed to.
  Clause 253 (Definition of Terms, &c.),
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that he had an Amendment of considerable importance to propose to the Interpretation Clause. As the Bill stood before the 101st Clause was struck out, no debt contracted by a non-trader before the passing of the Act afforded ground of adjudication under it. It would be unjust to non-traders who had contracted their debts before the passing of this Bill, to tell them that they should be punished by a law which they had not known of or contemplated when they were contracting those debts. It had not been the original intention of his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney General, to make the Bill retrospective against non-traders, for Clause 101 provided that a debt contracted

  191
  before the passing of this Act should not support a petition for an adjudication of bankruptcy against any one who was not a trader at the time when such debt was contracted. He was, however, greatly surprised to find that the Attorney General had assented to the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Wallingford, who Was somewhat of ah enthusiast against non traders, for the omission of that clause. That omission gave the Bill a retrospective operation against non-traders, which he now proposed to remedy in a simple way, by an addition to the Interpretation Clause. He proposed, in page 68, line 12, after the definition of the word "creditor," to insert these words—"'Debtor' shall, when applied to a person who is not a trader, mean a debtor in respect to a debt contracted after the passing of this Act; and 'Judgment Debtor Summons' shall, as respects such person, mean a summons founded on a judgment, decree, or order, in respect of a debt or liability contracted after the passing of this Act."
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to appeal to Mr. Speaker, whether it was competent for the hon. and learned Member to move this Amendment without giving notice of his intention
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. and learned Member was in order, as it was an Amendment and not a new clause.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he was by no means an enthusiast, as his hon. and learned Friend had asserted; but he thought it was unreasonable to keep up the distinction between trader and non-trader. Indeed, he was somewhat surprised at the course taken by his hon. and learned Friend. The House was not taken by surprise with respect to the omission of the 101st Clause, for notice to that effect had stood in his name for some time past. His hon. and learned Friend was undoubtedly not taken by surprise to-night; for before he left the House, when he said he was going to dinner, he (Mr. Malins) said, "By all means go to dinner, and we will send for you when we want you." His hon. and learned Friend, therefore, with a full knowledge of what was going to take place, elected to go to dinner. But if his hon. and learned Friend had been more prudent and had armed himself with his dinner before coming down to the House, then he would have found that there was but one feeling in the House with regard to the matter, so that when the question was put "that Clause 101 stand part of the Bill,"
  192
  there was not found a single voice to say "Aye." The hon. Gentleman opposite had put the question whether it was regular to introduce an Amendment without notice, and it was decided in the affirmative; but then, was it becoming? It was not becoming, and it was the first instance he had ever seen of the kind. He maintained that it was unreasonable, dishonest, and unjust that a man who had incurred debt and had property to pay it should keep that property, and be allowed to leave his debts unpaid, merely because the debt was incurred before the passing of the Act. He, therefore, hoped most earnestly that the House would adhere to the determination to which it had already come.
  Question put, "That those words he there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 150: Majority 25.
  Schedule G (Acts and parts of Acts repealed),
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he proposed to strike out the words "twenty-five" from Schedule G, the object being to allow bankrupts to retain certain articles of property worth £20, as they had heretofore been allowed to do.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, without entering into details, he might inform the House that the right now possessed by bankrupts to appropriate these excepted articles of furniture was a fruitful source of expense. He, therefore, thought it better that the bankrupt should be entitled to such allowance and such articles as the creditors might think proper to award.
  Question, "That the words 'twenty-five' stand part of the schedule," put, and agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he then had to move that the Bill be recommitted in respect of Clauses 38 and 201, Schedule A, and any new clauses.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he would move that Clause 8 be also recommitted. There had been an engagement to introduce certain words into that clause, with a view to restrict the power on the part of the Crown to appoint County Court Judges.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALagreed to recommit the clause.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he also had to ask that Clause 40 should be recommitted, with a view of allowing the retiring Commissioners their full salaries.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that some of these Commissioners were over seventy years of age, and it was a hard ease not to allow them their full salaries.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his poverty and not his will prevented him from acceding to the request.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthen moved that the Bill be recommitted in respect of Clauses 8, 38, 42, 201, Schedule A, and other clauses.
  MR. WALPOLEobserved that no one could have displayed greater ability than the hon. and learned Gentleman in conducting the Bill through all its stages, his conciliatory tone and admirable explanations had done much to recommend the measure to the House; but he must say that the course which the House was asked to pursue was most inconvenient. First of all, by the Orders of the Day they were to go into Committee for the purpose of setting up clauses in the Bill which must be taken on a subsequent evening; according to the same Orders they were to consider the Bill as amended on Report; and finally it appeared in the Notices, but not in the Orders of the Day, that after consideration of the Report they were to recommit the Bill. In the clauses they had spent six hours considering that night they had gained nothing, but had lost a great deal of time, because every one of the Amendments which the hon. and learned Attorney General was going to introduce would have to be reported to the Speaker and considered on a future day. It was not his intention to offer any opposition, but merely to suggest that in future it would be more convenient that all Amendments should be dealt with in Committee before the Bill as amended was considered on Report.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would remind the House that his object in asking for the recommittal of the Bill had been simply to introduce clauses which were discussed and agreed to on a former occasion—in fact, to affirm a foregone conclusion.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was right in stating that the clauses were agreed to be taken almost pro formâ. But the Attorney General had introduced a strange drag-net at the end of his notice, which specified certain clauses, and went on to say, "Schedule A and any new clauses." That certainly was opening up the question with a vengeance. An intimation had been given the
  194
  other night that the case of the County Court Judges was to be considered, and he must say that the mode of bringing on a question of such importance, if regular, was certainly unusual. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) availed himself of the same opportunity to bring on the case of an individual. All this was new matter, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman found it necessary to extend his notice, so as to let in everybody, it would have been better had the Bill been recommitted altogether. The inconvenience of such practices was that they were drawn into precedents.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) in introducing the words alluded to had been merely to enable the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) to raise a discussion on the question he brought forward the other night with regard to the County Court Judges, whose remuneration he was anxious should be increased. By so doing, however, the Government were not to be understood as agreeing to the necessity for that increase. It was a mere act of courtesy to the noble Lord. But there was much force in the observations which had fallen from the right, hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole), and he, therefore, suggested that the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) might properly omit the words in question.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALhaving altered his Motion, so that it stood "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of Clauses 8, 38, 42, 201, and Schedule A."
  Bill re-committed in respect of Clauses 8, 38, 42, 201, and Schedule A.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he felt the difficulty in which the House would be placed by continuing the discussion in its present form, and would, therefore, refrain from pressing the claims of the County Court Judges; but he did not admit those claims were at all done away with by the course pursued in reference to the dead men's clauses, although that would lessen the amount of increased duties thrown upon them. He would, if possible, take another opportunity of bringing them under the attention of the House.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, after the course taken by the noble Lord the Mem-

  195
  ber for King's Lynn, he should also refrain from bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice; but he trusted that, in some form or other, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would give him the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the case of the old gentleman to whom the Motion related.
  MR. NEWDEGATEremarked, that while the salaries of the officers of the Bankruptcy and County Courts had been increased, those of the County Court Judges had not been augmented.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALstated that that matter had received attention.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was not aware of that fact, and expressed himself satisfied.
  Amendment made.
  House resumed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in consequence of the Report of the Committee on Stamp Duties not having been brought up there still remained one clause of the Bill which he was unable to move that night. He meant that respecting ad valorem stamp duties. If it would meet the general convenience, he proposed to bring up the Report and move that clause tomorrow at half-past four o'clock. The Bill would then be reprinted, and read a third time immediately after Easter.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow at half-past Four of the clock.

  MUTINY BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22,
  MR. WHITEsaid, he rose to move the omission of this clause, which gave courts-martial the power of inflicting corporal punishments. He could not help thinking that as they were debarred from entertaining the question of Parliamentary or organic reform, they could not do better than consecrate the Session to social and administrative improvements; and that amelioration which he had the honour to introduce to the House was, of all others, the one which he believed the public were most anxious to see consummated. He did not arrogate to civilians a monopoly of humanity; on the contrary, he admitted there were many officers in the British army who were as distinguished for their humanity as for their gallantry. But still he maintained that many signal improve-
  196
  ments in the administration of the army had sprung from the efforts of civilians. He regretted he had Dot on that occasion the valuable assistance of the hon. and gallant General the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans), the cause of whose absence they all deplored. That gallant General on the Commission of 1836 had pronounced emphatically his opinion that corporal punishments were not only useless and inefficient but absolutely detrimental to the best interests of the service. Their tendency was to degrade and harden but not to reform the offenders, while they disgusted spectators and outraged public opinion. Besides which, doing full credit to the ameliorations introduced into the army by the illustrious Duke, the Commander-in-Chief, he was sorry to find that corporal punishments were on the increase. From a Return he held in his hand he found that in 1847, 42 men were flogged, and the number of lashes was 2,200; in 1852 there were 55 flogged, the number of lashes being 2,250; in 1858, including Militia, Royal Artillery and Engineers, there were 218 flogged, with 9,338 lashes; in 1859 there were 512 flogged, with 22,665 lashes. The average number of lashes per man in 1858 was 42; in 1859 the average per man was 44 and a quarter. In 1858 there was no flogging in 65 regiments, while in 1859 there were only 34 regiments that merited that honourable distinction. In 1858 there were 33 regiments, in 1859 30, in which only one man was flogged. In 1858 there were 17 regiments, in 1859 54, in which two men were flogged. In 1858 there were 7 regiments, in 1859 15, in which three men were flogged. In 1858 there were 6 regiments, in 1859 10, in which four men were flogged. In 1858 there were 3 regiments, and in 1859 3, in which five men were flogged; and in 1858 there were 12 regiments, and in 1859 32, in which more than five men were flogged. When they were so chary of inflicting corporal punishment on criminals it was an obstinate and unreasonable adherence to custom to continue the lash in the army. The punishment of flogging did not exist in the American, Prussian, or French armies; and now that they had incorporated the East India Company's troops with the Royal Army, it was a most invidious distinction that they could flog the British soldier whilst they could not flog the Sepoy. The argument that the abolition of flogging would subvert all discipline was used when it was proposed to

  197
  reduce the number of lashes from 1,000 to 300; and yet not only had that reduction been safely effected, but the number had since been diminished to 50 with beneficial results. When he remembered that at one time there were no fewer than 250 capital offences, and that Judges were horrified at any attempt to lessen the severity of the laws, he could not cast any reflection on military officers who dreaded a change in the present system of punishment in the army, although he denied the soundness of their apprehensions. The noble Lord at the head of the War Department had admitted that the steady and well-disposed rarely entered the army, and that it was recruited from the young, the thoughtless, and the wild; but if it was desired to raise the character of our recruits, the very best way would be to get rid of this brutal and disgusting punishment. The experience of the last few months had shown that there was a latent military spirit in the country which only wanted cultivation; and he was convinced that the number of volunteers into our army would he adequate if this punishment were obliterated from our criminal code. He moved that the clause be omitted, because he held that the practice of corporal punishment was alike repugnant to common sense, and common humanity, and Christian ethics.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSseconded the Motion. There was no flogging in the army or the navy of France, and would anybody deny their efficiency? In the United States flogging had been abolished several years. In the Crimea the French soldiers looked with disdain upon our men because they were subjected to this degrading system of corporal punishment. Public opinion would insist upon its abolition.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he should not have risen to address the Committee had not the hon. Member for Brighton asked him to second the Motion, which he (Mr. Locke) had promised to do, and which he should have done with the greatest pleasure. Whenever the question was brought forward, they were met by the argument that discipline in the British Army was better preserved than in other armies. He believed that arose from the circumstance that the British Army consisted of such excellent materials as it did. That, however, was no reason why such excellent materials should be flogged. He felt certain that the punishment was held in the greatest abhorrence by the working classes of the country by whom the army was recruited.
  198
  It was a monstrous thing that this punishment, which was inflicted upon no criminals except upon convicted felons and children of tender years, should be employed against the gallant defenders of this country. The argument was that the discipline of the army would be destroyed. But was not the discipline of the army improved instead of lowered by the reduction of the number of lashes? Lord Eldon said he had long felt great doubts about Sir Robert Peel, but when he found him bringing forward measures for the reduction of penalties for criminal offences, he felt satisfied he was no longer to he trusted. But had the security of life and property in this country diminished by such reduction? On the contrary, it had greatly improved.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he did not think that any exception could be taken to manner in which this Motion had been made, for the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. White) was a temperate one, and it was a proper occasion upon which to raise the question. But the matter seemed not to be generally understood, and certainly not by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark. What was the punishment of flogging ill the army at the present time? He (Mr. Locke) had dwelt on what he said must be the feelings of the working class, and their fear lest their relatives in the army should be subjected to so degrading a penalty. But the fact was that a soldier who had enlisted to serve Her Majesty could not he flogged for any offence he might commit, excepting for aggravated mutinous conduct, until he had previously been disrated from the first class. Now what were the offences for which he might be disrated? They were desertion, mutinous conduct, aggravated cases of insubordination and violence, drunkenness on duty or on the line of march, embezzling public money, stealing from a comrade, theft, designedly maiming, repeatedly making away with their arms, accoutrements, or ammunition, disgraceful acts showing vicious and unnatural propensities, and indecent assaults. Now a man found guilty of these offences was not for the first offence of that kind liable to corporal punishment, but he was put into the second class, after which, for a repetition of those offences he would be liable to it. And if the hon. and learned Member, when he next met his constituents, would explain that to them, he would find that the working men of his

  199
  acquaintance were not afraid of their own friends ever subjecting themselves to the degrading punishment of flogging. The hon. Member for Brighton had read some figures and statistics on the matter. Those statistics naturally depended on the increase of the army, and on the circumstance that when a large and sudden increase of the army was made, many of the recruits would probably be of a worse description, and when there was a large bounty offered desertions would be more frequent. The statistics of the hon. Member, therefore, must not he accepted as showing that there was really an increase of flogging in the army; and the effect of that General Order which established the classification that he (Mr. Baring) had described, did not appear in the Returns quoted by the hon. Member for Brighton, having been in operation only a few weeks within the period they comprised. He could assure both those hon. Members that no one could be more anxious than Her Majesty's Government, and His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, to see flogging abolished in the army. He could not, however, admit that it was true that civilians had made all such improvements in the army, remembering as he did what had been done by Viscount Hardinge and the Duke of Wellington, to say nothing of that General Order of His Royal Highness to which he had referred. Her Majesty's Government looked with confidence to a diminution in the number of punishments of this nature, but they could not consent to the omission of these clauses from the Mutiny Act. There were great differences between the armies of this country and the armies of foreign nations; and it was the opinion of the most competent authorities that, if the power were given up, the discipline of our army might be seriously interfered with. In time of peace it might possibly be laid aside, but in time of active service those who were most conversant with the soldier believed that, without excessive severity in other punishments, and those alternatives to which the hon. and learned Member for Southwark had alluded, but which he did not specify, this power must be retained. He should, therefore, oppose the Motion.
  COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, one cause of the apparent increase in flogging of late years was not only the increase in the number of the army, but that several ticket-of-leave convicts enlisted and behaved badly. There were half-a-dozen of them
  200
  at one time in the battalion he commanded, and one of them broke into his tent and stole his watch. He might further state, to show the feeling of the men on this question of flogging, that not long ago a soldier committed an aggravated assault on a non-commissioned officer. The officers who tried the offender did not sentence the soldier to the lash; and it came round to the officers afterwards, through the conversation in the barrack rooms, that there was general dissatisfaction among the men that one who had so disgraced himself should not have been flogged.
  MAJOR HAMILTONsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite who talked of flogging not being used in the French and American armies, if they knew what punishments were substituted? When he was in Canada he occasionally crossed the boundary line, and there found deserters from the British Army serving in the American ranks, and they appealed to him to know if they could not return, as they had to endure far more severe punishments in the American service than ever they had done in the British. Flogging was the only punishment which could be inflicted on soldiers for misconduct on the march. A man might be flogged and allowed to march within a very few hours; but if he were punished in another way the army would lose an effective soldier. He should vote against the Motion of the hon. Member.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he must protest against honourable soldiers being employed as public executioners to inflict the lash on the convicts at Chatham. The whole system of flogging was un-Christian and unnecessary, and this country would do well to imitate Russia, where the use of the knout had recently been abolished. [Cries of "Divide!"] He must enter his protest against this treatment. The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Opposition had always given him a fair hearing, and had used his exertions among his supporters to obtain for him the same treatment which he had always extended to other Members. He had never done anything to forfeit his right to fair treatment. He did not trespass on their time. No one spoke more shortly, and he ventured to say few spoke more to the point. It was treatment which he did not deserve, and it was conduct unworthy of Members of that House.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 22 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 37: Majority 105.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to a point of order. There was a clause in the Bill involving capital punishment, and he found in May's Parliamentary Practice a reference to a Resolution of the House passed in 1772 to the effect—"That no Bill or clause in any Bill do pass this House by which capital punishment is inflicted unless the same be referred to a Committee of the whole House;" and Mr. May observed that the rule had fallen into oblivion. He (Mr. Hennessy) wished to know the opinion of the hon. Gentleman upon the point.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, the Resolution of 1772 appeared to be a Sessional Order, and had never been made a Standing Order, and was contrary to the practice of the House for eighty or ninety years. In his opinion the Bill need not be sent to a Committee of the whole House.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3o To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Wills of Personalty by British Subjects.
2a Consolidated Fund (£4,000,000); Law of Foreign Countries; Queensland Government.
3a Red Sea and India Telegraph.

THE IONIAN ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, that on meeting his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on Tuesday last he put a question to him on the subject of the most recent intelligence from the Ionian Islands. He understood from his noble Friend then that he had received no official information on the subject, and, therefore, he had postponed his question till to-day. The intelligence received by the public since Tuesday could not be considered satisfactory, though he supposed that it might be taken in the main to be correct, for he believed that there was at the present moment an entire suspension of legislative action in the Ionian Islands. It would, therefore, be desirable to hear what explanation Her Majesty's Government were able to give on the subject. It appeared to him that the conduct pursued by the Legislative Assembly had rendered it impossible for the Lord High Commissioner to adopt any other course than that of proroguing them. He was sorry to think that all the concomitant circumstances proved that the steps taken by that Assembly had been in connection with the universal revolutionary propagandism which was at present being worked in every country in Europe: and it was especially to be regretted that the agents in this new attempt at separation had founded their acts on language used by a Minister of the Crown in England. He did not pretend to speak with accuracy of what had occurred on this last occasion; but some two months since Signor Dandolo, a member of the Legislative Assembly, addressed a letter to Lord John Russell, in which he stated that the patriotic cause, as he called it, was advanced by the revolutionary language which had been used by that noble Lord on a recent occasion. He was bound to say that, in his opinion, the appeal of Signor Dandolo was unanswerable as an argumentum ad hominem against the noble Lord. So far as Lord John Russell's despatch of the 27th of October was concerned, it appeared to him the case was complete—not against this country, not against the Government generally—but against the expression of opinion by the Foreign Secretary. That being the case he thought it extremely desirable that they should have some assurance from the colleagues of the noble Lord that they did not share in the doctrine propounded in that despatch, and
134
that in this case they did not admit that certain Ionian subjects of Her Majesty were the only judges as to whether their grievances were such as that they ought to be allowed to separate themselves from this country. Still more important was it that they should know from the noble Duke that Her Majesty's Government do not think that any foreign Government would be justified in assisting the Ionians. It was very true that this was not the first instance of dissatisfaction in the Ionian Islands; but that rendered the doctrine in the noble Lord's despatch still more objectionable. Indeed, there was scarcely any portion even of the Ministerial press that had not pronounced it to be dangerous. He hoped their Lordships would have an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that they were prepared to meet with an energetic opposition any attempt on the part of the Ionians to remove themselves from the protectorate. He begged to ask his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, Whether he was prepared to give any explanation as to the prorogation of the Legislative Assembly of the Ionian Islands; and when the Government would be able to lay on the table the official documents relating to this prorogation
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, I am now able to state what has taken place in the Parliament of the Ionian Islands. As my noble Friend says, he gave me notice on Tuesday last of his intention to ask me a question on this subject, and I told him that I had then no information. However, a despatch was received yesterday, and I am in a position to give him an answer. The Parliament was opened in the ordinary course on the 1st of March, and the Lord High Commissioner delivered his Speech as usual on such occasions. I believe that a report of that Speech has appeared in the newspapers. I presume, therefore, that it has been read by your Lordships, and I am sure you will concur with me in saying that there was nothing in it calculated to raise angry feelings, or that was in any respect at variance with those opinions and expressions which ought to have fallen from a person in the position of the Lord High Commissioner. Your Lordships are probably aware that in the Ionian Islands it is not the custom, as in this country, to answer a Speech by an Address on the same day as that on which it is delivered. The habit in the Ionian Islands is to appoint a Committee to draw

135
up an answer. That course was taken on this occasion. The Parliament met on a Friday, and the whole of the following week was taken up with desultory and unproductive discussions of various kinds. At last, on Saturday, a draught Answer was prepared. I am unwilling to characterize this draught by any strong expressions; but I can only describe it as a Bill of indictment against the protecting Power. The statements are in every respect so utterly at variance with the truth, the accusations are so monstrous, that they carry on the face of them their own refutation. The draught states that affairs have arrived at the culminating point of the grievances of the Ionian Islands; that the people may trace to British Protectorate most of the evils that exist in those Islands; that personal liberty is at an end, and that there is no freedom either of speech or of the press. It also states that the social and material interests of the Ionians have been neglected. The document represents a state of things which might possibly have existed a year ago in a southern country, but which could never have existed in the Ionian Islands under a British Protectorate. Notwithstanding the violence of this language the Session might have been continued. I think it impossible that the Lord High Commissioner could have received such an answer; but means might have been taken if it had not been resolved by the Assembly to push matters to extremity, to prevent that step the avoidance of which was so much to be desired—I allude to a prorogation of that body. But the leaders of a party who, I am sorry to say, exercise too much influence in the Assembly apprehended that some such course might have been adopted, and took their measures accordingly. Two members of the Assembly, Signor Paconis and Signor Lombardo, gave notice on Saturday of their intention to introduce two documents. One of them called on the House of Assembly to invite the whole of the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands to vote by universal suffrage for the annexation of the islands to Greece, and for other purposes. The second was full of empty and foolish phrases, but its pith and substance consisted of an appeal to the Governments and Christian philanthropists of Europe to unite in one great empire, and to drive the Turks out of Europe—in short, to revolutionize the whole eastern world. The Lord High Commissioner feeling that both these documents—but, under
136
the circumstances, the first particularly—were utterly at variance with the constitution of the Assembly, it being an utterly unheard-of proceeding that one branch of the Legislature should attempt to supersede the other two, felt it his duty not to allow these documents to be submitted. Accordingly, on the day on which they were to be brought forward for discussion, he sent to the Assembly the following Message:—
"The Lord High Commissioner has perceived that two documents have been laid on the table of the Most Noble the Legislative Assembly, and now stand on the order of the day for discussion; one inviting the Legislative Assembly to call on the Ionian people to declare by universal suffrage the national desire to be united to the Kingdom of Greece; the other purporting to be an address from the representatives of the Seven Islands to the representatives of the peoples, to the Governments and philanthropists of Christian Europe. The Lord High Commissioner is desirous of carrying forbearance to the utmost limits of his duty as the representative of the Sovereign Protectress of these States. His Excellency, therefore, warns the Legislative Assembly that the proposals now standing in the order of the day are clearly contrary to the Constitution, and, as such, cannot be entertained or discussed. The Lord High Commissioner hopes that nothing will be permitted to divert the Legislative Assembly from its true functions of useful legislation for the good of the country, and, having now informed that body that these proposals are unconstitutional, his Excellency trusts to its prudence and patriotism to remove them from the order of the day."
On that Message being received, hopes that some accommodation might be arrived at were entertained; and a proposal was made that the House should adjourn for half an hour, with a view to discuss these matters privately in a Committee-room. That discussion took place; but, so far from any spirit of conciliation being exhibited, a resolution was come to not in any respect to withdraw these documents of Signor Paconis and Signor Lombardo; and when the House resumed, the latter gentleman, in very violent language, proceeded to dilate on the substance of these documents. Finding that all further attempts would be useless, the Lord High Commissioner, under the powers given to him by the Constitution, prorogued the Assembly to that day six months. These are the circumstances of the case. As regards any further information for which the noble Marquess has asked there will be no objection to grant it. I will not undertake to say that every document shall be produced, but I should certainly be glad that your Lordships were supplied with those of which the substance is em-

137
bodied in the short statement I have just made. The noble Marquess was unable, oven in putting a question to the Colonial Secretary, to refrain from having his usual fling at the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary and the Government; and has chosen to trace the events which have occurred in the Ionian Islands to that despatch of my noble Friend at the Foreign Office, which seems to haunt the noble Marquess like a nightmare. The noble Marquess must be aware that a letter was addressed by Signor Dandolo to Lord John Eussell, in which—however we may be surprised that an Englishman, and a Member of your Lordships' House, should distort a despatch from the British Government—it was but natural that Signor Dandolo, writing from his point of view, should endeavour to show that, under the terms of that despatch, the Ionian Islands were entitled to emancipate themselves from the protectorate of Great Britain and to attach themselves to Greece. But a refutation both of the opinion of Signor Dandolo and of the arguments of the noble Marquess is afforded by the fact that Sir Henry Storks, having the power of high police in those Islands, of which he could have availed himself, did not in any way interfere to prevent the circulation of that letter, which was published in Greek, in Italian, and, I believe, in English, and was circulated throughout the whole of the Ionian Islands without producing any effect whatever; in fact, the inhabitants did not appear to pay any attention to the matter. But there can be no doubt that this agitation is of long standing. This is, unfortunately, not the first time that a prorogation of the Ionian Parliament has taken place. Last year it was feared that recourse to such a measure would be necessary; but instructions were sent out which were repeated this year, to treat with every consideration, but of course with firmness and resolution, any measures that the Assembly might adopt. Acting under these instructions, some advantage was derived from the sittings of the Assembly last year, though not as much as could have been desired; owing to proceedings of a similar kind to those which have recently taken place. And when the noble Marquess appeals to me and to my noble Friends on the bench behind me, and says he hopes we do not agree with Lord John Russell in the despatch which he has written, I say distinctly that the despatch has no relevance
138
whatever to the state of the Ionian Islands; and, unless the noble Marquess can prove that the circumstances of those Islands are precisely similar to those of the country with reference to which that despatch was written, his whole case falls to the ground. As regards the course which Her Majesty's Government—including Lord John Russell, as the noble Marquess thinks it right to draw a distinction between us—are prepared to pursue, I will state that we approve the course which Sir Henry Storks has been compelled to take in this instance; and with regard to the policy of maintaining the protectorate, I tell him distinctly that we are prepared to uphold it, and that the Government does not shrink from the responsibility which attaches to them under the treaties of 1815. And, although I trust the present and any future Government will always make allowance for the feelings of the Ionian people, and will treat them with the utmost forbearance, consideration, and justice, I trust, at the same time, they will not hesitate to perform their duty with firmness and determination. The noble Marquess seems to regard this question with somewhat of despair. I venture to assert my belief that the Ionian people will before long separate themselves from these demagogues and theorists who have misled them so long. Already there are appearances of their doing so. By the accounts received yesterday, notwithstanding the sudden prorogation of the Assembly, the utmost tranquillity prevailed, not alone in the town but in the neighbourhood of Corfu; and I not only trust, but I will even say I believe, that the inhabitants will feel that Sir Henry Storks was justified under the circumstances in stopping these mischievous proceedings; and although it is, undoubtedly, a great misfortune that legislation should be stopped—for there are many grievances, political, social, and moral, that it would be in the power of the Assembly to obviate, if so disposed—I believe they will perceive that the Assembly was grievously in error, and that their truest friends are those who endeavour to maintain the protectorate of Great Britain.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, in answer to the charge of having unnecessarily introduced the despatch of Lord John Russell into the discussion, that that despatch had been made the basis of proceedings in the Ionian Legislature; and that this fact is stated as the only public information which any one had yet seen from

139
thence in a letter from Corfu in the papers this morning. Indeed when such a question was raised, he wished to know how the noble Lord could evade the force of the expression he had employed, that "the people were the only judges of whether their grievances were such as to justify a change of dynasty?"
EARL GREYsaid, he did not wish in any respect to impugn the accuracy of the statement made by the noble Duke. He entertained no doubt from that statement made by the noble Duke, the Colonial Secretary, that Sir Henry Storks had exercised a wise discretion. But he could not help thinking that the noble Duke had scarcely realized in the remarks which he had just delivered the serious nature of the Ionian question. The state of things in the Ionian Islands was no honour either to this country or to the local Governors who had administered their affairs. The withdrawal of our protection would, no doubt, be the greatest misfortune which could happen to the people of those Islands; but still, believing, as he firmly did, that this country had no interest whatever in extending to them the benefit of our protection against their will; that to us the maintenance of that protection was productive only of burden, expense, and, in some respects, of danger, while all the advantages were on the side of the Ionians, he was of opinion that if the hopes which had been expressed by the noble Duke were not realized, if the people did not abandon the demagogues by whom they had hitherto been led, and support the authority of the representatives of Her Majesty, that protection ought no longer to be continued. This was a question of grave importance, and could not long escape the serious consideration both of the Government and of Parliament.

HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUCHESS OF KENT.

  THE QUEEN'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS OF CONDOLENCE.
  THE LORD STEWARD reported the Answer of Her Majesty to the Address of Monday last, as follows: namely—
  "I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address, and for the Expression of your Condolence on the Death of My beloved Mother.
  "The Assurances of your Interest in all that concerns My domestic Relations and your Wishes for the Happiness of Myself and My Family have given Me sincere Satisfaction."

ADMIRAL SIR BALDWIN WALKER.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, I take the liberty of interrupting the Business of the House for a moment to ask the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty a question on a subject respecting which a considerable amount of public interest has been excited. I allude to the recent departure of Sir Baldwin Walker in the Narcissus frigate. The circumstances of the gallant officer's departure are generally known, as also that it took place at a juncture when the House of Commons desired his presence. Since then it has been stated in quarters which might be supposed to have good information that a gentleman of some distinction, a well-known writer of the day, and supposed to be the editor of a great public journal, mentioned at a table, as a fact within his own knowledge, that the Commander-in-chief at Portsmouth had started early in the morning in his boat for the Narcissus, and when on board urged the Admiral to get out to sea as fast as possible, and by no means to look behind him, but to make all possible despatch out of the Channel; for that if he did not get out of the way he might probably find himself wanted elsewhere. I wish to ask the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty, Whether there is any truth in this statement? and I must certainly add that the circumstances attending Admiral Walker's departure look exceedingly like an anxiety to escape the summons of the House of Commons.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: —My Lords, there have been so many misstatements respecting the appointment and sailing of Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker that I am glad to have an opportunity of stating in my place in this House the real facts of the case. For the appointment of Sir Baldwin Walker to the command of the Cape squadron I am responsible, and solely responsible. It has been imputed to a noble Friend of mine in "another place" that it might be for his convenience that Sir Baldwin Walker should depart to a distant station. I can only say that my noble Friend Lord Clarence Paget was never consulted upon the appointment of Sir Baldwin Walker, and was not informed of it until it had been made. That appointment was made in November, and I then stated to Sir Baldwin Walker that I was very sorry to lose his services, and would much rather have re-

  141
  tained him in his position as Surveyor of the Navy; but he informed me that the state of his health rendered it impossible for him to continue to discharge the duties of that office. At the same time I requested that he would at least remain in England long enough to assist me and the Admiralty in preparing the Estimates for the ensuing year, and I told him that as soon as the Estimates were ready he should be allowed to go. The Estimates, in the preparation of which Sir Baldwin Walker was enabled by his long experience to render the greatest assistance, were accordingly prepared, and were presented to the House on the 12th of February, and I then told Sir Baldwin Walker that, as far as I was concerned, he was at liberty to proceed to his station. Circumstances connected, I believe, partly with his private affairs and partly with the preparation of the ship, detained him in this country, and it was not until the 26th of February that the orders for sailing were given at the Admiralty, On the 27th he went to Portsmouth, and I anticipated that he would sail the next day, which was Thursday. However, he did not sail until the Saturday, and on that day the circumstance occurred which has given rise to the report referred to in the question put to me by the noble Earl. On that Saturday Admiral Bruce went out to the Narcissus, which was off Spithead, to take out to her some additional ammunition—some Armstrong ammunition—which it was thought would be required on board the vessel; but he writes that he did not see Sir Baldwin Walker, who had then gone on a visit to Her Majesty at Osborne; that lie did not see him, that he did not want to see him, and that he gave him no orders. No orders were sent either directly or indirectly to Sir Baldwin Walker to hasten his departure. It was entirely his own doing; and as far as I was concerned I could have no possible motive to desire his departure. On the Saturday Sir Baldwin Walker anchored in Yarmouth Roads, and on the Monday he sailed. I had been informed that on a previous evening some Members of the House of Commons had declared that they did not want the Admiral to be detained, and I had no reason to suppose that any opposite opinion would arise. Indeed I then supposed that he had sailed. One night at twelve o'clock a message was brought to the First Naval Lord at the Admiralty requesting him to send a telegram to stop Sir Baldwin Walker. Now, as noble Lords are aware, the senior Naval
  142
  Lord always has the distribution and management of the ships. He has authorized me to say that he received that message, but that he considered the proceedings so irregular, it being only a report of what had passed in the House of Commons, without any assurance that any orders were to be sent to the Admiralty from a Secretary of State, that, conceiving that a precedent for receiving orders from the House of Commons might produce inconvenience to the public service, he declined to act upon it, and, therefore, did not that night send off any telegraphic message. In the morning he consulted me upon the subject. I communicated with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and, being informed that he would address a letter to me upon the subject, I despatched orders to get a vessel ready and send her to look for Sir Baldwin Walker. These are the facts of the case, and I hope I have satisfied the noble Earl opposite that there was no desire to send Sir Baldwin Walker away, and that no order, either direct or indirect, or any hint of any kind was given from myself, or from any one in authority at the Admiralty, urging him to get to sea.

  METROPOLITAN CENTRAL HOTEL COMPANY BILL.—SECOND READING.
  The EARL OF SHELBURNE, in moving the second leading of this Bill, said that its object was to procure a site for the building of an hotel in the neighbourhood of Wych Street and Holywell Street in the Strand, and that the property, for the removal of which compulsory power was sought, was of a most objectionable nature; in fact the Holywell Street nuisance had been for a very long time notorious.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD REDESDALEopposed the Motion for the second reading on the ground that it would be a bad precedent to allow persons engaged in a private speculation of this kind to have compulsory powers of taking property. The Bill of the London Bridge Hotel Company was rejected last year on that ground. An offer had been made to forego the opposition to the Bill if the promoters could produce petitions from the majority of the persons affected; but they were not able to do so. It showed how entirely it was a private speculation that one of the parties had told him that if the Law Courts Bill were not passed they would abandon their scheme. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and insert "this Day Six Months."
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYreminded the noble Lord that in the case of railways, docks, and other private speculations, compulsory powers of taking property were granted, on the ground that such undertakings were of public advantage. He thought that the same principle should be applied here; and certainly there had been scarcely any private speculation which had been fraught with so much public benefit as this.
  LORD EVERSLEYagreed with the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) in holding that it would be a bad precedent to sanction this measure.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he agreed with the Chairman of Committees and the noble Viscount who last addressed their Lordships with respect to the general principle of the inadvisability of giving compulsory powers to companies to enable them to promote their private speculations; and he thought, moreover, that the title of this Bill did not convey sufficiently accurate information as to its contents. But he was informed by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Works that be considered this scheme was of great importance as a measure of metropolitan improvement, in conjunction with the plan for the erection of new law courts. It was not a Bill merely for the building of an hotel, but for widening a crowded thoroughfare, giving access to the proposed courts, and destroying a locality notorious from the character of the publications which used to be there exhibited. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to be considered by a Committee, and defer judgment upon it until the Third Reading.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that in all his experience in the House of Lords he had never before known an occasion when two Cabinet Ministers find successively risen to take an active part in favour of a private Bill. It was most extraordinary that the support of the Government should be given in opposition to the opinion, on public grounds, of authorities so high as the late Speaker of the House of Commons and the Chairman of Committees, and he hoped that the practice of bringing the influence of the Government to bear on the discussion of a private Bill would not be drawn into a precedent. He trusted that on this occasion their Lordships would not allow themselves to be in-
  144
  fluenced by the course the Government had taken.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was another Cabinet Minister who supported this Bill; but if he had considered it a private Bill he should not have taken any part in the discussion. This Bill was, in fact, one of a public nature, upon which the health and comfort of many of the inhabitants of the Metropolis would depend. He entirely agreed with the principle laid down by the noble Chairman of Committees and the noble Viscount on the cross benches (Lord Eversley), but though this Bill was of a private nature it would provide great public advantages. It would not merely widen the Strand, but it would purify the locality in the neighbourhood of the contemplated new courts of law.
  LORD TAUNTONsaid, the question was whether this was primarily and essentially a Bill to promote a private speculation. He thought it most undoubtedly was, and if they allowed private speculators to come to the House and obtain compulsory powers to deal with the property of others on the ground that the public would receive some indirect advantage, there would be no end to this kind of thing. He should certainly oppose the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEagreed in the general principle laid down that compulsory powers should not be given for private objects; but in this case their Lordships should not lose sight of the fact that this measure was calculated to effect a great public improvement in the Metropolis by removing a number of disreputable houses, by widening the Strand, and facilitating the passage of the traffic to and from the new law courts; and all this without putting the public to the expense of a single shilling. These objects were so desirable that he should support the Bill.
  EARL GREYsaid, if this Bill was to make an improvement in the thoroughfares leading to the courts of law it ought to have been introduced by the authorities who had the construction of the new courts in hand—namely, the Government. If they had asked for power to remove certain buildings there could have been no objection to it; or if the local authorities of the Strand had asked for such a power no one could have objected to it; but he saw no sufficient reason why they should give compulsory power to a mere joint stock hotel company to pull down houses, the primary

  145
  object being their own private advantage. It had been said such powers were given to railway and dock companies; but in all cases railway and dock companies had to show their primary object was in some way for the public convenience. Any one could make a railway without coming to Parliament, by the consent of all parties interested; and compulsory powers were only given when they could show that the railways were of primary public importance. He did not think the establishment of an hotel a matter of primary importance to the public, and if Parliament should grant compulsory powers in this case it would be setting a very dangerous precedent. He should, therefore, vote against the second reading of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF SHELBURNEbriefly replied, expressing a hope that their Lordships would not give so great a weight to precedents as to induce them to throw out this Bill, which would effect great public improvements.
  On Question, That "now" stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 25; Not-contents 33: Majority 8.
  Resolved in the Negative.

DWELLINGS FOR THE LABOURING CLASSES. STANDING ORDER No. 191.

  ADDITION MOVED.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving an addition to Standing Order No. 191, for the purpose of providing that the report made by the promoters of railway and other Bills of the number of houses and inhabitants displaced shall be referred to the Select Committee on each Bill, who shall inquire into and report on the same, said: My Lords, the proposal I now make is a necessary supplement to the Resolution carried by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) below me, which was granted for a special and particular instance, and to the Standing Order which I carried some years ago. It cannot be said that it will act in any way as an obstruction to public improvements; it is neither intended nor adapted for that purpose. I am ready to admit the great advantage of many improvements made in London, and the great benefits conferred in opening large thoroughfares for ventilation; all I ask is, that we should have the means of obtaining accurate information as to the number of houses and inhabitants displaced. My great object is to reduce the amount of
  146
  an evil which presses upon a vast mass of the population, and to see whether, by continually bringing the subject before the public mind, we cannot at last devise some remedy for it. Improvement Bills are now increasing in number and area so much, both in London and the provinces, that unless something be speedily done great moral, financial, and even political mischief will accrue. Since this subject was In at before your Lordships I have personally gone through the two districts which were then referred to, in the parish of St. Giles, Cripplegate. I have visited the courts and alleys through which this railway will pass, and I have conversed with a great number of the people, and the conclusion I have come to is that a greater misrepresentation never was made than the character which was given of the locality which will be affected by this scheme. It is not the abode of thieves and of vagabonds, but of decent. well-conditioned people, who have resided there for a considerable time, and who, if displaced, would suffer a very grievous wrong, and a very grievous injury. Again, your Lordships will find that in these districts the worst places are not those proposed to be taken for these railways. With a few exceptions, the worst places are left untouched, and even those worst places are infinitely better than a vast number of places within a few minutes' walk of this House, for instance, which will remain untouched. Thus I find that in King's Arms Yard eleven of the houses are in good condition, airy, and spacious. In King's Head Court the houses are in good condition. In Half Moon Alley they are very narrow, but good compared with many places. In Bowling Alley they are small and very bad. In Bowling Square there are three houses to be taken, and these are very airy and spacious. Cradle Court is new, airy, and spacious. We were told that none but the most filthy and the most overcrowded dwellings were to be removed, and that nothing but benefit would arise from driving a railway through the midst of them. Now, I find, not in the line of railway, Castle Court, which is very bad, with no opening at the end, and White Rose Place, which is very narrow and a cul de sac. In St. Bartholomew district I find Honeysuckle Square, which is full of new buildings, constructed only in 1859, and model lodging-houses, very large, new, airy, and spacious, two large rooms being allotted to each family. All these are to

  147
  come down. Maidenhead Court is airy, spacious, and in excellent condition. Green Arbour Court and Half Moon Alley are inferior to some others, but vastly superior to a great many localities which are left untouched. Angel Alley and Union Buildings are both bad. In Moor Square the houses are spacious and not bad. Carr Square is by no means bad. In New Court the ventilation is pretty good, the drainage bad; while Sun Court, not in the line of railway, is exceedingly bad. All these places are to be disturbed by the proposed railways, and it is very desirable to know the extent to which you will allow a quiet, orderly, decent. comfortable population to be affected in such a way. Consider the character of this population. It comprises a large number of skilled artisans, and a number, too, of ordinary working men. There are none of the migratory population who remain but a very short time in their houses. On the contrary, I found many persons who had resided in their houses for more than twenty five years, and who contemplated with horror their sudden enforced removal. No notice has been given to these poor people. The proprietors have received notice, but not the occupants of the houses. On the contrary, what has been done has tended to lull them into a false security. To almost every house notices have been sent, in which the lodgers were asked whether they assented to or dissented from the proposition that a railway should pass through their dwellings. A large portion of the persons thus appealed to expressed their dissent; and when I told them that their houses were to come down, they replied, "It is impossible, because we have had papers to fill up, and in them we refused our assent to the removal of the houses." The proprietors have given no notice to their lodgers, nor will they do so until within a week of the time when demolition begins, and then these poor people will be full of confusion and dismay. This process of demolition will operate very injuriously upon all, but upon many it will inflict absolute ruin. All who are displaced must be pressed into the already overcrowded houses of the neighbourhood, and many who are now living in houses and rooms of their own will be compelled to descend in the social scale, and to become inmates of a room in which another family is located. But this demolition will press still more heavily upon the skilled artisans. They cannot possibly go any distance from their work. I have
  148
  seen many of these men living in comfortable well-furnished houses of their own, and they must be turned out, with their furniture and their families, it not being possible that they should find another house in the neighbourhood. If they go to a distance, they must leave their work, for they are under engagement to their employers not to live more than a certain distance from the warehouse, in order that orders may as soon as possible be transmitted to the workman, and not a moment may be lost in executing them. Thus your Lordships will see how seriously such removals press upon the skilled artisan. A Committee which sat upon this subject reported that they had done what they could to alleviate this pressure by introducing a clause into the new railway Bills for the establishment of cheap and constant trains for the benefit of the working classes. The people will receive the assurance with gratitude, as a mark of sympathy on the part of Parliament; but it is giving them a stone when they asked for bread. The cheap railway trains will lead to nothing; for the railway is there, but there are no houses; a long period must elapse before any can be constructed, and no spots can be found without going to a very considerable distance. I shall not speak disparagingly of the proposal to build suburban villages. But what is the use of talking of them in the present crisis? The houses are not built, the land is not purchased, the site is not yet fixed upon; and even when these villages are forthcoming it will be very difficult indeed to persuade the people to leave the neighbourhood of their work, where they now live, and go to so great a distance. I do not, however, despair of these suburban villages being brought into general use. The overcrowding of London is caused partly by the natural increase of population and partly by a large immigration every year into those parts of the Metropolis which are already overcrowded. These suburban villages may probably be so arranged as to catch the immigrants and prevent them from crowding in upon the overcrowded districts, while the societies which now exist may do much to improve the domiciles already existing. It is necessary, however, that we should have ample time, as well as great zeal and energy in the cause; and it is with a view of creating that zeal and setting in movement that energy that I am anxious to lose no opportunity of laying before the House information bearing upon this great, this

  149
  increasing, and this dangerous evil. I believe that much good may be done by keeping the real state of things constantly before the country, by showing the operation of these various improvements, where all the evil is on the one side and all the benefit is on the other, and by proving that, although such improvements must go on, it is at the cost of much human happiness, which result may be obviated if proper measures were adopted. By constantly bringing before the country this information we shall stimulate the efforts I have indicated, and thereby make these improvements a source of unmingled good to the community. I hope your Lordships will pass this Standing Order, and I hope its result will be to impress men's minds with the absolute necessity of directing their attention to the remedy of this great and oppressive evil. It is an evil you cannot estimate by report; you must hear the evidence with your own ears; you must take the evidence of the working men themselves; they alone can enter into the minute details that make up the sum and substance of their existence. And when their story is told to the country at large, I am sure it will be roused to something like a great and magnanimous effort. If it is not so roused to that effort, I must say we have come to the time when we must declare there is no foundation of truth whatever in the professing philanthropy and self-glorifying language of the Nineteenth Century. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the following words be added to the Standing Order No. 191.
  "And that such Statement be referred to the Committee on the Bill, and that the said Committee do inquire into and report thereon."
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had no objection to the proposed addition to the Standing Order. One of the Bills that had been referred to, the Metropolitan Railway, had come before him as an unopposed Bill, and he had that day made a detailed report to the House upon the matter. With regard to the subject on which the noble Earl had just spoken, it was very difficult to arrive at the truth on it. He had no doubt the noble Earl had been taken to many places where the inhabitants were likely to give answers favourable to the party who opposed the Railway Extension Bill. He was obliged to say this; for very different evidence on the same subject had been given before him. He had no reason to doubt that the witnesses he had heard gave honest evidence, and believed they
  150
  were speaking the truth; but their statements differed materially from what the noble Earl had described as the character of the population of the localities that would be affected by the Bill. They stated that this population was of a migratory character; that it was largely composed of Irish and other strangers, who same from different parts of the Metropolis; and that if a census of the district were taken, in three years another return would show that not one-fourth of the same people remained. If that were the case they could not suffer in the same way from removal as those who really belonged to the locality. These must suffer, more or less, by any change; it was to be regretted, but it was unavoidable, if any railway improvements were to be carried out at all. The noble Earl said that the Railway Company had rather taken the best districts than the worst. But the line must run according to the level of the ground; and as it was the great object of the companies to take the cheapest land, they would not take more of the most expensive land than was absolutely necessary. As to the returns of the number of people who would be displaced, he believed that the number would not be half of that named in the return, because where land was so expensive companies would not take more than was necessary, and the returns included all the people who lived within the limits of deviation allowed to the companies. With the perfect concurrence of the company to which he referred, he had introduced two clauses into the Bill—one similar to that introduced by the Committee on the North London Bill, providing that the company should run a cheap train every day, with this difference—in the North London Bill if the average of six months showed that 100 persons did not travel by it the train was to be discontinued. In the clause as he had framed it the Board of Trade might refuse to permit its being given up. It appeared to him that six months might not afford sufficient time for the labouring classes to acquire the habit of using the train. By another clause the company was bound to make provision for dwellings for their own labourers and servants, which would diminish the pressure on the crowded centres. He thought good might arise out of the inquiry secured by the addition of the Resolution of the noble Earl, and he should offer no opposition to it.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought that the

  151
  noble Earl had taken somewhat of an exaggerated view of this matter, though, no doubt, he had done so under the influence of the most benevolent feelings. He might mention that when Prince Albert went to see some houses belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, he found them to be in a state which was disgraceful to property of his son, and he caused fresh houses to be built; but when he had done so be found it impossible to persuade the people to leave the old houses to which they had been accustomed. As to the Amendment which had been proposed, he thought there was no objection to it, for, on the contrary, he believed it would cause additional inquiries to be made; but he would suggest that the matter should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYassented.
  Motion agreed to; and the said Words added accordingly.

RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH BILL

  THIRD READING.
  Orders for the third reading read.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, that a perusal of the evidence on the subject of the contract with the company had removed his objection to the wording of this Bill. He hoped, however, that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to say, through his noble Friend the Postmaster General, that they would not enter into any future engagement of a similar character with this or any other company without notice to Parliament, and that they would not incur any expense, either in attempting to recover the cable or setting this company on its legs again, without giving Parliament an opportunity of expressing its opinion on such proceeding.
  THE EARL OF CAITHNESSsaid, he did not wish to prolong discussion on this subject, but still he wished to bring shortly under the notice of their Lordships the great danger incurred in giving guarantees to companies of so precarious a nature as electric telegraph companies, especially when connected with submarine operations. As a director of an electric telegraph company he could speak on the subject to his cost, and the cost of the company with which he was connected. It was thought that the wire when covered with a coating of gutta percha was quite safe, but experience showed that the cable was very destructible. He held a statement of the
  152
  late Mr. Robert Stephenson in his hand, in which he said—
  "I have no doubt the experience which we have now acquired with regard to the durability of marine cables is very unfavourable, that is, as regards their present form and shape; but with greater lightness and less gravity I have no doubt that submarine cables will eventually be extended over a large portion of the world. The vitality of the cable is the great question. Some are worn out and decay in five or six years, some endure for ten years, and some extend to twelve, fourteen, or fifteen years."
  He thought it unwise, therefore, to guarantee for fifty years such a company as the Red Sea Company, unless that Company was also bound to keep the line in good and effective working order. He certainly should have desired a large guarantee for his own line, because when the works were stopped, and there were no outgoings, the company would have nothing to do but to receive and pocket their money. There was a great difference in the cost of overland and submarine telegraph lines. The cost of construction for an overland telegraph was £30 per mile, of a submarine telegraph £300, and of an underground one £120. The cost of maintaining an overland telegraph was £8 per mile, and of a submarine telegraph £25. But the matter was still worse when there was a bad cable, and consequently no profits. He thought that the Government ought not to enter into a guarantee without at least requiring a counter guarantee for the maintenance of the cable in effective order.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had already explained to their Lordships what the object of the present Bill was—that was, simply to correct an omission in the original contract. The conditions of the contract as between the Government and Company would remain exactly as before. He could assure his noble Friend (Lord Lyveden) that Her Majesty's Government had learnt a lesson from the unfortunate case of this Red Sea Telegraph, and that they would not give any guarantee to any future company for the construction of any electric lines without previously submitting it to Parliament, and letting the public have a full knowledge of all the circumstances. As to the submarine telegraphs, there were so many difficulties connected with their construction that it was clear we had not yet arrived at satisfactory information on the subject.
  Bill read 3a, and passed.

QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, its principal object was to remove some doubts that existed as to the power and authority which the Legislative Council of Queensland possessed. The territory of Queensland was separated from the colony of New South Wales by letters patent in June, 1859, and erected into a separate colony; and by an Order in Council of the same date it was intended to confer on the new colony the same constitution as was then possessed by the colony of new South Wales from which it was then severed. But in 1858 a local Act was passed by the Legislature of New South Wales altering their constitution to a considerable extent This local Act was received in this country in the beginning of 1859, but it escaped the attention of the Government at the time when the Order in Council was drawn up. The attention of the principal Judge of Queensland had been drawn to the fact, and he was of opinion that the powers and acts of the Legislative Council of Queensland were invalid by reason of the want of resemblance between the two constitutions, and could only be remedied in the manner now proposed; and his opinion was confirmed by the law officers of the Crown in this country. The object of this Bill was, therefore, to remedy the defect, and to declare all the acts of the Legislative Council valid, as though the letters patent had been in all respects free from doubt. As there were circumstances which frequently rendered it undesirable that a new colony should possess the same form of Constitution as that from which it separated, a clause dealing with that branch of the subject bad been introduced. The Bill likewise disposed of the tract of land lying between the 129th and the 132nd degrees, which hitherto had remained practically unappropriated, and annexed it to the province of South Australia, of which it was highly desirable that it should form part.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.
  Home adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.