Sitting of 9 February 1865

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Hon. George Frederick Boyle for Bute County.
SELECT COMMITTEE—General Committee of Elections; Bankruptcy Act; appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Qualification for Offices Abolition.
Ordered—River Waters Protection *; Sewage Utilization.*
First Reading—Qualification for Offices Abolition [2]; * River Waters Protection [3] *; Sewage Utilization [4].*

PRIVATE BILLS—APPOINTMENT OF REFEREES.
MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House, that Mr. Hugh Adair and Mr. Hassard, Members of this House, having consented

99
to serve as Referees on Private Bills under the Standing Order of last Session, he had appointed those two Gentlemen to be Referees, together with Mr. Rickards, his Counsel:—Mr. Speaker added, that he need not say how great a sacrifice of their time and case these Gentlemen were prepared to make in taking upon themselves the laborious duties of this office.

PRIVATE BILLS—STANDING ORDER No. 7.
Standing Order No. 7 read.
MR. CHARLES FORSTER, in rising to move to amend the Standing Order No. 7, by substituting "three" for "four" as the number of Members to compose the Select Committee on Private Bills, said, the hon. and gallant Member!! for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) had last Session brought forward a Resolution with respect to the private business of the House, which was included in the Standing Orders, which he deemed to be calculated to promote the convenience both of hon. Members themselves as well as of the public. The hon. and gallant Gentleman in moving that Resolution, stated that the business in question had increased to so enormous an extent as to be beyond the working powers of the Committees, and that the Committee of Selection found the greatest difficulty in naming the Committees for Private Bills, and were consequently compelled to fall back upon a body of reserve, or rather he might call them a noble band of volunteers, who though exempt according to the practice of the Committee, inasmuch as they had already stood the chances of the panel, generously came forward in the emergency, with offers of assistance. The proposal, therefore, of the hon. and gallant Member was to reduce the number from five to three. Unfortunately, however, the number "three" was subjected to a sort of triangular duel on the occasion between the Members who were in favour of five and those by whom the number "four" was advocated. The result of the proceedings showed how a minority might by accident become a majority. A division was first taken on the question, that "three" be the number, and the Motion in favour of that number was negatived by a small majority, inasmuch as those who supported the proposals both for "five" and "four" voted on the same side. When, however, number
100
"five" had in its turn been negatived, by the combination of those who were in favour of the numbers "three" and "four," many hon. Members who had voted with the "noes" on the first division wished to retrace their steps, while those who thought a reduction simply to four an arrangement full of inconvenience, yet, when obliged to accept it or to have no reduction at all, felt themselves called upon, though very reluctantly, to vote for it. In the course of the discussion it was ruled from the Chair that "three" having been negatived, and a majority recorded in favour of "four," the decision of the House could not be altered in the course of that Session; and it was to give the House an opportunity of escaping from the false position in which it was thus placed that he made the present Motion. A reduction to four, though a reduction pro tanto, was, he contended, not such a reduction as the state of the case demanded, when the great increase in the amount of private business in recent years was taken into consideration. The list of Private Bills for the present Session contained 595 entries. But the alteration of last year had given rise to another objection of a serious kind. Up to the period of the change which had last Session been introduced, the Members of the various Committees took their seats in the Committee-rooms under an equal sense of responsibility; but when by the reduction to four the Chairman obtained a double vote, a blow was given to that system of equality which was so intimately interwoven with all the usages of Parliament; the other Members felt themselves in an inferior position, and consequently felt a diminished responsibility. The House, therefore, in his opinion, by restoring the scheme of the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire to its original shape would not only facilitate the labours of the Committee of Selection, but would, he thought, ensure greater attention and a greater feeling of responsibility on the part of the Members nominated to serve. Some persons feared that by the reduction of the number to three, great practical inconveniences would arise, and that stoppages would be occasioned. He would, however, remind the House that by the appointment of Referees the labours of Committees would be much shortened, and that the contingency of a stoppage was now more remote than formerly. In any case the House en dernier resort could always

101
remedy the inconvenience either by nominating other Members or by ordering that the Committee should proceed with the diminished number.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "four," in order to insert the word "three,"—(Mr. Charles Forster,)— instead thereof.
MR. SMOLLETTthought the proposition made by the hon. Member would have hardly any effect in reducing the onerous duties discharged by certain Members of the House, and would leave untouched the greatest evil of all—namely, the manner in which the Private Business was conducted by that House. He perfectly agreed with the proposition made last year by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil), that it was exceedingly desirable that there should be a tribunal external to the House of Commons to which the private business of the country should be referred. But, admitting that this suggestion was not practicable at the present moment, he would make another by which he thought that the duties now imposed on Members would be greatly diminished. For five years consecutively he had now been elected to serve on Private Bill Committees, and he did not think that could have happened, even with the admitted pressure of business, had the Members been selected fairly and impartially. The fact was that a large number of Members were not called on to serve at all. In his opinion, every gentleman offering himself to represent a constituency in Parliament ought to be bound to take in his turn the duties devolving upon Members of the House, and the only exceptions which he would make were in the cases of those holding office under the Crown, and discharging duties from which they could not escape: any other Gentleman seeking to be excused from attendance on Committees ought to produce a medical certificate of his inability to do so; and if all took their turns fairly, there would be little duty for each to discharge. He might be told that there were a great many Gentlemen following the profession of the law, and others who were attending to duties in the City, or otherwise employing their time more profitably than upon Committees. But if their private and public duties clashed, if they found Parliamentary duty irksome, they had their remedy—they ought to resign their seats. Last year, on
102
one of the latest days of the Session, the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) stated that he had been for three years without serving on Private Bill Committees. He had heard, with his own ears, a Gentleman declare in the lobby that he had avoided serving on a Committee for seven years consecutively. How was it done? He did not say that the Committee of Selection had taken the names unfairly, but they certainly allowed a great many men to escape without, as it appeared, sufficient reasons. In the present Session there were between 500 and 600 Bills, of which 400 or 500 at least were Railway Bills; and the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin), himself the chairman of some railway companies, told a meeting over which he presided not long ago, that he was sorry to see such a large number of undertakings propounded to which there were very few subscribers or shareholders. The fact of the matter was that a railway company was got up now by an engineer, a speculative contractor, and an attorney. An old-established company generally took up the scheme, in order that some other company might not use it to their prejudice; but the public had no interest, and were never consulted in the matter—they were not consulted and were not asked to become shareholders—and there was no opposition to many of the Bills unless some other existing company thought that its interests were likely to be injuriously affected by the project at some future period. There were fifty-four railway Bills from Scotland, the part of the kingdom that he knew best, before the House this Session, and a great number of these fell under the category of Bills without shareholders. These could all be got rid of at one swoop by referring them to a Royal Commission. If a Commission of this nature were issued the members should be well paid, and it should be composed of men whose names were such as to give a guarantee for integrity as great as that afforded by Committees under the present system. The Commissioners would proceed to Scotland and take evidence upon the spot. They would soon be enabled to distinguish those Bills in which the public had any interest from those promoted by private speculators, or having their origin in railway rivalry, and be able to report accordingly. In this way, he maintained that the railway business of the country would be transacted with greater economy,

103
and certainly with a greater regard for the public interests than is now practised under the existing system. It was, however, to be expected that there would be opposition to this plan from all sides—from railway boards, from speculative engineers, from railway contractors, and from touting financial companies, all of whom would be prepared to declare, and if necessary to swear, that the present system worked admirably. These were his views, and he did not think it mattered whether the proposition of the hon. Member for Walsall were carried or rejected.
SIR FEANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, whatever their merits, had little immediate bearing on the proposition before the House. Notwithstanding the great experience of his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. C. Forster), grave objections seemed to him to present themselves to the Motion which he had submitted. It generally happened that those investigations which occupied the longest time were of the greatest importance, and in such a case, where the Committee consisted of five Members, if one of the number were withdrawn before the conclusion of the inquiry, owing to the death of a relation or to personal illness, it made very little difference in the end, because the particular Member was discharged from attendance and the remaining Members completed the investigation. And this would still be the case if the number stood at four. But if the number were reduced to three and one of these were withdrawn, the effect must be either to reduce one of the two Members to a dummy if the Chairman retained his casting vote, or, if this were done away with, to bring matters to a standstill. It would be a smaller inconvenience that the Standing Order should remain as it was at present than that the whole expenditure should be futile, and that the parties should have to begin over again.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he could not regard the proposition now before the House as being materially better than that adopted last Session. The number of four was inconvenient because it was necessary to give a casting vote to the Chairman, and that was a very lame expedient for getting over the difficulty. He thought that a conclusive objection to the number four, but the number three was equally objectionable, because it gave an undue importance to the Chairman. If any one
104
Member of the Committee could get the Chairman to agree with him he would have it all his own way. There was, in his opinion, no choice between three Members and five, and it would be much better to go back to the old number of five. That was an unpopular view, because it entailed trouble upon a greater number of Members. He believed, however, that the complaints of Members being overworked were somewhat exaggerated. He himself had been exempt from serving on Committees for a considerable period, and he knew other Members who were never put on Private Bill Committees at all. If the work were more evenly distributed there was no reason why the House should not revert to the old number of five. The new plan of appointing Referees would materially diminish the labours of Committees, and, therefore, the main reason for diminishing the number of Members was very nearly cut away. He could not support the number three except on the ground that it was not quite so bad as four, but he strongly recommended the House to go back to the old number five.
CAPTAIN JERVIStrusted hon. Members would not decide the question solely on the ground of personal inconvenience. But he hoped that, whether the number consisted of three or five, the vote of one Member would be considered equal to the vote of another. He believed that it would take away all energy and responsibility from the Member of a Committee if he found that his opinion was only worth one-half that of the Member sitting next to him. The result would be that he would leave all to the Chairman. He did not care much whether a Committee consisted of three or five, but let each Member feel that his opinion was worth as much as that of the Member sitting near him.
MR. RICHARD HODGSONsaid, that the question was not the convenience or inconvenience of hon. Members, but what tribunal would give the greatest satisfaction to the parties who came before it. He believed that the feeling among those who usually went before Parliamentary Committees was universal that three was a better number than five. He agreed that four was a number adopted by mistake. It was indeed the most absurd number of any that could be suggested. One strong reason in favour of three was, that it would enable the Committee of Selection to appoint a greater number of Committees at the same time, so that the Private Bill

105
legislation of the House would be got through with less delay, and at an earlier period of the Session. It might be worthy of the consideration of the Committee of Selection whether they ought not to depart from the rule of excluding from Railway Committees all Members connected with railway interests, because the rule of the House excluding those Members who were connected with the district was quite sufficient. The rule prevented many most competent persons from discharging important public duties. He believed that the knowledge of the subject possessed by Members who were now excluded would very much improve the composition of Committees.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, that the proposal now before the House was that which was recommended in the Committee by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley). But there were two others, which the noble Lord coupled with it—the one that the Committees should sit at an earlier hour, and the other that the number of days should be limited on which Members should serve. As himself connected with the railway interest he was at a loss to understand the ground upon which all who were so situated were invariably excluded from serving upon Railway Committees. He believed they would act as impartially as other men.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he proposed last year that the number of Members serving on Private Bill Committees should be reduced to three. The House had consented to a reduction of the number, but had fixed it at four. Now, he agreed with the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Charles Forster) that three were preferable to four, and for the reason, among others, that it would be a saving of 25 per cent on the labour of the House; and seeing that the number of Railway Bills was greater now than for many years past, that was a consideration which the House could hardly afford to overlook. It was also to be remembered that the more they limited the number of Members, the more they fixed and concentrated the responsibility of each. They ought not to limit the decision to one man, because every man was liable to crotchets and fancies, which could only be removed by discussion. Short, however, of leaving the decision to one man, he believed that the smaller the number the better. If, for example, they had twelve or fifteen instead of five, they would have infinitely more careless decisions than at
106
present. Lastly, there was the reason to which hon. Members had already adverted—namely, that by adopting the number of four they were giving to the Chairman in all cases of doubt a double vote. Now, generally speaking, in these Private Bill Committees the Chairman had the largest experience in that class of subjects, and his opinion necessarily carried with it considerable weight. He did not think it desirable to add to that natural advantage which the Chairman already possessed by giving him a double vote. He would admit the difficulty which was liable to arise in the event of illness; but the House must remember that if they diminished the number of Members from five to three they diminished by nearly one-half the amount of labour imposed; the work would be more distributed over the House, and there would be no occasion for calling upon Members to serve for so great a length of time as at present. He did not hesitate to say that the present term of service upon Private Bill Committees was a great deal too long, that the time and energies of hon. Members had often been unduly taxed. He had proposed in Committee that, except for the purpose of finishing the hearing of a case already begun, a Member should not be called upon to serve more than ten days. Under these arrangements, the probability of a Member being called away by illness or inevitable business was so small that it might be put out of the calculation. In such cases he would allow parties who objected to going on with two Members to stop the hearing, and call for a new Committee; but he believed that in nine cases out of ten they would rather go on with the Chairman and one Member than go over the same ground a second time. In that case no one could complain, because volenti non fit injuria.
COIONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he could not enter upon the subject before the House without referring to a remark which had been imported into the discussion by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Smollett), as to the manner in which the members of the Private Committees were chosen. As Chairman of the Committee of Selection, it was his special duty to defend that Committee, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Committee of Selection always endeavoured to act with equal fairness towards all the Members of that House. If the hon. Member would only

107
look at the list of the last Session, he would be sensible of the difficult duty which the Committee of Selection had to discharge. Not only must certain Members of the House be altogether omitted, but towards the middle of the Session it must be remembered that many Members who would be otherwise available were engaged in Public Committees, and, therefore, the range of selection was very much narrowed. He was very much surprised to hear the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) complain of not having been put on a Private Committee, for the hon. Baronet had asked to be excused on the ground that he was serving on a Public Committee; and if the Committee of Selection had not put him on a Private Committee, it was because they believed his attention was directed to public matters. With regard to the Motion before the House, he wished to say that he was Chairman of the Select Committee which recommended that the number should be reduced from five to three. He himself submitted that proposal to the House. A division was taken upon it, and the Motion was rejected by a considerable majority. In the several alterations which he had suggested last Session, his object was mainly to save the time of hon. Members, and seeing that three was objected to, he was willing to take four, because it enabled the Committee of Selection to discharge the business with fewer Members. He did not himself see the objection to the Committee of four. The Standing Order said that the Chairman should have the casting vote; but, if that was objected to, they might adopt the practice of the Lords, where the votes were all equal, and if there was an even division, the question was decided in the negative. The great objection which he saw to a Committee of three was, that either the whole three must be present every moment that the Committee sat, which would be found much more laborious to Members of that House than the present system; or they must make two a quorum, and, notwithstanding the opinion of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), he very much doubted whether the great railway companies and others who might have important interests at stake would have confidence in a Committee of two. The noble Lord thought they would generally agree to leave their interests to the decision of two. But his experience led him to a very different conclusion. An able counsel, before he was
108
two days before a Committee, would have pretty well ascertained the inclinations of the Members as to the leading points in dispute; and he very much doubted, therefore, whether there would be that general disposition which the noble Lord imagined to leave the matter in controversy to the decision of two. And what, then, would follow? Why, that the meetings of the Committee must be adjourned, and the enormous expense would be doubled in consequence of the delay. He was in favour of three if the thing could be done with justice to all; but having considered the subject since last Session, and having consulted men of experience upon it, he had come to the conclusion that a Committee of three would not answer. He could not quit the subject without expressing to the House the anxiety which he felt at the present moment in consequence of the enormous amount of private business before it. There were no less than 595 Private Bills to be disposed of. It took an hour and twenty minutes to go through the Bills that were presented for reading a first time. That fact inclined him to look with trembling to the difficulties that must be encountered during the present Session. Those difficulties were enormously increased by the absence of one Member upon whom he (Colonel Wilson Patten) was accustomed to depend for assistance, and whose loss would be greatly felt; he alluded to the late Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Massey, who had been appointed to an important office in India. He congratulated him upon that appointment, but certainly the difficulties in the way of the transaction of business in that House were enormously increased by his absence. The Gentleman, whoever he might be, who should succeed Mr. Massey, would have a task to perform of which men unaccustomed to it had but little idea. But Mr. Massey was so thoroughly acquainted with it that he was a host in himself. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would favour the House with his opinion on the subject before it.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the proposal to change the number composing their Committees on Private Bills arose entirely, he believed, from the difficulty which the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) found in getting a sufficient number of Members to compose the numerous Committees that were required to be formed.

109
He thought the feeling of the House on the former occasion was that a Committee of five was in itself a good Committee. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) was certainly in favour of adhering to the Committee of five. It was not so numerous as to lessen the sense of responsibility in the individual Members, and at the same time the absence of one or two Members from unavoidable causes did not reduce it below a fair quorum. He was therefore in favour of adhering to the Committee of five as the best. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire stated positively that he could not get the Members insufficient numbers to make up Committees to consist of five Members, that was a practical difficulty which required to be met. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was of course the best authority on the subject, and when he said that he could not get five it seemed to him (Mr. Milner Gibson) to be not an unreasonable proposal that they should try four—that was to say, four with a casting vote to the Chairman. The hon. and gallant Member said four without a casting vote. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) believed that was the practice in the other House of Parliament, and when the Committee was equally divided, for instance, on the question whether the preamble was proved, that it was to be taken as not proved. A Committee of four had this great advantage over a Committee of three, that if one Member was absent from illness, or any other unavoidable cause, the Committee would not be reduced below its quorum of three, and parties could have the investigation still carried on. That was so far in favour of a Committee of four. He must say that he thought the public would view it as a serious arrangement for their interests if they were to have a Committee of three only at the commencement, with the chance that through the absence of one person, which might well happen not only from illness but from various other causes, an enormous expenditure should go for nothing, and that the investigation should close owing to a circumstance for which the parties were not at all responsible. He did not himself agree that there ought to be a quorum of two with a Committee of three. He thought it very undesirable that they should ever have a Committee of two. However, he was prepared to take the chance of three. It was a question altogether for the House to determine. If the House said three, he would submit to take three with all its chances. He
110
thought the hon. Member for North Lancashire ought to be taken as the principal authority in this matter, and if that gallant Gentleman was prepared to agree to four, then he should support him, and if the hon. Gentleman said that three was sufficient, in that case he should vote for three.
MR. BEMTINCKsaid, he agreed that the House and the country owed a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) and the Committee of Selection for the admirable way in which they discharged the arduous and difficult duties devolving upon them. But as far as the question now before them was concerned, the House had but very little choice in the matter. From what he had heard from the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion, it appeared that the number of Members was insufficient for the work they had to do; and, as the number of Bills was on the increase, while the number of available Members in the House remained the same, he agreed with the hon. Member for Walsall that some change must be made, or the whole thing must of necessity soon come to a dead lock. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett) had passed a censure upon the Committee of Selection with which he could not agree; but he did concur most cordially in his censures upon the mode in which much of this Private Bill legislation originated. And there was, besides, a practice now common which led to a great amount of inconvenience and injustice. He would not say a word in disparagement of the ability and attention of the Committees and their Chairmen; no doubt they performed the work intrusted to them with great ability and attention. But different Committees naturally held different views, and the consequence was there were no regular precedents, and decisions were sometimes given reversing the decisions of previous Committees. Acting upon this fact, Bills were brought in year after year, although rejected probably from the just opposition of parties interested in the project; and yet, to the great inconvenience of the House, brought in again upon the chance of getting a favourable Committee, or of wearing out the opposition by the enormous expense it often involved. That practice ought to be put a stop to; and he trusted that whatever arrangement was now come to it would be understood to be of a temporary character, and that the

111
House would take into its early consideration the question whether some more systematic course of action could not be devised, whereby the public would be protected from the encroachments of railway and other companies.
MR. MARSHwas in favour of three Members to serve on Committees, because by adopting that number you would lessen the labours of the House, insure greater attention and responsibility from each Committee, avoid the objection as to the Chairman's casting vote, and at the same time give satisfaction to the parties. It very rarely happened that one Member of the Committee fell ill during the inquiry; but if any such absence occurred, a third Member might be added, he being furnished with the minutes of evidence.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) that. they ought very much to be guided by the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire in this matter. What that hon. and gallant Gentleman had said gave him a very strong feeling on the subject. They had now to decide, almost upon sudden notice at the commencement of a Session, whether they should not reverse what was done at the close of the previous Session, when the number of Members to serve on Private Bill Committees was reduced to four. How stood the case? The hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire said he was in favour of three; but that reconsideration had made him doubt the soundness of that opinion, because they could not avoid the risk of the three coming down to two. If they could be sure always of three there would perhaps be no difficulty; but if the Committee were reduced to two, was it likely, where great interests were involved, that the parties would be satisfied with their decision, and not bring the matter upon the floor of the House? That was a very serious risk, and he thought it was clear the House would not be satisfied to rest on the decision of two. If his hon. and gallant Friend said three, he (Mr. Henley) would agree to try that number for the year, but he should be more contented to take four; and for this reason, that last year the House affirmed it. But he felt confident neither the House nor the parties would be satisfied with the decision of two.
MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, the weight of authority was in favour of four rather than
112
three. He could see no possibility, however, of any machinery being devised which would enable the House to deal with the enormous mass of Private Bills, most of them purely speculative, now brought in every Session. The House should not forget that an attempt was to be made to carry out a new system by the appointment of Referees, and it would be well to see how that worked; but if the House were still called upon to pass every Session the large number of Private Bills brought before them, it was not possible to devise machinery which would prevent a strain upon the time of the House. The Report of the Committee which sat last Session on this subject said the only way to meet the difficulty was to diminish the quantity of the work to be performed. Mr. Massey fully agreed with that Report, which was almost unanimously agreed to; and he believed that the House would soon be compelled in self-defence to adopt that view of the case.
SIR GEORGE GREYcollected from what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wilson Patten) that he thought it expedient to try four Members, and in this case the only question would be whether the Chairman should have a casting vote. If you could always insure that three Members would be present, three would form a very competent Committee; but the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) had said that very great difficulty might arise if the Committee were reduced to two, and he proposed to get over that difficulty by providing that the inquiry should proceed with two Members, by consent of both parties. But, in practice, that consent would hardly ever be given. When a Bill was opposed late in the Session, the opposing party would of course refuse their consent, and would throw upon the promoters the necessity of beginning de novo; so that the Bill would be defeated by mere lapse of time. He thought it better, on the whole, to adhere to the decision arrived at by the House last Session, which would of itself afford considerable relief to hon. Members.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had a strong feeling against the proposal to give a casting vote to the Chairman. He wished to ask the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire whether, in the event of four being agreed to, he would be prepared to carry out the suggestion to abolish the casting vote of the Chairman?
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, his intention undoubtedly was that they should try four for the Session. If that proposal were agreed to, he would undertake to give notice of a Motion to abolish the casting vote of the Chairman.
Question put, "That the word 'four' stand part of the said Standing Order."
The House divided:—Ayes 154; Noes 72: Majority 82.

PRIVATE BILLS—PRINTING PETITIONS.
MR. TORRENSsaid, that towards the end of last Session he brought forward a Motion similar to the one he now intended to propose, and the late Chairman of Committees then stated as an objection to it the increased expenditure it might cast on persons appearing before Private Bill Committees, but promised that, during the recess, he would consult with parties interested in such Bills on the subject, holding out an expectation that he would this Session agree to some such proposition. The late Chairman of Committees had now left that House, and he had not had the opportunity of seeing that hon. Gentleman since last Session. He would not now have ventured to propose this Motion had not many experienced Members of the House, well versed in the practice of Private Bill Committees, fully concurred in the advisability of the Resolution being brought forward. Under the present system, the Members of a Private Bill Committee had no opportunity of seeing the petitions of parties until they assembled in the Committee-room; then, on applying to the clerk, he could have it handed over to him engrossed in a cumbrous form on a parchment almost as large as the table before which he sat. If he perused it he must do so at a time when perhaps counsel was speaking, or some witness giving important evidence. To obviate this inconvenience, he would propose that the petitions connected with Private Bills should be sent to the Members of Private Bill Committees two days before the assembling of each Committee; and he would also propose that the Private Bills themselves should be forwarded to the Members of the Committee two days previous to the assembling of each Committee. He thought it would be an improvement if a copy of each petition were delivered along with the Bill in the manner he proposed. Members of Committees might
114
thereby have an opportunity of considering what they were to adjudicate on, and of comparing the statements in the petition with the promoters' Bill. The Chairman of Committees objected last Session to this on the ground of the increased expense it would occasion; but he had since ascertained by inquiries that fifty copies of a petition taking up four pages could be printed in the type used for printing the Votes and Proceedings of the House at a cost of less than 28 s., and that 250 copies would cost considerably under £2 10 s. The despatch of business before Private Bill Committees would obviously be facilitated by the adoption of his suggestion; and he begged, therefore, to move a new Standing Order to the effect—
"That on every Private Bill, to be considered by a Committee of this House, all Petitions presented against such Bills be printed at the expense of the Petitioners, and Copies of those Petitions, as well as a Copy of the Bill to be considered, be delivered to each Member of the Committee not less than two days previous to its assembling."—(Mr. Torrens.)
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he believed this proposition was a very reasonable one, but at the same time thought it must involve a considerable increase of expense to the parties appearing before these Committees. He had seen the Motion on the paper only within the last few hours, and had not had an opportunity of taking the opinion of persons interested on that point. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member would be kind enough to postpone the Motion for a day or two.
MR. TORRENSsaid, he should be happy to act upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Lancashire; but, having already ascertained that the expense that would result from the adoption of his proposal would be so very trifling, he thought the House would gain nothing by further inquiry.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that taking the hon. Member's word on that point, he would acquiesce in his Motion.
MR. MILNER GIBSONthought it desirable that the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Lancashire should be acted upon by the proposer of the present Motion. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) had a strong impression that Mr. Massey, the late Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, had some objection to the

115
alteration now proposed, but he could not positively say. He, however, hoped the hon. Member would postpone his Motion.
MR. TORRENSsaid, he agreed to it, but did so very unwillingly.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Standing Order 195 read, and amended.

PRIVATE BILLS.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURmoved—
"That a Message be sent to the Lords requesting their Lordships to communicate to this House the Minutes of Evidence which may be taken before every Committee on a Private Bill originating in the present Session with their Lordships, and sent down to this House."
He said, that his object was to diminish the labour without diminishing the efficiency of the inquiries before their Private Bill Committees. With the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Lords' Committee in his hands, the Chairman of a Private Bill Committee of that House would be able to indicate to Counsel the points to which their attention should be restricted.
Motion agreed to.

REGIMENTAL QUARTERMASTERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he has received the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the condition of the Regimental Quartermasters, and whether it is intended to lay it upon the table of the House, or to take any action upon it?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTLNGTONsaid, the Report in question had been received, and there would be no objection to lay it on the table. The Committee made several recommendations, some of them involving questions of a financial nature, which would, of course, require the consideration of the War Office and the Treasury. Other recommendations involved matters affecting the discipline and internal organization of the army, and they would have to undergo the consideration of the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief. In bringing forward the Army Estimates, he would state what were the recommendations of the Committee, and how far the War Office proposed to take action upon them.

ABINGDON GAOL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Prisons Bill, about to be brought in, will remain the same as that brought in by him last Session with respect to Clause 13, Part III. of the Bill, authorizing the discontinuance and disposal of Abingdon Gaol?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that as he would on Monday next move for leave to bring in a Bill upon the subject of Prisons, he thought it would be more convenient that he should postpone until that period any explanations upon the subject of the hon. Gentleman's question.

ROYAL DOCK IN CORK HARBOUR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What steps the Government propose to take with reference to the recommendation made by the Select Committee of last Session in favour of establishing a Royal Dock in Cork Harbour?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETbegged to inform the hon. Gentleman, that in a few days the Navy Estimates would be laid on the table. It would be very inconvenient that he should now give any detailed information as to what was contained in those Estimates, but he had no objection to state thus far that the Government intended to proceed with the Dock in Cork Harbour.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in consequence of the repeated recurrence of Railway Accidents, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, during the present Session, any measure for the better prevention of Railway Accidents, founded on the Report of the Committee on Railway Accidents which was laid upon the table of the House in the year 1858?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: The first recommendation of the Committee over which my hon. Friend presided in the year 1858 was that the Board of Trade should be invested with the fullest powers to investigate and to report to Parliament on any accidents which might occur on rail-

  117
  ways. It is not the intention of the Government to ask Parliament to invest the Board of Trade with those powers, because it has not been found by experience that such powers are required, inasmuch as all accidents that take place undergo inquiry, and the railway companies have been found willing to supply the Inspectors who conduct those inquiries with all the information that is needed. Another recommendation of the committee was, that it should be imperative on every railway company to establish means of communication between the guards and the engine-drivers. The question of establishing that communication, as also the question of establishing a communication between passengers and guards, has been under the consideration of a Committee at the Railway Clearing House, composed of representatives of the principal railway companies; but they have not yet made their report, and I cannot, therefore, tell what course may be decided upon in reference to this subject. But the Report is, I believe, upon the point of being issued, and I am not aware of any objection to laying it upon the table of the House if it be desired. The House will then see what course the Railway Committee propose themselves to adopt to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee of this House; but, as at present advised, it is not the intention of the Government to bring in any Bill upon the subject. The next recommendation of the Committee was with regard to the establishment of telegraphic communication along the line of railways, and telegraphing the despatch of trains—a very excellent recommendation, and one very well calculated for the prevention of accidents. That system has already been very extensively adopted by the railway companies without its having been rendered imperative by legislation; and I have no doubt it will ultimately be universally employed. Its adoption is certainly on the increase, and the system is already in force on the principal railways. So far, therefore, as these recommendations of the Committee are concerned, it does not appear to the Government that there is any necessity for legislation to give effect to them; nor is it desirable to shield the railway companies from the responsibility which now devolves upon them to provide for the safety of the public travelling by their lines. I may be permitted to state what an analysis of the Returns shows with
  118
  regard to railway accidents for the year 1864. It is true there has been an increase of railway accidents to passenger trains in 1863, over 1864. In 1863 there were fifty-two accidents to passenger trains; in 1864 there were seventy-seven separate accidents. That is certainly a very considerable increase; but it must be borne in mind that there had also been a considerable increase in the number of trains run upon the railways and in the amount of mileage. With regard to the number of passengers killed and injured, I find that during the year 1864—taking the probable amount, because the exact figures have not yet been made up, but the account must be very near the mark—the railways have conveyed 220,000,000 passengers, exclusive of season ticket-holders, and that fourteen persons altogether have been killed, or one out of every 15,714,285 persons carried. As to persons injured, I find the proportion to be one out of every 315,638 passengers. There has been during the year a considerable increase in the number of passengers injured, but the list of passengers killed shows a decrease as compared with the preceding year. I do not think these Returns show that railway accidents have occasioned any very considerable loss of life or any very great amount of injury to passengers; but, at the same time, the railway companies have paid a very heavy penalty for the injuries they caused to persons travelling on their lines. During the year 1863 the amount of the damages and indemnities they thus paid did not, I believe, fall much short of £170,000, it might be more. Under these circumstances, it does not appear to the Government that it is necessary to undertake to make any regulations for the management of railways, or to diminish the responsibility of the companies for the safe conveyance of the public.

CASE OF MR. CHARLES ASHWORTH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAZLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to a gross outrage committed upon Mr. Charles Ash-worth, of Fairfield and of Egerton Hall, Lancashire, who was seized by a pretended Police Officer at Shrewsbury, robbed of his watch, money, and other property, and then taken before the Borough Magistrates, and, under their orders, incarcerated for twenty-four hours, though the most re-

  119
  spectable and liberal bail was offered on the arrival of a clerical friend, but refused, and the testimony of his high respectability disregarded; and, whether the Magistrates have been removed from the Commission of the Peace?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had received no information whatever with regard to the outrage committed on Mr. Ashworth, and he deeply regretted that he had been subjected to it. No complaint had been made to him as to the conduct of any magistrate concerned in the transaction, nor had any representation reached the Home Office upon the subject.

  BELFAST COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'REILLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When he will lay upon the table of the House the Report of the Belfast Commission of Inquiry; and whether he intends to propose any legislation founded on that Report?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he believed the Report would be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days. He did not, of course, know certainly what would be the nature of its recommendations, and he could not therefore say whether the Government would propose any legislation founded upon them. But he could state that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a measure with reference to the condition of the town of Belfast.

  COLONIAL GOVERNORS' RETIRING ALLOWANCES.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If, during the recess, the case of the ex-Governors of Colonies had been taken into the consideration of the Government; and whether a Bill will be introduced to grant them retiring pensions?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the case of ex-Governors of colonies had been considered during the recess, and a Bill was in prepation, having for its object to provide pensions for those whose services had been sufficient to entitle them to such provision.

LORDS COMMISSIONERS' SPEECH.

  MOTION OF SUPPLY.
  Lords Commissioners' Speech, considered, and again read by Mr. SPEAKER.
  Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
  Committee thereupon To-morrow.

BANKRUPTCY ACT.

  SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that last Session he called attention to the state of the bankruptcy system, and obtained the appointment of a Committee to inquire into and report upon it. He would not go over the ground he then traversed, or state at any length the result of the deliberations of the Committee. He would not trouble them with the weary details of the evidence as to the utter inefficiency of the old system of bankruptcy; how they found Commissioners irregular in their attendance, negligent of their duties, loose and uncertain and frequently contradictory in their judgments, and giving the greatest dissatisfaction to suitors; how the official assignees, who were paid under a wrong system, were also careless and indifferent to the interests confided to their care, and some of them guilty of still graver offences; how the system of creditors' assignees resulted in still greater failure, they being really no protection to those whom they represented, and their audit of the official assignees' accounts being too generally worthless; and how even the subordinate officers of the courts, the messengers, and others, extracted large sums for their own use out of the bankrupt estates. From a recent Return showing the operation of the Bankruptcy Act for the year ending the 11th October, 1864, he learnt that the total amount of money collected under bankruptcy was £677,000 out of which the official charges were upwards of £140,000, or about 20 per cent, exclusive, of course, of the solicitors' and other expenses which could not be avoided. Out of 7,200 bankruptcies, 600 were at the instance of the creditors, and 6,600 at the instance of the debtors. A very large proportion of the estates, upwards of 5,300, yielded no dividend at all, the debtors obtaining their discharge at the public cost; only 350 paid more than 5s. in the pound, and only 165 more than 7s. 6d. in the pound. He had lately attended the Bankruptcy Court for half an hour, and had been much edified by what he saw and heard. The first case was that of a cornchandler, who was indebted to the amount of £84, and had

  121
  no assets. The Commissioner asked what he had done with his furniture, and on his replying that his landlord had got it, the debtor received a discharge. The next man had incurred a debt of £680 in Scotland, and here again the assets were nil. The chief creditor, however, had engaged counsel, and the bankrupt was, after much equivocation, obliged to confess that he had quitted Scotland because there was a writ out against him, and had got himself arrested in London on a friendly suit for a fictitious debt in order that he might obtain the protection of the English law. The counsel submitted that this was an offence under the Act, but the Commissioner did not so view it, and said he should like to have further evidence, although the bankrupt had fully convicted himself by his own admissions. The third case was that of a small tailor in the east of London, who had put his name to accommodation bills for a large amount, and had no assets. His furniture had also been surrendered to the landlord. The Commissioner admonished him as to the impropriety of giving acceptances without value received, and granted a discharge. Now, he could only say that such a system was a direct encouragement to knavery, roguery, and every offence which could disgrace and corrupt a mercantile community. The Act of 1861 authorized settlements under composition or by assignment. The first method had not been inoperative. About £1,100,000 was dealt with in that way last year. But during the last three months of 1864, there were 304 compositions for less than 5s. in the pound, and of that number 250 paid less than 3s., and several only 3d. to 6d. in the pound. The fact was, that creditors were ready to accept almost anything rather than go into the Bankruptcy Court, as it now existed. The law as to settlements by assignment, however, seemed to invite fraud. The insolvent was permitted to make out his own list of creditors, and there were no means of testing the list, except by a tedious process after the assignment was made, and at the expense of the creditor who demanded it. The result was that the debtor often inserted the names of assenting creditors who did not exist, in order to obtain the settlement. The consequence was that fraud flourished, and luxuriated under the system. There were many defects in the Act of 1861, for which the author of that
  122
  measure was not responsible. Had the Bill passed as it left that House, it would have worked very differently; but it was unfortunately emasculated in another place. In his opinion, no measure based upon the principle of the existing system would satisfy the requirements of the country. That system undertook to do two things—firstly, to interpose State machinery for the collection and distribution of the assets of bankrupts; and secondly, to deprive the creditor of all control over the assets, and of his power to absolve the debtor, and further to set up a tribunal to judge the honesty or dishonesty of debtors. The latter object was quite beyond the scope of a sound and useful bankruptcy system, and he should be glad to see it abandoned. He thought it was altogether an error for the State to undertake those duties, and was of opinion that it would be of great advantage to the commerce of the country if the old bankrupt law was altogether eliminated from the statute-book, He would suggest the propriety of entirely abolishing the bankruptcy law as effete, and thought it would not be difficult to introduce some self-acting machinery which would establish a simple and sound system of action between debtor and creditor. He should establish some such system as that which had worked so well in Scotland, where official interference was of the slightest kind. The creditors named one person to collect and secure the debts, and that person worked for the creditors and no one else. That system had been in operation ten years, and had worked with entire satisfaction, so far as he was informed, both to debtor and creditor. He thought that system might, with a few modifications, be advantageously established for this country. He would suggest that, at the same time, there might be a tribunal to which all the larger cases—all questions as to the right of the creditor to prove against the estate, and disputes amongst creditors as against each other—might be referred as to a court of final appeal of the highest authority. In regard to the discharge of debtors, those creditors who agreed to accept the estate of an insolvent in lieu of their debts should render to the insolvent a discharge of their claims, the remaining creditors who refused to agree to this arrangement granting no release, and retaining their claim against the future property of the bankrupt. By this plan the debtor would frequently be induced, immediately on

  123
  finding himself insolvent, to summon his creditors and offer a large dividend while in his power to do so, the release being entirely at the will of the creditors. If this arrangement were permitted by the law, he did not think that there would be any holding back on the part of the creditors where there was a good dividend. Under this plan, too, a dividend of 14s. in the pound would, he believed, be no rarity; but, under the present system, such an amount was very unusual. He felt convinced that the establishment of some such system Would bring the law of debtor and creditor into a sound, intelligible, and satisfactory state. The same thing had been at work in France for a very long period. In that country the law of bankruptcy, cruel and harsh as it undoubtedly was in some respects, still possessed some small merits. One of its peculiarities was, that an insolvent never became absolved from his debts as regarded property subsequently acquired. This he believed to be unwise, the right plan being to leave the arrangement entirely to the parties themselves. Finally, the abolition of the present bankruptcy law could be done without any cost to the country, as there was an income of upwards of £45,000 a year, accruing from undivided assets, at the disposal of the Government, and this amount would enable the present officials to be liberally and fairly pensioned.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the workings of the New Bankruptcy Act, and to report thereon.—(Mr. Moffatt.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he had no intention of following his hon. Friend into the particulars of the statement which he had made, nor did he think the House would wish him to do so, especially as the terms of the Motion were sufficient to show that the time for its discussion had not yet arrived. No doubt the matter was one which would receive full attention from the Committee, resulting in extensive and important changes, and he felt sure that the House would recognise the valuable services which his hon. Friend had rendered in connection with the subject.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that he did not rise to oppose the Motion of his hon. Friend, but for the purpose of mentioning a few circumstances to the House in connection with the subject. The Committee of last year had been unwittingly
  124
  made the means of doing a great injustice to very innocent and deserving persons. The Lord Chancellor sent down certain papers which were the results of an inquiry made by a commission issued by himself, the Commissioners being Mr. Ayrton and Mr. Harding. Those papers, containing certain stigmas on the character of five official assignees in the country, were published. One of those official assignees was Mr. Frederick Whit-more, a gentleman, he believed, who was known to many hon. Members. Mr. Whitmore had once occupied a marked position as a merchant in the City of London, but having become bankrupt at length occupied the comparatively humble post of an official assignee. He was eighty years of age, and as the result of the remarks contained in the report of the Commission was now the inmate of a lunatic asylum. The other four gentlemen were Mr. George Kinnear, Mr. George Young, Mr. John Harris, and Mr. T. Carrick, and charges equivalent to asserting that they were defaulters were made against all those persons. In the case of Mr. John Harris decision had already been given, but upon the others he would say nothing, as they were still sub judice. He held in his hand a report of the Commissioners' judgment in the case of Mr. Harris, from which he would read, and he desired to direct to that report the particular attention of the House and of his hon. Friend, who would preside over the Committee, because it was a matter very much affecting a body of honest, industrious, and active officials, who had been, he might say, vilified by the reports of those persons, and his only surprise was that the commissioners had neither been indicted nor had any action brought against them. He might add, that he had no doubt that this was one of the cases to which his hon. Friend had alluded—
  "At the Nottingham Bankruptcy Court yesterday Mr. Commissioner Sanders delivered judgment in the case of Mr. Harris, official assignee of the Birmingham District Court of Bankruptcy, at Nottingham, who was charged by Mr. Chief Registrar Miller with having kept in hand more than £100 in one bankrupt's estate, or above £1,000 in the aggregate of estates, as the case might be, for more than one week, whereby he had become chargeable under the 169th section of the Bankruptcy Act of 1861, and rendered liable to a penalty of 20 per cent on the sums so detained. Mr. Harris was also charged with using the money for his own private purposes. The learned Commissioner gave a detailed account of Mr. Harris's

  125
  quarterly returns from 1861 (when the new Act came into operation) down to 1864. He said he had closely examined the accounts, and found that there were only two instances in which the official assignee had had in hand more than £1,000 on the aggregate of estates for above a week; one was on the 16th of August, 1863, when there was an excess of only £1 3s. 10d, and the other was on the 16th of September, 1863, when he had in hand £271 14s. above the sum mentioned in the Act. The first mentioned sum was too small to be taken into consideration, and the retention of the latter sum was accounted for by the absence of Mr. Harris from home during the long vacation; for during his absence no- payments could be made, but after his return the sum was reduced to its proper amount. He complained that the conduct of Mr. Commissioner Ayrton and Mr. Commissioner Harding was too precipitate, inasmuch as they jumped at conclusions and made statements in their report for which they had no legal grounds. Their report dwelt in generalities; it stated that sums had been retained for more than seven days, contrary to the Act; but it did not say when the offence was committed, nor upon what amount the 20 per cent was to be charged. By the Bankruptcy Act of 1861, the manner of remunerating the official assignee was entirely changed. Before that time he received fees, out of which he had to defray all office expenses; but by the new Act he ceased to receive fees and was limited to a salary free of all such expenses. No rules or orders were made under the new Act as to how the office expenses were to be paid, and Mr. Harris accordingly paid these, together with other expenses, out of money in hand received from bankrupts' estates. These payments would reduce the balance to the amounts mentioned in his cash-book. With reference to the £1,803 11s. 2d., which Mr. Harding and Mr. Ayrton said the official assignee ought to return, he having received it in fees and not entered it in his accounts, the Commissioners said that they had not sufficient grounds for calling upon Mr. Harris to refund it. Mr. Harris might not unreasonably suppose that he was entitled to those fees, as they were from estates under the old Act."
  He might here observe, that of every sum which according to these gentlemen ought to be refunded, the Commissioners had not received one farthing except upon the actual command and decision of the Commissioners—
  "The practice in the London Courts under the old Act was for the official assignee to receive four-fifths of the fees, and the other fifth was paid into court. This sum of £1,803 was made up of fees so obtained. The conduct of Mr. Chief Registrar Miller was indefensible."
  As soon as Chief Registrar Miller had heard of the decision of Messrs. Ayrton and Harding, he wrote peremptorily to this unfortunate assignee, requiring him to pay up the sum for which he was said to be a defaulter. He had in his hand a statement which had been sent to him by a friend, and which he thought would
  126
  rather interest the House, as affording a specimen of the manner in which men's characters had been dealt with by those commissioners. It was as follows:—
  "The accounts of one of the London messengers, named Cooper, were investigated by a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor to that duty, named Butler. Butler reported a deficiency in Cooper's accounts of £1,330. Cooper was suspended on the 27th of April, 1864. Cooper employed an accountant to look into the accounts, who reduced the deficiency to £350. He reported this result to the Chief Registrar. Mr. Harding was appointed to re-examine the accounts. He allowed all Cooper's figures, and continuing the account down to the 27th of April, 1864, found a further sum of £68 as due from him. The sum thus shown to be due from Cooper was not defalcation at all, but simply an amount that Cooper had supposed his own under the old Acts, and from some small mere clerical mistakes. He was reinstated in his office, and all his back salary was paid to December, 1864. Another messenger of the London Court was charged with a deficiency of £1,800 by the Chief Registrar, on the report of Mr. Butler. This messenger had his accounts looked into, and convinced Mr. Butler that Mr. Butler was totally mistaken, and on Mr. Butler's second report, the Chief Registrar ceased to write to him (the messenger), who has been allowed since to retire from work, retaining his full salary. Mr. Butler's charges for investigating the accounts of three messengers (the two named, and another whose accounts must be taken as regular, for nothing has been said to him) were £550, which sum has been paid by the three messengers. Cooper has also paid a further sum of £80 to Harding for the charges for re-investigation."
  This statement made it clear that there had been undue and precipitate conduct on the part of those Commissioners who had been appointed by the Lord Chancellor. It was well known what that noble and learned Lord's feelings were, and they wanted to curry favour with him; and, in entire ignorance of the facts, made an unjust report against individuals. He hoped the Committee about to be appointed would inquire into the proceedings of those two Commissioners appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and see on what grounds they had made their report, and on what grounds they could justify it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the working of the New Bankruptcy Act, and report thereon:"—Committee to consist of sixteen Members:—Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. MOFFATT, Mr. MURRAY, Mr. MALINS, Mr. WEGUELIN, Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. KIRKMAN HODGSON, Mr. CRUM-EWING, The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. LOWE, Mr. VANCE, Mr. CAVE, Mr. GOSCHEN, Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. TAVERNER JOHN MILLER, and Mr. AYRTON:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.—(Mr. Moffatt.)

  CONTROYERTED ELECTIONS—GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ELECTIONS.
  The Rt. Hon. Sir FRANCIS THORNHILL BARING, baronet; the Right Hon. SPENCER HORATIO WALPOLE; the Right Hon. Lord ATHLUMNEY; Sir WILLIAM MILES, baronet; GEORGE WARD HUNT, esq.; JOHN BONHAM-CARTER, esq., to be Members of the General Committee of Elections for the present Session.—(By Mr. Speaker's Warrant.)

  QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to render it unnecessary to make and subscribe certain Declarations as a qualification for Offices and Employments; and for other purposes.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. HADFIELD, Sir MORTON PETO, and Mr. BAINES.
  Bill presented, and read 1o [Bill 2].

  RIVER WATERS PROTECTION BILL.
  On Motion of Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Bill to amend and better to administer the Laws for the protection of Waters in Rivers and Streams in England, ordered to be brought in by Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Sir FITZROY KELLY, Mr. FER-RAND, and Mr. HIBBERT.
  Bill presented, and read 1o [Bill 3].

  SEWAGE UTILIZATION BILL.
  On Motion of Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Bill for facilitating the more useful application of Town Sewage in Great Britain and Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Sir FITZROY KELLY, Mr. FERRAND, and Mr. HIBBERT.
  Bill presented, and read 1o[Bill 4],
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he gave a most ready assent to the introduction of these two Bills. The noble Lord had taken great interest in this important and difficult subject, and he (Sir George Grey) and the House would be glad to see the Bills prepared under the direction of the noble Lord. At the same time, he was bound to say that, having given a great deal of attention to the subject, he doubted whether they were yet in possession of sufficiently full and accurate information to enable them to legislate effectively upon the subject. He assumed that to be the notion of the noble Lord himself, from the fact that he had given notice for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Bishop of Kilmore, amp;c.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, having laid on the table (pursuant to Act) a "General Return from the Chief Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy for the year ending the 11th October last," said, he did not desire to provoke a discussion upon the subject of the Law of Bankruptcy or the procedure of the Bankruptcy Court at this time, because it must be fully considered when the Committee of the House of Commons had made its Report; but he would beg their Lordships' attention to a few results as exhibited in this Return, in order that, during the interval that would elapse before that Report was presented, their Lordships might have the opportunity of considering what was necessary and proper to be done in the matter. There took place during the last year 7,224 adjudications in bankruptcy. Of these, 5,260 were made on the petition of the debtor himself; 1,360 were made on the petition of debtors in prison; and only 604 on the application of the creditor. The number of cases in which dividends had been made was 1,586. The property collected and realized was only £677,536. Of that, only £533,664 were divided among the creditors; the difference, £143,872, was absorbed in the costs of collecting and dividing the £677,536. But that was not
  94
  all; for to this £143,872 must be added £140,000 for the expenses of the tribunal, making a total of £283,872, expended for the purpose of dividing £533,664. He appealed to their Lordships whether this monstrous state of things should continue. There were two main features in the Bill of 1861; one of them was the establishment of trust deeds, and that had quite answered his anticipations, for during the past year the property divided under trust deeds had amounted to £3,802,000. The trust deed was a voluntary arrangement made with the creditors; and if they contrasted the amount divided under trust deeds with that divided through the instrumentality of the Court the disparity would be evident—it would be found that more than six times the amount was distributed under trust deeds than was distributed by the Court. The other object of the Bill of 1861 was the establishment of a Chief Judge, with a view to the most careful regulation and supervision of the existing subordinate tribunals. Their Lordships would judge for themselves, from this further Return, of the necessity for such a Chief Judge. It was the duty of the official assignees, who were now paid by salary, to collect and return to the Court of Bankruptcy the fees which they still received in bankruptcy. In the year 1862, the first year after the new Act came into operation, he was very much surprised to find that only £1,390 was returned. In 1863, in consequence of some inquiries which he (the Lord Chancellor) directed, the sum returned by the official assignees and messengers was £13,620; but in the year 1864, having directed a more searching inquiry, the sum that had been paid in by the assignees and messengers amounted to no less than £45,158. Of the necessity of the investigation their Lordships would judge when he stated that, with regard to one official assignee, now retired, who had become a defaulter to the amount of several thou-sands of pounds, he had ascertained that his account, which it was the duty of the Commissioner to audit, had been audited for years by the Usher of the Court under the direction of the Commissioner. This was a very hopeless picture of the state of the Bankruptcy Court; and when the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons was made, he trusted that he should be able to present to their Lordships a Bill that would provide some remedy for this monstrous state of things.

LIABILITIES OF SHAREHOLDERS IN IRISH RAILWAYS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREcalled attention to a recent judgment in the Court of Chancery Appeal in Ireland, respecting the liability of shareholders in railways. He said it would not be necessary to mention the particulars of the case which was the subject of this judgment. The point to which he wished to direct attention was one which affected every railway company in Ireland. A local company, whose line it appeared had always been worked by a neighbouring company, having got into difficulties, was brought by the creditors last year into the Bankruptcy Court. Now, in England there was no question that a railway company could not be made bankrupt; and in the Report of a Select Committee, which sat last year, and of which his noble Friend below him (the Earl of Donoughmore) was Chairman, a recommendation was inserted that the law should be so altered as to allow the affairs of a railway company to be wound up in bankruptcy. The case having been heard in the Bankruptcy Court, the company was adjudicated bankrupt, and from this decision an appeal was brought into the Court of Appeal in Chancery. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in delivering judgment, confirming the decision of the Court below, said that Judge Berwick had held that a railway company was a commercial company for trading purposes under 20 amp; 21 Vict. c. 60, sees. 4 and 156, and he (the Lord Chancellor) continued—
  "They were public carriers, and by the 99th section of the Bankrupt Act, carriers by name were expressly made subject to the bankrupt laws. It had been argued that no calls could be made beyond the amount of shares, &c."
  After some further observations, he went on to say—
  "As to making calls beyond the specified amount of the shares, that question was not before the court; and if the Bankrupt Court decided that those who paid their shares in full should still be made contributors, and it came back to them on appeal, they would give the best decision they could on the subject. But it appeared to him as if legislation on that point inferred that no shareholder in a railway should be liable for a single shilling above the amount of his unpaid calls. However, the case was not before them, and it was not necessary he should give an opinion."
  Now it seemed to him (the Earl of Belmore) that this mere "inference of
  96
  legislation" was very unsatisfactory to shareholders, and there should be no doubt on the subject. Many landowners and others had taken shares on the implied understanding with Parliament that they were not to be liable beyond the amount of those shares, and they were willing to risk the almost certainty of receiving no dividends for many years for the sake of improving the country, and it seemed very hard that they should suffer by a lapsus in legislation. Besides, this uncertainty tended to reduce the value of railway property; for, as was remarked to him by the person who brought this case to his notice, "how will you ever get another railway made, or get any person to take shares?" Shareholders were a very helpless body, and he had therefore thought it to be his duty to call attention to this matter in as few words as possible, and without saying anything that could effect one way or the other the particular case to which he had alluded.

DESTITUTE POOR (METROPOLIS).

  RETHELS MOVED FOR.
  LORD HOUGHTON, in rising to move for—
  "Return of the Number of Unions or Parishes that have availed themselves of the Act of 29th July, 186i, enabling them to receive from the Metropolitan Board of Works the Sums of Money expended in the Relief of the casual Poor; of the Amount of Money hitherto so expended; and of the Unions where the Guardians have provided new Wards or other Places of Reception for this Class of Poor since the passing of the above mentioned Act"—
  said, his object in moving for this Return was to obtain information as to the operation of an Act which had been passed at the end of last Session, called the Poor Relief (Metropolis) Act. That Act had been passed with the most benevolent intentions. Its object was to enable the London parishes to provide fuller accommodation for the large mass of destitute persons to be found in this populous city. That Act gave to the London parishes new and considerable advantages. It enabled them to make the police act as relieving officers, so as, in some degree, to distinguish the really destitute from the fraudulent vagrants; and it also gave the parishes power to reimburse themselves for money spent under that Act by the action of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the effect of which action would be that the burden of providing for the destitute poor would not fall wholly upon individual parishes, but

  97
  would be distributed over the whole metropolis. By that provision parishes had been encouraged to make liberal provision for the relief of the houseless poor. The present winter had certainly not been a very severe one, and, therefore, there was no reason to suppose that there were more destitute persons than in other winters; but their Lordships must be aware that there never had been a winter in which the destitution of the poor of London had been made so large a subject of comment and inquiry. Most of their Lordships must have received repeated communications, not only from public personages, but also from ladies of high station, who had devoted themselves to the object of establishing night refuges for the houseless poor. A large number of refuges had been established, and, as the columns of The Times had shown, an immense sum of money had been subscribed. Therefore, there was this curious fact—that there had been larger demands than usual upon public charity at the very time when Parliament had just passed an Act, the effect of which should have been to have provided for the wants of the destitute poor without the necessity of any appeal to private benevolence. There could be no doubt that the relief of the really destitute poor could be best administered through the legal means of the Poor Law, and for this reason—that if the destitute poor were once encouraged to depend upon private charity a great deal would be done towards preventing those persons from aspiring to the position of the labouring men, and from seeking an honest living for themselves. He hoped that the Returns he moved for would show what had been done under the Act of last Session. He was informed that it would be shown that the Act had been largely applied; that many wards had been provided for the reception of the houseless poor, but that the effect of the refuges established by private charity had been to prevent the destitute poor from availing themselves of the parochial wards. If such a state of things was allowed to continue, the effect would be to draw to the metropolis a large portion of the vagrant population of the entire country. Those persons would know that in hard times they could always obtain food and shelter in the refuges of London, and thus the effect of charitable efforts would be to increase to a large extent the pauperism of the land. He could not, of course, state what the Returns would absolutely prove,
  98
  but he was quite sure that the subject was one of great importance and well deserving the attention of the Poor Law Board.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the subject was no doubt highly important, but it was not a matter to be easily disposed of, although it would certainly receive due attention. There was no objection to the production of the Returns.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDremarked, that the metropolitan railway improvements, for which Bills would come before Parliament in the present year, would drive from 12,000 to 14,000 people out of their dwellings.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Ordered, That this House will not receive any Petition for a Private Bill after Thursday the 23rd Day of March next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the Court of Chancery; nor any Petition for a Private Bill approved by the Court of Chancery after Friday the 12th Day of May next:
  Ordered, That this House will not receive any Report from the Judges, upon Petitions presented to this House for Private Bills, after Friday the 12th Day of May next:
  Ordered, That the said Orders be printed and published, and affixed on the Doors of this House and Westminster Hall (No. 2).
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.