The Press. — London, England, 1857-06-13 00:00:00

574 The house then went into committee upon the Joint•stock Companies Bill, the clauses of which were agreed to without any discussion. FRAUDULENT TRUSTEES, &C., BILL. On the order for the second reading of this bill, Mr. Sergeant KINOLAKE observed that the bill for the first time dealt with ordinary breaches of trust where there was an intent to defraud, and the ques tion was whether it would not be better to apply the axe to the root, and wherever a trustee used the money of his cestuique trust to his own use, for which he was now responsible to a court of equity, he should be made subject to the criminal law. He objected to the restriction in the bill which required the previous sanction of a judge or the Attorney• General before a prosecution could be instituted. In conclusion, he trusted that the Attorney-General would introduce a clause into his bill to interdict the source of fraud, and put an end to the facility with which trustees might now use the money of the cestuique trust, subject only to the interference of a court of equity. Mr. ROLT said he had many objections to the bill. The effect of it would infallibly be, in his opinion, to prevent gentlemen of character, station, and respon sibility from accepting a complicated trust, and to throw trusts into the hands of persons of inferior station, or into a legal tribunal, or some department of the Government. He insisted upon the difficulty of proving an intent to defraud, but he would draw the dis tinction between cases in which part'es were intrusted with money and those in which they were intrusted with goods which might be converted into money. In the one case a trustee was guilty of criminal insolvency, in the other of a crime resembling theft or forgery, and he should be punished accordingly. The hon. member then suggested various cases of breach of trust which, though innocent in their inception, might possibly, even probably, fall within the category of crime, and he asked what sensible man would aub;ect himself to such a risk? For instance, he would suppose the case in which it was the duty of the trustee to receive money, and, when it amounted to a certain sum, to invest it in a particular way. At the outset, talk and preach as they might to the contrary, the most innocent person would place the money which he so received in small amounts to his own account at his own banker; and there would be nothing criminal in that —it might be a breach of trust, an error, and if the banker failed he would be responsible, but there would be no criminality. The next step easily fol lowed. The trustee wanted to draw upon his banker —he knew that if this money were not there his banker would accommodate him, but as it was there he drew upon that. It might be that that was not a criminal offence, but let them follow it a step further. The trustee took the money, intending to replace it in a few days from securities which lie had in his possession ; the securities might fall in value, the man might fail, and he would become criminally insolvent. Now, how did that case differ from that of a man who, engaged in commerce, entered upon some speculation in which he knew that if he won the gain would be his own, and that if he lost the loss would be another's ? He would be criminally insolvent. So, if a man incurred debts which he had no reasonable prospect of paying, he was criminally insolvent. Let that class of offence, then, be properly defined, and he contended that the crime with which the bill was intended to deal would come within the category of criminal insolvency. It was vain for the house to endeavour to draw distinctions between offences which really belonged to the same class of crime ; they could not weigh the niceties of intent and of moral effect; the distinction was so fine that they could not do it ; and if upon the occasion of any panic being created, or of some crime being com mitted of more than usual enormity, they were called upon to pass some extraordinary measure of legisla tion to meet it, he submitted that that was not, to say the least of it, a scientific mode of dealing with the amendment of the law. Let them clearly ascer tain and define to what class of crime offences belonged ; let them fix plainly the punishment for each class of crime ; let their views be general and universal, not exceptional; and they might hope to pass a law which would repress crime, and which would not defeat its own objects by undue stringency and severity. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL invited Mr. Kinglake to put his project for interdicting the source of crime In the form of a palpable enactment. He defended the clause requiring a previous sanction of a prose cution, observing that he had imagined it would render the bill more acceptable, and it would cer tainly obviate some of Mr. Roles objections. He was aware, he observed, of the difficulty of under taking such a measure, but be advised members not to be frightened by cries of " a lion in the path." He trusted that in the committee the bill would be rendered worthy of the Legislature of the country, and remove an opprobrium upon its jurisprudence. The bill was read a second time, as well as the General Board of Health Bill. 11■11hMmsabk 'ma. THE PRESS. RAVINGS •BANES BILL. On the order for the second reading,:of the Savings banks (No. 2) Bill, Mr. TURNER, approving the principle involved in the bill, expressed a hope that well-managed banks might be exempted from the interterence of Govern ment officials. Mr. GROGAN made a similar suggestion. Mr. AYRTON opposed the bill. He complained of the management of the funds of savings-banks by the Commissioners of the National Debt, stating that upon the capital account alone, between 1843 and 1855, a deficiency of 1,000,0001. had been created, a result which, in his opinion, raised the question whether they were fit to be intrusted with this office. It was also a question whether these funds were not intended to be kept separate, instead of being em ployed in jobbing in the funds. Mr. HENLEY desired to know what the power of the Government was to be under the bill, and what were to be the regulations they were going to make for an effectual audit ? These regulations, and the mode of working it, ought to appear upon the face of the bill. _ _ Colonel SYKES said he should at a future stage move that the bill be referred to a select committee. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the object he had exclusively in view in proposing this bill to the house was the interest of the depositors in savings•b>>nks. It had been well known fur many years that the present state of the law on this subject was not satisfactory ; that the responsibility of mana gers and trustees for the deposits that once existed had ceased; that no other guarantee had been substi tuted for it, and that loss had in many cases accrued to depositors. In that state of things he felt it his duty to propose this measure to the house : Unquestionably he had no thought of interfering with the legitimate influence of managers and trustees, or of diminishing those useful labours which they had for so many years exercised in their respective establishments; but, for the purpose of guarding, not the interests of the Government, but the interests of the Exchequer, he had felt it his duty to propose a certa►n control over the officers of these establishments. The power thus taken was em• bodied in the 3rd and 4th sections of the bill now before the house, and it had undergone revision with the view of reducing it to such an amount as should be sufficient for the protection of the country. He denied that the Government acquired the power of appointing any of the local officers of the savings. banks. The Government would only appoint the auditors. With respect to the financial part of the bill, he would only say that if the bill became law be would be prepared on a future occasion to offer the fullest information on the subject that could be desired, and to submit the whole of the management of the savings•banks money to the investigation of a select committee. The hill was then read a second time. PUBLIC OFFICES. Sir B. HALL obtained leave to introduce a bill to make further provision for enabling the Commis. sioners of her Majesty's Works to acquire a site for additional offices for the public service, near White. hall and her Majesty's Palace of Westminster. The right hon. baronet subsequently brought in the bill, which was read a first time. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought in the Sound Dues Bill, which was read a first time. The Joint-stock Companies Act Amendment Bill was committed pro fornul. The Alehouse Licensing Bill was read a second time. The Married Women's Reversionary Intere4t Bill passed the same stage on a division by Sir E. PERRY, and a majority against him of 151 to O. The house adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS-TVESDIT. THE MUTINIES IN INDIA. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH rose to ask the Lord President of the Council a question respecting the accounts of the recent mutinies in the 19th and 34th Native Infantry and the 3rd Light Cavalry. He hoped that there was some strange exaggeration in these accounts ; but, having looked carefully into them, he had come to the conclusion that the source of all the discontent was an apprehension on the part of the natives that it was intended by the British Government to interfere with the national religion. That apprehension certainly existed. If there were any intention on the part of any individual to inter fere with the religion of the natives, it was a circum stance calculated to excite grave apprehension in the minds of the latter. He had read in the papers the names of persons holding high civil offices as con nected with missionary operations, and to his great astonishment had found that of Lord Canning in the list of subscribers : Now it should be remembered that a Governor General of India could do nothing in his individual capacity ; and even in England, as well as India, if a man were known to wish earnestly for the success of any cause, he would be thought likely to exert all his influence in furtherance of it. He (Lord Ellenborough) considered that the fact of Lord Canning's subscribing to societies the object of which SATURDAY, was the conversion of the natives was, if true, one of the most dangerous things that could happen as regarded our tenure of power in India. if a governor-general were per , mittEd to indulge his own conscientious feelings by tamper. ing with the religion of the natives, we should, before long, have the most bloody revolution that had ever happened in India, and the English would be expelled from that country, without having made a dozen sincere converts to Chris.. tianity. The question he wished to ask was, whether instruction.' had been sent, or would forthwith be sent, to India, directing the several Governments to make known at every station of the army that the Government would for the future, as in times past, protect all her .Majesty's subjects in the undisturbed exercise of their religion" Earl GRANYILLE said her Majesty's Government had received no information except what was con veyed by the telegraph, and it was not for him to say how far the statement therein contained might be exaggerated. He quite concurred with the noble earl as to the danger and impolicy of any attempt at proselytism in India, but he believed that, although a sincerely religious man, nobody was more alive to that fact than the Governor-General. So far from Lord Canning having made any attempt at pro selytism, the first time he exercised his veto on a bill which bad passed the Legislative Council, he did so because it contained a provision which might inter fere with the religious processions of the natives. With regard to the question of whether Governtnent intended to issue any instructions to the different Governments in India to protect the people in their religious rites, the Governor-General, having con. sidered the subject, had with excellent judgment absta'ned from any notification which would assume a change in our Indian policy which had never taken place. The Earl of MALMESBURY, as a friend of Lard Canning, was rejoiced that the noble earl had had an opportunity of contradicting these mischievous, rumours. The noble earl had thrown doubt on the telegraphic despatch, but the rumours had not come by telegraph, and therefore were not open to that objection. If Lord Canning had subscribed to any of the missionary societies he had committed a grave error, as the missionaries would no doubt make use of his lordship's name in their intercourse with the inhabitants. He could not, however, believe for a moment that his noble friend could have mixed him self up with these matters. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said it was impossible to overrate the importance of this subject, and it . was of the utmost consequence that Lord Canntisg's conduct should stand unimpeached until something like specific facts could b 3 brought forward. All he could say was, that from repeated letters he gleaned that Lord Canning was as fully aware of the danger of proselytism as the noble earl himself. He (Lord Lansdowne) freely admitted that if there were any just grounds for supposing that Lord Canning had commuted so grave an error in judgment as to countenance any scheme of proselytism in India " he would no longer deserve to he continued in his office as Governor• General of India." The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said that if it was admitted that for Lord Canning to have subscribed to missionary societies was to unfit him for the government of India, all danger that could by possi bility have arisen would at once be removed. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE dissented. lie had no doubt that Lord Canning would be able to justify any subscription that he might have entered into, and that no subscription he had given would bear the construction which had been placed upon it.( The subject then dropped. The Princess Royal's Annuity Bill WWI read • second time, on the motion of Lord URANVILLE. DIVORCE BILL. The house then went into committee on thislbill, which had been recommitted. On clause 17, The LORD CHANCELLOR proposed an amendment, giving to husbands deserted by their wives the same right of application to the wife as that granted to wives deserted by their husbands. After some discussion this amendment was agreed to, as well as an amendment substituting the words " judicial separation " tor " divorce a mensa et those." On the motion that the clause, as amended, stand part of the bill, the committee was divided by Lord Sr. LEONARDS upon the alteration, when there were— Content Not Content Majority The clause was therefore agreed to. The remaining clauses up to 22 were also agreed to. On clause 22, The LORD CHANCELLOR called the attention of the committee to the punishment proposed to be inflicted on persons guilty of adultery. By this clause he proposed that in suits fn divorce by reason of adultery both the adulterer and the adultress should be made defendants, and that, if proved, the court should have the power of fining the adulterer up to the amount of 10,0001, 1..,