The Sun. — London, England, 1859-02-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT• HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY). The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. The Duke of NORFOLK. presented a petition in favour cif a reform of the representative system.. The Earl of ALBEMARLE presented a petition from Diss, in Norfolk, in favour of the abolition of church-rates. LAW OF TROPE RTY AND TRUSTEES REPEAL AMENDMENT BILL. On the motion of Lord ST. LEONARDS, this bill was read a second time. LAW OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in rising to call theatten tion of the house to the subject of the law of debtor and creditor, said he feared he shouldbe obliged to trespass upon their lordships' attention for a longer period than he could have wished. The subject was one of great importance to all, for the community might fairly be divided into two classes, debtors and creditors, and therefore it was necessary that the law relating to it should be made as perfect as pos sible. Their lordships might remember that at the close of last session he had laid upon the table a bill which at the time he said must not be regarded as embodying the ulti mate views of the Government, but rather as the redemption of a pledge that some bill should be produced during that session. That bill had been prepared by the learned Attor ney-General, and it was more wonderful, notwithstanding his known industry and ability, that his hon. and learned friend had found time amid his multifarious occupations to draw any bill than that that bill should have failed to satisfy all parties. In fact, he (the Lord Chancellor) had invited their lordships to accept that bill rather as a guide to the general direction in which the Government proposed to legislate than as a complete and perfect measure. During the recess the attention of the Government had been be stowed upon this important subject, and he hoped they had succeeded in preparing a measure which would receive the sanction of Parliament. Upon this subject there were many con fli c ting opinions to meet, hostile interests to reconcile ' and various views, both of theorists and practical men to be considered; but he hoped the result of the deliberation of the Government would be found satisfactory to Parliament and the mercantile community. In order that their lordships should clearly understand the questions to be considered, he would briefly state what was the state of the existing law. At present the laws relating to insolvents and their estates were administered by two dis • tinct and independent tribunals—the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and the Court of Bankruptcy. The Insolvent Court might be regarded as having had its authority renewed and confirmed upon its present footing by three acts of Parlia ment passed during her Majesty's reign—the Ist and 2d of Victoria, cap. 110, popularly known as the Prisoners' Act, because only persons in custody could have the benefit of its provisions, and two other acts of the sth and 6th of Vic toria, and the 7th and Bth of Victoria, generally known as the Protection Acts. Under the Ist and 2d of Victoria a prisoner in actual custody might, within 14 days from the commencement of his imprisonment, apply by petition to the Commissioner for his discharge. In the petition he must pray that all his property of every description might be vested in the provisional assignee. Upon that petition a vesting order was made, and within 14 days from that time the peti tioner was required to file a schedule containing the amount and particular description of all his property of every kind, including debts due to him, and also a list of the debts owing by him, with the names and descriptions of the creditors. Notice was given to every creditor entered in that schedule of a day appointed for a final hearing. Upon that day if the creditors offered no opposition, or if they opposed unsuccess fully, an order was made for the insolvent's discharge ; but before his adjudication he was required to execute a wan-ant of attorney, under which the creditors would be enabled to issue execution against any property which he might subse quently acquire. There was no compulsory power in the Court to force an insolvent to file a petition, but if be did not do so within 21 days a creditor had the power to present a pe tition to the Court, praying that the property of the prisoner night be vested in the provisional assignee. Upon that petition a vesting order be made, and then it became the duty of the debtor to file a schedule, but there was no power to compel him to do so ; therefore, if a debtor was obstinate, and chose to stop in prison, he could act in defi ance of his creditors, and spend his property as he pleased. That act applied to persona of every description, - whether traders or not, and whatever the amount of their debts might be. Shortly after its passing the Protection Acts were introduced. The jurisdiction under those Acts was at first given to the Bankruptcy Courts, but by an Act of the 10th and 11th of Victoria it was transferred to the Insol vent Court in London and to the county courts in the country. The mode of proceeding under those Acts was, that a debtor presented a petition applying for protection, at the same filing a schedule of all his debts and assets as under the Prison Act. This petition ought also to contain a proposal of some mode of liquidating his debts. Upon the filing of the petition the property of the debtor was ipso facto vested in the official assignee. A. day was then ap pointed for the hearing, and notice given to all the creditors. Upon the appointed day, if the conduct of the debtor had been blameless, or his debts had not been incurred within any of the prohibitions of the Act, the Commissioner was empowered to award final protection ; but if dissatisfied with the insolvent's conduct, he might refuse to appoint any day for the final hearing, or upon the day of final hearing he might refuse to grant any final order. The debtor might afterwards apply for a protecting order, which the Commis sioner could grant or withhold at his discretion. During the withholding of protection the debtor would be at the mercy of his creditors, but the Act contained a provision that no insolvent should be detained in custody at the suit of any creditor entered in the schedule for a longer period than 12 months. Those Acts applied both to traders and non-traders, the latter being unrestricted as to the amount of their debts, but traders owing less than £3OO were alone qualified to petition. It might naturally have been sup posed that practically the Insolvent Acts applied only to non-traders and the Bankrupt Acts to traders ; but a com munication which he had received from one of the Commis sioners of the Insolvent Coort had, to his great surprise, shown a very different state of facts. It appeared that in London from Ist Jan. to 12th Dec. last year there were 1,024 protection cases, of which no less than 816 were cases of traders. In the country the facts were still more surprising, for it appeared from a return of country cases during 2} years that of 4,230 applications for protection only 50 were those of non-traders. Had it not been for the existence of the Protection Acts all those humble traders would have been compelled to go to prison in order to obtain the benefit of the Insolvent Act, or they must have had their affairs ar ranged by the expensive process of bankruptcy. Having thus explained to their lordships the position in which the law of insolvency now stood, he should proceed to intro duce to their notice the state of the existing law with respect to the administration of insolvent estates in the Court of Bankruptcy, which might be considered to have assumed its present form of jurisdiction in the year 1831. Previous to that period the estates of a bankrupt were ad ministered in London by 70 commissioners,• composed of barristers and solicitors, whose names were distributed over several lists, any one of which the parties interested in the bankruptcy might select as that from which they might choose the cgmmissioner to whom they desired their case to be submitted. By th e A c t o f 1831, h owever , those 70 com missioners i n L ondon were reduced to six, which const i tute d at present r nt ev the maximu m num b er i n th e metropolis. A the court Act as a court of appeal, iew was also established under the operation of from which tribunal, however, a right of appeal l ay to the Lord Chancellor, and under certain circumstances t o th e H ouse of Lords, without the necessity of submitting the case to the Court of Chancery in the first instance. With respect to the commis sioners, he might state th a t it was enacted be appointed by the L or d Chancellor upon of the judges of the diff eren t c i rcu it s, and that in 1842 there nomination were 700 of those commi ss i oners, w h o used to reside i that theunttYhey n ul should boroughs. H e m i g h t f ur th er state that the court of of appeal had, after a short trial, been f oun d to be useless that it had in consequence be en a b o li s h e d ; that its ; juris diction had at first been tran s f erre d t o a Vice-Chancellor, and eventually to the Lords Ju s ti ces an d the Lord ' Chan cellor, who now, sitting either together, or separately, con stituted the court of appeal in bankruptcy. I n the year 1840 a Royal Commission had been appointed to inquire into the state of the bankrupt law, and to suggest the introduction of such amendments into it as they might deem to be necessary. They had accordingly issued a very elaborate report, in which they recommended, among other things, that the country commissioners should be reduced in number, a recommendation which was acted upon, their number ha • gin 1842 been diminished to a maximum of 12. The report contained various other recommendations also, some only of which were adopted. In 1849, however, the whole of the bankrupt law had been reviewed, and all its provisions had been consolidated in one act, which com prised the existing code upon the subject. Notwithstanding, however, the great pains which had been taken in framing that Act, it had been found to operate in a manner so un satisfactory to the commercial portion of the community, that, within four years after its passing into a law, it had been deemed expedient to issue a Royal commission 'tee the purpose of inquiring into the state of the bank 'lint law, and ascertaining whether or not it stood in new of amendment. At the head of that commission ` his right hon. friend the Secretary for the Home ,De partment, and from them had emanated a rei - bort containing vanoll/1 lreComm en dations as to alterations in the system as it stood, which they thought it desirable to have introduced. Of those reconansenya yationm, however, the greater number had been complete' neglected ; but although the Legisla ture had been stationary in reference to the question, the mind of the public a o ft u s t r : of Jo had been by no means in active. Meeting g to take the subject into consideration had been held int hroughout hadb the country. Nu merous petitions with regard to it presented to the house. A central meeting of delegateseeuf all the com rNcit7hdichthe mercial towns had assembled in London, sugges tions which were made and the views pounded on those several occasions had which were pro- Majesty' s Ministers at last to form some idea of whecia her the nature of the requirements of the commercial commu nity Was lay in connexion with the question. Those requirement: they had endeavoured to meet as far as they considered them to be just, reasonable, and at the same time practic able. Now, the first point which seemed to have engrossed the attention of those among the public who had * directed their attention to the subject was the existence of two distinct and independent tribunals for the administration of insolvent estates, and there had been very able re commendations made as to the propriety of placing the two courts—that of bankruptcy and that of insolvency—under the operation of one system. As early as 1-40 the com mission to which he had already adverted :. ad given ex pression to their opinion on the matter in their very able report in the following terms :—They said, "It appears to us that to unite the ju-i diction on mat ters of bankruptcy and insolvency would, upon principle, tend much to benefit the public ;.but this benefit cannot, we think, be obtained without placing all insolvent estates under the administration of one uniform system of law. We can perceive no good reason why the estate of one debtor who is unable to pay his debts in full should be administered in a different manner from that of another debtor under the same disability. All such estates should, in our opinion, be administered in some one mode which is best adapted to' secure the interests of creditors, by the examination of the debtor's accounts and the discovery and distriiution of his property." They 'then proceeded to say, " The system of the bankrupt law with the alterations and further remedies, which we have humbly suggested to your Majesty, is well adapted to those purposes, but so long as debtors having no assets are liable to be imprisoned (and many thousands are imprisoned every year) it is practically impossible to administer such cases under a law requiring rigorous investigation of accounts, regular proof of debts, with audits, and other proceedings." Their lordships would bear in mind that the report from which he had just quoted had been issued prior to the time of the introduction of the Protection Act, so that the only mode of obtaining the benefit of the Insolvent Act was by the debtor's going to prison. Now, the commissioners,were, from their report, clearly of opinion that, in order to ac complish the object which they had in view of uniting the Insolvent and Bankruptcy Courts, it would be necessary to abolish, or at all events to modify in a very considerable degree, the punishment of imprisonment. They had ac cordingly addressed themselves to that point also, and stated in words which were precisely the same as those which had been used by the Common Law Commissioners in 1832 in reference to arrests on mane process, that— " The principle of the present law is to do justice by the use of the strong and compulsory means of arrest and im prisonment, applied indiscriminately. The system has been found to be productive of so much hardship and in justice that it was at last deemed necessary to mitigate its consequences by the enactment of the insolvent law. The joint operation of the two opposite processes, for the im prisonment and enlargement of debtors, has been produc tive of so much evil as to tend to the suspicion which seems to be fully verified by inquiry, that the mischief ought to be obviated, not by provisions designed for the mere mitigation of its consequences, but by removing its cause : that is, by limiting the power of impri sonment itself, and confining it to cases where it is warranted on the plain and just principle of preventing the debtor from fraudulently absconding, or removing his pro perty beyond the reach of justice, or for the punishment of actual fraud, or compelling the debtor after judgment either to pay the debt or to make a cession of his property for the benefit of his creditors. Beyond this, we believe that the practice of imprisonment for debt is neither warranted in principle nor beneficial in practice, and that, on the con trary, while the exercise of the present almost unlimited power and imprisonment is productive of pecuniary loss, injury, and distress to creditors as well as to debtors, it also occasions great moral evils in its tendency to subdue that proper degree of pride and honest feeling which is incon sistent with the degradation of imprisonment in a gaol, and to level the distinction between guilt and misfortune." With the principles which were enunciated in that portion of the report he entirely concurred, and, acting upon the suggestion there made, and in order to clear the way for legislation, their lordships would find that the Government measure set out with various clauses which were intended to restrain, not to abolish, imprisonment on final process. For such a proposal he 'was happy to think that he had the sanction, not only of the commissioners upon these two oc casions, but also of many members of their lordships' house. In 1844 Lord Cottenham introduced a bill for abolishing imprisonment for debt, and upon that occasion his noble and learned friend Lord Lyndhurst adverted very strongly indeed to what he considered the absurdity of the existing division between the two Courts for administering the law of debtor and creditor, and to the injustice also of that provision by which the after-acquired property of an insol vent debtor was made liable to his creditors. In addition to the authority of Lord Lyndhurst and of Lord Cottenham he had that of the late Lord Denman, and of two noble and learned friends whom he now saw present, one of whom (Lord Brougham) last session introduced a bill for the very purpose of abolishing imprisonment for debt. Thus fortified, he would call their lordships' attention to the clauses with which this measure set out, and by which imprisonment upon final process was restrained. In future it was only to be permitted 1, in cases where there was an apprehension of the debtor's absconding, which their lordships were probably aware was provided for at present under the Ist and 2d of Victoria, and also under the absconding Debtors'Arrest Act of 1852 ; 2, where the debt had been fraudulently incurred or there had been a vexatious defence ; 3, ar where the debt was due in respect of damages which had been recovered in any action of tort. In all other cases no imprisonment for debt would be permitted. Having thus cleared the way, it would be seen that the Insolvent Court, being de prived of the greater part of its functions, no longer con tinued to be essential. He was bound, however, to say, that as long as imprisonment for debt had existed, and that Court had been entrusted with the duty of discharging debtors who were entitled to their discharge, it was quite impossible that the law could have been better administered than it had been by the commissioners. The Government measure proposed to establish one Court only, which was to be called the Court of Insolvency; but in abolishing the Insolvent Court they proposed not to dispense immediately with the Insolvent Commissioners. It was thought that those gentlemen might be called into active service, and might be employed under the new system ; and, in this way, not only would the advantage of their services and experi ence be secured, but the extent of the working staff which would be requisite would be ascertained. One Court only being thus established for the purpose of administering one uniform law of debtor and creditor, there then arose a ques tion of considerable interest and importance—namely, whether it was possible any longer to keep up the distinc tion between the trader and the non-trader. Their lordships were probably not aware that a great demand had been made for the abolition of this distinction, and upon careful consideration the Government felt disposed to yield to that demand to a very considerable extent, though they thought it impossible to do so entirely. For instance, with regard to acts of insolvency, some were peculiar to persons in busi ness, and could hardly be applied to the case of non-traders, The Government proposed therefore, that upon these three grounds alone should the non-trader either have the benefit of the Act or be exposed to its provisions :—first, where he himself applied for the benefit of the Act, when his pro perty might be distributed among his creditors ; secondly, where he left the country for the purpose of defeating or delaying his creditors, or where being abroad, he remained there with the same object; thirdly, where a judgment having been obtained against him by a creditor, upon a summons issued, he failed to satisfy that judgment, or to enter into some arrangement for that purpose. In these three cases only would the law be applicable to non-traders. In the last of these cases the summons of a judgment credi tor had been introduced by analogy to a trader-debtor sum mons. Under the existing law a creditor might go before a commissioner of bankruptcy, make an affidavit of his debts, procure a summons against his debtor, and the latter, if he disputed the debt, must arrange for having the case tried; or, if he admitted it, and made no arrangement for discharging it, this constituted an act of bankruptcy. The Government thought it would be rather a strong measure to introduce what would be equivalent to a trader-debtor summons against a non-trader, and believed they should sufficiently comply with the fair and just demands of credi tors by exposing non-traders to the consequences of not satisfying debts to the extent he had described, where these debts had become judgment debts and the debtor was not prepared to make any arrangement. In bringing non traders within the operation of this Act, there had been considerable apprehension, which the Government had been obliged to meet, lest where a debtor was the owner of an estate intail or remainder a vindictive creditor should be dis posed to sacrifice the interests both of the debtor and the other creditors by anticipating the period at which it would become available, and during the existence of the prior estate. It was, therefore, thought desirable by the 05th clause to prevent 'a creditor from selling an estate in tail or remainder without the consent of the debtor during the existence of the prior estate, but leaving the debt a charge upon the estate when it fell into posses sion, although the debtor might then have obtained an order for his discharge. There was another provision which would probably excite some discussion, and to which he begged attention. There was, as he had al ready explained, a distinction between bankruptcy and in solvencyacquiredlnsolvency under y h him terheha A d c o t b , t an ain i ed nso h lv is en c t eri exe cuted a warrant of attorney before his discharge, u nder which which execution might issue against subse quently acquired by him. Thisdistin any ' property sidered an unjust one. Be had and learned friend Lord L strongly on this subject in 1844, and theco their report in 1840 also adverted to it in thismentioned expressed w m commissioners in " The future liability of all insolvent debtorasy,27 opinion, a most unjust and impolitic law. The Insolventsil our Law after !nterrupting a man in his business, taking all property, imprisoning him lintil his pl ace or business is occupied, and then turning him out destitute, a proclaimed insolvent and unworthy of trust, nevertheless expects him at some future time to acquire property which he is to give up for distribution • • among his creditors. The practical result is that he makes no exertion beyond supplyi ng his daily wants, and too frequently becomes a permanently degraded character;. his family are brought up in ; h ence society loses, and the creditors do not gain." In order to obtain execution against after-acquired property an application must be made to the court, and it was the practice of the court never to touch property acquired by a man's own industry after his discharge; and with respect to property which might have come to him by bequest, or in a fortuitous manner, it was the custom only to take one third for the purpose of applying it to his creditors; and their lordships must be aware that it was easy to defeat the law, even to this extent, by means of secret trusts for the benefit of the insolvent, or—what was disadvantageous to the insolvent--by not giving him property which, but for this unjust law, he would probably have received. He put it, th ere f ore, to their lordships, whether, having now for the first time brought non-traders under the compsl7 powers of this act, by which arrangement they THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 8, '1859, might be forced to distribute the whole of their property among their creditors—having stripped and turned them naked out of the court, it would not be just and reasonable to give them the same benefit which was given to bankrupts, and allow them,:from the time of obtaining the order of dis charge,to be free men—to be safe from the claims of their pre vious creditors,and enabled to pursue an independent course 1 with respect to the acquisition of new property. (Hear.) He had thus introduced to their lordships the mode in which it was proposed, first of all, to constitute the Court, and next the objects which administration by that Court would embrace ; and now he would turn their attention for a short time to what was proposed by the Government with respect to the proceedings in regard to the administration of deb tors' estates. Their lordships were aware that many peti tions had been presented to both Houses of Parliament on this subject. The great demand which the commercial community had uniformly made was to obtain a greater control over the proceedings when the affairs of their cre ditors were administered in the Bankruptcy Court, and in the petition which he had had the honour of presenting last session from 4,000 bankers and me r ch an t s in the City of London this was not only particularly prayed for, but greater facilities were also desired for liquidating the affairs of debtors under proper administration. The Government have considered that the demand made with respect to the propriety of creditors being allowed to interpose in the management of these affairs passing through the Court to be a reasonable and just one, and he would explain the mode in which it was proposed to meet that object. Their lordships would find clauses in the bill providing that at the first meeting of creditors for the choice of assignees, the majority in value of them might, if they chose, agree to dispense with the official assignee altogether, and allow the assignees of their choice to have the management and control of the affairs of the bankrupt or insolvent in the course of liquidation; but it had been thought that the creditors might possibly require tho experience of an official assignee, and therefore they would be enabled to select that officer as their trustee. When, however, that officer was so selected, he became to all intents and pur poses the trustee of the creditors, and lost his character as official assignee. There was another very important provision—namely, that though proceedings might have commenced in insolvency, and the Insolvent Court got possession of the assets of the insolvent, yet if the cre ditors and debtor, in the course of the investigation, considered that it would be to their advantage that the liabilities of the debtor should be liquidated by arrange ment, they might take the business away from the Insol vent Court, and convert it into a private arrangement. In accordance, also, with the wishes expressed in the petitions he had referred to, there were clauses which it was thought would facilitate the liquidation of the affairs of insolvents, under the control of the Court, but with an inspector ap pointed by the creditors. Their lordships would also find some important clauses with respect to private arrange ment by deed. He would not detain the house, by now ex: plaining the nature of those various provisions, which were matters of entire detail. Theref6re, he would pass to the very important question respecting the certificate. Under the existing law there was a classification of certificates. There were first, second;and third class certificates, which the commissioners were empowered to issue according to their notions of the merits or demerits of the bankrupts. There had been no more fruitful source of uncertainty, expense, and litigation than this mode of classifying certi ficates with which the commissioners were armed. Natu rally enough, the commissioners took various views, ac cording to the different dispositions of their minds, as to what was delinquency in these matters, and the issuing of these certificates of the first, second, or third class was ex tremely' capricious, and it was difficult to calculate what was to be expected, except from the temper and disposition of each particular commissioner. The commissioners had also the power to refuse certificates altogether, so that a man in that case would remain uncertificated for the whole course of his life. In framing the present bill it was not deemed desirable, expedient, or just that a man should remain unprotected and undischarged for the whole period of his existence, without the opportunity of acquiring any alter property, and with the danger, at the same time, to which other people were exposed who, not aware of the man's position, might deal with him, and entail on them selves the consequences of dealing with an uncertificated bankrupt. According to the bill no person would ulti mately be deprived of his certificate. It was deemed right that on certain grounds the commissioner should have the power of suspending the certificate, but, inasmuch as under the existing law when protection was denied to a debtor he could only be imprisoned for twelve months, so it was thought that the suspension of the certificate should not be allowed for a longer period than two years. The suspension of the certificate would apply to those cases which were peculiar offences under the bankrupt law or administration, but not to those very important cases which rose to the class of misdemeanours. For instance, the circumstance of a debtor not keeping his books properly was a very serious impediment to the administration of the estate, but still it would be harsh and severe to characterise such matters as offences, and make them liable to extreme punishment. They would be visited by a temporary sus pension of the certificate—for two years at the maximum. With regard to those real offences which had always been regarded as such and treated as misdemeanours, he was surprised to find that there was a very generaldemand among the commercial community for a very summary administration of the law in respect to them. They thought that the commissioners should be intrusted with summary jurisdiction, enabling them to send persons committing those offences to the House of Correction, subject, also, to hard labour, for a period of no less than three years. With great deference he must say that, though that might be an excellent remedy to place in the hands of creditors desirous of gratifying feelings excited by disappointment at not re ceiving their debts, he would never consent to any man being subject to an imprisonment of that severe kind unless first tried by one of the superior courts and by a jury. (Hear, hear.) Therefore he had refused to give way to that demand, and their lordships would find included in the class of offences called misdemeanours (to be tried in a regular manner and punished only after conviction), those offences, which had been regarded as real offences on the part of a bankrupt. He now turned from the proceedings of the Court to the officers of the Court, and first of all he would direct the attention of their lordships to the position of the official assignee. There had been great difficulty in determining how the official assignees were to be remunerated. At present they were paid by fees, but the amount of business which they had to transact was so variable and uncertain that in some years they had very little, while in others their emoluments rose to an enormous sum, and he belteved that, in the result, it was found that since the date of their appointment their incomes had averaged from about £l,OOO to £1,200 a-year. The inequality between them, however, was very great, especially in the country, where th e i r emo l umen t s range d from £5OO to £2,000. Various suggestions had been made upon this subject. On the one hand, it had been said that payment by salary would be at least certain and invariable; but, on the other, it had been urged that it would destroy a needed stimulus to exertion in getting in the effects of a bankrupt. Some parties had su . ggested a compounding of the two modes of provision, paying them partly by salary and partly by fees. For his own part, he thought the mat ter was hardly ripe at present for decision, because it was impossible to say what would be the extent of the business which the new court would have to transact. If great fa cilities were given to liquidation, either by private arrange ment or under the sanction of the court, that would of course diminish what was now called bankruptcy, but what would then be called insolvency business, and therefore it was imposstble to say what would be the amount of duty performed by an official assignee. But he proposed to in troduce a clause into the bill by which certain persons would be empowered to make general orders regulating and equalizing the emoluments of official assignees, to fix a maximum and minimum, and from time to time to introduce such alterations as circumstances might seem to warrant. He did not know that any better arrangement than that, considering the uncertain and precarious character of the measure which he proposed, could be adopted at present. (Hear, hear.) He turned now to another officer of the Court—most improperly so called—the broker. Up to 1843 the business of taking an inventory of a bankrupt's estate was the duty of the messenger who was in possession of the estate, but in that year it was supposed that it would be convenient, and would diminish the expense, if a broker were appointed to do this duty. The result had disappointed the expectations of those who introduced the alteration, for the expense had been very considerably increased, because the emoluments of the messenger had not been at all reduced, and we had had in addition the expense incurred by the broker. He proposed to do away entirely with the broker, who was improperly called an officer of the Court, who was a person casually employed, not entitled to compensation, and who might therefore be removed without difficulty. (Hear, hear.) One word with respect to the messengers. He had been told, to his surprise, that these persons actually re ceived as much as from £,1,500 to £3,000 a year. That very morning a gentleman, practically acquainted with the sub ject, had assured him that such was the ease, and had pointed to one messenger who had £1,500 a year, and £5OO in addition for performing a duty which properly belonged to his office. So that these persons, occupying a subordi nate official position, were actually receiving mere than the country commissioners obtained. Ho thought something should be done with regard to them, though what that something should be must be left for future consideration. (Hear, hear.) He had abstained, as their lordships must have observed, from entering into minute and particular details of the mode in which the various provisions of this important measure were proposed to be carried out. He had thought that he should better discharge his duty, and that it would be more satisfactory to their lordships, if he were to explain what were the leading features and characteristics of the bill, leaving the details to be dis cussed in committee. He could not quit the subject, however, without one or two further observations. In the first place, he would venture to call the attention of their lordships to the language and style of this measure. Those who were accustomed to the ponderous character of the provisions of modern Acts of Parliament would per haps at first be startled, but certainly he thought in the end would be pleased. at the simple, short, and concise style in which the provisions of this bill were ex pressed, rendering them perfectly intelligible even to those who were not acquainted with the subject. (Hear.) There was another circumstance to which he earnestly desired to direct attention, although some might, perhaps, regard it as a defect. Their lortships would observe that this was a bill strictly and properly for the amendment of the law of debtor and creditor, and that he had not attempted to con solidate the whole of the bankruptcy law into one system. That subject was most carefully and deliberately considered before the Government came to the conclusion that it was desirable, first of all, where such largo amendments were proposed to be introduced, to see whether they would or would not be adopted by Parliament, before they ventured to grind the whole law into one consolidated measure. There was a disadvantage, as it appeared to him, in intro ducing into the same bill large amendments of the law with out consolidation. (Hear.) On the' one hand, there was the extreme difficulty of understanding what part was new and what old; and, on the other, if the whole of the law, in cluding that which there was no desire manifested to change, were brought under discussion, it would be impossible that that discussion could be carried on with any convenience or advantage unless the clearest possible. distinctions were maintained between that which existed and was intended trholueberenefdunomreae,lterable and that which was to be viewed as an the lauiwt ontthoaungdht it an proper, w en h t ere onl eu y e . h i(aHrgeettr alterations .Heh of ad, werebe ad proposed, d o , r n th ot at to th c e o y ns w id oul er d that they y u w th er e e m so_ selves so entirely to the judgment of Parliament, that he might ou o r egaard consolidation the matter o f a t s h a e l r w e h a c o l y i 0 law. decided e dHaen ha d p ei r oz o e u d g h a t t t h mul h d e mbeinfinitely bieutttroerdutoee,suebepmairtatteheanadmuenandffmeeentetds by other provisions, to no adopted. o t their e h i e r amendments e n n t , d course n and sh he iswe had ai trusted uhproposed lordshipsil should or dwould receive t if approve tt hhee (Hcoensideration of Parlia ment, of both houses he trusted that at no distant time either he or some more fortunate legislator might be permitted to consolidate the whole of this important code of laws, after it had undergone the requisite revision and consideration, into one entire system, which would continue to be the governing code of the commercial community for ages to come. (Cheers.) Lord BROUGHAM did not intend to enter into the con sideration of the very important, difficult, and extensive subject which his noble and learned friend had so ably opened to their lordships. It was clear that they must wait till they had enjoyed an opportunity of seeing the bill in print before they could form any opinion upon the merits or demerits of its provisions. Most of their lordships would re collect that last session he introduced a bill for the purpose of amending the law of debtor and creditor, and that he postponed it in order to allow the Government an opportu nity of bringing forward the measure which his noble and learned friend had now submitted. He was glad to find that some of 'the most important provisions of his bill had been adopted by the Government, such, for example, as those for abolishing the distinction between bankruptcy and insol vency for throwing all, as far as practicable, under the same jurisdiction ; and for abrogating the distinction be tween traders and non-traders, subject, however, to certain exceptions where it became quite impossible to say, how ever much we might desire to see it, that that distinction ought entirely to cease. (Hear, hear.) In order to exem plify the difficulty of at present fully discussing the provi sions of the bill which had been introduced by the noble and learned lord upon the woolsack, he called attention to ono difficulty which there was in the way of entirely assimi lating the position of traders and non-traders as to the effect of the certificate. If the future acquired property of a trader was to be subject to his former debts, it would prac tically prevent his trading, because upon such terms he could obtain neither credit, loans, nor goods ; while it would be equally unfair that if a non-trader, after obtaining his cer tificate, inherited an estate of ten thousand a-year, it should not be charged with his previous debts. He drew this distinction between the two classes, because in 99 cases out of 100 if property was acquired subsequent to his insolvency by a trader it was obtained by his con tinuous trading, while in an equal proportion of cases it was to the non-trader the result, not of his own exertions, but of inheritance, or accidental circumstances. With re gard to the classification of certificates he would remind their lordships that that was no part of the original bank ruptcy law, but was only introduced in the Consolidation Act of 1849, at the urgent request of the commercial in terest, particularly that of the city of London, represented by his lamented friend the late Lord Wharncliffe. A noble and learned friend of his opposite (Lord St. Leonards) had always opposed the system; the practice of the several com missioners under it appeared to have greatly varied ; and, although he was not disposed entirely to abolish it without further inquiry, he must admit that his opinion tended very strongly in that direction. His noble and learned friend on the woolsack had justly observed that one of the great difficulties of dealing with this question arose from the difference of opinion which prevailed with regard to it. A conference which was held in London in January, 1857, and which was attended by deputations from all the great mercantile towns and ports of the United King dom, showed how great was the discrepancy between the views of these several bodies. Since that there had been a greater concurrence of opinion among the mercantile community, and a measure representing its opinion was shortly to be introduced into the other house of Parliament by a noble friend of his. That measure differed in some important respects from the bill of his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, but as to the abolition of the distinction between bankrupcy and insol vency and between traders and non-traders the two mea sures were in harmony. One of the great objections to the present system was its expense—an expense which was al most fatal in the case of small, but very light in the case of large estates, and one which did not weigh in proportion to the amount of the estate as it clearly ought to do. This unfair pressure of expense had been found to exclude from the Courts of Bankruptcy, and to drive to pri vate settlement many cases which, but for that con sideration, would have been dealt with, and dealt with much more satisfactorily, by the public tribunals. One great head of expense was the heavy amount of compensation still paid to officers for the loss of their places under acts of the Legislature. With respect to the payment of official assignees, that one should receive £ 3 , 000 or £ 4 ,000 in one year, and. £3OO or £4OO in another, was an unsatisfactory and anomalous state of things, to which an end should be put. He had not the shadow of a doubt that if the official assignees were paid partly by salaries and partly by fees, to which a maximum should be fixed, justice would be done to those gentlemen and a proper stimulus kept up for the due discharge of their duties. He concurred in some parts of the proposition of his noble and learned friend, and not in others, but he would reserve the further expression of his opinions until the next stage of the bill, by which time he would have given it a more deliberate consideration. Lord CAMPBELL said he had listened with great plea sure to the exposition of the bill of his noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor), because he concurred in much that his noble and learned friend proposed to do. For example, he had constantly urged the abolition of the dis tinction between traders and non-traders in bankruptcy and insolvency, and he had always disapproved the enormous amount of fees received in many instances by inferior offi cers of the courts by which the existing law was adminis tered. But he must acknowledge that he was greatly dis appointed and mortified when he heard his noble and learned friend conclude his exposition by saying that his bill was meant, not to consolidate, but to be a patch on the existing system. His noble and learned friend looked forward to a complete consolidation of the law at some future period; but why was it to be deferred ? His noble and learned friend had the opportunity now within his grasp, and not to avail himself of it would cause great disappointment to all persons who took an interest in the amendment of the law. It would be easy to construct while improving the law; and he hoped it was not too late for his noble and learned friend to apply himself to the larger and more desi rable work. First thoughts were often the best, and he thought the scheme proposed by his noble and learned friend towards the conclusion of last session was, on the whole, a better one than the present. The improvements his noble and learned friend had suggested were certainly very con siderable, and seemed to deserve the approbation of their lordships ; but still he thought, instead of amending the existing system, they should have a new code by which they might hope to place the law of debtor and creditor on some- thing like a satisfactory footing. Lord CRANWORT II said when theywere consolidating, and there were no amendments except such as were merely formal, the true principle was to introduce the amendments and the consolidation together; but where there were very extensive amendments it was btter to introduce the amend ments first, and the moment these had become law to frame a consolidation bill, and pass it in the same session. That was the course adopted in the case of the Merchant Seamens' Act, and it appeared to him to be the proper one. The bill was read a first time, and the second reading fixed for Thursday week. The house then adjourned, at 7 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS. Colonel FORESTER, Comptroller of the Royal House hold, brought up the answer of her Majesty to the Address that had been voted by the house in reply to the Speech from the Throne, which was as follows :—" I have received with much satisfaction your loyal and dutiful address. I rely with confidence on your careful consideration of the measures which will be submitted to you, and I shall be always ready to co-operate with you for the preservation of the institutions of the country, and in promoting the in terests and prosperity of all classes of my subjects." PRIVATE BUSINESS. The SPEAKER announced that the standing orders had been complied with on several private bills, and a number of others were read a first time. PETITIONS. Petitions were presented praying that measures would be taken to secure adequate instruction in the schools in India : for the discontinuance of the opium traffic, except for medi cinal purposes ; for the adoption of vote by ballot, manhood suffrage, equal electoral districts, triennial Parliaments, &c. CHANCERY COURT (IRELAND). The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought up some papers in connection with the Chancery Courts in Ireland. NEW WRIT. On the motion of Sir W. JOLIFFE, a new writ was granted for the University of Oxford, in consequence of the acceptance of the Chief Commissioner of the lonian Islands by the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, since his election. (A laugh.) PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. ➢lr. T. S. DUNCOMBE—I wish to put a question to he right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the sub•• led of the Reform Bill. On the first evening of our race ing the right hon. gentleman stated that the Government were ready with their new reform measure, but my right hon. friend added—(cries of "Order")--I am trying to make my question intelligible to the house. (Laughter.) The SPEAKER—The hon. gentleman must not enter into any argument in putting a question. Mr. DUNCOMBE—No, Sir, I am not doing so. I am only stating the reasons why I asked the question. The right hon. gentleman added that the bill would not be brought in until the more important business ,of the country was disposed of. That has led to some misconception and some misunderstanding on the subject, and to considerable misgiving in the public mind as to when the bill will be in troduced. (Cries of " Order.") As I have no doubt all this can be removed, the question I have to ask is whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's" Government during the present month to introduce their bill for the amendment of the representation of the people. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DISRAELI—The question which was addressed to me the other night upon the subject was, whether the Go vernment was prepared to bring in this bill immediately, to which I replied that it was not their intention to bring it in immediately, as there was other important and urgent busi ness which required the attention of the house. I indicated then some portion of that urgent business, and though it it would be presumption to say how long it would occupy, the natural inference from what I said when I referred to the navy estimates, and to some votes being taken to enable my right hon. friend (Sir J. Pakington) to make his state ment, and to bring forward the measures which he deems necessary, was that the delay would not be very consider able. There is also other business, of an urgent cha racter, of which my noble friend near me (Lord Stanley) has given notice. The house can probably form an opinion of how much time will be occupied in the discussion of Indian finance. The house is as good a judge as I am of the time these measures will require for their fair discussion. When they are settled, it is my intention to give notice of a day when I shall have the honour of bringing forward a measure for amending the representation of the people. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman will understand that it isnot in my power to fix the day; but, taking a general view as to what will be the course of the session, not only is it our intention that it shall be brought in before Easter, but we contemplate the second reading being taken before Easter. (Hear, hear.) As Easter is rather late this year, if the second reading meets that reception which we fondly anti cipate--(laughter)—the house will have the opportunity even of making progress in committee upon the bill before that time. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BRlGHT—Perhaps I may be allowed to ask another question. Permit me to say that what the public require is time to consider the bill before it conies to a second read ing. (Hear, hear.) That is the essential thing. I would therefore recommend—(Cries of " Order.") Well, if I may not [recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will ask him whether he will name a day, or state when he will name a day, when the bill will be introduced, because I presume that not more than one night will be taken in the introduction of the bill. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DISRAELI—It is not in my power to name pre cisely the day when the bill will be introduced, but I shall give fair notice, and shall take care that there is ample op portunity for consideration between the introduction and the second reading. (Cheers.) REGIMENTAL CHAPLAINS IN INDIA. Mr. KINNAIRD begged to ask what permanent increase to the regular Bengal establishment of chaplains to the Pro testant troops had been made during the last 12 months, and whether it was the intention of the Government to make any further permanent increase, in consequence of the probability of a much larger English force than formerly being kept in India ? Lord STANLEY said that up to September, 1857, the permanent strength of the establishment of chaplains of the Church of England was—ln Bengal, 68, Madras 35, and Bombay 26, making 129 in all. Since that time they had been increased from 68 to 80 in Bengal, from 35 to 40 in Madras, and from 26 to 30 in Bombay, making 150 in all, or an increase of 21. The whole of that increase had taken place within the last 12 months. In addition, 10 supernu merary chaplains had now been sent out to meet the urgent wants of the troops, who were not placed on the permanent establishment, but would be absorbed into it. There had. also been an increase of Presbyterian chaplains from 6 to 13. CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT. Mr. H. BERKELEY gave notice that he would, to morrow, ask the Attorney-General whether, in the prospect of a speedy dissolution of Parliament—(laughter)—it was his intention to deal with the Corrupt Practices Act this session. THE STADE DUES. Mr. CLAY asked the Under- Secretaryfor Foreign Affairs what progress had been made in the negotiations for the relief of the ships of this country from the Stade dues ? Mr. S. FITZGERALD said it was impassible for him to give a satisfactory answer to the question. In compliance with the recommendation of the committee of last session negotiations had been entered into on the subject, and notice had been given for the termination of the treaty. The ques tion was one of great difficulty, but the Government had given and were giving serious attention to it. HARBOURS OF REFUGE. Mr. WILSON asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Royal Commission appointed in pursuance of a vote of this house in the last session, upon the subject of harbours of refuge, had yet made their report, and when the same would be laid upon the table ? Sir J. PAKINGTON said the commissioners had not yet reported. SALE OF SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS IN SCOTLAND. Lord MELGUND asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the intention of the Go vernment to move for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the effect of the laws regulating the sale and consumption of spirituous liquors in Scotland ? Mr. WALPOLE said the subject had received his atten tion during the recess, and he had come to the conclusion that some inquiry into it was necessary. Whether this ought to be by a committee or by a commission he was not at present quite clear, and he could not therefore give a de cided answer to the question. REFORM - OF THE CITY CORPORATION. Mr. HANKEY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was his intention to intro duce a bill for the reform of the corporation of the city of London, and when the same would probably be brought forward ? Mr. "WALPOLE said it would be absolutely necessary to introduce some measure on the subject this session, but in the present state of public business he was afraid it could not be brought forward until after the Reform Bill had been laid on the table. BARRACK ACCOMMODATION. Mr. H. BARING asked the Secretary at War whether the Government had taken any steps to provide new quar ters for the Guards in lieu of the barracks in Portman-t street, which had long been condemned ? General PEEL said it was his intention to propose a vote of £120,000 in the estimates this year for this purpose. All the available sites in the metropolis had been surveyed and reported on, and if the house should sanction the expendi ture he hoped to provide efficient accommodation - . THE BILLETING SYSTEM. Mr. CRAUFURD asked the Secretary at War whether any and what alteration was to be made in the present law relating to the billeting of soldiers and marines ? General PEEL said that it was impossible to make any alteration until the annual Mutiny Bill was passed. It was his intention in the next Mutiny Bill to propose that, in stead of ltd., the remuneration to the innkeeper should be 4d. per man; and he should also to endeavour to carry out, as far as possible, the recommendations of the committee. THE CASE OF PAUL AND STRAHAN. Mr. H. SHERIDAN asked Mr. Secretary Walpole whether it was his intention to recommend to her Majesty that Sir John Dean Paul and Mr. Strahan, the late bankers, should be pardoned, on the ground that they had already been puhished to the extent demanded by the laws of the country ? Mr. WALPOLE—I have to request the attention of the house to the question which has just been put to me, and to the answer which lam about to give. The question has been put to me in a form which would lead to the inaccu rate impression that Sir J. Paul and Mr. Strahan have already been punished to the extent demanded by the laws of the country. These questions are of the most painful character to one who fills the situation which I have the honour to hold—(hear, hear)—but as it has been put to me I had better answer it instead of requesting the permission of the house to refuse to answer it, as under ordinary cir cumstances I should have done. I had better answer it, because great mistakes have occurred with reference to the subject, and also in order that the house may be made aware that Parliament itself is partly the cause of the complication which exists with respect to it. By the law under which Sir John Paul and Mr. Strahan were tried, and which still exists unrepealed, the offence of which they were convicted --that of selling securities deposited for safe custody with them and appropriating the proceeds to their own use—‘was punishable by transportation for not exceeding fourteen years and not less than seven years. These unfortunate gentlemen were tried in October, 1855 ; and they were con victed under that law, not of one single offence, but I must point out, without any wish to press unduly upon them, of a series of offences which was the cause of misery to hun dreds of people, equal to any which they have suffered from the punishment inflicted on them. (Hear, hear.) It is true that Parliament has since, unhappily, sanctioned another law—the Fraudulent Trustees Act—without repeal ing the old law, which enacts for precisely the same offence a punishment of not exceeding three years' penal servitude, - or not less than two years' imprisonment. It was under these circumstances that I was pressed to say whether an entire remission of their sentence ought not to be granted to these gentlemen. My first duty was to inquire what had been the practice of the Home-office with reference to recommendations to be made to the Crown where punish ments of a graver nature had been relaxed by subsequent statutes. I am speaking in the presence of three of the ablest men who have filled the office of Home Secretary, and they will confirm me when I say there is no instance in the records of the Home-office of any person tried and con victed under a particular law being held entitled to a miti gation of punishment in consequence and on account of any subsequent legislation. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that most extraordinary representations have been made, sometimes by persons high in rank and position, attributing to me that by a prejudiced view of the case, and by a severe administration of the law, I had imperilled the lives of these prisoners, and destroyed the mind of one of them. Such representations, totally unfounded as they were, ought not to have proceeded from such a quarter. (Hear, hear.) The question is whether, under these cir cumstances, the law being complicated by subsequent legis lation, and the principle of the Home-office, founded on good reasons, being such as I have stated, there is any ground for my recommending, not a mitigation—for that is not asked for—but an entire remission of the sentence. I wish to point out to the hon. gentleman and to the house, and through the house to all persons who may take an in terest in matters of this kind (in fact, they must interest the whole community) that in ordinary cases where a series of gross delinquencies have been proved it is not usual to limit the punishment to the maximum of one offence ; but for the interests of justice very often to add another punish ment to begin when the first expires. Placed under such circumstances, I have no means of judging, except by con jecture, what the courts would do; but I have thought it right to consult the highest authority in the land, and I am informed by him that it is reasonable to consider the subsequent law as virtually repealing the former law, and as entitling the parties to some mitigation, though not stating what . it ought to be. (Hear.) Now, it is my duty to lay down a rule with regard to the future and with re gard to the past. With regard to the future, it will be in the power of the Court to say whether, when a serious and grave offence has been committed, the punishment shall or shall not be the maximum described by the Act, or whether the punishment shall be cumulative, I have, therefore, no difficulty with regard to the future. But, with regard to the past, I must endeavour to lay down a rule, party by conjecture, as to what would have been the punishment awarded supposing the second statute had been the statute under which these gentlemen had been tried. The only conclusion to which my mind has arrived is this, that if I can lay down some rule I ought to do so ; that in laying down that rule I should take special care to draw no distinction between those convicted under the statutes— (cheers)—and that on behalf of myself and of every one who may hereafter hold the office which I have the honour to hold I should request most humbly, respectfully, and earnestly the support of the house with reference to the discharge of the duty that devolves upon that office. I hope that the house will at least feel confident that, without any partiality on the one hand, or any prejudice on the other, I shall endeavour to take care that justice is properly ad ministered, and discharge to the bast of my ability this mcst delicate, difficult, and painful duty. (Cheers.) ARMY COMMISSIONS. On the motion of Sir DE L. EVANS, a return was ordered of the Treasury minutes relative to increasing the remuneration of the officers of the army, and the impossi bility of doing so until they shall be relieved from th e necessity of purchasing their commissions on the 20th day of July, 1857 ; the 13th day of March, the 21st day of June, 1858 ; and the 21st day of January, 1859. POPULATION RETURNS. On the motion of Mr. BRIGHT,. a return showing the population of each county and divi sion o f a county, and of each borough, according to the census of 1851, the num ber of electors, &c , reprinted in June, 1858, was ordered to be again reprinted, but with two additional columns, the ono showing the population in each case according to the census of 1841, and the other showing the computed pro bable population on the completion of the eighth year since the last census —namely, on the 23d of March, 1859, the computation to be made from a comparison of the most recent and authentic materials in the hands of the Registrar- General ; and, in cases where no other materials exist, the computation to be made according to the ratio of the ascer tained annual increase or decrease,' as the case may be, be • tween the population in 1841 and 1851; and the column showing th e num b er of Parliame ntaryvoters in each county and borough to be taken from the meet recent returns Which exist, and to distinguish betwixt the number of "freemen" in boroughs and of other electors, ' SUPPLY. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. That part of the Speech from the Throne requesting sup ply having been read,___ _ Sir S. NORTHCOTE moved that a supply be granted to the Queen. Lord J. RUSSELL - said the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the other night that the time at which the Reform Bill should be introduced— (Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh")—depended upon two other questions. One of those questions related to the naval esti mates. There could be no difficulty in calculating upon what day the Government would be prepared to lay those estimates upon the table, and the right hon. gentleman could probably name upon what day they would be brought under the consideration of the house. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I cannot name a day, but I will ask my right hon. friend to take care that no time shall be lost. The course intended to be taken by the Government with reference to the bill as to the representation had been communicated with perfect frankness to the house, and I think that the question of the noble lord must be taken to be answered by that state ment. (Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL—It was in consequence of that state ment that I put my question. The motion was then agreed to. OCCASIONAL FORMS OF PRAYER BILL. Mr. WALPOLE, on moving the second reading of this bill, said he had discovered that there was another day be sides those he had mentioned on Friday evening on which particular forms of prayer were ordered to be used— namely, the 23d of October, in order to commemorate the day upon which the conspiracy during the siege of Dublin was supposed to have been discovered—(laughter)—and ho had therefore thought it right to include that day in this bill. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HADFIELD said the bill did not go far enough. The Government ought, without further delay, to reform the Book of Common Prayer, and put an end to those dif ferences on religious doctrine and discipline which caused so much division in the Church of England. He asked why should the clergy of the established church be pre cluded from preaching in dissenting places of worship ; and why, on the other hand, should eminent dissenting minis ters be precluded from preaching in p u lpit s o f th e Church of England ? For these reasons he thought the Govern ment ought to allow the house some time to consider the provisions of this bill. He moved as an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day week. Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the amendment. The bill had only that morning been placed in their hands. Members of the Church of England, who took a deep inte-• rest in everything connected with the Prayer-book, ought to have some time afforded them to consider the clauses of the bill. Even if its principle had already been sanctioned, and to a certain extent acted on, yet the Government should allow some time for consideration of the details. Mr. ROEBUCK hoped the house would not require seven days to do an act of absolute common sense. (Hear, hear.) Wore they to stop now to discuss the propriety of abolishing such services as those for the execution of Charles I. and the commemoration of the Gunpowder Plot of Guido Fawkes ? The question did not require a delay of seven minutes, much less seven days. (Hear, hear.) He could not understand at all what his hon. friend and col league (Mr. Hadfield) meant. (Laughter.) The matters he had referred to concerned only those who were members of the Church of England, but his hon. friend always prided himself on being a dissenter. (Hear, hear.) If the Church of England chose to preach 24 hours every day it could be nothing to him. (Laughter.) He hoped the house would deal with the bill like men of common sense. The Govern ment had at last come to the conclusion that these services were unnecessary, and he trusted the bill would be read without delay. (Cries of " Divide 1") Mr. HADFIELD withdrew his amendment ; and The bill was read a second time, to go into committee on Friday. ENDOWED SCHOOLS Mr. DILLWYN moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law respecting endowed schools. He would not go into the details of the measure, as it did not differ essen tially from the bill of last session. Mr. WALPOLE would not oppose the introduction of the measure, but the Government would not be bound to support the bill in all its clauses. Leave was given to bring in the bill. CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in bring ing in a bill amending the present laws concerning super annuations and other allowances to persons having held civil offices in the public service, said,—The measure pro posed on this subject is very similar to, or identical with, the bill of last year. That bill was withdrawn, in conse quence of the great desire expressed that the session should be brought to a close. Notice had then been given of several amendments to the bill; and, as I believe their objects have been generally attained in the present measure, I do not anticipate for it the oppositionthat was expressed to the bill of last session. The house will remember that this subject, the superannuations granted in the civil service of the Crown, has already been investigated by a select committee appointed in 1856; and it is one of such importance that it was also submitted to the investigation of a Royal Com mission, which made its report in March last. The object of the present measure is to embody the recommendations made both by that Royal Commission and the select com mittee of the house. The chief points of difference be tween the proposed bill and the regulations now in exist ence, refer, first, to the duration of the periods of service. Superannuations will now commence at the termination of 10 years, and the full supperannuation allowance will be granted at the end of 40 years. Under the bill, at the end of 60 years any person may be permitted to receive his full superannuation, but at the end of 65 retirement becomes compulsory. This is a condition which we believe will be for the interests alike of the public and of the civil servants. But, as there may be incidental circumstances which may render it advantageous to the Government to invite a por - son who has completed his 65th year still to remain in the public service, and to devote to it those abilities by which he may have been distinguished, power for that object is reserved in the bill. But the most important portion of the bill is the new scheme of superannuation. The existing scale is very defective in many respects. These defects have been pointed out by the Parliamentary committee and the Royal Commission, and the recommendations they have made to remedy them have been embodied in the bill. One of the principal defects of the existing system is, that super annuation being fixed at the end of septennial terms of ser vice, the same pensions are enjoyed by individuals who have really fulfilled very different terms of service. That is re medied in the proposed measure, as the superannuations will be according to the yearly service of the public ser vant. There are provisions in the bill also which refer to the special circumstances of professional men who enter on the public service comparatively late in life, and to regu late the superannuation to which in such circumstances they may be entitled. There is also a provision relative to the judicial service of the country, from which, however, the judges of the superior court are excepted; and there is another provision for compensation in the case of the aboli tion of offices, besides some other provisions of an analo gous character bearing on matters that have not hitherto been satisfactorily settled, having been regulated rather by the discretion of the Treasury than by the sanction of Par liament. (Hear, hear.) I cannot anticipate any objection to the introduction of the bill. I can only further express the hope that it will fulfil all the expectations that have been entertained on this important subject. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WILSON did not rise to offer any opposition to the introduction of the bill, but to make an observation arising out of circumstances which had formerly occurred in connexion with this question. The house would remember that the noble lord the Secretary for Ireland (Lord Naas) brought in a bill 10 years ago on this subject, and it would be remembered that he (Mr. Wilson) on that occasion dis tinctly stated to the house that the effect of abolishing the abatements would be to do away with all distinctions between the public servants in regard to superannuation. The house was aware that by an Order in Council compen sations were accorded to persons employed in dockyards. A great many of the higher class of officers engaged in the dockyards had retired on full salary, but while that had been done many who entered the service at the same time had received superannuation allowances amounting to only one-fourth of their salaries. (Hear.) He knew a case of two men who entered the service on the same day, and who were superannuated on the same day, afterhaving been employed for many years in the same manner, bearing unexception able characters, both having received the thanks of the Admiralty. Oae of these men has been superannuated on an allowance of £740 a year, and the other of £34 a year. (Hear, hear.) That arose from the inequality of the law as it now stood. He contended, however, that, as they had abolished the abatements, they could no longer make any distinction between the public servants. (Hear, hear.) He wished to know from the right hon. gentleman whether the inequality that now existed was to be maintained, or who ther the bill would be made applicable to all alike. It all the public servants were to be made alike he would be con tent, but if not he would at the proper stage move an amend ment to carry out that object. (Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, when the hon. gentleman moved his ameudment he should be better able to deal with it than he could now. He would at present only say, with regard to the dockyard servants, that they were specially provided for by the Admiralty orders. He thought, therefore, it was quite unnecessary that they should be included in the provisions of this bill. Mr. KINGLAKE said the bill of last year gave super annuation allowances to Post-office servants resident in Lon don, but excluded those who lived in the country. The natural result was that much disquiet was caused by the distinction, and he hoped the defect would be remedied in the present session. (Hear, hear.) Sir H. WILLO UGHBY hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would place on the table documents to show what increased charge would fall upon the public in the event of this bill becoming law. If the house legislated on this question at all, they ought to put it upon some intel ligible basis. Those public servants who held high and those who held inferior situations should be treated as far as possible on the same footing. He admitted that with regard to very high political offices, which were generally held upon very brief tenures, some distinction must be drawn. But by the Act of 1834, which regulated these pen sions, any person occupying the post of Secretary of the Treasury, or Secretary of the Admiralty, for a period of five years, was entitled to a superannuation allowance of £1,200 per annum. This was perfectly monstrous, and cal culated to spread dissatisfaction through the entire civil service. Mr. COLLIER believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in error in asserting that the superannuation of dock yard labourers was provided for by certain Admiralty orders ; and if so, he hoped that the right hon. gentleman would reconsider the whole subject. Sir ERSKINE PERRY concurred in the same view, and recommended that all the servants of the Government should be pensioned upon one uniform scale, according to the length of their services and the amounts of their sala ries. Mr. RICH suggested that, as the Chancellor of the Ex chequer would be paying away in superannuations an amount representing a capital of £3,000,000, it might be as well to restore that system of abatements from salaries which was lately abolished at the instance of the supporters of the present Government. Sir F. SMITH trusted that the bill would embody stipula tions by which the dockyard labourers would be protected even against the Admiralty, which was sometimes inclined to be niggardly. These labourers could not possibly save anything from their pay for their old age, and they had therefore the first claim to be ccnsidered in any system of superannuation. Th e CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained that he had referred to the latest copies of the Admiralty orders, which, as they born a date so recent as October last, had not, perhaps, been seen by hon. gentleme n w h o had just spoken. [The right hon. !gentleman then read from t o h n e allowed labourers to in labourersou.dockyards and a artificers.] t were fi the Admiralty order in question a passage referring to the cer s i. n] receipt This of regulated rates of pension.—Leave then ' s s u h P cred nn tha ua t ti bring in the bill. was given to MANOR COURTS, Scq, (IRELAND.) Mr, WHITESIDE, in mo • Yulg for leave to introduce a bill for the abolition of Manor Courts, and for the better recovery of small debts in Ireland, briefly pointed out the evils incident to these tribunals, which were, moreover, now rendered wholly unnecessary by the existence of the. Count y Courts. He proposed to abolish the Manor Courts through out the entire country, more especially as under the County - Court Act the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council had power, whenever a case was made outfor such a proceeding,. to create new circuits for the judges of those courts. The: bill proposed to (rive to magistrates in petty sessions a mita debt jurisdiction to the extent of 205., with an appeal from their decision to a County Court judge. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill. After a few words from Colonel FRENCH, Leave was then given to bring in the bill, which was read a first time. SALE AND TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND.) Mr. WHITESIDE then moved for leave to bring in a bilf - to facilitate the sale and transfer of land, by simplifying and consolidating the law rel a ti ng t o j u d gments, an d b y prov idi r for the prote c ti on o f purc h asers against Crown debts in Ire land. In ancient ti mes a j u d gment did not affect the lan d, but the law in Ireland differed from that in England, and judgments wer e made assignable at law. The result was that when a landow ner wanted moneythe country attorney sent for a stamp, and ass i gne d the j udgment to a friend, who brought the property i n t o Ch ancery, had a rece i ver ap pointed, and accumulated costs upon the estate. In 1835 Sir M. O'Loughlen introduced an act which gave power to creditors, instead of taking a moiety, to apply for a receiver over the whole of the debtor's estate. The result was that the country was covered with receivers, and greater evils were produced than those which were sought to be reme= died.- The next act, the 3d and 4th of Victoria, known as Piggott's Act, extended the lien from freehold estates to leaseholds for terms of years, so that leasehold estates be came complicated as well as freeholds. In 1849 one of the best committees that ever sat was appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into the receiver system. This com mittee evidently doubted whether there ought to be so much facility given for Irish gentlemen to get into debt. They were, however, told by the lawyers that Ireland was not ripe for the remedy which was clearly in the minds of the committee. They therefore recommended some pallia tives, and said it might be necessary to have an entire change of system. The evidence taken by that committee conclusively proved that a more mischievous sy'stem than the then existing system of judgments and receivers it was impossible to imagine. The 12th and 13th of Victoria,. endeavoured to carry out so me o f th e recommen d a tions 0f the committee, and in one of the clauses of that act he found the solution of the present difficulty. This clause provided that where the judgment did not exceed £l5O it should net be a lien upon the land. If the principle were geed, why should it not be adopted, whatever the amount ? Sir John Homily, in the 13th and 14th of Victoria, sought to cure the evils still existing from the state of the law in Ireland, but his measure also produced greater evils than it found. To the policy of the first part of his bill he entirely sub scribed. Sir J. Romilly said that the evils caused by the law relating to judgments in Ireland were of two descrip tions one due to the management of the land, the other as to the power of disposing of it. It was peculiar - to Ireland that a judgment creditor might, without notice to the debtor, go to the office for registering deeds and file an affidavit to the effect that the debtor had land in a certain county. The affidavit was considered to place the parties in theposition of granter and grantee. The affidavit was turned into a deed, and then it could be turned into a mortgage. The act was therefore called the Judg ment Mortgage Act. It was supposed that such a judg ment creditor had a veritable mortgage ; but that turned out not to be the case, and recent decisions gave him only the position of a judgment creditor. These decisions made the act worth nothing ; and he proposed to repeal it and all other acts upon the subject, simply enacting that no judg ment should be a lien upon land until equitable execution was sued out, in the shape of a petition in the Landed Estates Court for the sale of the debtor's property against whom there was a claim. He had, no doubt, said enough to induce the house to grant him permission to introduce a bill. (Cheers.) Mr. M'EVOY wished to know when the right hon. gen tleman would introduce a Landlord and Tenant Bill. ,• Mr. DOBBS concu rre d th a t i t was, necessary to reined/ the chaotic state of the law as to judgments. ' Mr. MALINS congratulated the Government on intro ducing so useful a measure for Ireland, and expressed a hope that the same principle would be extended to England. There was no more reason why a judgment should be a lien upon a man's land than upon his household furniture. A judgment ought not to bind the land until a suit was insti tuted, or, at all events, execution sued out. (Hear, hear.) Leave was then given to introduce the bill, which was subsequently read a first time. RECEIVERS IN CHANCERY (IRELAND). Mr. WHITESIDE, i n r i s i ng t o move f or l eave t o intro duce a bill for the abolition of receivers under the Court of • Chancery in Ireland, said, in reference to the question of • the hon. member for Meath, that he would appoint a day for . bringing i n th e L an dl or d and Tenant B i ll when he return ed from Ireland, where he was obliged to go for a few days. With regard to the present bill there had been so many cora ' mittees and they had all so unanimously condemned the sys" tern of appointing receivers that he did not apprehend any difficulty in obtaining permission to legislate on the subject. There were at present 1,100 receivers in the office of the Receiver Master, besides 200 or 300 others in the offices of the other Masters. The effect of the system had been to complicate the land of Ireland to an enormous extent, with out effecting any good in return, and its abolition would be - a great boon to landed property. The bill would provide that no receiver should be appointed where a party could obtain a sale. Of course, there would be certain exceptions, but they would be very few. Leave was then given to bring in the bill, which was subsequently read a first time. MARKETS (IRELAND). Lord NAAS obtained leave to introduce a;bill for the Re' gulation of Markets in Ireland. He said the measure was, in many reepects, similar to the bill introduced by his pre: decessor last year, but in one important respect it differed from it. It did not propose to deal with the question of fairs. These fairs were not held so frequently as the mar kets, and it would be almost impossible to provide sufficient enclosed space for them. Tolls, too, had been abolished at most of the fairs, and any attempt to reimpose them would be most unpopular. Th e same necessity for legislation did not seem to exist in the case of fairs. The bill proposed to appoint a commissioner and assistant-commissioner, whose duty it should be to regulate the markets. LUNATIC POOR (IRELAND) BILL. Lord NAAS moved for leave to bring in a bill to consoli date and amend the laws relating to the lunatic poor in Ire land. In 1856 a commission was appointed to inquire into the state and circumstances connected with the asylums for the lunatic poor in Ireland. These gentlemen, after examin ing a great number of persons, published a report and other documents, in which would be found all the information ne cessary to a complete acquaintance with the subject. The bill which he proposed to bring in would, in a great mea sure, carry out the recommendations of the commissioners, although it would not go to the extent suggested by those gentlemen. The bill would not include the private lunatic asylums in its provisions, but would be confined to asylums for the lunatic poor. The main feature of his bill would be the introduction of local supervision and control in respect to these asylums, instead of placing them under the direo tion of the executive of Ireland, as they were by the exist ing law. The effect of the existing system, owing to the want of proper control, was that a number of costly build ings had been erected in various parts of Ireland for the confinement of the lunatic poor, and great dissatisfaction had been created in those parts of the country, where the asylums had been erected on account of the expense created by the erection of these buildings. It was determined that this system should cease, and in lieu thereof he proposed to substitute a committee of visitation for the several localities in which asylums were erected, who would have power to give directions for the erection and repairing and general management of the several asylums, and these committees should emanate from the grand juries of the several comi ties in Ireland, and they would have the appointment of the inspectors and other officers connected with the institutions, and would also direct what was to be the amount of the sa laries to be paid to the officers. The commissioners, to whom he had already alluded, recommended that a general cen tral board should be formed in Dublin, who would have the entire control of the asylums in question. Now, he could not agree with this, as ho looked with distrust upon all such bodies. He proposed by his bill to define the duties of the several persons to be appointed under the bill, and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would have power to see that the several provisions of the bill would be carried out in respect to the appointments to be made under the bill. The noble lord then referred to the present mode of ad mission of pauper lunatics into lunatic asylums, which he looked upon as defective, and he proposed to throw on the Poor-law relieving officer the responsibility of seeing to the admission of a pauper lunatic into the local asylum, either by bringing him before the magistrate, or by taking the magistrate to the poor man, with a view to the necessary order being given for the admission of the lunatic into the asylum. He also gave power in the bill to remove all lunatics from workhouses and gaols to the asylum, as he conceived that nothing could be worse than to keep such persons in either gaols or workhouses. It appeared that there were at present 3,823 poor lunatics in district asylums in Ireland, 1,700 in the workhouses, 150 in the gaols, and 3,000 at large all over the country. Now, he proposed to give power to the committees having the direction of the asylums in question, to admit a certain class of lunatic patients into the asylums upon paying a certain sum for their care; and he further empowered the committee, • they found that patients had property, to make the property liable for their support and medical care. The bill would repeal all previous acts on this subject. It would be a corn- • plete code, in which all persons engaged in or with the asy lums—from the inspector down to the humblest officer — will find all their duties defined and stated, so that there would be no difficulty hereafter in reference to these points. He begged to move for leave to bring in the bill in question. Mr. BAGWELL was favourable to the principle of the bill, but doubted the policy of having the controlling com mittees of the asylums selected from the grand juries. Lord NAAS, in answer to the objection taken, thought it would be better to leave the appointment of the officers of those institutions to the representatives of those who paid for them. Mr. M'EVOY thought it would be improper to leave the whole of the appointments in the hands of grand ju r ies. He approved of the view taken by the noble lord who in troduced the bill. Leave was then given'to introduce the bill. HIGHWAYS IN ENGLAND. Mr. HARDY moved for leave to bring in a bill fbr.the better management of highways in England. Mr. PHILLIPS suggested that the bill should contain a definition of what a highway is. Leave was then given to bring in the bill, and it was read a first time. TRAMWAYS IN IRELAND. Sirß. FERGUSON obtained leave to bring in a bill to facili tate internal communication in Ireland by means of tram roads or tramways. The house adjourned at ten minutes to eight. LONDON : Printed and Published by MI.TRDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in. the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlesex, Tuesday, February 8, 1859, •