The Sun. — London, England, 1860-07-17 00:00:00

:THE SUN, :LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JITLY 17 1860 has been made upon China, which ought to result in a fur ther payment from her resources and in aid of ours. (A laugh.) lam not surprised that that statement should be received by the committee in a manner to show that they are not sanguine as to the general principle ; and I confess that if they were any great middleman who would under take to deal with us upon those terms—that we should make over to him entirely and bodily the whole of the com pensation that we expected, both retrospective and prospec tive, from China, and that he, on his part, in consideration of that, should undertake whatever future charge may arise on account of the war, over and above what has be stated to the house and is known to the Government --I en think that financially we might perhaps do very well to close with such an offer. But, at any rate, a portion of the sums are actually due by the treaty of Tien-twin, and they constitute an element in the case that ought not to beput out of view. The sum which we propose to raise by taxes, out of the / 1 2,336,000 that is required, will amount to about one mil lion of money ; and the mode in which we propose to raise it is, by an immediate addition to the duty upon ardent spirits. (Hear, hear.) I will not enter fully into all the con siderations applicable to that duty, but I will state at once that the amount of addition we contemplate is an addition of ls. 11d. per gallon on the various descriptions of ardent spirits which are chargeable either under excise or under customs; and that the effect of the measure will be to leave British spirits liable to a duty of 10s. a gallon, colonial spirits to a duty of 10s. 2d., and foreign spirits, generally speaking, to a duty of 103. sd. per gallon. Those duties will be particularly enumerated in the resolutions which it will be my business to place in the hands of the chairman. In proposing to the committee this augmentation of the duty upon spirits, her Majesty's Government set out from what they conceive to le the recognised and established, as well as the sound and healthy principle of taxation in regard to that particular commodity. That principle they conceive and understand to be this, that it is a commodity out of the consumption of which you ought to levy the maximum of ob tainable revenue. (Hear, hear.) It differs from other com modities in this : when you deal, for example, with the arti cle of tea or sugar, your object is to promote the consump tion as much as possible consistently with obtaining the re venue you want—(hear, hear) —but when you approach the article of spirits, that rule is precisely inverted, and your object rather is to limit the consumption of the article as far as possible, but always subject to the same condition, which I will by-and-bye consider—namely, consistently with obtaining the money you want. For it is a mistake to suppose that by the mere increase of duty you can con tinue ad libitum to increase the proceeds. The question is —how much can you get, what duty will the article bear without diminishing the proceeds of the duty either by adulteration or illicit distillation. That is a question neces sarily and under all the circumstances one of doubt, and more or less of difficulty; yet, still it is one that does not altogether deny the calculations of the prudent and experi enced persons who have charge of these great branches of the public revenue. The real question is, then, can we get the money ? Upon that subject, it would be unfair, con sidering the difficulty of the case, to say that even the most experienced or the most able public officers can give an opinion upon which any absolute reliance can be placed. But taking a calm and impartial view of the present state of the trades connected with the production and sale of spirits, and endeavouring to draw a fair inference from the important experience of the last seven years, the conclusion at which the Government arrived, borne out and sustained in that conclusion by the assistance of their proper advisers, is that there is no reason why the committee should not now proceed to that which has long been looked upon as the natural term and close of our legislation in regard to the duty upon spirits, and at once tax it at the rate of 10s. a gallon. That is not the highest duty that has been at any time im y osed. So late as 1823 a duty of between lls. and 12s. was charged upon spirits in England. That duty was too high, and smuggling was increased. It was then reduced to 7s. It was then increased to Bs., and at that duty it has stood for 40 years. Public opinion has become more adverse to illicit distillation; since that the efficiency of the revenue department is greater than it then was. What has taken place in Ireland is full of instruction on this paint, even more so than what took place in Scotland. In 1842 an ad dition of only ls. per gallon was made on Irish spirits; but that addition was found to stimulate smug gling to such an extent that it was found necessary to re peal the act in 1843. But when a similar experiment was repeated in 1853 not only was it not attended by a similar failure, but it was followed by a further increase in 1854, and a further one in 1855. Subsequent augmentations took place, till at last the duty was equalised with that of Great Britain. Thus in the short space of five years, between 1853 and 1858, the duty was carried from 2s. Bd. per gallon to Bs. per gallon without giving any stimulus to illicit dis tillation. When we speak on this subject, Ireland is naturally looked upon as the peccant part of the empire, and attention is directed to that quarter. The case of Ire land with regard to illicit distillation is this :—The system of distillation has improved ; more capital, more skill, and more machinery have been applied to it. The views of those who produce spirits are much more directed to extend the trade in spirits as a great article of merchandise than to local and partial supply. But above all, this important point is to be taken into consideration, in addition to the great change which has taken place in the social condition of Ireland, and the general demand for labour—that the duty of securing collection of the revenue has been trans ferred for the last five of six years to that most efficient body, the Irish constabulary, who, with the greatest intel • ligence, the greatest fidelity, and a strength tenfold that of the revenue police, have conducted this important business in the most satisfactory and effective man ner. (Hear, hear.) These are the considerations which have induced the Government to believe that there is nothing as respects illicit distillation in any one of the three coun tries which should prevent them from carrying the duty to the point I have named. But loss may arise from adulte ration or dilution. Dilution is, I believe, normal in the spirit trade. (Laughter.) In ordinary public-houses and spirit shops it is not, I believe, too much to say that there is hardly such a thing as the sale of spirit perfectly pure as they get it from the distillery. (" Hear, hear," and laugh ter.) Even if that were an exaggerated statement, which any gentleman may feel himself bound on the part of any one of his constituents to resent—(laughter)---there is not the slightest question that dilution has a tendency to in crease as the duty is increased—(hear)—and for that I have made a just and fair deduction. But the clearest argument which I can use to show that what we propose is .practi cable, and will produce the result anticipated, is by show ing that for the last three years, that is, both before the equalisation of the Irish duty and ever since, the further increase of duty has been confidently anticipated by the trade. The mode of showing this is by the increase in the deliveries that has preceded in those years the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. We have had considerable deliveries of tea and sugar, when these duties were increased, and we find that a simitar re sult has taken place with regard to spirits. • In 1858 the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) made his fin ancial statement on the 19th of April, and between the Ist and 19th of April there was an increased delivery of spirits from bond, which yielded, as compared with the correspond ing period of the former year—an excess of duty of no less than £250,000. The spirit duty is so high that this excess of delivery itself constituted a considerable charge, and there fore it was not a measure to which the persons engaged in the business would resort unless there was a serious probability that the Government and Parliament would put on a higher duty. The case of 1858 was an Irish case. But in 1859 there was no such element. The duties in the :three coun tries were equal, and it was confidently believed by those who were interested that when equalization had been established increased duty would necessarily be the next step. The financial statement was made on the 18th of July, and between the Ist and the 16th there was an excess of delivery of spirits from bond, as compared with the corresponding period of the previous year, which yielded an augmentation of revenue to an extent of not less than £287,000. But the financial experience of the present year furnishes a still more pregnant illustration. The financial statement of 1860 was made on the 10th of February, and during the three weeks ending the 10th of February there was an augmentation of delivery of spirits from bond, which yielded an increase of • revenue as compared with the corresponding period of the former year, to the extent of £554,000. This constitutes the solid foundation of the measure which we praises 3. At the same time when we have estimated that the measure will yield an increase of £1,000,000 in the year, I must remind the committee that there are some special causes of uncer tainty—special to the article, and not connected with the general topics to which I have just referred—by which it is affected. First of all, it is only in the present y ear that fo reign spirits have been admitted into real competition with spirits of British origin, and at so early a date after the change we cannot yet say that they have found their equili brium in the market. Again, there is the competition with wine. No doubt that will stand upon a different footing hereafter from any upon which it has stood in former years, and, lastly, there is the competition of that article, in which so many gentlemen, especially on the opposite slue of the house, take so lively and tender an interest—malt liquor. whenever an increased duty has been placed upon spirits, it a been found to stimulate the proceeds of the malt uut Y• In Scotland, and more particularly in Ireland, th em _ s been a considerable augmentation in the con sum ila tion. of b than 't beer, which is traceable to no other cause s greater cheapness than spirits in consequence of recent lep;isi a c, ties on the face t3 f n. These, however, are rather uncertain ties case than in the substance, because you gat on ono the account what you lose on the other. If the committee t the proposition of the Go vernment it will be necessary ad" to introduce a small modifica tion of the Wine Duty Act, so . as to guard against the frau dulent introduction of spirit s :1 8 1 t a i , m pe tt o e f t w h i i n s e d . 111, 1 will l n ew state to the committee wit'anttvi: duce The increase of ls. 11d. whi c h . pro • we propose on tish spirits may be taken, at a fair an d rooder te estimate, if we made no allowance for diminution of con s umption, amountptien, at £2,250,000. Th at is without taking into view h derivable from the in crease on foreign and colon ial spirits. But we must allow for some diminution of consum ption in consequence of the increa se of duty, which will have th e effect of adding perhaps something like 20 per cent, or nearly so to the price. Instead, therefore, of assuming an augmentation of £2,250,000, I shall only assume an aug mentation of £ 1,000,000 from the increase of t hee e excise duty on British spirit, which is making an allowan of 10 or 11 per cent, for diminished consumption. £1,000,000 would be the yield of this increase if we were dealing with the whole financial year, but I must remind the com mittee that I am speaking on the 16th July, when three and-a-half months of the financial year have passed away, to which we must add about six weeks more, because the practice of the revenue department is to charge the revenue in one six weeks, and to raise it in the next. Looking to what will come into the Exchequer before the Ist of next April, in consequence of this measure, and assuming that for the whole year it will be £1,000,000, I only take credit for £650,000. To this, however, we must make an important addition from the compensating duty on foreign and colo nial spirits, which lestimate at £400,000, making altogether £1,050,000. This, then, is the addition to the taxes of the country which we propose to meet the expenses of the war with China, but which we propose to be permanent in its character, because we believe it to be sound and salutary in itself, which it has been expected parliament would adopt, and with regard to which the only difference for some years past has been as to the precise moment when it could be adopted consistently with safety and prudence. Of the £2,336,000 which was not provided for, I have now provided by the increase of the spirit duties for £1,050,000, leaving a sum of £1,286,000 still to be provided for. That sum we propose to provide for without any further increase to the taxation of the country. (Hear, hear.) The balances in the Exchequer aro in so satisfactory a state that they will admit of the withdrawal of that, or even, if necessary, a greater sum. (Hear, hear.) The surplus so wisely provided ferby thehouse is of course available under the provisions of thelaw, in addi tion:to the balance of the present year. The proper course is to apply any part of this balance when the taxation of the year is insufficient,rather than to go through the operose and need less double process, first of all of applying a snm of money in extinction of the debt, and then going into the market to I contract a new debt. The state of the balances is as fol lows :—On the first of April the balances in the Exchequer, which, as the committee should be aware, by no means represented the whole of the public deposits in the Bank, but only those on the consolidated fund, were £7,972,000. On the 30th of June they were reduced to £6,594,000. But that sum did not represent a real reduction. It was due to the fact that the collection of the income tax is by no means equable in the four quarters of the financial year, for it comes in very lightly in the first and third, but heavily in the second and fourth quarters, and as we are now coming into one of the heavy quarters, I anticipate that the balances on the 30th of September will be better than they were on the 30th of June. Looking therefore to the demands on ac count of the public service, and the drain for the Chinese war, and to the supplies in the treasury chest, I feel no hesitation in stating to the committee that it will not be necessary to take any special measures beyond what I have indicated to meet this expenditure, as the proceeds of the last year's revenue will enable us to defray it without diffi culty or inconvenience. If necessary the demand upon the balances could be carried to a sum of about £2,000,000. It will be requisite to apply to Parliament before the close of the session for power to re-borrow in some form or other £1,000,000, now outstanding in exchequer bonds which will fall due in November next, but no inconvenience can attend that transaction. If circumstances are favourable we may not find it necessary to re-borrow the whole of that sum, but if even we should be obliged to do so we can easily con duct the operation with the Commissioners for the Reduc tion of the National Debt. Of course it will be necessary for me on this, as on former occasions, to ask the house for a vote. The purport of that vote is well understood. It does not in any way bind the discretion of the committee or the house, but it secures the charge of duty on the com modity, so that the revenue may suffer no loss. On the present occasion we must do with regard to the customs what we do with regard to the excise, because if we were to impose an excise duty of 10s. now, and were not to impose a similar duty on foreign and colonial spirits till next week, for the week after there would be an immense delivery of foreign and colonial sririts. The further resolutions to be afterwards proposed stand in a different category, and have long been under the conside ration of the house. But on the present proposal, in con formity with the usual practice, I ask for an immediate vote. Of course, this is without binding the discretion of the house, and the Government will appoint a convenient day for the discussion of the details of the measure. But there is another subject connected with the expenditure and charge on the country which has not yet been brought be fore Parliament—l mean the vote for fortifications—(hear, hear) —which has remained up to the present time without explanation, and with regard to which, of course, the house will be desirous to know the intentions of the Government. What I have to say on that subject is, that though it could not be conveniently combined with the very difficult and heterogeneous matter I have now been dealing with, yet it is the intention of her Majesty's Government, and of my noble friend at the head of her Majesty's Government, that he should explain the ' mode in which he proposes to apply that sum of money which has been reserved for the vote for fortifications, and likewise the intentions they entertain with respect to the report of the commissioners that has recently been published, upon :an evening which he will select, antecedently to the day when the house will be asked to give a decisive vote on the proposals now submitted to them. All I need now say is, that, so far as the intentions of the Government are concerned, if the house shall accede to the proposals we have made, it is not our intention to make any further de mand on the taxation of the country for the services of the present year. (Cheers.) I have only to thank the house for the manner in which they have heard me. Mr. VANCE said that as he represented a city in which the manufacture of spirits was more extensively carried on than in any other in the United Kingdom, he would admit that there ought to be no limit to the taxation on ardent spirits, until it reached an amount which would defeat its own object, but he believed that an addition of is. lid. a gallon on Irish spirits would effect that, for there would be an enormous increase of the illicit manufacture, and the consumption of duty-paid spirits weed fall far short of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated. A few years ago the duty on Irish spirits was only 2s. Bd. a gallon, and it had been gradually augmented, till now it was to be 10s. a gallon. This was a favourable time for doing justice to the home trade in spirits. If they had been placed in bond, the duty was levied on the number of gallons which the casks contained originally when it entered the Queen's stores, whilst foreign spirits, when taken out of bond, were only charged on the actual amount the casks contained at the time of taking them out. The allowances for leakage and evaporation of home-made spirits were much smaller than the actual amount of waste. Mr. CRAWFORD said it would be convenient if the right hon. gentleman Would state what alterations of the new wine duties would be necessary, in consequence of the increase in the spirit duties he now proposed. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked whether it was the in tention of the Government to make any advance on the vote for fortifications in the present year ? Perhaps the noble lord would explain that matter, with respect to which opinion out of doors was very much embarrassed. Was it intended to spend more money than the ordinary vote for fortifications this year ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was afraid he had not expressed himself quite clearly about the fortifi cation vote. 'What he meant to say was this—that his noble friend would himself, before the house or the committee were called upon to give a decisive vote, at a further stage of these proceedings, with regard to the provision for the expedition to China, explain both the disposal which the Government proposed to make of the sum that had been re ceived in a lump as a vote for fortifications, and likewise the course which they proposed to take, and the proposals they would submit, in consequence of the report presented by the Fortification Commissioners. To that he had appended this further statement, that it was not their intention to make any further demand on the people of this country for taxes during the present year. (Cheers and laughter.) That was the position in which he thought it best for him to leave the matter at present. His hon. friend behind him had asked what addition it would be necessary to make to the wine duties if they adopted the 10s. spirit duty. There would be no change whatever in the wine duties at the pre sent moment ; the 3s. duty now leviable would remain without change until the Ist of January, because that was a duty which caused no apprehension of the spirit duty being impaired by it. But he thought it probable that to some limited extent an augmentation might afterwards be proposed, perhaps as follows :—ln the ls. duty, on wine of less than 18 per cent proof strength, there would be no change. In the ls. Gd. duty, on wine above 18 per cent. proof strength, and under 25 per cent., the Government would be obliged to propose an additional 2d. or 3d. per gal. In the 2s. duty, on wine between 25 and 40 per cent. proof strength, there might be an addition of either 4d. or sd.per gal. This was the proposal which probably would be made. The matter to which the hon. member for Dublin (Mr. Vance) had referred was one of the importance of which the Govern ment were quite aware, and they had under consideration at this moment various points connected with the more just and equitable adjustment of the excise regulations in favour of the distillers, which was the natural consequence of their being subject for the first time to a real foreign competition. He was sure the Government would be desirous to deal with the matter in an equitable and even liberal spirit. Mr. M. SMITH did not understand the right hon. gen tleman's statement about the balances in the Exchequer, when there were deficiency bills to the amount of £1,500,000 issued in the month of July. • Sir C. NAPIER said the right hon. gentleman had told the house that he would raise no more money this year by way of taxation. Ho wished to ask how the money for the fortifications was to be got, and whether it was to be by loan. In answer to Mr. WILLIAMS, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said in further explanation that foreign spirits would remain ex actly in the same relative position as they now were. The duty on colonial spirits would stand at 10s. 2d. a gallon, the duty on foreign at 10s. sd. The hon. gentleman behind (Mr. Smith) had been misled by what appeared on the face of the quarterly return. No doubt the sum of £1,500,000 of deficiency bills would nominally be issued, in conformity with the Act of Parliament ; but so far as he could judge he believed that no amount would really be borrowed on deficiency bills, and no interest would have to be paid on them for the present quarter. The gallant admiral had asked him whether the sum for fortifications would be provided for by a loan, so that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was invited to tell the secret of his noble friend, and to spoil all the interest of the debate which was to arise on that question. But he ahould not commit such en error as to anticipate that statement. (Oh, and laughter.) Sir S. NORTHCOTE asked from what period the draw back would be allowed, and whether it was from the 31st of March last ? Mr. T. BARING hoped the noble lord (Palmerston) would not keep his secret too long, if he proposed a loan for the fortifications, as it would be very prejudicial to business in the City to prolong any uncertainty about it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was glad that a question had been put as to the drawback. The fact was that in estimating, on the 10th February last, the pro bable charge on the country for what remained of the finan cial year, he took £350,000 on account of wine drawback, but that sum was provided for out of the revenue of last year, and formed no charge on the revenue of the present year. ,That sum was not, however, actually obtained out of the revenue of last year before the expiration of the year, because the Government had not obtained Parliamentary authority to pay the drawback, and it could not be done until the present quarter. Almost all the payments had now been made, though a limited number were still, outstand ing. The whole charge on the public in respect of draw back, as the cost of effecting this great operation of the re duction of the duties, would be under £200,000, instead of £350,00D, which had been expected. Lord FERMOY thought the distillers were a body of men not quite justly dealt with. He also regretted that the right hon. gentleman availed himself so quietly of the paper duty granted to him by the other house of Parlia ment. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman was not behaving fairly towards those who maintained that the question of the breach of privilege of the House of Commons had not yet been settled, and who contended that the bill for the repeal of the paper duty ought to be sent back to the House of Lords. The amount of the paper duty should have been allowed to remain as a surplus until the House of Commons had expressed a positive opinion on the question. Mr. E. BALL observed with, regret that the right hon. gentleman adhered to the design of abridging the period allowed to raaltsters for payment of their duty, and that he reckoned upon £700,000 from that source. The CHANCELLOR of theEXCHEQUEßrepliedthat the question of the malt credit remained now exactly where it was in February. The maltsters would rather derive a benefit from an augmentation of the spirit duties than suffer from it, and so their position was not worse, but somewhat better. In answer to the noble lord (Fermoy)he would say that he had endeavoured in his statement just now to do his duty and to prejudice nobody—tc; prejudice no- opinion. As a member of that house, whenever the question at issue;with the House of Lords should come on for debate, he (Mr. Gladstone) would be quite ready to enter into it, and speak his own opinion without disguise. But it was not for him, on every incidental occasion, to be bearding a branch of the legislature for which he entertained a sincere respect, or to be continually referring to his own individual opinion. He had been careful to say that theie would be this money available, if it should be the pleasure of the house to retain the paper duty, and in that matter his conscience was free. (Hear, hear.) 1 Mr. GRIFFITH observed that it was a mere figure of speechfor the right hon. gentleman to say that he allowed any latitude as to the course to be taken with the paper duty, and his proposals now did in fact extinguish the ques tion upon which he talked with so much ardour and elo quence the other night. Mr. HORSMAN asked whether the house would hear that night, from the noble lord the Prime Minister, when the subject of the fortifications was to be brought on? Would it be on Thursday next ? Lord PALMERSTON replied that he could not at pre sent state when it would be, but he would take an early opportunity of doing se. The resolutions were then agreed to. EXCISE LICENSES FOR WINES AND SPIRITS. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the following resolution :—" That, towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty, the 12th section of the act passed in the sixth year of the reign of King George IV., chap. 81, which enacts that it shall not be necessary for any person or persons to take out an excise license for the sale of any foreign goods or commodities, for the sale of which in any manner an excise license is required, whilst such goods or commodities shall be and remain in the warehouse or ware houses in which the same shall have been deposited, lodged, or secured according to law before payment of duty upon the importation thereof, shall not extend to exempt any person from liability to take out an excise license for the sale of any foreign wine or spirits." Mr. HANBURY said he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not press this resolution, because it really was not understood. Merchants were not in the habit of importing wines and spirits which went into the Custom house, and had nothing at all to do with the excise, and it was not necessary for them to take out an excise license. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said this proposition was necessary in the view of those who had given their attention to this subject. Up to the present day there had been but a slight competition between the ordinary established Ville and spirit merchants of England and a class of persons who went about the country as agents to foreign houses, and dealt in wines and spirits which were in bond, or who were agents for British houses perhaps, but who always dealt in articles in bond. Now that they were about probably to have a sharp competition in these articles, it was absolutely necessary to remove that anomaly and re quire that every one who dealt in an article in bond should be liable to pay the same excise duty as those who dealt in the same articles not in bond. He now came to the ques tion of the West India importers of rum, and he considered they were favoured to the extent of a penny a gallon, nay, he was not sure that they were not favoured to the extent of three-pence—(laughter)—and he advised them not to move in the matter. The resolution was then agreed to. MALT CREDIT. The following resolution was then agreed to :—" That towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty, the time limited for payment of the duty of excise on malt by every maltster or maker of malt who shall have given security in the manner directed by the act passed in that behalf, in re spect of all malt begun to be made on or after the first day of October, 1860, shall be six weeks in lieu of twelve weeks after the making of such account or return of duty as in the said act is mentioned." fall in the value of the stock. The clause, however, gave a guarantee to the creditors that the Government would be responsible for any such loss—a principle which he thought highly objectionable. Mr. CAYLEY characterised the proposition to saddlethe public with the less arising from an investment made for the advantage of the creditors as altogether monstrous, and said he was disposed to take the sense of the committee upon the clause. Mr. VANCE contended that when the general bank ruptcy fund got the benefit of the interest, as he believed it did, the creditors ought in justice to be protected from any fall in the price of stock. Mr. BARROW opposed the clause. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the clause was word for word the same as the existing law on the subject, which had been in operation for some years. The real facts were these :—The accountant in bankruptcy had always a large floating balance to his credit, and the portion of it which he found it necessary to invest yielded an annual income of about £40,000. That sum of £40,000 was applied for the benefit of the Court of Bankruptcy, and was one of the chief sources of revenue which enabled him to abolish the onerous fees and impositions which were new charged to suitors. He therefore contended that as the profit was taken by the public, and applied to public purposes, the public was bound to guarantee the parties entitled to the money from all possibility of any deficiency. There was no likeli hood, however, that the Government would be called upon to sustain any loss in consequence of the guarantee. Mr. BOUVERIE thought the hon. and learned gentle man was wrong in supposing that the whole of the profits of the investment were applied for the benefit of the public. The creditors were the parties onlyinterested in their appli cation. The Attorney. General had treated the matter as if it were a question of the administration of justice between man and man ; it was a mere question of distribution of bankrupts' estates among the creditors, and the proper parties to pay the expenses of that operation were the cre ditors themselves. Mr. LONGFIELD maintained that the Court of Bank ruptcy was for the administration of justice, in the highest sense of the word. The clause was supported by Mr. MURRAY and Mr MALINS. The committee then divided on the clause, and the num. bers were : For the clause Against The clause was then agreed to. Clauses 133 and 134 were agreed to. Upon clause 135, which regulates the amount of compere sation to retiring commissioners, Mr. PAGET moved an amendment substituting for the " full amount" of salary for retiring allowances to the com missioners, " two-thirds" of the amount. Mr. BAZLEY seconded the amendment. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the rule inva riably adopted hitherto by the House of Commons was that if an official position was taken away from an officer on public grounds, he was entitled to the full amount of his salary. Not to dwell upon considerations arising from the sacred rights of property, the committee would be guilty of great inconsistency if they adopted this amendment. He earnestly hoped that the committee would not introduce a new rule on this subject, which would be dangerous and disastrous in its results. Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that the principle laid down by the hon. and learned gentleman was quite new. He de nied that there was any contract between the public and these gentlemen. It seemed as though lawyers were to be placed under a different rule than other men. He remem bered the abolition of the six clerks. He proposed on that occasion that the retiring allowance of those gentlemen should be £7OO a-year, but they were allowed to take away with them £6,000 or £7,000a -year from the public treasury. Mr. BOUVERIE said he thought the hon. and learned Attorney-General put the illustration a little too high when he compared these gentlemen's salaries to private property. (Hear.) But with regard to the justice of the case these five commissioners had served the country for some 28 years, they were still capable of giving their ser vices to the public, and they had a right to suppose that whilst they were competent to act, they would receive their full salaries. Besides, as a matter of expediency, he thought the interests of the public service would be best consulted by treating gentlemen in the position of these commis sioners with liberality. The committee then divided — For the amendment 43 Against it The clause was then agreed to. On clause 136, Mr. HENLEY wished to know what was the sum in gross that would become a permanent charge on the conso lidated fund under this clause. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he believed the sum paid over for the use of the Insolvent Debtors Court under Act of Parliament was about £4,500 a-year. It was not intended to enlarge that obligation, but as the Insolvent Debtors Court was to be absorbed in the new Court of Bankruptcy, the object in this clause was me rel y to direct i the sum of money now payable out of the consolidated fund to the Insolvent Court should be paid over for the benefit of the amalgamated jurisdiction. After a short discussion, Mr. HENLEY suggested the postponement of the clause until all the other monetary matters of the bill were settled. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL agreed to postpone the objectionable part of the clause, and embody it in a new clause to be brought up at a future day. The clause was then agreed to. Clause 137, which provides that the Chief Judge of tie new court shall have a retiring allowance of two• thirds of his salary after fifteen years service, was also agreed to. On clause 138, giving allowances to retiring officers, Mr. BOUVERIE proposed to insert the words, " after twelve years' service." After a conversation, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL consented to the limit of seven years' service; and the clause as amended was agreed to. Clause 139 was agreed to. Clause 140 was postponed. Clauses 141 to 149 were agreed to. Upon clause 150, which provides that the sittings of the Chief Court, and the London District Court should be held at Basinghall-street, Sir F. KELLY, referring to clause 31, in connexion with this clause, asked whether it was intendef to change the localities where at present the County Court judges held their courts. Mr. MALINS hoped that it was not intended the chief judge should sit at Basinghall-street, for many of the abuses of the present system arose from the court being held there away from all the other courts of law. (Hear.) If the court were transferred from Basinghell-street to Lincoln's inn or Westminster, it would be a great advantage in it self. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would prefer that the chief judge should sit at Westminster until the great scheme which he hoped would be considered in the next session of Parliament should hi carried out, whereby proper buildings for all the courts would be erected upon the plot of ground north of the Strand and Temple-bar. Probably the .London District Court could be held at Basinghall-street. In answer to the hon. and learned member for Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly), he could say that there was no intention to change the localities where County Courts were now held. Mr. JAMES thought the Attorney-General could never have visited Basinghall-street, or he never would have thought of recommending that any judge should sit there. A more unworthy place for the administration of justice could not be imagined. Mr. VANCE agreed that Basinghall-street was an unfit place, but hoped that if any other place was intended to be selected it would be mentioned in the bill, otherwise there was no security that any change would be made. The clause was agreed to, and also clause 151. Upon clause 152, which abolishes the distinction between traders and non-traders, Mr. HENLEY moved an amendment for the purpose of raising the important question whether this great change should or should not take place. He would state to the committee two or three classes of persons who would be in juriously affected by it. It was most unjust by retrospec tive action to place some persons in a position of advantage and others in a position of amazing disadvantage, which was never contemplated when the parties contracted. A man's father might have died 20 or 30 ye ars ago, leaving an estate chargeable with various amounts, and that man, as was commonly the practice, might have raised money by mortgage on the property to pay off his brothers and sisters. It was a debt, because the man covenanted with the mortgagee to repay the money , a s well a s pledging the land for it ; but it was a debt totally different in its nature from liabilities to his butcher and baker, because the credi tor had a special security in the land for payreont. There were cycles, as in 1847 and 1857, when money was hardly to be obtained at all, and, if obtained, only at a most extra vagant rate of interest. A person in the situation which he had described might be called upon in such times of pressure to pay off his debt. If he did not it was proposed that judgment might be recovered, and he might be made a bankrupt. He might be told that it was the ordi nary case of a man against whom ajndgment was recovered, but the t crew in ordinary cases could not be compared with the screw of threatening to make such a person a bankrupt, to send him to prison, to seize everything belonging to him, even his most private papers, and to drag his wife into a court, which they had just heard was unfit for any one to enter. That was one class of persons, and a numerous one. A vast portion of the land of Engl and was mortgaged under those circumstances, and it did not apply exclusively to men of high rank and station. He believed that the more they descended the scale the more was the land mortgaged, and just in proportion as they descended the scale was the diffi culty of raising money in times of pressure increased—espe cially as the usury laws were repealed. It must not be sup posed that it was a question which only affected the higher classes. It affected every man—from the Archbishop 0 ? Canterbury to the lowest cottager , and such a change ought not to be made without great and corresponding advan tages. He saw no objection to their being one court instead of two. If a man wanted to petition the court let him be made a bankrupt and to go the Bankruptcy Court, but he saw no reason why they should include under the operation of the bankrupt law a class of persons who could not fairly be said to be debtors, Another class of cases was not unfrequent. A man had a limited estate. Ho could not raise money by mortgage. He had perhaps improvidently been spending more than his income. He had to incur debts to put his family out in the world, purchasing commissions or educating them for professions. These debts were usually met by borrowing money on annuities. When the eldest son was 24 or 25 years of age an arrangement was often made by which the entail was broken, money was raised on mortgage, the annuities were discharged, and the family was again placed in easy and comfortable circumstances. How would the bill affect persons in that condition ? It said that any conveyance for that purpose should be valid if the lender had no notice of any act of bankruptcy. These notices, of course, would make lenders of money very careful. It would not be an easy matter sometimes to say whether a lender had received that species of information which the law described as a "notice." The definition of "notice" often gave rise to litigation, and therefore he be lieved lenders of money would be very shy of dealing with persons under the circumstances he had described, who might be more or less deeply involved, and might, perhaps, have judgments against them. Then, there was a third class of cases, also of not unfrequent occurrence. He meant cases where persons, being in difficulties, assigned their affairs to trustees, very often for the purpose of raising money by mortgage to pay off other incumbrances. Sometimes a father and son joined in putting an estate under trust in that way, and their affairs were thus set right without further trouble. This bill, however, would interfere with an arrangement of that kind, because it provided that every trust deed which did not fulfil the conditions specified in the arrangement clause should be utterly vcid. The case he had ins+ anced was not provided for by the bill, and the consequence wculd be that these arrangements would be rendered impossible. Men circumstanced as he had described would, therefore, be almost ruined. For these reasons he held that the clause, naked as it stood, ought not to be agreed to. He hoped the Attorney-General would either agree to exclude the large class of persons he had specified from the operation of the measure, or, if not, at least to introduce such provisions as would prevent that great inconvenience which the bill, as it stood, must necessarily cause to that class. He could not see that by the proposed arrangement the smallest advant age would be conferred on any one except the moneylenders, who, he believed, were perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. (A laugh.) He understood almost all the hon, and learned gentlemen in the house were against him on 1 this occasion. (Hear, hear, and no.) He was glad there was some one to say no, but he feared that, generally, the lawyers were against him. He believed, however, that mankind at large had little reason to feel satisfied when all the lawyers were on one side. When they were divided they fought the matter out, and so the truth was elicited ; but when there was a great preponderance of them on one side, it was high time for laymen to look out. (A laugh.) It was very desirable, no doubt, that the law should be made as symmetrical as possible ; but he could not forget that there had been great lawyers in the world before the pre sent generation, and that for some 200 years they had drawn a great distinction between trading and other debtors. He was well aware that this distinction had been much broken down in the present century by the introduction of the Insolvency Court system; but he thought it ought not to demolished altogether, as the bill proposed. In moving the omission of certain words, he did so, not under the pre tence that that would be the best way of altering the clauses, but for the sake of raising discussion on the ques tion involved. He then moved the omission of the words "debtors whether" after the word "all." Mr. JAMES thought theright hon. gentlemanhad hardly done justice to the lawyers--(a laugh)—for during the de bate on this bill they had taken a most liberal and generous course, a number of them having voted against the enor mous compensation proposed to be awarded. (Hear, hear.) This clause involved one of the most important questions connected with the subject of bankruptcy, as affecting not merely the mercantile but the social relations of the coun try. When the Attorney-General introduced the bill he (Mr. James) stated that he would support the principle it embodied, and he intended to do so. He must admit, how - ever, that if it was to be carried out, it ought to be sur rounded with a great many protections. He found that by clause 164 every judgment creditor who was entitled to sue out against a debtor a writ of eapias ad satisfaciendum— which could be got for a debt of £2o—or to charge the debtor in execution, was authorised, at the end of one week from the signing of judgment, to sue out against the debtor, whether he be in custody or not, so long as he was in Eng land a summons, requiring him to appear and be examined respecting his ability to satisfy the debt. Then again clause 170 provided as follows : " Upon the appearance of the debtor he may be exa mined on oath, by or on behalf of the creditor and by the court, respecting his ability to satisfy the debt, and for the discovery of property applicable in that behalf, and shall be bound to produce, on oath or otherwise, such books, papers and documents in his possession or power, relating to pro perty applicable or alleged to be applicable to the satisfac tion of the debt, as the Court shall think fit, and to sign his examination, when .reduced into writing; and any debtor, who shall upon examination wilfully fail to discover fully and truly to the best of his knowledge and belief all his pro perty, real and personal, inclusive of his rights and credits, and to produce all books, papers, and documents in his pos session or power relating thereto, shall be liable to be com . raided by the Court as in tho case of a bankrupt." It appeared to him that that was a very dangerous and ex traordinary power to confer on a creditor, and he could not help thinking that there ought to be some distinction be tween a mercantile and, as the phrase was, a gentleman debtor. (Hear.) By the French code no one except the per son trading was liable to the bankrupt law. But the present clause might be made the means of the greatest extortion. A young man who had contracted a debt of £4O or £5O might get into the hands of usurers, who might make the whole of his property subservient to their extortion. He had given notice of an amendment, which he should press, to the effect that all peers, whether Peers of Parliament or otherwise, should be equally liable to the bankrupt laws with members of the House of Commons. Sir H. CAIRNS believed that this was the first occasion on which a question had been brought before the House of Commons which had excited much discussion out of doors —namely, whether non-traders ought to be liable to the bankrupt laws. He regretted that a discussion of so much importance should come on at so advanced a period of the session. It was to be remembered that, whatever the views of hon. members might be as to the abolition of the distinc tion between traders and non-traders, such a change was not demanded by commercial circles. The questi ,n that into ' rested them was, whether they should have those amendments in the administration and execution of the bankrupt laws which they had demanded. The other question was not one of urgency, and might have been postponed to another time. It ought not at all events to be legislated upon without a full and searching investigation. Having had occasion to consider the subject, he would frankly state his belief that, to a certain extent, an irresistible argument might be urged in favour of abolishing the present distinction between the trader and non-trader. When, however, he saw the sweeping manner in which the change was proposed to be made he felt the greatest alarm. If the clause were adopted, all non-traders would be brought under the peril of com mitting one of the acts of bankruptcy therein described. Let the committee observe what these acts of bankruptcy were, the commission of anyone of which would make a non-trader a bankrupt. By the 155th clause seven acts of bankruptcy might be committed by a debtor. One was :—" If any debtor shall, with intent to defeat or delay his creditors, depart this realm." Who was to judge of the motive for which a non-trader departed the realm ? 'Acre was an all-impor tant difference herein between a person carrying on busi ness and one who was not. The duty of a trader was to be always at his post. If hd quitted the country, it was his duty to make suitable arrangements and to leave no engagements which his representatives could not satisfy. The burden of proving that he did not go abroad to defraud his creditors was therefore thrown upon the trader. But a non-trader was not bound to be in the country. Hehad no place of business at which he was Bound to be present. Another act of bankruptcy was defined to be, if the debtor "being out of this realm shall remain abroad." That was a most astonishing act of bankruptcy to apply to a person who was not in trade. Another act of bankruptcy was, "If any debtor shall suffer himself to be arrested or taken in execution for any debt not due, or shall suffer himself to be outlawed, or procure his goods, money, or chattels to be attached, sequestered, or taken in execution, or make or cause to be made, either within this realm or elsewhere, any fraudulent grant or conveyance of any of his lands, tenements, goods or chattels, or make or cause to be made any fraudu lent surrender of any of his copyhold lands or tenements, or make or cause to be made any fraudulent gift, delivery, or transfer of any of his goods and chattels, any such debtor doing, suffering, procuring, executing, permitting, making, or causing to be made, with such intent any of the acts, deeds, or matters aforesaid, shall be deemed to have t he r eby committed an act of bankruptcy." By clause 158 it was enacted that " If any debtor, having been arrested or committed to prison for debt, or on any attachment for nonpayment of money, shall, upon such or any other arrest or commitment for debt or nonpayment of money. or upon any detention for debt, lie in prison for 14 days, or, having been arrested for any cause, shall lie in prison for 14 days after any de tainer for debt lodged against him, and not discharged, every such debtor shall thereby be deemed to have committed an act of bankruptcy; or if any such debtor, having been ar rested, committed, or detained for debt, shall escape out of prison or custody, every such debtor shall be deemed to have thereby committed an act of bankruptcy from the time of such arrest, commitment, or detention." He had read these provisions to show how wholly inap plicable they were to the state of the law that had grown up in regard t: the trade of the country. The law gave the trader certain advantages, but stipulated that in return he must regulate his conduct so as not to elude his engage ments as a commercial man. But these acts of bankruptcy that were framed and originated for traders became inap plicable to those who were not men of business, and had no business habits. At all events, it was nothing more than' justice, if they were going to make an alteration in the law that they should only apply it to debts contracted hereafter. Another safeguard ought to be inserted in the bill. The Le gislature might very safely permit all nen-traders to be made bankrupts on their own petition. The law at present was that if a creditor were in a position to take any debtor in execution, having recovered judgment against him, the debtor might be put in prison either until he paid or until he volunteered himself to come under the Insolvent Act. It always seemed to him that when the creditor had got to the point when he might put the debtor in prison, the law might advantageously dispense with the formality of putting him in prison, and might enable the cre ditor to summon him before the Court of Bankruptcy, and make him subject to the operation of the _ - to those cases in which a creditor was in a position to put his debtor in prison, or to cases in which the debtor volun tarily submitted to it, he would deem it his duty to vote for the amendment of the right hon. member for Oxford- shire. (Hear, hear.) Mr. M. SMITH said the clause made an absolute identity between those who were traders and those who were non- traders, and thus would effect a complete revolution in the law of bankruptcy in this country. There had at all times been a distinction between these two classes in this country, and there was good ground for that distinction, for a man engaged in trade and commerce was bound at all times to meet his engagements, and to be ever at hand both with his person and property ; but a man not engaged in tradewaa not expected to have his estate in a condition to be turned into money to be in a place of business ready to meet his creditor, or when he went abroad to run the hazard of being adjudged a bankrupt. (Hear.) The vice of the bill seemed to be that it had many clauses exceedingly proper as applied to traders, but harsh and oppressive to an excessive degree when applied to those not engaged in trade. (Hear.) Any man might be summoned before a Bankrupt Commissioner or county court judge for a debt of £4O, and unless he could satisfy the judge that he could pay not only that debt but any other he might owe, he was to be declared a bankrupt. (Hear, hear ) He doubted whether in any code, however severe, such a clause had ever been found. (Hear.) A man might be on the moors in Scotland, or fishing salmon in Ireland, and be sum monad to appear before the Court in London within four days, to be examined on oath as to his debts. It might be right that a man engaged in commerce should be able at once to pay everybody, but it was not necessary that every man not in trade, from the Archbishop downwards, should be compelled to appear at four days' notice, and pay all his debts, or be declared a bankrupt. (Hear, hear.) There were persons who had their incomes payable only at stated periods, who had no property, and to whom credit was given on the faith that they would pay when their salary was received. But if a malicious creditor summoned such a person before the court, and it came out that he could not at the time pay his debts, he would become a lsrankrupt. (Hear.) A farmer, as they all knew, looked to his crops to pay his debts ; but, supposing he was summoned three or four months before harvest for a debt, the result might be that his crops would pass into other hands, and he would be ruined. (Hear, hear.) He might refer to the case of officers of the army, also, whose pay came in periodically, and who, when moving about from place to place with their regi ments, would be liable to be summoned for small debts. Were they t 3 be declared bankrupts because at the time when they were summoned they were unable to pay all their debts ? (Hear.) The distinction between traders and non-traders was not arbitrary, but was founded on common sense and the habits of mankind. It might be all right and proper to frame stringent laws for traders, but that was no reason why those who were non-traders should be drawn into the net with them. He believed the parentage of this bill lay not with the Attorney. General, but with the mer • cantile community. Those who were beyond the pale of trade had not been consulted regarding it, and he believed that they were utterly ignorant of the consequences that would follow from the 'adoption of the bill as it stood. (Hear, hear.) If .a clear distinction was not made between traders and non-traders the bill, he believed, would be pro ductive of mischiefs that its framers had never contem plated. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. KELLY was anxious that this b 11 should pass, and he agreed with the Attorney General in supporting the principle of this clause, yet he could not help expressingthe wish that his hon. and learned friend had stated to the house thenature of the protection and safeguards with which he meant to accompany it It might relieve some of his friends from the apprehensions which, not unnaturally, they entertained regarding this clause if they remembered that by the law of Scotland, as amended some years ago, the distinction between traders and non-traders had been wholly abolished, and he was not aware that any serious mischief, or any mischief at all, had arisen from its opera tion. (Hear, hear.) He must say that, much as he desired to see this bill pass, he would rather see it withdrawn than not have a distinct assurance from the Attorney-General that some strong safeguards would ac company the clause now under consideration. It was im possible not to perceive that almost all the clauses which immediately followed this, for the most part excellent in themselves as regards traders, were altogether inapplicable to a number of other classes in the community whose case seemed to have been entirely forgotten. A trader was bound to be at all times ready to pay his debts—it was of the very essence of the solvency of a trader that he should, at any and every moment, be prepared with any sum of money to meet every demand that might lawfully be brought against him ; but would they apply the clauses constituting acts of bankruptcy, for instance, to landed proprietors?. He was sorry to say that nine -tenths, or perhaps nineteen twentieths of the landed proprietors of the country had their property more or less subject to mortgage. A mortgage debt, though due in point of law, was not in tended to be claimed, and ran on year after year; but to apply to such a case the provisions of this Act would. be to introduce a revolution in the whole state of property, and the condition in which every man in the kingdom who hap pened to be a landed proprietor would be placed. A gentle. man possessed of an income from landed property of some £2,000 a-year might have some debts, though, on the whole, in easy circumstances; there might be a mortgage debt; some ill-natured creditor might issue a summons against him, and unless he was able to satisfy the mortgage debt in four days he was liable to be declared a bankrupt by the judge in bankruptcy. He could not agree to such a clause unless the Attorney-General at once consented to render inapplicable to non-traders in general the whole series of provisions respecting acts of bankruptcy ; and, as an additional safeguard, he would suggest that as to . circumstances in which' a non-trader should be made a bankrupt, he should be summoned, not within a given time; .for that should in all cases depend on the dis cretion of the judge, but only on fair and ample notice given. The debtor should then appear, according to the cir cumstances of the case, to give such information• respecting his affairs as might seem reasonable to the judge ; and if it should appear—but only if it should appear—that he was utterly unable to pay his debts, that he was living on his creditors, and that it was necessary the bankrupt law should be put in operation against him—in these circumstances only should he be made a bankrupt, and thus prevented from wasting the estate. It was necessary to introduce into the bill the most careful and specific provisions with regard to the notice to all non-traders. A trader was bound to be always in presence to meet his creditors ; but non-traders might be absent on the continent for a year or two without their address being known even to their own families, and those cases could not be dealt with unles- satisfactory evi dence was given that the absent debtor had proper notice. Before going further with this bill the committee had a right t o expect from his hon. and learned friend the Attor ney-General a clear and specific explanation of the safe guards he meant to provide in the case of non-traders. Mr. MALINS thought the queition raised by this clause was of the least degree of importance. It was one of the most valuable provisions of the bill, providing for the assi milation of the law of debtor and creditor to all classes of the community. He thought it right that every facility should be given for the recovery of debts, and .that there should be one uniform system by which those who were un able to pay their debts should have their case adjudicatel. He agreed, however, that many qualifica ions should be made with reference to non-traders. They should not be liable to be made bankrupts in the manner provided by the bill ; but only after judgment was obtained. The great principle which it was desirable to establish was that those who did not pay their debts should be made with the greatest facility to do so, or at least to make a cessio bonorum to their creditors, and that then, whether traders or non-traders, they should be restored to the capacity of acquiring property. Did the committee think that non-traders who were in debt should be allowed to obtain possession of their property by simply crossing the Channel ? The reckless habits of extravagance now too prevalent in the upper and middle classes of society would be checked when it was found that debt could not be in curred with impunity. It was said that traders were bound to be always ready to meet the claims of their creditors; but ought not non-traders to be equally so bound ? By going to Boulogne a debtor could avoid his creditors, or at least put such obstacles in their way as amounted to an avoidance of them ; but this bill would compel him either to give up all the property for their benefit, or to come home and deal with them as he must do if he were a trader. No doubt proper safeguards ought to be provided, so as to pre vent an oppressive creditor from making even a trader bankrupt ; and the principle of the clause deserved the approval of the 'committee. Mr. CAYLEY said the important question before them ought not to be disposed of summarily, and he therefore begged to move that the chairman report progress. Mr. WHALLEY rose to address the committee, but w as prevented from proceeding by the cries of "Divide." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped the motion for reporting progress would not be pressed. Th e house was then as full as he cou ld expect to have it d ur i ng the dis cuseien of the bill, an d it would be conveni e nt t o di spose of the question raised b y this clause. (Hea r , hear.) Sir W. coniFFE said the important question had not yet been f sidered. Officers of the army an d navy , r W serving their country abroad, would be placed in a most serious position by this bill. The seats under the gallery were cleared for a division, but none took place, and the motion for reporting progress was agreed to. The house having resumed, Lord PALMERSTON proposed that the bill should be proceeded with on Thursday morning, but that this clause HOP CREDIT. On the next resolution—" That, towards raising the sup ply granted to her Majesty, the duty of excise, which for the time being is or shall be chargeable on hops growing or to grow in Great Britain, shall be payable on the Ist day of May, 1861, and afterwards on the Ist day of January next after the curing thereof." Lord H. VANE said an hon. member who was not now present had given notice of an amendment to this resolu tion. All who were concerned in the culture of hops wore of opinion that the time had come when the duty on that article ought to be removed altogether. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had so far agreed to this that he had re duced the duty, and he was sure that it was only the neces sity of his position which prevented him from abolishing the duty forthwith. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was glad it had been in his power to propose a reduction of the duty, and if it had been in his power he should have pro posed the total repeal. Sir J. SHELLEY said the hop-growers were now willing to see a free trade in hops, He believed they could compete against all the world. He trusted his right hon. friend would remain long enough in office to carry out what he believed he would be glad to do, a repeal of the duty and a fres trade in hops. The other resolutions, as to British chicory, contract notes, assignments of leases, accidental death insurances, and foreign promissory notes, were also agreed to. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER announced that the resolutions as to spirits would be embodied in the bill that was passing through the house. Mr. WALPOLE said the proposal was a very unusual one, and he should think it would be objected to. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained that no detriment would be done to the rights of the house, for the bill might be recommitted, if necessary, anynumber of times. The helve then resumed. BANRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL. This bill on being called on was postponed. Several hon. members requested an explanation, and were informed that it was only in consequence of the accidental absence of the Attorney-General. Before, however, the house had passed to the next order Sir R. Bethell came in, and was received with some cheers. The committee was then resumed at clause 128, which was agreed to. On clause 129, • Mr. CRAWFORD wished to explain that the statements of the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Murray) and of the hon. member for Kendal as to the profit made by the Bank of England were inaccuracies. The hon. gentlemen had said, for instance, that the average cash balance in the Bank was £lOO,OOO, but he found that though in the course of last year thebalance was once ashigh as £151,000. it very speedily fell below £lOO,OOO, and was in a few weeks reduced to £420. Then it was stated that the annual remuneration received by the Bank was between £3,000 and £4,000 ; whereas he found last year that it was only £2,270; out of which they had to pay the salaries of officers charged with the business of the department, and a number of incidental charges which absorbed the whole sum. Mr. MURRAY said it was clear the hon. gentleman could not have seen the return which he held in his hand, and which gave the quarterly balances held by the Bank for the last five years. In that period the total receipts were £3,500,000, and the payments £6,000,000 and upwards. The accountant in bankruptcy stated that the average ba lance was £97,458 lls. 6d. As to the remuneration paid to the Bank, he found from the return that it had been as follows :—For 1855, a 655 Os. 11d.; 1856, £1,871 7s. 5d.; 1857, £2,408 ; 1858, £3,139 ; and 1859, £ 3 , 160. The hon. gentleman was therefore not justified in c har g ing him and the hon. member for Kendal with inaccu rac y . The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses 130 and 131, with some verbal amendments. Upon clause 132, Mr. E. P. BOUVERIE said the clause provided that the funds of creditors paid into the account of the accountant in bankruptcy should be invested in three per cent. consols, and as this was for the security and benefit of the creditors it was only reasonable that they should run the riskof any bankruptcy laN(.? If an alteration were made in these re- speets it would remove a great objection to the present bill. By the 173 d section creditors might file an affidavit in the district court against a debtor, and the court might issue a summons to show cause why he should not be adjudged a bankrupt, which summons was to be returnable in four days from the issuing thereof, so that as the bill stood a non trader might be summoned for £2O, to appear in four days, and, if he failed to do so,, might be adjudged a bankrupt. Nothing could be more convenient as an engine of oppres sion than this. At present a summons in )he case of traders was returnable in 14 days ; and even this had been regarded in mercantile circles as productive of great hardship ; but to extend it to non-traders, and to reduce the time from 14 to four days, was a proceeding unnecessarily harsh. (Hear, hear Unless the Attorney-General limited this provision should be postponed, in order that it might be discussed at an evening sitting. Mr. HENLEY thought the proposal of the noble lord a fair one, and should offerno opposition to it. If this clause was postponed safeguards might be provided which would remove many of the objections to it. Lord J. MANNERS was afraid that if this clause was postponed to the end of the bill it might come to be dis cussed in a very thin house. Lord PALMERSTON thought that if the clause was postponed its opponents and his hon. and learned friend might come to an understanding as to the safeguards to be ) provided, and it might be aseertdined whether or not the clause would be agreed to. Mr. CAYLEY asked why they should not go on with the clause on Thursday evening. Sir G. LEWIS explained that when a clause was post poned it could only be discussed after all others were agreed ' to. Mr. E. JAMES objected to any private arrangement as to this clause. Mr. MALINS said that the clause now under considera tion was of the very essence of the bill, and he wished to know whether, if it was rejected, the Attorney-General would withdraw the bill. If he was disposed to do so, it would be useless to ask. the house to spend several mornings in consideration of other clauses. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the proposal of his noble friend the best that could be adopted. The clauses of the bill might be so altered as to remove many of the objections to the principle in dispute, and many opportuni ties would arise in the consideration of the subsequent pro visions of the bill for discussing whether or not non-traders should be included within its operation. Although he thought it was most important that they should be included, he should not be disposed to abandon the measure if the house decided that they should not. The greater part of the remaining clauses were merely a repetition of the exist ing law, inserted in order that the whole of the law might be comprehended in one Act. He therefore thought there was a reasonable prospect of arriving at the end of the bill in time for it to go to the other house, so as to be passed into law during the present session. Lord PALMERSTON.—I think the best way will be to fix the bill for Thursday evening. (Hear, hear.) Sir H. CAIRNS was glad the noble lord had fixed the further consideration of the bill for Thursday evening, as it would be impossible to proceed with one clause before the committee had arrived at a decision upon the principle of excluding non-traders. Mr. BOUVERIE suggested to the Attorney-General the propriety of so amending the subsequent clauses of the bill as to obviate the objections entertained to the clause re lating to non-traders. Mr. AYRTON thought that if the Attorney-General wished to pass his bill he should limit its application to traders, leaving the question as to non-traders to be dealt with in a separate measure in a future session. The further consideration of the bill in committee was then fixed for Thursday evening. REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion for the committal of this bill, Mr. HENNESSY moved as an amendment that it be committed that day three months. The hon. gentleman complained that the Secretary to the Treasury had stated, in reply to the hon. member for Montrose, that there was no intention to extend - the measure to Scotland and Ire land; that the resolutions had, in the first instance, been incorrectly printed; but the error bad been corrected. During the whole debate on the English bill there was a distinct understanding to the same effect. It was on that ground alone that several Irish members had afforded their support ; and the Lord Mayor of Dublin had given up a great meeting which he was going to hold in conformity with a requisition presented to him, and signed by 2,000 persons, There were many reasons why the English law should not be extended to Ireland. In the first place, the licensing system was different. The consumption of wine, too, did not in Ireland tend to diminish the consumption of ardent spirits. It was a remarkable fact, that while, during a series of years, the consumption of spirits had decreased in Ireland, the consumption of tea had increased. Fur thermore, it was the opinion of every authority in Ireland that an extension of the licensing system tended to promote intemperance. He should move that the bill be committed that day three months. Colonel DUNNE seconded the motion, in the hope of calling the attention of the Government to the position in which they placed the police of Ireland by the bill. It gave to the excise the power of giving licenses to refreshment houses, and not the magistrates. The Government ought to take measures to restrain the sale of these spirituous liquors under proper authority. Lord J. MANNERS complained of this important bill being brought on at such a late hour. It had stood for some time on the paper, and the amendment had also been known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the same length of time. He should therefore move that the debate be now ad journed. It was an opposed bill, which must lead to a good deal of discussion. The CHAN,2ELLOII. of the EXCHEQUER. said there were some matters which must bo brought on after twelve o'clock, even if they were opposed, and he thought the pre sent a very fair case. The hon. member for the King' s County had stated his case against the bill, but it was quite obvious the time and place for his motion was on the second reading, which had been taken so early as eight o'clock in the evening, with a great number of Irish members present in the house. There had been no breach of faith in the bringing in of this bill ; the resolutions had been originalli passed for the three countries. The bill had been printed for a month, and there had been few or no petitions against it. After a conversation, in which Colonel Dunne, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Blake, Mr. M'Mahon, Mr. Hennessy, Mr. Laing, Mr. Butt, and Colonel Dickson, took part, the house divided on Mr. Hennessy's amendment— For the amendment Against it 136-98 ' The bill passed through committee pro forma. • PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL. TLis bill passed through committee. REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES (SCOTLAND) BILL. The order for the second reading of this bill was dis' charged. The other orders were disposed of, and the house VA' journed at 3 o'clock. he LOUNTRY IIIARK.B. 7S. COLCHESTER -Jur y 14. The fine weather has its influence on the trade. Thera was a rather small supply of wheat, and business was Blasco at barely late rates. Spring (Inn quiet. Wheat, white 6os to 649: Beans, Mazagan. 378 to 403 red 56s to 608 ! Middle & small to 440 Barley 36s to 50s 1 White peas 3Bs to 41 1 Oats 2os to 28s 1 Grey 38s to 403 CHELMSFORD -JtiLy 13. A fair supply of wheat ; the i rade ruled. slow, at the cut: rencies of last week. Very little doing in spring corn, wi, prices uncha nge d. A val.! thin attendance, and 13:lino' and merchants not anxious to buy. Wheat, white 42s to 60s Z L eas, Partridge ..428 to 43 6 red 42s to 54s White 42s to 04 Barley 38s to 48s Boiling 42s to 4 0 Chevalier ....42s to 52s Dun. 37s to 400 Grinding Malt 3 6 2 1 ss to o 6 3 7 7 s s Chevalier 648 to 69s Mazagan Beans Harrow Ticks i c . k s . . . I 9 2 s s t t o o 4 4, n 69 g o, 37s to . 14 '' Oats 32s to 41s YORK—JULY 14. A moderate supply of wheat from the farmers, wlii°, ll met a fair demand, at the last week's plebs. Oats a sha d easier to purchase Wheat, red .56s to 58s i Oats.... 2Bs to 3 114 White do .60s to 64s Beans ..48s to 5 0° Barley .32s to 35s Peas ............--s to --' ll Malt, 688 to 70s per qr. ; rye. 38s per qr.; flour, 420 448 per sack. STAMFORD—JULY 14. We had a -small supply of wheat at yesterday's COrli market, which met a fair sale, an d last week's rates were well maintained. Barley, oats, and beans a small sholk Haymaking is progressing rapidly, and the crops are g oOd ' I Wheat . ..54s to 59s Oats.. 27s to 3 . 1 9 White do 56s to 62 s Beans Barley 32s to 35s I Ditto, old ........46s to 40 KIRKALDY—JULY 1 4. We had ,only one small parcel of barley, very sm01! supplies of oats and wheat. S ales slo w. prices of whell' 6d to is advance to-day, an d oats as befo re . Wheat Barley Oats First.... 51s Od 38a 6cl 28s Od Second .. 5 88 Od —a Od 31s Od Thi r d .. ----8 0(1 ..-8 Odl —s Od _..‘ .BIRTHS. ASTLEY.—On the 14th inst., in Cavendish-square, t llO wife of Lieutenant-Colonel Francis L'Estrange Astleff ... of a son. BADGER.—On th e 15th i ns t., at 74, Cambridge-terrace' Hyde-park, th e w if e o f Thomas S. Badger, Esq., of • daughter. INcif 1 QUIN.—On the 12th inst., at Dromoland, the Ladl Inehiquin, of twin daughters. MARRIAGES. CHICHESTER—SEVERNE.—On the 14th inst., at S t ' George's, Hanover .square, Fitzwarrine Chichester, E a q'' second son of the Right Hon. Lord Edward Chichestift to Elizabeth Julia, the only child and heiress of S. o ' . Severne, Esq., of Poslingford, Suffolk. SHARLAND—SUTHERLAND.—On the 14th inst., at Sail Mary Aldermary, city, Jas. Sharland, of Cannon-st Fa e, west, to Elizabeth Taylor Sutherland, of Wick ; CLIO - ness-shire, N.B. DEATH'S. COOKE.—On the 13th inst., at West Brompton, _ Bernard Cooke, Esq. . HENNEY.—On the 13th inst., at Cheltenham, the Rev a Frederick Henney, Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxfor t aged 51. • -,xr oaf SCHREIDER.—On the 14th inst., at the Round ° Ipswich, William Frederic Schreiber, Esq., aged 7 6 . USHERWOOD.—On the 10th inst., at Whitby, William Usherwood, Esq., aged 93. LoNlioN : Printed and Published by 14ILTIR.D0 YO VNG : of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office , NO. 11„I Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, ;(32. the oeuutY - Illiddleee3, Tuesday, July 17, 1860. of al .1