The Sun. — London, England, 1861-02-22 00:00:00

THE CASE OF DR. R. THOMPSON, M.D. Col. SYKES gave notice that to-morrow he would ask the Under Secretary of State for War, upon what ground Dr. Thompson, M.D., who had satisfied the Army Medical Director General, Dr. Gibson, that he possessed the pre scribed qualifications of a degree in medicine and a diploma in surgery to entitle him to be examined as a candidate for a medical commission in her Majesty's service, and had been directed to attend on the 18th February to undergo a competitive examination, was, - on the morning of that day, in a personal interview, refused permission by Dr. Gibson to appear before the board of examiners. INDIAN NAVY, &c. Sir G. BOWYER asked the Secretary of State fur India if the Indian navy was to be abolisheel as a war service, and converted into a mere transport service ; if so converted, would the officers be given the option of retiring on a liberal pension according to their length of service. If the service be kept on a war footing, how would it stand with regard to the Royal Navy, and would its services be confined to the In dian seas ; and, was it the intention of Government to build any more vessels expressly for the Indian Navy, or to make any more special appointments to that service; or, in other words, would it be suffered to die out ? Sir C. WOOD stated generally that some alterations were contemplated; and would be carried out. PAYMENT OF WITNESSES. _ Mr. A. EGERTON asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was prepared to alter the present scale of allowances to witnesses at Sessions and Assizes ? Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he had had interviews with different magistrates who had great experience in their re spective counties on this question. The subject was cne that was attended with considerable difficulty, but the matter was under his most careful consideration and should receive the earliest attention. VENTILATION OF MINES. Mr. KINNAIRD asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how soon the inquiry promised last Session into the state of ventilation, and the great loss of life consequent on labouring in tin, iron, copper, and other metallic mines, would be made.? Sir G. C. LEWIS said it was true that during a discus sion which took place last session :on the bill for the regulation of coal mines that a promise was made on the part of the Government to take up the subject to which the hon. member alluded at a reasonable time. Ho had not yet made any arrangement for the institution of an inquiry into the matter, but if it was the wish of those connected with the mineral interest of the country that this inquiry should be made shortly, he would do all in his power to give effect to their wishes. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL. The house went into committee on this bill, and resumed at clause 52, which was agreed to. Clauses 53 to 56 inclusive were agreed to. On clause 56, Mr. E. JAMES moved the following amendment, which after some discussion was agreed to :—" Page 14, lines 11 and 12, leave out 'or any one of the CoMmis sioners of the Court of Bankruptcy in London,', and insert or one of her Majesty's Counsel, or a Sergeant -at-Law.' Line 13, leave out ' or Commissioner,' and insert ' Queen's Counsel, or a Sergeant-at-Law.'" The clauses 57 to 75 were agreed to, with some verbal amendments. Clauses to 80 were agreed to without discussion. On clause 81, which relates to the abolition of the distinction between traders and non-traders, some discussion took place, in the course of which Sir GEORGE BOWYER said that he considered this clause should at all events be postponed. He thought that, according to the principles of jurisprudence, the distinction here sought to be abolished should be re tained. The law of bankruptcy applied only to the trader, and was introduced by the statute of Henry VIII., which was criminal in its previsions. That law did not apply to non-traders, and there were good rea sons why it should not. It was attempted by this clause to remove that landmark in jurisprudence, the effect of which, ho contended, would be to inflict a great injustice on non-traders. Sir L. PALK also urged the postponement of the clause. Lord J. MANNERS, while admitting that the Attorney- General had given full notice of his intention to proceed with the hill that evening, urged upon him the expediency —with the view of saving time, and, avoiding it, might be a series of divisions on a future stage of the measure— of adopting the suggestion made by the hon. member for Dun dalk. The ATTORNEY-GE &ERAL was sure the noble lord would be the last person to laud himself to the advo cacy of a course of obstruction to the passing of the bill, and added that it would afford him much pleasure to comply with the wishes of those who sought the postponement of the clause if it were consistent with his duty to do so. If, however, he were to accede to that proposal the business of the house would be brought to a standstill and much valu able time would be wasted. Under these circumstances, and seeing that several hon. and learned gentlemen on the opposite side of the house, including the hon. member for Wallingford, and, he believed, the hon. and learned mem ber for Belfast, were perfectly prepared to discuss the clause, he felt bound to go on with it—a declaration in which he hoped he should receive the support of the com mittee. (Hear.) Col. DUNNE advocated the postponement of the clause, observing, that although the house had been informed that the present measure differed in principle from that of last year, yet hon. members were unaware in what that diffe rence consisted. For his own part, he shared the distrust which, he believed, was felt by almost every country gen tleman with respect to any proceeding of the Attorney- General in connexion with the subject under discussion. (A laugh.) Lord J. MANNERS was satisfied with what had been stated by the Attorney-General, and suggested that the op position to the clause should be reserved until the next 'stage of the bill. (Hear.) The clause was then agreed to. On clause 82, Sir H. CAIRNS said he had a' ways been of opinion that, though the case with respect to non •traders was one of con siderable difficulty, it would, to a certain extent, be a benefit to them, and not a disdvantage ; and that they should be made subject to the bankruptcy laws. Whenever a judg ment had been recovered against a non-trader, and he was liable to be put in prison, which he could leave only as an insolvent debtor, the best thing that could happen to him was that his creditor should be able, instead of putting him in prison, to make him a bankrupt. The Attorney-General had adopted that principle in some of his clauses, but the clause now under discussion went much further, introduc ing ether and more dangerous elements. It provided that anon-trader who departed the realm with intent to defeat or delay his creditors should be adjudged a bankrupt. That was an excellent provision with respect to traders, because a trader was bound to be in his place of business either in his own person or in that of a properly accredited represen tative, but the case of a non-trader was wholly different. A non-trader was not bound to be in any particular plaee, and it would be a great hardship to declara him a bankrupt whenever a creditor chose to suggest that he had departed the realm for the purpose of defeating or delaying his credi tors, the fact all the time probably being that ho was abroad on a touring expedition. The Attorney -General world do well to confine the case as regarded non-traders to what were called the debtor summons clauses. Sir G. BOWYER repeated what he had stated before, that it was impossible, without great injustice, to bring non traders within the same rule as traders. Under the present clause a person of the first rank, and possessed of a large landed estate, who happened to be temporarily embarrassed, though not insolvent, might be declared a bankrupt because a creditor chose to say that he had gone abroad with intent to delay his creditors. No change was required in the ad ministration of justice with respect to non-traders. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, referring to the under- --- standing that there should be a deliberate argument upon this matter at a future stage, said ho would not attempt at present to reply to the observations of his hon. and learned friend the member for Belfast. He would merely say that if non:..traders could not abscond from their creditors, or if judgments could be recovered against them, he should be content with the debtor summons clauses. The only answer he could give the last speaker was that there were hundreds of Englishmen now abroad who had taken their property with them, who had defeated and delayed their creditors, and who had lived for years, and were now living, abroad in shameless extravagance, while their disappointed creditors were unable to obtain a shilling of the debts justly due to them. (Hear, hear.) Sir G. BOWYER observed that if, as the Attorney- General had stated, men went abroad carrying all their pro perty with them there could be very little use in making them bankrupts. If, however, they left property here, it remained liable to their debts, anti could be taken in execu tion under judgment. Mr. MALINS thought the question was, whether debtors having property should be allowed to retain it without ap plying it to the payment of their debts. Many men went abroadbt. and lived in extravagance and luxury, leaving large ilebts in this country, and drawing their rents of land, for instance; from time to time, while their creditors were all They starving.lid Was such a state of things to continue ? not got a judgment against the debtor, because he THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 22, 1861. expi nience included in it. Beyond this occasional refortn, not vitally endangering the frik:ivernment which offers it, ID' q be offered with security according to the real con victions of those by r;nom it has been framed. In what Utopia would 'du find any one so simple as to think that 4. ..ti0 d bills of 1852, of 1854, of 1859, and of rertsented the ideas and judgment of their sponsor etNvbat man would face the ridicule which in any f2,lrcle. the statement of such a view would bring upon 1 4/ 6 4,. In the next place a separate reform is a barrier to wither measures of importance. The bill of 1850 was car =ried in the same year, with the most important act which has passed since 1833—the act for giving institutions to Australia. The act of 1858 was carried in the same year in which India was transferred to the Crown by legislation. The bill of 1860, although it did not pass at all, threw out every other measure (except those relating to the budget) along with which it was proposed. A general revision of our system may well defeat the genius and capacity of statesmen who would prosper in the safe but not less noble flight of amending it from time to time, with the effective aid of both houses of Parliament. But these considerations may be all renounced as insig nificant compared with the last I shall allude to. Occa sional Reform can never add to our foreign difficulties, whereas large and much debated schemes must inevit ably aggravate them. While the peace of Europe depends upon ono man, while Germany is fraught with elements of discord, while the world contains aggress ive Powers, and this country is resolved to stand by its allies, we cannot afford, all men will admit, to be a pre-occu pled, embittered, and disorganised society. (Hear, hear.) Such any large and comprehensive project of Re form, such any new settlement of 1832, such any scheme resembling the four which are discarded, must have at least a tendency to make us. A large and reconstructive measure, however well conceived, must in some degree array class against class, and party against party. When the country is divided and convulsed it cannot be so powerful against any Government which threatens Europe and itself as when it still retains its coolness and its har mony. While land is hoping for concessions, while boroughs are trembling for existence, while interests are struggling for ascendancy, while public men are looking to elections, a strong national enthusiasm cannot be main tained. The passions of each, class have already found an object and a channel. This was not alone his view, it was the d'eep, intense, and all the more intense because instinctive, judgment of the public. Why with one voice did they sweep away the ill-starred bill of 1854 when the Russian war impended, but because they knew it would divide them, and that division would be fatal to their interest ? But it was not only in 18.54 that the state of Europe was at variance with a re -construction of our Legislature ; 1852 found us engaged in a similar adventure. It also found a military despotism suddenly restored, which, however friendly it might be to us, made a sudden call on public unanimity, and induced the country to revive the long abandoned force of the militia. In 1859 a European war coincided with the general election, which a re constructive measure had produced, and few deny that such a general election was a heavy blow to our influence in Europe. If indeed the powers of the world NI ere ready to suspend intrigue, diplomacy, and war while our reconstruction was proceeding, if history entered into an engagement to stand until a final project had been carried, the case would be a different one. But an empire like ours is too extensive in its parts, too varied in its interests, and has too many points of contact with other portions of the world to give a reasonable prospect of the freedom and the vacancy a reconstruction calls for. The person who looks forward to it may well remind us of the benighted countryman in Horace, whose fashion it was to stand by rivers in the firm belief that they would rapidly exhaust themselves— " Rusticus expectat dum defluat amnia." (Cheers.) But when our Government announces that a 1 comprehensive project is impending, it invites the Powers of the world to take advantage of the moment guaranteed to them. A few weeks after the Government of 1853 solemnly engaged to devote 1851 to a grand organic project, Prince Menachikoff began his fatal expedition. It was not too high a tribute to the calculation and sagacity for which the late Czar was known that these events should be in some de gree associated. He well knew to what rejoinder he was open. Itmight be said that these considerations wereas appli cable in 1831 as at this moment, and that if they had been suffered to prevail the act of 1832 would never have been carried. No doubt the hazard was as great at that time as at any other, but the end in view was such as to balance the risk to be encountered, while for that end occasional reform would not have been sufficient. The country wanted to transfer power from one class to another ; to create another epoch in our history, and at a single blow to put an end to the dominion of proprietors in boroughs. They wanted to destroy interests which only popular excitement could assail, to reverse the state of parties in the Legislature, to pave the way to measures previously impossible. In a word they wanted to achieve what they are now determined to prohibit. And-if the ends are opposite the agencies should vary. But as regards foreign policy itself, instead of shrinking from, at that time, it stood in need of a large and comprehensive measure to release and to advance it. Under the old system we could not follow the ideas which Mr. Canning had impressed upon the country when that system was no longer governed by his mind and charmed by his ascendancy. Two years, as he prophesied himself, were sufficient to reverse much of what he had accomplished. In order to return to those salutary principles which from 1827 to 1830 were eclipsed, but which have never since been inter rupted, a large and reconstructive measure was desirable and necessary. (Hear, hear,) What lies at the bottom of the favour with which comprehensive schemes in some quarters are regarded is that, if carried, they would shut out the prospects of further change and bring about an absolute repose upon these questions. To men who had watched events since 1818, such hopes would not appear to have the shadow of foundation. What reason was there to suppose that the same influences which weighed upon the Minister in 1851, would not again coerce him ? These facts deserve to be remembered. In the general election of 1817 Reform was scarcely mentioned. Before the Par 'lenient which met at the close of that year expired, the pledge to alter the Reform Act comprehensively and vitally was given. The Government of 1846 came in with the strictest understanding that organic change was not to be included in its policy ; and by that very Govern ment the present difficulties of the question were created. Where Was the security for permanence, as it clearly did not rest in the consistency of Governments or fortitude of statesmen! Was it in the generous forbearance of the democratic party ? Why should a party whose strength had just increased, as by a reconstructive scheme it must: increase, be-more forbearing than it used to be? Would you look for your security in general concurrence not to touch these questions ? Will all the rising spirits in our schools and nnirersities ? Will all the coming heroes of subuiban counties' Will all Or , =pledged members of our metropolitan constituencies join in this concurrence, and if they do not what CAII be its value ? There is no secur:ty whatever that the very session after a comprehensive mea sure has been passed, a comprehensive measure may not be demanded. Pint setting this aside, and taking a more favourab!e view of what might happen, if a new settlement was not at once exposed and gibbeted, and followed by ano • ther, to what would it be a preface except occasional reform, whenever unforeseen facts, or popular opinion, or party cir outontances called for it ? Why not begin at once with that Which, after any large and reconstructive scheme has been adopted, you will enter on? (Hear.) At the same time he knew that such a line was inadmissible if it was obnoxi ous to tho Democratic party of the country. But that very party owed to it the only triumphs they had gained. They, too, like older partici in the State, had found in reconstruc tive schemes an =mingled source of failure and disaster. They had regarded with aversion and contempt the four which Governments had offered them; and no wonder, when protection of the voter by ballot, which all those schemes denied, was among their favourite objects of acti vity. If the system of occasional reform was not adapted to their sympathy, it would not in 1859, after the present Government was formed, have found in Mr. Cobden a far snore powerful exponent than it bad found in him to-night before their lordships. He had only, therefore, to revert to the position that occasional reform ought to be seriously contemplated, if not at once embraced ; that th e reduction of the county franchise was t he ste p which circumstances indicated; and that justice to the freeholders prevented it until its influence on their position had been estimated. Whether or not the noble lord re solved to grant such infor mation, if the train of reasoning w hich ho had most im perfectly endeavoured to present to them, m ixing with his thoughts, improved by his reflections, and s tren gthened by the larger range of illustration and experience the noble lord could bring to bear upon it, induced him to glance back at all that had occurred from 1848 to this moment, and to weigh the lesson such a retrospect afforded before he ven tured for a fourth time to be connected with any large and reconstructive scheme to alter the Reform Act; the moment might arrive when the motion he had the honour to submit would not be wholly useless to the country. (Cheers.) The noble lord concluded in 'the terms of his motion. t art GRA NVILLE said there would be no objection to furnish the return moved for. Their lordships then adjourned. 11°1;82 OP COMMONS.—(YrsTFR DAY.) The Stt:sitp took the Chair at,,,four o'clock. PRIVATE BITSI NESS The Liverpool Ymproveraent Bill was . read a second time. Several private bills were read a first time. PETITIONS. • Several petitions were presented for and against the abolition of church rates; against the local assessment d bill , in favour of the Clo s i ng of public - houses o un against legalising m arr i age w i t h a deceased wn Si ssife's a t ys er from British resident s a t D ar j ee li ng, in the Himalay as, and its neighbourhood , stating th e great i ncrease of pop ulation sind cultivation in those regions, complainin g o f th e want of communication with other parts of India, and praying that the railway system might be extended in the direction of Darjeeling; against any alteration in the Book of Common Prayer, in favour of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill, f or the speedy introduction of a Reform Bill, &c. GERMAN LEGION. Mr. ADDERLEY moved an address for return of the length, of time duritlg which the German Legion, at the cape, had been or fall pay from the English Treasury; the whole amount of their pay up to the present time ; and under what parliamentary votes any part of such payment had come.—Ordered. THE WAR IN SOUTHERN ITALY. Lord E. HOWARD asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether her Majesty's Gove ament would use its influence with his Majesty King Vi A r Emmanuel to prevent bloodshed in his present hou • success; and would instruct its diplomatic and consular agents to keep it fully informed of the measures ordered or adopted by the present de facto Government of Southern Italy, for the purpose of re-establishing order ? Lord J. RUSSELL, who was very imperfectly heard in the reporters' gallery, was understood to say that the Sar dinian army had acted with clemency in the war, except in some particular occasions, and the Government of this country had not interfered in the subject. From a commu nication received from the Sardinian Minister there was every reason to believe that any further military operations that might be necessary would be conducted in a humane manner. was out of their reilch. The principle of this bill was that where there were debts and property, the property should be obtained to pay the debts ; and there was protection enough thrown around the debtor by these clauses. If a debtor was abroad, the Court must be satisfied that he had absconded, and was remaining abroad for the purpose of avoiding the payments of his debts ; and after service of the process, he must also have 60 days' notiee before any pro ceeding could be taken against him. He had told the At torney-General last year that his bill required more protec tion for the non-trading debtor, but that had effectually been given by this measure. These clauses were of great importance. They were framed not for the benefit of ere- ditors only but also of debtors, and he greatly rejoiced that the Attorney-General did not consent to postpone their dis cussion. If they were abandoned he would not give one straw for the bill. It would not be worth while attending the discussion ; but because they were retained ho should give the bill his strenuous support. Mr. TURNER thought if a non-trader;having means, left the country without making proper provision for the payment of his debt he deserved all the unpleasantness ho would incur under this clause. Mr. FITZGERALD maintained that the distinction taken by his hon. and learned friend the member for Belfast was a good one, because in case of a man going abroad draw ing his income from this country, it was perfectly easy to bring an action against him, serve process abroad, and ob tain judgment exactly in the same manner as if he resided in England. The allegation was that in case of the absence of a person from this country, an affidavit by a creditor that the debtor was abroad with the intention of delaying his creditors would be sufficient to pnt the court in motion. He was of opinion that if there was no evidence on the other side, an affidavit, in which the creditor stated that to the -best of his belief A. B. was abroad for that purpose, al lough it might be perfectly false, would be quite enough to constitute an act of bankruptcy, (Hear.) Such was the; impression which had been conveyed to him by men of con siderable eminence at the bar, and he should like to know whether or not it was correct. Sir. G. BOWYER thought the hon. and learned member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had not dealt with the real point now before the committee. The question was, what were the reasons why the ordinary process of law or equity for the recovery of debts were insufficient in the case of the non-trader, so as to justify the application to trim of the extraordinary and stringent remedies of bank ruptcy? Bankruptcy was not required to compel a man to pay his debts. If a debtor residing abroad drew his rents from this country he might be served with process of law, judgment and execution might be had against him, and then his rents could be prevented from reaching him. Bank ruptcy was wanted in order to administer the law for par ticular purposes—viz., the purposes of trade; but if a man was not a trader these reasons for bankruptcy did not exist. Sir L. PALK thought the hon. and learned member for Wallingford had effectually answered his own arguments, for he had eulogised in magniloquent phrase the reforms in the Court of Chancery, and proved most convincingly that there was no necessity for the clause under discussion. (Hear, and a laugh.) The bill unfairly enacted a heavier penalty against the non-trader than against the trader. A non-trader coming into possession of a heavily encumbered estate, and striving, foolishly perhaps, to keep up the esta blishment maintained by his father before him, might be. come temporarily overwhelmed with debt, and then this measure would inflict on him all the irreparable evils of bankruptcy. If the law was now insufficient to protect the starving creditors of the man who remained abroad, let it be amended. It was all very well to attack the landed gentlemen of England ; but was it net the fact that trades men often pressed their goods upon young men whom they knew to be the heirs to property ; and even lawyers them selves helped many such young men to their ruin. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Mr. E. JAMES denied that the bill laid a trap for the landed gentry of England. It was only when a man either went abroad to defraud his creditors, executed a deed for the same purpose, or lay in prison 14 days to evade pay ment of his debts, that he would be liable to be made a bankrupt. It was derogatory to the landowners of England to appeal to them on behalf of persons coming within such a category. The system of commerce and credit did not depend on the bankrupt law, as some hon. members seemed to sup pose, but upon the character and respectability of those who engaged is mercantile transactions. Nobody in business trusted another man simply because he knew he might make him a bankrupt. This clause would operate as a safeguard to expectant heirs, who could now bo put in prison by usurers under the Insolvent Act. Such young persons would not be so likely to incur debts for which they might be made bank rupt. He believed that the clause would have the effect of bringing home debtors who now remained abroad to defeat their creditors. It did not, therefore, deserve to be ridiculed as if it aimed at putting salt on the bird's tail. (A laugh.) He was sure that hon. members would see that surrounded by the safeguards now introduced into the bill, the landed gentry would have no cause to fear the alteration of the Sir F. KELLY sincerely wished well to the bill, and therefore regretted that his first remarks upon it should ap pear at all to suggest any objection to it. He agreed en tirely in the principle that there should be no distinction between traders and non-traders, but there were one or two points which he would wish to suggest for the considera tion of the Attorney-General. He said nothing as to par ticular classes, because if it were made out to the satisfac tion of the judge that a debtor had gone abroad, or was re maining abroad to defeat his creditors, no doubt such a per son, whether trader or non-trader, ought to be brought within the operation of the bankrupt law. But, as per sonal service was to be dispensed with, it might happen that gentlemen who were abroad for pet fectly legitimate ob jects, without notice, and upon the affidavit of a creditor that such non-trader was abroad to avoid iatisfying his debts, such a person might be made bankrupt without his know ledge, and without being really guilty of the offence imputed to him. There was no distinction between traders and non traders who happened to be abroad, and against whom a judgment was recovered in this country. Take the case of an officer in the army serving abroad who happened to owe a few debts in this country, any creditor might obtain a judgment against him which in a short time he could con vert into a ground for obtaining a fiat in bankruptcy. Ho thought some clauses should be introduced to protect officers and persons residing abroad for business purposes front being exposed to the danger of being made bankrupt without notice, and without any means of showing cause against the issue of a fiat in bankruptcy against them, If that were not done, ambassadors and consuls abroad might be at the mercy of any creditor in this country. A clause might easily be drawn up, giving to the judge a large dis cretion as to the cases in which he could issue a fiat in bankruptcy against persons engaged in the public service or continuously residing abroad, and he hoped that the At torney-General would turn his attention to that point be fore the clauses came again before the house upon the next stage of the bill. Mr. WALPOLE said the discussion had made an im pression upon his mind as to the necessity for the Commit tee on Public Business, which had been recently appointed, and as to the advantages which the house was supposed to possess in discussing the clauses of a bill in committee. Whether they were now discussing a clause or not was not very apparent. The Attorney- General had declined to discuss these clauses, because hon. gentlemen who might bo expected to oppose them were not prepared to state the full grounds of their opposition. The consequence would be that after passing all these clauses at the proper time when, if at all, they should be minutely analyzed and discussed, it was to be expected that at a future time there would be a fuller debate upon them at a stage when the house would not be in committee, and when the clauses could not be pro perly analyzed, the result of which might lead to the passing of an imperfect and unsatisfactory measure. He regretted, therefore, that they were not proceeding now to discuss each clause at this the proper time. The hon. and learned gen tlemen who spoke last had forced this observation from him, for he had been discussing all the clauses relating to this branch of the subject, instead of addressing himself to the particular clause before the committee. In fact, they were now discussing the general principle, whether non-traders should be put upon the same footing as traders, or, at least, whether the laws relating to the two classes should be assimilated. But that principle ought to have been dis cussed upon the second reading, or upon the clause which led to that assimilation, and then there would have been a chance of arriving at a clear result. But the hon, and learned member fur Dundalk (Sir G. Bowyer) opposed the principle of such assimilation, while the hon. and learned member for East Suffolk supported it. But if he were in favour of the principle, why did he not apply himself to what was the main object of discussion at that moment — viz., whether the application of that principle was suffi ciently guarded in extending it for the first time to the case of non-traders ? Had the discussion taken place on that basis, they would have made advantageous progress with the bill ; but as they were now proceeding, the consideration of the protections which non-traders ought to have would be postponed to a time when they could not discuss them satis factorily. Ho was in favour of the principle of assimilation, and also of the clauses in the bill relating to judgment debtor summons. He held that they should proceed on the principle that whenever a judgment was obtained against a non-trader, or whenever a debtor became liable to have a judgment against him for the payment of a debt which he refused to pay, then the law which was ap plicable to him should be assimilated to the law applicable to the bankrupt. He had guarded the phrase because he entirely agreed with what fell from his hsn. and learned friend the member for Belfast as to hovi the non-trader ought to be protected. The non-trader ought to be put in the position either of one who had had a judgment against him, and who refused to pay his debt, or of one against whom a judgment might be obtained, but who evadel his creditors in such a manner as to prevent them from getting it. If the Attorney-General would proceed on that prin ciple, then he would go along with him to the full extent of the measure. But in clause 82 the non-trader was not put into the position of one who had a judgment against him. The creditor was allowed to present a petition to the c Court of Bankruptcy for the p a y ment of the debts, or ratherankrupty against the debtor. He for an adjudication in b 82 applicable advised the Attorney - Gen eral to make clause to the trader only, and, when they came to the clause re lating to non -payment after the ju d g ment debtor summons, . - to introduce another clause, drawn from c lause 82, to fact litate the creditor's process against a person who was resid ing abroad for the purpose of avoiding payment of his debts, and to enable the creditor to obtain judgment on proof that the debtor had received due notice of the claim against him. As the clause now stood, the debtor might be made bank- rupt before it was known whether or not he would pay his debts. The presentation of the petition was a stigma upon him which ought to be removed. Let the process be im proved; let it be made to retch the man, whether he went abroad with or without his property, in such a manner that the moment judgment, or what was equivalent to it, was obta'ned the creditor could proceed upon it, and if he would not pay what he owed, the whole of his property should be taken for distribution among the creditors. .._ _ (Hear, hear.) Let everything be done to make the process speedy and effectual when once judgment had been obtained, but let the debtor have an opportunity of answering the claim before the stigma was placed upon him. If the Attor- ney-General would adopt that suggestion it would remove every objection to the assimilation of the two classes ; and unless he did so many cases of hardship wouldundoubtedly arise. For instance, a gentleman might go abroad owing sundry debts, small in amount, but in the aggregate suffi cient to render him liable to be taken into the Bankruptcy Court under this measure. A pstition might be presented against him while he was abroad praying that adjudication in bankruptcy might be awarded against him, and the stigma might be fixed upon him before he knew anything of the proceedings, or had an opportunity of arresting them by instructing his solicitor to pay the debts. As the dis cussion of the principle involved in the clause had been postponed to another time, ho would content himself with throwing out these suggestions to his learned friend, who would, he hoped, consent to afford the non-trader the pro tection to which he was entitled. (Hear, hear.) From the consideration which he and his learned friend the member for Belfast had bestowed on this question when in office, he was satisfied that the principle he had indicated was the right one, and it was upon that principle that they intended to found the measure which they had in contem plation. (Hear, hear.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL deprecated the idea that the discussion ought not to be proceeded with. They never were better prepared for such a discussion than they were at that moment, as was proved by the speeches of hon. gentlemen on the other side. He begged his right hon. friend (Mr. Walpole) to observe that he had framed the measure in the very spirit of the speech which he had just delivered. Indeed, had ho been admitted into the secret counsels of his right hon. friend, he could not have a more perfect agreement with him than that which was expressed on the face of the bill. He under stood his right hon. friend to lay down the principle that a non-trader ought to be put in the position of a person who had had a judgment recovered against him, or against whom a judgment might be obtained. It was entirely with refer ence to the latter position that the 82d clause had been framed ; and it was because the law would have been de feated had the remedy been confined to the judgment-credi tor that it had been extended to the man who was entitled to become one, although not yet in that position. A creditor was placed by the 82d clause in exactly the condition of one who had a right to obtain a judgment against a debtor. In 1852 the Common Law Procedure Act was passed for the purpose of facilitating the service of process ; and accord ingly it was laid down as follows—that when the defendant in an action, being a British subject, was out of the juris diction of the superior courts, it should be lawful for the plaintiff (i.e., the creditor) to issue a writ of summons, and the time for the appearance of the defendant should be regulated by the distance from England of the place where he was residing ; and on the court or judge being satisfied that the cause of the action had arisen within the jurisdic tion, and that the writ had either been personally served on the defendant or reasonable efforts had been made to do so, and that it came to his knowledge, and that the defendant either wilfully neglected to appear to such writ or was living out of the jurisdiction of the Court in order to defeat and delay his creditors— then the Court, being satisfied of these things, was entitled to award judgment against the defendant. In the present measure he had done the ♦ery same thing. The creditor was under this clause placed in precisely the same position as a creditor who was now entitled to have judgment given ; but instead of the execution being for the benefit of the individual creditor, who happened to be first in the race, it would be an universal execution which would secure a just and equal distribution of the property of the debtor among all his creditors, all of whom were equally entitled to judgment. (Hear, hear.) This universal exe cution would be carried out under the name and by the law of bankruptcy ; and this clause only applied to the abscond ing debtor the existing law, and laid down the principle that when a creditor had proved the position of his debtor to bo such as he had described, he should be entitled to process, not limited to himself alone, but universal and general, for the benefit of all the creditors who were in a similar position. These were the grounds upon which this clause was brought forward, and ho hoped that his right hon. friend, whose objections were those of a lawyer and a statesman, would feel that this was a sufficient answer to them. The right hon. gentleman the member for Horsham had expressed a fear that a creditor would, under this clause, upon producing an affidavit stating his belief that his debtor had gone abroad, or remained abroad with intent to defeat or delay his creditors, be entitled to an adjudica tion of bankruptcy. He could assure his right hon. friend that he had been misinformed. The males animus of the debtor in going or remaining abroad must be proved by overt acts, either of commission or omission; and, without evidence of such acts, no tribunal would act upon the mere belief of the creditor. The right hon. gentleman the mem ber for the University of Cambridge had objected that the presentation of the petition would attach a stigma ; but it must be observed that the petition was nothing more than a process for debt, nothing more than a writ; it was not a matter of publicity or notoriety, and could not be enter tained by the court unless it was accompanied by prima facie evidence that an act of bankruptcy had been com mitted. The hon. baronet the member for Dundalk asked, why not have the ordinary process of law ? Did he not know that in 19 out of 20 such cases as this clause was intended to meet, the ordinary process of law was mocked at and evaded ? Such was the fact, and it was in order to put an end to that state of things that this clause had been intro duced. The bill would not be more stringent than common honesty demanded, and he trusted that he should be sup ported by the committee in this attempt to bring the law of England into conformity with the character for honesty and integrity which the country had long enjoyed, but with which its laws had hitherto been far from corresponding. (Hear, hear.) Mr. RO LT did not think the non -traders of England were liable to the imputation of want of honesty to which they had been subjected by his hon. and learned friend. (Hear, hear.) As, however, the committee had adopted the 81st section he would not go into the general question, but would confine his remarks to the clause under considera • tion, which did not appear to him to afford sufficient pro tection to the non-trading portion of the community. By the clause it was proposed to make it an act of bank ruptcy in a non-trader to go abroad with intent to defraud his creditors, or, being abroad, to remain there with a similar object, and on application, supported by satisfac tory evidence, power was given to the court to order that a copy of the petition should be served upon the debtor, and that the debtor should appear with certain restrictions as to time and place. This application must necessarily be an ex parte proceeding, and nothing could be easier than for a man who was unprincipled enough to do so to give evidence suf. ficiently strong to induce the judge to issue this order. Much would, of course, depend on the individual judge, but in the great majority of cases all the obtainable evidence would be the oath of the applicant himself that the debt was duo, that ho had requested payment, and that on the fol lowing day his debtor left the country, as he was satisfied, and swore, to the best of his belief, with the object of evad ing payment. As regarded the service of the petition it was to be assumed that the judge would grant a reasonable time ; if, for instance, the debtor were in Paris a fortnight would probably be allowed him to make his al pearance. But, if service could not be effected, then the clause directed—with a variety of alternatives which might be read as a paren thesis—that, if on hearing the petition the court should be satisfied that an act of bankruptcy had been committed, such debtor should be adjudged a bankrupt. The committee would perceive that both the proceeding on which the order was obtained in the ;first instance, and that en which the ultimate ruling was obtained, were in their nature ex parte, and thus a debtor who never had the least intention of de frauding any one, but simply happened to be absent for a time, might be adjudged a bankrupt without ever being heard in his own defence. (Hear, hear.) A debtor had simply to say—" The last place I heard of him was so and so; I have inquired there and cannot find him ; nobody knows anything about him ;" and the impossibility of proving service was shown. In dealing with evidence of that kind it was not necessary that the creditor should be always unscrupulous; he might be hot or hasty, or there might have been some quarrel about his particular debt. (Hear.) The remedy suggested by his hon. friend the member for the University of Cambridge would go far to meet the evils arising under this clause; and he did not think that the objection had been adequately met by the hon. and learned Attorney-General. He ventured to submit that it was not enough to take the same proceedings to make a man a bankrupt which sufficed to procure a judgment. Let the Common Law Procedure Act be followed in the first instance, and when a debtor had exhausted his remedy on a judgment, then let him apply to the court for an adjudi cation of bankruptcy. (Hear, hear.) If some further safe guard than was provided by the clause did not exist, per sons living abroad would be placed in great peril. He, therefore, thought with his hon. and learned friend that judgment should first be obtained. Mr. WALPOLE reiterated his former objections, and suggested that alterations should be made in the clause to meet the difficulty which he contended he had established. The Al TORNEY-GENERAL observed that there was no necessity whatever for the introduction of the proposed words, for the clause under consideration was quite suffi cient for the purpose. Mr. S. FITZGERALD was in favour of the insertion of the words proposed, for in no case ought a man to be made a bankrupt until a judgment had been obtained against him on the part of a creditor. Mr. BOVILL entirely concurred with the amendment proposed by the right bon, gentleman the member for Cambridge, but he would suggest that if the learned Attorney-General did not agree that a judgment should at first be obtained, he would at least adopt an amendment that some application should be made to the debtor by the creditor for payment of his debt. Mr. M. SMITH thought the clause did not provide a suf ficient safeguard against parties leaving the country to evade payment of their debts, and he hoped the clause would be postponed for further consideration. Mr. PULLER suggested the insertion of words which would enable a man having gone abroad, not for fraudulent purposes, to have the bankruptcy against him annulled when he paid the debts he owed. Mr. MALINS thought a notice of 40 or 60 days should be given to a party before an act of bankruptcy was ad- judged against him. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said proof would neces- sarily be required to be given in all those cases, and in par- ticular cases of what were called cases watts animi it was most desirable that proof should be given ; and it should be shown by the creditor in the obligations of proof imposed upon him by the clause, that he had exhausted all the means in his power to serve notice upon the debtor. He should show by proof that ho endeavoured to discover his residence abroad—if he supposed him to have gone abroad —and in the event of his not succeeding in finding him, then his next step should be to serve notice at his last known place of abode. If he have succeeded in serving notice on the debtor, and if the latter fail to appear, the creditor can then make him a bankrupt, the Court of Bankruptcy hav ing had the necessary proof that the creditor had exhausted all means that the law required. Mr. BOVILL said, if the learned Attorney-General would look into the statute of 1852, he would find that proof of a debt was required to bo given before a judge be fore a writ was issued. Now, what they proposed here to the Attorney •Gta,Gral to do was, to insert in the clause a similar provision. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assented to the sugges tion, and the clause, as amended, was agreed to. On clause 83, Mr. JAMES said this section of the bill was objection able, on the ground that it proposed to enact that if a debtor, whether a trader or a non-trader, should lie in a prison 14 days without arranging with his creditors, ho should be deemed to be in a state of bankruptcy. He thought there ought to be a distinction made between a trader and a non-trader in this matter. He would suppose a young man having good prospects, who might be thrown into prison for non-payment of damages in a case of breach of promise of marriage, or other liability, and who, if suffi cient time were given him, might be able to arrange his affairs, so as to discharge his liabilities ; but by this clause he would be made a bankrupt if he was not able to settle with his creditors within 14 days after he was cast into pri son. Now he (Mr. James) could not but think that the time thus limited was too short, and that a person who was a non-trader ought to be allowed three months, at least, to settle with his creditors before declaring him a bankrupt; and he would move, as an amendment, that the time of im prisonment in such cases be extended to three calender months. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should be ex ceedingly happy, so far, to adopt the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend, as to make a distinction between a trader and non-trader ; but when he informed the hon. and learned gentleman and the committee that one of the objects of the bill was to effect, in time, the gradual aboli tion of imprisonment for debt, they would, perhaps, not think 14 days' imprisonment, as indicating a state of bank ruptcy, too short. In 14 days the debtor would be dis charged froM pridon, and then his affairs would be taken cognisance of in the Court of Bankruptcy. One of his (the Attorney-General's) objections was to make it a useless thing for a creditor to send a debtor to prison, after he had committed an act of bankruptcy, he (the Attorney-General) thought that in a short time the creditors would think that an adjudication in bankruptcy would be preferable. The hon. and learned gentleman the member for Marylebone must be aware that the introduction of the words which he proposed, extending the imprisonment, prior to bankruptcy, to three months, would very much mar one of the great objects of the bill. The law at present was, that the trader who remained 21 days in prison without satisfying his cre ditor's claim should be deemed to have committed an act of bankruptcy; and he (the Attorney-General) proposed to shorten th 6 time to 14 days. All he could say was, that he thought the object of the clause would be entirely de feated, if he were to require such a long imprisonment as three months prior to a man being regarded as in a position of bankruptcy. Mr. MOFFATT thought that all efforts of friends to arrange a debtor's affairs, so as to avoid bankruptcy, might be barred, if they allowed only 14 days to settle with credi tors. He thought the hon. and learned gentleman the At torney-General should allow a considerably longer period, and therefore he should support the amendment of his hon. friend the member for Marylebone. Mr. MONTAGTJ SMITH was also disposed to support the amendment in cases of parties who were non-traders. Such a man when suddenly thrown into prison, might not, in so short a time, be able to arrange his affairs by realising his property. Every trader was bound to pay his debts ; but the wheel of trade might not turn round in so short a time. Mr. AYRTON said it seemed to him that a distinction should be made between traders and non-traders. With respect to flip operation of the Law of Bankruptcy in this country, he might gay it was most unsatisfactory, as com pared with that of other European countries. When ho was chairman of a committee on the subject of their commercial laws he remembered that all the witnesses that were ex amined stated that commercial credit on the Continent was in a higher state than in England. In most commercial countries there was a commercial code of laws, applicable to commercial matters, but there was no such code in this country. Unfortunately the law of bankruptcy in this country had not been kept to traders. In France it was otherwise, while in this country a man might go and buy anything, and sell it in order to make himself a trader. The great distinction in France was, that none but traders could be made bankrupts. In England they were going down in the direction of the immorality of the United States, and not going forward in the direction of the mora lity of the great commercial countries of Europe. Mr. BARROW agreed in the opinion that every man should pay his debts ; but it appeared to him that the non trader or trader should have a longer time than 14 days in order to enable him to endeavour to arrange his affairs without being driven to bankruptcy. He agreed that three months were too long, but certainly 14 days were, on the other hand, too short. Mr. JAMES ultimately consented to withdraw his amendment, on the hen. and learned gentleman, the Atter ney-Gencral, having intimated that he would take the ques tion of the extension of the time into consideration. The clause was then agreed to, subject to further consi deration. Clause 84 was agreed to. On clause 85, Mr. AYRTON observed that he thought the clause would operate harshly against an innocent creditor who re sorted to a hostile execution in order to obtain payment of his debt. Under the operation of the clause he would pur sue the debtor and get execution, and then if the man should become bankrupt within 30 days of the execution, he would have to refund the proceeds of the execution for the benefit of the creditors generally. Again, suppose the debtor to have paid a debt, not from a voluntary preference, but on demand, such a payment being protected by the existing law, he should like to know whether that would be a pay ment with notice of an act of bankruptcy or not. Was an execution levied on the goods of the debtor to be notice to all the world of an act of bankruptcy ? If it was to be a pro tected payment, there would be this anomaly in the matter, that a creditor might have received a considerable sum under those circumstances, and not be obliged to refund it, while another creditor who might have taken all the means in his power to get, might have to refund the money he had ob tained for the general benefit of the estate. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the hon. and learned gentleman the member for the Tower Hamlets was right in supposing that a new act of bankruptcy was defined by the clause. If a man permitted his property to be seized and taken in execution, the fact of his p:operty being thus publicly sold, was to be acceptal as an act of bank ruptcy. The adjudication of bankruptcy ought not to be founded on any but impeachable circumstances, and the sale of the goods was a clear proof of insolvency ; for no man having the means of payment would submit to such a proceeding, that being understood to b; an act of bank ruptcy, the rest of the clause would be clear enough. The subsequent part of the clause provided chat was to take place in the event of there being no adjudication, and also of there being one. There might certainly bo this anomaly, that the execution creditor might be placed in a worse situa tion than the man who, without an execution, had gone to the bankrupt to demand payment, and had obtained it under a threat of bankruptcy. Great care was taken with reference to the transaction of seizure and sale, so as to pro vide fully that the notoriety of the fact itself should be notice of an act of bankruptcy. His answer to his hon. and learned frierd, therefore, was this—that as the execution creditor, if there were an adjudication, would be paid out of the proceeds of the goods levied and sold, so also any other creditor who has o';tainci a voluntary payment, or an en forced payment, from the bankrupt within the period of time fixed in the clause, would be equally liable and bound to repay the mon( y so received for the general benefit of the creditors. The object of the clause was to put a stop to the practice of seizing a man's goods, proceeding to a sale, and sweeping off the whole of the property ; and its operation would be this, that all moneys and property obtained from the bankrupt after the act of bankruptcy, would be money and property given up to the estate for the general benefit of the creditors, provided the debtor were made a bankrupt within 30 days. Mr. AYRTON thought the provision of the clause should be more extensive, and suggested to the Attorney- General that not only the execution creditor, but any other person, should be obliged to refund money and property to the estate under the circumstances mentioned in the clause. Sir F. KELLY expressed his approval of the suggestion. The ATTORNEY. GENERAL consented to amend the clause as proposed, thanking the hon. and learned gentle man for the suggestion. Mr. HODGKINSON moved to insert these words :- I)%it iu all cases in villa au accuti9u shall ))e levied, the costs of such execution, and of any seizure or sale there under, shall be a first charge upon the goods seized, and upon the proceeds of the sale thereof, and shall be deducted from such proceeds." The hon. gentleman observed that he had been induced to move that amendment out of conside ration to the situation of the debtor, upon whom it was un doubtedly hard that he should have his debts increased by ject. costs. ➢lr. M. SMITII said he thought it would bo extremely unfair to the execution creditor, who had been wide awake, and probably the means of getting something for the credi tors, to deprive hint of the costs of the execution. The ATTORNEY-GEN ERAL explained that the pro posed amendment was unnecessary, and it was therefore withdrawn. Sir J. GOLDSMID remarked that this clause would place sheriffs in a position of some difficulty if there were no explanation reconciling it with clause 133 of the Bankruptcy Consolidation Act. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that the last passage of the clause would obviate any inconvenience of the nature apprehended by the hon. gentleman. The clause was then agreed to. On clause 86, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved to insert in line 19, the words "exceeding £50." The obtuse as amended, was agreed to. Clause 87 was adopted without discussion. On clause 88, Mr. JAMES moved the omission of the words, "whether he be a trader or not," and the insertion of the words, "or being a non-trader, at the end of one calendar month." After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK and the ATTOR NEY-GENERAL, the amendment was substantially accepted and the clause adopted. Clause 89 was agreed to. Clause 90, fixing the rules under which the judgment debtor summonses shall issue, was, after some explanation by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL of those rules, agreed to, as were clauses to 100. On clause 101, declaring that debts contracted before the act were not to support an adjudication in case of a non trader, Mr. MALINS thought the clause was an error. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause had been introduced in accordance with previous understanding. The clause was agreed to, as were clauses up to 115. On clause 116, Mr. AYRT ON said that if non-traders were to be exempt from payment of their debts on surrendering their property, a similar privilege ought to be accorded to the working classes of England as well as the rest of the community. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that ho only pro posed to continue the committing power of the county court judges in cases of fraudulent contraction of slats. He pro posed to add to the clause that such persons would not be entitled to their discharge by a petition in forma pauperis. The clause as amended was agreed to. Clause 117 was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress and obtained leave to sit again on Monday next. The house resumed. MARKETS AND FAIRS (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion that this bill be read a second time, Lord NAAS objected to some of the details of the bill. One of his objections was that there should be no increased toll without increased accommodation. The bill contained no clause for uniformity of weights and measures, and this omission would lead to the perpetration of great frauds. He had no hostile feeling towards the bill, but he hoped it would be considered in committee. Mr. V. SCULLY said he had not had sufficient time to communicate with his constituents as to the provisions of the bill, and he hoped the Government would afford time for considering the measure before the second reading. He believed that with respect to small fairs and markets, this bill would cause great expense, and, therefore, the effect would be that the bill would be inoperative. Colonel DUNNE thought the bill was much wanted in Ireland, and he should not, therefore, oppose the second reading of the measure, although he objected to that clause which gave power to close up certain fairs and markets. Lord JOHN BROWNE objected to the proprietary rights in markets and fairs being forfeited, and cited some instances of hardship that would arise under its operation. He thought that power should be given to the Lord- Lieutenant to say what was the amount of the proprieto. s' rights, and to what the proprietors should be entitled to in the event of the fair or market being closed. Pie hoped steps would be taken to make the weights and measures in Ireland uniform. Mr. GEORGE suggested that the second reading of the bill should be postponed until after the coming assizes in Ireland, when Irish members would receive instructions respecting the measure. He admitted that a measure of this kind was desirable, but he thought it would not be delayed if the time he suggested were given to parties in terested in the measure and they had an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the subject. Mr. MAGUIRE supported the principle of the bill, which, it was admitted, was wanted in Ireland. He thought the proposal of the Secretary for Ireland, viz., that he would not ask the house to go into committee on the bill until after Easter, was a very fair one. He had received letters from gentlemen in the county of Cork, in which he was requested to give his support to a measure of this kind, and that was the reason he supported the second reading. The bill was then read a second time. BANK OF ENGLAND PAYMENTS BILL. On the motion that the house should go into committee on this bill, Mr. BASS said the bill was of a much more important character than possibly the public supposed. He must apologise for raising a discussion on such. an important queer• tion, but he thought the power given to the Bank would give it the control of the issues of the country, and produce most dangerous results. In 1858 the Bank established a rule with regard to its mode of discounting, but fluctuations since had been greater than ever. Within the last year 13 or 14 changes had taken place in the rates of discount, which had had a most injurious effect on the money-market. First it was 21 per cent., then it was 41, then 5, and now it was 8 per cent. ; producing by these fluctuations a greater depression in the money market than had been known for years. That was done to deprive their competitors in the discount trade from the possibility of obtaining any assist ance from them, and the consequence was, as he (Mr. Bass) had been informed by one of them, that they were obliged to hold by them an amount of reserve in hands for contingencies, which had the effect of creating the present pressure. Then, again, the directors of the Bank of England alleged as a reason for pursuing this course that the discount houses had acted imprudently, but they themselves were the parties who gave an enormous credit to Streatfeild and Co., whose case they had all seen within the last few months, and who certainly were the most enormous impostors of modern times. The Bank of England gave them £120,000 a short time before they failed, and although they managed to cover themselves, their confidence to the last remained so complete that on every application made to them on the subject of those people, they stated their house to be most irreproachable, and of solvent responsibility. He (Mr. Bass) thought that at a period when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to give them so great a favour for so long a time, they ought not to have the power of raising or depressing the money market by raising 5 per cent. one day and 6 another, and all that done by very small majorities of the directors. He wished to know from the right hon. gentleman if they were to have a control over the issues of the country for 25 years, or whether it would not be better to confine their operations to the management of the public debt, and transfer the other powers to some other company. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not surprised that his hon. friend should have called attention to the subject at a period when a pressure was on the monetary affairs of the country. As to the question he put to him, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no difficulty what ever in answering. The hon. gentleman thinks that their management of the public debt would continue to them a direct, or at all events an indirect certainty of a continuance of their present position as a bank of public business, and the great agent for making the issues of the State. He could assure him, however, that so far from giving them any new title it would be the very reverse, because until the present time they had been more or less under an impression that the remuneration given to them was to be consi dered as a part or their privileges. Tho present bill put an end to any such idea. If the hon. member re• ferred to the acts of 1844 and 1838, he would see that the agency of the Bank for the public debt was more than once referred to in terms which, had it insisted on its extreme rights, it might say that Parliament was not at• liberty to interfere with them without a breach of public faith. Instead of that the Government had detached the operations of the public debt from the other business of the Bank, and it will have no further concern with issues, or its quasi trustehip in connexion with loan funds. With regard to that peculiar portion of his hon. friend's speech in which he impugned the conduct of the Bank with re spect to a largo mercantile house, who had entered into large obligations, he could not but regret that his loon, friend, in impugning its policy, and something more than the policy of the directors, had not given intimation of his intentions to some hon. member of the house3who was connected with the Bank, in order that proper explana tions might be given. His hon. friend, with that clear and accurate knowledge of the ease which he had obtained, must be aware that the season through which they had just passed had been one of considerable difficulty. There had been no crisis, but it had been a zigzag movement in the value of public securities approximating to a crisis—so that it had been a very trying period both for the authorities of the Bank and those who were placed in commercial relations with it. The operations of the directors had been character ised by great prudence. As regarded the rule under which the power of discounting which existed at certain periods had been withheld from public bodies, who, no doubt were to a certain extent competitors of the Bank, that was a question which was very fully open to be discussed here after. But he must say that he did not think that in the adoption of that rule the Bank had been guided by a nar row regard to any selfish interest. But so far as they felt they had a sort of trust to discharge, their great desire and ruling motive had been to act in the spirit of the law, and to prevent the recurrence of those crises which all looked back upon with such apprehension. (Hear.) Mr, J 3485) is cxPlaiatien, said he had lawatimed t 9 an • h tis jut ention of referring to the sub- hon. member present Mr. CRAWFORD sa' id he thought he was the only member referred t'"e ; bilt he must protest against matters of private converst, ! held with the hon. member being mentioned publicly in th e house. He should be fully con tent to rest the deft lice of the Bank directors upon the statement of the hon.. '.member himself. His hon. friend had complained that the price of money had varied so much as three to four per cent. in the course of a year ; but did any man pret Intl to say that the Bank of Eng land was responsible for the value of money in this coun try ? His hon. friend w' s the manufacturer of a com modity of consunrption up Al a large scale ; but could his hon. friend pretend to rei ;•ulate the consumption of, and demand for, that cot,lntodi\ ? All the Bank of England could do was to follow t 1 , e demand for money which existed in the country. l'hen, as to the proceedings of the Bank with regal 1.1 to certain stringent re gulations that they had at. 'opted, in placing money at the free disposal of dealers in money in the City, he had this remark to make—that perso us who were engaged in bank . _ _ ing business, whether as discs 'untors or holders of bills, were supposed to hold a certain supply of money of their own convertible securities, in orde r to meet any pressing de mand ; and it was not a proper course, instead of holding a reserve of their own to have re course to the Bank of Eng land for that purpose. The Ban k directors were fully aware of their responsibilities—they al mays acknowledged them, and were always ready to act ur Lder a sense of those respon sibilities. As to the transaction s :between the Bank of Eng land and the large commercial establishments which had been referred to, the Bank fell into the same error that other people had fallen into. 'They Were misled, lent their money, and took securities far it like others ; but the transactions of the bunk, in its; private capacity, ought not to be made the subject of discussion in Parliament, unless by a distinct motion impugning its proceedings and con duct. When such a motion was made the directors would be perfectly ready to answer. any charge made against them. Mr. CONINGIIAIi4i said he could not allow the speech of the hon. member for the City to pass unnoticed in one respect, namely, that in which be compared the Bank of England to the commercial enterprise of his hon. friend Mr. Bass. It was open to co,mpetition. It was the fact that under severe pressure. Government were compelled to abrogate a law which had failed in its object—that object being to prevent a panic, and to protect a commercial com munity from disasters arising from that cause. The next great point, in his opinion, would be to terminate the exis tence of that law, which was assailed by the univerea clamour of the commercial public. Di e. F. CROSSLEY was glad to find that the provisions of th i s did not at all bind the Government to maintain conferred exclusively on the Bank of Eng the privileg t a considerable degree of dissatisfaction land. No dotn i ; was felt respecting' it in the country ; and the value of money, from whatever ca use, was more uniform at that time than it had ever been ince. He only regretted that Vince. the Chancellor of the Excheqs.'er had made that arrange ment for so long a term as 25 yors. The house then went into committee. Clause 1 was agreed to. On clause 2, Sir J. PAXTON moved to substitute 10 years instead of 2.5. The house was every way disposed to deal fairly with the Bank, but there could be no reason for the continuance of the privilege for so long a period of time, and as circum stances might occur long before its expiration, it would not do for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have his hands tied in the way they would be by this bill. Mr. BUCHANAN observed that though the Bank of England had no authority to fix the value of money, yet it did so in times of pressure, and that in a manner which acted detrimentally to trade. There was an opinion that the monopoly of the Bank might be done away with, and a number of banks substituted in its place, each providing security for its own notes, and perhaps giving security to the Government. He should support the amendment of the hon. member for Coventry, unless the right hon. gentle man the Chancellor of the Exchequer should tell them that they were already committed to the directors of the Bank of England. Mr. HANKEY observed that the object of the aide which applied to the management of the public debt was to relieve the public creditor of all doubt or difficulty with reference to the time, place, and manner of the payment of his dividends. Whether rightly or wrongly, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought fit to reduce the charge for the management of the public debt ; but the clause had no reference whatever to the management of the public debt, for the Chancellor would still be at liberty to make an arrangement witi; eight or ten other banks. This was not the time for criticising too closely the ar rangements of the Bank. The Batik had invariably acted with great consideration to the public interests in the ma nagement of the public debt. The bill proposed to establish a limit to a very advantageous and provident arrangement which had no limit, and it did not refer to the management of the public debt. Mr. BASS wished to know whether the hon. gentlemen in that house who represented the Bank of England were dissatisfied with the arrangements proposed to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If so, let the bill be with drawn, and they would cry " quits." And he should like to ask the right hon. gentleman what the Bank did for the £7,000,000 of deposits which it had received.. (Hear, hear.) The mere fact of its having in its possession the manage ment of the public debt, must necessarily tend to embrace the whole business of the country. (Hear.) Mr. CONINGH AM said it would be more just to attack the law under which the directors of the Bank acted than the Bank itself, for it was a law which was to a great ex tent compulsory. It would be more just to attack Lord Overstone and others, who in establishing the present sys tem had repudiated utterly the principles laid down by Mill, Fullerton, and Tooke. The Bank directors were to some extent the creatures of circumstances, but if they could only succeed in limiting the arrangements now existing there would be some probability of putting an end to a highly objectionable system. Mr. FINLEY supported the amendment. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he thought the house was misapprehending the question be fore it in consequence of not duly separating certain de partments of the business of the Bank. If that bill passed it would still be perfectly open to Parliament to deal with the questions of issue and the public balances, and if the day should ever come when the question of issue became a subject of legislation, that legislation would be of a nature to secure to us the full fruits of what had already been achieved by the wise statesman who considered th subject before him. His hon. friend for Coventry appeared to be under the impression that the bill would, by implica tion, fetter the freedom of Parliament' in its future action with reference to the Bank. (Hear.) Well, if any gentle man would only read the correspondence which had passed between himself and the Governor of the Bank of England, ho would assent to the truth of his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) propositioe, and it need not be a matter of argument, because the freedom of both parties was on record, and acknowledged by the Bank itself. The letter of the Governor of the Bank was itself an acknowledgment of the separation now for the first time introduced into different portions of the business of the Bank. Now, the principal features of the case were these. There was first of all the term of twenty-five years ; and he need not say that if the hon. gentleman should succeed in his motion, it would simply have the effect of cancelling his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) humble labours, and of making them revert to the operation of the present act, which the Bank would be perfectly content to do, and of causing a loss to the public of £50,000 a year. He did not consider that the terms imposed on the Bank were hard terms, but, on the contrary, that they yielded a fair amount of remuneration for the business done. (Bear, hear.) He believed, how ever, that there was a wish, on the part of Parliament and of the commercial world, that it should be a bill which should direct the proceedings of the Legislature and o Government with respect to the Bank of England. The ad vantages that would be had from it were, first, a profit of £50,000 a year on the charge for the management of th public debt ; secondly, increased services of the Bank for less money ; and thirdly, to which they attached great importance, the extrication of the whole subject of remuneration for management from the influence of those very complicated con - siderations involved in the structure of the loan acts. Any man who studied the subject must see that the Bank was a trustee on the part of the Government for the management of the public loans and the payment of interest. The Bank was a perpetual corporate person until the loan was paid off. He thought the Bank had shown great liberality in its transactions, but it was but fair 111 state that the, bargain with the Bank for the management of the debt was a per manent arrangement, and one which could not be altered without the consent of the Bank. It was therefore a great public advantage for the country to get rid of that perpetual obligation. lie thought the terms proposed by the Govern ment were equitable to the Bank and advantageous to the public, and he hoped the hon. member would withdraw his amendment. After a few words from Mr. CROSSLEY, the amendment was withdrawn, and the original motion was agreed to. The clause was with some verbal amendments agreed to. Clauses to 7 inclusive, with some amendments, were agreed to. The house then resumed. OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL, This bill was read a second time. LARCENY, &c., BILL. This bill was read a second time. FORGERY BILL. This bill was read a second time. The Coinage Offences Bill, the Accessories and Abettors Bill, the Criminal Statute Bill, and the Law of Foreign Countries Bill were severally read a second time. The house then adjourned. Locomotives were first dawned in the reign of Charles IT. ; constant Improvements have made them perfection. The same means have now so perfected Herring's magnetic brushes and combs that they restore the colour to grey hair, and cure neuralgia and nervous headache with all but un erring certainty. N.B. — Counterfeits are being made. Offices, 32, Basinghall-street, London. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, at No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TIIE Surf Office, No. 112,Strand , in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Middlesex, FriclaY, February 22, 1863. iWi~ll~il jjl