The Sun. — London, England, 1861-07-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.-(YESTERDAY,) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at Rao o'clock. THE LATE WAR IN CHINA. The LORD CHANCELLOR read letters from Major- General Mitchell and Admiral Hope, acknowledging the thanks of their lordships for the services rendered by the army and navy in the north of China. FRI VATE BUSINESS. The Duke of Sutherland's Estate Bill was read a second time. The Great Western Railway, Simpson's Hospital Estate, and Cockermouth, Keswick, and Penrith Railway Bills were read a third time and passed. ASSIMILATION OF CRIMINAL TO CIVIL PROCEDURE. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Mr. Ben jamin Blondell, praying that accused persons in criminal charges might be admitted as witnesses on their own be half. The noble lord at some length showed the peculiar state of the law as it at present existed on the subject. EAST INDIA (HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE) BILL. Earl DE GREY and RIPON moved the second reading of this bill, the object of which was to unite the chief courts of judicature in Calcutta, Madras, and Bom bay into one court, with power to deal with all the subjects coming under the consideration of the old tribunals. The effect of amalgamation would be to improve the administration of justice in India, and the scheme had received the approbation of the most eminent men in India, and amongst them Sir Edward Ryan and Sir T. Halliday. By the bill then under consideration the Supreme Court and the Suddar Court would be abolished, and instead thereof a new court to be called the High Court of Judicature would be established as the old Supreme Court had been, namely, by Royal Charter, and the qualification of the judges would remain the same as at present, namely, that they should have been barristers of five years' standing. Lord BROUGHAM said the bill was a most impor tant one, and therefore claimed their most serious consi deration. The sixth clause gave the power to the Indian Government to interfere with the salaries of the judges, and he thought such a proposition was most objectionable. It was an entirely novel propo sition, and one which he most strongly objected to. Earl DE GREY said the clause did not affect the exist ing judges; it only applied to those who might here after be appointed. He would however take care that the objections of the noble and learned lord were well considered. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought the bill had better be referred to a select committee, as at present it was a moat objectionable one. It would be absurd to send the judges of the proposed high court into the Mofussel, as they would most likely be ignorant of the language of the natives. They had the authority of Mountstewart Elphin stone against the amalgamation of the two courts. He asked what would be thought if it were proposed to amalgamate the courts of England and Scotland ? The object of the bill he considered to be to give patronage to the Government by the appointment of a large number of barristers to office, every one of whom would have £5,000 a year. There was a principle introduced into this bill which had not been at tempted since Fox's bill, of throwing all the patronage in India into the hands of the Home Government. He found by a calculation that this bill would cost the country £262,000 per annum. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE was very thankful to the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for India for bringing forward this bill, and he hoped that it would pass with some slight modifications. He objected to the clause which enacted that at least one-third of the judges of the courts of justice of India must be members of the civil service. He contended that such a proceeding was most unconstitutional, because, no matter what the qualities of persons at the disposal of the Governor-General for these situations, he could not appoint any one unless he belonged to that service. The bill therefore debarred in the first in stance all the natives of India, and in the next a largo num ber of the bar of England, to the great detriment of the pub lic service. If they left the clause as it stood, there was no doubt whatever that men of the least judicial ability would he appointed as judges. He also complained of the clause which provided for the removal of the chief justice at the pleasure of the Crown, which he contended destroyed the independence and impartiality of the occupant of that high office. The great complaint in India heretofore was, that judges were so dependent on the Government that all their decisions were in conformity with their views, and instances occurred where, on appeal to the Privy Council in Eng- I land, the judgments of many of them were set aside, as not only illegal, but unjust. He quoted several instances where the opinions of these functionaries were founded upon the known views of the Government, and he therefore deeply regretted that so high a functionary as the Chief Judge should not be made independent of the Crown and of the Government of India. Earl DE RIPON and RIPON denied the assertion made by the noble earl (Earl of Ellenborough) that the different courts in India were to be concentrated into one court. It would be done only in cases where it was not only practic able, but absolutely necessary. As to the number of judges, he denied that it was done for the purpose of enabling Go vernment to send out 40 barristers to India, for the clause merely said that two-thirds of the judges should be barris ters, and one-third connected with the civil service. There was not the slightest intention on the part of her Majesty's Government to provide any patronage whatever ; the num ber to be appointed was absolutely necessary to administer, be it recollected, justice throughout the whole of their vast Indian empire. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said a few words in explanation. He complained that the present Chief Justice was the person to whom was given the power of distributing all these offices, and contended that it would be found ut terly impracticable to unite the Sudder and Supreme Courts in India. The Bishop of LONDON said the bill would abolish the Ecclesiastical Court of Appeal, and he thought that por tion of the bill ought to be remedied. (Hear.) The LORD CHANCELLOR said it would be a matter of deep regret if anything were to occur in the course of the debate which would be an impediment in the progress of a bill, the passing of which he thought would distinguish this session, as discharging one of the greatest obligations they owed to the people of India. He had since he had had the honour of a seat in that house listened on several occasions with the pleasure and the admiration that all must feel to the speeches of the noble earl on his left (Earl of Ellenborough) ; but he must confess that the speech they had just heard from the noble earl was not charac terised by so much candour, and he would even, with great respect, add with so much knowledge as he had generally found during his short experience in the speeches of the noble earl, The noble earl spoke of the Supreme Court of these presidencies as if it had not now to administer native law- Why, the Supreme Court had an area of jurisdiction, within which area came the great towns of Calcuttii, Madras, and B ombay; and within that area the judges of the Su pre Court admini s ter e d, not merely the English, but native law, when native law came into question. And yet one of the pri nc i pal topics of the noble earl's speech had been the ignorance of tb.eEngli s h b arr i s t ers' and their unfitness to ad minister native l aw with Bat t s' faction. Well,at present they had for the administration o fjustice in India the Supreme Court within each presidency. Beyond that there was a local jurisdiction, which he might generall y into districts with each of th em a judge wh o de scribe w as divided at once a judge in civil and criminal matte rs , and from these ' judges there was an appeal to the Sudder Adawlut, and with de ference to the noble earl, although that court mi ght have i n theory some original jurisdiction, in practice it was confined entirely to the appellate. The result was that with reg ar d to the natives beyond the limits of the towns, there was no Supreme Court ; and with regard to the natives within the limits of the towns, there was another Supreme Court t o administer the law. With regard to British subjects, if they were within the presidency towns they were amenable to the jurisdiction, but if they were in the Mofussil they were subject to no jurisdiction beyond that which was created by the 53d George 111. The result was that there was an unjust and unseemly division between the natieees on one side and the Europeans on another. Was there any better hold they could have on the natives of India than by an elevated impartiality and pure administration of justice ? And how could they, where there was one law and one mode of administration for Europeans, and ano ther law and another administration for natives, prevent a feeling of injustice and inequality ? " But, then," said the noble earl, " how comes it that you are going to send barristers of five years' standing, with all the depth of their ignorance, into the Mofussil to administer the law ?" Why, the noble earl knew as well as he did that judges in India, and he might cite the celebrated example of Sir W. Jones, had been distinguished for the assiduity with which they had cultivated the knowledge of the native law, and the im partiality and skill with which they had administered it. In speaking of barristers of five years' standing, the noble earl would permit him to remind him that that was put as a mi nimum qualification, and not the maximum ; and he would observe that an English barrister of five years' standing might have had a great amount of practical experience in his profession. He might point, for instance; to the late Mr. Justice Patteson, who practised below the bar and laid the foundation of his reputation and acquired a great amount of knowledge in that capacity, so that when he was elevated to the English bench, he was barrister but of very few years' standing. It would be an unwise thing, therefore, to re quire such a number of years that a barrister must be call e d to the bar asmightpreclude their being able to select the fittest men for the office. But then it was said,that therehow were they to administer the law ? He understood were a certain number of covenanted bor of natives who could be a servants and a certain num which it was provided that they ra made judges, and the mode in ou . ld administer . the law was this. There would be a commission issued, and judges would be sent to different parts of the Mofussil, some^ ti me s, perhaps, an European judge, sometimes a na tive judge, and sometimes a civil servant, according to the exigencies of the case. The noble e ar l d rew an ex aggerated picture of the good things intended for the bar, but he was quite sure the nob l e ear's stateme n t would make the moulh of many a barrister in the Four Courts, i n the Court o f S , :s sion, and in Westminster-hall water, when they read of the good things in store for them. The noble -1 earl spoke of these judges having £5,000 a year, and of hav ing £2,500 when they went on circuit. Now at present there were five judges in each Sadder Adawlut, and there were three judges in each supreme court. That would make eight in each presidency, but he had yet to learn that each judge in the Sudder Adawlut received £5,000 a year, and he did not find anything in this bill imposing any obligation to aug ment the salaries. On the contrary, the Government had studiously avoided entering into any such obligation. But ho did not think that that was the mode in which a great question of this kind ought to be considered. They were pro viding for the administration of justice among many mil lions of the people, and they should be prepared to create the number of judges which would be required by the exigen cies of the case, but, he admitted, not beyond the exigen cies of the case. It was said by the noble earl that a gen tleman of great ability and deserved reputation gave an opinion some years ago that it would not be desirable to at tempt to amalgamate the mode of administration of Eng lish and native law. But there was a cessor of the reason, and therefore there ought to be a cessor of the opinion. Mr. Elphinstone was represented to have said—" I should be sorry to carry the administration of justice in English hands into the Mofussil, because they would take with them the technicality of the English system." He entirely agreed with Mr. Elphinstone, and especially if English spe cial pleading as it existed was to follow the a dministration of English justice ; but the noble earl forgot that the Go vernment did not bring forward this bill until they had previously prepared the way by the preparation of a simple code both for civil and criminal cases —a code which they had already tried and found to be satisfactory—a code which combined, he was happy to say, cheapness and ex pedition as well as the mean s of simplifying the adminis tration of justice. lie thought, therefore, that to send judges a with such tothteheirM:dfuutyss,ila' was a proce durend with t(meeco a code neiatent with every thing that ought to be o bserved in directing th e mo d e of the administration of justice. He was particularly de sirous that this should be done, because he th oug ht th a t the native law un der this administration would be deve loped in a manner consistent with the more enlarged expe rience and advanced state of English jurisprudence. There were a great variety of occasions in whi c h, w ith ou t altering t h e native law with regard to rights of property, yet with re spect to contracts and mercantile cases, that law had yet to be settled. The noble marquis asked why should judges be removed at the pleasure of the Crown. IL was the law, and he thought it was a wise law with respect to colonial judges, that when a complaint was made against a judge the matter was brought before the Privy Council, and the opportunity was afforded him of being heard in his de fence. The procedure corresponded as near as 'possible to that which related to English judges, who could not be removed without an address from both houses of Parlia ment. With regard to the matter referred to by the right rev. prelate, it was a mistake to suppose that these courts had any spiritual jurisdiction. It was testamentary juris diction which was referred, and had no reference to bishops and the clergy ; but in order to prevent any mistake he should propose to strike out the word " ecclesiastical," and insert " testamentary." He had to apologise for having occupied the time of their lordships so long, but he thought it necessary to make these explanations of the bill. (The noble and learned lord resumed his seat amid loud cheers from all parts of the house.) The bill was then read a second time. INDIA CIVIL SERVICE BILL. Earl DE GREY and RIPON, in moving the second reading of this bill, said its object was to legalise certain appointments whose legality was hitherto doubtful under the present state of the law. No one would wish that mili tary men should be prevented from holding offices in the civil service, or to see natives excluded from their fair share of patronage. He had for his own part to express his high admiration for the manner in which the civil service of India had been hitherto performed, because it not only conferred honour on the parties themselves, but on their country. In the present bill there was a schedule of offices to which the Governor-General might make appointments for civil services, but they would not be confirmed until they re ceived the approbation of the Secretary of State for India. The bill in its present shape had received the approval of not only the Government, but of the other house of Parliament, and every one at all acquainted with India. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH opposed the bill because it was contrary to Parliamentary rights, and he had some doubts whether it could be carried into effect in an efficient manner. If it had the effect—as he believed it would have —of lowering the qualifications of candidates for the public service in India, it would indeed be productive of great mis chief. In his opinion there would be no security whatever for appointments, especially in the North-Western Pro vinces, and he feared that those persons who may hereafter be engaged in the public service would be found much infe rior to the men who ruled the destinies of that country with so much honour to themselves and benefit to India. Lord LYVEDEN was also opposed to the bill in many of its details, especially the schedule and the second clause, because an undue advantage was given to the covenanted over the uncovenanted service. The Duke of ARGYLL said the bill was objected to on two distinct, though opposite grounds. The noble earl op posite was opposed to it because he thought it threw the civil service in India open in a manner which must be most injurious; whereas his noble friend behind him held that it was still too close. In his opinion, the measure was entirely free from either vhjeutiuu, awl °illy provided the best means for placing it in the most efficient and advantageous posi tion for the wants of the country. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought it would be absurd to suppose that the covenanted service of India could be able to fill all the offices in the public service of that country. The bill was then read a second time. The Earl of DERBY said that it would probably be for the public convenience if the noble earl could state on what day the committee on these bills would be taken, as there was a great deal of business before the house. The second of the two bills he thought would be far more conveniently dealt with in a select committee of their lordships' house, but that course would expose it to the risk of being lost al together. At the same time there were several details which required consideration and possible amendment, and he therefore thought it weuld be highly desirable if the noble earl could fix a day when the bill might be discussed at an hour of the evening when the attendance of their lordships was not confined, as it was at present, to some seven or eight noble lords on the Government side of the house, and some two or three on the other. Earl GRANVILLE at first fixed Tuesday for one com mittee and Thursday for the other, but ultimately Tuesday (as we understood) was fixed for both the committees. The County Voters (Scotland) Bill, the Turnpike Trusts Arrangement Bill, the White Herring Fishery (Scotland) Bill, and the Vaccination Bill were read a second time. The Chatham Dockyard Extension Bill and the London Coal and Wine Dues Continuance Bill were read a third time and passed. The Commons' amendments to the Queensland Govern ment Bill were considered and agreed to. COUNTY OF SOMERSET. The Bishop . of BATH and WELLS moved for a return of the parishes in the county of Somerset, with a population less than 600, which receive Government aid for the schools therein. After some remarks from the Duke of NEWCASTLE, The motion was withdrawn, and their lordships adjourned a few minutes past eight eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS-YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER was in attendance at 12 o'clock, but a house was not formed until some time afterwards. SUPPLY. The house went into committee of supply, The following votes were agreed to :i110,098 to com plete a sum of £125,028 for the Treasury chest, £5,000 for the Zambesi expedition, £5,000 to complete a sum of £7,000 for the Niger expedition, £2,000 for the exploration of the North-Western province of Australia, £21,400 to complete the sum of £50,000 for the support of captured negroes. On the vote for consuls at inland towns in Europe, Mr. DODS _; ON thought th a t th e consu l s a t L e ip s i c , Frankfort, Ghent, and Seville ought to be abolished, and with regard to the consnl at P ar i s th at t h ey s h ou l d a d op t they the same cou rse Which the Legation. pursued at Madrid, by ap pointing a Secret ary to L a e n gation. He thought also that as the consulat e at mu should be done away with. was a mere sine cure , it Lord J. RUSSELL said it was intended to abolish the co nsulate at Ghent. It was intended togl ee v e e nt the consulate at Paris at the end of tho term of the pr ue consulate to the librarian of the embassy, who would contin attached to the embassy. He reminded the house that generally speaking they could no t receive com p let e or satisfactory accounts, with regard to the affairs of the continent, with out the assistance of diplomatic agents, and that being th e case the services rendered by consuls and vice-consuls be came of the greatest importance. The consul at Moscow supplied the Government with valuable intelligence in re spect to central Russia, and the same remark applied to the consul at Warsaw. The consul at Milan was not intended to be made a permanent officer, but considering the changes that had recently taken place in Italy it was not expedient that the office should be done away with at present. As regarded Seville, the consulate there was not considered by the Government necessary, and would accordingly be abo lished on the first opportunity that presented itself. With regard to Turkey, hon. members should recollect that all the Powers in Europe had consuls in that country, who exercised political functions, He might here observe that the less the consuls interfered in the political affairs of that country the more desirable it would be. He would remark generally that the retrenchment in regard to consulates might prove the very worst economy. Mr. WHITE considered that the explanation of the noble lord was not satisfactory. The establishment of these consulates was a reflection on the efficiency of the diplo matic corps which had furnished some of the most valuable reports. He advocated the reduction of consulates, and pointed to Germany as offering a field for that purpose, as well as for retrenchment in the ambassadorial service. Lord H. VANE said that he agreed with the last speaker as to the efficiency of the diplomatic corps ; but it should be remembered that they derived a great deal of their in formation from the consuls. (Hear, hear.) Hs would not approve of increase in salaries or of these establishments, THE SIIN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 19, Z,1861: but in the present state of Europe he did not think the time had arrived for reduction in this department of the public service. _ _ . —......-. Mr. IV. FOSTER thought it would be most unadvisable in the existing state of Germany, both in regard to political and trade considerations, to reduce the consular corps in that part of Europe. Every other Power in Europe had consuls there, and if this country were deprived of the assis tance of such a valuable agency it would be placed in a dis advantageous position as compared with other countries. Mr. FREELAND was in favour of the reduction in the consulates, and complained of the inefficiency displayed in that department. Mr. S. FITZGERALD said that the suggestions of the committee for the reduction in the department should be carried out, but at the same time he would assure the house that very little, if any, saving to the public expenditure would be effected by reducing the consular department, which was most inadequately reimbursed. Mr. A. SMITH said they ought to look with consider able jealousy on new appointments, and he referred to the consul recently appointed with a salary of £5OO a-year at Reunion, where the value of the British imports last year amounted to only £75. He concluded by moving that the vote should be reduced by £2,300, the salaries of certain consuls whose services he thought unnecessary. After some further discussion, Lord J. RUSSELL entered into an explanation to show that the appointment of a consul at Reunion was desirable in a political point of view. Some remarks had been made with respect to some of the consuls being allowed to trade and others prohibited doing so; the reason was very simple. It would increase the estimates by a very large amount if salaries were paid sufficiently adequate to all the consuls, and, therefore, when the amount of trade was small, onlyta smaller salary was paid, but when the trade was large then was the corresponding salary in order to remunerate him properly, and in these cases he was not allowed to trade. Mr. A. SMITH ultimately withdrew the amendment, and the vote was agreed to. On the vote of £646,646 for services in China and Japan, Col. SYKES explained that the salary of the Plenipo teniiary at Pekin was too large. Lord J. RUSSELL said the salaries were very much regulated by the size of the places. He was happy to say that the accounts he had received from Pekin showed that the English Plenipotentiaries were well received. The vote was agreed to. Tho Tovt vMo prnpnqed was £20,000 for the extraordi nary expenses of ambassadors at foreign courts. After a few words from Mr. WILLIAMS, Lord J. RUSSELL said that important information was often derived from consuls in minor States in Germany, and that therefore they ought to be maintained. The vote was agreed to. The next item was £40,000 for special.missions, diploma tic outfits, and conveyance of colonial officers and others. Mr. A. SMITH moved that the item be reduced by £20,000. After some discussion the amendment was negatived, and the item passed. On the vote of £60,000, expenses of the North American Boundary Commission, a discussion ensued, but it was ultimately agreed to. It was moved that £185,140 be voted for superannuation and allowances of retiring public officers. The house resumed before the item was agreed to. The house adjourned at 4 o'clock, and resumed at 6 o'clock, and was THE GALWAY PACKET CONTRACT. Mr. CONINGHAM gave notice that to-morrow evening he would again present the petition from Mr. O'Malley Irwin with respect to Mr. Orrell Lever's conduct in connec tion with the Royal Atlantic Mail Packet Company. He wished to apologise to the house for having without notice to the hon. member for Galway presented the petition on Tuesday evening, but he was mistaken as to the hon. mem ber's absence. STATUES IN THE ROYAL GALLERY. Mr. GREGORY asked the First Commissioner of Works whether it was true that the four statues to be erected in the Royal Gallery, for which £3,200 had been voted, were to be the statues of William IV., George IV., James 1., and Charles I. ; and, if so, whether such selection was in accordance with the pledge given to the house by the Com missioners of Works, August 3, 1860, which pledge was that the selection would be generally acceptable to the house ? (Hear, hear.) Mr. COWPER denied that he had given any such pledge as the hon. member seemed to suppose. All he had done was to promise that the subject should be fully considered. He believed it was quite impossible that any selection could be made which would prove generally acceptable to the house. The Fine Arts Commissioners had reported that the Sovereigns should be taken in chronological order, as illustrations of the history of the country. Mr. GREGORY wished to ask another question. When the Government refused, the other evening, to give any information as to the Sovereigns who had been selected for statues in the Royal Gallery, had not the right hon. gentleman in his possession the report of the Fine Arts Commission, which stated that two statues were to be exe cuted by Mr. Theed, and two by Mr. Thorneycroft, and were not thu Nt...lmori determined upon bY the coraroieeion.re those of the Sovereigns named in the question which he had just asked? ' Mr. COWPER said he certainly had in his possession the report of the Fine Arts Commission, but that was equally accessible to other hon. members, and he had no more knowledge of the subject than any other gentleman in the house. Mr. HADFIELD:asked, was it intended that Cromwell should have a statue ? (Laughter.) Mr. COWPER referred the hon. gentleman to the Fine Arts Commission report. If he read that, he would become acquainted with all that was known upon the subject. THE STATE OF OUDE.—INDIAN ARTILLERY he would have little or nothing to do, and that it would not be right to saddle the community with the expense attaching to his office, if adequate duties were not to be performed. The hon. and learned gentleman said that an appeal before the Lords Justices cost somewhere about £5O in each case, and the delay caused by these appeals was frequently of very long duration before final judgment was given; whereas by the proposed arrangement for the appointment of a chief judge, the expense and delay would be very greatly lessened. The hon. and learned gentleman further contended that as the abolition of the Insolvent Court would largely increase the business of the Court of Bank ruptcy, the consequence would be that a large increase would most certainly take place in appeals to be tried by the chief judge. In the year 1859-60 the number of cases before the Insolvent Debtors' Court was 2,700, and the number before the Court of Bankruptcy amounted to I,336—facts which showed the great increase of business that would take place in the latter court. The manner in which the business before the chief judge was to be conducted was so inexpensive and so convenient, that judgment could bo ob tained in a way that could not but be satisfactory to all par ties concerned. Under the 67th clause of the bill, the chief judge had the power of sending a question of fact to be tried by a jury, which would be a great improvement on the pre sent system, under which equity judges decided such a question. The alteration could not but give satisfaction to the parties in the case, as it would greatly facilitate the judgment at which the judge would arrive. The chief judge would also have th 3 power of sending the question of fact arising out of a case of bankruptcy before the judges of assize. The new judge would also have the power to determine questions on deeds of arrangement. This would be a most important duty of the chief judge. No material alterations had been made by the Lords in the clauses respecting private arrangements, but they had struck out from the bill that judge and that tribunal by whom, and by whom alone, these novel powers as to private arrangements could be exercised. The bill consequently in this respect was rendered inopera tive. Again, the bill professed to treat as misdemeanours and to punish certain acts of the bankrupt or insolvent, such as concealment of property and refusing to give full information. This new jurisdiction, which was one of no slight importance, the measure, when it left the Commons, enacted should be exercised by the chief judge; but the Lords had refused their sanction to the appoint ment of that judge. He believed that among lawyers there was almost perfect unanimity of opinion as to the wisdom and necessity of the provision regarding the chief judge. The mercantile community, too, were most de sirous that this portion of the bill should be restored. There had been presented to the house within the last few days a petition bearing 200 signatures of bankers and emi nent merchants in the City of London, regretting the alterations made by the Lords, and praying that a chief judge should be appointed to preside over the Court of Bankruptcy, with appellate power. He might remark that the amount of appellate business under the bill would be very large, as each of the sixty county courts would be come, according to the proposed arrangement, courts of bankruptcy. This was another reason why the chiefjudge ought to be appointed. If the bill were not restored to the form in which it went up to the Lords, it would not work well or give satisfaction. He concluded by moving that the house disagree with the Lords' amendment respecting the chief judge. Mr. BOVILL denied that there was any unanimity among the lawyers on his side of the house, with regard to the expediency of appointing a chief judge, but the most eminent of the law lords in the other house, with the ex ception of the late Lord Chancellor, supported the proposi tion made, he believed by Lord St. Leonards, when the bill was before a select committee, for expunging the chief judge clause. There was an equal amount of unanimity in the mercantile committee over which Lord Overetone presided. The petitioners from Manchester and Liverpool thought the appointment of a chief judge would entail un necessary expense without any adequate results. In peti tions from Belfast, Bristol, Wolverhampton, Coventry and other large towns, not one of them objected to the striking out of the clause relating to the judge. There was therefore as great a unanimity amoug commercial men on this point as there was in the House of Lords. What was the origin of the proposal to introduce a judge It arose out of a proposal to:abolish the six commissioners, but now it was proposed to preserve the commissioners and have a judge too. (Hear, hear.) This was very properly considered too expensive. The arguments of the Attorney-General were addressed to the House of Lords in 1831. Four judges were then ap pointed to perform what was alleged to be the overwhelm ing duties. But for sheer want of business these judges were abolished and pensioned off. (Hear.) The Legislature then selected as a count of appeal the Lords Justices. Now, was any one bold enough to say that that was not a satisfactory tribunal ? He would venture to say no one would complain of that court. And what was their amount of business ? Why, 15 days in the year. (Hear.) If they were to have new judges, send them to the common law courts, where there was an arrear of business, and where justice could not be done owing to delay. (Hear, hear.) What judge, how ever learned, could give an opinion entitled to more re spect than a judge in bankruptcy (Mr. Holroyd, for in stance, who had devoted 30 years to that department of jurisprudence), and the other five commissioners, who were men of great ability and experience. (Hear, hear.) If the judge proposed to be appointed should differ in opinion from the commissioners, an appeal would then be made to the Lords Justices. Why not do this in the first instance ? Why pay £5,000 a year to a judge whose opi nion can be of no use if it coincides with that of the com missioners, and which if it be in opposition would be referred to the Lords Justices ? (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Bovill) thought the conjoint opinion of the Commissioners of Bankruptcy was superior to the opinion of any one judge, however distinguished. As there was ample time for con sidering this matter, and as the bill must come before Parliament when the consolidation of the law will be taken into consideration, he .saw no reason at present for incur ring this unnecessary expense. The criminal cases arising out of bankruptcy were tried before the judges at the Central Criminal Court, therefore there was no reason on that ground for the appointment of this new judge. He ventured to say that upon all these grounds there was no necessity for the appointment of this new judge. The House of Lords were opposed to the appointment, and the petitions from Liverpool and Manchester also showed that such an appointment was wholly uncalled for. Mr. COLLIER said he had considered this question of the appointment of a new judge of the Court of Bank ruptcy, and he had arrived at the conclusioli that such an appointment was perfectly necessary. Without a compe tent judge, he believed that the proposed change in the bankruptcy law would lead to chaos and uncertainty. If it had not been that they had appointed an eminent judge in the Court of Divorce, he believed that the difficulties which surrounded the change which had taken place in the law of divorce would not have been overcome. The case in the present instance would in all probability be the same, for, in his opinion, the success of the proposed change in the bankruptcy law would mainly depend upon the ap pointment of the new judge. No doubt that judge would not be taken from the bar, but one of the pre sent judges would be selected to fill the appoint ment in question. This would be sure to give general satisfaction, as it would lead to a settlement of difficulties which would necessarily arise, in the first in stance, in consequence of the proposed changes of the bank ruptcy law. He denied that the commissioners were the pro per persons to carry out the provisions of this bill, for their present decisions were not accepted in Westminster Hall. The hon. and learned gentleman then referred to the pro visions of the bill in reference to the power to be placed in the hands of the new judge, and contended that those powers were necessary to carry out uniformity of practice in pro ceedings in bankruptcy. Trial by jury was introduced for the first time into bankruptcy, and he considered that this provision of the bill was a most salutary one, and would greatly facilitate the judgment of the chief judge in any case in which he sent a fact to be tried by a jury. He contended that there would be sufficient business to justify the ap pointment of the judge, who would not only be the judge of appeal in bankruptcy, but he would also have a vast deal of original business to dispose of. He believed the chief judge would, instead of having very little to do, have quite as much business on his hands as any judge in Westminster Hall. In furtherance of the administration of justice, he hoped the house would adhere to its original determination, and restore the clause sanctioning the appointment of chief judge at the moderate expenditure of £5,000 a year. Mr. MALINS contended that it was essentially necessary the chief judge should be retained, and he further expressed his opinion that the bill without the chief judge clause would be worse than worthless. The argument advanced against the appointment on the ground of reckless expense, was al together unfounded. The commissioners were not to be re appointed as vacancies arose. The chief commissioner was 82 years of age. The second commissioner was 75 years oil In the natural course of things they could not much longer retain their offices. A saving of £4,000 per annum would thereby be effected, while the salary proposed to be given to the chief judge was only £5,000 a year, leaving the small difference of £l,OOO a year on the score of additional ex penditure. He entirely differed from the principle laid down by the hon. and learned member for Guildford, that they would do well in retaining the present commissioners to work the bankruptcy system, which they now worked badly and which they would continue to work badly, if the pre sent court or the present machinery were retained. Unless this bill created a court of great authority on the law of debtor or creditor, most of this session had been wasted. He thought the commissioners should be allowed to drop off gradually, and that a judge of eminence should be ap pointed. If this were not done it were better to withdraw the bill altogether. (Hear.) The clauses [objected to had received the almost unanimous assent of the House of Com mons, and it was surprising to him that objections should now be raised against them by the hon. members who had at least silently acquiesced in them when under the conside ration of the house. (Hear.) The hon. and learned gen tleman (Mr. Bovill) said the chief judge would have nothing to de. He (Mr. Malin) thought otherwise; be thought that under the proposed alterations there would be abun dance of business for the new judge. Nothing can be more fallacious than to suppose that appeals could be referred to the Vice-Cha nce ll or ' s Court, or t h a t o f th e Master of the Rolls, where th e b usiness was at presen t overwhelming. The best way was to app o i n t an efficient judge, wh o wou ld give his exclusive and undivided atteutim to the buoilteol. On these grounds he earnestly hoped that the house would reject the amendments. (Hear, hear.) Mr. ROLT said he agreed with the Lords' amendments, because he thought it unwise to be making changes for temporary purposes, and with a view to expediency. It was not even alleged that the hill was to be a matter of permanent legislation. (Hear, hear.) If they went on tam pering with the Court of Bankruptcy, going backwards and forwards, no progress would be made, while public confi dence would be destroyed. (Hear, hear.) He thought the best course would be to give the present system a further trial, and having given them an opportunity of showing how the new duties imposed upon them were discharged, then, if necessary, propose a change, but let that be a per manent change, and not a temporary expedient. Mr. CRAWFORD said he could not understand the policy of waiting a year or two to see whether the appoint ment of a chief judge was necessary. On the contrary, the citizens of London were of opinion that it would be most unwise to pass this bankruptcy bill without making the ap pointment of the new judge in question. The petition which he had presented from the commercial community of London urged this point strongly upon the house, and this petition was signed loy the representatives of twenty five banking firms and all the heads of chief commercial houses in the City. Similar petitions were presented from all the chief commercial cities and towns in England, Ire land, and Scotland. With respect to Liverpool, :he might observe that the conduct of the people of that city was most inconsistent in respect to this bill. Previous to the intro duction of this bill the people of Liverpool presented a peti tion praying for certain alterations in the bankruptcy law, and these alterations were actually made by the bill before the house. In conclusion, he had only to express a hope that the house would agree to the amendment proposed by his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General. Mr. HORSFALL thought he knew as well as his bon. friend (Mr. Crawford) what were the opinions of the people of Liverpool. He must say that although the petition from Liverpool prayed that the bill should be passed as it was sent from that house to the House of Lords, there was yet a strong opinion against the appointment of the new judge referred to. Having heard the opinion of the honourable member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), he was quite satisfied that the appointment of this new judge would be a waste of the public money. Mr. HADFIELD contended that the commercial com munity of Liverpool were in favour of this bill, and indeed such was the feeling displayed by all the commercial com munities of the country in respect to the measure, which of all the plans submitted to the country for improving the bankruptcy law, was the best. Mr.l TURNER believed that the 48 Liverpool firms who signed the petition to which so much allusion had been made, were most eminent, and represented a large amount of capital, but they could not be taken as representing all the commercial opinion in Liverpool. He differed from the views put forward by those 48 firms, and believed that the appointment of a chief judge of ability and experience would materially tend to an improvement of the bankruptcy system, and he should support the restoration of the chief judge clause. Mr. H ENLEY thought that the Lords Justices would be a safer tribunal than a chief judge, who might be, perhaps, a barrister of 12 years' standing. In a matter where such diversity of opinion existed, it was no unreasonable thing for members who did not oppose the clauses of the bill which were struck out by the Lords, to avail themselves of the present opportunity of expressing their concurrence in the views taken by such eminent legal authority. If there were to be five hundred appeals from the decision of the county court judges, he doubted very much if the appellate jurisdiction could be sufficiently exercised by the chief judge. What they wanted was appellate powers. Had they that power ? The judicial power which was at command he considered to be quite sufficient for that purpose. If it were sufficient al parties agreed that it was a good and satisfactory tribu nal. The alterations made by the Lords in this bill he con sidered were great improvements, and he should give them his support. Mr. MOFFATT censured the present system of bank ruptcy, and alluded to the want of confidence which the mercantile public felt in the judgment and surveillance of the bankruptcy commissioners. Without the supervision of a chief judge, he thought it better that the bill should be withdrawn. Mr. WALPOLE said they were now arguing the gene ral question on amendments of the other house, instead of arguing it in a committee. They were now arguing the matter on a first impression, and the question was whether they should have a judge at £5,000 a year, also, whether traders and non-traders were to be put on an equal footing and imprisonment for debt abolished. Since this measure was a tentative measure, and not one for a final settlement, he would ask whether it was right to appoint a judge at a salary of £5,000 a year without knowing whether his ser vices would be required. If they were in committee he would propose, if they were to have a new judge at all, that that judge should be one of the vice-chancellors. A superintend ing judge from that court would keep the law uniform in stead of having to deal with the discordant views of 50 or 60 commissioners in bankruptcy. If for the time being that experiment were made he would approve of it ; if not, he thought it better to leave the matter as it stood. If it were in the power of the house to restore the clause with that amendment he would agree to it; if not, he preferred leav ing the matter in the hands of the lords justices for one year. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL agreed with the right hon. gentleman who had just spoken, In the reict et he had expressed that this question was not discussed by those who opposed the proposition made by the Government upon the second reading; but he could not agree with the statement which had also been made, that the mind of the house and of the country had not been addressed to the question. The objects and necessity for the bill were fully explained by the present Lord Chancellor, and this proposition had not been introduced stealthily, but had been contained in every mea sure of the same character which had appeared before the house: it had been for years under discussion, and no voice had been raised against it in any of the discussions which had taken place. The mind of the house was as far ad- dressed to the question as it was possible to be without op position, and the only reason why it was not discussed was that no hon. gentleman raised any objection to the proposi • tion to lead to a discussion. Still less was the country sur prised by the introduction of the proposition. For years the country had been knocking at the doors of that house, and telling them of the failure of the old system under the law of 1831, and the whole mercantile community were so impatient in their demands that they complained of the un avoidable delay which occurred in giving to the measure due consideration. And there had been this remarkable fact, that for a series of years the business had been either stationary or declining year after year, and by the side of the system was growing up to enormous proportions a system of private arrangement withdrawing the liquida tion of insolvents' estates altogether from the cognisance of the law—a state of things which spoke volumes in favour of a most searching revision of the law. He ap pealed in confirmation to the most unfavourable quarter— to the forty-eight firms of Liverpool whose voioes of the whole mercantile community were alone raised in favour of the amendment of the House of Lords. But the petition from Liverpool, stating the grievances of the merchants arising from the present state of the law, told of the uncer tainty of decisions, and the great desiderata of uniformity of decision, and pointed clearly to the appointment of a pre siding judge. If the bill were framed with the view of re moving the evils and correcting the mischiefs of which the petitioners complained, they should endeavour to prune off every abuse they found, and to meet as far as could be the reasonable wishes of the mercantile community. To effect this it was necessary that there should be a he a d, a centre, a presiding, ruling genius, to control the operation of the system; and if that provision were struck out, it would re duce the system to the same confusion and disorder which it was the object of the bill to remedy. Last year a bill was introduced which proposed to abolish the commissioners, to put them upon pensions, and to have a judge. The objec tion to that was, the putting the commissioners upon pen sions, and this year, adhering to the same principle, the Government proposed to suggest a transition of a more gra dual character in the place of the abrupt transition which was last year proposed, and as it was not wished that retir ing pensions should be paid, it was proposed to retain the services of the commissioners, and to make the best use of them :they could. But they were no longer to be inde pendent units, each revolving in his own orbit, but were to be subordinates under the control of one head. The bill proposed a reduction in the number, as vacancies occurred, to a maximum of three, but it went further, and provided machinery to come into operation if it were thought expe dient at some future time to abolish the office altogether. The bill contained, in fact, the provisions of a self regulating system, and in course of time would bring them to the same position to which they would have been brought by the bill of la.A year. Nobody had contended that it was desirable to retain the services of these commissioners. He (the Solicitor-General) had not heard a single argument to that effect. And here he must agree with his right hon. friend the member for Cambridge University in regretting that they did not know on what grounds the House of Lords proceeded. (Hoar, hear.) His right hon. friend who had last addressed the house said that this was an experimental measure. That he (the Solicitor-General) denied, This was not an experimental measure, except in the sense that every reform was experimental. Every reform might be found to succeed more or less—to have its strong points and its weak points—but this was not intended as an experi mental measure—it was the result of long, mature, and de liberate consideration. He protested against this notion of dealing with this cardinal point of the question, as if they were throwing out into the world a mere experiment,seeing how it worked, and then adopting or rejecting it. It was not with this view that the Government introduced the measure, it was not with this view that the mercantile com munity accepted it—(hear, hear)—or that the house passed it. (Hear, hear.) He confessed he had been rather puzzled by some things that had fallen from some of the speakers in the debate. They did not say exactly they agreed with the Lords. There was hardly one of them who had not put himself in such a position as that, if he were to sit on one of those (the Government) benches,he might say—" All along I thought the judge the best thin g , b u t I cons id er ed it desi rable to wait and see how the experiment succeed ed,and thetree fore lam perfectly consistent." Th a t rem inded him of 1 advice given of old by a great mas t er of politics and rhetoric,the advice always to hate as If wo should one clay have occasion to (Cheers.) But if this experiment were tried, they would some day find the country knocking at the door of the House of Commons and saying, "This system won't work without a head." Well, he (the Solicitor-General) ventured to say that the present was the best time. The necessity was as clear then as it would be thereafter. The hon. and learned member for Guildford asked what it was they were doing. He said they were appointing over again the old judge in bankruptcy whom they had got rid of some years ago. But was that the fact ? For the argument was no thing unless it was a fact. The functions of the two were as different as possible. He would just enumerate shortly some of the brief points affecting the duties of the new judge as compared with the old. The right hon. member for Oxfordshire seemed to have forgotten that he had any duty ev,‘ept to preside in appeals. He had entirely forgotten that this bill provided for a large amount of original jurisdiction of an important character to be discharged by the chief judge. He would take one of the most important single points. By the clauses on the subject of the discharge of bankrupts, which, as the house was aware, included non -traders and insolvents as well as traders, every case of a contested discharge falling within the jurisdiction of bankruptcy would of necessity be referred to and enter tained by the chief judge. Also if the commissioner who had the management of the case should find particular cir cumstances in the case which required particular attention, he was to consider the circumstances, and the question of discharge was to come before the chief judge. What was the existing principle with regard to certificates ? There were five commissioners, and if there were any rule, there were five different rules for determining the principle on which certificates were to be granted. If there was anything more difficult than another, it was a question of conduct which arose upon a certificate. There were some commis sioners who, in thirteen cases, would give one first-class certificate. There were others who would give twelve. Such was the want of method, of uniformity, of principle, and system of this branch of the administration of the law, of which it was not too much to say that upon it commer cial morality in a high degree depended. The object of the system was to give a full and free discharge to every honest bankrupt. But it was absolutely necessary to guard against fraud in granting the discharge. Nothing could be more important than this branch of the system. A large portion of the time of the commissioners was consumed in this part of the business in bankruptcy, and a large number of ap peals were founded upon it. This original jurisdiction, af fecting the character of all under it in morality and con duct, was brought primarily before the chief judge. What would be the effect of the Lords' amendments ? It would throw back this jurisdiction to the five commissioners. There would thus continue to be one-fifth of a principle, one-fifth of a rule, or five different principles or rules, so as to leave the whole question to haphazard. If there were any point on which it was necessary to concentrate the power of all authority, it was this. It seemed to have been entirely lost sight of in the debate which had taken place in the house, and if anything were needed to give weight to it, it was this—that the bill not only abolished the certificate which existed before, but it subjected the bankrupt to a set of penal clauses. They were creating by this bill rules and principles embodied, so to speak, in the penal law* that a man was to be tried in that court for mercantile offences, and punished expressly on the penal principle, and no longer on the old system of a suspension of certificate. The Lords had left this new jurisdiction to each and every one of the five commissioners. To the appeal business sufficient refe rence had been made ; but he would offer a few observations as to the :various sources of increase of business generally which had been overlooked. There seemed to be some who were willing to abolish the appeal altogether. But when it was remembered that any person in the kingdom, from the highest peer to the lowest peasant, was subject to this law, it was an exceedingly shocking thing to say either that no appeal was necessary, or that it ought to be expunged. That was entirely new. Then besides the non-trader clauses there were the ten thousand deeds a year, taking the average of the last ten years, all these were to be made subject to the jurisdiction of the court. There was also to be taken into account the increase which might be expected to arise from the beneficial operation of the measure, and the necessity which was laid upon the public to come into bankruptcy. There was no possibility of any by paths here. The ma ehinery of this bill was framed so as to bear upon the whole bankrupt and insolvent property of the country. Surely, then, there ought to be a chief judge, as a regulator of the whole system. The arguments against it assumed the failure of the whole bill, and in taking this provision out they would be strangling, crippling, destroying its chances of life, and all means of obtaining a consistent, uniform, dignified, and authoritative administration. If the Lords' Justices themselves could speak they would not, he was sure, be anxious to receive the new duties which it was proposed to thrust upon them. Not one word could be said of the way in which they had exercised their bankruptcy jurisdiction that could exceed their deserts, but he would suggest that the duties they had hitherto discharged were far less in magnitude and extent than those which it was proposed to confer on them, and that, moreover, they had hitherto exercised no original jurisdiction in bankruptcy. Besides, if the amount of bankruptcy business increased as was expected, and the appellant jurisdiction grew in like proportion, it would absorb the whole a their time, and turn their court into a court of bankruptcy. But they had been appointed to assist the Lord Chancellor in his court of appeal, and he would ask the house if they were prepared to destroy a valuable portion of the machinery of Chancery, and throw the equity business of the country into confusion, merely for the purptmo of aroidiug latt; ereatluu of a Banal to the Court of Bankruptcy ? Besides, they could not ex • pest a court which had other functions to perform to super intend the system of bankruptcy with the same efficiency as a judge whose attention was exclusively confined to that particular subject. (Hear, hear.) The other proposition, that which had been made by his right hon. friend (Mr. Walpole), was even more objectionable, viz., that one of the Vice-Chancellors or the Master of the Rolls should have handed over to him the functions proposed to be given to the chief judge by the bill. Mr. WALPOLE explained that he meant those functions as amended by the Lords. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Then he would have almost exclusively an appellate jurisdiction ; and' the bill would sweep away all the important functions originally proposed. He (the Solicitor-General) did not .think that the suggestion would in the least tend to the speedy or efficient administration of justice as far as bankruptcy was concerned, while it would most materially interfere with the proper functions of the Court of Chancery. So far from adding to the bankruptcy jurisdiction of the Court of Chan cery, it would rather be convenient to remove from it a class of business akin to bankruptcy, namely, the winding up of insolvent joint-stock com?anies—a species of business which would be better discharged by the Court of Bankruptcy. It was a mistake to suppose that the Court of Chancery had more than a sufficient judicial staff. It was quite true that for a shirt period at the commencement of the year business was slack in the Rolls Court ; but what was the result ? The rapidity and accuracy with which the able judge who presided over that court transacted its business soon pro vided a remedy. Nature abhorred a vacuum; and suitors when they knew where their causes might be quickly dis posed of pressed into the court, and the slackness of busi ness no longer existed. (Hear.) In conclusion, he would ask the house if it were disposed to deal with this great subject in a mere experimental spirit—whether they would imperil the efficiency of the measure by withholding that condition which could alone ensure it eminent success, and then, when the public were dissatisfied and discontented, seek to patch up their work as best they might by appointing a chief judge who ought to have been provided in the first instance ? He could find neither principle nor authority to support the amendment of the Lords. Even the Liverpool firms who had petitioned in favour of that amendment had testified against it until it had become a subject of controversy in Parliament, and all other bodies were at least silent. The merchants of London were, as might naturally have been expected, most clear in their approval of the original proposition ; and there was no trace of an adverse opinion amongst the other commercial bodies of the country. He had so much respect for the eminent names which appeared in the House of Lords to have given their sanction to the change, that he was inclined to attach weight to their opinion even on this subject; but not knowing how far those noble and learned lords were informed of the real opinion of Liverpool and Lancashire he ventured to think that their authority was not entitled to overrule the experi ence of the House of Commons, and the long careful delibe ration which it had bestowed upon the bill. He begged, therefore, to submit that the house ought to adhere to its .original proposition. (Cheers.) Sir H. CAIRNS congratulated his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General and the house at seeing him once more among them, taking part in their debates with his usual ability. With respect to the bill itself, if the amendments of the II raise of Lords were rejected, there would be five diffe rent commissioners coming into collision. But not only would that be the case, but those five, with the Chief Judge, all having a co-ordinate jurisdiction, would probably be found giving different decisions, and then the Chief Judge, sitting in a court of appeal, may reverse them altogether. His hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General said the bill was a transition bill, and that in the course of time the number of judges would be gradually reduced ; but the bill did not say so. It certainly proposed to reduce the number t from five to three, and the Government were empowered to keep the number at all times up to three. T b h o e di h es n in . the learned gentleman said the only commercial country that petitioned in favour of the Lords' . Amend mentsT.; /pool, but h, Belfast. 8 The among were about 40 or 50 firms ia -- a - l v e firm forgot altogether those great commercial which were the leading merchants ie G . over nm inn nt received his sup other members on that side the co-ordinate introduced last year by the port and the h su e p ca p us or e t of it e m s :: of the house, and established one • commissioners uniform of the But that was a system of jurisdiction. very different swept away away juris diction arrange me n t from the machinery cont d contemplated by the : ied that the wen di minish the exp enses the Attorney-General endeavoured to con h vince the house. measure] before it was sent up to Ur other HOLM of ThereParlia was not one word in any of the m or a t p . pe n al e s, s de clauses which bore such an interpretati on. Then with re gard to the bill expediting appellate business, he contended that no delay occurred in the present appellate j ur i sd i ction, j an u d dg e e er w ta i i t n h ly a s n al o a n r e y to of £5,000 a-year. Again, it should be remenabcrlA tkttt the entire jurisdiction of the chicriudge with respect to the granting of certificates, was confined to the London district. That being so, what was the trader to do who resided in Manchester or Liverpool ? As to uni formity, how could the chief judge control the decisions of 60 or 70 county court judges ? Indeed there was nothing' in the proposal to secure anything like uniformity of deci sion. (Hear, hear.) As to trial by jury, it was well known that in cases of bankruptcy this course of procedure was not resorted to. It was a mere delusion to say that a chief judge was required to do something which had been already well and efficiently done under the existing state of the law. Why, every one of the county court judges had the power of doing that which it was proposed to have done by means of a new chief judge, at an expense of £5,000 a-year. The bill, in fact, gave no jurisdiction to the chief judge that was not already possessed by county court judges. Therefore, there was no uniformity as to the origina l jurisdiction, and as to the appellate jurisdiction, there was a sufficient tribunal for that purpose already in existence. (Hear, hear.) It was said that this bill ba d been made a political question. But who proposed, in the other house, the amendment they were now discussing Was any one acting in concert with that (the Opposition)) side of the house ? No, it was proposed by a noble end learned lord of great experience and high judicial authority, and who would always be venerated for his transcendent talents. That noble lord was acting in concert with the Government, and the committee were, with one exception, in favour of it. He protested against the provisions of this bill, as he thought it would altogether fail of accomplish ing the improvements which the Government anticipated. The question was then put, when the numbers were'' For the motion Against Majority for the motion —44 The motion was then agreed to, and the further cofei• deration of the Lords' amendments was postponed ti ll Monday. THE DURHAM UNIVERSITY BILL. _ , On the motion that the house should go into committee on this bill, - Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR opposed the motion and con tended that the Durham University had been a complete failure, and that the inquiry proposed to be made under thie bill was nothing else but a sham. He moved in conclusion, that the Speaker leave the chair that day three month& (Great laughter.) He meant that the house should go into committee that day three months. (Hear, hear,) Sir G. C. LEWIS was delighted for the sake of the righ t hon. gentleman in the chair, that the hon. member amended his motion—(a laugh)—and as to the bill itself, he belie Tea it gave full powers to reform the whole administration of the University of Durham, and ought therefore to be adopted by the house. If he could show in committee that any such grievance can be amended, then it would be time to consider it. Mr. DEEDES thought it was a great deal too much to ask the house to go into committee on such a bill at that 10 hour, and he should move that the debate be adjourned. Mr. MOWBRAY opposed the motion, and after a fe ll words from Mr. FENWICK, Lord PALMERSTON hoped that although the right hon. gentleman, the Speaker, or the house were not asked to sit for three months--(a laugh)—the house would go 00 with the bill, or at least allow it to go into committee P r° tem. Sir G. C. LEWIS assured the house that if the Speak!" were allowed to leave the chair he would not go furtherwil the bill that night, b u t th a t propos i t i on not being agreed` to the house divided, when the numbers were— For the adjournment v v v 2l Against it Majority —9s On the motion that the Speaker leave the chair, Mr, FENWICK complained that although the endow" meats in this university amounted to £12,000 a year, Professor of Divinity getting ur,wards of £4,000, yet the' were at that moment only 40 students being educated ther e : The fact was the whole fault lay with the ecclesiastic al commission, who placed the whole control of the educatisal under the Dean and Chapter of Durham. He thought tile' bill a great sham, and would support the motion of his W l ' friend the member for Poole. Mr. MOWBRAY represented the city of Durham, O a felt it his duty to oppose the motion for postponing 1 118 committee. The amendment was negatived without a division, 0 4 the house went into committee, but the Chairman imve diately reported progress, and the house resumed. The Removal of Scotch and Irish Poor Bill and the Loes l Government Acts Amendment Bill were read a third time and passed. The Metropolitan Building Act Amendment Bill was read a second time, and the Greenwich Hospital Bill, whi cii stood for a second reading, was withdrawn. The Metropolitan Local Management Acts Amendme nt Bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to. The Highway and Election Law Amendment Bills W 8 withdrawn for the present session. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, an d the house adjourned at a quarter-past two o'clock. REGIMENTS. Mr. TORRENS asked the Secretary of State for India whether any reply had been received from the Governor- General of India to the fifth paragraph of the Secretary of State's letter of the 22d of December, 1860, relating to cer thin claims on the late State of Oude, and, if not, whether he had any objection peremptorily to call the Governor- G eneral's early attention to the subject ; also, whether it was intended to place the officers of her Majesty's Indian Artillery Regiments, who are now on staff and civil em ploy. on the seconded list, as was the case with the officers of the Royal Artillery when so employed. Sir C. WOOD said that no answer had yet been received from India relating to the claims on the State of Oude The officers of the Indian Artillery Regiments would be placed in the same position as all the other officers of the Indian army. MR. GLADSTONE AND THE DUKE OF MODENA. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished to make an explanation with regard to a speech which he had made on a former occasion with reference to an eminent personage—the Duke of Modena—and matters connected with the Italian Government. Within the last ten days he had received a communication from the Marquis of Normanby, wishing him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to withdraw the charge he had made against the adminis tration of the Duke of Modena. The charge was, that while the Duke of Modena forbade the application of the law to execute persons convicted of capital offences, if those persons were under 21 years of age, he altered the law in the case of a person named Granai. He (Mr. Glad stone) did not intend to convey to the house the idea that that young man was executed, hut that he was brought within the scopo of the law and awaiting capital punishment. He believed that that person was not executed. (Hear, hear.) But as far as the evidence in his (Mr. Gladstone's) pos session went, it appeared that a person of that name was sentenced to the galleys for life. He (Mr. Glad stone) would be extremely sorry to have used words to signify that he was executed, for the most rigorous accuracy should be exercised in statements of this kind. He did no more than state what had appeared in public documents. The Marquis of Normanby had asked him to withdraw the principal part of the charge, that the Duke of Modena had, by ex post facto law, declared persons liable to capital punishment. Now the evidence in support of that charge was too abundant. In October, 1857, the Duke of Modena issued a decree establishing in his capital a state of siege. Mr. DISRAELI—I rise to order. There is no question before the house, and it would be much more convenient if the right hon. gentleman would take advantage of the op portunities which will be afforded him to-morrow for enter ing into an argument on this subject. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I have taken this course after consulting authorities. lam simply stating facts explanatory of what has fallen from me on a previous occasion. (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side.) Mr. DISRAELI—The right hon. gentleman is referring to documents not in the possession of hon. membere, nor in my possession. Ido not think it right to found a state ment on documents not accessible to hon. members. I as sure the right hon. gen tl em a n that it is with pain 1 in terrupt sueshtiimon should ; bu b but ematte rs fairly and ofth f i e s ll k y in en d t i e t re is din te. I desirablethat the hope, t t p h he e e r r f a e u f na o irttteye, matter before h h b eaa fttwill right ffu se h red o . n e d . (bH g i e me n a t rr l ma n will take the op - The SPEAKER was understood to concur forin bringingththis re. commendation. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER expressed his acquiescence, and the matter dropped. HIGHWAYS BILL. Sir G. C. LEWIS, in answer to aquestion f rom Deedes, said the H i g hwa y s Bill woul d be proceeded w M it r h . on Tuesday next. BANK RUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL. On the motion for taking into consideration the Lords' amendments to this bill, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the bill projected great improvements in the existing law, and having passed the House of Commons, was sent to the other house, where certain alterations were made in it. The bill contained some cardinal points, such as the chief judge's office, credi tor's assignees, and the paying of salaries. These were amendments on the bill of last session. The Lords struck out those amendments. He believed that if those amendments were omitted the bill would be deprived of the machinery most important fer its effectual working. He would there fore strenuously endeavour to have those clauses restored. The objection to the appointment of a chief judge was, that COUNTRY BIA.R.E.ETS. BIRMINGHAM—JULY 18. At to-day's market tbere was a short supply of Eng' lish wheat from the farmers, and no reductiou submitted to; but American was is to 2s lower. Barley, oats, beans, and peas unaltered. 14f A vnr-Tv CrfrOD 10. Holders of wheat demanded the extreme prices previous week for b es t qualities ; inferior sorts offered at irregular prices, with a sl ow 'ousiness. Sales restricted t‘? the finest sorts of flour, at previous quotations. Oats and oatmeal rather easier to bu y . B eans and Indian corn. held fully as dear. of till? LYNN—JULY 16. There was a 'moderate attendance. Th e su pply of wheat was Middling., maintaining the prices of last week. Oats, beans, And 'peas the turn against buyers. Barley was O . altered. Old white 54s to 56s I Old red.. 48s to 00 Barley., 28s to 32s I Oats.. .22s to 2 60 Beans .40s to 46s I Peas 48s to 60 NEWARK—JuI.'!" 17. Wheat came to hand less freely to-day, and fine sample s were scarce. Barley i n a c ti ve , an d a t f ormer pr i ces. 05t „ in middling demand, and prices firm. Beans were dull' and unaltered in value. Peas as of late. White wheat, new, 65s to 70s Barley, grindin g 29s to 3 9 Red do. 6 os t o 65 s O a t s , o ld , .. ' 2Bs to 3 3/ Old white 65s to 70 s N ew do ..... 22 to 2 ,8 ° .. ..... , - A Q Red do. 50s to 60 s 1 Beans.. 56 s to .`. Barley, malting 38s to 42s 1 Beans,' new.. 44 s to 48 41 Peas, ....40s to 50s. CORK_ JULY 17. The following were the quotations this morning :—Red , 50 wheat, 27s Od t o —8 Od ; white, 28 8 '6d to —s Od; barley 6d to 18s Od ; oats, 12s 6d to 15s Od. EDINBURGH GRAIN --JULY 16. Wheat on the top 5s Od up Barley on the top 2s 6d down Oats on the top is Od down Beans on the top Os 6d up.... . . ,average averageave averagerage 2 iii: 1 sea s : 434 9 ddd d ddd d 000 0 wsvvi 0 1 : : Averages per Imperial quarter. Wheat.... New wheat ... . Barley 1 13 3 7-12ths • Oats 1 9 10 3-12ths Beans Total Supply and Sales. Wheat .1630 qrs Sold 14221qrs 8ar1ey........ 147 qrs.3 Sold 102 qrs Oats 1064 qrs Sold 774 qrs Beans :44 qrs Sold 36 qrs [ADVERTISEMENT.] Pills and medicine invariably or avate and perp e t ua t e d i seases; their annoyance, d i ll : appointment, and expense may be avo id e d by pe rsona in indifferent health sending only their address to ": S. Barry, Esq., 77, Regent-street, W., London, and til e ' will receive gratis and free by post th e " INvAirans' Oa f GuinE," or Natural Restorer, without medicine or e' , l p'nse, of perfect di ges ti on , s t rong nerves, sound lungs, , refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebl e d, i nsur i ng th e remova' of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver complainto, nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness, palpitation, cough, asthma, consumption, dropsy, flatulency, diar r " 34 ' dysentery, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, catarrhs, colds' noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, s leeplessness eruption., A cidity, palpi" tation, heartburn, headache, despondenor, cramps , spasms , sinking, fits, bronchitis.—" Unque st i onably the safest Guido to health." a t Musley, W are , Herte, th e BIRTH B. of the Lond on and C ou nt ' D A: r u n e o— o . fH t a t ee he D n an th do in , tit., Bank, of a daughter. 01f6thinst., Colonel altviiamcharles Hi c ks, of a d au ghter. DUCX.WORTM—On the 18th inst., a t 38 , Bryana ton" square, the Hon. M rs . W. Artkur Duck wor th, of daughter. S hirehampton, Gloucester shire, the --th°enwtig MARRIAGES. North Nor t t GOSTLING—NEss.--On the 18th inst , at Morthoe Devon, Fanshawe W. rustling, Esq . ., Major 49th Regi, Mary, only daughter of the Rev. John Derby ' eldest son of Major-Gen. Gostling, R.A ,to Elizabet Ness) ill ' cumbent of Morthoe. SOUTH—PRITCHETT.—On the 18th inst ., at SL George" Bloomsbury, H enry South, Esq., R.N., Kingston-ores of Richard E. Pritchett, cent, L'ortsmouth 9 to Hannah J ane , secon d d a ughter Esq Boxmoor, Hertfordshire' A On the 10thpinsEtA., a T t a H re S e ago 44 . CultTiss. On th e 14th inst., at Margate, Charles, se cond son of the l a t e I saac Carter Curtiss, Esq., of St. John s Wood, aged 32. nwich, Mr. J. Ali son, LYoN.—On the 17th inst,, at Appleton Hall, Cheshi re, Vanda, wife o f Th omas Henry Lyon, Esq., and daughteo of Colonel Wilson Patten, M.P. WHITLEY.—On the 18th inst., at the Parsonage, Iron" mongers' Almshouses, Ki n gsland-road, the Rev. Edwd; Whitley, M.A., Chaplain to the Worshipful Company 4 " Ironmongers, aged 63. Woranirterox.—On the 17th inst., at the Rectory, John" street, Bedford-row, Frederic Worthington, of the Banff of England, third son of the Rev. J. W. IN orthington , D.D., rector of Trinity, Gray's-inn-read, aged 23. LONDON : Printed and Published by MU RDO YOUNG , ° No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TEE SuN 011 Et se , No. 112,Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the CmA, uty 4:4 Bliddletg l) Frlc ay, JulylB, MI. - ..a ulth elev e , Italia ISlon s at Ni, ( die ea , g , t(. gulE B. 9 d. VEI deep. July Wea ~.._Th ue Ili Ad .. vow tainn day, yo. be Pa tqaue Patr( Kt" they box e! EpE theat sem. till 4 SubE ME the p Comp 4bers T ( 1. Pr 2. It 17n1 rest. by se' be ob ‘A' II V Phy g l „ 8 1ir. k.33,.11 Dr tio n Intni l th ec Cheri,