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

P 4PE MAL PARI•IAMENT HOUSE' OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY.) THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. : . Lord STRATILEDEN said the notice he had given was , call attention to the report of the committee of last year *on the reduction of the franchise, and to move for a return of the forty shilling freeholders, by whichhe meant the free holders above that limit in each county in England and Wales. If the notice only gave an opportunity to those whe took an active part on the committee of stating the impres sions to which the evidence had led them, he should not repent of having put it on the paper. This was the very mo ment-when such impressions might be brought before the entry with advantage. At that vet y moment as be spoke the attitude of the country on the question of reform was neutral and deliberative. • That attitude was shared by Op position aid by Government. All three might very soon be forced, into a different oneewhich it would then be vain to seek to influence or modify. (Hear, hear.) Beyond this it should never be forgotten that the immediate purpose of the committee vanished, because the bill it was intended to throw light upon expired before its labours were concluded. Considering that 54 witnesses were called, that 3,770 ques tions were put, and that the inquiry stretched into a period of almost nine weeks, those labours ought not to peas too soon into oblivion. The country might fairly ask what line of policy it tended to advance, and how far that line was upheld by views beyond the scope of the inquiry, lie had meant at first to touch upon the evidence of the revising barristers who had been summoned, but on reflection he would leave that point to those who had examined them. The farther' observations which he, had to make would be directed to support the return for which he moved ; and on this point he hoped,the noblelord, the President of the Council, would grant him that indulgence which it would be perhaps presumptuous to expect from many of their lordships. The kind, of ground on which he asked for the return was, that as they could not stand still for any time after what had happened, occasional reform and compre hensive legislation were the only lines open to the country, and the more so because to stand still for any time was but another phrase for comprehensive legislation, which it must inevitably lead te; that the reduction of the borough franchise was beset by difficulties almost insurmeuntable, and on this. point the evidence was cogent ; that the county franchise was a safer field in whi c h t o move, but that ree duction 'of it was impossible until you had a document to show the number of the freeholders comparedwith the number of the occupying voters which a twenty-pound or a ten-pound limit would occasion. As regards the borough franchise it was elcai to most of those who are conversant with it that you must either keep it as it is, advance it to a point by which the power of the middle classes would be neutralised, or introduce the inequality between those above a certain rental and those beneath it, which great reasoners have pointed to, but which the public had not yet con sidered with attentions It was not too much to state that the ,county franchise was entitled to precedence in the question. But as the effect of what had been said turned upon occasional reform, he meant by such a phrase that course of dealing separately with the features of the subject, according to the exigencies of the time and the opinions of the country, which the present Minister had declared to be his policy before the general election of 1857, and from which he had departed since—how far with credit to" himself the historian of 1860 might determine. In favour of that policy there was one well-known pre sumption, although too much weight ought not to be attached to it. It had been already sanctioned by the Legislature. On this principle the Trish franchise was extended in 1850 by the influence of one Government, and the qualification of members was in 1858 abolished by the influence of another Government._ (Hear, hear.) A more serious presumption by fur, in favour of that policy is, that the plan of a new and comprehensive, or as it was termed in the jargon of the day, a. reconstructive settlement, had been attempted four times with uniform disgrace to all the Governments who ventured on it. It was needless to remind them that. the Government ,of 1852, after finding its scheme an object of severe animadversion from every quarter of the Press and the reablio, although much might be urged,in its defence, in ten days renounced the desperate position it was placed in ; that. the Government of 1854 was forced by a concurrence of all patties to withdraw their measure of Reform on the eve of the Russian war, and never regained the credit they had lost by this unstates manlike and ill-timed proposition; or that the Government of 18:59 was out -voted in their measure, and in vain ap pealed to a general election to reverse the judgment of the Rouse of Commons. It was still less necessary to remind them of what occurredin 1860 on this subject. The unfor- tunate reception by which these new settlements of Reform were strangled in their cradles could not be ascribed to want of talent in the Cabinets which framed them. They could not be ascribed to any temporary causes. The more their failure was examined,- the more it would be traced to causes which surviv,e, and of which the operation may be confidently reckoned on. He would touch on one or two in passing. They must array against them the hostility of Parliament, because they threatened dissolu tion. They must excite the opposition of the day into activity, because on projects so ambitious and so vulnerable far more than on any other, the Government advancing them might be successfully attacked. They must also more or less create disunion in the Cabinet which forms them, because unless you have an object to pursue, and principle to go upon, as you had in 1832, no twelve states men can agree on what ought to be the nature of the set tlement. They must excite some degree of popular resent ment out of doors when they affect stability and perma nence, and when some changes, are excluded from them which interest electors more than any other, but which the statesmen of our day are all united in opposing. (Hear, hear.) But when the line of occasional reform is con trasted with that of a new settlement, it suggests a further observation: It was the line of policy conceived to be established, as far as their. opinions are revealed, by all enlightened statesmen of all important parties from 1832 to 1851. Except among the school who openly avowed that their object was to concentrate the power or the State in the working classes by means of universal suffrage, nn one ever dreamt of a new settlement till the Minister of the day in 1851 engaged 'himself to offer one. The shock which all Europe received from the fall of the French Throne in 1848 extended its vibrations to this country. It roused into activity passions which had slept; and forced upon the Legislature topics which for many years had been forgotten. But the fever which it led to was exhausted, the agitation it encouraged had i)aseed by, before the Minister in 1851 informed the world that anew settlement must now impend on the Reform ieet. That language is renounced, that part has been abandoned. 'What, therefore, can be more natural than that the public should relapse into the mode of think ing it suspended. 'that they should hold a new settle. meat of representative arrangements to be uncalled for and impolitic, and. believe that separate reforms will do all their. interest requires and all their interest admits of. From 1833 to 18.51. the intention of the country 'seemed ,to be never to allow itself to be engrossed' in a general discussion of the question upon what 'ground to form its representative assembly. The convulsions of two years were the price advanced for many calculated benefits. Among those calculated benefits war immunity in all time to come, rof indeed from the existence, but at least from the supremacy of that inflam matory topic which had brought society to the verge of civil war, and placed the country in tlae feeblest position it could hold towards European Powers. If that intention was a prudent one, if it was clouded for a certain time by unfortunate events and by untoward pledges, if the events have' pa ss ed an d if the pie !ges are exploded, what is there to prevent "the national conviction from again vccovering the .firinneas : anti distinctness which origi nally marked it? 'When in practice it has twice led to sound results without the, medium of disturbance, while four times a. tentative departure from it has been at once calamitous andsfruitiese, what is there to prevent the country, from reverting to ,its first, ideate : or.. roborated by its; subsequent experience ? (Hear.) But these were mere presumptions in favour of the line, which ho adverted to. -Bat what are - the precise and palpable advantages it has over the attempt at a new settlement It does not bring abontethe dissolution of the Parliament which carries it. When, in 1850, the Irish franchise was extended, there was not a whisper of dissolving. He need, not point out that frequent diseolutiens reduced the value of the Legislature'by reducing the mass of a P s. ar o lut a . l in re en fo tary experience included .e in it. Beyond this c not vitally 'endangering the Government which offers may be offered with security according to the real con victions of those by whom it hashecre framed. In what Utopia would you find any one so simple as, to think that -the 'of 185 - 1, of 18:54, of 1859, and of 1860 repreeented the ideas and judgment of their sponsors, or what man would face the ridicule which in any circle the statement of ,sech a View would bring upon him. In the next place naeparafd reforM is a barrier to other measur‘ of i importance. Tli4 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 i n which India-wfte transferred to the Crown by legislation. T o he bill at WO, althou g h it did not pass at all, th rew ut every sekeeentie (except those relating to the budgen' alon't snietbesVajch it , was proposed. A general revision ;Elm . si yi e t s u , • - capacity of oaten, i ray well defeat the g e ni us an d not less nobl e fli a would p ros p er i n t h e safe b ut gil () w e with the effective:. tail l o r9 r e b i o .f i t i ii 7 l, %,f sc 'irp o rri of tim p e arl to iain ti e m n e t ,. But these consideration.' • ees -nlay .be all renounced as insig nificant compared with the last I shall allude to. Occa • sional Reform can never add's ( ) reign difficulties, whereas large and touch debated(mirte'nfo inevit ably aggravate:, theee,• Wi e n, t 4 ,. e!nea must one; Mans: while GerrrienP"e of fraught with depends upon elements of discord, while the world :a: 9 , B i fraLlFia•L Powers, and this e6neirYis resolved to standusb we cannot afford, all men will admit, to be Y P t ' s anie pied, embittered,. and diSorganised'society. (Haeit:e.a7; project Of B e _, Such any large and coniOrtheteive form, such any neat fletlertiehf 18Te project 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, Bengt in some degree array class against dais, and party against party. wh en the country is divided and eonvtdsed. it cannot be so powerful agniustany Government whiclipireatetu3 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 int(reSts ate struggling for amendaney, public men are looking to electiotia, a strong national enthusiasm cannot be main tained. The passions of each class have alre ley found an object and a channel. This was hot alohe his view, it was the deep, intense, and all the More intense be =se instinctive, judgment of the public. Why with one voice did they sweep away the ill-starred bill of 1854 when the BAissian war impended, but because they knew it would divide them, and that division would be fatal to their interest? But it was hot only in 1854 that the state of Europe was at variance with a re-construction of ©tit 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 induc:d 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 u ere reedy to suspend intrigue, diplomacy, and war while our reconstruction was proceeding, if history entered into an engagement to stand until a Anal 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 nterests, and has too many pints of contact with other ortions 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 tltim defluat amnis." (Cheers.) But When our Government announces that a 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 iao4 to a grand organic project, Prince I Menschikoff began his fatal expedition. It was not too 1 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. It might be said that these considerations were as 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 thafend occasional reform would not have been sufficient. The country wanted to transfer power from one class to another; to create another I epoch in our history, and at a single blow to put an end to the dominion or proprietors in boroughs. They wanted to destroy interests which only popular excitement cotild 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 rettrxreto 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 1848, 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 liament which met at the close of that year expired, the pledge to alter .the Reform Act comprehensively and vitally was given. The Government 011846 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 universities? 'Will all the coming heroes of suburban counties ? Will all the unpledged members of our metropolitan constituencies join in this concurrence, and if they do not what can be its value ? There is no security whatever that the very session after a comprehensive mea sure has been passed, a comprehensive measure may not be demanded. But setting this aside, and taking a more favourable 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 cumstances 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 ho knew that such a line was inadmissible if it was obnoxi ous to the Democratic party of the country. But that very party owed to it the only triumphs they had gained. They, too, like older parties in the State, had found in reconstruc tive schemes an unmingled 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 preient Government was formed, have found, in Mr. Cobden a far more powerful exponent than it had 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 the reduction of the county franchise was the step 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 resolved to grant such infor mation, if the train of reasoning which he had most im perfectly endeavoured to present to them, mixing with his thoughts, improved by his refledions,4ind strengthened by the larger,rango of illustration end 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. Earl GRANVILLE said there would be no objection to furnish the return moved for. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.--(YESTERDAY.) BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL. Clauses to 81 ►ere agreed to without discussion. 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 e went had been recov ere d aga i ns t a non - tea d er, and he was liable to be put in pri son , w hi c h h e cmild leave only as an insolvent debtor, th e b es t thing that could happen to him . . I 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 undef discussion went much further; introduc ing other and more dangerous elements.' •It provided that ' .a non -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 t o b e i n hi s place of b usiness 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 plaeo, and it would•be a 'great ' h ardship to declare him a bankrupt whenever a creditor chose, to suggest th a t he haddeparted a the realm for the purpose defeating or delaying his credi tors, the fact all thb thno probably being that he was abroad :on a touring expedition. The Attorney.:General would do well to confine the case as . regarded non -t ra d ers to what were called the - delitor summons Clanses; ' Sir G. BOWYER repeated what he had stated before, that it was impossible, without greit injtStice, to bring non traders within - the same rule as traders:" Tiller the - present clause a person of :AU first rank, and posseSs&l o f a l arge landed estate, who happened to be temporarily embarrassed, though not insolvent, might be declared *bankrupt because a creditor chose ter sailhat he had gene bad with intent •to delay his creditors. No change was required in the ad-' ministration of justice with respect'io'non."-traders. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, referring to the under standing that there ;should be a deliberate argument upon thisUiatter at a future stage, said he would not•attempt at present to reply to the observation's of.his hen,. and learned friend the meniberter Belfast. He would merely say that if non-trallers.conicl_ not abscond ' from their creditors, or if Judgments couldle 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 creditorsi 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 die to them. (11 - ear,,hear.) - - - ' • , Mr. MALINS thought the questiet wa4; whether debtors • "'living property should-be allowed to retain it without tip [ plying it to the payinent of their debts: Many men Went abroad and lived in- extravagance and luxury, leaving large. debts in this, country, and drawing their rents of land, for i nstance, from ti me t o ti me, W hil e t h e i r cr edi tors were all but starvirt.- - Wari*lnich a state' "of .things to conti nue l T keY 1 14 tot got a judgment aganyi• t i t& (lOW, because he THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 22, 1861. was out of their reach. 'the ptineiple of this bill was that where there Were debts and property, the 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 Coutt 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. the't,'e bitiliseri were of great importance. They were framed not for the benefit of cre ditors only but also of debtors, and he greatly rejoiced that the Attorney-General did not consent to postpone their dis cussion. It they were abandoned he would hot give one straw for the bill. It would not be worth while attending the discussion; but because they were retained he should give the bill his strenuous support. Mr. TURNER thought if a non-trader, having means, left the country Without nsahing proper provision for the payment of his debt he deserved all the unpleasantness he would incur under this clause. Mr. FITZGERAtIi 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= lainjudgment 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 ptit the court in motion: lie 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 though 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 correet. 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 him of the extraordinary and stringent remediss of bank ruptcy? Bankruptcy was net 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, itidgmbiat acid execution might be had against him, and then his rents could be prevented from reaching him. Bank ruptcy was wanted in order to triminister the Jaw for par ticular purposes—viz., the purposes of trade; bitt if a man was hot 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 tinder 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 tip the esta blishment maintained by his father before him, might be come temporarily overwhelmed with debt, and then this measure would indict on him all the irreparable evils of bankruptcy. If the law was now ineufficient 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 banktapt law, as some hon. members seemed to sup pose, but upon the character and respectability of those who engaged in mercantile transactions. Nobody in business trusted another man simply because he knew he might make him a bankrupt. This clause would epera'e as a safeguard to expectant heirs, who could now be 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 law. 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 ho weuld 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 satisfying 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 from 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 hop: d 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 berm 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 be 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 for 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 progTess 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. He 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- Plicahle 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 hon. and learned friend the member for Belfast as to how the non-trader ought to be protected. The non-trader ought to be put in the position either of one who tiad 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 hi m ; • The creditor was allowed to t present o the a petition or rather r t a o t the h e r Court of Bankruptcy for t h e p a y m en debts, o advised the Attorney - General to make clause 82 applicable for an adjudication in bank ru p tc y a g ainst the debtor. He to the trader only, and, when they came to the clause re lating to non-payment after the judgment debtor summons, to intreilnoe another clause, drawn from cla3ofi, t 9 litate the creditor's process against a person who was resid ing abided for the purpose of avoiding payment of his debts, and to enable the creditor to obtain jiidgnient On proof that the debtor had received due notice of the claim against him. As the clauS3 now stood, the debtor might be made bank rupt before it was imovin 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 prold; let it be made to reach the man, whether he went abroad with or without his proptrty ) in such a manner that the moment judgment, or what was equivalent to it, *as obtained the creditor eotild 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 debtof haVe an opportunity of answering the claim before the stigma was plated upon him. If the Attor ney-General would adopt that suggestion it would remove every objection to the assimilation of the classes i and unless be did so many cases of hardship would undoubtedly arise. For instance, a gentleman Might go abroad owing sundry debts, small in amount, bitt in the aggregate stffl cleat to render hint lidble to be taken into the Bankruptcy Court under this measure. A petition might he 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 proecceliegS, or 110 d 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, he 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, heat.) From the consideration which he and his learned friend the member fur 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 fotind 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 *ere 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 he been admitted into the secret counsels of his right 1i m. friend, he could not have a mere perfect agreement with him than that which Was expressed oil the face of the bill. Ho 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 be :n 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 (1.5:, 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 l ,and that the defendant either wilfully neglected to appear to such writ or was living out of the jurisdiction of the Court hi 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 ho had done the very 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 fie?, 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 be 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 he hoped that his right hon. friend, whese 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 histright hon. friend that ho had been misinformed. The mains 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 tho court unless it was accompanied by prima facie evidence that an act of bankruptcy had been com mitted. Tho hon. baronet the member for Dundalk asked, why not have the ordinary process of law ? Did he not know that in 19 out 01'20 such cases as this clause was intended to meet, the ordinary procesp 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. ROLT 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 re main there with a similar object, and on application, supported by satisfac tory evidence, inwer 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 cx 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 he had requested payment, and that on the fol lowing day his debtor left the country, as he was satisflel, 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 arpearance. But, if service could not be effected, then the clause directed—with a variety of alternatives which might bo read as a paren thesis—that, if on hearing the petition the court should be satisfied that an act of bankruptcy had been commit ted, 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 c n 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 ono, 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 AT TORNEY-GENERAL observed that there was no necessity whatever for the introduction of the proposed words, fur the clause under consideration IT/19 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 pn the part of a creditor. _ _ Mf.,BOVILL entirely concurred with the amendment Pl:opfeed by the right hori, 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 malus animi it was most desirable that proof should be given ; and it should be ,L,7n by the creditor in the obligations of proof imposed .he clause, that he had e x h aus t e d a ll t h e upon him by o means in his power to ft... 7 notice upon the debt or . H e should show by proof that hd ena.e,27 ured to discov er hi s residence abroad—if he supposed him to hav,; :one abroad --and in the event of his not succeeding in finding ;i:ro , 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 la* , required. Mr. BOVILL said, if the learned Attorney-General would look into the statute of 1852, he watild find that proof of a debt was required to be given before a judge be fore a Wtit was issued. Now, what they proposed here to the Attorney •Generai 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 grotind that it proposed to enact that if a debtor, whether a trader of a non-trader, should lie in a prison 14 days without arranging With his creditors, he 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 .e;iven 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 ho 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 prison, 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 the time to 14 days. All he could say was, that he thought the object of the clause would be entirely de feaL-..d, if he were to require such a long imprisonment as three montil,:' prior to a man being regarded as in a position of bankruptcy. Mr. MOI'FATT thought that all efforts of friends to arrange a debtor's affairs, so as to avoid bankruptcy, might bo 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 consiflerably longer period, and therefore he should support the amendment of his hon. friend the member for Marylebone. Mr. MONTAGU SMITH was also disposed it; 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 the operation of the Law of Bankruptcy in this country, he might say it was most unsatisfactory, as com pared with that of other European countries. When he 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 is 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 Attor ney• General, having intimated that ho 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 saould like to know whether that would be a pay• ment with notice of on 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 matte r , 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 property being thus publicly sold, was to be accepted 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 be an act of bank ruptcy, the rest of the clause would be clear enough. The subsequent part of the clause provided what was to take place in the event of there being no adjudication, and also of there being one. There might certainly be this anomaly, that the execution creditor might be placed in a worse situa tion than the man who, withoub 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 ♦ide fully that the notoriety of the fact itself should be notice of an act of bankruptcy. His answer to his hon. and learned frier d, 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 obtained a voluntary payment, or an en forced payment, from the bankrupt within tl period of time fixed in the clause, would be equally liable and bound to repay the money 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 : " but in all cues in which an execution shall be 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 ho 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 costs. Mr. M. SMITH said ho thought it would be extremely unfair to the execution creditor, who had been wide awake, and probably the means of getting something for the credi tors, to deprive him of the coats of the execution. The AT rORNEY-GEN ERAL explained that the pro posed amendment was unnecessary, and it was therefore withdrawn. Sir J. GOLDSMIII 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 i 9, the words " exceeding ,t 50." ;:he clause as amended, was agreed to. Clause B'7 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 SO, 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 clime was agreed to, as were clauses up to 115. On clause 116, Mr. AYRTON 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 be only pro posed to continue the committing power of the county court judges in cases of fraudulent contraction of debts. 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 hootile feeling towards the bill, but he hoped it would be considered in committee. Mr. V. SCULLY said be had not had sufficient time to communicate with his constituents as to the provisions of the bill, and he hoped the GoverOment would afford time for considering the measure before ilze 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 propriCtors' rights, and to what the proprietors should be entitled to in the event of the fair or market being closed. He 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 instructiDns 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, • ^h it was admitted, was wanted in Ireland. He thought the proposesof the Secretary for Ireland, viz., that h e would not ask tnt: house to go into committee on the bill until after Easter, was very fair one. He had re ce i v ed letters from gentlemen in the coZtitY of Cork, in which he easure of this kind, was requested to give his support to a and that was the reason he supported the sew and 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 ques 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. cne 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 of their privileges. The 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 trustship 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 large mercantile house, who had entered into largo obligations, he could not but regret that his hon, 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 house who wait connected with the Bank, in order that proper explana. tions might be given. His hon. friend, with that clear and accurate knowledge of the case 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 folly 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, BASS, in explanation, said he had mentioned to an hon. men , ber present his intention of referring to the sub ject. Mr. CIl AWFORD said he thought he was the only member ret ffred to ; but ho must protest against matters of private uiversations held with the hon. member being, nc iblicly in the house. He s hould be f u lly con tent a the defence of the Bank direct ors u p on th e he hon. member himself. Hi s h o n. f r i en d hadta t el) "lan menti t o o re d et pi d that the p r i ce o f mone y h a d var i e d so s mne e h ni a el : t th o r fit three to four per cent. in the course of a year ; but did any nat in pretend to say th a t th e B an k o f Eng land try? wHasisreho s ible for the v a l ue o f money i n thi s coun try 9 'riend was the m anu f ac t urer o f a com modityo pl et fcons.umeoi - Ition upon a larg e sca l e; b u t cou ld hi s hon. friend c to regulate the consumption of, and demand for, t hat ct Tuniodity ? All the Bank of England could do was to follow the demand for money which existed in the country. Then, as to the proceedings of the Bank w.ith r e g,'rd to certain stringent re gulations that they had an 'opted, in placing money at the ioncy in the City, he had this free disposal of duelers in ii. remark to make —ghat persons who were engaged in bank • ing business, wheth eras discounts rs or holders of bills, were supposed to hold a certain supply Gf money of their own c onvertible securities, in order to meet „any pressing de ma ; and it was not a proper course, in tead of holding a resorve of their ow n to have recourse to the sank of Eng land for that purpose. The Bank directors were.fully aware of their rs lsponsibiliti . es—they always acknowledgCd them and were a: ways ready to act under a sense of those i:espon sibilities. As to the tran,sactions between the Bank of }:.og land and the 1, .rge commercial establishments which ba,,d been referred toy the Bank fell into the same error that ()tiler people had fallen into. They were misled, lent their mon ey, and took securities for it like others ; but the tranwetions of the Frank, in its private capacity, ought not to b e m ode the subject of discussion in Parliamee 7 unless by a distinct motion impugning its proceedings and con , A ct. wi t ,:n such a . motion was made the directors wouldi be m ody to answer anycharge made against them. isr h / NG:IIA M said he could not allow the s peech of the i Pe member I 'or the City to pass unnoticed in one respect, in which be compared the Bank of England to the Comm ercial enter p rise of his hon . friend i: :e n n a lpt. NY m ely , that re Government were compelled to Mr. Bass. It was : ope; '1 to competition. It was the fact failed in its object—that object 'd to protect a commercial coin tahbartoguantdeear I s a e w ver w e b p i les b su ad ttt bmcainogitytofrpormevednitaaastpearialiacri, eint from that cause. The next „,,,,11d be to terminate the exis t,,, of that law, which was assailed by the universe cla,,nour of the commercial public. M I % F. CROSSLEY was glad to find that the provisions of this bill did not at all bind the Government to maintain the privileges conferred exclusively , on the Bank of Eng land. No doubt a considerable degree of dissatisfaction. was felt respecting it in the country ; and the value of money, from win:loves . cause, was more uniform at that time than it had ever been since. Ho only regretted that the Chancellor 0-f the E. xchequer had made that arrange ment for so long a term .as 25 years. • The house then I,Jent OW committee. Clause 1 was agreed to. On clause 2, Sir J. PAXTON MON •ed to substitute 10 years instead of 2.5. The house was ever,r 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 oircum 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 t he value of money, yet it (lid 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 doi2e away with, and a. number of banks substituted in its place, each providing security for its own notes, and perhaps giving security to tile Government. Ho should support the amendment ,of he hon. member for Coventry, unless the right hon. gentle mr‘n the Chancellor of the Exchequer should tell them that the . ,v were already committed to the directors of the Bank of L. - gland. Mr. HANKEY observed that the object of the acts which .cipplied 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 c iorge for the management of the public debt; but the c i aus ,-‘ had no reference whatever to the management of the public debt, for the Chancellor would still be at liberty to make an arr angement with eight or ten other banks. This wasP not tide time for criticising too closely the ar rangements of the Bank. The Bank had invariably acted with great co:laid°. ration to the public interests in the ma nagement of the P u,Mic debt. The bill proposed to establish a limit to a very Adv.antageous and provident arrangement which had no limit,. it did not refer to the management of the public debt. Mr. BASS wished ter know whether the hon. gentlemen in that house who represe, rated 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 .g qm 'ts." And he should like to as k t. Le right hon. gentleman what the Bank did for the £7,000,060 of deposits which it had re,'"eived. (Hear, hear.) The mere fact of its having in its posseCsion the manage ment of the public obt, must necessarily tend to embrace ale whole business of th' country. (Hear.) Mr. CONINGHAM said :t wooild be more just to attack the law under which the directors .of the Bank acted than ich was to a great ex more just to attack Lord the Bank itself, for it was a law w h . tent compulsory. It would he Overstone and others, who in estlfblishinj the present sys tem had repudiated utterly the principles lai.d down by Mill, Fullerton, and Tooke. The Bank dit-ectors were to some extent the creatures of circumstances, but if they could only succeed in limiting the arrangements nov existing there would be some probability of putting an en'd 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 tit 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, he would assent to the truth of his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) proposition, and it need not be a matter of ged by the Bank itself. The letter of argumen t, beeQuse the freedom of both parties was on Bank was itself an acknowledgment o f he first time introduced into diff eren t record, and ackne;vied the Governor of the p th o s rt s io e n pa s r o a f tio th n e n b ow us f in er e ::; the Bank. Now, the principal features of the case were these. There was first of all the term of twenty-five years ; and ht. , need not say that if the hon. gentleman should succeed in his motion, it would simply have the effect of cancelling his (ii , e Chancellor of the Exchequer's) humble labours, and of Maklug them revert to the operation of the present act, whit .11 the Bank would be perfectly content to do, and of causin k ; a loss to the public of £50,000 a year. He did not consider 4.that. the terms imposed on the Bank were hard terms, but, os the • contrary, that they yielded a fair amount of remuneration for the business done. (Hear, hear.) Ho believed, how'.- ever, that there was a wish, on the part of Parliammt 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 leaf; 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 raid off. He thought the Bank had shown great liberality in its transactions, but it was but fair to 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 tb.e consent of the Bank. It was therefore a great public advantage for the country to get rid of that perpetual obligation. He thought the terms propohed by the Govern ment were equitable to the Bank and advantageous to the public, and ho 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 seccnd time. The house then adjourned. Locomotives were first dawned in the reign of Charles IL ; 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 Tim Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Middlesex, Friday, February 22, Ispl. ~, LT -- MOM