The Sun. — London, England, 1861-03-22 00:00:00

I.\IPERIAL PARLIAMENT: __. .• HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY,) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. CHURCH RATES. A number of petition: were presented against the aboli tion of church rates. THE DEATH OF THE DUCHESS OF RENT. The, Earl of ST. GERMANS brought up her Majesty's gracious answer to the address their lordships voted to her on the occasion of the death of her Royal Highness the Duchess. of Kent. SIR E. WALKER. In reply to tlif. Earl of HARDWICSE, The Duke of SOMERSET said he was glad of the op portunity of offering some explanation on this subject, because a very great misconception prevailed on it. For the appointment of Sir B. Walker to the Cape station he alone was responsible. He was simply removed from his appointment at home because his health was not good. It was his own wish that he was sent away, hut at the request of himself (the Duke of Somerset) he postponed the departure for some time longer than he otherwise would/have done, in order to afford the Govern ment information relative to the framing of the estimates. When Sir Baldwin sailed he believed that the House of Commons did not want him. The night he sailed, however, a telegram was sent down to the port admiral at Plymouth from the House of Commons, requesting him to telegraph to the Narcissus and order her back. This pro ceeding the port admiral thought irregul ir, and he declined to act upon it. In the morning he consulted him (the Duke of Somerset', and he consulted the noble lord at the head of the Government, and then sent down word to stop Sir Baldwin Walker. lie had never at any time, directly or indirectly, given any direction or hint to the Port Admiral that he did not wish Sir B. Walker detained. FLOGGING IN HOUSES OF CORRECTION. Lord STRATFORD DE REDULIFFE moved the adoption of an address for the production of copies of papers relating to the administration of corporal punishment in houses of correction, which had been laid on the table of the House of Commons.—Agreed to. METROPOLITAN HOTEL BILL. The Earl of SHELBURNE moved the second reading of this bill, which he considered, amongst other recommen dations, would lead to the removal of Wych and Holywell streets—localities perhaps not known to their lordships— (laughter)—but which were amongst the most objection able portion of the metropolis. Lord REDESDALE opposed the bill, as violating a principle which had been established in the previous ses sion in the case of a similar proposition. He would have agreed to the bill had the promoters consented that none of the property which was required to be removed should be taken by compulsion. They had declined, and he was, there fore, under the necessity of moving that it be read a second time that day six months. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY supported the bill as being calculated, although a private speculation, to prance considerable advantage to the public by clearing away some of the worst parts of the metropolis. Lord EVERSLEY opposed the bill, and he hoped their lordships would pause before they sanctioned this bill, be cause it would be a precedent for many others of the same tlevription. Earl GRANVILLE said he was not convinced by the arguments which the house had heard from the two noble lords, who were great authorities in that house, and who opposed this measure. He saw no objection to such a scheme if it were connected with public utility. The title of the bill did not contain all the information which was to be found in its provisions. He understood from the Chief Commissioners of the Board of Works that he considered this bill of great importance in its furtherance of metropo litan improvements, and it would widen the streets in the locality of the new courts of law. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and preparations were made for a division, when The Earl of DERBY rose and said that in all his experi ence in that house he had never known a question brought forward in which two Cabinet Ministers had successively taken an active part in promoting a private bill, and that had been done on this extraordinary occasion, against the opinions given upon public grounds of authorities so high as their chairman of committees and the noble viscount the late Speaker of the House of Commons. He hoped tie prac tice of bringing the support of the Government to bear upon these private schemes would be condemned by their lord ships. (Hear.) The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was another Cabi net Minister who supported this bill ; but if he had consi dered it a private bill he should not have taken any part in the discussion. This bill was, in fact, one of a public nature, upon which the health and comfort of many of the inhabi tants of the metropolis would depend. He entirely agreed with the principle laid down by the noble chairman of com mittees and the noble viscount on the cross benches (Lord Eversley), but though this bill was of a private nature it would provide great public advantages. It would not merely widen the Strand, but it would purify the locality in the neighbourhood of the contemplated new courts of law. Lord TAUNTON said he thought the question was pri marily and essentially one in reference to a private specula• tion. (Hear.) He had not the least doubt that the bill was of a private character, to promote a private speculation, and under those circumstances he thought it would be danger ous to sanction the second reading. (Hear.) The Marquis of CLAN RICARDE said he came down to the house to vote against the bill because he agreed with the principle which had been laid down by their noble chairman of committees, but having looked into the provisions of the bill he found they would confer public advantages towards which not one shilling of public money would be required. He should therefore vote for the second reading of the bill. Earl GREY said if this bill were really required for the improvement and widening of the streets, for the purpose of obtaining a more convenient access to the new courts of law, it ought to have been proposed to Parliament by those who were responsible for those courts. If the Government or the local authorities had brought the measure forward the house would have been ready to grant the required powers, but were they to allow a joint-stock company to have these compulsory powers to take private property ? He could not undertake to grant such powers until they had received evidence that there would be some public advan tages. If they sanctioned this bill, it might lead to most dangerous consequences hereafter. (Hear, hear.) The, Earl of SHE4BURNE replied. Ther lordships divided — Contents Non-contents Majority The bill was consequently rejected The North London Railway (Widening) Bill, and the West London Extension Railway Bill, were severally read a third time and passed. THE NORTH LONDON RAILWAY (BRANCH TO THE CITY) BILL. On the motion for the third reading of this bill, The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, who had a notice on the paper to move a resolution, with a view to its becoming a standing order, " that this committee on any bill respecting which a statement had been deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments in pursuance of Standing Ord No. 191, should inquire into and report upon the number of houses and of inhabitants likely to be removed by the works proposed by any such bill, and whether any provi sion had been made or was requ i re d to be made for provid ing other dwellings for the inhabitants set to be displaced," said that since coming down to the house he had deter mined upon simply moving, " that any such statement" to which he had alluded " should be referred to the committee upon the bill, the said committee to inquire and report thereupon." His object was to give permanent application to the motion recently made by the noble earinear him (the Earl of Derby), w hich was granted for a special oc cas i on . His amendment was not intended as an obstruction to public improvements, nor was it adopted for that purpose. All he asked was the means of obtaining accurate and cor rect information of the number of houses to be displaced on every occasion, in order that they might see how best they could reduce the evils consequent upon public improve ments, and which pressed most heavily upon great masses of the people. Lord REDESDALE had no objection to the proposition of the noble lord. One of the bills came before him that day, and he had made a report upon it at once ; but it was very difficult to get at the truth in these matters. The state • meats made before him differed very materially as to the character of the population of this district ; it was said that it was largely composed of a population of a migratory character, Irish and other strangers, who cams from diffe rent parts ; and if a return were made three years hence not more than one-fourth of them would be found to re main in their houses. If so, they would not suffer so much as might be supposed by the removal of their houses. The noble earl said that the railway companies took the best ?_' ,1 1t 65! in the district ; but this must be entirely take matter of necessity, for their own interest was to th a nT ru e ber wor of st and cheapest property. As to the returns of that thenuabrople who would be displaced, he believed would not be half that n am ed in t h e re t urn , because where land or e thenwho was so expe ns i ve th e com p an i es wou ld not take Was necessary, an d th e re t urns i nc l u d e d all the people companies. lived within the limits o f d ev i a ti on al lowed to the to which es. With the perf ec t concurrence o f the company he had r e f erre d h e h ad introduced two clauses into the bill, to the o effect that they should run Ithooe event ' °n cheap trains, and in conveyed an average of six months, of there not bf:ing trains, such trains should be discontinued, by each of those quently he thought it better to leave I t a h n e ed. But übse eontintiance to the Board 'ef Trade. The Other of dis that the company should make provision theturselr v o: s i; o o r w as th residences of their o servants and theiress so that e they might not pr ess on the Overcrowded parti. _ Earl GRAN VILLE thought the noble earl had an exaggerated view of the subject, under the most betievolent feelingo. He might mention that when the Prinee'Consert, .went to see some of the property of the Duchy of 'Me found it to be in a state that was disgrFfukto the:pre.: Terty of his son. He caused fresh houses iolie built, but when he had done so he found it impossible to persuade the people to leave the old houses which they had been in the habit of living in. He saw no reason to object to the amend ment proposed, as he thought it would lead to further in quiry ; and:he suggested that it be referred to the stioiding orders committee. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY agreed to the proposition of the noble lord. After a few observations from Lord REDESDALE the motion was agreed to, and the bill was read a third time. RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH BILL. On the motion for the third reading of this bill, Lord LYVEDEN said he was not going to oppose the third reading of this bill, but he hoped the circumstances out of which it arose would be a caution to the Government not to enter into future engagements of this kind without submitting the matter to Parliament. He hoped the Go ♦ernment would take no steps, or encourage any expendi ture for recovering the cable or setting the company on their legs again. The Earl of CAITHNESS said he did not wish to pro long discussion on this subject, but still he wished to bring shortly under the notice of their lordships the great danger incurred in giving guarantees to companies of so precarious a nature as electric telegraph companies, especially when connected with submarine operations. As a director of an electric telegraph company he could speak on the subject to his cost, and the cost of the company with which he was connected. It was thought that the wire when covered with a coating of gotta percha was quite safe, but expe rience showed that the cable was very destructible. He held a statement of the late Mr. R. Stephenson in his hand, in which he said :—" I have no doubt the experience which we have now acquired with regard to the durability of marine cables is very unfavourable, that is, as regards their pre sent form and shape ; but with greater lightness and less gravity I have no doubt that submarine cables will even tually be extended over a large portion of the world. The vitality of the cable is the great question. Some are worn out and decay in five or six years, some endure for 10 years, and some extend to 12, 14, or 15 years." He thought it was unwise, therefore, to guarantee for 50 years such a com pany as the Red Sea Company, unless that company was also bound to keep the line in good and effective working order. He certainly should have desired a large guarantee for his own line, because when the works were stopped, and there were no outgoings, the company would have nothing to do but to receive and pocket their money. (Hear, hear.) There was a great difference in the cost of overland and submarine telegraph lines. The cost of construction of an overland telegraph was £3O per mile, of a submarine tele graph £3OO, and of an underground one £l2O. The cost of maintaining an overland telegraph was £8 per mile, and of a submarine telegraph £25. But the matter was still worse when there were no telegrams and no profits. (Hear, hear.) Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said the subject of the bill was to cure an omission is the original contract. With regard to the conditions of the contract, they remained as they originally stood. The Government would not be dis posed to give a guarantee to any company in future without previously submitting the terms to Parliament. He agreed with his noble friend who last spoke as to the serious prac tical difficulties which stood in the way of submarine tele graphs, and that till they had more knowledge on the sub ject they could not be sure of their practical working. The bill was then read a third time and passed. LAW OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this bill, said the object of it was to obtain, through the Foreign Secretary, an authoritative exposition of the law of foreign countries when it was required,foraign countries getting a reciprocal advantage from this country. The motion was agreed to. CHARITABLE USES BILL. This bill was reported with amendments. QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT BILL. The Duke of NEWCASTLE, in moving the second read ing of this bill, said its object was to remove doubts which existed as to the authority which the Legislative Council of Queensland possessed. The order in council constituting the new colony of Queensland was issued in 1859, and it gave to Queensland the oonstitution which previously ex isted in New South Wales. But in 1858 a local act was passed by the Legislature of New South Wales which al tered their constitution to a considerable extent, as it ex. tended the franchise and made other changes. It appeared that this local act arrived here in the beginning of 1859, but it escaped the attention of the Government up to the time of the issuing of the order in council. Now, it appeared that the principal judge of Queensland gave it as his opinion that everything that was done under the order in council was illegal, and the law officers here coin cided in that opinion. The principal object of the bill was to cure that defect. It also contained a general clause, providing that on the division of the colony the new colony should take with it the constitution of that from which it was separated. There were other minor provisions in the bill respecting the boundaries. The motion was then agreed to, and the house adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.) BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL. In committee on stamp duty, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the following re- solution :—" That, in addition to the ordinary stamp duty, there shall be charged an ad valorem stamp duty of 7s. upon every £lOO of property comprised in every trust or other deed or instrument required to be registered by any act of the present session for amending the law relating to bank ruptcy and insolvency in England." The learned gentleman explained that the object of the resolution was to fix the maximum of duty, but that its precise amount would be open to discussion when the clause was brought up to be added to the bill. After a short conversation the resolution was agreed to. The house then resumed, and the report of amendments on the bill were considered. Mr. BRISTOW moved the following new clause to follow clause 138 :—" No bankrupt shall, after an adjudication in bankruptcy, be liable to any action at law or suit in equity (whether commenced prior or subsequent to such adjudica tion) for the breach or non-performance of any covenant or agreement entered into by such bankrupt in any existing lease or agreement for a lease." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the state of the law upon this subject was that if a bankrupt had a lease it was competent to the assignees to decline to accept it. The re sult was therefore understood to be that the lease remained in the bankrupt, and that he would still be liable to all claims that might arise out of the covenants of the lease. That was rather hard. (Hear, hear.) The clause, however, was imperfect, because if the assignees rejected the lease it ought to be surrendered to the lessor. (Hear, hear.) He (sir R. Bethell) would take care that the subject should be considered in another place if the hon. gentleman would agree not to press the clause at the present moment. Mr. HENLEY hoped that a provision would be made for i the surrender of the lease, otherwise he was not sure that a bankrupt might not occupy the premises without paying any rent for them ; for he supposed that the payment of rent was one of the covenants of the lease. (Hear.) Sir F. KELLY thought the subject might be fairly left in the hands of the Attorrey-General. There was, how ever, another omission which he wished to point out. A man might borrow money, give a bond to secure its pay ment, and afterwards become bankrupt. But he might also by way of collateral security have entered into a contract with his creditor to insure his life and to indemnify him for the payment of the premiums. After the bankruptcy, ps the biffstood, it would be competent to the creditcr to keep the policy alive, and the discharged bankrupt would still remain liable to pay the premiums on a policy which had really been entered into for the mere purpose of secur ing a debt that no longer existed. (Hear.) The clause was not pressed. Mr. MALINS then moved the following clause to follow clause 163 :—" With respect to all persons heretofore bank rupt, and whose certificates of conformity shall have been refused, it shall be lawful for the court, at any time after the expiration of three years from the time of, and notwith standing such refusal; to hear and determine the application of any such bankrupt for an order of discharge, and there upon, if the court shall think fit, to grant an order of dis charge, either absolute or subject to any condition or tctiomnies . a A d e ti t i , a h c , s Zr E hn vhteahncle same e a k a t' : nmeapniamraitted a manner as if th e b an k ru pt c y o f su c h p coeeeftetthec c e r in im m e en th e e e r m e e w h a t s a of this a an t which his piroptietc in nna hm e coenntdceased, businessand he shouldcould n b o e t se ewh followedy by a perpetual disqualification for trading. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL as we ERA Ls ll as aidthep extremelyA T reasonableT O It NEY and just,mercifulnro o . saanl and he had no hesitation in giving it hi s assent. (Hear.) The clause was therefore added to the bill. Mr. L. GOWER moved the following clause :—" The court, out of the estate and effects of the bankrupt, shall order payment of all such parochial rates as may be due from him at the time of his being adjudicated a bankrupt." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assented to the clause, if the following words were added to i t "provided such rates shall have become due in the year immediately preceding the bankruptcy." Mr. HENLEY said he thought taxes and rent ought' to go together. If six months were given to the landlord, the same period should be allowed to the parish. He must say he thought six mon the would be a much fairer time than twelve months ; because no parochial rates ran on for more than twelve months, at least they ought not. lle moved to substitute " six months" for "a year." Afte, some further conversation, Mr. Henley's amend ment was withdrawn, and the words "provided such rates shall have become due during the twelvemonths preceding the bankruptcy," were added to the clause, which was then agreed to. Mr. HADFIELD moved the following clause :—" The trustee or assignee, under any deed authorised by this act, shall have power to sue in his own Time for the debts and demands of the bankrupt or insolvent, and the production of every such deed shall be evidence of the due execution thereotwithout further proof." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the object he .sought to be obtained by the former part of the clause pro posed by his hon. and learned friend was already provided, for by a preceding section, the 203 d. 'With regard to the ytter,part of the clause, he certainly thought it W4lB far 1 4Yand ,tii*; eQmpetency of tho House of Commons'to enact that the production of every such deed should be evidence of the due execution thereof without further proof. (Hear, . THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY 'EVENING, MARCH 22, 1861. hear.) He hoped his hon. and learned friend would not press that part of the clause. The clause was finally withdrawn. Sir H. CAIRNS moved the following clause :—"lf any debtor shall, at the time of adjudication, be liable upon any bill of exchange or promissory note in respect of distinct contracts as member of two or more firms carrying on sepa rate and distinct trades, and having distinct estates to be wound up in bankruptcy, the circumstance that such firms arc in whole or in part composed of the same individuals shall not prevent proof and receipt of dividend in respect of such distinct contracts against the estates respectively liable upon such contracts." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this was a must im- portant subject, and he was much obliged to his hon. and learned friend for having drawn the attention of the com mittee to it. Re proceeded to explain the object of the clause, which was purely of a technical nature, and pro posed to add words which would extend the operation of the clause to cases where one of the joint contractors was a sole trader. The clause, as amended, was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY proposed amendments the effect of which would be that the taxation of solicitors' bills in the district court, instead of being settled by the local regis trars, as proposed by the bill, should be in all casea settled in London. He said he had before him a report of a case from which it appeared that a local registrar, whose name he would not mention, had improperly allowed himself cer tain fees, and the bill allowing such charges fell to the re gistrar's own duty to settle. The commissioner had acknow ledged that the registrar was in fault, but he said that the money having been refunded that was enough, and no more notice need be taken of the matter. This state of things ought to be avoided. His object also was to secure uni formity of charge in London and the country. Several amendments to clause 18 were agreed to ; one of them, proposed by Sir F. KELLY, having reference to the remuneration for additional duties imposed on the registrars by this act. An amendment was proposed by Mr. MURRAY, with re ference to the taxation of bills of costs under the control 'of the metropolitan court. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought such a provi sion would cause much practical inconvenience and expense, by requiring solicitors engaged in bankruptcy business in the local courts to send up to London and employ their agents here to attend the taxation of their bills. Mr. LOCKE called attention to that provision of the 27th clause by which the taxing-master of the Insolvent Debtors Court was to be transferred to the Bankruptcy Court, " and employed as general orders might direct." He did not know the meaning of this phrase. Mr. HADFIELD thought it would be inconvenient and an enormous expense, both to creditors and their solicitors in the country, that the latter should be obliged to come to London to have their bills taxed from time to time. The effect would be that the party who came up would get the ear of the taxing-master, and everything would be decided according to his representation. Mr. MALINS observed that all common law bills were taxed in London, and there would be some advantage in having an uniform system of taxation. At the request of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, who re marked that sufficient notice of the amendment had not been given, Mr. MURRAY agreed to withdraw it. Amendments proposed by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL to clauses 20 and 30 were agreed to. On clause 40, Mr. MALINS said that it would give the Lord Chancellor power to grant two-thirds of their salary as a retiring pen sion to the present official assignees after 20 years' service, provided they were 65 years of age. But one or two of those gentlemen, although they had not attained that age, were appointed in 1832, and were now anxious to retire. He thought the 30 years' service, without the condition as to age, should be taken as sufficient, and he moved an amendment to that effect. Mr. MURRAY and Mr. CRAWFORD expressed their ap proval of the amendment. The ATT ORNEY-GENERAL said there was a difficulty here in point of principle, for the house had laid it down that these officers ought not to retire unless two things con curred in their case, the 20 years' service, and the age of 65, except in cases of infirmity or sickness. It was now pro posed to make an exception or privilege for the benefit of one or:two individuals. He could not say whether the house would have no objection to de that. Mr. HENLEY said the discussion had shown the incon venience of considering the bill without its being reprinted with the amendments made in cDmmittee. (Hear, hear.) The amendment was then agreed to. Sir H. CAIRNS moved, at page 19, clause 82, line 31, after " Provided always," to leave out to the end of the clause, and insert " That before any adjudication in bank ruptcy shall be made against the debtor under this section, the following rules shall be observed :-1. A copy of the petition for adjudication shall be served personally on the debtor, either within the jurisdiction, or in such place or country, or within such limits abroad, as the court shall, upon application for that purpose, direct. 2. Such copy petition shall have endorsed thereon a memorandum, in a form to be settled by a general order, specifying the time within which the debtor is to appear on such petition; and such time shall, when the service is to be made abroad,• be the time which the court shall think reasonable, having re gard to the place or country where the service is to be made. 3. In no case shall the time for appearance be less than thirty days after service. 4. If at the expiration of the time limited for appearance the court shall, on the hearing of such petition, be satisfied that an act of bankruptcy has been committed within the meaning of this section, it may adjudge suoh debtor to be bankrupt," and to leave out clause 83. The hon. and learned gentleman said if ion.traders were to be brought under the operation of the bill it was desirable to proceed with great caution, and to introduce sufficient safeguards against any abuse of the provisions of the bill on that subject. lie thought there ought to be some further safeguards than those contained in clause 82. (Hear, hear.) The result of that clause would be this : If a non-trader, who might be a member of that house, happened to be out of the country, a statement might be made behind his back to the effect that he had gone away with the intention of defrauding his creditors. All the persons who made that statement would really have to do would be to say that he did not know in what part of the continent the non-trader was to be found, and then he would ask the judge to be allowed to serve the petition at his dwelling house, which might be shut up, or only in charge of a servant. The con sequence might be, therefore, that when the gentleman returned from his continental tour he might find that he had in his absence been adjudicated a bankrupt, though he had not loft the country with any idea whatever of defrauding his creditors. (Hear, hear.) By the amend ment, which would give additional safeguard, he simply proposed that in all cases there should be a personal service upon a debtor. (Hear.) The debtor would thus have an opportunity of coming forward and being heard before he was adjudicated a bankrupt. As they were now bringing non•traders for the first time under the operation of a law of this description he thought the proposal was a very fair one, and he hoped it would be agreed to by the Attorney- Gen eral. Mr. HADFIELD hoped the hon. and learned gentleman would not press the amendment. He could not understand why non-traders should be all ,wed to contract debts to any amount, and then have so many privileges thrown around them. (Hear.) The payment of just debts ought to be as strictly enforced against the aristocracy and professional men as against any other class. A trader was presumed by law to be always at his place of business, but a non-trader who was up to his ears in debt might be wandering up and down the country like an Arab, and there would be the greatest difficulty in finding his locus in quo. (Laughter.) He held the doctrine that every man who had contracted a debt ought to pay for it, and he had no right to go from home on pleasure until he had done so. (Laughter.) They ought to make a non-trader keep books like a trader, and if he could not pay his debts he ought to be brought before the Bank ruptcy Court. Sir Samuel Romilly was the first person who had tried to break ,in upon the existing system, and carry out the principle contained in this bill. Sir G. BOWYER hoped the amendment would be use ful, and that it would be agreed to by the Attorney-Gene ral. At the same time he thought the amendment showed the inexpediency of including non-traders under the bank ruptcy law, because it was evident that they could not be dealt with in the same manner as traders. The question was not whether non-traders were equally bound with traders to pay their debts, but whether non-traders ought to be brought under an exceptional system of legislation in tended for traders. In his opinion this part of the bill was a serious mistake in legislation. No exception to the general law ought to be carried beyond the reasons on which that exception was justified and founded. They ought not to apply to non-traders that which was intended entirely for the exigencies of trade and the circumstances in which traders were placed. Instead of bringing - non-traders under this bill the Attorney- General should rather introduce a specific measure extending to them the law of bankruptcy. He could not make a non•-trader a bankrupt without corn !pitting a solecism in the English language. Mr. HENLEY hoped the Attorney-General would agree to the proposal of the hon. and learned member for Belfast. He agreed with the hon. member for Sheffield that all persons ought to pay their debts. With traders time was the essence of the debt, but with non-traders that was not the case. ' Mr. ROEBUCK asked what would occur in this case. Suppose an officer in the army was sent to India, and he was there fur eight or ten years, and suppose some one out of pure malice should say that the officer owed him, say £lOO, and he should be cited to appear in the Bankruptcy Court ? He could not appear. Would he under these cir cumstances he made bankrupt? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was utterly im possible to declare a roan bankrupt under the circumstances put by the hon. and learned member. No man cr)uld be declared a bankrupt who was not preyed to have gone abroad and remained abroad with intent to defraud his creditors. To make a man bankrupt who had gone abroad on the service of the Crown would be as preposterous as it would have been to have made the hon. and learned member bankrupt when he visited Austria recently. With regard to the argument on the other side the hon. baronet had ob served that the whOle contro versy layin this, what should be evidence of the intent, and what rules should be laid down for the purpose of ascertaining the intent. He was willing to agree to this—that the non-trader should not be made a bankrupt unless the court was satisfied that he had notice of the proceeding to make him so. He should there fore willingly concur in the proposed amendment, provided his hon. and learned friend would agree to an addition which he would propose, and which should form the fourth rule, which should be as follows, "if such personal ser vice has not been effected the court must be satisfied that every reasonable offort was made to effect the same, and that the attempts to serve such person came to the know ledge of the debtor and were defeated by his conduct," This in point of fact involved personal notice. Sir H. CAIRNS said he was willing to make this addi tion to the rules. Where a person was endeavouring to avoid a bankruptcy he thought a substituted service 'might be allowed. Mr. WALPOLE also concurred in the addition proposed by the Attorney. General. Sir F. KELLY said there were many cases in which per sons, non-traders, made deeds of gift and conveyances of their property, or portions of it, as settlements for their wives and families. These were looked upon as proper acts in such persons, but the Court of Bankruptcy would look upon them as fraudulent as against creditors, so that if a gentleman who had been abroad for some years—an officer say—was to execute one of these deeds of gift or settlements for his family, he would be liable under this clause to be made a bankrupt. Again, if proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court were taken against an officer serving abroad he must appear personally. That was the object of the process, and if he did not appear he was liable to be made bankrupt. He en tirely concurred in the amendment of Sir H. Cairns. Mr. MALINS observed that the clause did not mean that the debtor should appear personally, but that he should appear by his solicitor or authorised agent. Sir G. BOWYER wished to know who was to bear the expense of this personal service ? The bill might ruin a man. First there was the expense of personal service ; then there was the expense of coming home ; and lastly, there was the injury it might do his business to be called upon sud denly to leave it for the purpose of repairing to England. And after all it might be a malicious charge suggested by the envy of a rival, and supported by hard swearing. The more the discussion proceeded the more insuperable the difficulties by which the bill was surrounded would appear. Perhaps members of that house might, some day, have ex perience of the effects of the bill, and then they would be sorry that they had not bestowed more care upon its pre paration. The amendment, with the addition proposed by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, was then agreed to. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed at the end of clause 83 to add, "No debtor shall be adjudged bankrupt on the ground of having lain in prison as aforesaid during fourteen days, unless after he shall have been summoned he shall not offer such security for the debt or debts in respect of which he is imprisoned or detained, as the judge, com missioner, or registrar, whose duty it would be otherwise to adjudicate, shall deem reasonably sufficient." Mr. HENLEY was much obliged to the Attorney- General for the fair spirit in which he had met the objet • tions which had been made to portions of the bill. He had now made it uniform, an no person was now to be ad judged a bankrupt until he had been heard. Sir G. BOWYER said it was clear from the 92d section that the appearance of the person charged with an act of bankruptcy must be personal; and, therefore, he repeated that if a man went abroad he would always be liable to be brought back by any ill-conditioned person who chose to swear that he had left the country for the purpose of evading the payment of his debts. Sir H. CAIRNS said that would be a very serious thing if the fact were so ; but section 95 expressly declared that no person should be obliged to appear personally who could allege a lawful impediment. He would, therefore, only have to send home an affidavit stating the fact. Sir F. KELLY was much obliged to the hon. baronet for calling attention to this point ; and he should be glad to know how it was to be made to appear whether an impedi ment was a lawful one or not. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appealed to the Speaker whether it was competent to raise another discussion on this subject after the clauses which referred to it had all been passed. soners in the gaol in his (Mr. Henley's) county were there under committals of county court judges. His impression rather was that all imprisonment for debt ought to be abo lished, except in cases of fraud in the largest and widest sense. But he did not think it should depend on the judge's opinion as to whether a man could pay his debts or not. The ATTORNEY -GENERAL, interposing, said that the judge's order could issue only if he found the man had means to pay and did not. It was not a mere matter of opinion. Mr. HENLEY said that in a case of this sort, affecting the debts and liabilities of a poor man, where a great many per,soni were constantly in prison, imprisonment by a county court judge was virtually an imprisonment for debt. He trusted the Attorney-General would give the matter his fullest consideration. Mr. CONINUHAM supported the amendment. The house divided— For the clause For the amendment The clause was retained Mr. AYRTON objected to the position in which persons in public employments were placed by clauses 141 and 142, and moved the insertion of the words, " When the dis charge of a bankrupt should be conditional, as hereinafter provided," at the beginning of the first. His object was to exempt public servants from future responsibility except in case of fraud or misconduct. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the amend ment, and argued that when a person in public employment contracted debts, power should be given to the judge to allot a portion of his salary for the payment of his creditors. After a few observations from Mr. ROEBUCK, The amendment was negatived without a division. In clause 159, line 27, the following words were added on the motion of Mr. MURRAY,—" Provided that in case all necessary parties agree, the court shall have power to assess such damages without the intervention of a jury or a refe rence to a court of law." Sir H. CAIRNS said he should propose to leave out clauses 207 to 218 inclusive. These were what had been called the dead men's clauses, which was not a very agree able name, but the reality was still less so. As they now stood, if any man died who owed any debts, any creditor three months after his death would have the power of sum moning his executor before the Bankruptcy Court or the county court of the district where he had resided or carried on business, and requiring the executor to make it clear to the judge that the property of the dead was more than sufficient to pay all his debts ; and if that was not made •fear, the judge would be empowered to wind up the estate of the dead man in bankruptcy, and by an ex post facto operation of the law to declare him bankrupt, fixing thus a stigma on his memory, and a cruel injury on the family he had left behind him. Suppose, for instance, a Liverpool merchant, who had resided in Cumberland or Staffordshire, and who had died there, leaving an extensive business and property to the extent of several hundred thousand pounds in the form of bills and outstanding debts due to him; it would be possible for any creditor of his to the amount of a few pounds, to summon his executor three months after his death before the county court judge in that place where he died ; and unless the executor could then make it clear that the merchant's property, in whatever part of the world it might be, and consisting as it might of securities not immediately to be realised, was more than enough to pay his debts, he would be adjudged a bank rupt, and his estate be wound up in bankruptcy, at the dis cretion of the nearest county court judge. The law of bank ruptcy always proceeded on the supposition of some act or confession of bankruptcy having been done by a man in his lifetime ; but here that was not the case. And the neces sity for making a man bankrupt, which was supposed to exist whilst he was going on to spend his money and to contract fresh debts, so that it was right ,for the law to in terfere and take the management of his property, could not exist after the man was dead. lie therefore moved to strike out the 207th clause. Mr. E. CRAUFURD said these clauses had been loudly demanded by the mercantile interest, and they wero intro duced into the bill expressly in fulfilment of a pledge given to a large and influential deputation. There was an address or memorial in favour of these provisions which had been sent up with the signatures of 89 of the principal commer cial or manufacturing firms. Such an expression of opinion , should induce the house to pause before rejecting these clauses, which were likely, in many cases, to afford the means of administering an insolvent estate in the local courts, instead of throwing it into Chancery. The coun try should have an opportunity of ascertaining by experi ment the practical merits of such a system, which might be decided upon finally after a few years' trial of its working. It was a very fallacious argument to say that the stigma of bankruptcy would be cast upon the family of a man who had died leaving some debts. How could they be protected against that which was the effect of the conduct of their deceased relative ? He believed that the clauses now under discussion would confer a great boon upon this country, a mode of administration of estates similar to that which prevailed north of the Tweed, and which was there found to work extremely well. Mr. WALPOLE said he should be glad to know whether the mercantile community, who were said to be in favour of these clauses, were fully aware of what their effect would be ? He believed that if the real effect 'of these clauses were fully appreciated, persons of the mercantile interest would be the first to desire their rejection. He should con ceive that the hon. and learned gentleman's object in insert ing these clauses was to provide for dealing with small estates in the country, which might, on the death of the persons to whom they belonged, be as well administered by the local court as by the Court of Chancery. But the sys tem now proposed was too large and extensive in its applica tion; and, although the object was in itself a good one, it had nothing to do with the question of bankruptcy, but should rather be dealt with in a separate bill. The provi sions her) inserted were indeed quite inconsistant with the general objects of this bill to amend the law of bankruptcy, for, whereas it was a great object of the bill to lead the debtor and creditor to adjust their differences by a composition or arrangement out of court, the effect of these clause s would be in every case where a person had died leaving any debts, to bring his efhtate into court. Let the house mark what they were doing. It was most reasonable, when a. person died, that his relatives should be allowed an interval of time to look about them, for the purpose of realising his estate, paying his debts, and preserving the residue. If only three months were allowed, they would force the executors to sell the property at a great disadvantage, and in doing that they would inflict a monstrous injury upon the estate, which the next of kin and relatives would be entitled to. The effect of the clause would be to drive all parties into the Court of Chancery to protect themselves and their property. His hon. and learned friend would see that these clauses had really nothing to do with bankruptcy law, which was de vised for the purpose of producing an equal distribution of I 53-31 the assets among all the creditors. He would appeal to his hon. and learned friend to withdraw these clauses from the present bill; and to bring in another bill m, ith clauses framed for the purpose of meeting the evils which required a re medy, and he ventured to say such a measure would be supported on both sides of the house. Mr. CRAWFORD hoped that the hen. and learned Attorney-General would not withdraw these clauses, as the mercantile classes, who had been well advised and knew what they were asking for, desired their retention. No less than 30 banking houses in London, and several bank*. establishments in different parts of the country, were anxi ous that these clauses should become law. Mr. HADFIELD said he felt assured that not less than 10,000 mercantile firms were anxious to have these clauses retained. He would ask Whether a debtor who had died was to be more considered than abody of suffering creditors who were kept out of their money. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said these clauses were recommended some years ago by one of the most illustrious lawyers, now an ornament in the other house, and they had been introduced into this bill by the recommendation of a large body of mercantile men. He gave them a promise to introduce them, and he had done so, but he should himself prefer their being limited in point of amount, and then he believed they would work well. He did not think it would be wise to send this kind of business to local courts which they, in their institution, were not intended to transact, and he would observe that one of the great advantages of Chan cery was that if after a person died an action was brought to recover a debt, the executors could come at once to the court and obtain an order of injunction against the action, axd then administer tho estate equitably. Now the Cuunty Courts did not possess this power. He differed from his hon. and learned friend in thinking that clauses like these had no place in a bankruptcy bill. He earnestly begged his hon. friend behind him to accede to the propositionwhich he was about to make, viz., that in clause 207 after the word " debtor" in line 13 to strike out all the words that followed down to and inclusive of the word " ban kruptcy" in the 15th line, and in lieu of those words to insert the following, " provided it be stated in such petition, and reasonable proof be given of such statement, that the assets of the deceased debtor do not exceed £5OO, and that they are insufficient for the payment of his debts." That, he believed, would limit the operation of the clause to insolvent estates to £5OO, and meet the objections which had been urged to the clause. Mr. MALINS said that no doubt what his hon. and learned friend had proposed would be a modification of and greatly improve the clause. Ho thought it, however, so essentially vicious in principle that nothing would satisfy him but its being expunged altogether. Mr. JACKSON hoped the house would agree to the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney-General, and ho begged to move to that effect. Sir H. CAIRNS should like to ask the Speaker whether it was competent upon a motion being put that a clause should stand part of a bill to move an amendment upon that clause. (Hear, hear.) lie apprehen . led that the only mo tion which at present could be decided by the house was whether or not that clause stand part of the bill. The SPEAKER said the question then before the house was whether the clause should stand part of the bill, and he did not think the clause could be expunged except by con sent of the hon. member who proposed it. The house then divided on the question that clause 207 stand part of the bill. The numbers were— Ayes Noes .. ... Majority , The announcement of the numbers was received with cheers from the Opposition benches. r ' The SPEAKEE thought the discussion Nvaf . 3 relevant. Mr. ROEBUCK said the Attorney-General was rather sharp in his practice. The bill was a tery large one. It had been suddenly brought in and had been carried through the house with a haste that was almost unprecedented. (Cries of " Oh, oh.") Oh, oh I Well, how many hon. members were there that understood it ? (Hear, hear.) He believed the list would be found a very small one. They must expect the bill to be treated in a very different manner in another place ; and if objections were raised and thoroughly dis cussed now, it would save much debate hEreafter. (Hear.) The motion was then agreed to. On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the words "if a trader" were inserted after "debtors," in clause 83, line 2, page 22 ; and the words " in the case of a non-trader" were omitted from the heading of clause 98. Mr. MALINS then moved to expunge clause 101, which he said was inconsistent with the general scope of the bill. The object of the measure was to meet an admitted public grievance. There were a certain number of persons who had property and debts, but who went abroad in order that they might enjoy the one and evade payment of the other. He could not see on what possible principle of justice they could prevent the application of the bill to debtors whose liabilities were contracted before the passing of the act. There were persons living just across the Channel whom the clause would enable to laugh at their creditors, but who ought to be made to pay their debts. Mr. HENLEY objected to the alteration propospd by his hon. and learned friend, as he thought it would give the bill an unfair retrospective operation. Mr. VANCE saw no hardship in allowing the clause to be omitted, whereby parties who were nen-traders would be amenable for their debts like parties who w ere t ra d ers . _ _ Sir M. PETO trusted the Attorney-General would yield to the suggestion of tine hon. and learned member for Wal lingford. There were a thousand persons now living out of the country in order to evade the payment of their just debts, and they could only be reached by the proposal of his hon. and learned friend.- After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. WALPOLE thought the clause was most properly introduced into a bill R hich made a material alteration in the law for the first time, and which assimilated the law applied to traders to non-traders. The clause simply stated that no debt anterior to the passing of the bill should be sufficient to support a petition for adjudication of bank ruptcy, but it did not provide that, after the passing of the act, any creditor who brought an action on a debt incurred anterior to the bankruptcy, and obtained a judgment, should not then enforce the judgment against the property, and also enable the court to adjudge the person in that particu lar case a bankrupt. Mr. CRAWFORD thought that if the bill were made iall. retrospective a in one case it ought to be made retrospective m Mr. HALIBURTON trusted the clause would be ex pung.d. The class of persons who would be affected by the amendment were people who, after contracting debts, left the country for the purpose of evading their creditors. They were no credit to this country, and he should be glad to see a measure passed which reached their hiquitous Case. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that if this clause remained in the bill, the benefit of the measure might ac crue to the next generation, but it would be comparatively lost to the present. (Hear, hear.) This fact had been forcibly brought to his mind by the number of letters he had received remonstrating against the clause. It had been argued that in striking the clause out the bill would be made retrospective, but if that principle were not to be applied in some cases, a proposed improvement in our procedure might have no practical effect. There could be no earthly reason why the general principles of lelrislat ion should stop short of bankruptcy. (Hear, hear.) Now that the house had fortunately arrived at a state of unanimity with regard to the principle of putting non traders on the same footing as traders, he (the Attorney- General) felt himself released from any pledge which he had given under another state of circumstances. He should submit the question to the house, to be dealt with as the house should think fit, unfettered by any action on the part of the Government. He wished to make the benefits of the bill felt at once, and not to have them deferred until an indefinite period. (Hear, hear.) The clause was then negatived without a division. Mr. AYRTON moved to leave out clauses 116 and 117. lie wished to put the small debtor on the same footing as the large one, and that what should constitute ground for the conditional discharge of one should be ground also for the discharge of the other. By repealing these clauses he did' not intend to give any undue immunity to the small debtor, because he also proposed at the beginning of clauses 141 and 142 the words " when the discharge of a bankrupt shall be conditional as hereinafter provided." The ATTORNEY. GENERAL said the difficulty of this case consisted in this, that the house had introduced into the County Court Acts the principle of ienal imprisonment. No doubt the poorer man and the wealthier were placed by the bill under circumstances which were materially different. The repeal of these clauses would have the effect of releas ing from prison every single person who had been com mitted by an order of the county court judges. A county court judge was in a peculiar position. He could not iesue execution under what was called a capias at common law. His power of inflicting imprisonment was obtained under two statutes of the Queen. It became necessary for him to exclude from the operations, of the act all unfortunate persons who had been imprisoned under the County Court Acts. What would be the use of making a poor man in gaol a bankrupt, when probably he had not 53. in the world. He (the Attorney-General) hoped the house would not consent by a side wind to annul the effect of the whole 'of these County Court Acts. Mr. ROEBUCK suggested to the Attorney-General that ho should make it a criminal offence for any man to contract a debt when ho was in the position of being unable to dis charge his obligations. Mr. HENLEY said the objection to this clause was founded on an alleged inequality of treatment of rich and poor. The county court judge was enabled, as he (Mr. Hen ley) understood, to imprison a man if he (the judge) thought he could pay and would not, and most of the pri- On the motion of Sir H. CAIR:ZS, Clauses 207 to 218 (commonly called " The dead men's clauses") were struck out. Mr. VANCE moved to add to the end of clause DIG—" If being a trader he shall, within three months next before the filing of the petition for adjudication, pawn, pledge, or dis pose of otherwise than by Lona fule transactions in the ordi nary way of his trade, any of his goods or chattels which have been obtained on credit and remain unpaid for." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had no objection to the addition. Mr. CRAWFORD thought it should extend to non, taaders. The motion was then agreed to. Sir H. CAIRNS said he had an alteration to propose in the interpretation clause, in consequence of the omission of the 101st clause. In consenting to the omission of that clause he thought his hon. and learned friend (the Attorney-General) yielded too much to his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Malins), who appeared somewhat insane with regard to non-traders. It might be very proper to subject non -traders to the operation of the bankruptcy law in fu ture, but he submitted to the house that nothing could be more inconsistent with justice than to subject non-traders who contracted debts in the existing state of the law to the provisions of an act which they could not know and could never contemplate at the time of contracting those debts. He was sure many members must have been taken by sur prise at the change to which his hon. and learned f, iend too easily assented. In order therefore to rectify what had been done, he proposed to add the following words in the interpretation clause :—" The word debtor shall, when ap plied to a person who is not a trader, mean a debtor in re spect of a debt contracted after the passing of this act, and judgment debtor summons shall, in respect to such person, mean a summons founded on a decree or order in respect of a debt or liability contracted after the passing of this act." Mr. MALINS said he was surprised at the course adopted by his hon. and learned friend. He had given ample notice of his intention to move the omission of the 101st clause. Therefore the house could not have been taken by surprise. Furthermore he asked his hon. and learned friend himself to support his motion, but his hon. and learned friend said he would oppose it but that he was going to dinner. He told his hon. and learned friend by all means to go to dinner, and that he (Mr. Malins) would send for him when he was wanted. (Laughter.) His hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General had not yielded to him, but after the subject had been fully discussed there was not a single voice to say " Aye." The house then divided— For the amendment Against The amendment was consequently lost. Sir F. KELLY suggested an alteration in Schedule G, with the object of retaining the provision in the existing law entitling a bankrupt to articles of clothing, bedding, &c., out of the estate to the amount of £2O. The ATI ORNEY-GENERAL said that provision had been productive of no good, and he had considered it better to provide that the bankrupt should only be entitled to such articles as the creditors might think fit to award him, The amendment was then negatived. Mr. WALPOLE observed that they were attempting t do more with this bill to-night than was consistent with the ordinary forms of the house. First of all they were to go into committee to take up certain clauses ; then they were to consider the bill as amended ; and then they were to re-commit the bill. He did not know whether it was competent for them to do that. He hoped this would not be taken as a precedent, but he did not wish to stop the discussion. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL reminded the house that he only wished to re-commit the bill in order to insert pro visions which were discussed and agreed to on a former • occasion. Mr. HENLEY remarked that they were to go into com mittee on clause 68, and Schedule A, " and any other clauses." That certainly was opening the case with a ven- geance. Lord PALMERSTON thought there was a great deal in what the right hon. gentleman had just said. The ob ject of his hon. and learned friend in adding these words to his motion was to give an opportunity to the noble lord (Lord Stanley) to move the motion of which he had given notice. But the house must not understand that there was any disposition on the part of the Government to accede to the proposal when it was made. He hoped the noble lord would feel, after the decision the house had come to this evening with regard to matters connected with the county courts, that the ground on which he rested his proposal had been cut from under him. Ho suggested that his hon. and learned friend should omit from his motion the words " and other clauses." Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL then moved that the bill be re-committed on clauses 8, 38, 42, and 201 respectively. Lord STANLEY said he did not wish it to be supposed that the claims of the county court judges to increased salaries had been waived ; but he felt the difficulty in which the house was placed, and after the appeal that had been made to him by his noble friend he thought it would be better that he should assent to the proposal, and that the claims of those gentlemen should be brought forward at a more convenient opportunity. Sir F. KELLY said, after the course taken by the noble lord the member for King's Lynn, ho should also refrain from bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice ; but he trusted that in some form or other the Attorney-General would give him the opportunity of calling the attention of the house to the case of the old gentlemen to whom the motion related. The house then went into committee. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved to insert, at the end of clause 8, these words—" such order shall be laid be fore parliament, and shall not come into operation till three months afterwards." The motion was agreed to ; as were motions to make the salary of tho t messengers amount to but not to exceed £5OO a-year ; and to raise the salary of the registrar in attendance on the chief judge from £l,OOO to £1,200, and of the regis trar of meetings from £2OO to £250 per annum. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would bring up the report at half-past four this evening, when he would propose to fill up the blank as to the ad valorem duty with ss. instead of 7s. per cent. THE MUTINY BILL. This bill went into committee. Mr. WHITE moved to omit clause 22, which gives power to courts-martial to inflict corporal punishment. (Cheers.) He thought the house could not better consecrate this ses sion than by agreeing to this social improvement. (Hear.) In his opinion there was nothing of greater importance than the abolition of corporal punishment in the British army— (hear, hear)—and he was sure there was no act of Parlia ment, the consummation of the abolition of which could give greater satisfaction to the country. (Hear, hear.) He assured the house that, in bringing forward this mo tion, he was not in any way actuated by any spirit of hostility to the officers of the army, who, he believed, were as distinguished for their humanity as they were for their gallantry. (Hear, hear.) He very much regretted that on this occasion the hon. and gallant general the member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) was absent, and from a cause which they all regretted (illness). So long ago as 1836, that honourable and gallant gentleman, when giving evidence before a committee of the house on this subject, gave it as his deliberate opinion that flogging in the army was not only inefficient for its object but was detrimental to the best interests of the service. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. White) proposed to abolishcorporal punish ment because he believed that to be inefficient for its pur pose, and it did much harm, while it did not reform. It was well known that the public sympathy was always with the victim who was subjected to the punishment. He was however sorry to say that the practice was latterly much on the increase. Ho would now read returns to the house running over a series of years, which would show the amount of flogging in the army. In 1847 there were 42 men flogged in the army, and the number of lashes inflicted was 2,200 ; in 1852 the number of men flogged was 43, and the number of lashes inflicted was 2,250 ; in 1858 the number of regiments, including artillery, was 143, in which the number of men flogged was 218, and the number of lashes inflicted, 9,338. MajJr HAMILTON—Sir, I rise to order. The hon. gentleman is talking of the army, whereas he made his motion in connexion with the Marine Mutiny Bill. (Laughter.) Mr. WHITE—The hon.and gallant member is mistaken. The bill before the committee was the Mutiny Bill, and referred to the army only. Then why did the hon. and gal lant gentleman thus interrupt him ? (Laughter.) In 1859, there were 148 regiments, of whom 512 men were flogged, and the number of lashes inflicted 22,663. The average number of lashes per man inflicted in 1858 was 42, and in 1859, 44i. (Laughter.) To continue the analysis, he found that in 1858 there were not any flogged in 69 regiments, while there were 31 regiments which merited that most honourable distinction. (Laughter.) He had to remark, that when they were so chary about inflicting corporal punishment on criminals, it was a matter of surprise that flogging should be continued in the army, especially when that punishment was not in flicted in the armies of other nations; and it was also worthy of remark, that in the Indian array the sepoys were not subjected to corporal punishment. (Hear, hear.) He considered it was most degrading and impolitic to per sist in the present practice. (Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide.") He had, he thought, said enough to justify him in moving that the clause be omitted. Mr. W. WILLIAAIS said he rose with great pleasure to second the motion of his hon. friend. He thought that to both branches of the services nothing could be more de grading than this kind of punishment. Mr. J. LOCKE also supported the motion. The work ing classes of this country held this flogging system in utter detestation, and as the army was recruited from that class, it was a monstrous proposition to subject their rela- tions to a punishment usually inflicted on felons. (Divide, divide.) The great bulk of the population of this country were opposed to this degrading punishment, and therefore he would sot his face against it. (Hear.) Mr. BARING said the main question was, what the amount of punishment in the army was at present. It was well known that flogging was now only inflicted on persons guilty of desertion, mutinous conduct, robbery, making away with accoutrements, and other disgraceful acts. If 14 man was guilty of such acts he was then disrated, and it would be only on the second offence that he would be liable to the degrading punishment of flogging. He was sure that under those circumstances the working classes would not have strong objections to flogging. Her Majesty's Go vernment were in favour of a diminution of the number of lashes, but they thought that under the Mutiny Act i t would not be prudent to alter the existing law. (Hear, hear.) He thought it necessary that this power should be retained under the Mutiny Act, and therefore he should resist the motion. (Hear, hear.) Col. LINDSAY feared that flogging could not be alto gether abolished while we had some men in the army of the very worst character. In 1855 and 1856 there wars a number of ticket-of leave men enlisted, of whom half -a - dozen were in the battalion he had the honour to cm wand. One of them broke into his hut and stole hi s watch—(hear, and laughter) ; another was guilty of re peated assaults on non-commissioned officers. They were, however, not subjected to corporal punishment, which 110 learned gave dissatisfaction to the other men, who, fo r serious crimes, expected that corporal punishment should be administered. Major HAMILTON said it had been stated that there was no corporal punishment in the Ainerican army, which was not the truth. On the contrary the corporal punis,h ments in that army was more severe th a n i n ours. So much was this the case that he had, when ho crossed th e border, seen deserters from our army who would gladly ge t back again if they could, rather than rem a i n i n th e army ° l, such a—he would not say what they called it—coun.trl. He must therefore oppose the motion, for, especially on th e line of march, it was the only practicable form of punish: ment, because the men could be flogged and continue their march in a few hours, whereas if they adopted some of the other forms of punishment which had been recommend ed they would probably lose many effective soldiers altogethe r. Mr. CONINGHAM protested against the employ - mer it of British soldiers to flog convicts, which he deemed a de" grading occupation. Much rather ought the heads of th e department to be brought to trial for the chronic state of mutiny which existed in our convict prisons. (Hear.) Il e thought it was unworthy of us as a Christian country r° continue flogging when a country like Russia had abolished the knout. (Hear, and cries of " Divide, divide.") He contended that flogging in the army was absolutely wine cessary ; where the officers did their duty the necessity for flogging would speedily cease to exist. (The hon. gentlemen was greeted with loud calls for a division, and considerable laughter.) He protested energetically against these inter' ruptions as unseemly and unworthy of members of that house. (Hear, and laughter.) He said he had not deserved such treatment—(hear, and ironical cheers)—for while l ie .e listened every night, till one or two in the morning often -- (hear, and laughter)—to debates which were sometimes lo t very much to the point, no one spoke generally more brims or more to the point than he did. (Hear, and laughter.) The house then divided, when the numbers were— For the clause 142 Against it Majority -.405 Mr. HENNESSY rose to a point of order. The 01 06e8 related to the punishment of death. Mr. May, in his wag, said that a bill having relation to such a result ought to be referred to a committee. Mr. MASSEY said that the practice of the house ic as against the sessional order referred to. The clause was then agreed to, as was also the othe r clause of the bill. The house resumed, and the bill was reported. MARINE MUTINY BILL. This bin also passed through committee. EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL. This bill also passed through committee, ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION BILL. a The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in movi ng the see°ll, reading of this bill (which had come down from the Lot: observed that the object of the mea sure was t o i ncrea se th jurisdiction and improve the procedure of the High Ca r , of Admiralty, which had hitherto been carried on aceordirib to the civil law, a course never popular in this countri l and to which was to be attributed a narrow and ineffecti le procedure. The bill was then read a second time. SMOKE NUISANCE (SCOTLAND) ACT AMEND' MENT BILL, This bill was read a second time. GREENWICH HOSPITAL WORKS BILL. This bill passed through committee. FOREST OF DEAN AND NEW FOREST. On the motion of Mr. PEEL the f o ll ow i ng bill s were in troduced and read a first time : Bill to make further provision for the management of he r Majesty's Forest of Dean, and of th e m i nes an d quart therein, and in the hundred of St. B r i ave l s , i n the coun t y of Gloucester. Bill for the regulation of the e xerc i se o f common and other rights in the New Fo r est, i n th e coun t y of S°ll"th, ampton. The house adjourned at 10 minutes past 1 o'clock• COUNTRY NABIZETS. MANCHESTER—MARCH 21. Best English wheat held for is advance, but a slow American red was Id to 2d per 701bs. dearer. French ; 1 5 Spanish flour in fair request, and the turn dearer. Ellg" 0 1 flour also higher in price. Oats a dull trade, and oatio in botter request, at fully late rates. B eans and Ind ite corn firm. BIRMINGHAM—MARCH 21. 1 , of At this day's market' there was a very fair sup P. ., o f wheat, and all English qualities were at the currency i this day se'nnight ; higher prices were asked, and in s2 er e instances obtained. Barley, oats, beans, and peas " nominally unchanged, and difficult to sell in quantity. CORK—MARCH •20. /te a The following were the quotations this morning wheat, 22s Od to 29s 03; white, 29s Od to 33s Od; barley 6d to —a Od ; oats, 13s Od to 16s Od. PLYMOUTH—MARCH 19. D The market was more active, with a f a i r b us i ness, but , ;t0 advance upon the currencies of la s t week—English 1""3.1 wheat, 68s to 7es ; red, 54s to 64s per qr; F renc h do., " PI S to 64s ; American, 62s to 645; Spanish, 68s to 698 ; ne t sian, 60s to 625. Barley in go o d supp l y, at 3 68 to 44(5 . 4 r d qr for malting ; gridi ng , 32 s t o 36 s ; oats, 24s to 28s; '— beans, —s to —s ; flour, 47s to 50s. EDINBURGH GRAIN—MARCH 20. Wheat on the top 7s Od up average 2 s Od clo syll : Barley on the top 2s Od down .average Os ld IIP• - Oats on the top Os 4d down. average Os 10d (11 3 ' Beans on the top is 6d down. average Os 11d UP' Averages per Imperial quarter. Wheat.. New wheat . . Barley 2 0 3 3-12ths Oats 1 11 0 8-12ths Beans Total Supply and Sales. Wheat ..1016 qrs Sold 741 qrs 8ar1ey........ 803 qrs Sold 639 qrs Oats 2179 qrs Sold 1351 qrs Beans 334 qrs Sold 263 qrs DERBY SMITHFIELD—MAncH 19. et There was a full supply of fat beasts to-day ; fol k prices again asked, qua lity goo d, an d a c l earance effe c ,llo A good supply of sheep, mai , taining late prizes. jo supply of calves more ple n tif u l. F a t pi gs war e also good supply. il l Beet 7d to lid V ea l 7d to a 4 Mutton .. Bid to 9d Pork Lamb Hides, 2/d—tdot°4l7 Rough ;d calf skins, 5s 6d sdto 6d. per SW The Paris Savings' Bank during the last fortnight received 914,917 fr., and reimbursed 889,005 fr. The reee i P e of the Caisse de Retraites for the ag e d amoun t e d for t" same period to 11,136 fr. [ADVERTISEMENT.] Pills and medicine invariably(ig: glavate and perpetuate diseases; their annoynalee, appointment, and expense may be avoided by persoi; in indifferent health sending only their address to e: S. Barry, Esq., 77, Regent-street, W;, London, and th e ; will receive gratis and free by post the " INITA.trDs' W e d 6IIIIDE," or Natural Restorer, without medicine or o f p , nee, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound l ung s, ail refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insu r i ng t h e neva of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver complai nt : . nausea, epilepsy , paralysis, debility, nervousness, pa IpitatlO''' cough, asthma, consumption, dropsy, flatulency, dlarr il l e : dysentery, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, catarrhs, c n nn " 0 , noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, cruln iv- in p hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness, acidity, 01 0 , tation, heartburn, headache, despondency, cramps, 0 1 ) ,t e .,T ( 10 sinking, tits, bronchiti s . —" Unques t ion a bly the f udast ule to health " BIRTHS. th e BURNR.—On the 17th inst., at 34, Wohant-squar e ' Hon. Mrs. Newdigate Burne, of a son. GORDON.—On the 19th inst., at Argyll House, the 11°13. Mrs. Gordon, of a son. r Ci HALL. —On the 20th inst., the wife of the Rev. - w Hall, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. CRAWSRA.Y—FAIR.—On the 20th inst., at St. F eter : S e ' Dublin, Richard Crawshay, Esq., eldest son of the ► Richard Crawshay, Esq., of Ottershavr-paxg, Su,',; to Maria Eleanor, second daughter of John Fair, x 4 ". Marino, co. Mayo. SM inst., the 19th bast , at St. Geo r g 9 cT, Bloomsbury, Wm. Bailey Smith, Esq., of Sussex - P k ' Wei Kensington, to Elizabeth Jane, dauhter of Mr. Bowyer. DEATHS. ,t' 0 CHITTY.—On the 19th inst., suddenly, Julia LucY , ' second daughter of I hompson Chitty, Esq., barriste r ' hw, aged 20. , na ao FISIMURNE.—On the 19th inst , an Cheltenham, 1: 0°- " Fishburn, Esq., J.P. and Deix. - Lieut. for the N°' Riding of Yorkshire, aged 64, u tbl HOWARD.—On the 16th inst, at Coombe Teeignul n Devon, John Howard, Esq., aged 83. .11:lats.—On the 18th inst., at the house of her brothe_y: in-law, Captain Jervis , M.P., Mary, wife of the SCALRATT. — O n the 20th inst., at 12, Milk- s treet, Che a p , Mr. James Scarratt, aged 6 I. John J. 'W. Jervis. It° ___......--!-4 - L O NDON : Printed and r u bli s h ed 1)y .51111 ()TIN G ' No. - 112, Strand, Printer, a t T HE bIJN Offi C e, No. I.'"dieise. in the Precinct of th e S avo in ale Col alty a Friday, Ma rdi 22, 1861. strao.,,d' R] EA Thurs able for t On GO er EXCIT Thr leave the fia. 6d. an, Wick (Ws. Wick We hanipton lOg) 08V tirkenhe (21s. and handbills U.R~ XX Clnts An Exc Thursday ter, retur back : - Fi Ci r R E CHEAP eavOn Satu e p ad (108 ' ll lPPerilu . and 6 (124, and at 7.30 a. i n ' c i f R On East Trill Bath e ror St roud (Oa ( Naming' P.rn. tr,,m `--__ GRE l eave Pact It, and 2e taaton ` 4l lngekol it, 4:1 R ~.On ea ,^ l ll lve . 4 anury 03 .), ,Wed b b i Atimpton ( I\TOTTI GE NONERS m ( )RTH ° ince, No, 4 Pril flex Metropo 23a ] OLAR Twe rilforters MILL JA katiager f: Lidded to 140 Portatic TtiE LOT THE and splem entrance t Outlay has gas being i lapplied Covers lai krom the r , P e ratin g . Th po adooon A KOS Sold in ilt REAI No"from N.O" been 80 ,, nearly tae and St. T 1 the Pale invalids being mor all classes n is g 6d. hall bottles 101 London. ' GII IT EM Jet WARNIN t edical L.ernory, to Society. laxation, llegt wteA death and vigott nervation, and two s' crescent, D R. disease. PAT Fir regulathU 2s. 9d., 4e. CONCE debility ai our quan VEGEI sores, dei blotches, Sold " 50 1 d by London, 4 . 111ce orde RU? WH] le be the nu UERNIA !fleets, Is body, whl and close during el 'ruse, whi Stlinfereni sent to t A Singl A Doublo An Timbi Post-of Moe, Pio ELM „ Vari the Legs, s ncl %ex] ''rice 38. 1, GRI DR. Coll, beearies above, on Lou of 3 of .both f enoee Has The Syno opv Aldo, an Malts at The mi (G onorrh the thin The 11 rezulatit Their F Removal tiers —Us On De `their 0 "Id (Alit Dring• Their 0 Cure by Advi Dr. Ci 'loner 1 above). DI A Ai } NE: , )Itat Pi in a a sent r A l -I n for Pert etritTlfil INTI EAtuctu CHA early CIIA of Man Ponies CIIA Gonorr The cases, t Lotion. "On' thoul4 2:ld "TK little Which old ag4 "Ti , profes and sy and bility .sxcess Land( livarg JAM]