The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-09 00:00:00

THE NEW BANKRUPTCY ACT.

Mr. MOFFATT called attention to the working of the
new Bankruptcy Act, which he said was so imperfect and
inoperative that it: tended to increase the burdens of the
commercial classes in this country, whose pecuniary bur-
dens were severe, it being calculated that the annual amount
of insolvency was not less than £50,000,000. The number
of bankrupts had increased since the passing of the act in
1861, and the amount realised was comparatively small. As
the act stood it had better, in his opinion, be expunged from
the Statute- book, since it afforded little security to credi-
tors an ample opportunities for fraud.
Mr. MURRAY, approving the principle of the act, con-
curred with Mr. Moffitt in condemning its operation, which
did not reach dishonest debtors as effectually as the old
law, while the expenses, instead of diminishing, had in-

creased.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL observed that the act
had succeeded in some of the objects at which it was aimed,
and where it had failed in its working the mercantile com-
munity were sometimes mainly responsible. The Lord
Chancellor, the author of the act, was desirous that the
evils attributed to its working should be inquired into, and
the Government were prepared to assent to the appointment
of a select committee for that purpose.
Sir L. PALK called the attention of the Attorney-General
to a role obtained for a commission to examine the Pasha of
Egypt and other witnesses at Cairo to obtain evidence
against the steam rams detained at Birkenhead, and asked
how long this investigation was likely to take, and the pro-
bable expense of it; whether the trial of the Birkenhead
ironclads would be postponed from May next until this in-
formation was obtained; and why this rule was not applied
for when the vessels were first detained: He prefaced these
inquiries by remarks upon the proceedings of the Govern-
ment in connexion with the seizure of the rams, insisting
upon the bone fides of Messrs. Laird in the matter, and ac-
cusing the Government of a one-sided neutrality.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was precluded by the
forms of the house from saying more than simply answer-
ing the questions.
THE BOMBARDMENT OF SONDERBORG.

Mr. DILLWYN called attention to a telegraphic dee
patch which appeared in the Times of the 6th inst., relative
to the bombardmentof Sonderborg by tho Prussians without
previous intimation, and asked if her Majesty's Govern-
ment had received information whether such account was
substantially correct; and if so, what steps had been taken
by her Majesty's Government to recall the Prussian Govern-
ment to a sense of the necessity of carrying on war in ac-
cordance with the usages of civilised nations. These ques-
tions were introduced by comments upon the proceedings of
the Prussian authorities, and especially upon the " outrage"
referred to. He suggested that some strong measures
should be resorted to on our part, short, he said, of an
act of war—such as sending a fleet to the Baltic—in behalf
of Denmark.
Mr. OSBORNE—When I read the notice of the very
proper question which has been put by my hon. friend I
had no idea that it was about to lead to such warlike results•
(Hear.) The question is a natural one for a member of the
House of Commons to put with reference to what appears
to be an outrage on humanity—(hear)—and I had hoped
that my hon. friend, who was somewhat confused in his ar-
gument, because he began by saying that he was against
Denmark, but that, somehow or other, he was opposed to
the Prussians—
Mr. DILLWYN explained that he had said that he
thought Denmark was wrong in the first instance, but that
the conduct of Prussia was unjustifiable.
Mr. OSBORNE—I was under the impression that the
hon. gentleman would have contented himself with a sim-
ple protest; but, like the lion lashing himself into fury
with his own tail—(a laugh)—he has imitated the example
which was set him in another place, to the horror of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was thinking of his
surplus, which we disposed of last night (loud
laughter)—or shall dispose of, I hope, on a future
evening; for I am sure that the right hon. gentleman's
speech last night would convince any one that we mighthave
passed the Budget the same evening. (Hear, hear.) But
what was my astonishment to hear the honourable gen-
tleman, who had announced himself as a Dane, calmly
propose that we should send our fleet to the Baltic
for the protection of Denmark, without any discus-
sion whatever having taken place in this house. The
house will recollect that at the meeting of Parliament—
and 1 must beg the attention of the junior Lord of the
Treasury, the hon. member for Kidderminster, who has
lately addressed his constituents upon this question,
and who has such confidence in her Majesty's Government
—at the meeting of Parliament there was no subject of
such absorbing interest as the complication of affairs in
tie North of Europe. Various skirmishes occurred upon this
subject, and enormous interest was taken in it by the leaders
of the great party that I see opposite. But what has hap-
pened since? The house sat for six weeks, and no opinion
whatever was expressed as to the policy of her Majesty's
Government, and to this day the house is liable to be led
away by the raw head and bloody bones statements made
by nay hon. friend. (A. laugh.) I contend that it is posi-
tively necessary that this question should be examined fully
and calmly by this house in the face of the country.
(Cheers.) At first it was said, and said with truth, that it
was impossible to discuss this Dano-German question in the
absence of the papers bearing upon it. It was complained
that those papers were most unaccountably delayed. I have
since seen the reason, and am able to give an explanation of
that, Negotiations having been going on for months, it was
not too much to expect that at the meeting of Parliament
papers would have been immediately laid upon the table of
this house. No such course was adopted by her Majesty's
Government. After a considerable interval had elapsed a
bulky volume was produced—• Nos. 1,2, 3, and 4—but when
a debate was about to take place upon those interesting
papers the noble lord interposed with the specious plea which
we so often hear from the Treasury bench, of its being pre-
judicial to the interests of the country—and for " country"
we may sometimes read " Ministry." The noble lord de-
precated any discussion, and announced to the house that a
C'enference—in which even the hon. gentleman who has so
much confidence in the noble lord has no confidence—was
about to take place upon the subject. I yielded to the ap-
peal of the noble lord. On the reassembling of Parliament
after the holidays other papers were laid upon the table—
volume No. 5. These papers have issued fro.a the press like
the novel of " Sir Charles Grandison," which was published
in separate volumes. They aro as lengthy, and certainly on
the whole I may say as dull. (A. laugh.) But on reading No.
5 I perfectly acquit the Government, I quite understand the
reasons fcr the delay in presenting the previous volumes.
In fact, I will go further. I think the Under-Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs deserves great credit for his assi-
duity in revising, suppressing, and clipping these papers into
a state in which they shall be fit for the Parliamentary mind.