The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-20 00:00:00

A.:

into only one of them ; but he did not think that any time
had been wasted in the discussion that had taken place.
The great stumbling block in the way of the bill was the pro
posed extension of bankruptcy to non-traders--a question
which had been much debated by jurists, and for which the
great bulk of the people were perhaps not yet prepared. It
was the great advantage of our system that important
changes could not be made at one jump. They must be dis-
cussed session after session, until they were settled ; and
when at length a conviction of their wisdom and necessity
had forced itself upon the public mind there was no discon-
tent at their adoption. He hoped that next session the
hon. and learned gentleman would not only again launch his
barque upon its " sea of troubles," but would carry it safe
into port ; and that his name would be enrolled in the page
of history as the author of one of the greatest improvements
which had bee' made in the commercial law of this coun-
try. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CAYLEY defended the non-legal portion of the house
for the opposition they had offered to the extension of the
law of bankruptcy to persons not engaged in commerce.

Mr. AYRTON hoped that before the hon and learned
gentleman reintroduced his bill he would study the bank-
ruptcy codes of other countries. If he did so he would find
there was no civilised nation in the world that did not make
a distinction between the trading and the non-trading
classes. He regretted to add that he would also find the
English law of bankruptcy bare the worst reputation of any
in Europe.
Mr. HENLEY said he would congratulate the Attorney-
General and the Government upon the conclusion to which
they had come, considering the period of the session, and
that there were 400 and more clauses still remaining to be
passed. The right hon. gentleman complained that the ob-
jection to the bill was not taken earlier. He (Mr. Henley)
would state why he did not take it earlier. He quite
agreed that for persons who were to be wound up, whether
traders or non-traders, there ought to be but one court.
But agreeing to this, he thought it was a very different
thing from bringing into the Court of Bankruptcy every
man who owed £2O, and who possibly did not want to be
wound up. (Hear, hear.) The commercial community no
doubt wanted the bankrupt law to be amended, they wanted
their commercial arrangements brought under the regula-
tions of the court, and it was thought very desirable that
there should be only one court for bankruptcy and insol-
vency. Now, these three subjects made a very large hand-
ful to deal with at once, leaving out legislation with regard
to the non-trading part of the community, and dealing with
it at some more leisure time. As to the other parts of the
question, irrespective of those he had mentioned, he believed
the trading community were wholly neutral and indifttrent.
At the same time he could not help saying that he thought
if any man were capable of getting through a bill of 500
and odd clauses, the hon. and learned Attorney-General

was the man. The clauses of the bill were drawn with

great distinctness, and whether the house were disposed to
assent to them or not, they could feel no doubt as to what
the hon. and learned gentleman intended. He repeated

that the clauses of the bill were drawn with great ability
and clearness—(hear, hear) —and he thought if any one
could have passed such a bill it was the hon. and learned
gentleman. But there were things in it so large that no
man could have it in his power to roll them along. Day
by day the difficulties of the hon. and learned gentleman
would have increased, until he found them insuperable.
He (Mr. Henley) would further observe that the word
debt was common to both traders and non-traders.
In the two cases it meant very different things. In one case
the time of payment was of the very essence of the bargain,
whereas in the case of non-traders people boughtgoods, and
time was no specific part of the contract, except where men
sold for ready money. The Attorney-General would excuse
him for saying he hoped he would not inflict, or run the
risk of inflicting, upon persons who were nowise insolvent,
in case they fell into arrear of payment, or had charges on
their estates, possibly through no fault of their own, the
hardship of being dealt with as bankrupts.
Mr. BO WYER said that he trusted when this bill was
introduced again they should hear no more about the amal-
gamation of bankruptcy and insolvency, or of the extension
of bankruptcy proceedings to persons:who were not traders.
He thought a great deal of confusion would arise out of such
an attempt. The two systems were founded on very dif-
ferent principles. The insolvent acts were passed for the re-
lief of debtors who were languishing in prison—(cries of
" Agreed")—and the bankruptcy laws were passed in
favour of creditors.
The house then resumed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Upon the motion for going into committee of supply,
Mr. DISRAELI said he would take the opportunity of
inquiring of the Government as to the probable course of
business of the house, whether it was the intention of the
noble lord to call the attention of the house to the question
of the fortifications of the country to-morrow, or upon what
day ? He also b'gged to ask the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, if he was in the house, and if not the noble lord, wLe-
ther and when the expected resolution relating to the paper
duty would be laid upon the table ?
Lord P ALM ERST ON said that the vote for the fortifica-
tions would not be taken to-morrow, but the first thing on
Monday next. The noble lord was also understood to say
that it was the intention of his right hon. friend to lay the
resolution relating to the paper duties on the table to-mor-
row (this day).
THE TWO NEW INDIA BILLS.

Sir M. FARQUHAR begged to ask the right hon.
b3,ronet the Secretary of State for India whether it was
consistent with the expressed intention of the Government
to withdraw from, the orders of the day those bills which
they thought there was no prospect of passing, to give notice

of two new bills relating to India on the 19th July ?

Lord PALMERSTON said he would recommend the
house not to discuss the merits of the bill until his right
hon. friend had stated its contents. He ventured to hope
the house would be satisfied with the large portion of time
already consumed before going into committee.
THE CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION REFORM