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

THE SUN,'7:LONDON, FRIDAY f'''EVENING, JULY 120, 1860.

came time he thought any legislation between landlord and
enant dangerous.

Mr. CARDWELL said that the real question was, whe-
ther they should consolidate the law between landlord and
tenant, and his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Deasy) had
taken great pains in effecting that consolidation. He (Mr.
Cardwell) would not take on himself the responsibility of
delaying this bill, which must rest with the committee.
He appealed to the house to proceed with the discussion
of the clauses of the bill without further delay.
After some discussion,
The O'DONOGHUE complained that the explanation
given by the Attorney-General for Ireland was brief and
'unsatisfactory, and he had received communications from
some of his constituents objecting to the bill.
The house divided on the motion that the Chairman
leave the chair—

Ayes
Noes
Majority —BO
The amendment was accordingly negatived.
Clauses 1 to 30 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 31, which restricted the right of tenants to
cropping or cutting on their land,
Mr. M‘M.A.HON suggested that osiers, willows, and
galleys should be excepted from the provision.
Mr. DEASY said that if the statutable rights of the
tenants were not protected by the clause, he would, on the
bringing up of the report, make an amendment for the pur
pose of reserving to tenants these rights.
The amendment was negatived, and the clause, with
some verbal alterations, was agreed to.
The clauses to 35 were adopted.
On the latter clause,
Mr. P. URQUHART proposed its omission, and the
house divided—
For the clause .
Against •••••P . 2l
Majority
On clause 36, some discussion arose, which was inter-
rupted at 10 minutes to 4.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES
(IRELAND) BILL.

This bill was referred to the same committee, and the
Chairman reported progress, and the house resumed.
NEW MEMBER.

Lord HAMILTON took the oaths aid his seat ;for
Donegal.
The sitting was suspended at 4 o'clock.

The house resumed at 6 o'clock.
WITHDRAWAL OF THE BANKRUPTCY BILL,

The order of the day having been read, the house went
into committee en this bill—Mr. Sergeant DEASY in the

chair.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (who was at times very
indistinctly heard) said—The committee will recollect the
question before us when this bill was last under discussion
was one of the very greatest importance. It was the
question whether any person, be he a trader or non-
trader, shall be subject to the uniform system of administer-
ing the law of insolvency proposed to be established by this
measure. Although this question may have never before
been discussed in the House ef Commons, it has been the
subject of repeated consideration out of this house during a
period, I may say, of 30 years, and whether in the reports
of commissioners, in the discussions in the other House of
Parliament, or in the speeches of the most learned lords and
jurists, there has been but one growing opinion, that it is
incumbent on the Legislature, upon grounds both of justice
and expediency, to do away with the distinction between
the code of bankruptcy and the law relating to insolvent
debtors, and to substitute for them one uniform system.
(Hear, hear.) I believe in this country alone there prevails
this peculiarity, that the man who is not a trader has no
opportunity, as a general rule, of surrendering his estate
for the purposes of an equal distribution among his creditors
until he has been first committed to prison. The anomaly
and injustice of this rule are most apparent. For what
object should you imprison the honest debtor, who is desi-
rous of making a cessio bonorum for the benefit of his credi-
tors ? To what end is it that so many thousand persons are
in this country annually committed to prison, only to be
discharged again in a few weeks afterwards by the opera-
tion of the Insolvent Debtors Act ? Some efforts were
made:for the amelioration ef this state of the law through
the legislation introduced by Lord Lyndhurst, but, generally
speaking, the rule I have described still obtains, and ac-
cordingly the debtor is compelled to submit to incarceration
before he can do that which justice and expediency require
that every man in a condition of insolvency should have
facilities allowed to him for doing—viz., to surrender his
property for distribution among his creditors. Now,
with that view, I have proposed this enactment, which
has been drawn up in very wide terms, because, while
it would no doubt have been necessary to surround the
provision with proper safeguards, I have felt that it ought
to be left open to the discretion of the house. If this
discussion had proceeded, it was my intention to have re •
commended, in the first place, that the enactment should be
entirely prospective—that is to say, that no existing debt
(no debt contracted before the bill came into operation)
should avail to support an adjudication of bankruptcy against
any person who is a non-trader. It was the object of the
measure to lay down some simple and unquestionable tests
of insolvency which all would admit might have been justly
applied to the non-trader. The tests of insolvency pro-
posed to be established by the bill are absconding from the
country and remaining abroad with intent to defeat or delay
the remedies of the creditors. I think no gentleman in
this house would for a moment contend that an individual
guilty of such conduct should not be deprived of his pro-
perty, and that property should not be taken by process of
law for distribution among his creditors. Another test of
insolvency proposed by the bill was the debtor's causing
his property to be taken in execution, or suffering it to be
so taken and disposed of, to the prejudice of the general
body of his creditors. Now, no man who is possessed
eithet of means or of credit would permit that to be done;
and, therefore, I think such an act would be a very satis-
factory criterion of his insolvency. Another mode of arriv-
ing at the same result was that if a judgment were obtained
against a non-trader, and he were after a certain period
summoned and examined as to his means of paying that
judgment, provided he did not dispute its validity, and it
was proved that he had not sufficient property to satisfy it,
then he should be liable to have his estate taken from him
and divided among those who had just claims upon him.
There is another test proposed by the bill, which has not
been generally understood by the house, and which, as it
has been the subject of much misrepresentation, the Com-
mittee will perhaps permit me for a moment to explain.
It was intended by the measure to apply to the case of the
non-trader those clauses in the existing Bankruptcy Act
which are commonly denominated the debtors' clauses—
that is to say, clauses which enable the creditors to
summon the debtor before the Court of Bankruptcy,
and call noon. him either to pay or satisfy the
Court that he has the means of doing so. But I have
not thought it fair to include them in this bill in the naked
shape in which they exist in the bankruptcy statutes ; and
accordingly the committee will observe, if they will torn to
the bill, that no opportunity to make any demand of this
kind against a debtor is given to any creditor who is not in
a condition to prove to the Court that the debtor is in in
solvent circumstances, and is seeking to evade his credi-
tors. I should have had no difficulty, if the bill proceeded,
in confining this provision to the case of traders, and ex-
empting non-traders from its operation. If this result had
been attained, the measure would have assumed this form,
that no person who was not a trader would have been sub-
ject to its operation unless he was absconding or remaining
away from this country, unless he was a judgment debtor
without the means of paying his debts, or unless his pro-
perty was actually being so disposed of as to defraud his
creditors. I have no doubt, therefore, that if the discussion
had.gone on, the committee would have been satisfied with
the guards and precautions introduced, or proposed to be
introduced, by this measure. But, sir, reflecting on the
anxiety manifested by the house it appeared to be incum-
bent on me to consider whether, supposing that I suc-
ceeded in satisfying the committee, and in inducing it to
extend the bill to the case of the non-trader, still if the sub-
sequent provisions of the bill required so much time to be
expended in their discussion that I could not carry the
measure up to the House of Lords probably until the be-
ginning of August, it would be inconsistent with ordinary
decency at that period of the year to send up a bill contain-
ing such novel and important provisions to the other house,
and expect that assembly then to take them into its con-
sideration. I, therefore, could not avoid arriving at the
conclusion that the House of Lords ought not to be placed
in that situation. On the other hand, if I were not
fortunate enough to carry with me the opinion of the
committee, end these clauses were to be struck out, it
would then be necessary to entirely recast the measure;
because hon. members will do me the favour to recol-
lect that I have been encouraged to go on under the
conviction that the house was favourable to this
extension of the law. For, with the view of raising the ques-
tion, the second section of the bill proposed the abolition of
the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and had the committee been
adverse to that extension, it might naturally have been sup-
posed that its feeling would have been expressed during the
consideration of that clause. I was the more encouraged to
11°130 that this alteration of the law would have met the ap-
l'r"al et the house because the same provision was con-
tained in the bill introduced by Lord Derby's Government,
and thereforerle expected that it would have been received
with the more
general concurrence. I cannot, however,
complain that the
house should have viewed this as a mat-
ter demanding the
most careful deliberation, and we are
therefore in this difileulty, that even if we succeeded with
the bill, we could not hope
to finish it in time for it to
undergo discussion in theother
if we railed there would equals: be On the other hand,
insufficienthouse. time for
bringing the measure forward
or ended shape. I
have therefore, with the approbation tiltm Government,
come unwillingly to the conclusion that
abandon the bill. (Cheers.) I hope, bnweisv:lre.ceseary to
subject has again to be considered, it will be found
'whthenattthhise
attention already devoted to it has not been thrown away
(Cheers from the Opposition.) I have gained considerable.
experience from our discussions; and, if the task is not
undertaken by more competent hands, I trust I shalt be
able in another sessio n to present this measure in less gi.
gantic proportions, and embodying all its principles and
objects in a more con( lensed form. (Hear, hear.) I trust it
successor, at
will be introduced, w. nether by myself or my

an earlier period of the year, when it can receive the due
consideration necessary to enable it to pass, for there is at
growing and urgent demand for legislation upon this sub-

lect. (Hear, hear.) I have only now to express my regret
if, in my earnest anxiety to carry thisbill, I have ever seemed
to evince any impatience towards the house. (Cheers.) I

had hoped that during this session it would have been pos-
sible to make some important advance in the improvement
of this branch of our law. Circumstances have, however,

prevented it; and I trust I can say that nobody will be able
to reproach me with having lost any fair opportunity for
bringing this great question to a successful termination.
(Cheers.) I move, sir, that you do now leave the chair with

. ,
the view of proposing, when the house resumes, that the
order of the day be discharged.
Sir H. CAIRNS—I have so often ventured to express
anxiety with regard to the progress of this bill that I am

- _
sure the committee will believe me to be sincere when I say
that I entirely concur in the regrets which have been ex•

pressed by the Attorney-General at the necessity which has
arisen for its postponement till another session. I do not

mean to say one word by way of suggestion that the course
which has been taken by the hon. and learned gentleman is
not a necessary course, is not the most advisable one which
he could have adopted. lam sure that the committee will
respond entirely to the demand which the Attorney-General
has made upon us, and will join with me in expressing the
gratitude which is due to him for the pains and labour which
he has bestowed upon this measure. (Hear, hear.) I cer-
tainly hope ihat those pains and that labour have not been
thrown away, hut that at some future time the bill will be
reintroduced and carried through this house. If I may
venture to make a suggestion to the hon. and learned gentle-
men it is this, that, when the subject of the bankruptcy law
again comes before the house, great advantage would be
gained if the measure first presented was not a bill for con-
solidating the entire law of bankruptcy, but was confined
to the changes proposed to be made in that law. Such a
measure would distinctly raise the question as to the effect
and the extent of those changes, and after it had been
passed the consolidation of the law would be a matter of
very little difficulty, In place a having a bill of 500 or
600 clauses brought before the house, we should in the first
instance have one of some 50 or 100 clauses containing all
the changes, and the larger measure would afterwards be
treated more id a matter of routine than as one of discus-
sion. As my hon. and learned friend has referred to the
bill which was brought in by the late Government, I think
I may add that that was the course which was taken by
the late Government, and I still think, as I thought then,
that great advantage would have resulted from its adoption.
The course taken was to lay before and pass through the
other house a bill confined to the changes proposed to be
made in the law, with the view and upon a statement that
when that bill had passed both Houses of Parliament it
should be followed by a general measure repealing all pre-
vious statutes and consolidating the law. Of course, I do
not now propose to advert to my hon. and learned friend's
proposal as to making non-traders liable to the bankrupt
laws. I still think that, if accompanied, by efficient safe-
guards, it may safely be gone. What those safeguards are
I will not now discuss. I must, before I sit down, say that
it will be :natter of great regret to every one that the reso-
lution at which my hon. and learned friend has arrived has
not been earlier communicated to this house. We /re here
this evening apparently expecting a discussion upon the
Bankruptcy Bill, and I greatly fear that a number of mem-
bers who are very much interested in the questions which
are to come on upon going into Committee of Supply are
not at all prepared for the change which has been made. I
cannot help thinking that the resolution which has been
come to must have been known to the Government for
some time, and it would have been more convenient if it
had been earlier announced what business was actually to
be proceeded with to-night. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MALINS deeply regretted that circumstances had not
enabled his hen. and learned friend to go on with this very
valuable measure. At the same time he thought that his
hon. and learned friend had exercised a sound discretion in
abandoning it for the present. He had stated more than
once in the house, as be had communicated to the Attor-
ney-General privately, that he was afraid that the time had
come when if the measure were passed it would be so mu-
tilated, and would be deprived of so many of its most value.
ble provisions, that it would confer upon the public but
little benefit, and upon its author very little lasting reputa-
tion—very little, indeed, of that reputation to which the
days and nights of labour which he had bestowed upon it
entitled him. IHear.) By the course he had now taken,
and by availing himself of the very valuable suggestions
which had been thrown out in the course of the debate, the
Attorney-General would have an opportunity, if he intro-
duced the measure early next session, of passing it in such
a form as would be advantageous to the public and most ho-
nourable to himself. The .suggestion whichshad been thrown
out by his hon. and learned' friend near him (Sir H. Cairns)
as to the form in which the .'neasure should be re-intro-
duced was a most valuable one, and in his opinion the At-
torney-General would do well to adopt it. If he had the
good fortune to be in the house next year he should do his
utmost, as he had done this year, to assist in passing a mea-
sure which should embody the great principles which had
been enunciated by his hon. and learned friend. He regretted
that the house had not been earlier informed of the change
in the business of the evening, but he was sure that if his
hon. and learned friend could have communicated the in-
formation earlier he would have done so.
Mr. HADFIELD was sorry that this bill could not be
passed into law during the present session, but thought it
much better that it should be withdrawn than that any
further concession of its principles should be made.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I should have been
extremely sorrow to be wanting in courtesy or attention to
the house in this matter. The decision which I have an-
nounced was not arrived at until 2 o'clock to-day, and it was
immediately intimated to the gentleman who is the usual
organ of communication with hon. members opposite.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON—I do not, of course, object to the
withdrawal of this kill, but I entirely concur in the great
admiration expressed by my hon. and learned friend the
member for Belfast for the ability and labour which the
Attorney-General has bestowed on the subject, and in the
feeling of regret that the extraordinary course of business
in the present session should have rendered necessary the
abandonment of so valuable and important a measure.
(Hear.) Nor can I help pointing out to the noble lord at
the head of the Government and to the house the extreme
inconvenience which must arise from the withdrawal of a
public bill of this importance and magnitude in this sudden
and unexpected manner, when the house has assembled
with the intention of considering the measure in committee
for several hours. The result must inevitably be to defeat
the object:for which the order of our business is printed. I
observe that the next order on the paper for this evening is
the consideration of the navy estimates in committee of sup-
ply. Upon the motion for going into committee the hon.
and gallant admiral the member fsr Southwark has given
notice of his intention to call our attention to the subject of
Greenwich Hospital, but my hon. and gallant friend is not
now in his place, and in all probability he has no idea of
the sudden change which has taken place. lam bound to
accept the statement which the Attorney-General has made;
but, on the other hand, I must remind him that it was mat-
ter of current rumour in this house on Monday and Tues-
day that Government had decided, or very nearly so, to
withdraw the Bankruptcy Bill. Under these circumstances
I would ask the noble lord at the head of the Government
—who I must say conducts the business of the house gene-
rally with great courtesy and fairness—whether it is not
desirable that Ministers should make up their minds upon
matters of this importance a little sooner, so that the house
should not be exposed to the serious inconvenience which
must arise from sudden and unexpected changes in the
course of business. (Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—I very much regret the incon-
venience, if any, to which the house may be put by the an-
nouncement which the Attorney .General has made. At
the same time, I think the house would have been put to
still greater inconvenience if we had persisted in asking the
house to go into committee on the Bankruptcy Bill after we
had resolved to withdraw it for the present session. (Hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON—I did not ask you to do that.
Lord PALMERSTON—I mean if we had invited the
house to give a decision upon a material point of the bill
while we were satisfied in our own minds that the measure
could not be carried through. I think one statement which
the right hon. baronet has made in some degree diminishes
his complaint, because he says that, as far back as Monday
and Tuesday, it was generally believed in this house that
the bill was to be abandoned for the present session. If that
be so, the announcement which the Attorney-General has
made cannot have taken the right hon. baronet, at least,•
wholly by surprise.
Sir J. PAKINGTON—But the Bankruptcy Bill is on
;he paper for this even;ng.
Lord PALMERSTON—It is. But all I can say is, that

we attached so much importance to this measure that we
were exceedingly re!uctant to give up the hope of being
able to carry it through during the present session. We
clung to that hope, perhaps, longer than reason would have
justified. There are cases in which hope is said to survive
reason; but, be that as it may, we were unwilling to with-
draw the bill until the conviction forced itself upon our
minds that there was no reasonable expecta'ion of our being
able to pass it in the present session. We almost came to
that opinion yesterday, but our decision was made to depend
upon a communication which I was to have with the Attor-
ney-General this morning. I had that communication ; I
found that he entirely concurred in the conviction to which
we had come ; and he has taken the earliest opportunity to
state it to the house. (Hear, hear.) Those hon. members
who are interested in the business of the house this even-
ing will naturally have looked at the orders. They will
have seen that Committee of Supply was appointed
to follow the Bankruptcy Bill. Suppose that the labours
of the Attorney- General elsewhere had rendered him
unable to go on with the bill to-day—not at all an unlikely
thing to have happened—we should then have proceeded
at once to the consideration of the navy estimates in com- 1
mittee of supply. Hon. members ought to take such con-
tingencies into account; at any rate nobody can complain
that we should now go on with the next order of the day.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BOUVERIE joined in the regrets which had been
expressed for the fate of the bill, and in the conviction that.
that fate Was unavoidable. He certainly thought that it
would have been wiser to have divided the scheme into twos
or three ,
easures, and te:rsoa,;., ..i.t the controverted matter

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 neat 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 bees made in the commercial law of this coun-

try. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CAYLEY defended the non-legal portion of the home
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 andthe 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 indifferent.
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 leaiaed 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 s th 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 b;s power to roll them along. Day
by day the difficulties of the hon. and leaLaed 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 om a, the
hardship of being dealt with as bankrupts.
Mr. BOWYER 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 begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, if he was in the house, and if not the noble lord, whe-
ther and when the expected resolution relating to the paper
duty would be laid upon the table ?
Lord P ALMERSTON 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.
bironet 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
BILL.
In reply to an hon. member,
Sir G. C. LEWIS said ther=e was still a day appointed for
going into committee on the London Corporation Reform
Bill ; and upon that occasion he should move that the order
for going into committee on the bill be discharged. (Hear.)
THE NEW INDIA BILLS.

Mr. VANSITTART said that the bills which had been
referred to by the hon. member for Hertford were very im-
portant, and he thought the Secretary of State for India
could entertain no reasonable hope of passing them this
session.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said that all persons who paid
attention to the affairs of India were filled with the greatest
alarm at the policy that was being pursued by the Secretary
of State for India. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the
question of India was settled last year, till the house could
see how it could work. But now the Secretary of India
was bringing in a set of bills, one relating to the transfer of
stock, another to the army, and so forth, whilst as yet no
financial statement with regard to India had been made.
He should certainly oppose the proposed new measure with
all the means in his power. It was flying in the face of a
grew settlement ; and he had no confidence whatever in the
present administration of India; for the right hon. gentle.
man was acting in direct opposition to his council, amongst
whom were men of the most eminent position and of the
highest integrity. (Hear, hear.)
THE EUROPEAN FORCES (INDIA) BILL.

Mr. HORSMAN said he hoped he had not heard cor-
rectly that it was the intention of the Government to pro-
cee 1 with the Indian Army Bill the first thing to-morrow
(this day). He supposed the right hon. baronet knew that
papers had been moved for and ordered, and were now wait-
ing to be printed. This was the condition,of the house on
the subject of Indian legislation. They had heard of the
rights of a minority in that house; but the fact was, that
they were forced to a division the other night by the right
hon. gentleman himself, because the right hon. gentleman
said that he had not those papers ; and upon a question of
veracity—or, rather, not of intentional veracity, but of fact
—he kept them dividing till a late hour in the morning. The
right hon. gentleman then told the house over and over
again that he had not those papers, and gave them to un-
derstand that they were ordered to be printed, and that the
fault lay entirely with the printer. Between the divisions
he repeated the statement, which was re-stated by the Horne
Secretary on the right hon. gentleman's authority, and he
believed by the Secretary for War also. He believed the
Home Secretary stated that it was the fault of the printing

committee.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he had no knowledge what-
ever of the general circumstances of the case. He merely
stated what were the general duties of the printing com-
mittee.

Mr. HORSMAN said that was precisely what he had
said. The right hon. baronet the Home Secretary spoke
entirely on the authority of the Secretary for India. He had
no knowledge, of course, himself, of the circumstances. He
believed the Secretary for War followed. Under the impu-
tation of proceeding factiously, however, they persevered in
asking for the papers. It now turned out to be the fact that
these papers had been for months in the office of the Sec-
retary for India. Three days before, according to his own
' admission in that house, when the papers were asked for
by the hon. member for Poole (Mr. D. Seymour), it was
made known to the Indian department that the papers
were in the hands of the Military Secretary, and he was de-
sired to forward them. That was three days before those
divisions took place between which the right hon. gentleman
told the house he had no knowledge respecting the papers.
Every pains had been taken to expedite their production.
As soon as the Act of 1858 passed the Commander-in. Chief
proposed that the Indian army should° be placed under the
Horse Guards, and a correspondence ensued. On June 23
the right hon. gentleman told him (Mr. Horsman) that he
need not move for the papers, as they did not exist. He
(Mr. Herman) told him he knew they were in existence.
He pressed the right hon. gentleman, he insisted, he warned
him ; he knew they were in his office. The right hon.
gentleman told him (Mr. Horsman) he had spoken to the
Secretary at War, and asked him whether they were in his
office, and he told him they were not. That correepondence
consisted of a letter from Gen. Peel, then Secretary at 'War,
of Aug. 10, 1858, inclosing a letter of the Duke of Cam-
bridge, from the Horse Guards, to Lord Stanley, who was
then President of the Board of Control. Lord Stanley re-
plied to those letters on Aug. 23. Gen. Peel wrote again ;
and then Lord Stanley submitted the whole question to the
law officers of the crown, and their opinion was laid before

the Council for India. He was sorry to state that when they
had to deal with the Secretary of State for India they were
not met—he would not say with courtesy, but with that
fairness and plain dealing which they had a right to expect
&ors a gentleman and a moister of the crown. Upon
those matters members were obliged to get information in

an indirect way, fur the purpose of correcting the inform •
tion received by them from the Secretary of State for India.

He charged the right hon. gentleman with withholding in-
formation, misleading the house, and endeavouring to press
bills through the house at a time when the house was not
in possession of sufficient information. The day before
yesterday, having ascertained the dates of the letters he
had referred to, he asked if there would be any objection
to their being given as a return, and being told that there
would not, he had yesterday moved for those letters. He
had since received the following letter from the right hon.
gentleman :—" Sir Charles Wood presents his compliments
to Mr. Horsman—(laughter)—and begs to inform him that
he has found in his office the correspondence between the
Secretary of State for the War Department and the Secre-
tary of State for India and the other letters for the produc-
tion of which Mr. Horsman has given notice. Mr. Hors-
man will recollect asking Sir Charles Wood if he had any
rbjection to the production of those letters, when Sir Charles
s tated that there was no such correspondence in existence.
Sir Charles only became aware of the existence of those
papers yesterday, and loses no time in apprising Mr. Hors-
mart that there w 11 be no objection to their production if
moved for as an unopposed return." A week before that he
(Mr. Horsman) had furnished the right hon. gentleman
with all the dates of the different correspondence ; and crn-
sidering that the right hon. gentleman had received that
information from himself, and that this was the second time
a similar mistake had occurred with reference to papers, this
was certainly rather a cool letter. (Hear, hear.) He wrote in
answer, presenting his compliments to Sir Charles Wood—
(a laugh)—and informing him that he had alreadymadethe
motion for the papers. He complained of the very careless
and inconsiderate manner in which Sir Charles dealt with
members of the house with regard to papers that were abso-
lutely necessary to enable them to discuss the questions
coming before them. Had those papers been given when
first asked for they would now have been in the hands of
members. The bills introduced by the right hon. gentleman
at that late period of the session involved the consideration
of the position of the Indian Council, which Sir Charles ap-
peared to have reduced to an insignificance never contem-
plated by the act of 1858. (Hear, hear.) The Cabinet was
sitting when he sent that letter, and he hoped that it had
been submitted to the noble lord. He subsequently received
a short answer from Sir Charles merely correcting a mis-
statement on a former occasion, which was not material.
He must now appeal to the noble lord and the house
whether, having asked for those papers on the 28th of June,
and been put off from day to day—having at last convinced
the right hon. gentleman of the existence of those papers,
and got an order of the house for their production—the
noble lord was justified in asking the house to go into com-
mittee to-morrow on the India Forces Bill ? Two hon.
members had declared their intention to oppose the bill by
every possible means, and he appealed to the house if that
was not a fit occasion ? This was not a question as to the
merits of the bill, but whether members should be allowed
the opportunity of fairly considering the measures before
them. It was now the 19th of July ; Government was set-
ting aside or dropping those bills which they felt at that
period of the session were too important to be passed with-
out distinction. The very earliest period when the house
could rise would be late in August ; but what were the Go-
vernment new doing? At the vet y time that they were
dropping important bills for want of time to discuss them,
they were introducing others infinitely more important.
One bill placed the administration of the Indian army in
the Horse Guards ; but what was to be done with the civil
service ?
The SPEAKER said it was not competent for the hon.
member to discuss other bills which were on the table of
the house, on the motion now before them.
Mr. HORSMAN said the bill he referred to had not yet
been introduced ; but the right hon. gentleman had a notice
on the paper to move its introduction that night. But surely
when they were discussing what bills should be withdrawn,
it was a favourable occasion to remonstrate against the in-
troduction of new measures. The bills of the right hon.
gentleman were the very bills which the house ought to
press on the Government the propriety and policy of post-
poning. Instead of one Secretary of State being allowed to
overbear the opinion and outweigh the authority of 15 mem-
bers of his council, the house would probably think thatone
member of council ought to outweigh 15 Secretaries of
State, even of the calibre of the right hon. gentleman.
(Laughter.) He again charged the right hon. gentleman
with having kept back information which the house ought
to have had, and which was necessary to enable their to do
their duty.
Sir G. GREY said there was not the slightest objection
to the right hon. gentleman calling the attention of the
house to the state of the business; but he ought not to take
that opportunity, without any notice to Sir C. Wood, to
make an attack upon that right hon. gentleman—having
himself come down prepared with documents—an attack
which was not a fair criticism on public conduct, but an
attack upon the private character and honour of the right
hon. gentleman, and couched in terms that the house was
not in the habit of hearing a idressed to any of its members.
His right hon. friend (Sir C. Wood) had taken the oppor-
tunity of stating, at the earliest moment, how the facts
I stood; and the house was satisfied with the statement he
' then made. He was sorry that the right hon. gentleman
had thought it necessary to renew the subject. He had also
gone on to bring new charges against Sir C. Wood, of
which he (Sir G. Grey) and his colleagues had never
heard before. He had thought fit to come down to the
house, armed with correspondence and documents, and
had endeavoured, but in vain, owing to the good sense
of the house, to depreciate the character of Charles
Wood. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the question
that had been raised as to the progress of those
bills, if they were now to do any business at
all they had better confine their attention to the business
immediately before them, and not anticipate the discussion
of other matters. Objection had been made by the hon.
member for Hertford against twonew bills being introduced
late at night. He (Sir G. Grey) did not know the con-
tents of those bills, but suggested that it would be prema-
ture to anticipate the discussion that might arise. When
his right hon. friend made the motion which steed in his
name he would state the grounds which made those mea-
sures desirable.
An HON. MEMBER—At what hour? (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY could not state the hour; but when his
right hon. friend had the opportunity of bringing on the
bills he would do so ; and, after hearing his reasons, it
would be for the house to decide whether the bills should
be introduced or not. Even if the bills were not proceeded
with, it might be an advantage that they should be intro-
duced. When the proper time came the house might de-
termine whether the bill should proceed or not. So with
the bill for the amalgamation of the two armies in India ;
if the right hon gentleman thought that there were papers
which it was essential the house should have before going
into committee on the bill he might state his reasons to the
house, and the house had power to prevent the further pro-
gress of the bill. He hoped that the house would not be
involved in a discussion as to the relative powers of the
Secretary of State for India and his council. He believed
that his right hon. friend (Sir C. Wood) had acted strictly
in accordance with the law; and had he had the slightest
intimation that this matter was to be brought forward, he
would have been present to state his own views.
Mr. BARING said there was not the slightest wish to
withhold any papers or information from the House of
Commons. There were papers, he might say, ad nauseam
on the subject of India in the library. With regard to
the particular papers referred to by the right hon. gen-
tleman, a mass of papers were ordered to be printed ; the
proofs came from time to time to the office for correction ;
some delay in that operation took place, but the moment
it was discovered the. cause of the delay was removed.
The Secretary of State for India had no knowledge of these
particular papers, as they were with the military secretary,
Colonel Baker. In fact, there was but a small quantity of
these proofs in the India Office. It should be borne in
mind that this correspondence was bet ween departments and
took place when the present Secretary of State for India
was notin office. If the house thought these papers so im-
portant that further time was required, the India Bill
would not be proceeded with to-morrow.
Sir JAMES FERGUSSON said that the right hon.
gentleman the member for Stroud was fully justified in
the course he had pursued.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that there must be some
Fart of the correspondence which the right hon. gentleman
omitted to read. He thought for instance that there must
have been a letter to this effect : Mr. Horsman presents
his compliments to Sir C. Wood, and begs to inform him
that he intends to bring a personal charge against him on
the motion for renewing the discussion on the India Army
Bill. (Hear, hear.) He thought there must have been
another letter to this effect : Mr. Horsman presents his
compliments to Mr. S. Herbert, and begs to inform him
that he intends to make reference to private conversations
which he had with him. (Hear, hear.) It was much to
be regretted that the right hon. gentleman did not read
these letters because the right hon. gentleman could not
have omitted so usual and necessary a formality. (Hear.)
The reproaches which had been cast upon his right hon.
friend were wholly undeserved. His right hon. friend,
when great questions.of Indian policy had to be considered,
had not merely to form his own opinion, but to get the
opinion of her Majesty's confidential advisers. The right
hon. gentleman the member for Huntingdon had very
candidly stated that with respect to the organisation of
the Indian army the opinion of officers was very much
divided on the one side and on the other; and his right hon.
friend having to decide on that point, the question was
whether he was right in consulting the members of the
Cabinet separately, and ultimately placing the matter
before the whole Cabinet for decision, or whether
he should have only consulted the Indian Council, and
having got their opinions he should proceed to carry out
their views, no
matter what might have been the views of
the Cabinet on a question affecting not only India but the
general Interests of the empire. (Hear.)
Mr. IVITLNES hoped this important question would not
be embarrassed by personal considerations. lie regretted
that the members of the Indian Council had been excluded

from seats in that house, as questions affecting India could
be much better discussed in their presence. (Hear.)

Mr. HORSMAN, in reply to the observations of Lord
J. Russell, said he saw the Secretary of State for War and
the Secretary of State for India in the house shortly before
he addressed the house. (Hear.)

Mr. DISRAELI said he did not believe that the right
hon. gentleman came down to the house to make any '
charge of a personal character on the supposition that the
Indian minister would not be in his place. It was true in
theory that members of Parliament should be always in
their places, but the Ministers of the Crown should be gene-
rally present in practice. (Hear.) The right hen. gentle-
man the Secretary for India must have known that the
Bankruptcy Bill was to be withdrawn, and as the next
notice had reference to India, right hon. gentlemen who
were members of the Government should have been in
their places. (Hear.) They were not, however, in their
places, although they had been in the house shortly before
the right hon. gentleman had made his statement. (Hear.)
If the right hon. gentleman had postponed his statement
till to-morrow, it would have had much less effect than if
he made it that day ; because whatever time might have
been lost in personal recriminations, the Government
would not have considered it consistent with their dig-
nity to withdraw an order of the day of which they had
given notice. He thought the Government had acted wisely
in not pressing the measure to •morrow. The state of affairs
with regard to Indian administration was not so satisfac-
tory as could be wished. (Hear, hear.) Since the act of
1858 the responsibility of Parliament in the administration
of India had much increased, and it was, therefore, the duty
of the Government that India bills should be introduced at
an early period of the session, so that they might be amply
and sufficiently discussed, and that the discussions should
be preceded by ample and adequate information. (Hear.)
The Government, therefore, ought not to be surprised that
some impatience and jealousy was manifested by persons in-
terested in Indian affairs when they saw bills of great im-

portance relating to India introduced at a late period of the
session, when they could not be considered and dealt with
in a satisfactory manner. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the
statement of the right hon. gentleman, he formed from it
no opinion unfavourable to the two right hon. gentlemen
referred to, because ho knew how misconceptions might
.rio o ..}Lectild tlaorcforo wait for their wrplanations,
which he trusted and believed would be quite satisfactory.
(Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said he did not slate that it was
the duty of every member of the house to be present on
every occasion. He did not think it would be right to lay
such a tax upon them. What he said was, that those who
intended to take a part in regard to orders of the day which
stood upon the notice paper ought to come down to the
house, because they could not be sure that the orders of the
preceding night might not go off from the absence of the
members who had charge of them, or from some other
cause.

The conversation then dropped.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
On the motion that the house go into a committee of
supply,
Sir CHARLES NAPIER moved -" That it wasthe
opinion of the house that the recommendation of the Royal
Commission respecting Greenwich Hospital should be
carried into effect." When it was founded by William
111., at the request of his Queen, a Royal charter was
given, and terrain rules for its guidance and government.
It provided lodgings, food, and clothing for seamen who had
served their country in the navy and the widows of men
killed or drowned in the service. It also provided for the
wives of seamen, and also their children. In 1705 there
were 100 seamen admitted, in 1706 another 100; and of
course during the wars that followed their numbers greatly
increased. In 1814 a pension of a shilling a day was given
to seamen who had served 20 years, and ninepeuce to those
of 15 years ; and the funds of Greenwich Hospital were used
down to 1829 to pay the charge, amounting to two millions.
It was then discovered that the Government had appro-
priated the money, and, as the act was illegal, an act of
Parliament was passed to indemnify them. What proved
beyond all doubt that the hospital was badly administered,
was the fact that there were now only 1,124 persons there.
Would any one say that if it were properly managed that
would be the case ? The commissioners said in their report
that there was an unwillingness on the part of old seamen
to enter the hospital. No attention had been paid to this
institution, by various Governments and Boards of Ad-
miralty for the last 70 or 80 years ; and thus it was that
great neglect was the consequence. Seamen were scattered
through the country, and they had no moans of coming
up to London except by begging; but it was only due to
the Government to say that when they did arrive they were
taken great care of and sent home if rejected. He thought
they were all greatly indebted to the hon. member for Gates-
head and his brother commissioners for their very able re-
port. As to the education of the children, it appeared from
the report to which he had already referred, that the pen-
sioners' children had been much neglected. LThe hon.
and gallant admiral read extracts from the blare book, to
show that this had been the case.] The treatment of pen-
sioners was a matter worthy of consideration. If a man
went into Greenwich Hospital he should enjoy his full
pension, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right
whatever to interfere. If the whole of the funds of Green-
wich Hospital were laid hold of, and divided among the
men, they would be much better off than at present.. If that
institution were properly conducted it would be a blessing
to those men who had served their country on the seas
and an encouragement to others to do likewise. As
to the Hospital Commissioners they were altogether
unacquainted with what occurred at the hospital. The
female schools had been closed, and the consequence was
that the daughters of the men who had fought for their
country were left destitute, and thrown upon the streets for
a livelihood. Was not that a scandalous and shameful
state of things ? The commission, which had carefully
examined every portion of the subject, had clearly shown
that the reforms they proposed would keep up the whole
number of the pensioners, and give them a larger money
allowance than at present ; but in addition to that they
would enable the women and children of the pensioners also
to be admitted into the hospital, and thus remove the cry-
ing evils to which he had referred, and which were not to
be borne. With respect to the boys' school, he would give
all of them in the lower school a good plain education, such
as was fit for a sailor ; but, among a great number of boys,
some must be cleverer than others, and whenever they
found a clever lad he world remove him to the upper
school, and give him a superior education, so as to give him
the chance of serving as an officer. Many of these lads
might in that way become captains in the navy. He had
felt it to be his duty to bring this subject before the house,
because all the plans that had been tried to induce men to
enter the navy had failed. That was a disgrace to the
country, but it was a still greater disgrace to those who
rule us. If the noble lord who was at the head of the
Government would stand up in his place and say he had
heard with pain and shame of the mismanagement of Green-
wich Hospital, and that in future he was determined to
make that hospital what it was intended to be, a comfortable
home for the naval pensioners and their families, he believed
that it would do more to encourage the entry of seamen
into the navy than anything they had heretcfore done.
The hon. and gallant gentleman concluded by moving in
terms of his notice.
Admiral WALCOTT seconded the motion. He was
glad to be able to bear his testimony to the admirable
manner in which the commissioners had discharged their
duties, and he thought the gallant admiral had performed
a most praiseworthy act in bringing the question before the
house. It was impossible to condemn too strongly the
mismanagement which has existed heretofore, and he
trusted the Government would not allow a single hour to
pass by unnecessarily without making arrangements to
give effect to the recommendations of the commissioners.
Lord CLARENCE PAGET said, with reference to the
statement that had been made of a sailor having been dis-
charged without a pension, after the loss of an arm, or with
an insufficient pension, he was not surprised that a sailor
should be uninformed as to the rules of the Admiralty in
such cases ; but he was surprised that an officer of the long
standing and great experience of the gallant admiral should
be unaware of the fact, that in the first instance the pension
was fixed conditionally, in order to ascertain how far the
pensioner was able to assist in his own maintenance, and
was increased in proportion to his inability to do so. He
regretted also to find that fault had been found with the
Admiralty for not having themselves introduced changes in
the management of Greenwich Hospital without any pre-
vious inquiry. The hon. and gallant officer must have a
very curious idea of the Admiralty if he thought it could
undertake to make changes in a large institution like Green-
wich Hospital without having careful and well-sifted infor-
mation before them. They thought that the much wiser and
practical course was to appoint a commission to investigate
all the facts connected with the management, and to sub-
mit to the Government the improvements that such an in-
vestigation had suggested to their minds. It was impossi-
ble for him to allude to the commission without offering his
thanks and the thanks of his colleagues to the hon gentle-
man the member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt), who presided
over the commission, and to his colleagues for their very able
and valuable report, and for the great pains and care they
had shown during the inquiry. (Hear, hear.) With re-
spect to the motion of the hon. and gallant member he was
not prepared to agree to it as it at present stood, and he
must say that in th 3 course of his speech the gallant ad-
miral bad given the best reasons why he should not
agree to the motion, because he had himself dissented from
and disapproved of several of the recommendations of the
commission, and if the motion was agreed to these recom-
mendations would have to be carried out. He should be
happy to agree to a motion the gallant officer put on the
paper two days ago as to the school, and if he would alter
his motion to the effect that the report should be considered
with a view to carry it out, he would agree to it. The school
in its details required attention, and various alterations were
necessary. The report of the commission gave a too
favourable view of the revenues of the hospital, and some
recommendations founded upon that supposition must be
reconsidered. If they were all carried out, a sum must be
annually voted by Parliament. Many of the suggestions
were very valuable, but in some of them he could not agree,
and they required very careful reconsideration, and some
of them eould not be carried out without an act of Parlia-
ment, During the recess they would take up the question