The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 17 1860.

question. But he ahould not commit such an error as to
anticipate that statement. (Oh, and laughter,)

Sir S. N ORTHCOTE asked from what period the draw-
back would' be allowed, and whether it was from the 31st

of March last ?

Mr. T. BARING hoped the noble lord (Palmerston)

would not keep his secret too long, if he proposed a loan for
the fortifications, as it would be very prejudicial to business
in the City to prolong any uncertainty about it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was glad
that a question had been put as to the drawback. The fact
was that in estimating, on the 10th February last, the pro-
bable charge on the country for what remained of the finan-
cial year, he took £350,000 on account of wine drawback,
but that sum was provided for out of the revenue of last
year, and formed no charge on the revenue of the present
year. That sum was not, however, actually obtained out of
the revenue of last year before the expiration of the year,
because the Government had not obtained Parliamentary
authority to pay the drawback, and it could not be done
until the present quarter. Almost all the payments had now
been made, though a limited number were still: outstand-
ing. The whole charge on the public in respect of draw-
back, as the cost of effecting this great operation of the re-
duction of the duties, would be under £200,000, instead of
£350,000, which had been expected.
Lord FERMOY thought the distillers were a body of
men not quite justly dealt with. He also regretted that
the right hon. gentleman availed himself so quietly of the
paper duty granted to him by the other house of Parlia-
ment. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman was not behaving
fairly towards those who maintained that the question of
the breach of privilege of the House of Commons had not
yet been settled, and who contended that the bill for the
repeal of the paper duty ought to be sent back to the House
of Lords. The amount of the paper duty should have been
allowed to remain as a surplus until the House of Commons
had expressed a positive opinion on the question.
Mr. E. BALL observed with regret that the right hon.
gentleman adhered to the design of abridging the period
allowed to nealtsters for paymcat of their duty, and that he
reckoned upon £700,000 from that source.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER repliedthat
the question of the malt credit remained now exactly where
it was in February. The maltsters would rather derive a
benefit from an augmentation of the spirit duties than suffer
I from it, and so their position was not worse, but somewhat
better. In answer to the noble lord(Fermoy)he vror may that
ho had endeavoured in his statement just now to do bus duty
and to prejudice nobody—to prejudice no opinion. As a
member of that house, whenever the question at issue:with
the House of Lords should come on for debate, he (Mr.
Gladstone) would be quite ready to enter into it, and speak
his own opinion without disguise. But it was not for him,
on every incidental occasion, to be bearding a branch of the
legislature for which he entertained a sincere respect, or to
be continually referring to his own individual opinion. He
had been careful to say that there would be this money
available, if it should be the pleasure of the house to retain
the paper duty, and iu that matter his conscience was free.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GRIFFITH observed that it was a mere figure of
speechfor the right hen. gentleman to say that he allowed
any latitude as to the course to be taken with the paper
duty, and his proposals now did in fact extinguish the ques-
tion upon which he talked with so much ardour and elo-
quence the other night.
Mr. HORSMAN asked whether the house would hear
that night, from the noble lord the Prime Minister, when
the subject of the fortifications was to be brought on ?
Would it be on Thursday next ?
Lord PALMERSTON replied that he could not at pre-
sent state when it would be, but he would take an early
opportunity of doing se.
The resolutions were then agreed to.
EXCISE LICENSES FOR WINES AND SPIRITS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
following resolution :—" That, towards raising the supply
granted to her Majesty, the 12th section of the act passed
in the sixth year of the reign of King George IV., chap. 81,
which enacts that it shall not be necessary for any person
or persons to take out an excise license for the sale of any
foreign goods or commodities, for the sale of which in any
manner an excise license is required, whilst such goods or
commodities shall be and remain in the warehouse or ware-
houses in which the same shall have been deposited, lodged,
or secured according to law before payment of duty upon
the importation thereof, shall not extend to exempt any
person from liability to take out an excise license for the
sale of any foreign wine or spirits."
Mr. HANBURY said he hoped the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would not press this resolution, because it really
was not understood. Merchants were not in the habit of
importing wines and spirits which went into the Custom-
house, and had nothing at all to do with the excise, and it
was not necessary for them to take out an excise license.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said this
proposition was necessary in the view of those who had
given their attention to this subject. Up to the present
day there had been but a slight competition between the
ordinary established wine and spirit merchants of England
and a class of persons who went about the country as agents
to foreign honses, and dealt in wines and spirits which were
in bond, or wno were agents ror 73rltisTlnousespern.ps, nut
who always dealt in articles in bond. Now that they were
about'probably to have a sharp competition in these articles,
it, was absolutely necessary to remove that anomaly and re-
quire that every one who dealt in an article in bond should
be liable to pay the same excise duty as those who dealt in
the same articles not in bond. He now came to the ques-
tion of the West India importers of rum, and he considered
they wero favoured to the extent of a penny a gallon, nay,
he was not sure that they were not favoured to the extent
of threepence—(laughter)—and he advised them not to
move in the matter.
The resolution was then agreed to.
MALT CREDIT.

The following resolution was then agreed to :—" That
towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty, the time
limited for payment of the duty of excise on malt by every
maltster or maker of malt who shall have given security in
the manner directed by the act passed in that behalf, in re-
spect of all malt begun to be made on or after the first day
of October, 1860, shall be six weeks in lieu of twelve weeks
after the making of such account or return of duty as in the
said act is mentioned."

fall in the value of the stock. The clause, however, gave a '
guarantee to the creditors that the Government would be
responsible for any such loss—a principle which he thought
highly objectionable.
Mr. CAYLEY characterised the proposition to saddletho
public with the loss arising from an investment made for the
advantage of the creditors as altogether monstrous, and said
he was disposed to take the sense of the committee upon the
clause.

Mr. VANCE contended that when the general bank-
ruptcy fund got the benefit of the interest, as ho believed it
did, the creditors ought in justice to be protected from any
fall in the price of stock.
Mr. BARROW opposed the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the clause was word
for word the same as the existing law on the subject, which
had been in operation for some years. The real facts were
these :—The accountant in bankruptcy had always a large
floating balance to his credit, and the portion of it which he
found it necessary to invest yielded an annual income of
about £40,000. That sum of £40,000 was applied for the
benefit of the Court of Bankruptcy, and was one of the
chief sources of revenue which enabled him to abolish the
onerous fees and impositions which were new charged to
suitors. He therefore contended that as the profit was taken
by the public, and applied to public purposes, the public
was bound to guarantee the parties entitled to the money
from all possibility of any deficiency. There was no likeli-
hood, however, that the Government would be called upon
to sustain any loss in consequence of the guarantee.
Mr. BOUVERIE thought the hon. and learned gentle-
man was wrong in supposing that the whole of the profits
of the investment were applied for the benefit of the public.
The creditors were the parties onlyinterested in their appli-
cation. The Attorney, General had treated the matter as if
it were a question of the administration of justice between
man and man; it was a mere question of distribution of
bankrupts' estates among the creditors, and the proper
parties to pay the expenses of that operation were the cre-
ditors themselves.
Mr. LONGFIELD maintained that the Court of Bank-
ruptcy was for the administration of justice, in the highest
sense of the word.
The clause was supported by Mr. MURRAY and Mr,
MALINS.

The committee then divided on the clause, and the num,
bers were :

For the clause
Against
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 133 and 134 were agreed to.
Upon clause 135, which regulates the amount of compen-
sation to retiring commissioners,
Mr. PAGET moved an amendment substituting for the
" full amount" of salary for retiring allowances to the com-
missioners, "two-thirds" of the amount.
Mr. BAZLEY seconded the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the rule inva-
riably adopted hitherto by the House of Commons was that
if an official position was taken away from an officer on
public grounds, he was entitled to the full amount of his
salary. Not to dwell upon considerations arising from the
sacred rights of property, the committee would be guilty of
great inconsistency if they adopted this amendment. He
earnestly hoped that the committee would not introduce a
new rule on this subject, which would be dangerous and
disastrous in its results.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that the principle laid down
by the hon. and learned gentleman was quite new. He de-
nied that there was any contract between the public and
these gentlemen. It seemed as though lawyers were to be
placed under a different rule than other men. He remem-
bered the abolition of the six clerks. He proposed on that
occasion that the retiring allowance of those gentlemen
should be £7OO a-year, but they were allowed to take away
with them £6,000 or £7,000 a-year from the public treasury.
Mr. BOUVERIE said he thought the hon. and learned
Attorney-General put the illustration a little too high
when he compared these gentlemen's salaries to private
property. (Hear.) But with regard to the justice of the
case these five commissioners had served the country for
some 28 years, they were still capable of giving their ser-
vices to the public, and they bad a right to suppose that
whilst they were competent to act, they would receive their
full salaries. Besides, as a matter of expediency, he thought
the interests of the public service would be best consulted
by treating gentlemen in the position of these commis-
sioners with liberality.
The committee then divided—
For the amendment 43
Against it .. 77-34
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 136,
Mr. HENLEY wished to know what was the sum in
gross that would become a permanent charge on the conso-
lidated fund under this clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he believed the
sum paid over for the use of the Insolvent Debtors Court
under Act of Parliament was about £4,500 a-year. It was
not intended to enlarge that obligation, but as the Insolvent
Debtors Court was to be absorbed in the new Court of
Bankruptcy, the object in this clause was merely to direct
the sum of money now payable out of the consolidated fund
-- " -

of the amalgamated jurisdiction.
After a short discussion,
Mr. HENLEY suggested the postponement of the clause
until all the other monetary matters of the bill were settled.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL agreed to postpone the
objectionable part of the clause, and embody it in a new
clause to be brought up at a future day.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 137, which provides that the Chief Judge of the
new court shall have a retiring allowance of two• thirds of
his salary after fifteen years service, was also agreed to.
On clause 138, giving allowances to retiring officers,
Mr. BOUVERIE proposed to insert the words, " after
twelve years' service."
After a conversation,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL consented to the limit
of seven years' service; and the clause as amended was
agreed to.
Clause 139 was agreed to.
Clause 140 was postponed.
Clauses 141 to 149 were agreed to.
Upon clause 150, which provides that the sittings of the
Chief Court, and the London District Court should be held
at Basinghall-street,
Sir F. KELLY, referring to clause 31, in connexion
with this clause, asked whether it was intended to change
the localities where at present the County Court judges
held their courts.
Mr. MALINS hoped that it was not intended the chief
judge should sit at Basinghall-street, for many of the abuses
of the present system arose from the court being held there
away from all the other courts of law. (Hear.) If the
court were transferred from Basinghall-street to Lincoln's-
inn or 'Westminster, it would be a great advantage in it-
self.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would prefer that the
chief judge should sit at Westminster until the great
scheme which he hoped would be considered in the next
session of Parliament should be carried out, whereby proper
buildings for all the courts would be erected upon the plot of
ground north of the Strand and Temple-bar. Probably the
London District Court could be held at Basinghall-street.
In answer to the hon. and learned member for Suffolk (Sir
F. Kelly), he could say that there was no intention to
change the localities where County Courts were now held.
Mr. JAMES thought the Attorney-General could never
hare visited Basinghall-street, or he never would have
thought of recommending that any judge should sit there.
A more unworthy place for the administration of justice
could not be imagined.
Mr. VANCE agreed that Basinghall-street was an unfit
place, but hoped that if any other place was intended to be
selected it would be mentioned in the bill, otherwise there
was no security that any change would be made.
The clause was agreed to, and also clause 151.
Upon clause 152, which abolishes the distinction between
traders and non-traders,
Mr. HENLEY moved an amendment for the purpose of
raising the important question whether this great change
should or should not take place. He would state to the
committee two or three classes of persons who would be in-
juriously affected by it. It was most unjust by retrospec-
tive action to place some persons in a position of advantage
and others in a position of amazing disadvantage, which
was never contemplated when the parties contracted.. A
man's father might have died 20 or 30 years ago, leaving
an estate chargeable with various amounts, and that man,
as was commonly the practice, might have raised money
by mortgage on the property to pay off his brothers and
sisters. It was a debt, because the man covenanted with
the mortgagee to repay the money, as well as pledging the
land for it ; but it was a debt totally different in its nature
from liabilities to his butcher and baker, because the credi-
tor had a special security in the land for payment. There
were cycles, as in 1847 and 1857, when money was hardly
to be obtained at all, and, if obtained, only at a most extra-
vagant rate of interest. A person in the situation which
he had described might be called upon in such times of
pressure to pay off his debt. If he did not it was proposed
that judgment might be recovered, and he might be made
a bankrupt. He might be told that it was the ordi-
nary case of a man against whom a judgment was recovered,
but the screw in ordinary cases could not be compared with
the screw of threatening to make such a person a bankrupt,
to send him to prison, to seize everything belonging to him,
even his most private papers, and to drag his wife into a
court, which they had just heard was unfit for any one to
enter. That was one class of persons, and a numerous one.
A. vast portion of the land of England was mortgaged under
those circumstances, and it did not apply exclusively to men
of high rank and station. He believed that the more they
descended the scale the more was the land mortgaged, and
just in proportion as they descended the scale was the diffi-
culty of raising money in times of pressure increased—espe-
cially as the usury laws were repealed. It must not be sup-
posed that it was a question which only affected the higher
classes. It affected every man—from the Archbishop of
Canterbury to the lowest cottager, and such a change ought
not to be made without great and corresponding advan-
tages. He saw no objection to their being one court
instead of two. If a man wanted to petition the court let
him be made a bankrupt and to go the Bankruptcy Court,
but he, saw no reason why they should include under the
operation of the bankrupt law a class of persons who could
not fairly be said to be debtors, Another class of cases was

not unfrequent. A man had a lim.'ited estate. He could not
raise money by mortgage. He had perhaps improvidently
been spending more than his income. He had to incur debts
to put his family out in the world, purchasing commissions
or educating them for professions. These debts were usually
met by borrowing money on annuities. When the eldest
son was 24 or 25 years of age an arrangement was often
made by which the entail was broken, money was raised on
mortgage, the annuities were discharged, and the family was
again placed in easy and comfortable circumstances. How
would the bill affect persons in that condition ? It said
that any conveyance for that purpose should be valid if
the lender had no notice of any act of bankruptcy.
These notices, of course, would make lenders of money very
careful. It would not be an easy matter sometimes to say
whether a lender had received that species of information
which the law described as a "notice." The definition of
"notice" often gave rise to litigation, and therefore he be.
lieved lenders of money would.be very shy of dealing with
persons under the circumstances he had described, who
might be more or less deeply involved, and might, perhaps,
have judgments against them. Then, there was a third
class of cases, also of not unfrequent occurrence. He meant
cases where persons, being in difficulties, assigned their affairs
to trustees, very often for the purpose of raising money by
mortgage to pay off other incumbrances. Sometimes a, father
and son joined in putting an estate under trust in that way,
and their affairs were thus set right without further trouble.
This bill, however, would interfere with an arrangement of
that kind, because it provided that every trust deed which
did not fulfil the conditions specified in the arrangement
clause should be utterly vcid. The case he had instanced
was not provided for by the bill, and the consequence would
be that these arrangements would be rendered impossible.
Men circumstanced as he had described would, therefore, be
almost ruined. For these reasons he held that the clause,
naked as it stood, ought not to be agreed to. He hoped the
Attorney-General would either agree to exclude the large
class of persons he had specified from the operation of the
measure, or, if not, at least to introduce such provisions
as would prevent that great inconvenience which the bill, as
it stood, must necessarily cause to that class. He could not
see that by the proposed arrangement the smallest advant-
age would be conferred on any one except the moneylenders,
who, he believed, were perfectly capable of taking care of
themselves. (A laugh.) He understood almost all the hon.
and learned gentlemen in the house were against him on
this occasion. (Hear, hear, and no.) He was glad
there was some one to say no, but he feared that, generally,
the lawyers were against him. He believed, however, that
mankind at large had little reason to feel satisfied when all
the lawyers were on one side. When they were divided they
fought the matter out, and so the truth was elicited ; but
when there was a great preponderance of them on one side,
11 it was high time for laymen to look out. (A laugh.) It was
very desirable, no doubt, that the law should be made
as symmetrical as possible ; but he could not forget that
there had been great lawyers in the world before the pre-
sent generation, and that for some 200 years they had
drawn a great distinction between trading and other debtors.
He was well aware that this distinction had been much
broken down in the present century by the introduction of
the Insolvency Court system ; but he thought it ought not
to demolished altogether, as the bill proposed. In moving
the omission of certain words, ho did so, not under the pre-
tence that that would be the best way of altering the
clauses, but for the sake of raising discussion on the ques -
tion involved. He then moved the omission of the words
"debtors whether" after the word "all."
Mr. JAMES thought the right hon. gentleman had hardly
done justice to the lawyers—(a laugh)—for during the de-
bate on this bill they had taken a most liberal and generous
course, a number of them having voted against the enor-
mous compensation proposed to be awarded. (Hear, hear.)
This clause involved one of the most important questions
connected with the subject of bankruptcy, as affecting not
merely the mercantile but the social relations of the coun-
try. When the Attorney-General introduced the bill he
(Mr. James) stated that he would support the principle it
embodied, and he intended to do so. He must admit, how •
ever, that if it was to be carried out, it ought to be sur-
rounded with a great many protections. He found that by
clause 164 every judgment creditor who was entitled to sue
out against a debtor a writ of capias ad satisfacienduan—
which could be got for a debt of £2o—or to charge the
debtor in execution, was authorised, at the end of one week
from the signing of judgment, to sue out against the debtor,
whether he be in custody or not, so long as he was in Eng-
land a summons, requiring him to appear and be examined
respecting his ability to satisfy the debt. Then again clause
170 prodded as follows :
" Upon the appearance of the debtor he may be exa-
mined on oath, by or on behalf of the creditor and by the
court, respecting his ability to satisfy the debt, and for the
discovery of proper! y applicable in that behalf, and shall be
bound to produce, on oath or otherwise, such books, papers
and documents in his possession or power, relating to pro-
perty applicable or alleged to be applicable to the satisfac-
tion of the debt, as the Court shall think fit, and to sign his
examination, whenosreduced into writing; and any debtor,
who shall upon examination wilfully fail to discover fully
and truly to the best of his knowledge and belief all his pro-
perty, real and personal, inclusive of his rights and credits,
and to produce all books, papers, and documents in his pos-
session or power relating thereto, shall be liable to be com-
mitted by the Court as in the case of a bankrupt."
It appearect Lu mei Luau Luau war, a vcr, taansenkrua ana .7%-
traordinary power to confer on a creditor, and he could not
help thinking that there ought to be some distinction be-
tween a mercantile and, as the phrase was, a gentleman
debtor. (Hear.) By the French code no one except the per-
son trading was liable to the bankrupt law. But the present
clause might be made the means of the greatest extortion.
A young man who had contracted a debt of £4O or £5O
might get into the hands of usurers, who might make the
whole of his property subservient to their extortion. He
had given notice of an amendment, which he should press,
to the effect that all peers, whether peers of Parliament or
otherwise, should be equally liable to the bankrupt laws
with members of the House of Commons.
Sir H. CAIRNS believed that this was the first occasion
on which a question had been brought before the House of
Commons which had excited much discussion out of doors
—namely, whether non-traders ought to be liable to the
bankrupt laws. He regretted that a discussion of so much
importance should come on at so advanced a period of the
session. It was to be remembered that, whatever the views
of hon. members might be as to the abolition of the distinc-
tion between traders and non-traders, such a change was not
demanded by commercial circles. The questi n that inte-
rested them was, whether they should have those amendments
in the administration and execution of the bankrupt laws
which they had demanded. The other question was not one
of urgency, and might have been postponed to another time.
It ought not at all events to be legislated upon without a
full and searching investigation. Having had occasion to
consider the subject, he would frankly state his belief that,
to a certain extent, an irresistible argument might be urged
in favour of abolishing the present distinction between
the trader and nen-trader. When, however, he saw the
sweeping manner in which the change was proposed to be
made he felt the greatest alarm. If the clause were adopted,
all non-traders would be brought under the peril of com-
mitting one of the acts of bankruptcy therein described. Let
the committee observe what these acts of bankruptcy were,
the commission of any one of which would make a non-trader
a bankrupt. By the 155th clause seven acts of bankruptcy
might be committed by a debtor. One was :—" If any debtor
shall, with intent to defeat or delay his creditors, depart
this realm." Who was to judge of the motive for which a
non-trader departed the realm ? There was an all-impor-
tant difference herein between a person carrying on busi-
ness and ono who was not. The duty of a trader was to be
always at his post. If he quitted the country, it was his
duty to make suitable arrangements and to leave no
engagements which his representatives could not satisfy.
The burden of proving that he did not go abroad to defraud
his creditors was therefore thrown upon the trader. But a
non-trader was not bound to be in the country. He had no
place of business at which he was bound to be present.
Another act of bankruptcy was defined to be, if the debtor
"being out of this realm shall remain abroad." That was a
most astonishing act of bankruptcy to apply to a person
who was not in trade. Another act of bankruptcy was,
"If any debtor shall suffer himself to be arrested or taken
in execution for any debt not due, or shall suffer himself to
be outlawed, or procure his goods, money, or chattels to be
attached, sequestered, or taken in execution, or make or
cause to be made, either within this realm or elsewhere, any
fraudulent grant or conveyance of any of his lands, tenements,
goods or chattels, or make or cause to be made any fraudu-
lent surrender of any of his copyhold lands or tenements, or
make or cause to be made any fraudulent gift, delivery, or
transfer of any of his goods and chattels, any such debtor
doing, suffering, procuring, executing, permitting, making,
or causing to be made, with such intent any of the acts,
deeds, or matters aforesaid, shall be deemed to have thereby
committed an act of bankruptcy."
By clause 158 it was enacted that

" If any debtor, having been arrested or committed to
prison for debt, or on any attachment for nonpayment of
money, shall, upon such or any other arrest or commitment
for debt or nonpayment of money, or upon any detention
for debt, lie in prison for 14 days, or, having been arrested
for any cause, shall lie in prison for 14 days after any de-
tainer for debt lodged against him, and not discharged, every
such debtor shall thereby be deemed to have committed an
act of bankruptcy ; or if any such debtor, having been ar-
rested, committed, or detained for debt, shall escape out
of prison or custody, every such debtor shall be deemed to
have thereby committed an act of bankruptcy from the time
of such arrest, commitment, or detention."
He had read these provisions to show how wholly inap-
plicable they were to the state of the law that had grown
up in regard to the trade of the country. The law gave the
trader certain advantages, but stipulated that in return he
must regulate his conduct so as not to elude his engage-
ments as a commercial man. But,these acts of bankruptcy
that were framed and originated for traders became inap-
plicable to those who were not men of business, and had no
business habits. At all events, it was nothing more than
justice, if they were going to make an alteration in the law
that they should only apply it to debts contracted hereafter.
Another safeguard ought to be inserted in the bill. The Le-
gislature might very safely permit all non-traders to be
made bankrupts on their own petition. The law at present
was that if a creditor were in a position to take any debtor
in execution, having recovered judgment against him, the
debtor might be put in prison either until he paid or until
he volunteered himself to come under the Insolvent Act.
It always seemed to him that when the creditor had got to
the point when he might put the debtor in prison, the law
might advantageously dispense with the formality of
Putting' him in prison, and might enable the cre-
ditor to summon him before the Court of Bankruptcy, f
and make him subject to the operation of 'the I

bankruptcy law. If an alteration were made in these re-
spects it would remove a great objection to the present bill.
By the 173 d section creditors might file an affidavit in the
district court against a debtor, and the court might issue a
summons to show cause why he should not be adjudged a
bankrupt, which summons was to be returnable in four days
from the issuing thereof, so that as the bill stood a non-
trader might be summoned for £2O, to appear in four days,
and, if he failed to do so, might be adjudged a bankrupt.
Nothing could be more convenient as an engine of oppres-
sion than this. At present a summons in the case of traders
was returnable in 14 days ; and even this had been regarded
in mercantile circles as productive of great hardship ; but
to extend it to non-traders, and to reduce the time from 14
to four days, was a proceeding unnecessarily harsh. (Hear,
hear.) Unless the Attorney-General &ailed this provision
to those cases in which a creditor was in a position to put
his debtor in prison, or to cases in which the debtor volun-
tarily submitted to it, he would deem it his duty to vote
for the amendment of the right hon. member for Oxford-
shire. (Hear, hear.)
_ _

Mr. M. SM TTEI said the clause made an absolute identity
between those who were traders and those who were non-
traders, and thus would effect a complete revolution in the
law of bankruptcy in this country. There had at all times
been a distinction between these two classes in this country,
and there was good ground for that distinction, for a man
engaged in trade and commerce was bound at all times to
meet his engagements, and to be ever at hand both with his
person and property ; but a man not engaged in trade was not
expected to have his estate in a condition to be turned into
money to be in a place of business ready to meet his creCor,
or when he went abroad torun the hazard of being adjudged
a bankrupt. (Hear.) The vice of the bill seemed to be that
it had many clauses exceedingly proper as applied to traders,
but harsh and oppressive to an excessive degree when applied
to those not engaged in trade. (Hear.) Any man might be
summoned before a Bankrupt Commissioner or county court
judge for a debt of £4O, and unless he could satisfy the
judge that he could pay not only that debt but any other he
might owe, he was to be declared a bankrupt. (Hear, hear )
He doubted whether in any code, however severe, such a
clause had ever been found. (Hear.) A man might be on the
moors in Scotland, or fishing salmon in Ireland, and be sum-
moned to appear before the Court in London within four
days, to be examined on oath as to his debts. It might be
right that a man engaged in commerce should be able at
once to pay everybody, but it was not necessary that every
man not in trade, from the Archbishop downwards, should
be compelled to appear at four days' notice, and pay all his
debts, or be declared a bankrupt. (Hear, hear.) There were
persons who had their incomes payable only at stated
periods, who had no property, and to whom credit was
given on the faith that they would pay when their salary
was received. But if a malicious creditor summoned such a
person before the court, and it came out that he could not
at the time pay his debts, he would become a brankrupt.
(Hear.) A farmer, as they all knew, looked to his crops to
pay his debts ; but, supposing he was summoned three or
four months before harvest for a debt, the result might be
that his crops would pass into other hands, and he would be
ruined. (Hear, hear.) He might refer to the case of officers
of the army, also, whose pay came in periodically, and who,
when moving about from place to place with their regi-
ments, would be liable to be summoned for small debts.
Were they t) be declared bankrupts because at the time
when they were summoned they were unable to pay all
their debts ? (Hear.) The distinction between traders and
non-traders was not arbitrary, but was founded on common
sense and the habits of mankind. It might be all right and
proper to frame stringent laws for traders, but that was no
reason why those who were non-traders should be drawn
into the net with them. He believed the parentage of this
bill lay not with the Attorney- General, but with the mer •
cantile community. Those who were beyond the pale of
trade had not been consulted regarding it, and he believed
that they were utterly ignorant of the consequences that
would follow from the adoption of the bill as it stood.
(Hear, hear.) If a clear distinction was not made between
traders and non-traders the bill, he believed, would be pro-
ductive of mischiefs that its framers had never contem-
plated. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. KELLY was anxious that this bll should pass,
and he agreed with the Attorney General in supporting the
principle of this clause, yet he could not help expressingthe
wish that his hon. and learned friend had stated to the
house the nature of the protection and safeguards with which
he meant to accompany it It might relieve some of his
friends from the apprehensions which, not unnaturally,
they entertained regarding this clause if they remembered
that by the law of Scotland, as amended some years ago,
the distinction between traders and non-traders had been
wholly abolished, and he was not aware that any serious
mischief, or any mischief at all, had arisen from its opera-
tion. (Hear, hear.) He must say that, much as he
desired to see this bill pass, he would rather see
it withdrawn than not have a distinct assurance from the
Attorney-General that some strong safeguards would ac-
company the clause now under consideration. It was im-
possible not to perceive that almost all the clauses which
immediately followed this, for the most part excellent in
themselves as regards traders, were altogether inapplicable
to a number of other classes in the community whose case
fn 'Vulva hPan nritiriahr fnrcrc.l4.-.., maa harrna
to be at all times ready to pay his debts—it was of the very
essence of the solvency of a trader that he should, at any
and every moment, be prepared with any sum of money to
meet every demand that might lawfully be brought against
him ; but would they apply the clauses constituting acts of
bankruptcy, for instance, to landed proprietors ? He was
sorry to say that nine-tenths, or perhaps nineteen-
twentieths of the landed proprietors of the country had
their property more or less subject to mortgage. A
mortgage debt, thdugh due in point of law, was not in-
tended to be claimed, and ran on year after year; but to
apply to such a case the provisions of this Act would be to
introduce a revolution in the whole state of property, and
the condition in which every man in the kingdom who hap-
pened to be a landed proprietor would be placed. A gentle •
man possessed of an income from landed property of some
£2,000 a-year might have some debts, though, on the whole,
in easy circumstances; there might be a mortgage debt;
some ill-natured creditor might issue a summons against
him, and unless he was able to satisfy the mortgage debt in
four days he was liable to be declared a bankrupt by
the judge in bankruptcy. He could not agree to such a
clause unless the Attorney-General at once consented to
render inapplicable to non-traders in general the whole
series of provisions respecting acts of bankruptcy ; and, az
an additional safeguard, he would suggest that as to the
circumstances in which a non-trader should be made
a bankrupt, he should b© summoned, not within a
given time ; for that should in all cases depend on the dis-
cretion of the judge, but only on fair and ample notice
given. The debtor should then appear, according to the cir-
cumstances of the case, to give such information respecting
his affairs as might seem reasonable to the judge ; and if it
should appear—but only if it should appear—that he was
utterly unable to pay his debts, that he was living on his
creditors, and that it was necessary the bankrupt law should
be put in operation against him—in these circumstances
only should he be made a bankrupt, and thus prevented
from wasting the estate. It was necessary to introduce into
the bill the most careful and specific provisions with regard
to the notice to all non-traders. A trader was bound to be
always in presence to meet his creditors ; but non-traders
might be absent on the continent for a year or two without
their address being known even to their own families, and
those cases could not be dealt with unless satisfactory evi-
dence was given that the absent debtor had proper notice.
Before going further with this bill the committee had a
right to expert from his hon. and learned friend the Attor-
ney-General a clear and specific explanation of the safe-
guards he meant to provide in the case of non-traders.
Mr. MALINS thought the question raised la 3 this clause
was of the least degree of importance. It was one of the
most valuable provisions of the bill, providing for the assi-
milation of the law of debtor and creditor to all classes of
the community. He thought it right that every facility
should be given for the recovery of debts, and that there
should be one uniform system by which those who were un-
able to pay their debts should have their case adjudicated.
He agreed, however, that many qualifies!: ions should be
made with reference to non-traders. They should not be
liable to be made bankrupts in the manner provided by
the bill ; but only after judgment was obtained. The
great principle which it was desirable to establish was
hat those who did not pay their debts should be made

with the greatest facility to do so, or at least to make ;
cessio bonorum to their creditors, and that then, whether
traders or non-traders, they should be restored to the
capacity of acquiring property. Did the committee think

that non-traders who were in debt should be allowed to
obtain possession of their property by simply crossing the
Channel ? The reckless habits of extravagance now too
prevalent in the upper and middle classes of society would
be checked when it was found that debt could not be in-
curred with impunity. It was said that traders were bound
to be always ready to meet the claims of their creditors;
but ought not non-traders to be equally so bound ? By
going to Boulogne a debtor could avoid his creditors, or at
least put such obstacles in their way as amounted to an
avoidance of them ; but this bill would compel him either to
give up all the property for their benefit, or to come horo.e
and deal with them as he must do if he were a trader. No
doubt proper safeguards ought to be provided, so as to pre-
vent an oppressive creditor from making even a trader
bankrupt; and the principle of the clause deserved the
approval of the committee. _

- .
Mr. CAYLEY said the important question befroe them
ought not to be disposed of summarily, and he therefore
begged to move that the chairman report progress.
Mr. WHALLEY rose to address the committee, lout was
prevented from proceeding by the cries of "Divide."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped 'the motion for
reporting progress would not be pressed. The house was
then as full as he could expect to have it during the dis-
cussion of the bill, and it would be convenient to dispose of
the question raised by this clause. (Hear, hear.)
cleared for a division,
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said the important question had not
yet been fully considered. Officers of the army and navy,
serving their country abroad, would, be placed in _
a most
serious position by this bill.
ldaecr thean
°gas
tl
hl eer ymotionwere
for reportreportingp
was agreed to. pro
butT hneonsoeattos unokpe ,
The house having resumed, .
Lord PALMERSTON proposed that the bill
proceeded with on Thursday iii 9 • , .11 should be
gl DLit that, this data.

- _
should be postponed, in order that it might be discussed✓ at
an evening sitting.

Mr. HENLEY thought the proposal of the noble lord a
fair one, and should offerno opposition to it. If this clause
was postponed safeguards might be provided which would
remove many of the objections to it.

Lord J. MANNERS was afraid that if this clause was
postponed to the end of the bill it might come to be dis-
cussed in a very thin house.

Lord PALMERSTON thought that if the clause was
postponed its opponents and his hon. and learned friend
might come to an understanding as to the safeguards to be
provided, and it might be ascertained whether or not the
clause would be agreed to.

Mr. CAYLEYasked why they should not go on with the
clause on Thursday evening.
Sir G. LEWIS explained that when a clause was post-
poned it could only be discussed after all others were agreed
to.

Mr. E. JAMES objected to tiny private arrangement as
:o this clause.

Mr. MALINS said that rue clause now wider considera-
tion was of the very essence of the bill, and he wished to
know whether, if it wr.,s rejected, the Attorney-General
would withdraw the 'oil If he was disposed to do so, it
would be useless to ask the house to spend several mornings
in consideration of other clauses.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the proposal of
his noble friend the best that could be adopted. The clauses
of the bill might be so altered as to remove many of the
objections to the principle in dispute, and many opportuni-
ties would arise in the consideration of the subsequent pro-
visions of the bill for discussing whether or not non-traders
should be included within its operation. Although he
thought it was most important that they should be included,
he should not be disposed to abandon the measure if the
house decided that they should not. The greater part of
the remaining clauses were merely a repetition of the exist-
ing law, inserted in order that the whole of the law might
be comprehended in one Act. He therefore thought there
was a reasonable prospect of arriving at the end of the bill
in time for it to go to the other house, so as to be passed into
law during the present session.
Lord PALMERSTON.—I think the best way will be to
fix the bill for Thursday evening. (Hear, hear.)
Sir H. CAIRNS was glad the noble lord had fixed the
further consideration of the bill for Thursday evening, as it
would be impossible to proceed' with one clause before the
committee had arrived at a decision upon the principle of
excluding non-traders.

Mr. BOUVERIE suggested to the Attorney-General
the propriety of so amending the subsequent clauses of the
bill as to obviate the objections entertained to the clause re-
lating to non-traders.

Mr. AYRTON thought that if the Attorney-General
wished to pass his bill he should limit its application to
traders, leaving the question as to non-traders to be dealt
with in a separate measure in a future session.
The further consideration of the bill in committee was
then fixed for Thursday evening.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES
(IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion for the committal of this bill,
Mr. HENNESSY moved as an amendment that it be
committed that day three months. The hon, gentleman
complained that the Secretary to the Treasury had stated,
in reply to the hon. member for Montrose, that there was
no intention to extend the measure to Scotland and Ire-
land; that the resolutions had, in the first instance, been
incorrectly printed; but the error bad been corrected.
During the whole debate on the English bill there was a
distinct understanding to the same effect. It was on that
ground alone that several Irish Members had afforded their
support ; and the Lord Mayor of Dublin had given up a
great meeting which he was going to hold in conformity
with a requisition presented to him, and signed by 2,000
persons, There were many reasons why the English law
should not be extended to Ireland. In the first place, the
licensing system was different. The consumption of wine,
too, did not in Ireland tend to diminish the consumption of
ardent spirits. It was a remarkable fact, that while, during
a series of years, the consumption of spirits had decreased
in Ireland, the consumption of tea had increased. Fur-
thermore, it was the opinion of every authority in Ireland
that an extension of the licensing system tended to promote
intemperance. He should move that the bill be committed
that day three months.
Colonel DUNNE seconded the motion, in the hope of
calling the attention of the Government to the position in
which they placed the police of Ireland by the bill. It gave
to the excise the power of giving licenses to refreshment
houses, and not the magistrates. The Government ought to
take measures to restrain the sale of these spirituous liquors
under proper authority.
Lord J. MANNERS complained of this important bill
being brought on at such a late hour. It had stood for some
time on the paper, and the amendment had also been known
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the same length of
time. He should therefore move that the debate be now ad-
journed. It was an opposed bill, which must lead to a good
deal of discussion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
were some matters which must be brought on after twelve
e ',Limy we.. mi./pont., wict no tnougnt the pre-
sent a very fair case. The hon. member for the King's
County had stated his case against the bill, but it was quite
obvious the time and place for his motion was on the second
reading, which had been taken so early as eight o'clock in
the evening, with a great number of Irish members present
in the house. There had been no breach of faith in the
bringing in of this bill ; the resolutions had been originally
passed for the three countries. The bill had been printed
for a month, and there had been few or no petitions
against it.

After a conversation, in which Colonel Dunne, Mr.
O'Brien, Mr. Blake, Mr. M'Alah.on, Mr. Hennessy, Mr.
Laing, Mr. Butt, and Colonel Dickson, took part, the house
divided on Mr. Hennessy's amendment—
For the amendment
Against it
The bill passed through committee pro forma.
PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES
(SCOTLAND) BILL.
The order for the second reading of this bill was dis-
charged. •
The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad-
journed at 3 o'clock.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

COLCHESTER -Jui Y 14.

The fine weather has its influence on the trade. There
was a rather small supply of wheat. and business was slow,
at barely late rates. Spring coin quiet.

Wheat, white 6os to 64s I Beaiis, Mazagan..37s to 40s
red 56s to 60s I Middle & small 40s to 44r
Barley 36s to 508 White peas 3Bs to 411 s
I
Oats 2os to 28s Grey.. ........ 38s to 40s

IRD - juLy 13.
w trade ruled slow, at the cur-
tie dieing in spring corn, with
thin attendance, and millers
buy.
L eas, Partridge 42s to 43s
White 42s to 45s
Boiling 42s to 45s
Dun 37s to 403
Beans, Tick 42s to 46s
Harrow Ticks 39s to 493
Mazagan .373 to 42s