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

same 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.

Afte r 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 88
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'MAHON suggested that osiers, willows, and
Baileys 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
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 aad 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 tho
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
either 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 wera 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 nbt 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
boon 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 upon 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 turn 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.-
erupting 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, and 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 encouragel 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
hope that this alteration of the law would have met the ap-
proval i
of the house because the same provision was con-
tainedn the bill introduced by Lord Derby's Government,
and therefrre I expected that it would have been received
Lth,aille wore general concurrence. I cannot, however,
P lain that the house should have viewed this as a mat-
ter &mondial •,•
the most cat eful deliberation, and we are
therefore ia this
the bit!, we emed difficulty, that even if we succeeded with
ie
undergo discr.ss nnot
int rho
to finish it in time for it to
other house. On the other hand,
if we failed there would
equally be insufficient time for
bringing the inea,„l tre I.°
rward in an amended shape. I a
have therefore, with the
nperioubation of the Government,
come unwillingly to the e(I, )
Isi that it is necessary to
abandon :he bill. (Cheers.
however; this
hope, i
subject has again to btr considered,
iy.
attention already devotpd to it has n:oNt.
beyn
will be found that the
thrown awa
(Cheers from the Opposition.) I have gained considerabl
experience from our dissuasions ; and, if the task e
undertaken by more competent hands, I trust laiisi not
b-
able in another session to present this measure in less gle
and, embodying all its prineiplesand.
gantr proportions, e
objects in a more comdensed form. (Hear, hear.) I trust it
will be introduced„ whether by myself or my successor, at