The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-22 00:00:00

THE CASE OF DR. R. THOMPSON, M.D.

Col. SYKES gave notice that to-morrow he would ask
the Under Secretary of State for War, upon what ground
Dr. Thompson, M.D., who had satisfied the Army Medical
Director General, Dr. Gibson, that he possessed the pre-
scribed qualifications of a degree in medicine and a diploma
in surgery to entitle him to be examined as a candidate for

a medical commission in her Majesty's service, and had
been directed to attend on the 18th February to undergo a
competitive examination, was,-on the morning of that day,
in a personal interview, refused permission by Dr. Gibson
to appear before the board of examiners.
INDIAN NAVY, &c.

Sir G. BOWYER asked the Secretary of State fur India
if the Indian navy was to be abolisheel as a war service, and
converted into a mere transport service ; if so converted,
would the officers be given the option of retiring on a liberal
pension according to their length of service. If the service be
kept on a war footing, how would it stand with regard to the
Royal Navy, and would its services be confined to the In-
dian seas ; and, was it the intention of Government to
build any more vessels expressly for the Indian Navy, or to
make any more special appointments to that service; or, in
other words, would it be suffered to die out ?
Sir C. WOOD stated generally that some alterations
were contemplated; and would be carried out.
PAYMENT OF WITNESSES. _

Mr. A. EGERTON asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department whether he was prepared to alter the
present scale of allowances to witnesses at Sessions and
Assizes ?
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he had had interviews with
different magistrates who had great experience in their re-
spective counties on this question. The subject was cne
that was attended with considerable difficulty, but the
matter was under his most careful consideration and should
receive the earliest attention.
VENTILATION OF MINES.

Mr. KINNAIRD asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, how soon the inquiry promised last
Session into the state of ventilation, and the great loss of
life consequent on labouring in tin, iron, copper, and other
metallic mines, would be made.?
Sir G. C. LEWIS said it was true that during a discus-
sion which took place last session :on the bill for
the regulation of coal mines that a promise was
made on the part of the Government to take up the subject
to which the hon. member alluded at a reasonable time. Ho
had not yet made any arrangement for the institution of
an inquiry into the matter, but if it was the wish of those
connected with the mineral interest of the country that this
inquiry should be made shortly, he would do all in his
power to give effect to their wishes.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill, and resumed
at clause 52, which was agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 56 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 56,
Mr. E. JAMES moved the following amendment, which
after some discussion was agreed to :—" Page 14,
lines 11 and 12, leave out 'or any one of the CoMmis-
sioners of the Court of Bankruptcy in London,', and insert
or one of her Majesty's Counsel, or a Sergeant-at-Law.'
Line 13, leave out ' or Commissioner,' and insert ' Queen's
Counsel, or a Sergeant-at-Law.'"
The clauses 57 to 75 were agreed to, with some verbal
amendments.
Clauses to 80 were agreed to without discussion.
On clause 81, which relates to the abolition
of the distinction between traders and non-traders,
some discussion took place, in the course of which
Sir GEORGE BOWYER said that he considered
this clause should at all events be postponed. He
thought that, according to the principles of jurisprudence,
the distinction here sought to be abolished should be re-
tained. The law of bankruptcy applied only to the
trader, and was introduced by the statute of Henry
VIII., which was criminal in its previsions. That law
did not apply to non-traders, and there were good rea-
sons why it should not. It was attempted by this
clause to remove that landmark in jurisprudence, the
effect of which, ho contended, would be to inflict a great
injustice on non-traders.
Sir L. PALK also urged the postponement of the clause.
Lord J. MANNERS, while admitting that the Attorney-
General had given full notice of his intention to proceed
with the hill that evening, urged upon him the expediency
—with the view of saving time, and, avoiding it, might be
a series of divisions on a future stage of the measure— of
adopting the suggestion made by the hon. member for Dun-
dalk.

The ATTORNEY-GE &ERAL was sure the noble
lord would be the last person to laud himself to the advo-
cacy of a course of obstruction to the passing of the bill, and
added that it would afford him much pleasure to comply
with the wishes of those who sought the postponement of
the clause if it were consistent with his duty to do so. If,
however, he were to accede to that proposal the business of
the house would be brought to a standstill and much valu-
able time would be wasted. Under these circumstances,
and seeing that several hon. and learned gentlemen on the
opposite side of the house, including the hon. member for
Wallingford, and, he believed, the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Belfast, were perfectly prepared to discuss the
clause, he felt bound to go on with it—a declaration in
which he hoped he should receive the support of the com-
mittee. (Hear.)
Col. DUNNE advocated the postponement of the clause,
observing, that although the house had been informed that
the present measure differed in principle from that of last
year, yet hon. members were unaware in what that diffe-
rence consisted. For his own part, he shared the distrust
which, he believed, was felt by almost every country gen-
tleman with respect to any proceeding of the Attorney-
General in connexion with the subject under discussion.
(A laugh.)
Lord J. MANNERS was satisfied with what had been
stated by the Attorney-General, and suggested that the op-
position to the clause should be reserved until the next
'stage of the bill. (Hear.)
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 82,
Sir H. CAIRNS said he had a' ways been of opinion that,
though the case with respect to non •traders was one of con-
siderable difficulty, it would, to a certain extent, be a benefit
to them, and not a disdvantage ; and that they should be
made subject to the bankruptcy laws. Whenever a judg-
ment had been recovered against a non-trader, and he was
liable to be put in prison, which he could leave only as an
insolvent debtor, the best thing that could happen to him
was that his creditor should be able, instead of putting him
in prison, to make him a bankrupt. The Attorney-General
had adopted that principle in some of his clauses, but the
clause now under discussion went much further, introduc-
ing ether and more dangerous elements. It provided that
anon-trader who departed the realm with intent to defeat
or delay his creditors should be adjudged a bankrupt. That
was an excellent provision with respect to traders, because
a trader was bound to be in his place of business either in
his own person or in that of a properly accredited represen-
tative, but the case of a non-trader was wholly different. A
non-trader was not bound to be in any particular plaee, and
it would be a great hardship to declara him a bankrupt
whenever a creditor chose to suggest that he had departed
the realm for the purpose of defeating or delaying his credi-
tors, the fact all the time probably being that ho was abroad
on a touring expedition. The Attorney-General world do
well to confine the case as regarded non-traders to what
were called the debtor summons clauses.
Sir G. BOWYER repeated what he had stated before,
that it was impossible, without great injustice, to bring non-
traders within the same rule as traders. Under the present
clause a person of the first rank, and possessed of a large
landed estate, who happened to be temporarily embarrassed,
though not insolvent, might be declared a bankrupt because
a creditor chose to say that he had gone abroad with intent
to delay his creditors. No change was required in the ad-
ministration of justice with respect to non-traders.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, referring to the under-

---
standing that there should be a deliberate argument upon
this matter at a future stage, said ho would not attempt at
present to reply to the observations of his hon. and learned
friend the member for Belfast. He would merely say that
if non:..traders could not abscond from their creditors, or if
judgments could be recovered against them, he should be
content with the debtor summons clauses. The only answer
he could give the last speaker was that there were hundreds
of Englishmen now abroad who had taken their property
with them, who had defeated and delayed their creditors,
and who had lived for years, and were now living, abroad in
shameless extravagance, while their disappointed creditors
were unable to obtain a shilling of the debts justly due to
them. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. BOWYER observed that if, as the Attorney-
General had stated, men went abroad carrying all their pro-
perty with them there could be very little use in making
them bankrupts. If, however, they left property here, it
remained liable to their debts, anti could be taken in execu-
tion under judgment.
Mr. MALINS thought the question was, whether debtors
having property should be allowed to retain it without ap-
plying it to the payment of their debts. Many men went
abroadbt.
and lived in extravagance and luxury, leaving large
ilebts in this country, and drawing their rents of land, for
instance; from time to time, while their creditors were all
They starving.lid Was such a state of things to continue ?
not got a judgment against the debtor, because he