The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-19 00:00:00

the Committee to (I) was torelieve the unfortunate suitors

in the Bankruptcy Court from an unjust burden placed on
them, in return for which they had no specific advantage,
and which had been imposed upon them by past legislation.
(Hear.) The Commissioners of 1854 pointed out the great
injustice of this burden, and recommended that the com-
pensations hithert) paid out of the Suitors' Fund should
be placed upon the Consolidated Fund of the country. In
accordance with that recommendation the bill of last year
proposed to put the payments on the Consolidated Fund,
but an objection was taken to this on the ground that it
would establish the payments in perpetuity. In the present
bill he had made an alteration which would have the effect
of making the compensations payable by moneys annually
voted by Parliament. He trusted this proposal would be
adopted by the house. There was nothing more unwise or
unjust than to tax suitors, in addition to the expense they
necessarily incurred on going into court, for the justice
which they sought to obtain.
Mr. BARROW said the Attorney. General told them
that he was throwing these payments into a charge which
was to be paid annually by a vote of Parliament, but the
words of the clause were to a contrary effect, for they de-
clared that the amount " should be paid into the Bank of
England out of moneys to be from year to year voted for that
purpose by Parliament." The sums were to be paid, and the
Parliament was to provide the amount. (Hear.) He denied
that there was any injustice in paying these compensations
out of the fund contributed by the suitors. The Attorney-
General might with equal reason contend that the law ex•
penses of all who went to law should be paid by the State.
So long as there was a fund—as he understood was the case,
from the speech of the hon. baronet—from which these
compensations could be paid, there was not the slightest
justification for charging them on the tax-payers.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished the Attorney-General
to state whether there was not a balance of the bankrupts'
account amounting to £1,500,000, the interest of which, at
4 per cent., was £60,000. If that were the case, it was
surely fairer to go to this fund for these payments. The
committee could scarcely seriously intend to place an enor-
mous charge of this kind on the tax-payers, as long as this
fund was unexhausted. If they would do that they would
do anything. (A laugh.) He hoped that gentlemen, who,
in words at least, professed to have strong objections to in-
creasing the Miscellaneous Estimates, would take this
opportunity of making a beginning of giving effect to their
professions. They would thereby save themselves from
many tiresome debates, for there could not fail to be a debate
every year when this vote was proposed.
Mr. HFNLEY had voted last year against placing these
charges on the Consolidated Fund, but the mode of dealing
with them now proposed was ten thousand times more ob-
jectionable. Nothing could be more unfair both for the
public on the one hand, and for the gentlemen who had had
these compensations assured to them for the last 30 years,
than this proposal. The act declared that these compensa-
tions should be paid out of a certain fund, and for fear that
fund should be sufficient to meet them this bill proposed to
cut off a large portion of the stream which fed it. The
Attorney-General pretended to say that it would be in
the power of Parliament to deal with these compensations
at any future time, but, in fact, the hands of Parliament
would he tied neck and crop--(a laugh)—and the first time
any hon. gentleman got up in Committee of Supply to object
to the vote he would be met by the reply, "You consented
to take away the stream which fed this fund, and you have
no choice now but to find the money." It was a mere delu-
sion to say that this mode of dealing with the matter would
not fix the compensations on the public purse. He confessed
he was at a loss to know upon what ground the country was
asked to give the proposed compensation, and he knew not
why it should not be paid out of the balance of a million
and a half. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MALINS was unable to vote for the amendment
which the hon. baronet proposed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL begged to explain to the
house that his proposal was, that the money should be
voted annually. The bill of last year proposed to fix the
charge upon the Consolidated Fund, but the house on that
occasion objected, and they had, in fact, tied him "hand
and foot, and neck and crop." (Laughter.)
Mr. MALINS did not think it right that the creditors of
estates in bankruptcy in 1861 should have their dividends
diminished in order to pay those compensations to whom it
was guaranteed in 1832. The hon. and learned gentleman
felt, and indeed acknowledged, the inconvenience of the
course he proposed. Under the circumstances, he thought
it would be better for him to throw the charge upon the
Consolidated Fund, and he should have his support in such
an object ; but if he shrank from that course, he would sup-
port the amendment of his hon. friend the member for
Evesham. These compensations were made by Parliament,
and ought to be paid by Parliament.
Mr. HENLEY observed that there could be no ground
for saying that Parliament should direct these compensa-
tions to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The pre-
sent creditors had not contributed to the bankruptcy fund,
and therefore the money was not theirs. Those patent
offices were abolished for the good of the suitors, and they
had no right to resort to the public funds for the payment
of their compensations.
Mr. VANCE complained that the bill made no attempt
to relieve Irish tax-payers from the payment of compen-
sations to offices abolished in Ireland.
The committee then divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against
Majority against
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 43 was also agreed to.
Clause 44 was postponed.
Clause 45 was agreed to.
Clauses 46, 47, 48, 49 were postponed.
Clause 50 was agreed to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then moved that the
Chairman report progress, as many members had left the
house on the understanding that they would not proceed
farther that night.
The motion having been agreed to accordingly,
The house resumed, and the Chairman reported progress,
and obtained leave to sit again.
PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS BILL.

Sir G. C. LEWIS moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. HENLEY expressed his hope that if the bill passed
its second reading that night, the right bon. gentleman
would not press it forward in committee for some little
time yet, in order that tine might be afforded to consider
any objections. Looking at the bill without any explana-
tions from the Government, he must say he entertained
serious apprehensions that it would bo attended in practise
with great expense.
Mr. A. SMITH said there were several objections to the
bill, and he hoped the right hon. gentleman would consent
to postpone the second reading.
Mr. DEBDES thought the machinery of the bill was
cumbrous and ;expensive, and that it would not produce
adequate .results. He should like to see a system of
inquiry by which parochial assessments would be placed on
a fair and just footing. With a view to fuller consideration
he desired the second reading of the bill deferred for some
short time ; but if that were not agreed to, he trusted that
there would be no objection made to sending the bill to a
select committee.
Mr. BARROW said he could only assent to the second
reading of the bill on the understanding that the board of
assessment was to bo remodelled.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the bill was intended to alter
the present unjust system of parochial taxation. He would
not trouble the house on the present occasion with the
details of the machinery of the measure, but he trusted that
the second reading would be agreed to. If there was a
general desire to have the bill sent to a select committee he
should offer no objection to that course. He should fix
Monday week for going into committee on the bill, and the
house could then determine whether the consideration of
the bill by a select committee were necessary.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY objected not to the principle of
the measure, but he suggested that the proposed boards of
jurisdiction should be co•extensive only with the unions.
The bill was capable, he believed, of being made a very
valuable measure.
Mr. E. JAMES urged that the second reading should be
deferred for a week or ten days, and then referred to a select
committee. In fairness he thought that course should be
assented to. If it were not, he intended moving that the
bill be read a second time that day fortnight.
Mr, PULLER criticised several clauses of the bill, and