The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-22 00:00:00

MILITIA MEDICAL SERVICE.

Mr, BRADY asked the Under Secretary of War if
it was the initiation of her Majesty's Government to in-
clude the Militia Medical Service in the inquiries about
to be instituted relative to the Army Medical Depart-
ment?

Sir J. RAMSDEN said that the Government did
not intend to include the Militia Medical Service
amongst the subjects to be inquired into by the commit-
tee alluded to.

LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES

ACT.

Mr. BEAMISH asked the Attorney-General for Ire-
land whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had made
rules and orders under the 30th section of Leases and
Sales of Settled Estates Act, and when they might be
expected to be laid before Parliament, as directed by
31st section of said act f _ _

Mr.— FITZGERALD said the rules were this day
issued in Dublin. The delay arose from the act apply-
ing to England and Ireland, and it being desirable to
have the same rules for both countries.
TROOP SHIPS.

Major S. WORTLEY asked whether Government
Would have any objection to appoint a board, consisting
of two military, two naval, and one medical officer, to
examine and report upon all ships appointed to sail with
troops, in order .to obviate the sending of troops in yes-
sel4_unfit for that service ?

Sir C. WOOD said that substantially what the gallant
member asked had been done.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Lord MELGUND asked the Lord Advocate whether

wish to deal with Ireland_ in an exceptional manner,
but Irish members. He would make a compromise
with the hon. members for Ireland, and if they would
support him in a general measure, he would introduce
Dublin to a participation of its benefits. (Laughter.)

Lord CLAVDE "HAMILTON condenined the Con-
duct of the Government in refusing the introduction of
the bill. He could only attribute it to the justice of the
demand for Dublin, and that the Government were
afraid that if the bill was introduced it would be estab-
lished.

Mr. VANCE said if the Government would allow him
to bring in this bill he would withdraw in on a general
measure being introduced by the Government. If. that
was not acceeded to he should divide the house.

Mr. DISRAELI, without giving any opinion on the
merits of the case, urged that the Government ought
not to resist this motion, especially as they, agreed last
year to the principle of abolishing these dues, in a com-
prehensive measure brought forward by them, but which
did pot pass the house. He asked the noble lord to re-
consider his, decision, and give permission for the
introduction of this bill.

Mr. LOWE, in explanation, said a bill having refe-
rence to this subject had been prepared, and that it
would be speedily introduced.
After some remarks from Mr. HORSMAN, who
stated his determination to oppose the introduction of
the bill, if its object was repudiation,
The house divided, when tho numbers were—

For the motion
Against it
Majority against ihe motion —l2o
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

Mr. SPOONER moved, "That this house do resolve

itself into a committee to consider the acts for the en-
dowment of Maynootb, with a view to the withdrawal of
any endowment out of the Consolidated Fund, due repaid
being had to vested rights and interests." Having
presented several petitions in support of his motion, the
hon. member proceeded to claim the indulgence of the
house while he stated the reasons which had induced him
to make this motion. First, he begged to inform the Re-
man Catholic members that he had no quarrel with them
for the course they took. As a Prete tent himself he
respected individual opinion, and he wiseed them to have
the full and free exercise of their religion, and every pri-
vilege that Was consistent with the security of a Protes-
tant state. He had no personal mottve in bringing this
motion forward, nor any personal ambition to gratify, on
the contrary the task be had undertaken was to him a
most painful one, and as for his friends around him, he
knew that he should have pleased them better had he re-
frained from bringing his motion forward. But he was
stimulated by a conscientious sense of duty, and should
persevere as much in the midst of ironical cheers as if he
were encouraged by shouts of sincere applause. In the first
place be must allude to a rather depreciatory observa-
tion of the hon. and learned member for Sheffield, who
had asked in a former debate what claims, iu piety or
intellect, he (Air. Spooner) had that be should dictate to
the consciences or votes of his fellow men. He begged
to say that the hon. and learned member quite mistook
his argument, and the grounds on which he proceeded,
and be had never urged an opinion of his own when
making his motion, but had based his case solely on the
Scriptures and the articles of the Church of England, to
which the hon. and learned member professed to be
bound as wall as himself. He contended that the main-
tenance of the College of Maynooth was contrary to the
Scripture, contrary to the principles of our Protestant
constitution, and contrary to the oath by which gentle-
men became members of that house. He would now
proceed with his objections in detail. The articles of the
Church declared the sacrifice of the mass to be damnable
and blasphemous. The rubric declared that the sacra-
mental elements should not be adored, and their adore:
tion should be abhorred of all Christians. Now, the
Catholics adored the elements, and he asked those
who followed the rubric how they could support a doe.;
trine which in that rubric was declared to be "abhorred
of all Christians." The next point to which he should
allude was, that the Roman Catholic doctrine was anti-
social and immoral, an opinion which the house had
already affirmed by having three several times given him
permission to introduce his bill. And, further, he begged
to remind the house that on those occasions not one of
his arguments were met or controverted by his oppon-
ents. The next point was the oath of the sovereign, which
bound him or her to maintain the reformed church as
estaolished by law. He asked was the maintenace of the
College of Maynooth consistent with that oath ?—a col.
lege which trained priests who taught the people that their
first duty was the subversion of the reformed church.
Then, with respect to the parliamentary compact upon
which the Union and Catholic emancipation were based,
he could not see that the grant was sanctioned or perpe-
tuated by the Union. It was originally a grant to build
the college, Mid tO prevent priests from being educated
abroad—a wrong Expedient is his opinion—but still the
cause for the creation of the grant had passed
away. Even if there were an understanding, hon.
members opposite had ignored it completely in
the debate of the preceding evening,, when the
compact under consideration was of a much more
solemn nature than that now under discussion. The hon.
member quoted Sir R. Peel's speech in introducing the
Emancipation Bill, to show the liberal spirit of corm's-
sten with which Parliament had treated the Roman Ca-
tholics, and then proceeded to examine the theological
errors of the Roman Catholic religion, He quoted Scha-
vini, Liguori, and several Roman Catholic writers, to
show that it was lawful to take oaths qualified by mental.
reservations, and that oaths were only to be kept accord-
' ing to the meaning of the words and promises they con-
tain, and that it was lawful fora just cause to swear with
equivocations. According to Liguori a just cause was any
"honest end for the preservation of good things for the
spirit or useful things for the body." Was the house pre-
pared to uphold a system which inculcated and perpetuated
I such iniquity ? He bad stated these facts before, and
the force of them had been so great that despite the op-
il position of a ministry that had gone out, and of another
that bad come in, three times be han carried his proposition
in the House of Commons. Teat of itself ought to weigh
with the house as to the righteousness of the cause he
was advocating. (Hear.) Schavini also laid it down
that, generally speaking, servants were justified secretly
to compensate themselves from their masters' goods, if
in their consciences they considered they were insuffi-
ciently paid for their services ; or if they were compelled
to accept service for a smaller rate of remuneration than
they think themselves entitled to. Professor Furlong,
the professor of moral philosophy at Maynooth, con-
curred with Schavini and Liguori in these matters. The
hon. member next referred to the evidence taken before
the Maynooth commissioners to show that some of the
books directed to be read by the students at Maynooth
taught that the Pope had the right to depose sovereigns
for a just cause, to transfer kingdoms from one prince
to another, and recognised the papal power for this pur-
pose in this country. The next question to which he
should refer WAS the teaching of the Roman catholic

Catholic priesthood of Maya, previatisty to and during the
late election, at large meetings and in the chapels, de-
nounced him, and asserted that the electors would advance
the glory of God and save their souls from eternal dam-
nation by voting for the sitting member. That was astate-
1-tnent of a gentleman of weight and position, not by a Pro-
testant, but by a•Roman Catholic. But it went further,
and stated that the Roman Cathelie clergy openly invoked
the curse of the Almighty on all who refused to vote for
the sitting member, and ,declared that the souls of those
who voted against him, or declined to vote, would be
consigned to eternal punishment hereafter, and that the
said priests acted as tally agents in the election. Surely
that deserved the attention of the house. It was a state-
ment which a gentleman was ready to prove on oath.
With regard to this very question Mr. 0. Harlem, in his
evidence before the Maynooth Commission, stated that
the priests had no right to interfere in elections ; but the
voting might be the occasion of sin, and in that case
they had a right to refuse to the sinning voter the privi-
leges of the church. When the priests educated at May-
nooth went forth and told the electors that this was a
doctrine which Parliament sanctioned, could it be
doubted that the people would think it was right
There was a gentleman who, owing to the neglect of the
Attorney-General to do his duty, called himself a Roman
Catholic Bishop of Liverpool, who in laying the founda-
tion-stone of a chapel was reported to have said that
" the Roman Catholics must have their rights by stand-
ing up for them." (Cheers.) That was just what he (Mr.,
Spooner) expected. (Hear.) "The day had gone by when
Roman Catholics were to bow their heads and live—they
racist gain their rights—and mast have them." (Cheers.)
These cheers would be well understood by the pub-
lie, and the voice of the public would be against
those who uttered them. The Roman Catholics
should have their rights as citizens, but they should not
have. the right to be the ruling dominant church of this
land. The Roman catholics would never be content un-
til they put themselves at least on a level with the Es-
tablished Church of England—that Church. which called
on the Sovereign to see that the Romish Church did not
stand on a level with it, but which should be the domi-
nant church of this country. The Roman catholics
would not be content with equality, but aimed at supre-
maoy, and if they got it they would deal with the poor
unfortunate Protestants in the way which the priests at
Maynooth were taught to deal with them. He would
read an account which appeared in an Irish newspaper
of what took place in a case tried at the quarter sessions
at Cavan. The hon. gentleman then read an account of
the case, which was to the following effect:—" An ac-
tion was brought by the Roman catholic Archbishop of
Kilmore, Dr. Brady, against a man named Reilly, to
recover from him the• amount of certain dues payable by
him, according to the usage and customs of the Roman
Catholic Church. On the counsel for the p'aintiff
stating the nature of the action, the chairman asked on
what legal ground he went ; and he replied, on the
ground of usage and custom ; to which the court replied
that that was no ground of action ; besides which the
law held that the Rev. Dr. Brady was a teacher of the
doctrines which were damnable and heretical, to which
another member of the Court added that yet the Govern-
ment sanctioned such doctrines by giving a grant to
Maynooth, and allowing such teaching in the gaols and
workhouses." It this question was raised in a great
matter, as it was in this trifling one, how was it to be
answered? With regard to the dangerous doctrine of
confession, he would read an opinion delivered by the
later Sir R. Peel.
Mr. ROEBUCK—What is the date of it ?

Mr. SPOONER—The hon. gentleman meant to say
Sir R. Peel had changed his opinion. (Hear.) But if that
was the case be (Mr. Spooner) had a right to use that
opinion, as he had not changed his. That opinion was
given when Sir R. Peel was resisting Catholic emancipa.
tion, when Mr. Canning was at the head of the Govern-

ment. He (Mr. Spooner) was boiled to say that he him-
self influenced by the example of Mr. Canning, and of
his brother-in-law, the late Mr. Wilberforce, who vested
for the measure, supported and assisted by every means
in his power the carrying of Roman Catholic Ecnancipa-
tion but be now knew that it was all very wrong, and
as be had aided in that matter, he felt it to be his duty
to do all in his power to remedy the evil to which he had
been a party. The ben. gentleman the❑ read un extract
from a speech of Sir R. Peel, in 1827, to the effect,
" that he owned, frankly, and candidly, that he enter.
tained a distrust of the Roman Catholic clergy. He did
not object to the Roman Catholics on account of their
faith. There were many of them for whom he had the
highest respect. In private life he made no distinctions
on religious grounds. But in this case there was added
to religion a scheme of worldly policy, and he had a
right to inquire into its nature. Could any one who was
acquainted with the state of the world doubt that there
was engrafted on the Roman Catholic system some-
thing more than a scheme, than the promotion of
mere religion? The doctrines of absolution, 'confession,
andindulgences, were calculated to maintain great power
over the hearts and minds of men. If a ma❑ told ano-
ther all his sins and transgressions, however trifling they
might be, was not the man who so confessed the slave o 1
the other in the worst sense t And yet that doctrine of
confession was taught at Maynooth." That was the opi-
nion of Sir R. Peel, and he (Mr. Spooner) held it to b,

true. He would ask the house to prevent the continu-
ance of such a system, and to that end he asked them to
agree to his motion—" That this house do resolve itself
into a committee to consider the acts for the endowment
of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal of any en-
dowment out of the Consolidated Fund, due regard
being had to vested rights and interests." As regarded
the latter part of the motion, as the students now in the
college were induced to to go there by the law as it
stood, when the act of abolition passed, if it did pass,
they should be allowed to complete their education.
No man knew the foaling of the country better than the
noble lord at the head of the Government. He was the
most able statesman in the country, and there were ele-
ments in the house which would enable him to maintain
the constitution unshaken and unbroken—to resist all
dangerous innovation—and to carry into effect all fair
aed reasonable reforms that might be necessary. Al
though he differed from the noble lord on many points,
he entertained the highest opinion of his abilititsil and
trusted he would not be led away by the fanciful 0w...
ries of the reformers of the day. He trusted the noble
lord would bring his mind to the serious consideration of
the subject now before the house, and that the house
would not refuse to assent to the introduction of the bill
which he proposed to lay on the table, the only effect of
which would be to restore the Protestant character of
the nation, to satisfy the Protestant feeling, and at the
same time to teach the Roman Catholics that although
every civil and religious privilege would be accorded to
them, they should not be placed in a position to enable
them to attain the highest and last of their ambi-
tion. (Cheers, and leud cries of " Divide, divide.")
General THOMPSON said the arguments of the hon.
gentleriaan appeared to reduce themselves to a statement
of his conviction—very sincere no doubt, but possibly
not well founded—that when clashing sects threw their
contributions into the same box, his sect ought to pre-
vent any other from taking anything, because his sect
was right and every other sect wrong, Was that or was
it not She pith of the argument which the right hon.
gentleman bad propounded to the house. (Hear.) lle
would invite hon. gentlemen who had any hesitation on
this subject to consider the effect if the circumstances
were reversed, and the question arose of a Protestant in-
terest in France or Sardinia struggling for a portion of
money which they themselves, out of their own pockets,
had contributed. Did any man doubt that the Catholics
had contributed to the fund out of which the Maynooth
grant came ? if so, let him state the reason why. Did
any man doubt that if the case existed which qe had put
the Protestants in those continental countries would feel
the injustice of being told that they were not to have a
portion of the money because the Catholic religion was the
Dilly right religion I (Hear.) If the question were put
to the sects in general, there was not one which would
not declare itself the only right one. There was not a
sect under whose feet he should like to lie—not even
the Quakers, who were generally considered the most
pacific and moderate. (Laughter.) He would not
enter into the consideration of the question of mortal
and venial sins, as the hon. member had done. If two
steeds came to his gate he might be able to form a
ere ty good judgment of their merits. But he would not
enter on knotty points as those to which the hon. mem-
ber had referred. His care would be confined to keep-
ing himself as clear as he could of either venial or mortal
(Lauohter. and cries of "Divide, divide.")
Mr. SCHOLE FIELD said, if the sense of the house
was in favour of goit.g to a division he would not detain
it, although he was anxious to state his opinion on the
subject. He would not stand in the way of a division,
and would not press the amendment of which be had

Mr. NEWDEGATE then rose to move the adjourn-
ment of the house, for the purpose of explaining that a
misunderstanding had arisen on the part of some hon.
members who were not accustomed to the forms of the
house. (Laughter.) They were not aware that they
could not speak after the question had been put. In
the expectation that some hon. member would have
arisen he had waited until it was too late. (Laughter.)
He did not in the least impugn the division of the chair.
Mr. ROEBUCK rose to order. There was no ques-
tion before the house, and therefore the hon. member
had no right to speak.
The SPEAKER intimated that the hon. member for
Warwickshire had moved the adjournment of the house,
and was therefore at liberty to proceed. (Hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he bad been induced to
adopt the invidious course of moving the adjournment for
the purpose of allowing him to explain how many hon.
members bad been precluded from expressing their opi-
nions on a subject which deeply interested their feelings,
and from the decision on which many had been excluded.
He would not withdraw his motion for the adjournment
until the hon. and learned member for Sheffield had
taken any exception which he might think fit.
Mr. H. HERBERT, after the remarks which had just
fallen from the hon. member for Warwickshire, felt
bound to say that the house had appeared so utterly' in-
different to the subject that during the eloquent and
stirring speech of the hon. member—(laughter)—there
were only two members on the benches near him.
(Cheers and laughter.) The hon. member (,Mr. Newde-
gate) was perfectly aware of the forms of the house,
and ought to have known better than to miss his opptr-
tunity. If the hon. member intended to convey to the
country the idea that there had been any surprise—
Mr. NEWDEGATE declared that he had not made
any such insinuation.

kr. H. HERBERT—Or that the interest of hon. mem-
bers was very great, those who had been present since
the commencement of the debate could testify that the
Opposition benches had been empty the whole time.
Mr. SPOONER did not complain of anything that had
taken place. What had fallen from the hon. gentleman
opposite (Mr. H. Herbert) was perfectly true. (Loud
laughter.) Very few members did think proper to attend.
They had a perfect right to exercise their judgment in
the matter. But it should not be forgotten that none
of the gentlemen on the other side of the house could
answer nis arguments. (Laughter.) He wished them
joy of their triumph, but wished it to go the country that
the case had been answered not by force of argument but
by force of numbers. (Cheers.)
Mr. ROEBUCK congratulated the house on having
escaped the misery of a long and dreary night's debate.
(Cheers.) The house•had had the courage to endure the
infliction of aI wo hours' speech frOna the hon. member.
(Laughter.) He had heard the greater portion of that
Speech. But, no doubt, hon. gentlemen opposite bad
found a much more agreeable occupation, for their
benches had been very nearly deserted. (Laughter) He
again congratulated the house on having escaped the
mi,ery of what he would call this bigotted—(cries of
" Order, order ")—this bigotted appeal—(cheers)—
which bad been so often made to the house. He was
glad it had been answered by a vote, and that no attempt
had been made to refute that which was not deserving of
refutation. (Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. WHITESIDE wished to put a question to the
noble lord at the head of the Government relative to the
report of the Maynooth Commission of Inquiry. There
was not one branch of education on the establishment
which bad met with the approval of the commissioners.
(Hear, hear.) It was in evidence both that the book and
the system of education—

An HON. Mrusux rose to order The question be-
fore the house 4'34 that of adjournment.
The SPEAKER intimated that the hen, and learned
member for Enniskillen was perfectly in order.
Mr. WHITESIDE resumed There were many
gentlemen who- professed to be friends of free opinion
and free discussion, who neverthele-s sometimes endea-
voured to stifle such discussion. (Cheers, and oh, oh.)
He had ri,en for the purpose of asking the noble lord at
the head of the Government what he proposed to do with
respect to the report of the Maynooth commissioners.
Lord PALMERSTON said he had entertained the
hope that the discussion would not have beeen resumed
on the question of adjournment although that coarse was
perfectly open. With regard to the remarks of the hon.
member (Mr. Spooner) that his speech had remained
unanswered because it was unanswerable, those who bad
heard it yoizht have inferred in their own minds other
reasons—(aughter)—why those who differed with the
hon. member were unwiding to enter into a lengthy dis-
cussion upon polemical questions which could not be
carried, or without creating an amount of irritation
which it was most desirable to avoid. He had never
heard a speech which gave a greater invitation to dissent
on the part of those who did not agree with the hon.
member on the topic which he was discussing. Now with
regard to the question put by the hon. and learned gen-
tLenan the tneether for Enniskillen, the report of the
Maynooth commissioners recommended certain altera-

-Lions in the course of education carried on in that esta-
blishment. The changes
,recommended were not very
material, but he believed that those who had the conduct
of the institution were endeavouring to carry them into
effect as far as possible. (Cheers.)

Mr. NEWDEGATE then withdrew hie motion fur
he adjournment, and the subject dropped.

FRAUDULENT BREACHES OF TRUST BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said in moving for
leave to bring in a bill to render breacbes of trust crimi-
nally responsible, he was aware that he had under-
taken a task of no ordinary difficulty, because he was
about to propose a bill that would in a manner, at pre-
sent unknown to our law, affect one of the ordinary
relations of civilised lila. The situation of trustee and
cestui qua trust, was one of the most common and
most necessary of the functions of ordinary society,
and therefore it was a matter worthy of their serious
attention whether the manner in which it was proposed
to render trustees criminally responsible for breaches of
trust, could be done with safety and whether it was one
that would bear examination. But he was the more con-
fident in doing this because it was a measure not brought
in on the spur of the moment, but one introduced for
the purpose of meeting an acknowledged defect in our
law which stood in contrast with the jurisprudence of
almo,t every civilised nation. He did not know a code
of any nation in Europe in which fraudulent breaches of
trust were not held to be proper subjects for criminal
punishment. He begged the house to observehnt class
the re-
markable peculiarity of English law, by which t
of criminals had hitherto been exempt from criminal pu-
nishment. In all other countries it had been deemed a
proper principle
of law to hold that a violation of con&
deuce, a betrayal of trust reposed in one man by another
was one of the most aggravated crimes. But in our law
there was this peculiarity, that when a robbery was ac-
companied by a breach of trust it was divested of its cri-
minal character. If he stole 5001. our law punished him ' •
and if he on his death bed called in his friend and said,
"I propose to make you my executor, I commit to you
my property for the benefit of my widow and children,"
and the friend accepted that trust, and robbed the widow
and the orphan of thatpreperty, our law said he was not
a criminal but a debtor, and that which render ed the act
most odious and most abominable took from it, its felt)•
nious character. But the anomaly and the sit tgularity
did not rest here. One could imagine that if they made
a trustee a debtor they would give great and ready faci-
lities for the enforcement of that debt. No such thing.
Snch was the absurdity, that their courts of la cv drove
the widow and the orphan from the judgment 'teat, and
told them they had no remedy at all. It was indeed
true that they had not left them without a remedy, but
it was one that added mockery to the injury. (Hear,
hear.) They told them that they might gez to the
Court of Chancery. To telt the widow and the orphan
who had been robbed of their small pittance, per-
haps all they had in the world, to go to such a tri-
bunal was an aggravation of the injury. Now, it cool,
not be said that this was a thing not calling for the seri-
ous consideration of Parliament. Surely such aaystem a•E
that they could not admire. This was one of thoir lush.

propesed to meet, but tic
roughly how it came to pa. --- Obis de-
feet mour jurisprudence it was ne, iary to inquire a
little further before they proceeded to amend the law_
They should know Exactly, not only what it was, but
also the cause of its remaining in a state so calamitou a
and so opposed .to all sound principles of legislation.
They endeavoured to comprehend in their statutes every
case that might occur. Therefore it was that the statutes
were so lengthy and so encumbered with words, but they
had never for a moment conceived that it was better to
define accurately the °ff....nee, and leave particular case*
to fall within the scope of that eefiuition. But where
they had made definitions they were singularly imper-
fect. Coke and Blackstone defined theft as the felonious
taking and carrying away the goods of another. Well
but what was meant by fdaniously taking and carrying
away the goods of another ? The definition involved the
very thing that it professed to define. Another writer
defined it as the unlawful carrying away the goods of
another, a definition which would be applicable to, such
cases' ae a man unlawfully, distraining the goods of bia
tenant. But the difficulty was this, that their indietreents
had been framed in accordance with these definitions.
The party accused was charged with feloniously taking
and carrying away. But the law refused to recngniso the
title of the individual who was eetitl jd beneficielly to the
property. The law refused to recognise, save in one or
two instances, the distinction between trustee and cestui
pie trust, and if he Committed property into the hands
of a trusteeethe law founding itself on the definition that
he now stated, said, " How can a man take away from
himself what he has already the la wful and complete posses-
sion of" and therefore be is unable to oommit theft of that
which he lawfully possesses. Accordingly, if he gave
10,0001. to him to hold upon trust fur his wife and
children, he was regarded by the hew as the lawful owner
of that property, though he had not one particle of pro-
perty in it, and the property was in another. The law
refused to recognise that distinction. In Scotland the
law male a distinction between res alienm and res
but in England a trustee who took the property of an.
other was held to take only that which was legally his
own. From this narrow view they had arrived at the
conclusion that there could be no larceny of property
held in trust, because they did not recognise the right
and title of the equitable owner, and they took the
trustee to be the legal and absolute owner. This was
the reason why these anomalies had been introduced
into the law. The length to which this was carried was
absurd. If he went to a man and borrowed a horse
with a view to ride to Richmond, and if, after he had
done so, he sold the horse and appropriated the money,
that, in the eye of the law, was no larceny. Again,
if a person sent a hamper of wine to a carrier to be car.
tied to a particular place, and the carrier stole the ham-
per, that, in the eye of the law, was no larceny ; but if
he broke open the hamper and took a bottle, that was
larceny. (Laughter.) Tbis was the state of the law on
the subject, and the origin of it. A very simple mode of
proceeding, one would imagine, would be to introduce
a new definition of larceny and to make it so extensive
as to comprehend property held in trust and the fraudu-
lent appropriation of i,t. ,But this would be so great a
departure from the ordinary principle oa which their
statutes were framed, that he had not felt bold enough
to make the experiment He had, therefore, in this
bill framed several olaases which would deal fn the first
place with fraudulent appropriations by trustees of pro-
perty committed to their charge. But be wished par-
ticularly to invite their attention to a number of diffi-
culties that would demand their serious attention before
they assented to the introduction of any bill on this sub-
ject. He had already adverted to one of the great
difficulties and the responsibility of introducing a now
principle of jurisprudence in relation to one of
the ordinary transactions of life. Now it was
essential that the honest and the well-meaning
should be protected in the discharge of their duties.
(Hear.) Great difficulties took place in respect to the
performance of his duty by a trustee ; and they must
consider whether if they introduced a law making
breaches of trust criminally punishable, they might ex-
pose trustees to persecution and to be dragged up with-
out sufficient reason before police courts, either from
violent passion, or misapprebension, or from a view to
extortion. He had thought it fit to introduce a clause
with a view to guard against that evil. Teat
clause enacted that no criminal proceeding should be
commenced against a trustee without the previous sanc-
tion of some one of the judges of the courts at West-
minster Hall, or one of the superior courts in Ireland, or
without the sanction and permission of the Attorney-
General. He had introduced this as a sort of analogy
to the law relating to arrest. The act for the abolition
of arrest provided that a debtor who was about to leave
the country might be arrested by the sanction of one of
the judges of the superior courts. There would be no
impediment in the way of proceeding except that which
arose from the necessity of his stating the facts in an
affidavit to be produced before the judge in chambers or
before the Attorney-General, and taking the leave of
one of those functionaries before he proceeded. Whe-
ther that were or were not a proper precaution,
would be for the consideration of the house. The
next consideration was the nature of those trusts,
the breach of which should be rendered crimi-
nal. Breaches of trust were of various kinds. There
were some which were of a direct nature, as a
trustee appropriating property in his possession belong.
ing to another person. Those were breaches of trust of
a criminal character. But even these admitted of some
phases of distinction, to which he would call the serious
attention of the house ; for instance, if a trustee sold
the property, and did not convert it to his own use, but
gave it to another person, they would consider probably
that if a person were connected with the trustee, and
was not an object of the trust, that that was to be held
as a breach of trust. But suppose the trustee were
to take the trust money, and to embark in a Rpm-
lation which was successful, and that he restored the
trust fund, and no loss were incurred there-
by, but that the act was afterwards dis-
covered. Undoubtedly that act had all the charac-
teristics of crime, but bad resulted in no injury. Would
they, or would they not, have that act criminally pu-
nished f Take another case. Suppose a trustee was en-
gaged in trade, and that he took the trust money and
embarked it in his trade. Many bon, members were,
perhaps, aware that by the rules of the Court of Equity
it was competent for the cestui quo trust to adopt that
act, and to claim the benefit of Ho took the proffts
made, he condoned the offence, and to a certain degree
sanctioned it. But if that had been done, not by all the
objects of the trust, but only by a few, would they, or
would they not, make the trustee criminally punishablet
He mentioned these instance only for the purpose of
pointing out how many were the grades of distinction,
and how necessary it would be to attend with more than
ordinary care to the language of the rule that they would
think proper to lay down. Trusts, as they knew, were
of various kinds. There was the direct trust, which he
had explained. Besides that, there were trusts known to
the law as resulting trusts. If any property remained

after the object of the original trust bad been fulfilled,
then a resulting trust arose. That resulting trust might,
in like manner, be violated, but if it were violated for

the benefit of the trustee, it did not appear to him that
that ought to be exempt from the rule, because crimi-
nality attached immediately when aman appropriated pro-
perty to the purpose for which it was not intended. There
were, however, trust 4 which the law called constructive
trusts, and he had not thought it proper to include them.
These were the general provisions that they would have
to consider if they permitted the bill to be brought in, so
far as it related to that particular subject, to property
held in trust by one person for the benefit of another.
But he had not thought it right that the bill should
stop there. There were other breaches of trust of a much
more criminal nature, because more extensive in their

consequences, and yet committed by persons who did
not exactly stand in the relation of trustee. It was re-
quisite, therefore, to introduce some peculiar law in
order to meet that delinquency. He meant persons who,
in the prosecutions of those great undertakings which

were peculiar to this country, had formed cooval:lies,

and placed themselves iu the situation of directors or
ma-
nagers of those companies. (Hear.) He had introduced
into the bill clauses intended to deal with delinquencies
which, he was sorry to say, were frequent and gigantic.
Of course, when persons fraudulently appropriated the
money of others, there could be no doubt that they ought
to be held liable to punishment ; but these persons had
not recourse to anything so clumsy and so common as
directly taking the money of others. Their criminal acts
were effected by means of false accounts and false entries.
He had therefore introduced a series of clauses which
rendered criminal the presenting of false accounts and
making false entries, disguising transactions by vague
words ; and he had introduced one or two clauses to
cover that extensive system of fraud committed by false
representations accompanied with acts to give colour to
them, such as the fraudulent statement of the affairs of a
company by paying dividends out of capital. (Hear.)
Whether the law were or were not strong enough to meet
the case at present, there could be no harm in making
that particular mode of robbery the subject of direct
legislation. (Hear.) Now on this subject he might ven-
ture to advert to a subject in immediate connexion with
it. Ho wished to state his regret that in an answer which
he gave to a gentleman the other day who invited him to
state whether it was his intention to proceed against the
directors of a particular company, that at that time he
had read none of the evidence, and had kept his mina
free from the impression produced by newspaper reports,
and he was not in a condition to state to the house whe.
ther he should institute proceedings. He had since in.
formed himself of the nature of the case from the docu-
ments submitted to him by the solicitor, and he had no
hesitation in saying that he would try without a mo-
ment's delay whether the law as it now stood was not
strong enough to meet that case. He regretted that he
was not in a position to give an answer at the time, but
at the same time he must beg to say that he would not
be dictated to by the newspapers as to the course that
he should pursue. The bill would not merely dear
with the class of trustees, with the class of managers
and directors of companies, but also with the
class of assignees of bankrupts and insolvents. The
taw as regarded bankers and agents was greatly amended,
some years ago by the introduction of an act, the 42d.
Geo. 111., which passed that house on the occasion of
a fraud committed by Mr. Walsh, a stockbroker. But
that act only applied where the instructions to the banker
or agent were given in writing; and such was the feel-
ing of the day that clauses were introduced exempting
trustees. 'that act was repealed by the 7th and Bth
Geo. IV., which substantially re-enacted its provisions.
He would not therefore tell the house that the bill which
tie proposed to introduce would extend the law to all
cases of fraud committed by agents, although the agents
might not have received iustructioes in writing. But
',ben came another subject to which it was necessary to
call tLe particular attention of the house. In the firai
Awe, be would observe that he unquestionably recog.
~ised the principle of law that no man should be put o
•uis trial ye evidence procured-by bis own confession lek
a civil Suit. He quite admitted it was desirable

that prineiple should be preserved. He had therefore
continued the exemption of evidence contained in the
confession of the party ; and in order to prevent the pas-
sibility of the civil remedy being taken away by the in-
dividual being permitted to plead the criminal liability
the bill enacted that the man who made the confession
should not have that confession converted into evidence
against him on a criminal charge. But be had not in,
cluded in that exemption the extraordinary provision of
the 42d Geo. 111., and the 7th and Bth Geo. IV., namely,
that if the delinquent should go and voluntarily confess
in any proceeding in bankruptcy or insolvency, that con-
fession should exempt him from criminal consequences.
(Hear, hear.) There were other clauses in the bill cal-
culated, he thought, to provide that the criminal liabi-
lity should not interfere with the civil liability of the
party ; but there was a particular clause which might
possibly lead to some difference of opinion. It was this,
that if the civil remedy was sought before the criminal
proceeding, if there were a suit by a party who had been
defrauded of his property against the trustee, no cri-
minal proeeeding should be taken during the con-
tinuance of that civil remedy without the leave of the
judge before whom the civil suit was taken. These were
the principal provisions of the bill which he ventured to
solicit the indulgence of the house to allow him to intro-
duce. He might state, in conclusion, that he was by no
means particularly enamoured either with its language
or its provisions. He had himself prepared the bill, and
therrfore it might be more than usually faulty. but he
was perfectly willing to receive suggestions without dis-
tinction of party. He should welcome every suggestion
that was made, and he hoped that this instalment of re-
form would remove an opprobrium in our jurisprudence,
that it would prevent breaches of trust, particularly as
they applied to persons in humble life, where it was im-
portant that the injured party should have his remedy
prompt and easy ; that thereby it would be the means of
repressing the frequent occurrence of offences of this na-
ture, and place their legislation on a more satisfactory
footing. (Cheers.)
Mr. MALIN S said hehad listened to the speech of the
hon. and learned gentleman with great interest ; he had
brought forward the subject in a manner worthy of his
reputation and ability. He had long held the opinion that
for breaches of trust the parties should be criminally
punished. The house would remember that in the last
Parliament the distinguished predecessor of the hon.
and learned gentleman,the now Chief Justice of the Court
of Common Pleas, bad in that house for some time a bill
which bad the same object. The learned gentleman felt,
however, some difficulty in prosecuting that measure on
account of a doubt which was entertained by some of the
most distinguished judges of the land whether it would
be expedient to endanger the civil remedy by giving a
criminal one ? The hon. and learned gentleman opposite
was, he was glad to see, fully alive to that danger. No
doubt it was a very poor remedy to afford those who
had been injured by a breach of trust,to send them to
the Court of Chancery. Not that that was any fault of
the court ; for there was no part of its jurisdiction which
was more often or more beneficially exercised. In a great
majority of cases breaches of trust were committed not
for the benefit of the trustee, but for those whose interests
were committed to his care. (Hear.) In numberless in-
stances trustees were entreated by the family to sanction
some arrangement which was not strictly regular, and to
such applications they often, unfortunately for themselves,
assented. The office of trustee was, in truth, a thankless
one. It was one from which those who held it were pre-
cluded by the rules of the court from obtaining the least
pecuniary advantage, while on the other hand they often
found themselves great losers by it. He thought, there-
fore, that a distinction should be made between those
who bad departed from the strict letter of their trust for
no other motive than to benefit the parties themselves,
and those who hail done so from motives that were cri-
minal. The bill would require the greatest possible care to
render it on the one hand perfectly efficient, and on the
other hand to prevent it from treating as criminal those
whose conduct was not justly open to imputation.
(Cheers ) He (Mr. IMalins) could not sit down without
expressing his satisfaction that his hon. and learned friend
had grappled with the great question of frauds by the
directors of joint-stock companies. Three cases had of
late been brought prominently before the public, but
those who practised in the courts of equity were familiar
with many others. He would mention one. A bank was
established in 1344 or 1845 ; the capital was to lie
300,000/. or 400,000/. The directors borrowed more than
300,0001 on debentures, and they misappropriated the
whole. The concern had been wound up by the Court of
Chancery, aed the unfortunate shareholders had been
compelled to contribute close up to half-a-million of money.
He (elr. Matins) had been concerned as conned fora gen-
tleman who, relying on the presumed respectability of the
directors, bad taken shares to the extent of 5001., and
had been called upon to pay in respect of that 500/. no
lees a sum than 10,000/. (Hear.) The public did not know
all the cases of this kind that occurred, nor indeed did they
know the worst of them. Such things were constantly
taking place, and this showed that there was in this
country, to a lamentable extent, an absence of commer-
cial integrity. It was true these cases were exceptional
ones ; but the public could not discriminate between the
high character of English commercial men as a body,
and those who were effected by the disclosures which
from time to time were made. There was no doubt that
the country had of late been sadly disgraced. (Hear,
hear.) He trusted that his hon. friend's measure would
lead to a better state of things. (Cheers.)
Mr. HADFIELD cautioned the home against resort.
ing to extreme measures. As it was, there was often
the greatest difficulty in the world to find suitable
persons willing to act as trustees. (Hear, hear.) With
regard to joint-stock banks, he was amazed how any-
body could venture to hold a share in one. (Cheers.)
Mr. NAPIER wished to know whether the bill would
apply to Ireland ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was understood to
reply in the affirmative.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
INSOLVENT JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL asked leave to bring
in a bill of a somewhat peculiar character—a bill intend-
ed to deal with an existing state of things, and therefore
to a certain extent of a retrospective nature. It was a
bill to amend the Acts of Parliament under which pub-
lic companies were liable to be made bankrupt ; and also
to amend the Winding-up Acts. The spirit of the enact-
ment he proposed was precisely similar to one introduc-
ed last session, with the exception that it would apply to
banks and insurance companies. The state of the law
with regard to banks and insurance companies was this.
There was a great conflict with respect to the manner of
obtaining a remedy in case of insolvency, which might be
done under a fiat of bankruptcy or by winding up under
the Winding-up Acts. It was a most unfortunate peculi-
arity of this country that we did not confide to any one
tribunal the duty of administering complete justice on any
one single subject; but we gave to different tribunals a
fragmentary jurisdiction over different parts of the same
subject. If a joint-stock bank became insolvent there
were, of course, two things to be effected. There was
the payment of its creditors ; and there was also the
task of deciding the pro portion each individual share-
holder should contribute to make up the deficiency. He
(the hon. gentleman) should have imagined that all that
might have been committed to one tribunal ; but as it
happened, if a public bank became bankrupt, the duty
of winding up the estate might belong to the Court of
Bankruptcy, and that of deciding on the proportion
to be contributed by the individual shareholders might,
devolve upon the Celia of Chancery, render the Acts
passed in the year 1848 and in the year 1849. Sup-
pose a company had failed, and one of the shareholders
bad been called upon to pay 20,0601., while another had
been called upon to pay only 2,000/. The question would
thus arise how the 18,000/. was to be male up to the
person who had paid the larger sum ; and, in order
to solve that problem the Winding-up Acts had been
passed. A conflict had in this manner arisen between
the two jurisdictions of Bankruptcy and Chancery, of
which the community had lately had a most painful and
distressing illustration in the case of the Royal &hide
Bank. In that case all the separate courts of that great
tribunal, the Court of Chancery, had been occupied for
a considerable time, not in determining the rights of the
creditors or the liabilities of the shareholders, but
in determining the conflicting &aims of the official
manager under the Winding-up Acts, and of the
official assignee under the subsequent fiat. (Hear,
hear.) In the case of the British Bank the creditors
were 6,000 in number, and the shareholders 300 ; and
such was the state of the law that every creditor had a
separate right of action against every shareholder ; and
there might thus be 6,000 times 300 suits. The
shareholders were aggrieved by this state of things, and
there was no corresponding benefit to the shareholders.
(Hear.) He (the hon. gentleman) held in his hand a list
of the actions which bad actually been brought ; and he
found that one creditor, for a sum of less than 1501.,
had brought no fewer than 25 actions. (Hear, hear.)
And what bad been the practical results ? He had
another list of shareholders who had fled the country ;
and another list—a very long one—of shareholders who
had become bankrupt ; and many others had made set-
tlements of their property or arrangements with regard
to their effects, in the hope of evading the claims to
-which they were liable in the present state of the
law- (Hear, hear.) It was, of course, utterly impos-
sible,
when there were 6,000 creditors and 300 share-
holders, that anything like a mutual arrangement
could be made ; whereas common sense would recom-
mend that somebody should be empowered in the inte-
rest of the shareholders, and somebody else empowered
to represent the rights' of the creditors • and that then
some arrangement should be come to' by which the
shareholders 'night at all events be rescued from the ac-
cumulated costs of the numerable actions which must
now be added to the original lose. (Hear, hear.) He
pop
would therefore a remedy of the following de-
scription ; Let an advertisa
e entbe inserted in the public
prints, calling the shareholdersr together, and enabling
them to appoint one or more of their number for the pur-
pose of reeking some arrangement with the persons to
whom they were liable, and for the purpose of obtaining
the amount of contributions from the shareholders that
that
might be requisite for the payment of the debt. Imme-
diately after that advertisement appeared, he proposed
to protect the shareholders from their present liability to
actions, provided that they submitted themselves to such ,
terms as the court might think right. At present the
shareholders were placed in a position of great difficulty,
f ,r, while the property of the company was taken away
from them by bankruptcy, they were liable for the
company' debts. He, therefore, proposed that the
ceinneissioner should have power to give protection to
the shareholders. Under: the existing la s a creditor for
a very small amount had it in his power to defeat ar-
rangements, by bringing 'actions asainst the individual
shareholders. One provision of the bill was, that 3 cor-
tain proportion of the creditors should have power
to bind the whole in accepting any composition, and that
when such an agreement was come to, the shareholders
might apply for and obtain protection from individual
slits. These provisions would be applicable to all exist-
ing as well as future companies. They supplied an im-
portant omission in the bill of last year.
Mr, M.LINS referred to a similar bill which he had

brought in last year, and which, if passed, would
have saved the public from great calamity. In the
case of the Royal British Bank, shareholders had
been obliged to flee the country, not because they
would not pay their proportion of the liabilities, but
on account of the multiplicity of actions brought
against them. He would suggest one improvement
in the measure submitted by the Attorney-General. The
process under the Winding-up Acts was an exhausting
process. He would suggest that the moment a company
was brought under the jurisdiction of the court the right
of the creditors to bring actions against individual share-
holders should immediately cease, as in the case of an or-
dinary bankruptcy. To prevent shareholders absconding
to avoid their liability, he would provide for stopping them
by a judge's order, as might now be done with an ordi-
nary debtor. Had not the right of suing shareholders
existed in the case of the Royal British Bank, the whole
affair might have been wound up, the calls made, and the
debts discharged long ago. The bill he introduced last
session would have provided for this ; but, as there was
then a feeling against the bill, the government had not
the moral courage to support it, and it was thrown out.
Now the government was obliged to come forward and
do that which he would have done for them last year.
Mr. DEASY approved of the bill, and said that if it
had been law last year, the creditors of the Tipperary
Bank would have got lOs. in the pound. Unfortunately,
they were not likely to get one-fourth of that amount.
There was no greater delusion than that creditors of
joint-stock companies derived greater security from un-
limited liability. (Hear.)
Mr. WYLD hoped the Attorney-General would not
adopt the suggestion of Mr. Matins. In the case of the
Royal British Bank nearly 70,000/. had been expended
as costs in actions brought against individual share-
holders. Both the creditors and shareholders of that
concern were indebted to the hon. and learned gentleman
for bringing forward this measure. At least one-third
of the wealthy shareholders were abroad ; had this mea-
sure been passed a year earlier, they would have re-
mained and have met their liabilities. He hoped no
time would be lost in passing the bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he thought the
bill would carry out t'le view expressed by his hon. and
learned friend (Mr. Marius).
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to know how the At-
torney General meant to deal with the fees.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he hoped no long
time would elapse before a measure would be brought in
on the subject of bankruptcy and insolvency, by which
the question of fees would be dealt with. He did not
venture to deal with that matter in the present bill.
The house then went into commitee, and agreed to a
resolution far the purpose of founding a bill upon it.
The house having resumed,
The Chairman reported that the resolution was agreed
to, and the bill was then read a first time.
PUBLIC CONTRACTS.
On the motion of Mr. MARJORIBANKS, that the com-
mittee on public contracts do consist of seventeen mem-
bers, and that Mr. Monsell and Col. Gilpin be added,
Col. BOLDER() objected to the addition of a fourth
Government member on the committee. He thought
fifteen members were quite sufficient. If any addition
were to be made to the committee he should prefer to
have the hon. member for Frome placed upon it, who,
from his knowledge of the subject, would be able to
afford useful information. (A laugh.)
Lord PALMERSTON said he hoped, although 15
members were quite sufficient for a committee on gene-
ral grounds, that the house would not object to the addi-
tion of two members who were acquainted with the
subject under discussion.
After a few words from Mr. Moffatt, Sir C. Napier
and Lord J. Manners,
The house divided,
For the motion
Against
Majority —s3
Mr. Monsell and Colonel Gilpin were then added to
the committee.
CHATHAM LANDS, &e., BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
ELECTION PETITIONS.

The CLERK at the table announced that petitions had
been presented against the returns for the following
places :—Peterborough, Beverley, Sligo, Queen's County,
Portsmouth (two petitions), Taunton, Ipswich, Chatham,
Lymington, Sandwich, Bridport, Gloucester (two peti-
ti ,ns), Newcastle-under-Lyme (three petitions)—(laugh-
ter)—and Staffordshire (North Division). It being the
last day for pr-renting election petitions.
The SPEAKER read the order of the house to that
effect, and then directed the Sergeant-at• Arms to go out
any i❑quire if there were any more election petitions to
be presented.
Ths Sergeant•at•Arms left the house for that purpose.
After a short absence he returned, and having advanced
to the centre of the house, informed the Speaker that
there were no more election petitions.
The announcement was received with a hearty burst
of cheering from the members present.
The house then adjourned at half-past 11.