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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 19, 1861.

IMP EgIAL PARLIAMENT.

110ZSE 'OF COMMONS :ESTERDAY.)
PO 3D SEA "I'ELEGRAPH, &c.
Gen. UP' k."'"—N aalr'..4 the Secretary to the Treasury if all
means had. been +.aken by the official director of electric
telegraph oro:gaskita—himself one of the ex officio directors
of the Re d Se% Telegraph Company—to insure complete
and unint ferrupted insulation in the Red Sea telegraph cable
by an el' ieent and continuous testing of the cable during
the VT ,v3ss of ita manufacture ?
F. PEEL said that the testing in question had been
effi' ..f'ently performed by the servants of the company.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (SALARIES,
&c.) BILL.
After a short discussion the bill went through cora-
=Wee.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
Clauses 1,2, 3,4, and 5 were agreed to, with some
modification.
On. clause 6, which gives jurisdiction to county court
judges in reference to bankruptcy and insolvency,
BOLT strongly objected to the clause, and moved
it,, omission.
After a short discussion, the clause, with some amend-
.xuent, was agreed to.
Clause 7 was also agreed to.
Mr. A. SMITH moved the omission of clause 8, which
gave Government power to create county courts at dis-
cretion.

Mr. WALPOLE did not intend to oppose the clause, but
expressed strong apprehension as to the effect of the intro-
duction of clauses giving jurisdiction to County Court
judges in bankruptcy. The County Courts and the Bank-
ruptcy Courts were essentially distinct. In the first the
litigation went rapidly, and in the latter the administration
was necessarily slow. He therefore feared that the combi-
nation of the two' judicatures would be injurious to the
con:is and detrimental to the public' %West&
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said the aoUntry was charged
with a sum amounting to nearly £600,000 for the payment
of judges, and contended that upon constitutional as
well as economic grounds it was expedient that a limit
should be fixed to the power of increasing them under the
operation of the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL maintained that a Go-
vernment had two important duties to discharge,—the one
being the protection of those whose interests were committed
to its keeping from external violence; the other their pre-
servation a 3far as possible from internal injustice and wrong.
The former duty the House of Commons always performed
in a liberal spirit ; the latter, he regretted to say, was by
some hon. gentlemen dealt with after a somewhat niggardly
fashion. (A laugh.) In that circumstance lay the great
difficulty of making provision for such cases as those to
which the clause applied ; but he could assure the commit-
tee that they need not be under any apprehension that the
prerogative of the Crown could be unduly exercised under its
operation by the appointment of new County Court judges,
inasmuch as it would be necessary to come to Parliament
for the purpose of obtaining a vote for the payment of
their salaries, and a sufficient check upon their creation
would thus be established. He might add that the adminis-
tration under the Bankruptcy Court in the provinces was
frequently not at all satisfactory, owing to the fact that
there were large districts throughout the country—some
60 or 70 miles in extent—and embracing a considerable
number of populous manufacturing towns, in which
the present machinery of the court was not ade-
quate to the due performance of its functions, and ho
had, therefore, deemed it right to take the poWer to create
additional courts in those localities.
Mr. E. JAMES was disposed to look upon the clause as
Placing too great a power in the hands of the Crown, while
be very much doubted whether the authority to turn loose
upon the country some 20 or 30 County Court judges would
be regarded by the public at large as promoting that internal
protection which the Attorney-General had very properly
stated it to be the duty of a Government to afford. (A
laugh.) If it were found that additional judges were re-
quired under the operation of the bill it would be very easy
at any time to apply to Parliament to effect that object—a
course, in his opinion, far preferable to enabling the Lord
Chancellor, as the clause proposed to do, to create those
functionaries ad libitum.
Sir F. GOLDSMID was of opinion that if the committee
were to pass the clause as it stood they would be as it were
recognising the probability of new judges being created by
the Crown, and would thus be incurring to some extent a
moral obligation to grant their salaries when applied for.
Under those circumstances it would be perhaps advisable
that a limit should be placed to the number of such appoint-
ments.
Mr. M. SMITH said that if power were given to the
Crown in the present bill to appoint additional judges, and
an application should afterwards be made to Parliament for
salaries, Parliament would in that case find itself clogged
by the action previously taken by the Crown under the
authority of a public act. It would be under the necessity
either of quarrelling with the appointment of the Crown, or
of granting the salaries as a matter of course. Another
reason for opposing the clause was that the jurisdiction
would be much better exercised by district commissioners
than by County Court judges.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL explained the course
which would be pursued under the clause. When her Ma-
jesty shnuld be of opinion that there was a necessity for a
new dist Act, the scheme would in the first instance be sub-
mitted to Parliament for its consideration, and if approved,
would then be promulgated. Parliament, therefore,
would not be surprised into any vote, nor would any ap-
pointment be made without its knowledge and sanction.
Mr. SMITH asked whether the hon. and learned gentle-
man would have any objection to introduce words to that
effect into the clause at a future stage ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied that the scheme
for a nr,w district must necessarily be submitted to Parlia-
ment before promulgation; but he had no objection to insert
words to that effect.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 were agreed to without discussion.
'On clause 11, relating to officers of the court,
Mr. NE WDE GAT E asked the Attorney-General whether
the salaries of the officers of County Courts were to be in-
creased in proportion to the expected increase of their duties,
and whether the salaries of the judges themselves were not
to be dealt with Ina similar manner ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the officers of the
County Courts were remunerated by fees, and the addi-
tional business would, of course, give them additional re-
muneration. lie did not propose to augment the salaries
of the County Court judges.
Mr. NEWDEGATE could not see why, if they could
command the fees in the case of the registrars, they should
not also bo able to give a just increase of salary to the
judges with an increase of business.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 12 was agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 11 were postponed.
On clause 1.5 being proposed,
"".11Ir. MURRAY expres,ed a hope that the official assig-
nee, as regiitrar, should not combine the offices named in
the 20th clause in connection with that now under conside-
ration, otherwise there would be no audit in the district.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that it would
be the most unreasonable thing in the world to allow the
-registrar of a County Court acting as official assignee to
send in his bill of costa and charges.
'I he clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 16, 17, and 18 were agreed to.
On clause 19,
Mr. MURRAY complained that in some local districts
fees of the most' exorbitant kind were charged. It would
be a great advantage if arrangements were made by which
one taxing master were appointed, all business being trans-
ferred to London, so that a uniform system might be
adopted.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the suggestion
a valuable one; the only difficulty was as to the arrange •
ment of machinery to give it effect with economy and de-
spatch. If the hon. member would embody his views in a
clause it might be considered on bringing up the report.
The clause was ordered to stand part of the bill.
Clause 20 was agreed to.
On clause 21, reducing the number of official assignees,
Mr. M. SMITH suggested that the clause se gto
hlsotuilndbe
postponed, as it entirely depended on the clauses r
the creditors' assignees, which would require a good deal of
consideration. The mercantile community were expecting
.a little too much if they expected that there could be any
very inexpensive collection of a bankrupt's assets.
bankrupthimself generally got in all the assets
wh i c were
e
easy of col'ection, and left the rest to be got in by the as-
signees.

Mr. MELLOR saw no object that was to be gained
_by
delaying this clause, which was perhaps more strongly de-
manded by the commercial community than any other por-
tion of the measure. Mercantile men professed their readi-
ness to undertake the duties of creditors' assignees.
Mr. ROEBUCK said they were told there was a cry
among the mercantile public for divesting official assignees
of.teir present functions. lie had learnt that cries were
often very senseless things, and he thought the present one
would prove one of the most senseless. When official as-
signees htut been got rid of he believed it would be found
that inefficient and useless persons had taken their place,
who would charge dearly for servicestbat were ill-performed,
and that then there would be a cry to lave the official as-
signees restored.
Mr. MALINS supported the recommidation that this
clause should be postponed. The objections he had previ-
ously expressed to this part of the bill had been in no de-
gree mitigated. Official assignees had no doubt been paid
too highly in the ease of large estates, but that was not
sufficient reason for abolishing them. It was desirable, it
the collection of assets, that there should be a public officer
into kbose hands they should all go.
Mr. MURRAY thought the time had arrived when offi-
cial assignees should be reduced both in number and in
fees ; and he hoped the clause would be at once proceeded
with.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not consent to
postpone the clause. (Hear.) No doubt it was the duty of
that house to consider whether any particular "cry" had a
t, In this case the general
foundation before they yielded to i

demand certainly was, that creditors should have restored

to them the administration of what was really their own

affairs—(hear) ; and he could not say that that de and was
unreasonable. Ile fully recognised the value of t e services
of the official assignees, especially in collecting mall debts,
because they had a largo staff of clerks, and co • d easily re-
sort to the commissioner or the judge. On •of the provi-
sions of the bill, therefore, intrusted to them he getting in
of debts not exceeding £lO, which they could do more
cheaply than a solicitor could. The number of these gentle-
men was at present, however, far too many, and, indeed, he
thought there would not be sufficient work for those whom
the bill proposed to retain.
Mr. M. SMITH did not assert that under no circum-
stances would mercantile men consent to act as creditors'
assignees. What he maintained was that the provisions of
this bill were too stringent and burdensome, and would
tend to deter such persons from undertaking these daties.
The clause was then agreed to.
rpon clause 22,
Mr. BRISCO wished to know whether it was intended
that the judge should have power to dismiss messengers
without any misconduct on their part. There were only five
messengers in, the London district, and one of them had held
his
dismiss
see fa
those
45 years.
eoffieers
after lt would,so he thought,
long
a serveb
service without
ile hard
houtant
compensation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the reasons for dis-
continuing any messenger would be stated in the order
made by the judge. The messengers were employed to take
posses: ion of property, and although the present holders of
those offices were very respectable gentlemen, yet their
duties were such as might be performed by very subordi-
nate officers.

i Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether it would be a
sufficient ground for dismissal that their services were no
longer required.

Mr. BRISCOE still thought it to be harsh to remove
men who had held these offices for 40 years without any
misconduct on their part.
The clause was then agreed to, as were other clauses up
to 26.
Upon clause 26,
_ _

Mr. MALINS referred to the position of the provisional
assignee of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, who, by this
clause, was to receive the same emolument as the other offi-
cial assignees. As that officer had always performed his
duties in a moat satisfactory manner it would be unfair to
reduce him now from £1,500, the amount of his present in-
come, to £1,200 per annum. He (Mr. Malins) proposed an
amendment to the effect that the provisional assignee should
continue to receive the same amount as he now derived from
his office.

Mr. MELLOR eaid the bill provided that the provisional
assignee df the Insolvent Debtors' Court should perform
the same duties as the official assignees. It would there-
fore be unfair that he should receive a different salary from
the official assignees.
Mr. 'WILLIAMS wished to know why the provisional
assignee should be placed in a better position than the offi-
cial assignees ?
Mr. MALINS thought it very hard that, after havinv.

discharged the duties of the office for 42 years, the gentle-
man in question should norm havehis salary cut down, espe-
cially as he would still have to the same amount of work.
Mr. HENLEY believed diet if they allowed the provi-
sional assignee to retain his present emoluments there
would be a difficulty in dealing with the official assignees.
He asked whether the emoluments wore in the shape of
fees or salary ?
Mr. MALINS—Partly fees and partly salary.
Mr. COLLIER deemed £1,200, the remuneration which
the provisional assignee would receive under the bill, amply
sufficient for the duties he had to perform.
The clause was agreed to.
Clauses from 27 to 35, both inclusive, were also agreed to.
In clause 36, providing for the payment of the salaries:of
the present officers of the Insolvent Debtors' Court,
Mr. MA LINS proposed to omit the words " as nearly:as
may be out of the same feuds, and payable in the same
manner in all respects, as if this act had not been passed,"
and to substitute for them, " and the same shall be paid
out of the fund standing to the credit of the Chief Regis-
trar's account."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL promised to consider
the matter before the report ; and upon that understanding
the clause was agreed to.
On clause 37,
Mr. E. JAMES inquired on what principle the scale of
remuneration to official assignees had been fixed. At pre-
sent he believed there was scarcely any uniformity in the
manner of their payment. The different estates were bal-
loted for, and, while a fortunate assignee got hold of proper-

ties which were largely remunerative, there were others
who in 10 or 15 years cleared little more than the amount
of their establishment charges. It ought not to be forgotten
in determining the payment to which they were to be en-
titled, that their duties under this measure would be mate-
rially lessened. He therefore moved that a fixed sum be
allowed them in place of the salary and allowances contem-
plated by the bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK asked the Attorney-G eneral whether he
had not last year been of opinion that these gentlemen were
entitled to more than £1,200 a-year ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was induced last
year, in consequence of representations made by a deputa-
tion of official assignees, to fix their maximum remuneration
at £1,500 a-year. The clause inserted for this purpose led
to a great deal of remonstrance, and was among other mat-
ters a reason why the bill had to be given up. Since that
time he had caused inquiries to be made, the answers to
which satisfied him that for several years previous to 1856
the average emoluments of these gentlemen did not amount
to £1,200 a-year; but by a return extending from the 11th
October, 1857, to the end of the year 18.59, it appeared that
their remuneration had largely increased. These gentlemen,
it should be remembered, were often placed in situations of
considerable peril; in some instances they had been made de -
fendants to suits and obliged to pay heavy costs; but to this
liability the bill contemplated they should no longer be ex-
posed, On referring to the measure by which their offices were
created he found that the original intention was that they
should receive £BOO a-year ; but having reference to their
length of service, to the altered nature of their position,
and to their average receipts for the last 10 or 12 years, ho
thought it would be found that £1,200 a-year was by no
means an exaggerated estimate.
Mr. M. SMITH remarked that this clause only provided
that the income tax should not exceed a certain sum ; it
did not provide for the other alternative, and state that it
should not be less than a given amount.
Sir M. PETO had been assured by one of the official
assignees that for 15 years their average income had been
£1,600 per annum; fur 12 years, £l,BOO ; and for 7 years
over £2,000.
Mr. MURRAY said that the official assignees who had
the maximum of profit seemed to have no more business
than those who had the minimum. He thought the proper
course would be to adopt the principle of the bill of last year,
and fix a minimum salary of £BOO, with fees. That was the
only way to get the official assignees to do their work. Two
of them had been examined, and both objected to take a
salary exclusively.
Mr. MALINS observed that by the clause, as it now
stood, the salary could not exceed £1,200, but it might be
only 12s. Something ought to be fixed certain, He could
not see the force of the observation of the hon. member for
Newcastle (Mr. Murray) that the official assignees could not
be got to do their duty without a salary in addition to fees.
As every other officer of the court was to bo paid by salary,
wby should an exception be made in the case of the official
assignees ?
Mr. BRISCOE suggested that the clause might be
amended by substituting the words " shall amount to" for
the words " shall not exceed." This would secure the offi-
cers a salary of £1,200 a-year.
Mr. A. SMITH said that so much depended on the dili-
gence used by the official assignees in the collection of the
assets, it would be better to pay them partly by salary and
partly by fees.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was willing to so alter
the clause that the proposed arrangement would apply to
the existing assignees, but that no assignee hereafter to bo
appointed would receive more than £1,200 a-year, Would
such an alteration meet the views of the hon. and learned
member for Marylebone ?
Mr. E. JAMES would be perfectly content with such a
settlement of the matter.
The amendment of the hon. and learned member (Mr.
James) was then, by leave, withdrawn ; and the clause
was postponed in order to give the Attorney-General an
opportunity of making his proposed alteration.
On clause 38, relating to the messengers,
Mr. MALINS asked the Attorney-General to postpone
it.

1 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assented.
Mr. JAMES hoped the hon. and learned member for
Wallingford would inform them on a future occasion what
was the proper definition of the term messenger, what
duties the messengers to Bankruptcy Courts performed,
what amount of money they had received, and how much
they returned to the income-tax. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MAL INS said the Bankruptcy messengers had had
for many years very important duties to perform, and he
had never heard that they had not performed them very
well. Whatever they had received they had received under
the law, and he thought tho house would be slow to leave
them suddenly in their old ago with scarcely any provision.
Mr. BRISCOE had just received two petitions from
messengers in Bankruptcy, but had not had time lo peruse
them. He had no doubt they contained important state-
ments, and he should take care to make himself master of
them.
Mr. SPOONER said that in the collection of assets
much depended on the vigilance and honesty of the mes-
sengers. It was often the ease that fraudulent bankrupts
concealed property, and it was the duty of the messenger
to discover it. It was a more important office than the hon.
and learned member for Marylebone seemed to suppose.
The clause was then postponed, and also clause 39, as to
the retiring annuity of the judge.
Upcm clause 40, which provides that officers who have
served 20 years, or who have before become incapacitated
by ill health, shall be entitled to pensions to the amount of
two-thirds of their salaries,
Mr. A. SMITH moved the addition of these words :
"and
these offices might be filled by men aged 253 and, they
-
&

would be entitled to retire, even though in good health,
when they were 45. While they held office they ought to
provide retiring pensions for themselves. (Hear.)

Th© ATTORNEY-GENERAL saw no objection to the
alteration if the officers were at liberty to retire when inca-
pacitated by ill health. •
The amendment wasagreed to, and the clause as amendoi

ordered to stand part of the bill.
Clause 41, referring to annuitants who accept other

offices, was agreed to.

On clause 42, which provides that the compensations
under Ist and 2d William IV., cap. 53, sections 52, 53, and
51, to the Patentee of Bankrupts, the former Commissioners
of Bankrupts, the Clerk of the Hanaper, and other officers of

the Court of Chaneery, shall be paid into the Bank of Eng-
land by the Commissioners of the Treasury out of moneys
yearly voted by Parliament,
§ir N. WILLOTIGHB? asked the committee whether
they were prepared to see a new item in the miscellaneous
estimates. The house last year refused to allow these pay-
ments to be made out of the Consolidated Fund, and he
now called upon them to say that they should tot be an-

nually voted by Parliament, bat continue to be paid out
of the fund from which they had been drawn for 40 years.
There was an ample find out of the interest of which

these payments could be made; and he objected to their
being thteNvh itpoh the public purse. He =toted that all
the words of the clause after the word "funds' be omitted.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that these pay-
ments were now made by statute, which required that they
should be paid ottt of a lima contributed by creditors in
their capacity of suitors for justice. This was objectionable
in principle, and wh.y should the committee refuse to cor-
rect the errors of past legislation ? If it was the duty of
the State to provide for the administration of justice, it was
also the duty of the State to do so at the expense of the
community. So far as the 13ankruptcy Cottrt performed
the public duty of administering justice in this important
branch of the law, it was the duty of the State to find the
funda necessary fur so doing. (llear, hear) All he asked
the Committee to do was to relieve 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 otit the great
injustice of this burden, and recommended that the Cold-
pensations hitherto 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 ho 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 those 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 ho 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,
1 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 bo in
the power of Parliament to deal with these compensations
at any future time, but, in fact, the hands of Parliament
would be 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 I aid by Parliament.
Mr. HENLEY observed that there could be no ground
for saying that Parliament should direct these coinpensa •
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. These 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 Irelar d.
The committee then divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against
Majority against 5O
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 43 was also agreed to.
Clause 41 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 hon. gentleman
would not press it forward in committee for some little
time yet, in order that time 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 be 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. DEEDES 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 0 be 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
cl
lt owna
sshould bl
ee, choe• e
bxet
lei ne
vs ievde, oe onlyb
being
h madethe im ia
voen sr
y.
.iTuhr sdb
11:

valuable measure.
Mr. E. JAMES urged that the second reading should be
deferred for a week or ten clays, and then referred to a select
committee. In fairness ho 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

expressed a hope that the measure would be fully considered
by a select committee.
Mr. BRIGHT said the bill had been only three or four
days before hon. members, and he thought that as it
was one of great importance it was advisable that some
delay should take place before the second reading, in order
that their respective constituencies might have time to
consider its provisions. He would therefore move that the
debate be adjourned for a fortnight. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. C. LEWIS said if ho thought that was the gene-
ral wish of the house he would accede to lit, but as there
was a general agreement as to the principle of the bill, he
thought the second reading might be taken now, especially
as ample time would be afforded for discussing details in
committee, which the bill would go into on Monday week,
after which it would be referred to a select committee.
Mr. BARROW objected to going into committee at s'o
early a period as Monday week.
Mr. WALPOLE supported the motion for reading the
bill a second time, as according to the Secretary of State's
arrangement, abundant opportunity would be afforded for
considering the provisions of the bill.
Mr. DEEDES supported the second reading of the bill.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the bill was
read a second time, and ordered to be committed this day
fortnight.

EMANCIPATION OF THE RUSSIAN

SERFS.

The important Ukase for the emancipation of the
Russian Serfs, expected to be promulgated in Feb-
ruary, is positively announced for March. A loan
of a very large amount was considered a necessary
preliminary to the appearance of the ordinance.
The plan adopted by the Russian Government late
last year—we are not certain how far it has been
persevered in—was to give each head of a serf
family the full property of his cabin, and of the
small garden or spot of ground in which it is
generally enclosed. In return for ceding this, as
well as for abandoning his right to the forced labour
of his serfs during so many days in the year, the
Russian landed proprietor was to receive an indem-
nity, partly paid in money, which the loan was to
provide, partly in bonds, which the gradual sale of
Crown property for a certain number of years was
to meet. It was also provided that the serfs them-
selves should by degrees and by instalments pay for
the property they received and the liberation from
labour granted them.
We are exceedingly loth to criticise the Russian
Emperor or his Government in their provisions for
a social change so generous and philanthropic ; but
it would be of no advantage to blink the great
difficulties that await the carrying out of so vast
and so weighty a project. In all countries the
population of which has fallen to a state of serfdom,
emancipation has been the work of time, attended
with obstructions and relapses ; and perhaps there
is no social revolution so difficult to accomplish as
that which converts the cultivator of the soil from
the condition of paying for the value of the ground
he tills in labour or in kind, to the superior relation
of paying in rent.
This change is easily effected, and indeed comes
of itself. in the ~ei7hbourhood of towns, where there
is a ready market for agricultural produce. But in
Rrussia these are few. In most countries of Europe
the clergy favoured the emancipation of the artisan,
and afforded him asylum and protection beneath
the towers of the abbey or the church. When a
town was thus formed, the ways of the peasants
who supplied it became assimilated to those of
the townsmen they supplied, so far as to receive a
money price, and consequently to be ready to pay
it. But the Church occupies no such position in
Russia; and instead of allowing artisans to form
independent congregations in towns, landed pro-
prietors have undertaken to employ them, keeping
their serfs all the time.
Imperial Ukase of emancipation will be all
^n it pretends to be to the artisan
`he same blessing to those por•
-gantry who are near to
-cons in Russia in
'otter. In

The_

and more ti,—

class. It will prove b..
tions of the agricultural pc.._
a market. But there arc wide reg._

^lns

which emancipation will prove a dean
many the landlords have no ready money, no la—
to pay for the daily labour of the peasant, no faci-
lities for either raising or selling produce so as to
find money to pay rent. In such districts things
will remain pretty much as they are at present, ex-
cept that the peasant, made proprietor of his cot-
tagd and garden, will feel a very diminished incen-
tive to work, and will probably make use of his
new liberty in not working at all. In that case,
proprietor and peasant will both suffer, and both
become poorer for the edict of forced emancipation.
Notwithstanding, we by no means address any
reproach to the Government. Without an impulse
from the higher power everything will stand still in
Russia. And it is better that innovations should
be made, and inconvenience arise, which may be
met by legislation and exertion, than that so fine a
country should stand still. There is one circum-
stance, and it should be largely taken into account,
which renders the great question of the relation of
the peasant to the soil a much more dangerous ques-
tion at present throughout the whole east of Europe
than it was in the west when the great change
took place there from serfdom to tenantry.
Throughout the east of Europe the peasant con-
siders that he has a right and property in the soil.
Any legislative act that would totally dispossess
him, and make a mere day labourer of him, would
create serious discontent and inevitable explosion.
Government, therefore, or assemblies who make a
grant of the fee simple of cottage and garden, do
a foolish thing, perhaps, in one sense, but an inevi-
table concession in the other. Such a grant renders
the Russian peasant half independent of either
labour or landlord, and is a terrible incentive to
idleness. But to propose to the serfs emancipation
without this, would to them wear the character of
spoliation ; and from all we learn, it would be met
by a general and formidable insurrection.
The worst of such social revolutions by ordinance
is, that they do not always find the people able or
instructed enough to profit by them. In the law-
collections of England and France we find grants
of emancipation for several lands and districts re-
peated over and over again. The peasantry could
not profit by freedom, and were obliged to relapse
into servitude. In the West then, as in Russia
now, the serf was but a grown child. He had land

marked out for him, seed provided for him, labour
in sufficient quantities directed now to this spot,
now to that. Is the serf everywhere ready, even
at the voice of the Emperor, to do all this for
himself? No doubt intelligent and philanthropic
landlords might do much. But these are rare, as
is sufficiently indicated by the fact that the Russian
nobles or gentry are universally opposed to the
Imperial measure. Government commissioners
might be sent down to aid and to direct ; but any
one acquainted with the corruption of Russian
functionaries must feel that such agents would
make matters infinitely worse.
We sincerely hope that we exaggerate the ob-
stacles in the way of the Emperor's noble act.
We shall watch it with care, and we shall be de-
lighted to note and to admit that we have been
mistaken. But, however slow or obstructed the
progress of emancipation may be in remote dis-
tricts, it is impossible to conceive a larger act of
justice and liberation to the immense numbers of
ingenious and industrious Russians who inhabit
towns. There every mechanic, smith, carpenter,
builder, baker, even shopkeeper, was a serf, com-
pelled to pay the greater part of his hard-won earn-
ings to a distant lord, who very often gathered
his whole income from this lucrative slave-gang.
If the Imperial Ukase did but put an end to this,
it would be in itself a blessing, of which it would be
impossible to extol too highly the beneficent re.
sults.

Even here, however, there will be for the present
generation the drawback of indemnifying existing
proprietors to a certain degree for what they lose.
The Emperor insists on cancelling no property in
serfs without indemnity ; and his financiers insist,
that since the State cannot, the serfs themselves
must pay this indemnity. For this, however, the
better class of serfs are prepared. Nor will any dif-
ficulties be found in this, not the least important
part of the transaction. But as to the rustic popu-
lation, it will be a very serious matter to free them,
yet induce them to work, to demand money pay-
ments of them in regions where no money pene-
trates, or to require provident habits of those who
have never worked but at a master's bidding.—
Daily News.