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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 22, 1861.

expi nience included in it. Beyond this occasional refortn,
not vitally endangering the frik:ivernment which offers it,
ID' q be offered with security according to the real con-
victions of those by r;nom it has been framed. In what
Utopia would 'du find any one so simple as to
think that 4...ti0d bills of 1852, of 1854, of 1859,
and of rertsented the ideas and judgment of their
sponsor etNvbat man would face the ridicule which in
any f2,lrcle. the statement of such a view would bring upon
14/64,. In the next place a separate reform is a barrier to
wither measures of importance. The bill of 1850 was car-
=ried in the same year, with the most important act which
has passed since 1833—the act for giving institutions to
Australia. The act of 1858 was carried in the same year
in which India was transferred to the Crown by legislation.
The bill of 1860, although it did not pass at all, threw
out every other measure (except those relating to the
budget) along with which it was proposed. A general
revision of our system may well defeat the genius and
capacity of statesmen who would prosper in the safe but
not less noble flight of amending it from time to time,
with the effective aid of both houses of Parliament.
But these considerations may be all renounced as insig-
nificant compared with the last I shall allude to. Occa-
sional Reform can never add to our foreign difficulties,
whereas large and much debated schemes must inevit-
ably aggravate them. While the peace of Europe
depends upon ono man, while Germany is fraught with
elements of discord, while the world contains aggressive
Powers, and this country is resolved to stand by its allies,
we cannot afford, all men will admit, to be a pre-occu-
pled, embittered, and disorganised society. (Hear, hear.)
Such any large and comprehensive project of Re-
form, such any new settlement of 1832, such any scheme
resembling the four which are discarded, must have at
least a tendency to make us. A
large and reconstructive
measure, however well conceived, must in some degree
array class against class, and party against party. When
the country is divided and convulsed it cannot be so
powerful against any Government which threatens Europe
and itself as when it still retains its coolness and its har-
mony. While land is hoping for concessions, while
boroughs are trembling for existence, while interests are
struggling for ascendancy, while public men are looking
to elections, a strong national enthusiasm cannot be main-
tained. The passions of each, class have already found an
object and a channel. This was not alone his view, it was the
d'eep, intense, and all the more intense because instinctive,
judgment of the public. Why with one voice did they
sweep away the ill-starred bill of 1854 when the Russian
war impended, but because they knew it would divide them,
and that division would be fatal to their interest ? But it
was not only in 18.54 that the state of Europe was at
variance with a re-construction of our Legislature ; 1852
found us engaged in a similar adventure. It also found a
military despotism suddenly restored, which, however
friendly it might be to us, made a sudden call on public
unanimity, and induced the country to revive the long-
abandoned force of the militia. In 1859 a European
war coincided with the general election, which a re-
constructive measure had produced, and few deny
that such a general election was a heavy blow to
our influence in Europe. If indeed the powers of the
world NI ere ready to suspend intrigue, diplomacy, and war
while our reconstruction was proceeding, if history entered
into an engagement to stand until a final project had been
carried, the case would be a different one. But an empire
like ours is too extensive in its parts, too varied in its
interests, and has too many points of contact with other
portions of the world to give a reasonable prospect of the
freedom and the vacancy a reconstruction calls for. The
person who looks forward to it may well remind us of the
benighted countryman in Horace, whose fashion it was to
stand by rivers in the firm belief that they would rapidly
exhaust themselves—
" Rusticus expectat dum defluat amnia."

(Cheers.) But when our Government announces that a 1
comprehensive project is impending, it invites the Powers
of the world to take advantage of the moment guaranteed to
them. A few weeks after the Government of 1853 solemnly
engaged to devote 1851 to a grand organic project, Prince
Menachikoff began his fatal expedition. It was not too
high a tribute to the calculation and sagacity for which the
late Czar was known that these events should be in some de-
gree associated. He well knew to what rejoinder he was
open. Itmight be said that these considerations wereas appli-
cable in 1831 as at this moment, and that if they had been
suffered to prevail the act of 1832 would never have been
carried. No doubt the hazard was as great at that time as
at any other, but the end in view was such as to balance the
risk to be encountered, while for that end occasional reform
would not have been sufficient. The country wanted to
transfer power from one class to another ; to create another
epoch in our history, and at a single blow to put an end to
the dominion of proprietors in boroughs. They wanted to
destroy interests which only popular excitement could
assail, to reverse the state of parties in the Legislature, to
pave the way to measures previously impossible. In a word
they wanted to achieve what they are now determined to
prohibit. And-if the ends are opposite the agencies should
vary. But as regards foreign policy itself, instead of
shrinking from, at that time, it stood in need of a large and
comprehensive measure to release and to advance it. Under
the old system we could not follow the ideas which Mr.
Canning had impressed upon the country when that system
was no longer governed by his mind and charmed by his
ascendancy. Two years, as he prophesied himself, were
sufficient to reverse much of what he had accomplished. In
order to return to those salutary principles which from 1827
to 1830 were eclipsed, but which have never since been inter-
rupted, a large and reconstructive measure was desirable
and necessary. (Hear, hear,) What lies at the bottom of
the favour with which comprehensive schemes in some
quarters are regarded is that, if carried, they would shut
out the prospects of further change and bring about an
absolute repose upon these questions. To men who had
watched events since 1818, such hopes would not appear to
have the shadow of foundation. What reason was there
to suppose that the same influences which weighed upon
the Minister in 1851, would not again coerce him ? These
facts deserve to be remembered. In the general election
of 1817 Reform was scarcely mentioned. Before the Par
'lenient which met at the close of that year expired, the
pledge to alter the Reform Act comprehensively and
vitally was given. The Government of 1846 came in with
the strictest understanding that organic change was not
to be included in its policy ; and by that very Govern-
ment the present difficulties of the question were created.
Where Was the security for permanence, as it clearly did
not rest in the consistency of Governments or fortitude of
statesmen! Was it in the generous forbearance of the
democratic party ? Why should a party whose strength
had just increased, as by a reconstructive scheme it must:
increase, be-more forbearing than it used to be? Would
you look for your security in general concurrence not to
touch these questions ? Will all the rising spirits in our
schools and nnirersities ? Will all the coming heroes of
subuiban counties' Will all Or, =pledged members of our
metropolitan constituencies join in this concurrence, and if
they do not what CAII be its value ? There is no secur:ty
whatever that the very session after a comprehensive mea-
sure has been passed, a comprehensive measure may not be
demanded. Pint setting this aside, and taking a more
favourab!e view of what might happen, if a new settlement
was not at once exposed and gibbeted, and followed by ano •
ther, to what would it be a preface except occasional reform,
whenever unforeseen facts, or popular opinion, or party cir-
outontances called for it ? Why not begin at once with that
Which, after any large and reconstructive scheme has been
adopted, you will enter on? (Hear.) At the same time
he knew that such a line was inadmissible if it was obnoxi-
ous to tho Democratic party of the country. But that very
party owed to it the only triumphs they had gained. They,
too, like older partici in the State, had found in reconstruc-
tive schemes an =mingled source of failure and disaster.
They had regarded with aversion and contempt the four
which Governments had offered them; and no wonder,
when protection of the voter by ballot, which all those
schemes denied, was among their favourite objects of acti-
vity. If the system of occasional reform was not adapted
to their sympathy, it would not in 1859, after the present
Government was formed, have found in Mr. Cobden a far
snore powerful exponent than it bad found in him to-night
before their lordships. He had only, therefore, to revert to
the position that occasional reform ought to be seriously
contemplated, if not at once embraced ; that the reduction
of the county franchise was the step which circumstances
indicated; and that justice to the freeholders prevented it
until its influence on their position had been estimated.
Whether or not the noble lord resolved to grant such infor-
mation, if the train of reasoning which ho had most im-
perfectly endeavoured to present to them, mixing with his
thoughts, improved by his reflections, and strengthened by
the larger range of illustration and experience the noble
lord could bring to bear upon it, induced him to glance back
at all that had occurred from 1848 to this moment, and to
weigh the lesson such a retrospect afforded before he ven-
tured for a fourth time to be connected with any large and
reconstructive scheme to alter the Reform Act; the moment
might arrive when the motion he had the honour to submit
would not be wholly useless to the country. (Cheers.) The
noble lord concluded in 'the terms of his motion.
tart GRA NVILLE said there would be no objection to
furnish the return moved for.
Their lordships then adjourned.
11°1;82 OP COMMONS.—(YrsTFR DAY.)
The Stt:sitp took the Chair at,,,four o'clock.
PRIVATE BITSI NESS
The Liverpool Ymproveraent Bill was. read a second
time. Several private bills were read a first time.
PETITIONS. •
Several petitions were presented for and against the
abolition of church rates; against the local assessment
d
bill , in favour of the Closing of public-houses oun
against legalising marriage with a deceased
wn Si
ssife's atyser
from British residents at Darjeeling, in the Himalayas,
and
its neighbourhood, stating the great increase of population
sind cultivation in those regions, complaining of the want
of communication with other parts of India, and praying
that the railway system might be extended in the direction
of Darjeeling; against any alteration in the Book of Common
Prayer, in favour of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill,
for the speedy introduction of a Reform Bill, &c.
GERMAN LEGION.

Mr. ADDERLEY moved an address for return of the
length, of time duritlg which the German Legion, at the
cape, had been or fall pay from the English Treasury;

the whole amount of their pay up to the present time ; and
under what parliamentary votes any part of such payment

had come.—Ordered.
THE WAR IN SOUTHERN ITALY.
Lord E. HOWARD asked the Secretary of State for

Foreign Affairs whether her Majesty's Gove ament would
use its influence with his Majesty King Vi A r Emmanuel
to prevent bloodshed in his present hou • success; and
would instruct its diplomatic and consular agents to keep
it fully informed of the measures ordered or adopted by the
present de facto Government of Southern Italy, for the
purpose of re-establishing order ?
Lord J. RUSSELL, who was very imperfectly heard in
the reporters' gallery, was understood to say that the Sar-
dinian army had acted with clemency in the war, except in
some particular occasions, and the Government of this
country had not interfered in the subject. From a commu-
nication received from the Sardinian Minister there was
every reason to believe that any further military operations
that might be necessary would be conducted in a humane
manner.

was out of their reilch. The principle of this bill was that
where there were debts and property, the property should
be obtained to pay the debts ; and there was protection
enough thrown around the debtor by these clauses. If a

debtor was abroad, the Court must be satisfied that he had
absconded, and was remaining abroad for the purpose of
avoiding the payments of his debts ; and after service of the
process, he must also have 60 days' notiee before any pro-
ceeding could be taken against him. He had told the At-
torney-General last year that his bill required more protec-
tion for the non-trading debtor, but that had effectually
been given by this measure. These clauses were of great
importance. They were framed not for the benefit of ere-

ditors only but also of debtors, and he greatly rejoiced that
the Attorney-General did not consent to postpone their dis-
cussion. If they were abandoned he would not give one
straw for the bill. It would not be worth while attending
the discussion ; but because they were retained ho should
give the bill his strenuous support.
Mr. TURNER thought if a non-trader;having means,
left the country without making proper provision for the

payment of his debt he deserved all the unpleasantness ho

would incur under this clause.
Mr. FITZGERALD maintained that the distinction
taken by his hon. and learned friend the member for Belfast
was a good one, because in case of a man going abroad draw-
ing his income from this country, it was perfectly easy to
bring an action against him, serve process abroad, and ob-
tain judgment exactly in the same manner as if he resided
in England. The allegation was that in case of the absence
of a person from this country, an affidavit by a creditor that

the debtor was abroad with the intention of delaying his
creditors would be sufficient to pnt the court in motion. He
was of opinion that if there was no evidence on the other
side, an affidavit, in which the creditor stated that to the
-best of his belief A. B. was abroad for that purpose, al-

lough it might be perfectly false, would be quite enough

to constitute an act of bankruptcy, (Hear.) Such was the;
impression which had been conveyed to him by men of con-
siderable eminence at the bar, and he should like to know
whether or not it was correct.
Sir. G. BOWYER thought the hon. and learned member
for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had not dealt with the real
point now before the committee. The question was, what
were the reasons why the ordinary process of law or
equity for the recovery of debts were insufficient in the
case of the non-trader, so as to justify the application to
trim of the extraordinary and stringent remedies of bank-
ruptcy? Bankruptcy was not required to compel a man to
pay his debts. If a debtor residing abroad drew his rents
from this country he might be served with process of law,

judgment and execution might be had against him, and
then his rents could be prevented from reaching him. Bank-
ruptcy was wanted in order to administer the law for par-
ticular purposes—viz., the purposes of trade; but if a man
was not a trader these reasons for bankruptcy did not exist.
Sir L. PALK thought the hon. and learned member for
Wallingford had effectually answered his own arguments,
for he had eulogised in magniloquent phrase the reforms in
the Court of Chancery, and proved most convincingly that
there was no necessity for the clause under discussion.
(Hear, and a laugh.) The bill unfairly enacted a heavier
penalty against the non-trader than against the trader. A
non-trader coming into possession of a heavily encumbered
estate, and striving, foolishly perhaps, to keep up the esta-
blishment maintained by his father before him, might be.
come temporarily overwhelmed with debt, and then this
measure would inflict on him all the irreparable evils of
bankruptcy. If the law was now insufficient to protect the
starving creditors of the man who remained abroad, let it
be amended. It was all very well to attack the landed
gentlemen of England ; but was it net the fact that trades-
men often pressed their goods upon young men whom they
knew to be the heirs to property ; and even lawyers them-
selves helped many such young men to their ruin. (Hear,
hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. E. JAMES denied that the bill laid a trap for the
landed gentry of England. It was only when a man either
went abroad to defraud his creditors, executed a deed for
the same purpose, or lay in prison 14 days to evade pay-
ment of his debts, that he would be liable to be made a
bankrupt. It was derogatory to the landowners of England
to appeal to them on behalf of persons coming within such a
category. The system of commerce and credit did not depend
on the bankrupt law, as some hon. members seemed to sup-
pose, but upon the character and respectability of those who
engaged is mercantile transactions. Nobody in business
trusted another man simply because he knew he might make
him a bankrupt. This clause would operate as a safeguard to
expectant heirs, who could now bo put in prison by usurers
under the Insolvent Act. Such young persons would not be
so likely to incur debts for which they might be made bank-
rupt. He believed that the clause would have the effect of
bringing home debtors who now remained abroad to defeat
their creditors. It did not, therefore, deserve to be ridiculed
as if it aimed at putting salt on the bird's tail. (A laugh.)
He was sure that hon. members would see that surrounded
by the safeguards now introduced into the bill, the landed
gentry would have no cause to fear the alteration of the

Sir F. KELLY sincerely wished well to the bill, and
therefore regretted that his first remarks upon it should ap-
pear at all to suggest any objection to it. He agreed en-
tirely in the principle that there should be no distinction
between traders and non-traders, but there were one or two
points which he would wish to suggest for the considera-
tion of the Attorney-General. He said nothing as to par-
ticular classes, because if it were made out to the satisfac-
tion of the judge that a debtor had gone abroad, or was re-
maining abroad to defeat his creditors, no doubt such a per-
son, whether trader or non-trader, ought to be brought
within the operation of the bankrupt law. But, as per-
sonal service was to be dispensed with, it might happen
that gentlemen who were abroad for pet fectly legitimate ob-
jects, without notice, and upon the affidavit of a creditor
that such non-trader was abroad to avoid iatisfying his debts,
such a person might be made bankrupt without his know-
ledge, and without being really guilty of the offence imputed
to him. There was no distinction between traders and non-
traders who happened to be abroad, and against whom a
judgment was recovered in this country. Take the case of
an officer in the army serving abroad who happened to owe
a few debts in this country, any creditor might obtain a
judgment against him which in a short time he could con-
vert into a ground for obtaining a fiat in bankruptcy. Ho
thought some clauses should be introduced to protect officers
and persons residing abroad for business purposes front being
exposed to the danger of being made bankrupt without
notice, and without any means of showing cause against
the issue of a fiat in bankruptcy against them, If that
were not done, ambassadors and consuls abroad might be
at the mercy of any creditor in this country. A clause
might easily be drawn up, giving to the judge a large dis-
cretion as to the cases in which he could issue a fiat in
bankruptcy against persons engaged in the public service
or continuously residing abroad, and he hoped that the At-
torney-General would turn his attention to that point be-
fore the clauses came again before the house upon the next
stage of the bill.
Mr. WALPOLE said the discussion had made an im-
pression upon his mind as to the necessity for the Commit-
tee on Public Business, which had been recently appointed,
and as to the advantages which the house was supposed to
possess in discussing the clauses of a bill in committee.
Whether they were now discussing a clause or not was not
very apparent. The Attorney- General had declined to
discuss these clauses, because hon. gentlemen who might
bo expected to oppose them were not prepared to state the
full grounds of their opposition. The consequence would be
that after passing all these clauses at the proper time when,
if at all, they should be minutely analyzed and discussed, it
was to be expected that at a future time there would be a
fuller debate upon them at a stage when the house would
not be in committee, and when the clauses could not be pro-
perly analyzed, the result of which might lead to the passing
of an imperfect and unsatisfactory measure. He regretted,
therefore, that they were not proceeding now to discuss each
clause at this the proper time. The hon. and learned gen-
tlemen who spoke last had forced this observation from him,
for he had been discussing all the clauses relating to this
branch of the subject, instead of addressing himself to the
particular clause before the committee. In fact, they were
now discussing the general principle, whether non-traders
should be put upon the same footing as traders, or, at least,
whether the laws relating to the two classes should be
assimilated. But that principle ought to have been dis-
cussed upon the second reading, or upon the clause which
led to that assimilation, and then there would have been a
chance of arriving at a clear result. But the hon, and
learned member fur Dundalk (Sir G. Bowyer) opposed the
principle of such assimilation, while the hon. and learned
member for East Suffolk supported it. But if he were in
favour of the principle, why did he not apply himself to
what was the main object of discussion at that moment—
viz., whether the application of that principle was suffi-
ciently guarded in extending it for the first time to the case
of non-traders ? Had the discussion taken place on that
basis, they would have made advantageous progress with the
bill ; but as they were now proceeding, the consideration of
the protections which non-traders ought to have would be
postponed to a time when they could not discuss them satis-
factorily. Ho was in favour of the principle of assimilation,
and also of the clauses in the bill relating to judgment-
debtor summons. He held that they should proceed on
the principle that whenever a judgment was obtained
against a non-trader, or whenever a debtor became liable
to have a judgment against him for the payment of a
debt which he refused to pay, then the law which was ap-
plicable to him should be assimilated to the law applicable
to the bankrupt. He had guarded the phrase because he
entirely agreed with what fell from his hsn. and learned
friend the member for Belfast as to hovi the non-trader
ought to be protected. The non-trader ought to be put in
the position either of one who had had a judgment against
him, and who refused to pay his debt, or of one against
whom a judgment might be obtained, but who evadel his
creditors in such a manner as to prevent them from getting
it. If the Attorney-General would proceed on that prin-
ciple, then he would go along with him to the full extent
of the measure. But in clause 82 the non-trader was not
put into the position of one who had a judgment against
him. The creditor was allowed to present a petition to the
c
Court of Bankruptcy for the payment of the debts, or ratherankrupty against the debtor. He
for an adjudication in b 82 applicable
advised the Attorney-General to make clause
to the trader only, and, when they came to the clause re-
lating to non -payment after the judgment debtor summons,.
-
to introduce another clause, drawn from clause 82, to fact

litate the creditor's process against a person who was resid-
ing abroad for the purpose of avoiding payment of his debts,
and to enable the creditor to obtain judgment on proof that
the debtor had received due notice of the claim against him.
As the clause now stood, the debtor might be made bank-

rupt before it was known whether or not he would pay his
debts. The presentation of the petition was a stigma upon
him which ought to be removed. Let the process be im-
proved; let it be made to retch the man, whether he went
abroad with or without his property, in such a manner
that the moment judgment, or what was equivalent to it,
was obta'ned the creditor could proceed upon it, and if he
would not pay what he owed, the whole of his property
should be taken for distribution among the creditors.

.._ _
(Hear, hear.) Let everything be done to make the process
speedy and effectual when once judgment had been obtained,
but let the debtor have an opportunity of answering the
claim before the stigma was placed upon him. If the Attor-

ney-General would adopt that suggestion it would remove
every objection to the assimilation of the two classes ; and
unless he did so many cases of hardship wouldundoubtedly
arise. For instance, a gentleman might go abroad owing
sundry debts, small in amount, but in the aggregate suffi-
cient to render him liable to be taken into the Bankruptcy
Court under this measure. A pstition might be presented
against him while he was abroad praying that adjudication
in bankruptcy might be awarded against him, and the
stigma might be fixed upon him before he knew anything
of the proceedings, or had an opportunity of arresting them
by instructing his solicitor to pay the debts. As the dis-
cussion of the principle involved in the clause had been
postponed to another time, ho would content himself with
throwing out these suggestions to his learned friend, who
would, he hoped, consent to afford the non-trader the pro-
tection to which he was entitled. (Hear, hear.) From
the consideration which he and his learned friend the
member for Belfast had bestowed on this question when in
office, he was satisfied that the principle he had indicated
was the right one, and it was upon that principle that they
intended to found the measure which they had in contem-
plation. (Hear, hear.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL deprecated the idea
that the discussion ought not to be proceeded with. They
never were better prepared for such a discussion than they
were at that moment, as was proved by the speeches of
hon. gentlemen on the other side. He begged his right
hon. friend (Mr. Walpole) to observe that he had framed
the measure in the very spirit of the speech which he
had just delivered. Indeed, had ho been admitted
into the secret counsels of his right hon. friend, he could
not have a more perfect agreement with him than that
which was expressed on the face of the bill. He under-
stood his right hon. friend to lay down the principle that a
non-trader ought to be put in the position of a person who
had had a judgment recovered against him, or against whom
a judgment might be obtained. It was entirely with refer-
ence to the latter position that the 82d clause had been
framed ; and it was because the law would have been de-
feated had the remedy been confined to the judgment-credi-
tor that it had been extended to the man who was entitled
to become one, although not yet in that position. A creditor
was placed by the 82d clause in exactly the condition of one
who had a right to obtain a judgment against a debtor. In
1852 the Common Law Procedure Act was passed for the
purpose of facilitating the service of process ; and accord-
ingly it was laid down as follows—that when the defendant
in an action, being a British subject, was out of the juris-
diction of the superior courts, it should be lawful for the
plaintiff (i.e., the creditor) to issue a writ of summons, and
the time for the appearance of the defendant should be
regulated by the distance from England of the place where
he was residing ; and on the court or judge being satisfied
that the cause of the action had arisen within the jurisdic-
tion, and that the writ had either been personally served
on the defendant or reasonable efforts had been made to do
so, and that it came to his knowledge, and that the
defendant either wilfully neglected to appear to such
writ or was living out of the jurisdiction of the
Court in order to defeat and delay his creditors—
then the Court, being satisfied of these things, was
entitled to award judgment against the defendant. In
the present measure he had done the ♦ery same thing.
The creditor was under this clause placed in precisely the
same position as a creditor who was now entitled to have
judgment given ; but instead of the execution being for the
benefit of the individual creditor, who happened to be first
in the race, it would be an universal execution which would
secure a just and equal distribution of the property of the
debtor among all his creditors, all of whom were equally
entitled to judgment. (Hear, hear.) This universal exe-
cution would be carried out under the name and by the law
of bankruptcy ; and this clause only applied to the abscond-
ing debtor the existing law, and laid down the principle
that when a creditor had proved the position of his debtor
to bo such as he had described, he should be entitled to
process, not limited to himself alone, but universal and
general, for the benefit of all the creditors who were in a
similar position. These were the grounds upon which this
clause was brought forward, and ho hoped that his right
hon. friend, whose objections were those of a lawyer and a
statesman, would feel that this was a sufficient answer to
them. The right hon. gentleman the member for Horsham
had expressed a fear that a creditor would, under this
clause, upon producing an affidavit stating his belief that
his debtor had gone abroad, or remained abroad with intent
to defeat or delay his creditors, be entitled to an adjudica-
tion of bankruptcy. He could assure his right hon. friend
that he had been misinformed. The males animus of the
debtor in going or remaining abroad must be proved by
overt acts, either of commission or omission; and, without
evidence of such acts, no tribunal would act upon the mere
belief of the creditor. The right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for the University of Cambridge had objected that the
presentation of the petition would attach a stigma ; but it
must be observed that the petition was nothing more than a
process for debt, nothing more than a writ; it was not a
matter of publicity or notoriety, and could not be enter-
tained by the court unless it was accompanied by prima
facie evidence that an act of bankruptcy had been com-
mitted. The hon. baronet the member for Dundalk asked,
why not have the ordinary process of law ? Did he not know
that in 19 out of 20 such cases as this clause was intended
to meet, the ordinary process of law was mocked at and
evaded ? Such was the fact, and it was in order to put an
end to that state of things that this clause had been intro-
duced. The bill would not be more stringent than common
honesty demanded, and he trusted that he should be sup-
ported by the committee in this attempt to bring the law of
England into conformity with the character for honesty and
integrity which the country had long enjoyed, but with
which its laws had hitherto been far from corresponding.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. RO LT did not think the non-traders of England were
liable to the imputation of want of honesty to which they
had been subjected by his hon. and learned friend. (Hear,
hear.) As, however, the committee had adopted the 81st
section he would not go into the general question, but
would confine his remarks to the clause under considera •
tion, which did not appear to him to afford sufficient pro-
tection to the non-trading portion of the community. By
the clause it was proposed to make it an act of bank-
ruptcy in a non-trader to go abroad with intent to defraud
his creditors, or, being abroad, to remain there with a
similar object, and on application, supported by satisfac-
tory evidence, power was given to the court to order that a
copy of the petition should be served upon the debtor, and
that the debtor should appear with certain restrictions as to
time and place. This application must necessarily be an ex
parte proceeding, and nothing could be easier than for a man
who was unprincipled enough to do so to give evidence suf.
ficiently strong to induce the judge to issue this order.
Much would, of course, depend on the individual judge, but
in the great majority of cases all the obtainable evidence
would be the oath of the applicant himself that the debt was
duo, that ho had requested payment, and that on the fol-
lowing day his debtor left the country, as he was satisfied,
and swore, to the best of his belief, with the object of evad-
ing payment. As regarded the service of the petition it was
to be assumed that the judge would grant a reasonable time ;
if, for instance, the debtor were in Paris a fortnight would
probably be allowed him to make his al pearance. But, if
service could not be effected, then the clause directed—with
a variety of alternatives which might be read as a paren-
thesis—that, if on hearing the petition the court should be
satisfied that an act of bankruptcy had been committed, such
debtor should be adjudged a bankrupt. The committee
would perceive that both the proceeding on which the order
was obtained in the ;first instance, and that en which the
ultimate ruling was obtained, were in their nature ex parte,
and thus a debtor who never had the least intention of de-
frauding any one, but simply happened to be absent for a
time, might be adjudged a bankrupt without ever being
heard in his own defence. (Hear, hear.) A debtor had simply
to say—" The last place I heard of him was so and so; I
have inquired there and cannot find him ; nobody knows
anything about him ;" and the impossibility of proving
service was shown. In dealing with evidence of that kind
it was not necessary that the creditor should be always
unscrupulous; he might be hot or hasty, or there might
have been some quarrel about his particular debt. (Hear.)
The remedy suggested by his hon. friend the member for
the University of Cambridge would go far to meet the
evils arising under this clause; and he did not think that
the objection had been adequately met by the hon. and
learned Attorney-General. He ventured to submit that it
was not enough to take the same proceedings to make a
man a bankrupt which sufficed to procure a judgment. Let
the Common Law Procedure Act be followed in the first
instance, and when a debtor had exhausted his remedy on
a judgment, then let him apply to the court for an adjudi-
cation of bankruptcy. (Hear, hear.) If some further safe-
guard than was provided by the clause did not exist, per-
sons living abroad would be placed in great peril. He,
therefore, thought with his hon. and learned friend that
judgment should first be obtained.
Mr. WALPOLE reiterated his former objections, and
suggested that alterations should be made in the clause to
meet the difficulty which he contended he had established.
The Al TORNEY-GENERAL observed that there was
no necessity whatever for the introduction of the proposed
words, for the clause under consideration was quite suffi-
cient for the purpose.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD was in favour of the insertion of
the words proposed, for in no case ought a man to be made
a bankrupt until a judgment had been obtained against
him on the part of a creditor.
Mr. BOVILL entirely concurred with the amendment
proposed by the right bon, gentleman the member for

Cambridge, but he would suggest that if the learned
Attorney-General did not agree that a judgment should at
first be obtained, he would at least adopt an amendment
that some application should be made to the debtor by the
creditor for payment of his debt.
Mr. M. SMITH thought the clause did not provide a suf-
ficient safeguard against parties leaving the country to
evade payment of their debts, and he hoped the clause would
be postponed for further consideration.
Mr. PULLER suggested the insertion of words which
would enable a man having gone abroad, not for fraudulent
purposes, to have the bankruptcy against him annulled

when he paid the debts he owed.
Mr. MALINS thought a notice of 40 or 60 days should

be given to a party before an act of bankruptcy was ad-

judged against him.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said proof would neces-

sarily be required to be given in all those cases, and in par-

ticular cases of what were called cases watts animi it was
most desirable that proof should be given ; and it should be
shown by the creditor in the obligations of proof imposed
upon him by the clause, that he had exhausted all the
means in his power to serve notice upon the debtor. He
should show by proof that ho endeavoured to discover his
residence abroad—if he supposed him to have gone abroad
—and in the event of his not succeeding in finding him,

then his next step should be to serve notice at his last known
place of abode. If he have succeeded in serving notice on
the debtor, and if the latter fail to appear, the creditor can
then make him a bankrupt, the Court of Bankruptcy hav-
ing had the necessary proof that the creditor had exhausted
all means that the law required.
Mr. BOVILL said, if the learned Attorney-General
would look into the statute of 1852, he would find that
proof of a debt was required to bo given before a judge be-
fore a writ was issued. Now, what they proposed here to
the Attorney •Gta,Gral to do was, to insert in the clause a
similar provision.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assented to the sugges-
tion, and the clause, as amended, was agreed to.
On clause 83,
Mr. JAMES said this section of the bill was objection-
able, on the ground that it proposed to enact that if a
debtor, whether a trader or a non-trader, should lie in a
prison 14 days without arranging with his creditors, ho
should be deemed to be in a state of bankruptcy. He
thought there ought to be a distinction made between a
trader and a non-trader in this matter. He would suppose
a young man having good prospects, who might be thrown
into prison for non-payment of damages in a case of breach
of promise of marriage, or other liability, and who, if suffi-
cient time were given him, might be able to arrange his
affairs, so as to discharge his liabilities ; but by this clause
he would be made a bankrupt if he was not able to settle
with his creditors within 14 days after he was cast into pri-
son. Now he (Mr. James) could not but think that the time
thus limited was too short, and that a person who was a
non-trader ought to be allowed three months, at least, to
settle with his creditors before declaring him a bankrupt;
and he would move, as an amendment, that the time of im-
prisonment in such cases be extended to three calender
months.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should be ex-
ceedingly happy, so far, to adopt the suggestion of his
hon. and learned friend, as to make a distinction between
a trader and non-trader ; but when he informed the hon.
and learned gentleman and the committee that one of the
objects of the bill was to effect, in time, the gradual aboli-
tion of imprisonment for debt, they would, perhaps, not
think 14 days' imprisonment, as indicating a state of bank
ruptcy, too short. In 14 days the debtor would be dis-
charged froM pridon, and then his affairs would be taken
cognisance of in the Court of Bankruptcy. One of his (the
Attorney-General's) objections was to make it a useless
thing for a creditor to send a debtor to prison, after he had
committed an act of bankruptcy, he (the Attorney-General)
thought that in a short time the creditors would think that
an adjudication in bankruptcy would be preferable. The
hon. and learned gentleman the member for Marylebone
must be aware that the introduction of the words which he
proposed, extending the imprisonment, prior to bankruptcy,
to three months, would very much mar one of the great
objects of the bill. The law at present was, that the trader
who remained 21 days in prison without satisfying his cre-
ditor's claim should be deemed to have committed an act of
bankruptcy; and he (the Attorney-General) proposed to
shorten th 6 time to 14 days. All he could say was, that
he thought the object of the clause would be entirely de-
feated, if he were to require such a long imprisonment as
three months prior to a man being regarded as in a position
of bankruptcy.
Mr. MOFFATT thought that all efforts of friends to
arrange a debtor's affairs, so as to avoid bankruptcy, might
be barred, if they allowed only 14 days to settle with credi-
tors. He thought the hon. and learned gentleman the At-
torney-General should allow a considerably longer period,
and therefore he should support the amendment of his hon.
friend the member for Marylebone.
Mr. MONTAGTJ SMITH was also disposed to support
the amendment in cases of parties who were non-traders.
Such a man when suddenly thrown into prison, might not,
in so short a time, be able to arrange his affairs by realising
his property. Every trader was bound to pay his debts ;
but the wheel of trade might not turn round in so short a
time.

Mr. AYRTON said it seemed to him that a distinction
should be made between traders and non-traders. With
respect to flip operation of the Law of Bankruptcy in this
country, he might gay it was most unsatisfactory, as com-
pared with that of other European countries. When ho was
chairman of a committee on the subject of their commercial
laws he remembered that all the witnesses that were ex-
amined stated that commercial credit on the Continent was
in a higher state than in England. In most commercial
countries there was a commercial code of laws, applicable
to commercial matters, but there was no such code in this
country. Unfortunately the law of bankruptcy in this
country had not been kept to traders. In France it was
otherwise, while in this country a man might go and buy
anything, and sell it in order to make himself a trader.
The great distinction in France was, that none but traders
could be made bankrupts. In England they were going
down in the direction of the immorality of the United
States, and not going forward in the direction of the mora-
lity of the great commercial countries of Europe.
Mr. BARROW agreed in the opinion that every man
should pay his debts ; but it appeared to him that the non-
trader or trader should have a longer time than 14 days in
order to enable him to endeavour to arrange his affairs
without being driven to bankruptcy. He agreed that three
months were too long, but certainly 14 days were, on the
other hand, too short.
Mr. JAMES ultimately consented to withdraw his
amendment, on the hen. and learned gentleman, the Atter-
ney-Gencral, having intimated that he would take the ques-
tion of the extension of the time into consideration.
The clause was then agreed to, subject to further consi-
deration.
Clause 84 was agreed to.
On clause 85,
Mr. AYRTON observed that he thought the clause
would operate harshly against an innocent creditor who re-
sorted to a hostile execution in order to obtain payment of
his debt. Under the operation of the clause he would pur-
sue the debtor and get execution, and then if the man should
become bankrupt within 30 days of the execution, he would
have to refund the proceeds of the execution for the benefit
of the creditors generally. Again, suppose the debtor to
have paid a debt, not from a voluntary preference, but on
demand, such a payment being protected by the existing
law, he should like to know whether that would be a pay-
ment with notice of an act of bankruptcy or not. Was an
execution levied on the goods of the debtor to be notice to
all the world of an act of bankruptcy ? If it was to be a pro-
tected payment, there would be this anomaly in the matter,
that a creditor might have received a considerable sum under
those circumstances, and not be obliged to refund it, while
another creditor who might have taken all the means in his
power to get, might have to refund the money he had ob-
tained for the general benefit of the estate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the hon. and
learned gentleman the member for the Tower Hamlets was
right in supposing that a new act of bankruptcy was defined
by the clause. If a man permitted his property to be seized
and taken in execution, the fact of his p:operty being thus
publicly sold, was to be acceptal as an act of bank-
ruptcy. The adjudication of bankruptcy ought not to
be founded on any but impeachable circumstances, and
the sale of the goods was a clear proof of insolvency ; for
no man having the means of payment would submit to such
a proceeding, that being understood to b; an act of bank-
ruptcy, the rest of the clause would be clear enough. The
subsequent part of the clause provided chat was to take
place in the event of there being no adjudication, and also
of there being one. There might certainly bo this anomaly,
that the execution creditor might be placed in a worse situa-
tion than the man who, without an execution, had gone to
the bankrupt to demand payment, and had obtained it
under a threat of bankruptcy. Great care was taken with
reference to the transaction of seizure and sale, so as to pro-
vide fully that the notoriety of the fact itself should be
notice of an act of bankruptcy. His answer to his hon. and
learned frierd, therefore, was this—that as the execution
creditor, if there were an adjudication, would be paid out of
the proceeds of the goods levied and sold, so also any other
creditor who has o';tainci a voluntary payment, or an en-
forced payment, from the bankrupt within the period of
time fixed in the clause, would be equally liable and bound
to repay the mon( y so received for the general benefit of the
creditors. The object of the clause was to put a stop to the
practice of seizing a man's goods, proceeding to a sale, and
sweeping off the whole of the property ; and its operation
would be this, that all moneys and property obtained from
the bankrupt after the act of bankruptcy, would be money
and property given up to the estate for the general benefit
of the creditors, provided the debtor were made a bankrupt
within 30 days.
Mr. AYRTON thought the provision of the clause
should be more extensive, and suggested to the Attorney-
General that not only the execution creditor, but any other
person, should be obliged to refund money and property to
the estate under the circumstances mentioned in the clause.
Sir F. KELLY expressed his approval of the suggestion.
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL consented to amend the
clause as proposed, thanking the hon. and learned gentle-
man for the suggestion.
Mr. HODGKINSON moved to insert these words :-
I)%it iu all cases in villa au accuti9u shall ))e levied, the

costs of such execution, and of any seizure or sale there-
under, shall be a first charge upon the goods seized, and
upon the proceeds of the sale thereof, and shall be deducted
from such proceeds." The hon. gentleman observed that he
had been induced to move that amendment out of conside-
ration to the situation of the debtor, upon whom it was un-
doubtedly hard that he should have his debts increased by

ject.

costs.
➢lr. M. SMITII said he thought it would bo extremely
unfair to the execution creditor, who had been wide awake,
and probably the means of getting something for the credi-
tors, to deprive hint of the costs of the execution.
The ATTORNEY-GEN ERAL explained that the pro-
posed amendment was unnecessary, and it was therefore

withdrawn.
Sir J. GOLDSMID remarked that this clause would
place sheriffs in a position of some difficulty if there were no
explanation reconciling it with clause 133 of the Bankruptcy
Consolidation Act.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that the last
passage of the clause would obviate any inconvenience of
the nature apprehended by the hon. gentleman.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 86,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved to insert in line
19, the words "exceeding £50."
The obtuse as amended, was agreed to.
Clause 87 was adopted without discussion.
On clause 88,
Mr. JAMES moved the omission of the words, "whether
he be a trader or not," and the insertion of the words, "or
being a non-trader, at the end of one calendar month."
After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK and the ATTOR-
NEY-GENERAL, the amendment was substantially accepted
and the clause adopted.
Clause 89 was agreed to.
Clause 90, fixing the rules under which the judgment
debtor summonses shall issue, was, after some explanation
by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL of those rules, agreed to, as
were clauses to 100.
On clause 101, declaring that debts contracted before the
act were not to support an adjudication in case of a non-
trader,

Mr. MALINS thought the clause was an error.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause had
been introduced in accordance with previous understanding.
The clause was agreed to, as were clauses up to 115.
On clause 116,
Mr. AYRT ON said that if non-traders were to be exempt
from payment of their debts on surrendering their property,
a similar privilege ought to be accorded to the working
classes of England as well as the rest of the community.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that ho only pro-
posed to continue the committing power of the county court
judges in cases of fraudulent contraction of slats. He pro-
posed to add to the clause that such persons would not be
entitled to their discharge by a petition in forma pauperis.
The clause as amended was agreed to.
Clause 117 was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress and obtained
leave to sit again on Monday next.
The house resumed.
MARKETS AND FAIRS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion that this bill be read a second time,
Lord NAAS objected to some of the details of the bill.
One of his objections was that there should be no increased
toll without increased accommodation. The bill contained
no clause for uniformity of weights and measures, and
this omission would lead to the perpetration of great
frauds. He had no hostile feeling towards the bill, but he
hoped it would be considered in committee.
Mr. V. SCULLY said he had not had sufficient time to
communicate with his constituents as to the provisions of
the bill, and he hoped the Government would afford time
for considering the measure before the second reading.
He believed that with respect to small fairs and markets,
this bill would cause great expense, and, therefore, the
effect would be that the bill would be inoperative.
Colonel DUNNE thought the bill was much wanted in
Ireland, and he should not, therefore, oppose the second
reading of the measure, although he objected to that clause
which gave power to close up certain fairs and markets.
Lord JOHN BROWNE objected to the proprietary
rights in markets and fairs being forfeited, and cited some
instances of hardship that would arise under its operation.
He thought that power should be given to the Lord-
Lieutenant to say what was the amount of the proprieto. s'
rights, and to what the proprietors should be entitled to
in the event of the fair or market being closed. Pie hoped
steps would be taken to make the weights and measures in
Ireland uniform.
Mr. GEORGE suggested that the second reading of the
bill should be postponed until after the coming assizes in
Ireland, when Irish members would receive instructions
respecting the measure. He admitted that a measure of
this kind was desirable, but he thought it would not be
delayed if the time he suggested were given to parties in-
terested in the measure and they had an opportunity of
expressing their opinion on the subject.
Mr. MAGUIRE supported the principle of the bill,
which, it was admitted, was wanted in Ireland. He thought
the proposal of the Secretary for Ireland, viz., that he
would not ask the house to go into committee on the bill
until after Easter, was a very fair one. He had received
letters from gentlemen in the county of Cork, in which he
was requested to give his support to a measure of this kind,
and that was the reason he supported the second reading.
The bill was then read a second time.
BANK OF ENGLAND PAYMENTS BILL.
On the motion that the house should go into committee
on this bill,
Mr. BASS said the bill was of a much more important
character than possibly the public supposed. He must
apologise for raising a discussion on such. an important queer•
tion, but he thought the power given to the Bank would
give it the control of the issues of the country, and produce
most dangerous results. In 1858 the Bank established a
rule with regard to its mode of discounting, but fluctuations
since had been greater than ever. Within the last year 13
or 14 changes had taken place in the rates of discount,
which had had a most injurious effect on the money-market.
First it was 21 per cent., then it was 41, then 5, and now it
was 8 per cent. ; producing by these fluctuations a greater
depression in the money market than had been known for
years. That was done to deprive their competitors in the
discount trade from the possibility of obtaining any assist-
ance from them, and the consequence was, as he (Mr.
Bass) had been informed by one of them, that they were
obliged to hold by them an amount of reserve in hands
for contingencies, which had the effect of creating
the present pressure. Then, again, the directors of the
Bank of England alleged as a reason for pursuing this
course that the discount houses had acted imprudently,
but they themselves were the parties who gave an
enormous credit to Streatfeild and Co., whose case they had
all seen within the last few months, and who certainly were
the most enormous impostors of modern times. The Bank
of England gave them £120,000 a short time before they
failed, and although they managed to cover themselves,
their confidence to the last remained so complete that on
every application made to them on the subject of those
people, they stated their house to be most irreproachable,
and of solvent responsibility. He (Mr. Bass) thought that
at a period when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going
to give them so great a favour for so long a time, they ought
not to have the power of raising or depressing the money
market by raising 5 per cent. one day and 6 another, and
all that done by very small majorities of the directors. He
wished to know from the right hon. gentleman if they were
to have a control over the issues of the country for 25 years,
or whether it would not be better to confine their operations
to the management of the public debt, and transfer the other
powers to some other company.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
surprised that his hon. friend should have called attention to
the subject at a period when a pressure was on the monetary
affairs of the country. As to the question he put to him, he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no difficulty what-
ever in answering. The hon. gentleman thinks that their
management of the public debt would continue to them a
direct, or at all events an indirect certainty of a continuance
of their present position as a bank of public business, and the
great agent for making the issues of the State. He could
assure him, however, that so far from giving them any new
title it would be the very reverse, because until the present
time they had been more or less under an impression
that the remuneration given to them was to be consi-
dered as a part or their privileges. Tho present bill
put an end to any such idea. If the hon. member re•
ferred to the acts of 1844 and 1838, he would see that
the agency of the Bank for the public debt was more
than once referred to in terms which, had it insisted on
its extreme rights, it might say that Parliament was
not at• liberty to interfere with them without a breach of
public faith. Instead of that the Government had detached
the operations of the public debt from the other business of
the Bank, and it will have no further concern with issues,
or its quasi trustehip in connexion with loan funds. With
regard to that peculiar portion of his hon. friend's speech
in which he impugned the conduct of the Bank with re-
spect to a largo mercantile house, who had entered into
large obligations, he could not but regret that his loon,
friend, in impugning its policy, and something more
than the policy of the directors, had not given intimation
of his intentions to some hon. member of the house3who
was connected with the Bank, in order that proper explana-
tions might be given. His hon. friend, with that clear and
accurate knowledge of the ease which he had obtained, must
be aware that the season through which they had just
passed had been one of considerable difficulty. There had
been no crisis, but it had been a zigzag movement in the
value of public securities approximating to a crisis—so that
it had been a very trying period both for the authorities of
the Bank and those who were placed in commercial relations
with it. The operations of the directors had been character-
ised by great prudence. As regarded the rule under which
the power of discounting which existed at certain periods
had been withheld from public bodies, who, no doubt were
to a certain extent competitors of the Bank, that was a
question which was very fully open to be discussed here-
after. But he must say that he did not think that in the
adoption of that rule the Bank had been guided by a nar-
row regard to any selfish interest. But so far as they felt
they had a sort of trust to discharge, their great desire and
ruling motive had been to act in the spirit of the law, and
to prevent the recurrence of those crises which all looked
back upon with such apprehension. (Hear.)
Mr, J 3485) is cxPlaiatien, said he had lawatimed t 9 an

•
h tis jut ention of referring to the sub-

hon. member present

Mr. CRAWFORD sa' id he thought he was the only
member referred t'"e ; bilt he must protest against matters
of private converst, ! held with the hon. member being
mentioned publicly in th e house. He should be fully con-
tent to rest the deft lice of the Bank directors upon the
statement of the hon.. '.member himself. His hon. friend
had complained that the price of money had varied so
much as three to four per cent. in the course of a year ;
but did any man pret Intl to say that the Bank of Eng-
land was responsible for the value of money in this coun-
try ? His hon. friend w' s the manufacturer of a com-
modity of consunrption up Al a large scale ; but could his
hon. friend pretend to rei ;•ulate the consumption of, and
demand for, that cot,lntodi\ ? All the Bank of England
could do was to follow t 1 ,e demand for money which
existed in the country. l'hen, as to the proceedings of
the Bank with regal 1.1 to certain stringent re-
gulations that they had at. 'opted, in placing money at the
free disposal of dealers in money in the City, he had this
remark to make—that perso us who were engaged in bank-
. _ _

ing business, whether as discs 'untors or holders of bills, were
supposed to hold a certain supply of money of their own
convertible securities, in orde r to meet any pressing de-
mand ; and it was not a proper course, instead of holding
a reserve of their own to have re course to the Bank of Eng-
land for that purpose. The Ban k directors were fully aware
of their responsibilities—they al mays acknowledged them,
and were always ready to act ur Lder a sense of those respon-
sibilities. As to the transaction s :between the Bank of Eng-
land and the large commercial establishments which had
been referred to, the Bank fell into the same error that
other people had fallen into. 'They Were misled, lent their
money, and took securities far it like others ; but the
transactions of the bunk, in its; private capacity, ought not
to be made the subject of discussion in Parliament, unless
by a distinct motion impugning its proceedings and con-
duct. When such a motion was made the directors would
be perfectly ready to answer. any charge made against them.
Mr. CONINGIIAIi4i said he could not allow the speech
of the hon. member for the City to pass unnoticed in one

respect, namely, that in which be compared the Bank of
England to the commercial enterprise of his hon. friend
Mr. Bass. It was open to co,mpetition. It was the fact
that under severe pressure. Government were compelled to
abrogate a law which had failed in its object—that object
being to prevent a panic, and to protect a commercial com-
munity from disasters arising from that cause. The next
great point, in his opinion, would be to terminate the exis-
tence of that law, which was assailed by the univerea
clamour of the commercial public.
Di e. F. CROSSLEY was glad to find that the provisions
of this did not at all bind the Government to maintain
conferred exclusively on the Bank of Eng-
the privileg
t a considerable degree of dissatisfaction
land. No dotni;
was felt respecting' it in the country ; and the value of
money, from whatever ca use, was more uniform at that
time than it had ever been
ince. He only regretted that
Vince.
the Chancellor of the Excheqs.'er had made that arrange-
ment for so long a term as 25 yors.
The house then went into committee.
Clause 1 was agreed to.
On clause 2,
Sir J. PAXTON moved to substitute 10 years instead of
2.5. The house was every way disposed to deal fairly with
the Bank, but there could be no reason for the continuance
of the privilege for so long a period of time, and as circum-
stances might occur long before its expiration, it would not
do for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have his hands
tied in the way they would be by this bill.
Mr. BUCHANAN observed that though the Bank of
England had no authority to fix the value of money, yet it
did so in times of pressure, and that in a manner which
acted detrimentally to trade. There was an opinion that
the monopoly of the Bank might be done away with, and a
number of banks substituted in its place, each providing
security for its own notes, and perhaps giving security to
the Government. He should support the amendment of
the hon. member for Coventry, unless the right hon. gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer should tell them that
they were already committed to the directors of the Bank
of England.
Mr. HANKEY observed that the object of the aide
which applied to the management of the public debt was
to relieve the public creditor of all doubt or difficulty with
reference to the time, place, and manner of the payment
of his dividends. Whether rightly or wrongly, the present
Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought fit to reduce the
charge for the management of the public debt ; but the
clause had no reference whatever to the management of
the public debt, for the Chancellor would still be at liberty
to make an arrangement witi; eight or ten other banks.
This was not the time for criticising too closely the ar-
rangements of the Bank. The Batik had invariably acted
with great consideration to the public interests in the ma-
nagement of the public debt. The bill proposed to establish
a limit to a very advantageous and provident arrangement
which had no limit, and it did not refer to the management
of the public debt.
Mr. BASS wished to know whether the hon. gentlemen
in that house who represented the Bank of England were
dissatisfied with the arrangements proposed to them by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. If so, let the bill be with-
drawn, and they would cry " quits." And he should like to
ask the right hon. gentleman what the Bank did for the
£7,000,000 of deposits which it had received.. (Hear, hear.)
The mere fact of its having in its possession the manage-
ment of the public debt, must necessarily tend to embrace
the whole business of the country. (Hear.)
Mr. CONINGH AM said it would be more just to attack
the law under which the directors of the Bank acted than
the Bank itself, for it was a law which was to a great ex-
tent compulsory. It would be more just to attack Lord
Overstone and others, who in establishing the present sys-
tem had repudiated utterly the principles laid down by Mill,
Fullerton, and Tooke. The Bank directors were to some
extent the creatures of circumstances, but if they could only
succeed in limiting the arrangements now existing there
would be some probability of putting an end to a highly
objectionable system.
Mr. FINLEY supported the amendment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
thought the house was misapprehending the question be-
fore it in consequence of not duly separating certain de-
partments of the business of the Bank. If that bill
passed it would still be perfectly open to Parliament to
deal with the questions of issue and the public balances,
and if the day should ever come when the question of issue
became a subject of legislation, that legislation would be of
a nature to secure to us the full fruits of what had already
been achieved by the wise statesman who considered th
subject before him. His hon. friend for Coventry appeared
to be under the impression that the bill would, by implica-
tion, fetter the freedom of Parliament' in its future action
with reference to the Bank. (Hear.) Well, if any gentle-
man would only read the correspondence which had passed
between himself and the Governor of the Bank of England,
ho would assent to the truth of his (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's) propositioe, and it need not be a matter of
argument, because the freedom of both parties was on
record, and acknowledged by the Bank itself. The letter of
the Governor of the Bank was itself an acknowledgment of
the separation now for the first time introduced into different
portions of the business of the Bank. Now, the principal
features of the case were these. There was first of all the
term of twenty-five years ; and he need not say that if the
hon. gentleman should succeed in his motion, it would
simply have the effect of cancelling his (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer's) humble labours, and of making them
revert to the operation of the present act, which the Bank
would be perfectly content to do, and of causing a loss to
the public of £50,000 a year. He did not consider that the
terms imposed on the Bank were hard terms, but, on the
contrary, that they yielded a fair amount of remuneration
for the business done. (Bear, hear.) He believed, how-
ever, that there was a wish, on the part of Parliament and
of the commercial world, that it should be a bill which
should direct the proceedings of the Legislature and o
Government with respect to the Bank of England. The ad-
vantages that would be had from it were, first, a profit of
£50,000 a year on the charge for the management of th
public debt ; secondly, increased services of the Bank for less
money ; and thirdly, to which they attached great importance,
the extrication of the whole subject of remuneration for
management from the influence of those very complicated con -
siderations involved in the structure of the loan acts. Any
man who studied the subject must see that the Bank was a
trustee on the part of the Government for the management
of the public loans and the payment of interest. The Bank
was a perpetual corporate person until the loan was paid off.
He thought the Bank had shown great liberality in its
transactions, but it was but fair 111 state that the, bargain
with the Bank for the management of the debt was a per-
manent arrangement, and one which could not be altered
without the consent of the Bank. It was therefore a great
public advantage for the country to get rid of that perpetual
obligation. lie thought the terms proposed by the Govern-
ment were equitable to the Bank and advantageous to the
public, and he hoped the hon. member would withdraw
his amendment.
After a few words from Mr. CROSSLEY, the amendment
was withdrawn, and the original motion was agreed to.
The clause was with some verbal amendments agreed to.
Clauses to 7 inclusive, with some amendments, were
agreed to.
The house then resumed.
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL,
This bill was read a second time.
LARCENY, &c., BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
FORGERY BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
The Coinage Offences Bill, the Accessories and Abettors
Bill, the Criminal Statute Bill, and the Law of Foreign
Countries Bill were severally read a second time.
The house then adjourned.

Locomotives were first dawned in the reign of Charles IT. ;
constant Improvements have made them perfection. The
same means have now so perfected Herring's magnetic
brushes and combs that they restore the colour to grey hair,
and cure neuralgia and nervous headache with all but un-
erring certainty. N.B.—Counterfeits are being made. Offices,
32, Basinghall-street, London.

LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, at
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TIIE Surf Office, No. 112,Strand ,
in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Middlesex,
FriclaY, February 22, 1863.