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

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

was out of their reach. 'the ptineiple of this bill was that
where there Were debts and property, the 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 Coutt 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. the't,'e bitiliseri were of great
importance. They were framed not for the benefit of cre-
ditors only but also of debtors, and he greatly rejoiced that
the Attorney-General did not consent to postpone their dis-
cussion. It they were abandoned he would hot give one
straw for the bill. It would not be worth while attending
the discussion; but because they were retained he should
give the bill his strenuous support.
Mr. TURNER thought if a non-trader, having means,
left the country Without nsahing proper provision for the
payment of his debt he deserved all the unpleasantness he
would incur under this clause.

Mr. FITZGERAtIi 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=
lainjudgment 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 ptit the court in motion: lie
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-
though 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 correet.

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
him of the extraordinary and stringent remediss of bank-
ruptcy? Bankruptcy was net 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,
itidgmbiat acid execution might be had against him, and
then his rents could be prevented from reaching him. Bank-
ruptcy was wanted in order to triminister the Jaw for par-
ticular purposes—viz., the purposes of trade; bitt if a man
was hot 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 tinder 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 tip the esta-
blishment maintained by his father before him, might be-
come temporarily overwhelmed with debt, and then this
measure would indict on him all the irreparable evils of
bankruptcy. If the law was now ineufficient 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 banktapt law, as some hon. members seemed to sup-
pose, but upon the character and respectability of those who
engaged in mercantile transactions. Nobody in business
trusted another man simply because he knew he might make
him a bankrupt. This clause would epera'e as a safeguard to
expectant heirs, who could now be 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
law.

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 ho weuld 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 satisfying 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 from 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 hop: d 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 berm 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
be 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 for 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 progTess 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. He 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-
Plicahle 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 hon. and learned
friend the member for Belfast as to how the non-trader
ought to be protected. The non-trader ought to be put in
the position either of one who tiad 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
t present
o the a petition
or rather
rtaot theh e
r
Court of Bankruptcy for the paym en debts,
o
advised the Attorney-General to make clause 82 applicable
for an adjudication in bankruptcy against the debtor. He
to the trader only, and, when they came to the clause re-
lating to non-payment after the judgment debtor summons,
to intreilnoe another clause, drawn from cla3ofi, t 9

litate the creditor's process against a person who was resid-
ing abided for the purpose of avoiding payment of his debts,
and to enable the creditor to obtain jiidgnient On proof that
the debtor had received due notice of the claim against him.
As the clauS3 now stood, the debtor might be made bank-
rupt before it was imovin 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-
prold; let it be made to reach the man, whether he went
abroad with or without his proptrty) in such a manner
that the moment judgment, or what was equivalent to it,
*as obtained the creditor eotild 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 debtof haVe an opportunity of answering the
claim before the stigma was plated upon him. If the Attor-
ney-General would adopt that suggestion it would remove
every objection to the assimilation of the classes i and
unless be did so many cases of hardship would undoubtedly
arise. For instance, a gentleman Might go abroad owing
sundry debts, small in amount, bitt in the aggregate stffl-
cleat to render hint lidble to be taken into the Bankruptcy
Court under this measure. A petition might he 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 proecceliegS, or 110 d 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, he 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, heat.) From
the consideration which he and his learned friend the
member fur 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 fotind 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 *ere 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 he been admitted
into the secret counsels of his right 1i m. friend, he could
not have a mere perfect agreement with him than that
which Was expressed oil the face of the bill. Ho 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 be :n 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 (1.5:, 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 knowledgel ,and that the
defendant either wilfully neglected to appear to such
writ or was living out of the jurisdiction of the
Court hi 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 ho had done the very 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 fie?,
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 be 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 he hoped that his right
hon. friend, whese 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 histright hon. friend
that ho had been misinformed. The mains 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 tho court unless it was accompanied by prima
facie evidence that an act of bankruptcy had been com-
mitted. Tho hon. baronet the member for Dundalk asked,
why not have the ordinary process of law ? Did he not know
that in 19 out 01'20 such cases as this clause was intended
to meet, the ordinary procesp 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. ROLT 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 re main there with a
similar object, and on application, supported by satisfac-
tory evidence, inwer 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 cx
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 he had requested payment, and that on the fol-
lowing day his debtor left the country, as he was satisflel,
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 arpearance. But, if
service could not be effected, then the clause directed—with
a variety of alternatives which might bo read as a paren-
thesis—that, if on hearing the petition the court should be
satisfied that an act of bankruptcy had been commit ted, 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 c n 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 ono, 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 AT TORNEY-GENERAL observed that there was
no necessity whatever for the introduction of the proposed
words, fur the clause under consideration IT/19 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 pn the part of a creditor. _ _

Mf.,BOVILL entirely concurred with the amendment
Pl:opfeed by the right hori, 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 malus animi it was
most desirable that proof should be given ; and it should be
,L,7n by the creditor in the obligations of proof imposed
.he clause, that he had exhausted all the
upon him by
o
means in his power to ft... 7 notice upon the debtor. He
should show by proof that hd ena.e,27 ured to discover his
residence abroad—if he supposed him to hav,; :one abroad
--and in the event of his not succeeding in finding ;i:ro,
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 la*, required.
Mr. BOVILL said, if the learned Attorney-General
would look into the statute of 1852, he watild find that
proof of a debt was required to be given before a judge be-
fore a Wtit was issued. Now, what they proposed here to
the Attorney •Generai 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 grotind that it proposed to enact that if a
debtor, whether a trader of a non-trader, should lie in a
prison 14 days without arranging With his creditors, he
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 .e;iven 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 ho 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 prison, 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 the time to 14 days. All he could say was, that
he thought the object of the clause would be entirely de-
feaL-..d, if he were to require such a long imprisonment as
three montil,:' prior to a man being regarded as in a position
of bankruptcy.
Mr. MOI'FATT thought that all efforts of friends to
arrange a debtor's affairs, so as to avoid bankruptcy, might
bo 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 consiflerably longer period,
and therefore he should support the amendment of his hon.
friend the member for Marylebone.
Mr. MONTAGU SMITH was also disposed it; 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 the operation of the Law of Bankruptcy in this
country, he might say it was most unsatisfactory, as com-
pared with that of other European countries. When he 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 is 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 Attor-
ney• General, having intimated that ho 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 saould like to know whether that would be a pay•
ment with notice of on 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 property being thus
publicly sold, was to be accepted 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 be an act of bank-
ruptcy, the rest of the clause would be clear enough. The
subsequent part of the clause provided what was to take
place in the event of there being no adjudication, and also
of there being one. There might certainly be this anomaly,
that the execution creditor might be placed in a worse situa-
tion than the man who, withoub 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-
♦ide fully that the notoriety of the fact itself should be
notice of an act of bankruptcy. His answer to his hon. and
learned frier d, 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 obtained a voluntary payment, or an en-
forced payment, from the bankrupt within tl period of
time fixed in the clause, would be equally liable and bound
to repay the money 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 :
" but in all cues in which an execution shall be 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 ho
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
costs.

Mr. M. SMITH said ho thought it would be extremely
unfair to the execution creditor, who had been wide awake,
and probably the means of getting something for the credi-
tors, to deprive him of the coats of the execution.
The AT rORNEY-GEN ERAL explained that the pro-
posed amendment was unnecessary, and it was therefore
withdrawn.

Sir J. GOLDSMIII 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
i 9, the words " exceeding ,t 50."
;:he clause as amended, was agreed to.
Clause B'7 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 SO, 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 clime was agreed to, as were clauses up to 115.

On clause 116,
Mr. AYRTON 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 be only pro-
posed to continue the committing power of the county court
judges in cases of fraudulent contraction of debts. 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 hootile feeling towards the bill, but he
hoped it would be considered in committee.
Mr. V. SCULLY said be had not had sufficient time to
communicate with his constituents as to the provisions of
the bill, and he hoped the GoverOment would afford time
for considering the measure before ilze 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 propriCtors'
rights, and to what the proprietors should be entitled to
in the event of the fair or market being closed. He 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 instructiDns
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,
• ^h it was admitted, was wanted in Ireland. He thought
the proposesof the Secretary for Ireland, viz., that he
would not ask tnt: house to go into committee on the bill
until after Easter,
was very fair one. He had received
letters from gentlemen in the coZtitY of Cork, in which he
easure of this kind,
was requested to give his support to a
and that was the reason he supported the sew and 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 ques-
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. cne 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 of their privileges. The 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 trustship 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 large mercantile house, who had entered into
largo obligations, he could not but regret that his hon,
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 house who
wait connected with the Bank, in order that proper explana.
tions might be given. His hon. friend, with that clear and
accurate knowledge of the case 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 folly 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, BASS, in explanation, said he had mentioned to an

hon. men ,ber present his intention of referring to the sub-
ject.
Mr. CIl AWFORD said he thought he was the only
member ret ffred to ; but ho must protest against matters
of private
uiversations held with the hon. member being,
nc
iblicly in the house. He should be fully con-
tent a
the defence of the Bank directors upon the
he hon. member himself. His hon. friend
hadta t
el) "lan
mentitoo redetpi
d that the price of money had varied so
smneehniael:tthorfit
three to four per cent. in the course of a year ;
but did any nat in pretend to say that the Bank of Eng-
land
try? wHasisreho s ible for the value of money in this coun-
try 9'riend was the manufacturer of a com-
modityo
pl et
fcons.umeoi -Ition upon a large scale; but could his
hon. friend c
to regulate the consumption of, and
demand for, t hat ct Tuniodity ? All the Bank of England
could do was to follow the demand for money which
existed in the country. Then, as to the proceedings of
the Bank w.ith reg,'rd to certain stringent re-
gulations that they had an 'opted, in placing money at the
ioncy in the City, he had this
free disposal of duelers in ii.
remark to make—ghat persons who were engaged in bank •
ing business, wheth eras discounts rs or holders of bills, were
supposed to hold a certain supply Gf money of their own
convertible securities, in order to meet „any pressing de-
ma ; and it was not a proper course, in tead of holding
a resorve of their ow n to have recourse to the sank of Eng-
land for that purpose. The Bank directors were.fully aware
of their rslsponsibiliti.es—they always acknowledgCd them
and were a: ways ready to act under a sense of those i:espon-
sibilities. As to the tran,sactions between the Bank of }:.og-
land and the 1, .rge commercial establishments which ba,,d
been referred toy the Bank fell into the same error that
()tiler people had fallen into. They were misled, lent their
money, and took securities for it like others ; but the
tranwetions of the Frank, in its private capacity, ought not
to be mode the subject of discussion in Parliamee7 unless
by a distinct motion impugning its proceedings and con-
, Act. wit,:n such a . motion was made the directors wouldi
be mody to answer anycharge made against them.
isr h
/NG:IIA M said he could not allow the speech
of
the i
Pe
member I 'or the City to pass unnoticed in one
respect,
in which be compared the Bank of
England to the Comm ercial enterprise of his hon. friend
i:
:ennalpt. NY
m ely , that
re Government were compelled to
Mr. Bass. It was: ope; '1 to competition. It was the fact
failed in its object—that object
'd to protect a commercial coin-
tahbartoguantdeear
Isaewverwebpilesbsuad
ttt
bmcainogitytofrpormevednitaaastpearialiacri,
eint
from that cause. The next
„,,,,11d be to terminate the exis-
t,,, of that law, which was assailed by the universe
cla,,nour of the commercial public.
MI% F. CROSSLEY was glad to find that the provisions
of this bill did not at all bind the Government to maintain
the privileges conferred exclusively, on the Bank of Eng-
land. No doubt a considerable degree of dissatisfaction.
was felt respecting it in the country ; and the value of
money, from win:loves. cause, was more uniform at that
time than it had ever been since. Ho only regretted that
the Chancellor 0-f the E. xchequer had made that arrange-
ment for so long a
term .as 25 years. •
The house then I,Jent OW committee.
Clause 1 was agreed to.

On clause 2,
Sir J. PAXTON MON •ed to substitute 10 years instead of
2.5. The house was ever,r 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 oircum-
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 t he value of money, yet it
(lid 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 doi2e away with, and a.
number of banks substituted in its place, each providing
security for its own notes, and perhaps giving security to
tile Government. Ho should support the amendment ,of
he hon. member for Coventry, unless the right hon. gentle-
mr‘n the Chancellor of the Exchequer should tell them that
the.,v were already committed to the directors of the Bank
of L.-gland.
Mr. HANKEY observed that the object of the acts
which .cipplied 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
ciorge for the management of the public debt; but the
ciaus,-‘ had no reference whatever to the management of
the public debt, for the Chancellor would still be at liberty
to make an arr angement with eight or ten other banks.
This wasP not tide time for criticising too closely the ar-
rangements of the Bank. The Bank had invariably acted
with great co:laid°. ration to the public interests in the ma-
nagement of the Pu,Mic debt. The bill proposed to establish
a limit to a very Adv.antageous and provident arrangement
which had no limit,. it did not refer to the management

of the public debt.
Mr. BASS wished ter know whether the hon. gentlemen
in that house who represe, rated 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
.g qm'ts." And he should like to
ask t.Le right hon. gentleman what the Bank did for the
£7,000,060 of deposits which it had re,'"eived. (Hear, hear.)
The mere fact of its having in its posseCsion the manage-
ment of the public obt, must necessarily tend to embrace
ale whole business of th' country. (Hear.)
Mr. CONINGHAM said :t wooild be more just to attack
the law under which the directors .of the Bank acted than
ich was to a great ex-
more just to attack Lord
the Bank itself, for it was a law wh.
tent compulsory. It would he
Overstone and others, who in estlfblishinj the present sys-
tem had repudiated utterly the principles lai.d down by Mill,
Fullerton, and Tooke. The Bank dit-ectors were to some
extent the creatures of circumstances, but if they could only
succeed in limiting the arrangements nov existing there
would be some probability of putting an en'd 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 tit
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,
he would assent to the truth of his (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's) proposition, and it need not be a matter of
ged by the Bank itself. The letter of
argument, beeQuse the freedom of both parties was on
Bank was itself an acknowledgment of
he first time introduced into different
record, and ackne;vied
the Governor of the
pthosrtsioenpasroaftiothnenbowusfinere::;
the Bank. Now, the principal
features of the case were these. There was first of all the
term of twenty-five years ; and ht., need not say that if the
hon. gentleman should succeed in his motion, it would
simply have the effect of cancelling his (ii,e Chancellor of
the Exchequer's) humble labours, and of Maklug them
revert to the operation of the present act, whit .11 the Bank
would be perfectly content to do, and of causink; a loss to
the public of £50,000 a year. He did not consider 4.that. the
terms imposed on the Bank were hard terms, but, os the •
contrary, that they yielded a fair amount of remuneration
for the business done. (Hear, hear.) Ho believed, how'.-
ever, that there was a wish, on the part of Parliammt 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 leaf;
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 raid off.
He thought the Bank had shown great liberality in its
transactions, but it was but fair to 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 tb.e consent of the Bank. It was therefore a great
public advantage for the country to get rid of that perpetual
obligation. He thought the terms propohed by the Govern-
ment were equitable to the Bank and advantageous to the
public, and ho 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 seccnd time.
The house then adjourned.

Locomotives were first dawned in the reign of Charles IL ;
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 Tim Sun Office, No. 112, Strand,
in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Middlesex,
Friday, February 22, Ispl.

~,

LT

--