The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-22 00:00:00

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

paid that since coming down to the house he had deter-
mined upon simply moving, " that any such statement" to
which he had alluded " should be referred to the committee
upon the bill, the said committee to inquire and report
thereupon." His object was to give permanent application
to the motion recently made by the noble earl near him (the
Earl of Derby), which was granted fur a special occasion.
His amendment was not intended al an obstruction to
public improvement*, nor was it adopted for that purpose.
All he asked was the insane of obtaining accurate and cor-
rect information of the number of hou3o to be displaced on
every occasion, in order that they might see how best they
could :reduce the evils consequent upon public improve-
ments, and which pressed must heavily upon great masses
ot the people.
Lord REDESDALF. had no objection to the proposition
of the noble lord. One of the bills came before him that day,
and he had made a report upon it at once ; but it was -very
difficult to get at the truth in these matters. The state •
ments made before him differed very materially as to the
character of the population of this district ; it was said that
it was largely composed of a population of a migratory
character, Irish and other strangers, who came from diffe-
rent parts; and if a return were made three years hence
not more than one-fourth of them would be found to re-
main in their houses. If so, they would not suffer so much
as might be supposed by the removal of their houses. The
noble earl said that the railway companies took the best
houses in the district ; but this must be entirely
a matter of necessity, for their own interest was to
take the worst and cheapest property. As to the returns of
the number of people who would be displaced, he believed
that the number would not be half that named in the return,
because where land WAS 50 expensive the companies would
ot take more than was necessary, and the returns included
all the people who lived within the limits of deviation al-
lowed to the companies. With the perfect concurrence of
the company to which he had referred he had introduced
two clauses into the bill, to the effect that they should run
cheap trains, and in the event, on an average of six months,
of there not being 100 persons conveyed by each of those
trains, such trains should be discontinued. But subse-
quently he thought it better to leave the question of dis-
continuance to the Board of Trade. The other proviso was
that the company should make provision themselves for the
residences of their own servants and their families, so that
they might not press on the overcrowded parts.
Earl GRANVILLE thought the noble earl had taken an
exaggerated view of the subject, under the most benevolent
feelings. He might mention that when the Prince Consort
went to see some of the property of the Duchy of Cornwall
he found it to be in a state that was disgraceful to the pro-
perty of his son. He caused fresh houses to be built, but
when he had done so he found it impossible to persuade the
people to leave the old houses which they had been in the
habit of living in. He saw no reason to object to the amend-
ment proposed, as he thought it would lead to further in-
quiry ; and:he suggested that it be referred to the standing
orders committee.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY agreed to the proposition
of the noble lord.
After a few observations from Lord REDESDALE the
motion was agreed to, and the bill was read a third time.
RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH BILL.

On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Lord LYVEDEN said ho was not going to oppose the
third reading of this bill, but he hoped the circumstances
out of which it arose would be a caution to the Government
not to enter into future engagements of this kind without
submitting the matter to Parliament. He hoped the Go-
vernment would take no steps, or encourage any expendi-
ture for recovering the cable or setting the company on their
legs again.
The Earl of CAITHNESS said he did not wish to pro-
long discussion on this subject, but still he wished to bring
shortly under the notice of their lordships the great danger
incurred in giving guarantees to companies of so preearious
a nature as electric telegraph companies, especially when
connected with submarine operations. As a director of an
electric telegraph company he could speak on the subject to
his coat, and the coat of the company with which he was
connected. It was thought that the wire when covered
with a coating of gutty percha was quite safe, but expe-
rience showed that the cable was very destructible. He
held a statement of the late Mr. R. Stephenson in his hand,
in which he said :—" I have no doubt the experience which
we have now acquired with regard to the durability of marine
cables is very unfavourable, that is, as regards their pre-
sent form and shape; but with greater lightness and less
gravity I have no doubt that submarine cables will even-
tually be extended over a large portion of the world. The
vitality of the cable is the great question. Some are worn
out and decay in five or six years, some endure for 10 years,
and some extend to 12, 14, or 15 years." He thought it
was unwise, therefore, to guarantee for 50 years such a com-
pany as the Red Sea Company, unless that company was
also bound to keep the line in good and effective working
order. He certainly should have desired a large guarantee
for his own line, because when the works were stopped, and
there were no outgoings, the company would have nothing
to do but to receive and pocket their money. (Hear, hear.)
There was a great difference in the cost of overland and
submarine telegraph lines. The cost of construction of an
overland telegraph was £3O per mile, of a submarine tele-
graph £3OO, and of an underground ono £l2O. The cost of
maintaining an overland telegraph was B per mile, and of
a submarine telegraph £25. But the matter was still worse
when there were no telegrams and no profits. (Hear,
hear.)
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said the subject of the
bill was to cure an omission in the original contract. With
regard to the conditions of the contract, they remained as
they originally stood. The Government would not be dis-
posed to give a guarantee to any company in future without
previously submitting the terms to Parliament. He agreed
with his noble friend who last spoke as to the serious prac-
tical difficulties which stood in the way of submarine tele-
graphs, and that till they had more knowledge on the sub-
ject they could not be sure of their practical working.
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
LAW OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second
reading of this bill, said the object of it was to obtain,
through the Foreign Secretary, an authoritative exposition
of the law of foreign countries when it was required,foroign
countries getting a reciprocal advantage from this country.
The motion was agreed to.
CHARITABLE USES BILL.
This bill was reported with amendments.
QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT BILL.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE, in moving the second read-
ing of this bill, said its object was to remove doubts which
existed as to the authority which the Legislative Council of
Queensland poesessed. The order in council constituting
the new colony of Queensland was issued in 1859, and it
gave to Queensland the constitution which previously ex-
isted in New South Wales. But in 1858 a local act was
passed by the Legislature of New South Wales which al-
tered their constitution to a considerable extent, as it ex •
tended the franchise and made other changes. It appeared
that this local act arrived here in the beginning of 1859,
but it escaped the attention of the Government up to
the time of the issuing of the order in council. Now, it
appeared that the principal judge of Queensland gave
it as his opinion that everything that was done under the
order in council was illegal, and the law officers here coin-
cided in that opinion. The principal object of the bill was
to cure that defect. It also contained a general clause,
providing that on the division of the colony the new colony
should take with it the constitution of that from which it
was separated. There were other minor provisions in the
bill respecting the boundaries.
The motion was then agreed to, and the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Kingston-upon-Thames and Leatherhead Road
Bill and Strathspey Railway Bill were read a third time
and passed.

PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented against the Parochial
Assessments Bill ; in favour of and against the Poor-law
Removal Act ; in favour of the Affirmation Bill ; for a cer-
tain addition to the bill regulating trade marks, &c.
THE GRANT TO MAYNOOTH.
Mr. WHALLEY said, seeing the hon. member for North
Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) in his place, he begged to ask
him whether it was his intention, during the present ses-
sion, to bring forward the bill for repealing the grant to
Maynooth College ?
Mr. SPOONER—I beg to say, in reply to the question
of the hon, member, that it is not my intention. If per-
mitted, I shall make some explanation. It is impossible for
any one to bring the matter before the house without--
(Order, order.)
The SPEAKER said that the hon. member was out of
order in entering into any explanation in reply to a question.
Mr. SPOONER—I wished to state my reasons. From
the state of my. eyes I am unable to read certain documents
which are necessary to be brought before the house.
fir. WHALLEY then gave notice that after Easter he
weAld bring in a bill for the repeal of the Maynooth grant.
an
thMETROPOLITAN DRAINAGE, &c.the Metreor"ticin of Mr. TITS, an address for returns from
Pelitan Board of Works, for different particulars
relativetn the Arainage of the metropolis,agreed to.
XETROPOLITAN DISTRICT.
.
Mr. PULLER
names :0f
all Parishes
an
_address for returns of the
Metropolitan l'elieezinclneled within the district of the
olitiot included within the district of
the
the AretiOrmili i,
te—
oi Works, together with
' I..aer
of Ach 'parishes, rticand
o a in respect of each
population ecording to f o all of them together ;
the
census of 1851 ; total
amount of assessment to propertyyeax
l tae
and a.x under schedule A in
the same for the
r
respect of houses for the .
Works;spect of the whole
year 1859 ; of the same particular, in
district of the Metropolitan Board of
of all parishes of whisk the whole or any
m otf the names
is included
within the 20 mile radius district over whiro:
the coal tax
is now collected, but which are not included within the di
police; and of the *m of
trict of the metropolitan
7
parishes included within the district of the InetrePolie--1-
police, but of which either the whole or some part is not
included within the 20 mile radius district over which the
coal tax is now collected.—Agreed to.
LORD REGISTER CLERK OF SCOTLAND.
Xr, CAIRD asked_ the Secretary of State for the Horne

Derartment whether the Government had come to any de-
cision with regard to the vacant Ace of Lord Clerk Regis-
ter in Scotland?
Sir G. C. LEWIS said it was not the intention
of the Government to continue the office in question. He
could not state the precise mode by which it could be ago.
lishcd, but if necessary he could ask for leave to bring in a
bill for that purpose after the Easter holidays.
BRISTOL CHANNEL PILOTAGE.
Mr. LANGTON asked the President of the Board ,of
Trade whether the provisional sanction of the Board o;
Trade had been given to the company incorporated by the
Ely Tidal Harbour and Railway Act, 1856, to act as a
1 pilotage authority within the Bristol Channel ; and, if so,
could the Local Act, 47 Geo. 3, c. 33, s. 9, be repealed pro-
visionally, or is a provisional sanction by the Board within
the powers granted to it by the Ely Act ?
Mr. M. GIBSON said that the Board of Trade had given
such sanction under powers which they possessed, and the
exercise of which was no contravention of the act alluded
to.

IMPRISONMENT OF A BRITISH SUBJECT AT
HONG KONG.

Mr. Alderman SALOMONS asked the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, if he could inform the house of
the circumstances under which a British subject had been
tried at Kanagawa by a court composed of the vice-consul

and three merchants as assessors ; whether the court so
composed agreed in the decision come to, and if the sen-
tence pronounced by the vice consul was fine, deportation
from Japan, and three months' imprisonment at Hong
Kong ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that Mr. Moss, the British
subject in question, had gone out armed with a
gun for the purpose of shooting game, while he was
in Japan. On his way home in the streets
of Kanagawa he was met by certain persons who were em-
ployed as police in the district, who advanced on
him with their swords. He immediately cocked
his gun, and threatened that he would fire on
them if they persevered, but some other persons came be-
hind him and took the gun from him, and while they were
doing so it went off, wounding one of the natives seriously.
He was afterwards transferred to the custody of the British
vice- consul, and was tried on the charge of having fire-arms
in the streets, which was against the law of the Japanese,
and of having deliberately fired the gun. He was tried,
found guilty of the former charge, but acquitted of the
latter. He was then condemned to deportation from Japan,
and to pay a fine of 1,000 dole. The assessors of the vice-
consul did not consider that Mr. Moss was guilty,
and the matter was referred to the Consul-General,
who confirmed the decision as to his offence, and added to it
a further punishment of three months' imprisonment in
Hong Kong. This, unfortunately, led to dissension. Some
British merchants considering that subjects of her Majesty
should not be required to conform to the modes and cus-
toms of the Japanese, whilst the Consul-General, Mr.
Alcock, was of opinion they should be strictly adhered to.
He (Lord J. Russell) entirely agreed with Mr. Alcock, and
was of opinion that a departure from the views of that
gentleman might lead to most serious results. (Hear.)
THE lONIAN ISLAND.

In reply to Mr. MAGurnE,
Mr. C. FORTESCUE, in the absence of Lord Palmer-

ston, replied to the question. On the opening of the lonian
Representative Chamber, in answer to the speech of the
Lord High Commissioner, certain charges were made
against the English Protectorate, against which the
Lord High Commissioner protested. Two papers
were laid on the table of the Chamber without
the sanction of the other department of the Legislature,
and it was demanded that an appeal should be made to
the States of Europe for the annexation of Greece.
The Lord Commissioner informed the Chamber that such
a proposition was unconstitutional, and exercised his right
by proroguing the Chamber. The papers in question would
add little or nothing to what he stated, but if their produc-
tion were moved for, the substance of them would be laid
on the table.

Mr. MAGUIRE then gave notice that he would move
for these papers, and also documents in connection with
the appointment of the present Chancellor of the Exche-
quer to the office he held in respect to the lonian Islands.
DEATH OF THE DUCHESS OF KENT—CLOSING
OF MUSIC HALLS, CASINOS, &c.

In reply to Mr. BERKELEY,
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that an instruction had been
given by the Lord Chamberlain for closing the theatres on
Saturday last, and he believed that that order had been
complied with. No order was given relative to that class
of places of amusement alluded to, as the Lord Chamber-
lain had no control over them, and for the same
reason no order would be given to them on Monday. He
proposed to re-introduce his bill, extending the powers of
the Lord Chamberlain to places of amusement not at pre-
sent under his control.

HIGHWAYS BILL.
In reply to Mr. BENTINCK,
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he would bring forward this
bill to-night if possible, but not after 10 o'clock.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.
In committee on stamp duty,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the following re-
solution That, in addition to the ordinary stamp duty,
there shall be charged an ad valorem stamp duty of is. upon
every LlOO of property comprised in every trust or other

deed or instrument required to be registered by any act of
the present session for amending the law relating to bank-
ruptcy and insolvency in England." The learned gentleman
explained that the object of the resolution was to fix the
maximum of duty, but that its precise amount would be
open to discussion when the clause was brought up to be
added to the bill.

After a short conversation the resolution was agreed to.
The house then resumed, and the report of amendments
on the bill were considered. i
Mr. BRISTOW moved the following new clause to follow
clause 138 :—" No bankrupt shall, after an adjudication in
bankruptcy, be liable to any action at law or suit in equity
(whether commenced prior or subsequent to such adjudica-
tion) for the breach or non-performance of any covenant or
agreement entered into by such bankrupt in any existing
lease or agreement for a lease."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the state of the law
upon this subject was that if a bankrupt had a lease it was
competent to the assignees to decline to accept t. The re-
sult was therefore understood to be that the lease remained
in the bankrupt, and that he would still be liable to all
claims that might arise out of the covenants of the lease.
That was rather hard. (Hear, hear.) The clause, however,
was imperfect, because if the assignees rejected the lease it
ought to be surrendered to the lessor. (Hear, hear.) He
(Sir R. Bethell) would take care that the subject should be
considered in another place if the hon. gentleman would
agree not to press the clause at the present moment.
Mr. HENLEY hoped that a provision would be made for
the surrender of the lease, otherwise he was not sure that
a bankrupt might not occupy the premises without paying
any rent for them ; for he supposed that the payment of
rent was cute of the covenants of the lease. (Hear.)
Sir F. KELLY thought the subject might be fairly left
in the hands of the Attorrey-General. There was, how-
ever, another omission which he wished to point out. A
man might borrow money, give a bond to secure its pay-
ment, and afterwards become bankrupt. But he might also
by way of collateral security have entered into a contract
with his creditor to insure his life and to indemnify him
for the payment of the premiums. After the bankruptcy,
as the bill stood, it would be competent to the creditor to
keep the policy alive, and the discharged bankrupt would
still remain liable to pay the premiums on a policy which
had really been entered into for the mere purpose of secur-
ing a debt that no longer existed. (Hear.)
The clause was not pressed.
Mr. MALINS then moved the following clause to follow
clause 163 :—" With respect to all persons heretofore bank.
rupt, and whose certificates of conformity shall have been
refused, it shall be, lawful for the court, at any time after
the expiration of three years from the time of, and notwith-
standing such refusal, to hear and determine the application
inthe absolute
same
mannerumetai ts
o subject
tfe if
d al ttoh e a nb
of any such bankrupt for an order of discharge, and there-
upon, if the court shall think fit, to grant an order of dis-
chi
ta dis-
charge,;
og nes,,. either
yanckorundpittinoyn
of
fr
suchct)n-
d applicant had taken place after the commencement of this
at
nt c
impropriety whicht. ' E
nv
his
sn punishment
ii f
la man
th e
e conduct
dm ceased,
business
ia iacrimeehaes
se
hot
uohuledlr
dennot
be followed
was
aaae
by a perpetual disqualification for trading.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the proposal *was
extremely reasonable and just, as wall as merciful. ani he
had no hesitation in giving it his assent. (Hear.)
The clause was therefore added to the bill.
Mr. L. GOWER moved the following clause :—' The
court, out of the estate and effects of the bankrupt, shall
order payment of all such parochial rates as flay be due
from him at the time of his being adjudicated a bankrupt."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assented to the clause, if
the following words were added to it " provided such rates
shall have become due in the year immediately preceding
the bankruptcy."
Mr. HENLEY said he thought taxes and rent ought to
go together. If six months were given to the landlord, the
same period should be allowed to the parish. He must say
he thought six months would be a much fairer time than
twelve months ; because no parochial rates ran on for more
than twelve months, at least they ought not. He moved
to substitute " six months" for "a year."
After some further conversation, Mr. Henley's amend-
ment was withdrawn,7and the words "provided such rates
shall have become due during the twelve months preceding
the bankruptcy," were added to the clause, which was then
agreed to.
Mr. HADFIELD moved the following clause :—" The
trustee or assignee, under any deed authorised by this act,
shall have power to sue in his own name for the debts and
demands of the bankrupt or insolvent, and the production
of every such deed shall bo evidence of the due execution
thereof without further proof." •
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the object he
sought to be obtained by the former part of the clause pro-
posed by his hon. and learned friend was already provided
for by a preceding section, the 203 d. With regard to the
Intter,part,of the clause, he cer:stizily thought it was far
btra°,44,:t4 competency of the House of Commons to enact
""u-3094leetion of every such deed should be evidence
of the due execution th I
ereof without further proof. (Hear,

oear.) He hoped his hon. and learned friend would not
•ess that part of the clause.

The clause was fin.ally withdrawn.

S'ir H. CAIRNS moved the following clause :—"lf any
debtor shall, at the time of adjudication, be liable upon any
bill of exchange or promissory note in respect of distinct
contracts as member of two or more firms carrying on sepa-
rate and distinct trades, and having distinct estates to be
wound up in bankruptcy, the circumstance that such firms
are in whole or in part composed of the same individuals
shall nut prevent proof and receipt of dividend in respect of
such distinct contracts against the estates respectively liable
upon such contracts."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this was a most im-
poricant subject, and he was much obliged to his hon. and
learnad friend for having drawn the attention of the com-
mittee to it. He proceeded to explain the object of the
clause, which was purely of a tecichical nature, and pro-
posed to add words which would extend the operation of
the clause to cases where one of the joint contractors was a
sole trader.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. MURRAY proposed amendments the effect of
which would be that the taxation of solicitors' bills in the
district court, instead of being settled by the local regis-
trars, as proposed by the bill, should be in all cases settled
in London. He said he had before him a report of a csse
from which it appeared that a local registrar, whose name
he would not mention, had improperly allowed himself cer-
tain fees, and the bill allowing such charges fell to the re •
gistrar's own duty to settle. The commissioner had acknow-
ledged that the registrar was in fault, but he said that the
money having been refunded that was enough, and no more
ilotice need be taken of the matter. This state of things
ought to be avoided. His object also was to secure uni-
formity of charge in London and the country.
Several amendments to clause 18 were agreed to ; one of
them, proposed by Sir F. KELLY, having reference to the
remuneration for additional duties imposed on the registrars
by this as
An amendment was proposed by Mr. MURRAY, with re-
ference to the taxation of bills of costs under the control of
the metropolitan court.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought such a provi-
sion would cause much practical inconvenience and expense,
by requiring solicitors engaged in bankruptcy business in
the local courts to send up to London and employ their
agents here to attend the taxation of their bills.

Mr. LOCKE called attention to that provision of the
27th clause by which the taxing-master of the Insolvent
Debtors Court was to be transferred to the Bankruptcy
Court, " and employed as general orders might direct."
He did not know the meaning of this phrase.
Mr. HADFIELD thought it would be inconvenient and
an enormous expense, both to creditors and their solicitors
in the country, that the latter should be obliged to come to
London to have their bills taxed from time to time. The
effect would be that the party who came up would get the
ear of the taxing-master, and everything would be decided
according to his representation.
Mr. MALINS observed that all common law bills were
taxed in London, and there would be some advantage in
having an uniform system of taxation.
At the :request of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, who re-
marked that sufficient notice of the amendment had not been
given,
Mr. MURRAY agreed to withdraw it.
Amendments proposed by the ATTOUNEY-GENERAL to
clauses 20 and 30 were agreed to.
On clause 40,
Mr. MALINS said that it would give the Lord Chancellor
power to grant two-thirds of their salary as a retiring pen-
sion to the present official assignees after 20 years' service,
previded they were 65 years of age. But one or two of
those gentlemen, although they had not attained that age,
were appointed in 1832, and were now anxious to retire.
He thought the 30 years' service, without the condition as
to age, should be taken as sufficient, and he moved an
amendment to that effect.
Mr. MrRRAY and Mr. CRAWFORD expressed their ap•
proval of the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there was a difficulty
here in point of principle, for the house had laid it down that
these officers ought not to retire unless two things con-
curred in their case, the 20 years' service, and the age of
65, except in cases of infirmity or sickness. It was now pro-
posed to make an exception or privilege for the benefit of
one or;two individuals. He could not say whether the house
would have no objectioa to de that.

Mr. HENLEY said the discussion had shown the incon-
venience of considering the bill without its being reprinted
with the amendments made in cpmmittee. (Hear, hear.)
The amendment was then agreed to.
Sir H. CAIRNS moved, at page 19, clause 82, line 31,
after " PrOvided always," to leave out to the end of the
clause, and insert " That before any adjudication in bank-
ruptcy shall be made against the debtor under this section,
the following rules shall be observed :-1. A copy of the
petition for adjudication shall be served personally on the
debtor, either within the jurisdiction, or in such place or
country, cr within such limits abroad, as the court shall,
i upon application for that purpose, direct. 2. Such copy
petition shall have endorsed thereon a memorandum, in a
form to be settled by a general order, specifyiag the time

within which the debtor is to appear on such petition: end
such time shall, when the service is to be made abroad, be
the time which the court shall think reasonable, having re-
gard to the place or country where the service is to be made.
3. In no case shall the time for appearance be less than

thirty days after service. 4. If at the expiration of the
time limited for appearance the court shall, on the hearing
of such petition, be satisfied that an act of bankruptcy has
been committed within the meaning of this section, it may
adjudge such debtor to be bankrupt," and to leave out clause
83. The hon. and learned gentleman said if non-traders were
to be brought under the operation of the bill it was desirable
to proceed with great caution, and to introduce sufficient
safeguards against any abuse of the provisions of the bill on
that subject. He thought there ought to be some further
safeguards than those contained in clause 82. (Hear, hear.)
The result of that clause would be this : If a non-trader,
who might be a member of that house, happened to be out
of the country, a statement might be made behind his back
to the effect that he had gone away with the intention of
defrauding his creditors. All the persons who made that
statement would really have to do would be to say that he
did not know in what part of the continent the non-trader
was to be found, and then he would ask the judge to be
allowed to serve the petition at his dwelling house, which
might be shut up, or only in charge of a servant. The con-
sequence might be, therefore, that when the gentleman
returned from his continental tour he might find that he
had in his absence been adjudicated a bankrupt, though
he had not left the country with any idea whatever of
defrauding his creditors. (Hear, hear.) By the amend-
ment, which would give additional safeguard, he simply
proposed that in all cases there should be a personal service
upon a debtor. (Hear.) The debtor would thus have an
opportunity of coming forward and being heard before he
was adjudicated a bankrupt. As they were now bringing
non- traders for the first time under the operation of a law
of this description he thought the proposal was a very fair
one, and he hoped it would be agreed to by the Attorney-
General.
Mr. HADFIELD hoped the hon. and learned gentleman
would not press the amendment. He could not understand
why non-traders should be altiwed to contract debts to any

amount, and then have so many privileges thrown around
them. (Hear.) The payment of just debts ought to be as
strictly enforced against the aristocracy and professional men
as against any other class. A trader was presumed by law
to be always at his place of business, but a non-trader who
was up to his ears in debt might be wandering up and down
the country like an Arab, and there would be the greatest
difficulty in finding his locus in quo. (Laughter.) He
held the doctrine that every man who bad contracted a debt
ought to pay for it, and he had no right to go from home on
pleasure until he had done so. (Laughter.) They ought to
make a non-trader keep books like a trader, and if he could

not pay his debts he ought to be brought before the Bank-
ruptcy Court. Sir Samuel Romilly was the first person
who had tried to break in upon the existing system, and

carry out the principle contained in this bill.

Sir G. BOWYER hoped the amendment would be use-
ful, and that it would be agreed to by the Attorney-Gene-
ral. At the same time he thought the amendment showed
the inexpediency of including non-traders under the bank-
ruptcy law, because it was evident that they eould not be
dealt with in the same manner as traders. The question
was not whether non-traders were equally bound with
traders to pay their debts, but whether non-traders ought
to be brought under an exceptional system of legislation in-
tended for traders. Ia his opinion this part of the bill was a
serious mistake in legislation. No exception to the general
law ought to be carried beyond the reasons on which that
exception was justified and founded. They ought not to
apply to non-traders that which was intended entirely for
the exigencies of trade and the circumstances in which
traders were placed. Instead of bringing non-traders under
this bill the Attorney-General should rather introduce a
specific measure extending to them the law of bankruptcy.
He could not make a non-trader a bankrupt without com-
mitting a solecism in the English language.

Mr. HENLEY hoped the At! orney-G eneral would agree
to the proposal of the hon. and learned member for Belfast.
He agreed with the hon. member for Sheffield that all
persons ought to pay their debts. With traders time was
the essence of the debt, but with non-traders that was not
the case.
Mr. ROEBUCK asked what would occur in this case.

Suppose an officer in the army was sent to India, and he
was there for eight or ten years, and suppose some one out
of pure malice should say that the officer owed him, say
£lOO, and ho should be cited to appear in the Bankruptcy
Court ? He could not appear. Would he under these cir-
cumstances he made bankrupt?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was utterly im-
possible to declare a man bankrupt under the circumstances
put by the hon. and learned member. No man could be
declared a bankrupt who was not preyed to have gone
abroad and remained abroad with intent to defraud his
creditors. To make a man bankrupt who had gone abroad
on the service of the Crown would be as preposterous as it
would have been to have made the hon. and learned member
bankrupt when he visited Austria recently. With regard to
the argument on the other side the hon. baronet had ob-
served that the whole controversy lay in this, what should
'be evidence of the intent, and what rules should be laid

down for the purpose of ascertaining the intent. He was
willing to agree 10 this—that the non-trader should not be
made a bankrupt unless the court was satisfied that he had
notice of the proceeding to make him so. He should there-
fore willingly concur in the proposed amendment, provided
his hon. and learned friend would agree to an addition
which he would propose, and which should form the fourth
rule, which should be as follows, "if such personal ser-
vice has not been effected the court must be satisfied that
every reasonable offort was made to effect the same, and
that the attempts to serve such person came to the know-
ledge of the debtor and were defeated by his conduct."
This in point of fact involved personal notice.
Sir H. CAIRNS said he was willing to make this addi-
tion to the rules. Where a person was endeavouring to
avoid a bankruptcy he thought a substituted service might
be allowed.

Mr. WALPOLE also concurred in the addition proposed
by the Attorney General.

Sir F. h EL LY said there were many cases in which per-
sons, non-traders, made deeds of gift and conveyances of
their property, or portions of it, as settlements for their
wives and families. These were looked upon as proper acts
in such persons, but the Court of Bankruptcy would look
upon them as fraudulent as against creditors, so that if a
gentleman who had been abroad for some years—an officer
say—was to execute one of these deeds of gift or settlements
for his family, he would be liable under this clause to be made
a bankrupt. Again, if proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court
were taken against an officer serving abroad he must appear
personally. That was the object of the process, and if he
did not appear he was liable to be made bankrupt. He en-
tirely concurred in the amendment of Sir H. Cairns.
Mr. MALINS observed that the clause did not mean that
the debtor should appear personally, but that he should
appear by his solicitor or authorised agent.
Sir G. BOWYER wished to know who was to bear the
expense of this personal service ? The bill might ruin a
man. First there was the expense of personal service ; then
there was the expense of coming home; and lastly, there
was the injury it might do his business to be called upon sud-
denly to leave it for the purpose of repairing to England.
And after all it might be a malicious charge suggested by
the envy of a rival, and supported by hard swearing. The
more the discussion proceeded the more insuperable the
difficulties by which the bill was surrounded would appear.
Perhaps members of that house might, some day, have ex-
perience of the effects of the bill, and then they would be
sorry that they had not bestowed more care upon its pre-
paration.

The amendment, with the addition proposed by the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL, was then agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed at the end of
clause 83 to add, "No debtor shall be adjudged bankrupt
on the ground of having lain in prison as aforesaid during
fourteen days, unless after he shall have been summoned he
shall not offer such security for the debt or debts in respect
of which he is imprisoned or detained, as the judge, com-
missioner, or registrar, whose duty it would bo otherwise
to adjudicate, shall deem reasonably sufficient."
Mr. HENLEY was much obliged to the Attorney-
General for the fair spirit in which he had met the objet •
tions which had been made to portions of the bill. He had
now made it uniform, and no person was now to be ad-
judged a bankrupt until he had been heard.
Sir G. BOWYER said it was clear from the 92d section
that the appearance of the person charged with an act of
bankruptcy must be personal ; and, therefore, he repeated
that if a man went abroad he would always be liable to be
brought back by any ill-conditioned person who chose to
swear that he had left the country for the purpose of evading
the payment of his debts.

Sir H. CAIRNS said that would be a very serious thing
if the fact were so ; but section 95 expressly declared that
no person should be obliged to appear personally who could
allege a lawful impediment. He would, therefore, only
have to send home an affidavit stating the fact.
Sir F. KELLY was much obliged to the hon. baronet for
calling attention to this point ; and he should be glad to
know how it was to be made to appear whether an impedi-
ment was a lawful one or not.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, appealed to the Speaker
whether it was competent to raise another discussion on
this subject after the clauses which referred to it had all
been passed.
The S PE AKEE thought the discussion was relevant.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the Attorney-General was rather
sharp in his practice. The bill was a very large one. It had
been suddenly brought in and had been carried through the
house with a haste that was almost unprecedented. (Cries
of " Oh, oh.") Oh, oh ! Well, how many hon. members
were there that understood it ? (Hear, hear.) He believed
tha list would be found a very small one. They must expect
the bill to be treated in a very different manner in another
place ; and if objections were raised and thoroughly dis-
cussed now, it would save much debate hereafter. (Hear.)
The motion was then agreed to.

On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the words
"if a trader" were inserted after "debtors," in clause 88,
line 2, page 22 ; and the words " in the case of a non trader"
were omitted from the heading of clause 98.

Mr. MALINS then moved to expunge clause 101, which
he said was inconsistent with the general scope of the bill.
The object of the measure was to meet an admitted public
erievan,-- Tbo.v warn co.4niu uu,auei Ur Feinuas wllo
had property and debts, but who went abroad in order that
they might enjoy the one and evade payment of the other.
He could not see on what possible principle of justice they
could prevent the application of the bill to debtors whose
liabilities were contracted before the passing of the act.
There were persons living just across the Channel whom
the clause would enable to laugh at their creditors, but who
ought to be made to pay their debts.

Mr. HENLEY objected to the alteration proposed by his
bon. and learned friend, as be thought it would give the
bill an unfair retrospective operation.

Mr. VANCE saw no hardship in allowing the clause to
be omitted, whereby parties who were non-traders would be
amenable for their debts like parties who were traders.

Sir M. PETO trusted the Attorney-General would yield
to the suggestion of the hon. and learned member for Wal-
lingford. There were a thousand persons now living out
of the country in order to evade the payment of their just
debts, and they cDuld only be reached by the proposal of his
hon. and learned friend.
After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK,

Mr. 'WALPOLE thought the clause was • most properly
introduced into a bill n hich made a material alteration in
the law for the first time, and which assimilated the law
applied to traders to non-traders. The clause simply stated
that no debt anterior to the passing of the bill should be
suffic!ent to support a petition for adjudication of bank-
ruptcy, but it did not provide that, after the passing of the
act, any creditor who brought an action on a debt incurred
anterior to the bankruptcy, and obtained a judgment, should
not then enforce the judgment against the property, and
also enable the court to adjudge the person in that particu-
lar case a bankrupt.

Mr. CRAWFORD thought that if the bill were made
retrospective in one case it ought to be made retrospective
in all.

Mr. HALIBURTON trusted the clause would be ex-
punged. The class of persons who would be affected by the
amendment were people who, after contracting debts, left
the country for the purpose of evading their creditors.
They were no credit to this country, and he should be glad
to see a measure passed which reached their iniquitous
case.

The ATTORNEY•GENERAL said that if this clause
remained in the bill, the benefit of the measure might ac-
crue to the next generation, but it would be comparatively
lost to the present. (Hear, hear.) This fact had been
forcibly brought to his mind by the number of letters he
had received remonstrating against the clause. It had
been argued that in striking the clause out the bill
would be made retrospective, but if that principle were
not to be applied in some cases, a proposed improvement
in our procedure might have no practical effect. There
could be no earthly reason why the general principles of
legislation should stop short of bankruptcy. (Hear, hear.)
Now that the house had fortunately arrived at a state of
unanimity with regard to the principle of putting non-
traders on the same footing as traders, he (the Attorney-
General) felt himself released from any pledge which he had
given under another state of circumstances. He should
submit the question to the house, to be dealt with as the
house should think fit, unfettered by any action on the part
of the Government. He wished to make the benefits of the
bill felt at once, and not to have them deferred until an
indefinite period. (Hear, hear.)
The clause was then negatived without a division.
Mr. AYRTON moved to leave out clauses 116 and 117.
He wished to put the small debtor on the same footing as
the large one, and that what should constitute ground for
the conditional discharge of one should be ground also for
the discharge of the other. By repealing these clauses he
did not intend to give any undue immunity to the small
debtor, because he also proposed at the beginning of clauses
141'and 142 the words " when the discharge of a bankrupt
shall be conditional as hereinafter provided."
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL said the difficulty of this
case consisted in this, that the house had introduced into
the County Court Acts the principle of penal imprisonment.
No doubt the poorer man and the wealthier were placed by
the bill under circumstances which were materially different.
The repeal of these clauses would have the effect of releas-
ing from prison every single person who had been com-
mitted by an order of the county court judges. A county
court judge was in a peculiar position. He could not issue
execution under what was called a capias at common law.
His power of inflicting imprisonment was obtained under
two statutes of the Queen. It became necessary for him
to exclude from the operations of the act all unfortunate
persons who had been imprisoned under the County
Court Acts. What would be the use of making a poor man
in gaol a bankrupt, when probably he had not ss. in the
world. He (the Attorney-General) hoped the house would
not consent by a side wind to annul the effect of the whole
of these County Court Acts.

Mr. ROEBUCK suggested to the Attorney-General that
ho should make it a criminal offence for any man to contract
a debt when he was in the position of being unable to dis-
charge his obligations.
Mr. HENLEY said the objection to this clause was
founded on an alleged inequality of treatment of rich and
poor. The county court judge was enabled, as he (Mr. Hen-
ley) understood, to imprison a man if he (the judge)
thought he could pay and would not, and moat of the pri.

soners in the gaol in his (Mr. Henley's) county were there
under committals of county court judges. His impression
rather was that all imprisonment for debt ought to be abo-
lished, except in cases of fraud in the largest and widest
sense. But he did not think it should depend on the judge's
opinion as to whether a man could pay his debts or not.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, interposing, said that
the judge's order could issue only if he found the man had
means to pay and did not. It was not a mere matter of
opinion.

Mr. HENLEY said that in a case of this sort, affecting
the debts and liabilities of a poor man, where a great many
persons were constantly in prison, imprisonment by a
county court judge was virtually an imprisonment for debt.
He trusted the Attorney-General would give the matter his
fullest consideration.

Mr. CONINOHAM supported the amendment.
The house divided—
For the clause
For the amendment 53-31
The clause was retained.

Mr. AYRTON objected to the position in which persons
in public employments were placed by clauses 141 and 142,
and moved the insertion of the words, " When the did-
charge of a bankrupt should be conditional, as hereinafter
provided," at the beginning of the first. His object was to
exempt public servants from future responsibility except in
case of fraud or misconduct.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the amend-
ment, and argued that when a person in public employment
contracted debts, power should be given to the judge to
allot a portion of his salary for the payment of his creditors.
After a few observations from Mr. ROEBUCK,
The amendment was negatived without a division.
In clause 159, line 27, the following words were added on
the motion of Mr. MURRAY,—" Provided that in case all
necessary parties agree, the court shall have power to assess
such damages without the intervention of a jury or a refe-
rence to a court of law."

Sir H. CAIRNS said he should propose to leave out
clauses 207 to 218 inclusive. These were what had been
called the dead men's clauses, which was not a very agree.
able name, but the reality was still less so. As they now
stood, if any man died who owed any debts, any creditor
three months after his death would have the power of sum-
moning his executor before the Bankruptcy Court or the
county court of the district where he had resided or carried
on business, and requiring the executor to make it clear
to the judge that the property of the dead was more than
sufficient to pay all his debts ; and if that was not made
clear, the judge would be empowered to wind up the estate
of the dead man in bankruptcy, and by an ex post facto
operation of the Pm to deClare him bankrupt, fixing thus a
stigma on his memory, and a cruel injury on the family he
had left behind him. Suppose, for instance, a Liverpool
merchant, who had resided in Cumberland or Staffordshire,
and who had died there, leaving an extensive business and
property to the extent of several hundred thousand pounds
in the form of bills and outstanding debts due to him; it
would be possible for any creditor of his to the amount of
a few pounds, to summon his executor three months after
his death before the county court judge in that place where
he died ; and unless the executor could then make
it clear that the merchant's property, in whatever
part of the world it might be, and consisting as it might of
securities not immediately to be realised, was more than
enough to pay, his debts, he would be adjudged a bank-
rupt, and his estate be wound up in bankruptcy, at the dis-
cretion of the nearest county court judge. The law of bank-
ruptcy always proceeded on the supposition of some act or
confession of bankruptcy having been done by a man in his
lifetime ; but here that was not the case. And the neces-
sity for making a man bankrupt, which was supposed to
exist whilst he was going on to spend his money and to
contract fresh debts, so that it was right for the law to in-
terfere and take the management of his property, could not
exist after the man was dead. He therefore moved to strike
out the 207th clause.

Mr. E. CRAUFURD said these clauses had been loudly
demanded by the mercantile interest, and they were intro-
duced into the bill expressly in fulfilment of a pledge given
to a large and influential deputation. There was an address
or memorial in favour of these provisions which had been
sent up with the signatures of 89 of the principal commer-
cial or manufacturing firms. Such an expression of opinion
should induce the house to pause before rejecting these
clauses, which were likely, in many cases, to afford the
means of administering an insolvent estate in the local
courts, instead of throwing it into Chancery. The coun-
try should have an opportunity of ascertaining by experi-
ment the practical merits of-such a system, which might be
decided upon finally after a few years' trial of its working.
It was a very fallacious argument to say that the stigma of
bankruptcy would be cast upon the family of a man who
had died leaving some debts. How could they be protected
against that which was the effect of the conduct of their
deceased relative ? He believed that the clauses now under
discussion would confer a great boon upon this country,
a mode of administration of estates similar to that which
prevailed north of the Tweed, and which was there found to
work extremely well.

Mr. WALPOLE said he should be glad to know whether
the mercantile community, who were said to be in favour of
these clauses, were fully aware of what their effect would

ne bt,ll. v ;r am rem etrect Of thcac clau.BoB
were fully appreciated, persons of the mercantile interest
would be the first to desire their rejection. He should con-
ceive that the hon. and learned gentleman's object in insert-
ing these clauses was to provide for dealing with small
estates in the country, which might, on the death of the
persons to whom they belonged, be as well administered by
the local court as by the Court of Chancery. But the sys-
tem now proposed was too large and extensive in its applica-
tion; and, although the object was in itself a good one, it
had nothing to do with the question of bankruptcy, but
should rather be dealt with in a separate bill. The provi-
sions hera inserted were indeed quite inconsistant with the
general objects of this bill to amend the law of bankruptcy,
for, whereas it was a great object of the bill to lead the debtor
and creditor to adjust their differences by a composition or
arrangement out of court, the effect of these clauses would
be in every case where a person had died leaving any debts,
to bring his estate into court. Let the house mark what
they were doing. It was most reasonable, when a person
died, that his relatives should be allowed an interval of time
to look about them, for the purpose of realising his estate,
paying his debts, and preserving the residue. If only three
months were allowed, they would force the executors to sell
the property at a great disadvantage, and in doing that they
would inflict a monstrous injury upon the estate, which the
next of kin and relatives would be entitled to. The effect
of the clause would be to drive all parties into the Court of
Chancery to protect themselves and their property. His
hon. and learned friend would see that these clauses had
really nothing to do with bankruptcy law, which was de-
vised for the purpose of producing an equal distribution of
the assets among all the creditors. He would appeal to his
horf. and learned friend to withdraw these clauses from the
present bill, and to bring in another bill w ith clauses framed
for the purpose of meeting the evils which required a re-
medy, and he ventured to say such a measure would be
supported on both sides of the house.

Mr. CRAWFORD hoped that the hon. and learned
Attorney-General would not withdraw these clauses, as the
mercantile classes, who had been well advised and knew
what they were asking for, desired their retention. No less
than 30 banking houses in London, and several banking.
establishments in different parts of the country, were anxi-
ous that these clauses should become law.

Mr. HADFIELD said he felt assured that not less than
10,000 mercantile firms were anxious to have these clauses
retained. He would ask whether a debtor who had died was
to be more considered than abody of suffering creditors who
were kept out of their money.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said these clause& were
recommended some years ago by one of the most illustrious
lawyers, now an ornament in the other house, and they had
been introduced into this bill by the recommendation of a
large body of mercantile men. He gave them a promise to
introduce them, and he had done so, but he should himself
prefer their being limited in point of amount, and then he
believed they would work well. lie did not think it would
be wise to send this kind of business to local courts which
they, in their institution, were not intended to transact, and
he would observe that one of the great advantages of Chan-
cery was that if after a person died an action was brought
to recover a debt, the executors could come at once to the
court and obtain an order of injunction against the action,
axd then administer the estate equitably. Now the County
Courts did not possess this power. lie differed from his
hon. and lean-led friend in thinking that clauses like these
had no place in a bankruptcy bill. He earnestly begged his
hon. friend behind him to accede to the proposition which he
was about to make, viz., that in clause 207 after the word
" debtor" in line 13 to strike out all the words that followed
down to and inclusive of the word "bankruptcy" in the
loth line, and in lieu of those words to insert the following,
"provided it be stated in such petition, and reasonable proof
be given of such statement, that /he assets of the deceased
debtor do not exceed £5OO, and that they are insufficient for
the payment of his debts." That, he believed, would limit
the operation of the clause to insolvent estates to £5OO, and
meet the objections which had been urged to the clause.

Mr. MALINS said that no doubt what his hon. and
learned friend had proposed would be a modification of and
greatly improve the clause. He thought it, however, so
essentially vicious in principle that nothing would satisfy
him but its being expunged altogether.
Mr. JACKSON hoped the house would agree to the
proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney-General, and
he begged to move to that effect.
Sir H. CAIRNS should like to ask the Speaker whether
it was competent upon a motion being put that a clause
should stand part of a bill to move an amendment upon that
clause. (Hear, hear.) He apprehenied that the only mo-
tion which at present could be decided by the house was
whether or not that clause stand part of the bill.
The SPEAK ER said the question then before the house
was whether the clause should stand part of the bill, and he
did not think the clause could be expunged except by con-
sent of the hon. member who proposed it.
The house then divided on the question that clause 207
stand part of the bill.
The numbers were—
Ayes ll9
Noes
Majority
The announcement of the numbers was received with
cheers from the Opposition benches,

On the motion of Sir H. CAIRNS,
Clauses 207 to 218 (commonly called " The dead men's
clauses") were struck out.
Mr. VANCE moved to add to the end of clause 246—" If
being a trader he shall, within three months next before the
filing of the petition for adjudication, pawn, pledge, or dis-
pose of otherwise than by bona fine transactions in the ordi-
nary way of his trade, any of his goods or chattels which
have been obtained on credit and remain unpaid for."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had no objection
to the addition.
Mr. CRAWFORD thought it should extend to non-
traders.
The motion was then agreed to.
Sir H. CAIRNS said he had an alteration to propose
in the interpretation clause, in consequence of the
omission of the 101st clause. In consenting to the omission
of that clause he thought his hon. and learned friend (the
Attorney-General) yielded too much to his hon.and learned
friend (Mr. Matins), who appeared somewhat insane with
regard to non-traders. It might be very proper to subject
non-traders to the operation of the bankruptcy law in fu-
ture, but he submitted to the house that nothing could be
more inconsistent with justice than to subject non-traders
who contracted debts in the existing state of the law to the
provisions of an act which they could not know and could
never contemplate at the time of contracting those debts.
He was sure many members must have been taken by sur-
prise at the change to which his hon. and learned f, iend
too easily assented. In order therefore to rectify what had
been done, he proposed to add the following words in the
interpretation clause :—" The word debtor shall, when ap-
plied to a person who is not a trader, mean a debtor in re-
spect of a debt contracted after the passing of this act, and
judgment debtor summons shall, in respect to such person,
mean a summons founded on a decree or order in respect of
a debt or liability contracted after the passing of this act."
Mr. MALIN S said he was surprised at the course adopted
by his hon. and learned friend. He had given ample notice
of his intention to move the omission of the 101st clause.
Therefore the house could not have been taken by surprise.
Furthermore he asked his hon. and learned friend himself
to support his motion, but his hon. and learned friend said
he would oppose it but that he was going to dinner. He
told his hon. and learned friend by all means to go to dinner,
and that he (Mr. Matins) would send for him when he was
wanted. (Laughter.) His hon. and learned friend the
Attorney-General had not yielded to him, but after the
subject had been fully discussed there was not a single voice
to say "Aye."
The house then divided—
For the amendment
Against
The amendment was consequently lost.
Sir F. KELLY suggested an alteration in Schedule G,
with the object of retaining the provision in the existing
law entitling a bankrupt to articles of clothing, bedding,
&c., out of the estate to the amount of 120.
The ATI ORNEY-GENERAL said that provision had
been productive of no good, and he had considered it better
to provide that the bankrupt should only be entitled to such
articles as the creditors might think fit to award him.
The amendment was then negatived.
Mr. WALPOLE observed that they were attempting t
do more with this bill to-night than was consistent with
the ordinary forms of the house. First of all they were to
go into committee to take up certain clauses; then they
were to consider the bill as amended ; and then. they were
to re-commit the bill. He did not know whether it was
competent for them to do that. He hoped this would not
be taken as a precedent, but he did not wish to stop the
discussion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL reminded the house that
he only wished to re-commit the bill in order to insert pro-
visions which were discussed and agreed to on a former

occasion.
Mr. HENLEY remarked that they were to go into com-
mittee on clause 58, and Schedule A, " and any other
clauses." That certainly was opening the case with a yen-

geance.
Lord PALMERSTON thought there was a great deal
in what the right hon. gentleman had just said. The ob-
ject of his hon. and learned friend in adding these words to
his motion was to give an opportunity to the noble lord
(Lord Stanley) to move the motion of which he had given
notice. But the house must not understand that there was
any disposition on the part of the Government to accede to
the proposal schen it was made. He hoped the noble lord
would feel, after the decision the house had come to this
evening with regard to matters connected with the county
courts, that the ground on which he rested his proposal had
been cut from under him. He suggested that his hon. and
learned friend should omit from his motion the words " and
other clauses."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then moved that the bill
,be re-committed on clauses 8, 38, 42, and 201 respectively.
Lord STANLEY said he did not wish it to be supposed
that the claims of the county court judges to increased
salaries had been waived ; but he felt the difficulty in which
the house was placed, and after the appeal that had been
made to him by his noble friend he thought it would be
better that he should assent to the proposal, and that the
claims of those gentlemen should be brought forward at a
more convenient opportunity.
Sir Y said, aftor the course taken by.
lord the member for King's Lynn, he should also refrain
from bringing forward the motion of which he had given
notice ; but he trusted that in some form or other the
Attorney-General would give him the opportunity of
calling the attention of the house to the case of the old
gentlemen to whom the motion related.
The house then went into committee.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved to insert, at the
end of clause 8, these words—" such order shall be laid be-
fore parliament, and shall not come into operation till three
months afterwards."
The motion was agreed to ; as were motions to make the
salary of the messengers amount to but not to exceed £5OO
a-year ; and to raise the salary of the registrar in attendance
on the chief judge from £l,OOO to £1,200, and of the regis-
trar of meetings from £2OO to £250 per annum.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would bring up
the report at half-past four this evening, when he would
propose to fill up the blank as to the ad valorem duty with
ss. instead of 7s. per cent.
THE MUTINY BILL.
This bill went into committee.
Mr. WHITE moved to omit clause 22, which gives power
to courts-martial to inflict corporal punishment. (Cheers.)
Ho thought the house could not better consecrate this ses-
sion than by agreeing to this social improvement. (Hear.)
In his opinion there was nothing of greater importance than
Ithe abolition of corporal punishment in the British army—
(hear, hear)—and he was sure there was no act of Parlia-
ment, the consummation of the abolition of which could
give greater satisfaction to the country. (Hear, hear.)
He assured the house that, in bringing forward this mo-
tion he was not in any way actuated by any spirit of
hosjility to the officers of the army, who, he believed,
were as distinguished for their humanity as they wore for
their gallantry. (Hear, hear.) He very much regretted
that on this occasion the hon. and gallant general the
member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) was absent,
and from a cause which they all regretted (illness). So long
ago as 1836, that honourable and gallant gentleman,
I when giving evidence before a committee of the house on
I this subject, gave it as his deliberate opinion that flogging
in the army was not only inefficient for its object but was
detrimental to the best interests of the service. (Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. White) proposed to abolishcorporal punish-
meat because he believed that to be inefficient for its pur-
pose, and it did much harm, while it did not reform. It
was well known that the public sympathy was always with
the victim who was subjected to the punishment. He was
however sorry to say that the practice was latterly much on
the increase. He would now read returns to the house
running over a series of years, which would show the
amount of flogging in the army. In 1847 there were 42 men
flogged in the army, and the number of lashes inflicted was
2,200 ; in 1852 the number of men flogged was 43, and the
number of lashes inflicted was 2,250 ; in 1858 the number
of regiments, including artillery, was 143, in which the
number of men flogged was 218, and the number of lashes '
inflicted, 9,338.
Major HAMILTON—Sir, I rise to order. The hon.
gentleman is talking of the army, whereas he made his
motion in connexion with the Marine Mutiny Bill.
(Laughter.)
Mr. WHITE—The hon.and gallant member is mistaken.
The bill before the committee was the Mutiny Bill, and
referred to the army only. Then why did the hon. and gal-
lant gentleman thus interrupt him ? (Laughter.) In 1859,
there were 148 regiments, of whom 512 men were flogged,
and the number of lashes inflicted 22,663. The average
number of lashes per man inflicted in 1858 was 42, and in
1859, 44k. (Laughter.) To continue the analysis, he found
that in 1858 there were not any flogged in 69 regiments,
while there were 34 regiments which merited that most
honourable distinction. (Laughter.) He had to remark,
that when they were so chary about inflicting corporal
punishment on criminals, it was a matter of
surprise that flogging should be continued in the
army, especially when that punishment was not in-
flicted in the armies of other nations ; and it was also
worthy of remark, that in the Indian army the sepoys
were not subjected to corporal punishment. (Hear, hear.)
He considered it was most degrading and impolitic to per-
sist in the present practice. (Hear, hear, and cries of
" Divide.") He had, he thought, said enough to justify
him in moving that the clause be omitted.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he rose with great pleasure to
second the motion of his hon. friend. He thought that to
both branches of the services nothing could be more de-
grading than this kind of punishment.
Mr. J. LOCKE also supported the motion. The work-
ing classes of this country held this flogging system in
utter detestation, and as the army was recruited from that
class, it was a monstrous proposition to subject their mitt-
tions to a punishment usually inflicted on felons. (Divide,
divide.) The great bulk of the population of this country
were opposed to this degrading punishment, and therefore
he would set his face against it. (Hear.)
Mr. BARING said the main question was, what the
amount of punishment in the army was at present. It was
well known that flogging was now only inflicted on persons
guilty of desertion, mutinous conduct, robbery, making
away with accoutrements, and other disgraceful acts. If
a man was guilty of such acts he was then disrated, and it

would be only on the second offence that he would be liable
to the degrading punishment of flogging. He was sure
that under those circumstances the working classes would
not have strong objections to flogging. Her Majesty's Go-
vernment were in favour of a diminution of the number of
lashes, but they thought that under the Mutiny Act it
would not be prudent to alter the existing law. (Hear,
hear.) He thought it necessary that this power should be
retained under the Mutiny Act, and therefore he should
resist the motion. (Hear, hear.)
Col. LINDSAY feared that flogging could not be alto-
gether abolished while we had some men in the army of
the very worst character. In 1855 and 1856 there were
a number of ticket-of. leave men enlisted, of whom half-a-
dozen were in the battalion he had the honour to com-
mand. One of them broke into his hut and stole his
watch—(hear, and laughter) ; another was guilty of re-
peated assaults on non-commissioned officers. They were,
however, not subjected to corporal punishment, which he
learned gave dissatisfaction to the other men, who, for
serious crimes, expected that corporal punishment should
be administered.

Major HAMILTON said it had been stated that there
was no corporal punishment in the American army, which
was not the truth. On the contrary the eorporal punish-
ments in that army was more severe than in ours. So
much was this the case that he had, when he crossed the
border, seen deserters from our army who would gladly get
back again if they could, rather than remain in the army of
such a—he would not say what they called it—country.
He must therefore oppose the motion, for, especially on the
line of march, it was the only practicable form of eunish-
meat, because the men could be flogged and continue their
march in a few hours, whereas if they adopted some of the
other forms of punishment with had been recommended
they would probably lose many effective soldiers altogether.
Mr. CONINGHAM protested against the employment
of British soldiers to flog convicts, which he deemed a de-
grading occupation. Much rather ought the heads of the
department to be brought to trial for the chronic state of
mutiny which existed in our convict prisons. (Hear.) He
thought it was unworthy of us as a Christian country to
continue flogging when a country like Russia had abolished
the knout. (Hear, and cries of " Divide, divide.") He
contended that flogging in the army was absolutely unne-
cessary ; where the officers did their duty the necessity for
flogging would speedily cease to exist. (The hon. gentleman
was greeted with loud calls for a division, and considerable
laughter.) He protested energetically against these inter-
ruptions as unseemly and unworthy of members of that
house. (Hear, and laughter.) He said he had not deserved
such treatment—(hear, and ironical cheers)—for while he
listened every night, till one or two in the morning often—
(hear, and laughter)—to debates which were sometimes not
very much to the point, no one spoke generally more briefly
or more to the point than he did. (Hear, and laughter.)
The house then divided, when the numbers were—.
For the clause
Against it
Majority —los

Mr. HENNESSY rose to a point of order. The clause
related to the punishment of death. Mr. May, in his work,
said that a bill having relation to such a result ought to be
referred to a committee.

Mr. MASSEY said that the practice of the house was
against the sessional order referred to.
The clause was then agreed to, as was also the other
clause of the bill.

The house resumed, and the bill was reported.
MARINE MUTINY BILL.
This bi!.l also passed through committee.
EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL.

This bill also passed through committee,
ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION BILL.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in moving the second
reading of this bill (which had come down from the Lords),
obseuved that the object of the measure was to increase the
jurisdiction and improve the procedure of the High Court
of Admiralty, which had hitherto been carried on according
to the civil law, a course never popular in this country,
and to which was to be attributed a narrow and ineffective
procedure.
The bill was then read a second time.
SMOKE NUISANCE (SCOTLAND) ACT AMEND-

MENT BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL WORKS BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
FOREST OF DEAN AND NEW FOREST.

On the motion of Mr. PEEL the following bills were in-
troduced and read a first time :

Bill to make further provision for the management of her
Majesty's Forest of Dean; and of the mines and quarries
therein, and in the hundred of St. Briavels, in the county
of Gloucester.

Bill for the regulation of the exercise of common and
other rights in the New Forest, in the county of South-
ampton.

The house adjourned at 10 minutes past 1 o'clock.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

MANCHESTER-MARCH 21.

Best English wheat held for is advance, but a slow sale.
American red was Id to 2d per 701135. dearer. French and
Spanish flour in fair request, and the turn dearer. Enguil
flour also higher in price. Oats a dull trade, and oatut"
in botter request, at fully late rates. Beans and Indian
corn firm.

BIRMINGHAM—MARCH 21.
At this day's market there was a very fair supply of
wheat, and all English qualities were at the currency of
this day se'nnight ; higher prices were asked, and in a few
instances obtained. Barley, oats, beans, and peas were
nominally unchanged, and difficult to sell in quantity.