The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-19 00:00:00

THE SIIN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 19, Z,1861:

but in the present state of Europe he did not think the time
had arrived for reduction in this department of the public
service.
_ _ .

—......-.
Mr. IV. FOSTER thought it would be most unadvisable
in the existing state of Germany, both in regard to political
and trade considerations, to reduce the consular corps in
that part of Europe. Every other Power in Europe had
consuls there, and if this country were deprived of the assis-
tance of such a valuable agency it would be placed in a dis-
advantageous position as compared with other countries.
Mr. FREELAND was in favour of the reduction in the
consulates, and complained of the inefficiency displayed in
that department.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD said that the suggestions of the
committee for the reduction in the department should be
carried out, but at the same time he would assure the house
that very little, if any, saving to the public expenditure
would be effected by reducing the consular department,
which was most inadequately reimbursed.
Mr. A. SMITH said they ought to look with consider-
able jealousy on new appointments, and he referred to the
consul recently appointed with a salary of £5OO a-year at
Reunion, where the value of the British imports last year
amounted to only £75. He concluded by moving that the
vote should be reduced by £2,300, the salaries of certain
consuls whose services he thought unnecessary.

After some further discussion,
Lord J. RUSSELL entered into an explanation to show
that the appointment of a consul at Reunion was desirable
in a political point of view. Some remarks had been made
with respect to some of the consuls being allowed to trade
and others prohibited doing so; the reason was very simple.
It would increase the estimates by a very large amount if
salaries were paid sufficiently adequate to all the consuls,
and, therefore, when the amount of trade was small, onlyta
smaller salary was paid, but when the trade was large then
was the corresponding salary in order to remunerate him
properly, and in these cases he was not allowed to trade.
Mr. A. SMITH ultimately withdrew the amendment,
and the vote was agreed to.
On the vote of £646,646 for services in China and Japan,
Col. SYKES explained that the salary of the Plenipo-
teniiary at Pekin was too large.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the salaries were very much
regulated by the size of the places. He was happy to say
that the accounts he had received from Pekin showed that
the English Plenipotentiaries were well received.
The vote was agreed to.
Tho Tovt vMo prnpnqed was £20,000 for the extraordi-
nary expenses of ambassadors at foreign courts.
After a few words from Mr. WILLIAMS,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that important information was
often derived from consuls in minor States in Germany, and
that therefore they ought to be maintained.
The vote was agreed to.
The next item was £40,000 for special.missions, diploma-
tic outfits, and conveyance of colonial officers and others.
Mr. A. SMITH moved that the item be reduced by
£20,000.
After some discussion the amendment was negatived, and
the item passed.
On the vote of £60,000, expenses of the North American
Boundary Commission, a discussion ensued, but it was
ultimately agreed to.
It was moved that £185,140 be voted for superannuation
and allowances of retiring public officers.
The house resumed before the item was agreed to.
The house adjourned at 4 o'clock, and resumed at 6
o'clock, and was
THE GALWAY PACKET CONTRACT.

Mr. CONINGHAM gave notice that to-morrow evening
he would again present the petition from Mr. O'Malley
Irwin with respect to Mr. Orrell Lever's conduct in connec-
tion with the Royal Atlantic Mail Packet Company. He
wished to apologise to the house for having without notice
to the hon. member for Galway presented the petition on
Tuesday evening, but he was mistaken as to the hon. mem-
ber's absence.
STATUES IN THE ROYAL GALLERY.
Mr. GREGORY asked the First Commissioner of Works
whether it was true that the four statues to be erected in
the Royal Gallery, for which £3,200 had been voted, were
to be the statues of William IV., George IV., James 1.,
and Charles I. ; and, if so, whether such selection was in
accordance with the pledge given to the house by the Com-
missioners of Works, August 3, 1860, which pledge was that
the selection would be generally acceptable to the house ?
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. COWPER denied that he had given any such pledge
as the hon. member seemed to suppose. All he had done
was to promise that the subject should be fully considered.
He believed it was quite impossible that any selection could
be made which would prove generally acceptable to the
house. The Fine Arts Commissioners had reported that
the Sovereigns should be taken in chronological order, as
illustrations of the history of the country.
Mr. GREGORY wished to ask another question. When
the Government refused, the other evening, to give any
information as to the Sovereigns who had been selected
for statues in the Royal Gallery, had not the right hon.
gentleman in his possession the report of the Fine Arts
Commission, which stated that two statues were to be exe-
cuted by Mr. Theed, and two by Mr. Thorneycroft, and
were not thu Nt...lmori determined upon bY the coraroieeion.re
those of the Sovereigns named in the question which he
had just asked?
' Mr. COWPER said he certainly had in his possession

the report of the Fine Arts Commission, but that was
equally accessible to other hon. members, and he had no
more knowledge of the subject than any other gentleman
in the house.
Mr. HADFIELD:asked, was it intended that Cromwell
should have a statue ? (Laughter.)
Mr. COWPER referred the hon. gentleman to the Fine
Arts Commission report. If he read that, he would become
acquainted with all that was known upon the subject.
THE STATE OF OUDE.—INDIAN ARTILLERY

he would have little or nothing to do, and that it would not
be right to saddle the community with the expense attaching
to his office, if adequate duties were not to be performed.
The hon. and learned gentleman said that an appeal before
the Lords Justices cost somewhere about £5O in each case,
and the delay caused by these appeals was frequently of
very long duration before final judgment was given;
whereas by the proposed arrangement for the appointment
of a chief judge, the expense and delay would be very
greatly lessened. The hon. and learned gentleman further
contended that as the abolition of the Insolvent Court
would largely increase the business of the Court of Bank-
ruptcy, the consequence would be that a large increase
would most certainly take place in appeals to be tried by the
chief judge. In the year 1859-60 the number of cases before
the Insolvent Debtors' Court was 2,700, and the number
before the Court of Bankruptcy amounted to I,336—facts
which showed the great increase of business that would
take place in the latter court. The manner in which the
business before the chief judge was to be conducted was so
inexpensive and so convenient, that judgment could bo ob-
tained in a way that could not but be satisfactory to all par-
ties concerned. Under the 67th clause of the bill, the chief
judge had the power of sending a question of fact to be tried
by a jury, which would be a great improvement on the pre-
sent system, under which equity judges decided such a
question. The alteration could not but give satisfaction to
the parties in the case, as it would greatly facilitate the
judgment at which the judge would arrive. The chief
judge would also have th 3 power of sending the question
of fact arising out of a case of bankruptcy before the
judges of assize. The new judge would also have the
power to determine questions on deeds of arrangement.
This would be a most important duty of the chief judge.
No material alterations had been made by the Lords in
the clauses respecting private arrangements, but they had
struck out from the bill that judge and that tribunal
by whom, and by whom alone, these novel powers as
to private arrangements could be exercised. The bill
consequently in this respect was rendered inopera-
tive. Again, the bill professed to treat as misdemeanours
and to punish certain acts of the bankrupt or insolvent,
such as concealment of property and refusing to give
full information. This new jurisdiction, which was one
of no slight importance, the measure, when it left the
Commons, enacted should be exercised by the chief judge;
but the Lords had refused their sanction to the appoint-
ment of that judge. He believed that among lawyers
there was almost perfect unanimity of opinion as to the
wisdom and necessity of the provision regarding the chief
judge. The mercantile community, too, were most de-
sirous that this portion of the bill should be restored.
There had been presented to the house within the last few
days a petition bearing 200 signatures of bankers and emi-
nent merchants in the City of London, regretting the
alterations made by the Lords, and praying that a chief
judge should be appointed to preside over the Court of
Bankruptcy, with appellate power. He might remark that
the amount of appellate business under the bill would be
very large, as each of the sixty county courts would be-
come, according to the proposed arrangement, courts of
bankruptcy. This was another reason why the chiefjudge
ought to be appointed. If the bill were not restored to the
form in which it went up to the Lords, it would not work
well or give satisfaction. He concluded by moving that
the house disagree with the Lords' amendment respecting
the chief judge.

Mr. BOVILL denied that there was any unanimity
among the lawyers on his side of the house, with regard to
the expediency of appointing a chief judge, but the most
eminent of the law lords in the other house, with the ex-
ception of the late Lord Chancellor, supported the proposi-
tion made, he believed by Lord St. Leonards, when the bill
was before a select committee, for expunging the chief
judge clause. There was an equal amount of unanimity in
the mercantile committee over which Lord Overetone
presided. The petitioners from Manchester and Liverpool
thought the appointment of a chief judge would entail un-
necessary expense without any adequate results. In peti-
tions from Belfast, Bristol, Wolverhampton, Coventry and
other large towns, not one of them objected to the striking
out of the clause relating to the judge. There was therefore
as great a unanimity amoug commercial men on this point
as there was in the House of Lords. What was the origin of
the proposal to introduce a judge It arose out of a proposal
to:abolish the six commissioners, but now it was proposed to
preserve the commissioners and have a judge too. (Hear,
hear.) This was very properly considered too expensive.
The arguments of the Attorney-General were addressed to
the House of Lords in 1831. Four judges were then ap-
pointed to perform what was alleged to be the overwhelm-
ing duties. But for sheer want of business these judges were
abolished and pensioned off. (Hear.) The Legislature then
selected as a count of appeal the Lords Justices. Now, was
any one bold enough to say that that was not a satisfactory
tribunal ? He would venture to say no one would complain
of that court. And what was their amount of business ?
Why, 15 days in the year. (Hear.) If they were to have
new judges, send them to the common law courts, where
there was an arrear of business, and where justice could not
be done owing to delay. (Hear, hear.) What judge, how-
ever learned, could give an opinion entitled to more re-
spect than a judge in bankruptcy (Mr. Holroyd, for in-
stance, who had devoted 30 years to that department of
jurisprudence), and the other five commissioners, who
were men of great ability and experience. (Hear, hear.)
If the judge proposed to be appointed should differ in

opinion from the commissioners, an appeal would then be
made to the Lords Justices. Why not do this in the first
instance ? Why pay £5,000 a year to a judge whose opi-
nion can be of no use if it coincides with that of the com-
missioners, and which if it be in opposition would be referred
to the Lords Justices ? (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Bovill)
thought the conjoint opinion of the Commissioners of
Bankruptcy was superior to the opinion of any one judge,
however distinguished. As there was ample time for con-
sidering this matter, and as the bill must come before
Parliament when the consolidation of the law will be taken
into consideration, he
.saw no reason at present for incur-
ring this unnecessary expense. The criminal cases arising
out of bankruptcy were tried before the judges at the
Central Criminal Court, therefore there was no reason on
that ground for the appointment of this new judge. He
ventured to say that upon all these grounds there was no
necessity for the appointment of this new judge. The
House of Lords were opposed to the appointment, and the
petitions from Liverpool and Manchester also showed that
such an appointment was wholly uncalled for.
Mr. COLLIER said he had considered this question of
the appointment of a new judge of the Court of Bank-
ruptcy, and he had arrived at the conclusioli that such an
appointment was perfectly necessary. Without a compe-
tent judge, he believed that the proposed change in the
bankruptcy law would lead to chaos and uncertainty. If it
had not been that they had appointed an eminent judge in
the Court of Divorce, he believed that the difficulties which
surrounded the change which had taken place in the law
of divorce would not have been overcome. The case in
the present instance would in all probability be the same,
for, in his opinion, the success of the proposed change in
the bankruptcy law would mainly depend upon the ap-
pointment of the new judge. No doubt that judge would
not be taken from the bar, but one of the pre-
sent judges would be selected to fill the appoint-
ment in question. This would be sure to give general
satisfaction, as it would lead to a settlement of
difficulties which would necessarily arise, in the first in-
stance, in consequence of the proposed changes of the bank-
ruptcy law. He denied that the commissioners were the pro-
per persons to carry out the provisions of this bill, for their
present decisions were not accepted in Westminster Hall.
The hon. and learned gentleman then referred to the pro-
visions of the bill in reference to the power to be placed in
the hands of the new judge, and contended that those powers
were necessary to carry out uniformity of practice in pro-
ceedings in bankruptcy. Trial by jury was introduced for
the first time into bankruptcy, and he considered that this
provision of the bill was a most salutary one, and would
greatly facilitate the judgment of the chief judge in any case
in which he sent a fact to be tried by a jury. He contended
that there would be sufficient business to justify the ap-
pointment of the judge, who would not only be the judge of
appeal in bankruptcy, but he would also have a vast deal of
original business to dispose of. He believed the chief judge
would, instead of having very little to do, have quite as
much business on his hands as any judge in Westminster
Hall. In furtherance of the administration of justice, he
hoped the house would adhere to its original determination,
and restore the clause sanctioning the appointment of chief
judge at the moderate expenditure of £5,000 a year.

Mr. MALINS contended that it was essentially necessary
the chief judge should be retained, and he further expressed
his opinion that the bill without the chief judge clause would
be worse than worthless. The argument advanced against
the appointment on the ground of reckless expense, was al-
together unfounded. The commissioners were not to be re-
appointed as vacancies arose. The chief commissioner was
82 years of age. The second commissioner was 75 years
oil In the natural course of things they could not much
longer retain their offices. A saving of £4,000 per annum
would thereby be effected, while the salary proposed to be
given to the chief judge was only £5,000 a year, leaving the
small difference of £l,OOO a year on the score of additional ex-
penditure. He entirely differed from the principle laid down
by the hon. and learned member for Guildford, that they
would do well in retaining the present commissioners to
work the bankruptcy system, which they now worked badly
and which they would continue to work badly, if the pre-
sent court or the present machinery were retained. Unless
this bill created a court of great authority on the law of
debtor or creditor, most of this session had been wasted.
He thought the commissioners should be allowed to drop
off gradually, and that a judge of eminence should be ap-
pointed. If this were not done it were better to withdraw
the bill altogether. (Hear.) The clauses [objected to had
received the almost unanimous assent of the House of Com-
mons, and it was surprising to him that objections should
now be raised against them by the hon. members who had
at least silently acquiesced in them when under the conside-
ration of the house. (Hear.) The hon. and learned gen-
tleman (Mr. Bovill) said the chief judge would have nothing
to de. He (Mr. Malin) thought otherwise; be thought
that under the proposed alterations there would be abun-
dance of business for the new judge. Nothing can be more
fallacious than to suppose that appeals could be referred to
the Vice-Chancellor's Court, or that of the Master of the
Rolls, where the business was at present overwhelming.
The best way was to appoint an efficient judge, who would
give his exclusive and undivided atteutim to the buoilteol.

On these grounds he earnestly hoped that the house would
reject the amendments. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROLT said he agreed with the Lords' amendments,
because he thought it unwise to be making changes for
temporary purposes, and with a view to expediency. It
was not even alleged that the hill was to be a matter of
permanent legislation. (Hear, hear.) If they went on tam-
pering with the Court of Bankruptcy, going backwards and
forwards, no progress would be made, while public confi-
dence would be destroyed. (Hear, hear.) He thought the
best course would be to give the present system a further
trial, and having given them an opportunity of showing
how the new duties imposed upon them were discharged,
then, if necessary, propose a change, but let that be a per-
manent change, and not a temporary expedient.
Mr. CRAWFORD said he could not understand the
policy of waiting a year or two to see whether the appoint-
ment of a chief judge was necessary. On the contrary, the
citizens of London were of opinion that it would be most
unwise to pass this bankruptcy bill without making the ap-
pointment of the new judge in question. The petition
which he had presented from the commercial community
of London urged this point strongly upon the house, and
this petition was signed loy the representatives of twenty-
five banking firms and all the heads of chief commercial
houses in the City. Similar petitions were presented from
all the chief commercial cities and towns in England, Ire-
land, and Scotland. With respect to Liverpool, :he might
observe that the conduct of the people of that city was most
inconsistent in respect to this bill. Previous to the intro-
duction of this bill the people of Liverpool presented a peti-
tion praying for certain alterations in the bankruptcy law,
and these alterations were actually made by the bill before
the house. In conclusion, he had only to express a hope
that the house would agree to the amendment proposed by
his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General.
Mr. HORSFALL thought he knew as well as his bon.
friend (Mr. Crawford) what were the opinions of the people
of Liverpool. He must say that although the petition from
Liverpool prayed that the bill should be passed as it was
sent from that house to the House of Lords, there was yet
a strong opinion against the appointment of the new judge
referred to. Having heard the opinion of the honourable
member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), he was quite satisfied
that the appointment of this new judge would be a waste of
the public money.
Mr. HADFIELD contended that the commercial com-
munity of Liverpool were in favour of this bill, and indeed
such was the feeling displayed by all the commercial com-
munities of the country in respect to the measure, which of
all the plans submitted to the country for improving the
bankruptcy law, was the best.
Mr.l TURNER believed that the 48 Liverpool firms
who signed the petition to which so much allusion had been
made, were most eminent, and represented a large amount
of capital, but they could not be taken as representing all
the commercial opinion in Liverpool. He differed from
the views put forward by those 48 firms, and believed that
the appointment of a chief judge of ability and experience
would materially tend to an improvement of the bankruptcy
system, and he should support the restoration of the chief
judge clause.
Mr. HENLEY thought that the Lords Justices would be
a safer tribunal than a chief judge, who might be, perhaps,
a barrister of 12 years' standing. In a matter where such
diversity of opinion existed, it was no unreasonable thing
for members who did not oppose the clauses of the bill
which were struck out by the Lords, to avail themselves of
the present opportunity of expressing their concurrence in
the views taken by such eminent legal authority. If
there were to be five hundred appeals from the decision
of the county court judges, he doubted very much if
the appellate jurisdiction could be sufficiently exercised
by the chief judge. What they wanted was
appellate powers. Had they that power ? The
judicial power which was at command he considered
to be quite sufficient for that purpose. If it were sufficient
al parties agreed that it was a good and satisfactory tribu-
nal. The alterations made by the Lords in this bill he con-
sidered were great improvements, and he should give them
his support.

Mr. MOFFATT censured the present system of bank-
ruptcy, and alluded to the want of confidence which the
mercantile public felt in the judgment and surveillance of
the bankruptcy commissioners. Without the supervision of
a chief judge, he thought it better that the bill should be
withdrawn.

Mr. WALPOLE said they were now arguing the gene-
ral question on amendments of the other house, instead of
arguing it in a committee. They were now arguing the
matter on a first impression, and the question was whether
they should have a judge at £5,000 a year, also, whether
traders and non-traders were to be put on an equal footing
and imprisonment for debt abolished. Since this measure
was a tentative measure, and not one for a final settlement,
he would ask whether it was right to appoint a judge at a
salary of £5,000 a year without knowing whether his ser-
vices would be required. If they were in committee he would
propose, if they were to have a new judge at all, that that

judge should be one of the vice-chancellors. A superintend-
ing judge from that court would keep the law uniform in-
stead of having to deal with the discordant views of 50 or 60
commissioners in bankruptcy. If for the time being that
experiment were made he would approve of it ; if not, he
thought it better to leave the matter as it stood. If it were
in the power of the house to restore the clause with that
amendment he would agree to it; if not, he preferred leav-
ing the matter in the hands of the lords justices for one year.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL agreed with the right
hon. gentleman who had just spoken, In the reict et he had
expressed that this question was not discussed by those who
opposed the proposition made by the Government upon the
second reading; but he could not agree with the statement
which had also been made, that the mind of the house and
of the country had not been addressed to the question. The
objects and necessity for the bill were fully explained by the
present Lord Chancellor, and this proposition had not been
introduced stealthily, but had been contained in every mea-
sure of the same character which had appeared before the
house: it had been for years under discussion, and no voice
had been raised against it in any of the discussions which
had taken place. The mind of the house was as far ad-

dressed to the question as it was possible to be without op-
position, and the only reason why it was not discussed was
that no hon. gentleman raised any objection to the proposi •
tion to lead to a discussion. Still less was the country sur-
prised by the introduction of the proposition. For years
the country had been knocking at the doors of that house,
and telling them of the failure of the old system under the
law of 1831, and the whole mercantile community were so
impatient in their demands that they complained of the un-
avoidable delay which occurred in giving to the measure
due consideration. And there had been this remarkable
fact, that for a series of years the business had been either
stationary or declining year after year, and by the side of
the system was growing up to enormous proportions a
system of private arrangement withdrawing the liquida-
tion of insolvents' estates altogether from the cognisance
of the law—a state of things which spoke volumes in

favour of a most searching revision of the law. He ap-
pealed in confirmation to the most unfavourable quarter—
to the forty-eight firms of Liverpool whose voioes of the
whole mercantile community were alone raised in favour of
the amendment of the House of Lords. But the petition
from Liverpool, stating the grievances of the merchants
arising from the present state of the law, told of the uncer-
tainty of decisions, and the great desiderata of uniformity
of decision, and pointed clearly to the appointment of a pre-
siding judge. If the bill were framed with the view of re-
moving the evils and correcting the mischiefs of which the
petitioners complained, they should endeavour to prune off
every abuse they found, and to meet as far as could be the
reasonable wishes of the mercantile community. To effect
this it was necessary that there should be a head, a centre,

a presiding, ruling genius, to control the operation of the
system; and if that provision were struck out, it would re-
duce the system to the same confusion and disorder which
it was the object of the bill to remedy. Last year a bill was
introduced which proposed to abolish the commissioners, to
put them upon pensions, and to have a judge. The objec-
tion to that was, the putting the commissioners upon pen-
sions, and this year, adhering to the same principle, the
Government proposed to suggest a transition of a more gra-
dual character in the place of the abrupt transition which
was last year proposed, and as it was not wished that retir-
ing pensions should be paid, it was proposed to retain the
services of the commissioners, and to make the best use of
them :they could. But they were no longer to be inde-
pendent units, each revolving in his own orbit, but were to
be subordinates under the control of one head. The bill
proposed a reduction in the number, as vacancies occurred,
to a maximum of three, but it went further, and provided
machinery to come into operation if it were thought expe-
dient at some future time to abolish the office altogether.
The bill contained, in fact, the provisions of a self-
regulating system, and in course of time would bring them
to the same position to which they would have been brought
by the bill of la.A year. Nobody had contended that it was
desirable to retain the services of these commissioners. He
(the Solicitor-General) had not heard a single argument to
that effect. And here he must agree with his right hon.
friend the member for Cambridge University in regretting
that they did not know on what grounds the House of Lords
proceeded. (Hoar, hear.) His right hon. friend who had
last addressed the house said that this was an experimental
measure. That he (the Solicitor-General) denied, This
was not an experimental measure, except in the sense that
every reform was experimental. Every reform might be
found to succeed more or less—to have its strong points and
its weak points—but this was not intended as an experi-
mental measure—it was the result of long, mature, and de-
liberate consideration. He protested against this notion of
dealing with this cardinal point of the question, as if they
were throwing out into the world a mere experiment,seeing
how it worked, and then adopting or rejecting it. It was
not with this view that the Government introduced the
measure, it was not with this view that the mercantile com-
munity accepted it—(hear, hear)—or that the house passed
it. (Hear, hear.) He confessed he had been rather puzzled
by some things that had fallen from some of the speakers in
the debate. They did not say exactly they agreed with the
Lords. There was hardly one of them who had not put
himself in such a position as that, if he were to sit on one of
those (the Government) benches,he might say—" All along
I thought the judge the best thing, but I considered it desi-
rable to wait and see how the experiment succeed ed,and thetree
fore lam perfectly consistent." That reminded him of 1
advice given of old by a great master of politics and rhetoric,the
advice
always to hate as If wo should one clay have occasion to

(Cheers.) But if this experiment were tried, they would
some day find the country knocking at the door of the
House of Commons and saying, "This system won't work
without a head." Well, he (the Solicitor-General) ventured
to say that the present was the best time. The necessity
was as clear then as it would be thereafter. The hon. and
learned member for Guildford asked what it was they were
doing. He said they were appointing over again the old
judge in bankruptcy whom they had got rid of some years
ago. But was that the fact ? For the argument was no-
thing unless it was a fact. The functions of the two were
as different as possible. He would just enumerate shortly
some of the brief points affecting the duties of the new judge
as compared with the old. The right hon. member for
Oxfordshire seemed to have forgotten that he had any duty
ev,‘ept to preside in appeals. He had entirely forgotten that
this bill provided for a large amount of original jurisdiction
of an important character to be discharged by the chief
judge. He would take one of the most important single
points. By the clauses on the subject of the discharge of
bankrupts, which, as the house was aware, included
non -traders and insolvents as well as traders, every case of
a contested discharge falling within the jurisdiction of
bankruptcy would of necessity be referred to and enter-
tained by the chief judge. Also if the commissioner who
had the management of the case should find particular cir-
cumstances in the case which required particular attention,
he was to consider the circumstances, and the question of
discharge was to come before the chief judge. What was
the existing principle with regard to certificates ? There
were five commissioners, and if there were any rule, there
were five different rules for determining the principle on
which certificates were to be granted. If there was anything
more difficult than another, it was a question of conduct
which arose upon a certificate. There were some commis-
sioners who, in thirteen cases, would give one first-class
certificate. There were others who would give twelve.
Such was the want of method, of uniformity, of principle,
and system of this branch of the administration of the law,
of which it was not too much to say that upon it commer-
cial morality in a high degree depended. The object of the
system was to give a full and free discharge to every honest
bankrupt. But it was absolutely necessary to guard against
fraud in granting the discharge. Nothing could be more
important than this branch of the system. A large portion
of the time of the commissioners was consumed in this part
of the business in bankruptcy, and a large number of ap-
peals were founded upon it. This original jurisdiction, af-
fecting the character of all under it in morality and con-
duct, was brought primarily before the chief judge. What
would be the effect of the Lords' amendments ? It would
throw back this jurisdiction to the five commissioners.
There would thus continue to be one-fifth of a principle,
one-fifth of a rule, or five different principles or rules, so as
to leave the whole question to haphazard. If there were any
point on which it was necessary to concentrate the power of
all authority, it was this. It seemed to have been entirely
lost sight of in the debate which had taken place in the
house, and if anything were needed to give weight to it, it
was this—that the bill not only abolished the certificate
which existed before, but it subjected the bankrupt to a set
of penal clauses. They were creating by this bill rules and
principles embodied, so to speak, in the penal law* that a
man was to be tried in that court for mercantile offences, and
punished expressly on the penal principle, and no longer on
the old system of a suspension of certificate. The Lords had
left this new jurisdiction to each and every one of the
five commissioners. To the appeal business sufficient refe-
rence had been made ; but he would offer a few observations
as to the :various sources of increase of business generally
which had been overlooked. There seemed to be some who
were willing to abolish the appeal altogether. But when it
was remembered that any person in the kingdom, from the
highest peer to the lowest peasant, was subject to this law,
it was an exceedingly shocking thing to say either that no
appeal was necessary, or that it ought to be expunged. That
was entirely new. Then besides the non-trader clauses there
were the ten thousand deeds a year, taking the average of
the last ten years, all these were to be made subject to the
jurisdiction of the court. There was also to be taken into
account the increase which might be expected to arise from
the beneficial operation of the measure, and the necessity
which was laid upon the public to come into bankruptcy.
There was no possibility of any by paths here. The ma-
ehinery of this bill was framed so as to bear upon the whole
bankrupt and insolvent property of the country. Surely,
then, there ought to be a chief judge, as a regulator of the
whole system. The arguments against it assumed the
failure of the whole bill, and in taking this provision out
they would be strangling, crippling, destroying its chances
of life, and all means of obtaining a consistent, uniform,
dignified, and authoritative administration. If the Lords'
Justices themselves could speak they would not, he was
sure, be anxious to receive the new duties which it was
proposed to thrust upon them. Not one word could be said
of the way in which they had exercised their bankruptcy
jurisdiction that could exceed their deserts, but he would
suggest that the duties they had hitherto discharged
were far less in magnitude and extent than those which it
was proposed to confer on them, and that, moreover, they
had hitherto exercised no original jurisdiction in bankruptcy.
Besides, if the amount of bankruptcy business increased as
was expected, and the appellant jurisdiction grew in like
proportion, it would absorb the whole a their time, and
turn their court into a court of bankruptcy. But they had
been appointed to assist the Lord Chancellor in his court of
appeal, and he would ask the house if they were prepared
to destroy a valuable portion of the machinery of Chancery,
and throw the equity business of the country into confusion,
merely for the purptmo of aroidiug latt; ereatluu of a Banal
to the Court of Bankruptcy ? Besides, they could not ex •
pest a court which had other functions to perform to super-
intend the system of bankruptcy with the same efficiency as
a judge whose attention was exclusively confined to that
particular subject. (Hear, hear.) The other proposition,
that which had been made by his right hon. friend (Mr.
Walpole), was even more objectionable, viz., that one of the
Vice-Chancellors or the Master of the Rolls should have
handed over to him the functions proposed to be given to
the chief judge by the bill.

Mr. WALPOLE explained that he meant those functions
as amended by the Lords.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Then he would have
almost exclusively an appellate jurisdiction ; and' the bill
would sweep away all the important functions originally
proposed. He (the Solicitor-General) did not .think that
the suggestion would in the least tend to the speedy or
efficient administration of justice as far as bankruptcy was
concerned, while it would most materially interfere with
the proper functions of the Court of Chancery. So far from
adding to the bankruptcy jurisdiction of the Court of Chan-
cery, it would rather be convenient to remove from it a class
of business akin to bankruptcy, namely, the winding up of
insolvent joint-stock com?anies—a species of business which
would be better discharged by the Court of Bankruptcy. It
was a mistake to suppose that the Court of Chancery had
more than a sufficient judicial staff. It was quite true that
for a shirt period at the commencement of the year business
was slack in the Rolls Court ; but what was the result ?
The rapidity and accuracy with which the able judge who
presided over that court transacted its business soon pro-
vided a remedy. Nature abhorred a vacuum; and suitors
when they knew where their causes might be quickly dis-
posed of pressed into the court, and the slackness of busi-
ness no longer existed. (Hear.) In conclusion, he would ask
the house if it were disposed to deal with this great subject
in a mere experimental spirit—whether they would imperil
the efficiency of the measure by withholding that condition
which could alone ensure it eminent success, and then, when
the public were dissatisfied and discontented, seek to patch
up their work as best they might by appointing a chief
judge who ought to have been provided in the first instance ?
He could find neither principle nor authority to support the
amendment of the Lords. Even the Liverpool firms who
had petitioned in favour of that amendment had testified
against it until it had become a subject of controversy in
Parliament, and all other bodies were at least silent. The
merchants of London were, as might naturally have
been expected, most clear in their approval of
the original proposition ; and there was no trace of
an adverse opinion amongst the other commercial bodies of
the country. He had so much respect for the eminent names
which appeared in the House of Lords to have given their
sanction to the change, that he was inclined to attach weight
to their opinion even on this subject; but not knowing how
far those noble and learned lords were informed of the real
opinion of Liverpool and Lancashire he ventured to think
that their authority was not entitled to overrule the experi-
ence of the House of Commons, and the long careful delibe-
ration which it had bestowed upon the bill. He begged,
therefore, to submit that the house ought to adhere to its
.original proposition. (Cheers.)
Sir H. CAIRNS congratulated his hon. and learned friend
the Solicitor-General and the house at seeing him once more
among them, taking part in their debates with his usual
ability. With respect to the bill itself, if the amendments of
the II raise of Lords were rejected, there would be five diffe-
rent commissioners coming into collision. But not only
would
that be the case, but those five, with the Chief Judge,
all having a co-ordinate jurisdiction, would probably be
found giving different decisions, and then the Chief Judge,
sitting in a court of appeal, may reverse them altogether.
His hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General said the
bill was a transition bill, and that in the course of time the
number of judges would be gradually reduced ; but the bill
did not say so. It certainly proposed to reduce the numbert
from five to three, and the Government were empowered to
keep the number at all times up to three. Tbhoedihesn
in. the
learned gentleman said the only commercial
country that petitioned in favour of the Lords'. Amend-
mentsT.; /pool, but h,
Belfast. 8 The among
were about 40 or 50 firms ia --a-lvefirm
forgot altogether those great commercial
which were the leading merchants ie
G.overnm innnt received his sup-
other members on that side
the co-ordinate
introduced last year by the
port and the
hsuepcapusoret ofit
ems::
of the house,
and established one •
commissioners
uniform
of the But that was a
system of jurisdiction. very different
swept away away juris-
diction
arrangement from the machinery cont
d
contemplated by the
:
ied that the wen diminish the expenses
the Attorney-General endeavoured to con-
h
vince the house.
measure] before it was sent up to Ur other HOLM of
ThereParlia-
was not one word in any of the
mor atp.penales,s
de
clauses which bore such
an interpretation. Then with re-
gard to the bill expediting appellate business, he contended
that no delay occurred in the present appellate jurisdiction,
januddgeeerwtaiitnhlya
snaloanrey to
of £5,000 a-year. Again, it should be
remenabcrlA tkttt the entire jurisdiction of the chicriudge

with respect to the granting of certificates, was confined to
the London district. That being so, what was the trader to
do who resided in Manchester or Liverpool ? As to uni-
formity, how could the chief judge control the decisions of
60 or 70 county court judges ? Indeed there was nothing'
in the proposal to secure anything like uniformity of deci-
sion. (Hear, hear.) As to trial by jury, it was well known
that in cases of bankruptcy this course of procedure was
not resorted to. It was a mere delusion to say that a chief
judge was required to do something which had been already
well and efficiently done under the existing state of the law.
Why, every one of the county court judges had the power
of doing that which it was proposed to have done by means
of a new chief judge, at an expense of £5,000 a-year. The
bill, in fact, gave no jurisdiction to the chief judge that
was not already possessed by county court judges.
Therefore, there was no uniformity as to the original
jurisdiction, and as to the appellate jurisdiction, there
was a sufficient tribunal for that purpose already in
existence. (Hear, hear.) It was said that this bill bad
been made a political question. But who proposed, in the
other house, the amendment they were now discussing
Was any one acting in concert with that (the Opposition))
side of the house ? No, it was proposed by a noble end
learned lord of great experience and high judicial authority,
and who would always be venerated for his transcendent
talents. That noble lord was acting in concert with the
Government, and the committee were, with one exception,
in favour of it. He protested against the provisions of this
bill, as he thought it would altogether fail of accomplishing
the improvements which the Government anticipated.

The question was then put, when the numbers were''
For the motion
Against
Majority for the motion —44
The motion was then agreed to, and the further cofei•
deration of the Lords' amendments was postponed till
Monday.
THE DURHAM UNIVERSITY BILL. _ ,

On the motion that the house should go into committee
on this bill,
-

Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR opposed the motion and con-
tended that the Durham University had been a complete
failure, and that the inquiry proposed to be made under thie
bill was nothing else but a sham. He moved in conclusion,
that the Speaker leave the chair that day three month&
(Great laughter.) He meant that the house should go into
committee that day three months. (Hear, hear,)
Sir G. C. LEWIS was delighted for the sake of the right
hon. gentleman in the chair, that the hon. member amended
his motion—(a laugh)—and as to the bill itself, he belie Tea
it gave full powers to reform the whole administration of the
University of Durham, and ought therefore to be adopted
by the house. If he could show in committee that any such
grievance can be amended, then it would be time to consider
it.
Mr. DEEDES thought it was a great deal too much to
ask the house to go into committee on such a bill at that 10
hour, and he should move that the debate be adjourned.
Mr. MOWBRAY opposed the motion, and after a fell
words from Mr. FENWICK,
Lord PALMERSTON hoped that although the right
hon. gentleman, the Speaker, or the house were not asked
to sit for three months--(a laugh)—the house would go 00
with the bill, or at least allow it to go into committee Pr°
tem.

Sir G. C. LEWIS assured the house that if the Speak!"
were allowed to leave the chair he would not go furtherwil
the bill that night, but that proposition not being agreed`
to the house divided, when the numbers were—

For the adjournment v v v 2l
Against it
Majority —9s
On the motion that the Speaker leave the chair,
Mr, FENWICK complained that although the endow"
meats in this university amounted to £12,000 a year,
Professor of Divinity getting ur,wards of £4,000, yet the'
were at that moment only 40 students being educated there:
The fact was the whole fault lay with the ecclesiastical
commission, who placed the whole control of the educatisal
under the Dean and Chapter of Durham. He thought tile'
bill a great sham, and would support the motion of his Wl'
friend the member for Poole.
Mr. MOWBRAY represented the city of Durham, Oa
felt it his duty to oppose the motion for postponing 1118
committee.

The amendment was negatived without a division, 04
the house went into committee, but the Chairman imve
diately reported progress, and the house resumed.
The Removal of Scotch and Irish Poor Bill and the Loesl
Government Acts Amendment Bill were read a third time
and passed.

The Metropolitan Building Act Amendment Bill was read
a second time, and the Greenwich Hospital Bill, whicii
stood for a second reading, was withdrawn.
The Metropolitan Local Management Acts Amendment
Bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to.
The Highway and Election Law Amendment Bills W 8
withdrawn for the present session.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at a quarter-past two o'clock.