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

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

demand certainly was, that creditors should have restored
- -

to them the administration of what was really their own
affairs--(hear) ; and he could not say that that demand was
unreasonable. He fully recognised the value of the services
of the official assignees, especially in collecting small debts,
because they had a large staff of clerks, and could easily re-
sort to the commissioner or the judge. One of the provi-
sions of the bill, therefore, intrusted to them the getting in
of debts not exceeding £lO, which they could do more
cheaply than a solicitor could. The number of these gentle-
men was at present, however, far too many, and, indeed, he
thought there would not be sufficient work for those whom
the bill proposed to retain.
Mr. M. SMITH did not assert that under no circum-
stances would mercantile men consent to act as creditors'

assignees. What he maintained was that the provisions of
this bill were too stringent and burdensome, and would
tend to deter such persons from undertaking these duties.
The clause was then agreed to.
Upon clause 22,
Mr. BRISCOE wished to know whether it was intended
that the judge should have power to dismiss messengers
without any misconduct on their part. There were only five
messengers in the London district, and one of them had held
his office fir 45 years. It would, he thought, be hard to
dismiss those officers after so long a service without any
compensation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the reasons for dis-
continuing any messenger would be stated in the order
made by the judge. The messengers were employed to take
possession of property, and although the present holders of
those offices were very respectable gentlemen, yet their
duties were such as might be performed by very subordi-
nate officers.

`;Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether it would be a
sufficient ground for dismissal that their services were no
longer required.
Mr. BRISCOE still thought it to be harsh to remove
men who had held these offices for 40 years without any

misconduct on their part.
The clause was then agreed to, as were other clauses up
to 25.

Upon clause 26,
Mr. MALINS referred to the position of the provisional
assignee of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, who, by this
clause, was to receive the same emolument as the other offi-
cial assignees. As that officer had always performed his
duties in a most satisfactory manner it would be unfair to
reduce him now from £1,500, the amount of his present in-
come, to £1,200 per annum. He (Mr. Malins) proposed an
amendment to the effect that the provisional assignee should
continue to receive the same amount as he now derived from
his office.

Mr. MELLOR said the bill provided that the provisional
assignee of the Insolvent Debtors' Court should perform
the same duties as the official assignees. It would there-
fore be unfair that ho should receive a different salary from
the official assignees.
Mr. WILLIAMS wished to know why the provisional
assignee should be placed in a better,position than the offi-
cial assignees ?
Mr. MALINS thought it very hard that, after having
discharged the duties of the office for 42 years, the gentle-
man in question should now havehis salary cut down, espe-
cially as he would still have todo the same amount of work.
Mr. HENLEY believed that if they allowed the provi-
sional assignee to retain his present emoluments there
would be a difficulty in dealing with the official assignees.
He asked whether the emoluments were in the shape of
fees or salary
Mr. MALINS—Partly fees and partly salary.
Mr. COLLIER deemed £1,200, the remuneration which
the provisional assignee would receive under the bill, amply
sufficient for, the duties he had to perform.
The clause was agreed to.
Clauses from 27 to 35, both inclusive, were also agreed to.
In clause 36, providing for the payment of the salaries:of
the present officers of the Insolvent Debtors' Court,
Mr. MALINS proposed to omit the words "as nearly:as
may be out of the same fuuds, and payable in the same
manner in all respects, as if this act had not been passed,"
and to substitute for them, " and the same shall be paid
out of the fund standing to the credit of the Chief Regis-
trar's account."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL promised to consider
the matter before the report ; and upon that understanding
the clause was agreed to.
On clause 37,
Mr. E. JAMES inquired on what principle the scale of
remuneration to official assignees had been fixed. At pre-
sent he believed there was scarcely any uniformity in the
manner of their payment. The different estates were bal-
loted for, and, while a fortunate assignee got hold of proper-
ties which were largely remunerative, there were others
who in 10 or 15 years cleared little more than the amount
of their establishment charges. It ought not to be forgotten
in determining the payment to which they were to be en-
titled, that their duties under this measure would bo mate-
rially lessened. He therefore moved that a fixed sum be
allowed them in place of the salary and allowances contem-
plated by the bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK asked the Atterney-G eneral whether he
had not last year been of opinion that those gentlemen were
entitled to more than £1,200 a-year ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was induced last
year, in consequence of representations made by a deputa-
. tion of official assignees, to fix their maximum remuneration
at £1,500 a-year. The clause inserted for this purpose led
to a great deal of remonstrance, and was among other mat-
ters a reason why the bill had to be given up. Since that
time he had caused inquiries to be made, the answers to
which satisfied him that for several years previous to 1856
the average emoluments of these gentlemen did not amount
to £1,200 a-year ; but by a return extending from the 11th
October, 1857, to the end of the year 1859, it appeared that
their remuneration had largely increased. These gentlemen,
it should be remembered, were often placed in situations of
considerable peril ; in some instances they had been made de •
fendants to suits and obliged to pay heavy costs ; but to this
liability the bill contemplated they should no longer be ex-
posed. On referring to the measure by which their offices were
created he found that the original intention was that they
should receive £BOO a-year ; but having reference to their
length of service, to the altered nature of their position,
and to their average receipts for the last 10 or 12 years, he
thought it would be found that £1,200 a-year was by no
means an exaggerated estimate.
Mr. M. SMITH remarked that this clause only provided
that the income tax should not exceed a certain sum ; it
did not provide for the other alternative, and state that it
should not be less than a given amount.
Sir M. PETO had been assured by ono of the official
assignees that for 1.5 years their average income had been
£1,600 per annum ; for 12 years, £l,BOO , and for 7 years
over £2,000.
Mr. MURRAY said that the official assignees who had
the maximum of profit seemed to have no more business
than those who had the minimum. He thought the proper
course would be to adopt the principle of the bill of last year,
and fix a minimum salary of £BOO, with fees. That was the
only way to get the official assignees to do their work. Two
of them had been examined, and both objected to take a
salary exclusively.
Mr. MALINS observed that by the clause, as it now
stood, the salary could not exceed £1,200, but it might be
only 12s. Something ought to be fixed certain. He could
not see the force of the observation of the hon. member for
Newcastle (Mr. Murray) that the official assignees could not
be got to do their duty without a salary in addition to fees.
As every other officer of the court was to be paid by salary,
why should an exception be made in the case of the official
assignees ?
Mr. BRISCOE suggested that the clause might bo
amended by substituting the words " shall amount to" for
the words " shall not exceed." This would secure the offi-
cers a salary of £1,200 a-year.
Mr. A. SMITH said that so much depended on the dili-
gence used by the official assignees in the collection of the
assets, it would be better to pay them partly by salary and
partly by fees.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was willing to so alter
the clause that the proposed arrangement would apply to
the existing assignees, but that no assignee hereafter to be
appointed would receive more than £1,200 a-year. Would
such an alteration meet the views of the hon. and learned
member for Marylebone ?
Mr. E. JAMES would be perfectly content with such a
settlement of the matter.
The amendment of the hon. and learned member (Mr.
James) was then, by leave, withdrawn ; and the clause
was postponed in order te give the Attorney-General an
opportunity of making his proposed alteration.
On clause 38, relating to the messengers,
Mr. MALINS asked the Attorney-General to postpone
it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assented.
Mr. JAMES hoped the hon. and learned member for
Wallingford would inform them on a future occasion what
was the proper definition of the term messenger, what
duties the messengers to Bankruptcy Courts performed,
what amount of money they had received, and how much
they returned to the income-tax. (Hoar, hear.)
Mr. MALINS said the Bankruptcy messengers had had
for many years very important duties to perform, and he
had never heard that they had not performed them very
well. Whatever they had received they had received under
the law, and he thought the house would be slow to leave
them suddenly in their old age with scarcely any provision.
Mr. BRISCOE had just received two petitions from
messengers in Bankruptcy, but had not had time to peruse
them. Ho had no doubt they contained important state-
ments, and he should take care to make himself master of
them.

Mr. SPOONER said that in the collection of assets
much depended on the vigilance and honesty of the mes-
sengers. It was often the case that fraudulent bankrupts
concealed property, and it was the duty of the messenger
to discover it. It was a more important office than the hon.
and learned member for Marylebono seemed to suppose.
The clause was then postponed, and also clause 39, as to
the retiring annuity of the judge.
Upon clause 40, which provides that officers who have
served 20 years, or who have before become incapacitated
by ill health, shall be entitled to pensions to the amount of
two-thirds of their salaries,
Mr. A. SMITH moved the addition of these words:—
"and shall be above 65 years of age." He said that many
of these offices might be filled by men aged 25, and they

would be entitled to retire, even though in good health,
when they were 45. While they hold office they ought to
provide retiring pensions for themselves. (Hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL saw no objection to the
alteration if the officers were at liberty to retire when inca-
pacitated by ill health.
The amendment wasagreed to, and the clause as amended
ordered to stand part of the bill.
'Clause 41, referring to annuitants who accept other

offices, was agreed to.
On clause 42, which provides that the compensations
under Ist and 2d William IV., cap. 56, sections 52, 53, and
54, to the Patentee of Bankrupts, the former Commissioners
of Bankrupts, the Clerk of the Hanaper, and other officers of
the Court of Chancery, shall be paid into the Bank of Eng-
land by the Commissioners of the Treasury out of moneys

yearly voted by Parliament.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked the connnittee whether
they were prepared to see a new item in the miscellaneous
estimates. The house last year refused to allow these pay-
ments to be made out of the Consolidated Fund, and he
now called upon them to say that they should not be au-
nually voted by Parliament, but continue to be paid out
of the fund from which they had been drawn for 40 years.
There was an ample fund out of the interest of which
these payments could be made, and he objected to their
being thrown upon the public purse. He moved that all
the words of the clause after the word "funds" be omitted.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that these pay..
ments were now made by statute, which required that they
should be paid out of a fund contributed by creditors in
their capacity of suitors for justice. This was objectionable
in principle, and why should the committee refuse to cor-
rect the errors of past legislation ? If it was the duty of
the Stato to provide for the administration of justice, it was
also the duty of the State to do so at the expense of the
community. So far as the Bankruptcy Court performed
the public duty of administering justice in this important
branch of the law, it was the duty of the State to find the
funds necessary forso doing. (Hear, hear.) All he asked

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

HIGHWAYS BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
bill,

Mr. DISRAELI said—A committee was recently ap,
pointed to consider whether any changes could be intro

duced into the mode of conducting the public business
which would tend to facilitate its progress through the
house• One of the great objections raised against the pre-
sent system in the debate on the motion for the appointment
of that committee was that the privilege ofbringing forward

questions on going into Committee of Supply was carried to

such an extent that it was impossible to know when the
main business of the evening would come on for discussion.
When the Navy Estimates, for example, are on the paper,
we come down and find some gentleman bringing forward
the grievances of Whitechapel. Perhaps there may be good
reasons for that course of procedure, but I beg to call atten-
tion to the manner in which the programme of business is
prepared for the information of the house by the Govern-
ment. I came down to-night to discuss the Highways Bill,
a subject in which my constituents, and the constituents,

no doubt, of many hon. gentlemen on both sides, are much
interested. The Highways Bill stands first on the paper,
but when it was called nobody proceeded with it. It ought
to have been proceeded with, or, at least, those responsible
for the bill ought to have given some reason to the house
why it was postponed. The second order is the Post-office
Savings-banks Bill, a subject which at present engages
public attention. I know that many members came down
to-night purposely to receive: information respecting that
bill, and to offer their opinions upon it ; but it was passed
over in silence, and the Minister responsible for it did not
appear in his place to explain why the second measure
appointed by the Government was not proceeded with. The
next order on the paper—the Bankruptcy Bill—was cer-
tainly proceeded with, but only to a certain point.
(Hear.) The Minister responsible for that bill told us he
believed there was an understanding that progress should
not be made beyond a certain clause; and the consequence
is that, at a comparatively early hour, there is no Govern-
ment business before the house. As the Minister respon-
sible for the Highways Bill was not in his place when it
was called in its proper order, it was postponed, according
to our usual practice, until after the other orders. It has
now been called again; but, although the Minister is pre-
sent, he has not condescended to give us any reason why
the arrangement of business devised by the Government has
not been followed. I want to know what prospect there is of
our conducting the public business with satisfaction to our-

selves or to the country if the house is to be treated in this
manner by the Government. (Hear.) I have always
thought that, although there are many means by which the

business of the house might be expedited, much must neces-
sarily depend upon the course pursued by Ministers. See
what has happened to-night. Upon an important Govern-
ment night, at the beginning of the week, we have a pro-
gramme of business prepared and circulated for twe days,
and when we come down we find it is not realised in any
respect. The only conclusion at which we can arrive is that
the conduct of business in that manner, if not the only
cause, is a cause of the unsatisfactory state of public busi-
ness. (Hear, hear.) I think an explanation is due to the
house by the Government upon these heads, and I await it
with some interest.

Sir G. C. LEWIS—I regret that any inconvenience has
been caused by the circumstances to which the right hon.
gentleman has referred ; but I think I can give an explana-
tion which will be satisfactory to the house. I was perfectly
prepared—indeed, it was my wish—to move the second
reading of the Highways Bill to• night; but the hon. mem-
ber for Leominster on Friday evening asked me across the
table whether, in consequence of the short time during
which the bill had been in the hands of hon. members, I
would consent to postpone the second reading. I said that
as the time had been short I would consent to postpone the
second reading, and I added that I would mention on Mon-
day the day to which I should postpone it. Perhaps I ought
to have moved the postponement on Friday night, but I
distinctly stated that I would not move the second reading
this evening. (Hear, hear) With respect to the Post
Office Savings Banks Bill, I believe the Chancellor
of the Exchequer is confined, if not to his bed, at
all events to his room, by illness, and " consequently
it was not in his power to come down to the house
to-Right. (Hear, hear.) If he had been able to
attend in his place, he would have moved the second
reading of the bill. Such are the circumstances un-
der which the Bankruptcy Bill came to have precedence,
and I, for one, was under the impression that the Attor-
ney-General had stated publicly that he would not proceed
beyond the 50th clause. I presume he oxpeeted, remem-
bering the long debates which took place last Session, that
the first 50 clauses would occupy the House the whole of
the evening. I am always sorry when hon. members have
reason to complain of any want of notice, but I trust they
will see that there was no intentional omission on the part
of the Government upon this occasion. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. BARROW and Mr. HENLEY,
The second reading of the Highways Bill was postponed
till Friday next.
RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH.

Mr. FREDERICK PEEL moved the appointment of a
select committee on the Red Sea and India Telegraph
Bill.

Mr. WYLD objected to the motion being brought for-
ward in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in whose name it stood on the paper.
Mr. F. PEEL said the object of the bill was simply to
carry out certain arrangements entered into between the
Government and the Red Sea Company.
Sir MINT° FARQUHAR said• that all the answers of
the Government on this subject were so vague that they
could not be understood by those who were interested in
it. The question was of great interest to the public in
general; for public faith was deeply identified with it. It
was understood that the Government were responsible for
the interest to be obtained by the shareholders. The
statement now made by the right hon. gentleman made
confusion worse confounded.
Mr. G REGSON said it was certainly understood that
the contract between the Government and the company
was unconditional, and that the Government was to gua-
rantee the rate of interest to the shareholders.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said the house ought to know
if the company had carried out their undertaking with the
Government. All they knew was that the Government had
entered into an unconditional contract with the company,
but whether the company had performed its portion of the
contract did not appear. All they knew was that there had
been a failure by the company, and the surprise was that
the Government had pledged the public money in respect
to the scheme in question, without an assurance being given
that the company would carry it out.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said the question before the house was
the appointmekt of the committee on the subject under con-
sideration, and ho hoped the house would adhere to this
question. What was the engagement between the Govern-
ment and the company was the subject to be considered by
the committee, and when the committee made its report
that would be the time to consider the whole question.
Mr. RICARDO said ho believed that the object of ap-
pointing this committee was that it should in effect not
make any report at all. What the house wanted to knew
was this, did the company carry out its undertaking with
the Government? He believed they had not, and he must
say that the explanation given by the right hon. gentleman
was far from satisfactory. He should move, at a proper
time, that it be an instruction to the committee to say
whether the company had performed their portion of the
contract.
Sir C. WOOD repeated the statement made by Sir G. C.
Lewis, and said he believed it was true that the whole line
of telegraph had not becu in operation, but a part of it had
been. The simple question to be considered by the com-
mittee was the contract between the Government and the
company.
The following gentlemen were appointed members of the
committee :—Mr. Peel, Sir S. Northcote, Mr. Dunlop, Mr.
Cave, Mr. Scholefield, Mr. E. Egerton, and Mr. Bonham-
Carter.
The house then adjourned at 11 o'clock.

THE TEA TRADE, Feb. 18.—The deliveries in
London estimated for the week were 952,5861 b., which is a
decrease of 15,1611 b. compared with the previous statement.
[ADVERTISEMENT.] Pills and medicine invariably ag-
gtavate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, dis-
appointment, and expense may be avoided by persons
in indifferent health sending only their addross to E.
S. Barry, Esq., 77, Regent-street, W., London, and they
will receive gratis and free by post the "INVALIDS' Owl,
GUIDE," or Natural Restorer, without medicine or ex
pmee, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, and
refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insuring the removal
of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver complaints,
nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness, palpitation,
cough, asthma, consumption, dropsy, flatulency, diarrhoea,
dysentery, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, catarrhs, colds,
noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, eruptions.
hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness, acidity, palpi-
tation, heartburn, headache, despondency, cramps, spasms,
sinking, fits, bronghltie.--,!Unguestionably the safest Quids
to hv~lth s>