The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-11 00:00:00

CHURCH RATES.

Viscount DUNGANNON presented a petition from a
place in Durham against the abolition of church rates.
Other petitions on this subject were presented.
IRELAND.

The Earl of LEITRIM presented a petition from Done-
gal, complaining of the disturbed state of the country, and
praying for the suppression of secret societies. He accom-
panied the petition with some observations in support of it.
In the course of his remarks he condemned some proceed
ings of Lord Chief Justice Monaghan.
The LORD CHANCELLOR strongly animadverted
on the Earl of Leitrim's conduct in making charges against
the Lord Chief Justice Monaghan in their lordships'
house.

INDIAN PRIZE MONEY.

In answer to a question relating to the payment of Indian

prize money,
Earl DE GREY and RIPON stated that interest at
the rate of five per cent. would be allowed on prize money,
though not of course on jewels and other articles of value.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time :—The Lon-
don and Mirth-Western Railway (Eccles, Tyldesley, and
Wigan), London and North-Western Railway (Chester
and Holyhead Railway), London and North-Western
Railway (Cheshire Lines), London and North-Western
Railway (Liverpool Lines), Birkenhead Railway, Darling-
ton Local Board of Health, London and North-Western
Railway (additional powers), Rhyl Bridge, the London
and North •Western, Lancaster and Carlisle, and Caledo-
nian Railways.
The following private bills were read a third time and
passed :—The Belfast and County Down Railway ; the
Mid-Wales Railway; London and North-Western, and
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Man-
chester London-road Station) ; Banbridge Extension Rail-
way ; Burton-upon-Trent Water ; and Llandidloss and
Newton Railway.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.'
Their lordships having gone into committee on this bill,
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that when it was
before the select committee certain alterations were intro-
duced into the measure, which, if not now modified, would
materially defeat the good working of the bill.
Lord CHELMSFORD said the noble and learned lord
had the other evening stated that the alterations were of
such a character that they could not be called amendments.
He, however, believed that the measure left the select com-
mittee greatly improved, for it was the sincere desire of
every noble lord who sat on that committee to make the
measure as useful as possible. No one who had not deeply
considered the question could appreciate the difficulty, for
it was almost impossible to satisfy all the parties interested
in the question. For instance, the Mercantile Law Amend-
ment Society—an association of London merchants—wished
to have the office of chief judge maintained as the best part
of the bill, whereas the merchants of Manchester considered
the office would be at once useless and expensive. The great
blot, however, of the bill was that it would, if passed, intro-
duce, in regard to non-traders, a retrospective law. When
the bill was before the select committee, he attempted to in-
troduce the amendment which he now proposed for the ex-
clusion of the retrospective clauses, but was defeated by a
very narrow majority. If the bill passed in its present shape
the Court would have no power of punishing with imprison.
ment non-traders for contracting debts under certain circum-
stances ; whereas, when he so contracted them, he was guilty
of no offence whatever. It was altogether impossible to do
away with the difference between trader and non-trader,
but as the bill blended t he law of bankruptcy and insolvency,
ne approved of its principle so far. However, if it passed in
its present form the non-trader would, from that moment,
become subject to certain disabilities and penalties with
respect to debts contracted before its passing, and which at
present attach to traders only. As the bill was originally
introduced into the House of Commons it contained the
exempting clause, which he now wished to see again em-
bodied in it. The fact of its having been originally in the bill
showed that it was a provision which had at first received
the sanction of her Majesty's Government ; and the mode in
which it came to be excluded from the measure was some-
what extraordinary. There was a time each evening when
the House of Commons fell into what he might call a state
of syncope—(laughter)—and one evening, while in that
state of general insensibility with a pressure on the brain,
which seemed to be shared in by the Attorney-General, the
house not having energy enough for a division, agreed to
the amendment of his learned friend, Mr. Mains, who
moved the omission of the clause. In asking their lordships
to replace it in the bill, he had he thought not only shown
t hat without some such provision the bill would operate
unjustly in reference to a large number of persons who never,
when they incurred debts, contemplated that what he was
then doing would be made the subject of an ex post facto
enactment, that all such legislation was harsh and unjust,
and that the amendment which he proposed had originally
received the sanction of her Majesty's Government.
The LORD CHANCELLOK said he not only adhered
to the opinion to which he had always given expression,
that some of the alterations made in the bill while before the
select committee were not amendments, but he would go
further and say they were many of them deteriorations.
Petitions in favour of the bill in its original form had been
presented, not only from the Mercantile Law Amendment
Society, but from the great mercantile body throughout
the kingdom, who attached the greatest importance to its
provisions. There was no proposition in it looked spots with
more favour by those persons than that for the appointment
of a chief judge, and it was a remarkable circumstance that
that clause did not meet with the slightest opposition in the
House of Commons. On the contrary, it had been hailed on
all sides with the greatest pleasure, and he believed the noble
earl opposite (Earl of Derby) was somewhat surprised when
the motion was made without any previous notice whatever,
public or private, to omit it from the bill. There was that
day a very small attendance of the committee, es his col-
leagues were for the most part absent in the discharge of
their public duties. A judge of appeal was a necessity of
the measure, for the judges of the Court of Chancery would
not have the time to devote to that business ; besides there
were functions for the chief judge to perform, for which a
fresh provision must necessarily be made. If the clause
now proposed to be inserted in the bill by the noble and
learned lord was agreed to, it would delay, for years to
come, the working of the bill. He denied that the Rouse
of Commons was in such an unconscious state, when they
rejected the proposal, as the noble and learned lord had in-
sinuated, but it yielded to the solemn arguments of Mr.
Malins—)laughter)—and when Sir H. Cairns attempted to
upset the vote by a subsequent motion, they defeated that
motion by a majority of twenty-five. Ho denied, however,
that the bill was at all retrospective, for it in no single in-
stance made the non-trader liable for anything which he
may have done in respect to the contraction of the debts
prior to its receiving the royal assent.
The Earl of DERBY denied that either he or any of his
political friends were liable for the exclusion of the clause
appointing a chief judge, as it was done on the motion of
he noble and learned lord behind the Treasury bench
(Lord Cranworth). When the committee considered the
question, it was considered that there was no appeal busi-
ness connected with bankruptcy which could not be dis-
charged by the Lord Justices of Appeeaxl,aendd.g there could be
no doubt the appointment would be an oe lyexpensive
one, and add greatly to the expense of bankrunipty
was this felt to be the case, that when the
question
notest a iconfinger held
cameSamuch
put in a committee of 17 merabersaherewarespect to the
up in opposition to the amendment. With
amendment of his noble and learned friend, it
wasnegatived
in a committee of 18 members by a majority of two. The
noble and learned lord, however, denied that the bill would
create an ex post facto law, but it was clear from the 87th
clause, that parsons now residing abroad on account of debts
contracted years ago, would be liable to be made bankrupts
in respect to those debts if, after notice given, they did not
return home. It was equally clear from the 164th clause
that these same persons would be exposed to the operation
of the penal clauses of the bill.
Lord CRAN WORTH denied that the bill was retro-
spective in the sense complained of, and there were both
precedent and authority in favour of it. For instance,
Lord Eldon's Bill in a similar way brought builders and
insurance brokers under the operation of the bankruptcy
laws; and, again, before the passing of Lord Hardwicke's
Aet, neither bankers nor brokers were amenable to those
laws. With respect to the rejection by the select committee
of the clause appointing a chief judge, he did not see how
his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor could
fairly complain that no notice was given of the amendment,
for when the bill was before their lordships on the occasion
of
its. and reading, he (Lord Cranworth) objected to the
proposal in question, and stated his intention to move its
rejection.
Lord BROUGHAM approved of the conduct of the select
committee in rejecting thetitaerorpaonskal ffor the appointment. of
a chi f judge, who, With
do. If
at a
salary of £5,000, would have nothing toa they wanted
a competent person to superintend the business of the court,
they should retain one of the existing Commissioners for
that purpose. After the
Passing of the Bankruptcye business
in which he had the honour to get passed, the a
Y occptipapied ausliness
in bankruptcy cases, ousl
which pAvi
portion of the time of the Court of Chancery, go dwindled
down, that the Court of Record being no longer necessary,
fell into distietude ; and that was what they might have to
expect in reference to the court of the chief judge. He could
not understand the form of argument by which it was at-
tempted to prove the bill was not a retrospective one, for if
a non-trader at present residing at Calais or Boulogne to
avoid arrest for debts
contracted before the bill was thought
of, continued to do so for six its passing,
months after
would expose himself to the penalties of this measure, and
his creditors might make h•
t, and take posses-
sion of his property, with? t a bankrupt,
anything of their proceedings aulhie
perhaps ever knowing
interfere. There was not anythingttil
it
he would be too late to
justice as export facto legislation. A
knew so opposed to
member of the House
of Commons could be made a bankrupt
and would then have
to resign his seat; but when the Act of Par l r
ament making
that law was passed, care was taken that it should not
apply to a member for debts contracted previously to •