The Sun.
London, England, 1842-08-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING-, AUGUST 9, 1842.

. -
vo:d, because he was of the Esiabiished Church utni hi. tkem' to pay 1111.6'. the Bank. To 'effect that (thlect
wife a Presbyterian, and that they Iver, married by aI a provision would be introduced into the Bill to
Presbyterian minister, having been disallowed, Sir the eltect that if- the Commissioner or judge
Samuel Romilly presented' a petition froM that persoii, ,Mould find that the assignee retained in his possesion
complaining of the conviction ;whereupon the A ttornoy any suns exceeding 200 t,
beyond forty.;eight hours, he
Generril mul the Solicitor-Generai said, that they had f should either have to pay as a penalty excessive interest
cAustilted the Irish statutes, and the most eminent Irish on the sum, as was the case under the old bankruptcy
civilians upon this case, and- they found there Wps no Act, or be subjeetvd to the forfeiture of his office. Thus
doubt, of the validity ,)f the marriage. Ile, therefore, perfect 'sectirity could be obtained against the' faults of
contended that the Act (Right to he declaratory. li the official assignee. He would state, during an
seemed to him that if they passed this Act, the world experience of twenty-five years before the alteration- in
not only occasion much evil, but do the greatest in- the law took place, that not a bankruptcy estate became
instice, f thr sitliicet of investigation that the bankrupt wa.r not

Lord BROUGHAM said -that it was 'impossible to
deny much that had been argued by his Noble and
Learned Friend (Lord- Campbell), but that Noble Lord
bad overlooked this important consideration, that in thi;
eac.,', there was only a choice of evils: lie agreed thst
tie! I 11 ought to be a declaratory Act, hnt thee
t!e-y, were now in a. very difficult position,
whatever had been the finaner decisions,
eight: of the ten Irish Judges had decided that those
meninges were illegal. TiMt decisifiti i"Yas given by the
Jailges in a Court 0: Error, and after a full hearing of
all the arguments for two days. Whereas the eases
width hie Noble, and Learned Friend had cited were
only nix; pries cases, tried before a single Judge. Cer-
tainly if it were possible to have the writ of error before
the House as a CoUrt of Appeal, and to reverse the
judgment of the Irish Court of Queen's Bench (if. they
were sere they would reverse it.), then a declaratory Bid
would be a proper mode of proceeding. But it was a.
MaLiCT of insuperable difficulty to het p the two Houses
of Parliament sitting here to await a decision upon n
litigated case. There was a great deal of tnischiefan- the
present state of things-Lhusbands were leaving their
wives, and wives were giving notice to their husbands
that they did not consider their meninges valid. But he
did not agree with -his Noble and Learned Friend, that.
by passing an enacting Act, their Lordships would
imply an opinion that but fur such an Act those mar—
riages would have been invalid. Even if such were the
implication, surely it Would leave the parties in-a. better
state than they were now in. At present they had a
decision that the marriages were invalid—the Act before
the House would pronounce them valid.
The LORD CHANCELLOR explained. He denied
that the Presbyterians of Ireland would• receive the Bill
with consternation. On the contrary, he had received a let-
ter dated the 31st of July last, from Mr. Montgomery, Mee.
derator of the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster, expressing
the unanimous wish of the Synod, that the Bill should be
passed without delay. The evils were so great, and so'
imperatively calling for an immediate remedy, that ho
thought it his duty as a Member of the Government to.
recommend this Bill, and their Lordships' duty to adopt it.
The Marquis of CLANBICARDE was satisfied that
the greater part of the Presbyterians of Ireland were
most, averse to this Bill, and many of- them would prefer
-any postponement to the enactment of such a measure.
He was not prepared to argue the question in a legal
way, but yet he thought it would not be difficult to
frame and pass a declaratory Act. The people of Ire- .
land, notwithstanding the late decision, universally re-
garded those marriages as valid. He hoped, therefore,
that at a fiiture time, after the decision of the appeal, if
their Lordshipi should decide that the laW was in fit-
your of the marriages, a declaratory law might be
passed without prejudice to this Bill, If that could be
done according to law or precedent.
The Earl of WICKLOW would have proposed a de-
claratory Act, but as that was impossible at present it
was absolutely necessary to pass this At without delay ;
and he, therefore, gave the motion his most cordial.
support.
Lord CAMPBELL briefly repeated his objections to
this Bill, and his opinion that the declaratory Act should
even now be passed.
The Bill was then ordered to be committed to-morrow,
and the House adjourned at Eight o'Clock.

Since the 'alteration a great irniiro; ("merit in.d

reined.
tal:en place
Me. W. C.' SCOTT wished that this part of the Bill
,should be 'referred to a Select Committee. He saw
-reason why-the,. official assignees should be more that.
paid accountants to the estate.
'. Mr. B. WOOD concurred-with the Hon. Gentleman
who hall just seat down. He was anxioneeoimprove this
clause witlemt destroying official. assignees altogether.
110 thought the creditors ought. to ha, e due protection
from the eperatioin: of this l w, and for that. purpose he
proposed several Verbal :intendment-a in the clause to the
effect, that. the money to be paid should be received not
by the official aasigeee alone, but by him jointly ith the
creditors' assigitee—bus making; the official assignee ac-
eonniable to the creditors' assignee.
The SOLICETOI-Z4IEN ERA L said the reason the
oftioial assignees hail worked so well was, that under
their management-debts were collected which could not
be got in tinder, the old system. The-creditors' assignee
could not be got to work so weil as the official. assignee,
whom the lion. tentleman oppesite (Mr. B. Wood) pro-
posed by his amendments to clog in the discharge of his
duties.
Mr. HARDY thought that the official asaignee ought
not to receive any greater sum of money than the amount
of the security for the due diseharge of his duty. He did
not think y there could ha an I
oejeetion to that.
Mr. HAWES supported the ekirse in all its integrity;
it •\%':ls: well knewn to those
acquainted with bankruptcy
business that it had worked . Most, of the abuses
had arisen frOin the miseenduct of the trade assignee,
and if they gave that assignee more to do than he had
at present it would be done still` worse.
Mr. BECKETT•said the Hon. Member had shown no
reasons whatever, why the official assignee should act
better than the assignee appointed by the party. No
instance of misappropriation. of funds had ever been
traced to the private assignees,
though they might have
been dilatory in attending to the
proceedings.
Could the official assignees in all' cases come
before the flonse with a-le'an hands ?—(Hear.)
There were te variety of other Objections to this Bill. In
the first place, the annual amount of money which passed
through the hands of the official assignees in .London was
more than 1,000,000 L But he believed that the
assets which' passed • yearly through the hands ►
the official assignees in the country, amounted more
nearly to three millions than two ; and he would ask, was
that an amount of money that should be left in the
hands of irresponsible men ? The only responsibility
that rested upon them was, that they were recommended
to the Lord Chancellor, who was responsible for the
appointments. • And with all his respect for the present
Lord Chancellor's penetration, wisdom, and strength of
character, he thought it was not justice to the Noble and
Learned Lord that so heavy a responsibility should rest
upon him. He would not detain the House longer,
but would give his earnest opposition to the wefts
sure ; because he .was convinced that the Com-
mittee did not possess the knowledge necessary
to enable them to deal with the subject pro-
perly. So that if he could ask a favour of his
Right Hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment, it would be to put off the Bill for the present session,
that Hon. Members might have an opportunity of making
themselves acquainted with the subject. He hoped this tnea-
sure would be put off until next session, in order to have a
Committee appointed to examine into the subject. Ile
thought that the promoters of this Bill would be disap-
pointed in its operation. He should certainly endeavour by
every means in his power to procure the postponement of
this Bill. If he should not succeed in that he would then
bring forward a motion to restrict the powers of the Coin-
missloners. He would now give notice that if he were
defeated in that he would ask for leave to introduce a
proviso enacting that the Court of Bankruptcy shall an-
ttally lay before Parliament an account of the total
• amount of their receipts and payments, and of the ba-
lance in hand, distinguishing . the accounts of each
(ffifficeiinall
nsnee sigon each separate estate. assignee,• and the sums paid and received by each
0)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM. was surprised at the at-
tempt now made to postpone the Bill. The subject had
been discussed a short time since, and the House had
expressed a strong opinion that the Bill ought to be pro-
ceeded with this session. The Lord Chancellor pos-
sessed strength of mind, but still he could not forget
the great opposition which every attempt to reform the
Bankruptcy COurts in the country most give rise to.
Ile could not forget that in the country there were 740
local Commissioners, all members of the legal profes-
sion, possessing great power and great influence, and
who would naturally be opposed to any alteration.' His
Hon. Friend would admit that if there was any person
more indisposed to change than another—though he at
the same time possessed an intimate knowledge of the
subject—that person was Lord Eldon ; yet, what was
the opinion of that great man, when lie • first held the
Great Seal in 1801 ? Lord Eldon said that the abuse
of bankruptcies was a • disgrace to the country, and it
would be better to repeat all the statutes, than to suffer
them to be applied to such purposes. There was no
mercy to the estate. "-As they are frequently con-
ducted in the country, they are little more than a stock-.
in-trade for the Commissioners, the assignees, and the
solicitor. Commissions of Bankruptcy were treatei as
matters of traffic., and unless the Court held a strong
bend over them, particularly tc.; administered in the
country, they were as aeoessible to as great a nuiaance
as tiny known in the land." That was the opinion of
Lied Elden in 1801, and those who differed front it
were
place culethis law n(;lntsortlipslisc:e:N.,V
thatat dissentediitinimportant
tata'nr
change
el changeee proceeding taken
had been proluctiv
rity for extending the change tO the rural districts ;
eof no advantage. They had aetho-
they had had experience of the nature of the change in -
the metropolitan districts, and he contended that
that change in principle and practice was equally •
applicable to the rural districts. His Honourable
Friend had referred to a case which he had
formerly cited, and if such a case could not be
denied, he thought Parliament was bound to provide a
remedy before it separated. He had received a depute-
lion from the City of London, including three of the
Members of-' that emporium of the commerce of the
kingdom, and they all expressed themselves
satisfied with the me: sire: They acid that the
appointment of the official assignee at first was
viewed with some suspicion, but that it gradually
rose in the public estimation, and the strong hand
of the Chancellor being over them, means were
taken to prevent abuses, or rectify them. But,
notwithstanding some irregularities had occurred in
practice, they one and all assured hint that the trading
community in the City of London was fixed in favour of
the official assignee. Now he (Sir J. Graham) said
upon the opinion of Lord Eldon, so strongly given forty
years ago—no correction then having been applied—a
correction baying been applied in the metropolis, after a
ten years' experience, the result of that experience being a
general satisfaction and benefit of the community--he
said that they would be acting an unworthy part if they
refused to apply the remedy which experience had shown
to he geed ; and they should be acting., as a Government,
an unworthy part, having brought that measure so near
to its conclusion, it' they hesitated for a moment to pre-
ceed with it ; and, though he entertained the strictest •
respect for his Honourable. Friend, lie must say that
his opinion had not in any degree been shaken, and he
telt it. to be his bounden fluty to press the Bill on the
consideration of the Committee, and he hoped in the
present session of Parliament to be enabled to send the
Bill back to the Lords, from whence it came.
Mr. B. WOOD believed that very few men in that
House were inclined in favour of the present Bankruptcy
Law, and their great objectas could be made. The present Bill had been bafore the
now was to get a law as good
House only ton days, and for that reason he hoped the
Eight Hon. Gentleman would consent to postpone
the consideration of the Bill till next session.
lie thought that they ought to have some greater check
than was given by the present Bill. If the Solicitor-
Generel did not think that the words he (Mr. Wood)
employed were sufficient, he would leave it to
him to alter them. With regard to documents, he
thought that the trading assignee should sign theta with
the official assignee, which would • give greater security.
At present there was no protection at all. Ile must,
therefore, insist upon the amendment he had proposed.
Mr. HARDY could net see what reasonable objection
could lie made to the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Southwark. He considered the whole of the arguments
of the Hon. Member for Lambeth founded upon fallaciona
premises. It should be provided that in all. cases where
the official assignee, received
there ought
us larger sum than the
nee give a joint
receipt for the money. All he wished
ta.omio)ennattirinfdtleieassseicgtnweietytowaheicehornhpeanh3a,(hl yen!
was to have a
check upon the official assignee, when he received more
than the amount of his security. Ile thought that out of
justice to the 740 Country Commissioners, the Right
Hon. Baronet ought to mention the names of the four
persons to whom he had alluded as bevies; acted wrong.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the case had been alluded to
in the memorial presented by the merehanta of London
twohtihohe Lord
the e ,Cnhlaunicsseilolintr
iiinadlbeB3e9n n
, coonaeqnenca of
the labours
and paying it into the :tient.,
of which the present Bill had been foutuhea The
names of the parties had not been given in the tuem:hrleuil:
Mr..MASTERMAN thought the great blot of the
present law was the power which it, gave the official:
as
laldBoeole.urrea
ahsasnigdsn;.eeslfofingsteit.atirofcogittllgerailiiii(i;
official
ssiitigtnoes
the
power of receiving money,
they were to give the rower of giving' an order -to the
party paying the money to pay it into the Bank
to the account of the Accountant-General of the
Court of Bankruptcy, the evil would be remedied.
Mr. AGLIONBY wished to know that white of flue
in 1801 e
transaction Minded to by the Eight Hon. Baronet ? Ile
thought
ware creditors, and one was a debtor to
• but he knew of a more recent ease, which was beeo,;
the Lord - Chancellor the other day, its api4,
of ,a
Commissioners, one sses .ClllCiWr to the fiat ; and of
pblueloieeraesdfatiriebeaackse
the ot hers, -threa
the estate. "
Mr. jERVLS said the case cited by the Hon, Mesa
bet for Lambeth most
_}lava fleehrFC4 1111IieVn
tent Ireause theN fireOfum.issioners. The
Right Hon. Baronet quoted an opinion of Lord Eldon'a
in 1801, and said it. was for those who oPPosed' thiS -Bill
to allow that the law had been altered.
the few
had been altered by the Gth of George IV., :ind fly toes
more recent Act of William IV. 'et
4c ...onania-
sionets were formerly appointed
42a- •' the Lord
Chancellor. on the nomination's-if tbe ii,Casore astriking the
.

. .
docket,-now. they .were nominated by. the Judges. The.
periods of,their meetings and their fees were all limited
by Act of Parliament. He was afraid from what had
fallen from the light Hon. Baronet relative to the
strength of the opposition to be apprehended from
the seven hundred and forty Commissioners, that
theßill had been purposely delayed in the House of Lord,,,
and was now forced through the, House of Commons, at
this adranced period of the session, for the purpose of
endeavourini, to suppress all legitimate opposition. The
opponents of the Bill could produce two cases of gross
misconduct on the part of the official 'assignees, quits
equal to those old cases which had been raked up by the
Right Ilononurable Baronet and the Honourable
Member for Lambeth. Thai sort of misconduct would,
however, be rendered impossible by the adoption of the
suggestion of the. !ion. Member for London. There

t. bored that persons selected for such offices often accepted
.them at great pecuniary sacrifice. The object was to se-
. cure the best assistance, and it could not 1w obtained
without an adequate remuneration.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought. that efficient lawyers might
he found at a lower salary than that proposed in the clause.
Mr. M. PHILIPS would compromise his feeling; in
.the matter, by suggesting that 1;500/. a year should he
given to the Country Commissioner, instead of the amount
i.roposed.
• . Mr. B. WOOD admitted that the Commissioner; were
a great improvement upon the present law, but he thought
ilia proposed salaries of 2,0001. to the old Commis-
sioners ~was too large, and he should, therefore. pro-
pose that-the sum should be 1,80.0/.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he should resist the- motion,
and he would state in a few words his reasons. By this
Act additional duty was imposed on the Com-
missioners, by the enlarged . circle - in which
their busines.t . was to .be performed. That was
one ground . why he opposed the motion. II is
second reason ivas the reason already stated by the A [ter-
ney-General, that when those gentlemen were appointed,
a hope was distinctly held out to them of promo' ion,
both with respect to their salaries and their situa,
tions. He knew that many Commissioners held their
situations upon that expectation. The alteration in the
salary was only 3001. a-year.
Mr. B. WOOD said they were not altogether to be
bound by verbal understandings between officers
and the Govei nment. He (Mr. Wood) proposed that the
salary should be increased 3001. a-year, the present
~diary being 1.5001,
Mr. AGLIONBY said that the Right Hon. Baronet
had made a mistake in stating the increase would only
be 301'/. a year, whereas it was 500/.
Sir J WILDE thought that the salary proposed was
adequate. When it was considered that those who were
to till the duties of Commissioners would be withdrawn
from their professions, he did not think that 2,000/. was
an unreasonable sum for them to receive. He thought.
that the increase of duty which devolved upon them
fully entitled them to the additional 500/. a year. Those
who were to fill the situation of Commissioners should
possess considerable learning, which would acquire for
them the confidence of the public, and therefore there
would be fewer appeals. than if persons who did not pos-
sess that confidence were selected to fill those situations.
However, he was not influenced by the private arrange-
ments of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
The.amendment-was theft withdrawn.
PHILIPS then proposed that "1,500/." 'should
be substituted far " 1,800/.7 in the seventh line of the
clause, as the salary of the country Commissioner.
After a few words from Sir T. Wmor, and Mr. .1e-
! mostay,-the Committee divided, when there appeared
,For the amendment
Against it
. • ority Maj against the amendment ---65
.• .
The clause was then agreed to.
.Clause 14, which had been postponed, was then put
and agreed to. . .
Clause :5 was also agreed to, with one verbal amend-
. Menu.
•ClanseS from 76-np to 80 were agreed to. -
Clause 81 was withdrawn.
Clauses from 82 to 89 were agreed to with a few verbal
amendments.
On clause 90 being put, which gives the Lord Chan-
cellor the power of allowing the travelling expenses of
any of the Commissioners, in case he should think it
necessary to send them on a Special Commission,
. Mr. AGLIONBY objected to the clause, thinking that
the Commissioners ought to pay their own expenses
(nit of the large salaries that were to be given them.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think that
anything could be more unreasonable than that the Com-
missioners should not be paid their expenses for travel-
ling, because they were quite uncertain. The expenses
of the Judges were easily calculated, and therefore they
paid them theniselyes ; but if there was a special com-
mission they did not pay them out of their own pockets.
Mr.-JERVIS thought that the contingent expenses of
the Commissioners should he paid.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought it would be hard if, when
the Lord Chancellor had power to scud down whom he
might consider the best Commissioner, he was compelled
to pay his own expenses.
• The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91 was agreed to.
On clause 92 being proposed,
WILDE said he should. object to the clause
foto, because he did not understand on what principle of
justice it was founded.
Sir J. GRAHAM said it was a balanced question, and
on the whole it would be advisable to let the clause pass
for the present, on the understanding that some other
arrangements should be made.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 93 and 94 were also passed.
A supplementary- clause was proposed after clause 94,
empowering. the clerks and secretaries of the Lord Chan-
cellor to receive 2s. 6d. on each certificate and declara-
tion of insolvency, such sums to be applied to the pur-
poses of the schedule.
It was agreed to without discussion.
Mr. BENJAMIN WOOD said that he had a clause
to propose, to which he hoped there would be no
objection. The clause provided that the official as-
signee should render an account to the trading assignee
of all monies three days before the audit meeting. It
also provided that the official assignee should furnish to
this trading assignee the account of property in band, and
it further provided that the whole charges should be ex-
amined by the trading assignee, giving the trading as-
signee liberty to object to any part of those accounts be-
fore the Commission.
Sir T. WILDE objected to the clause, as lie thought it
would defeat its own object. It made the one assignee
the mere puppet of the other. The clause was founded
on an erroneous basis. Ito should therefore Oppose it.
Mr.,11. IVOOD said he should not press the clause to
a division.
'l'ha clause was therefore negatived.
The House resumed, and
The CHAIRMAN reported progress.—'The Report was
ordered to be received to-morrow (this slay).
INCOME-TAX.
Major BERESFORD (as we understood) wished to
put a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer on a subject of much interest to
persons in the City. Ile wished to know whether per-
sons holding securities, and receiving dividends upon
those securities, and paid to persons residing in foreign
states, would be obliged to deduct three per cent: for the
Iticoins-tax ; if so, it would be a serious injustice, not
may to the foreigners themselves, but •to the merchants
in this country also.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
he had had several communications on the subject, and
the view he took of the case was that the Property-tax
would be levied on foreign funds payable in this country,
but if the parties resided out of the country and the
funds were paid out of the country, then the tax would
not be levied upon those funds.

was, however, another objection which was insuperable.
It would he impossible to get, respectable persons to he•
come trade assignees, if they were made the mere pup-
pets of the official assignees, as it *as proposed to make
them under the clause.

Sir T. IVILDE would rather the Bill had been post-
e potted to next session; but he was bound to say that. none
off;he ils which had been dwelt. on by his Hon. and
Learned Friend, and by the Hon. Member for Leeds;
were essential to this clause, and that moreover the
j whole of them might be easily remedied. Under the
existing system. when a person was declared a bankrupt,
the property was taken possession of by a messenger,.
generally a sheriff's who was hired at ss. a
i!ay, and who gave no security ; and the choice
they had to make was between the messenger
and an official assignee giving security. Under the ex-
isting system, unless it Were desired to carry on the
trade,.nr unless an extent from the -Crown were appre-
hended, there was no assignee appointed until after the
second public meeting of creditors. In the, two cases to
which he had alluded the messenger was appointed j
a provisional assignee. So much for the first step
of the proceedings. The official assignee was never
alloyed to retain a balance of more than 100/. for each j
estate in his hands. He was ,by law compelled to pay j
the residue into the Bank of England, to the account of
the Accountant-General in Bankruptcy ; and many of j
the-Commissioners would not permit him to retain an
aggregate, balance, from all the estates, exceeding '
1,0001., in his hand. if it were desired toTedeetn pro-
perty under the.system.of officialotssignees, there would
be no dfifficulty ; but, under the present system, it could:
only be done beforelhe appointment of assignees, calling
a general meeting of 'the creditors by advertisement in
the Gazelle, who could authorise the petitioning cre-
ditors to redeem, but then the y could nut raise any
money until after the appointment of assignees at the
said meeting of creditors ; and even then the power of
creditors was limited, wand they were responsible
to . the Lord Chancellor for what they might do.
The speeches which had been addressed to the Commit-
tee would lead persons to suppose that the trade assig-
nees had no control whatever. Why, he was prepared
to prove that they had just as much legitimate control Jj
as they ever had. The trade assignees had at that mo-
went the exclusive power of deciding when and how the
estate should be converted. The-money was locked up
in the hands of the Accountant-General until the necessity
arose for its application ; whatever money was wanted.
could he obtained under the authority of a Gazette .
meeting of creditors. When the system was first
introduced, it was confined fo London, in order
to see whether the experiment Would be successful.
The experiment had been successful, and why was not
the system then extended to the country ? Was there
any reason to suppose that trade assignees in the country-
were more diligent than trade assignees in London?
Were solicitors in the country -more respectable than
those in London ? Equally 'respectable, but not
more so. He thought the opposition to this clause
was founded in mistake. The system, when first in-
troduced into London, had been met with great preju-
dice by the London solicitors, but- he believed that it now
gave universal satisfaction.

---
Mr. M. PHILIPS said he had no wish to perpetuate
the abuses of the present system ;.on the contrary, he
was very anxious for a revision of the law ; but he felt it
his duty to support the amendment of the Hon. Member
for Southwark. He wished to see the trade assignee
have a concurrent influence with the official assignee.
Mr. B. WOOD said that it was his wish to give an
efficient protection to the creditors by the appointment of
proper trustees. ire had knowri'an instance. in which a
party who had himself had judgnient hanging over him,
had been appointed a trustee ; and the result
was that the creditors had been defrauded of one-
third of the money received from. Ole bankrupt's estate.
After a few words from Mr. SCOTT,--
The Committe divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against the amendment

52

Majority against the aniendinent... —36
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50 was agreed to without any discussion.
On clause 51 being put,
Mr. M. PHILIPS wished to ask whether any com-
pensation would be granted to official assignees, in case
it should be found advisable for them to retire?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Bill did not contem-
plate such a case. Parliament could provide for it,
whenever it might arise, as they should think fit.
ThQ clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses up to 58 were agreed.to.
On clause 58 being proposed,
Mr. JERVIS said he wished to know upon what
statistics it was proposed that the number of the Com-
missioners should be confined to ten. Ile did not see,
when Manchester alone would giVe occupation to three
Commissioners, how ten could perform the duties.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he would frankly tell the
Hon. Gentleman why the number ten was proposed.
The number of Commissioners -in • London were six,
and they performed the duties for -10 miles round London;
hut the Lord Chancellor having communicated with
those Commissioners, they took upon themselves to di-
charge the duties for 100 miles around the metropolis.
This • would include Brighton and many other large
towns. if six Commissioners were sufficient:for the
metropolis, and 100 miles around, and the Com-
missioners, aften ten years' experience, were content
to undertake the additional duty which would be thrown
upon them, he thought that ten would be capable of
doing the remaining business. Bat if the Hon. Gentle.
man did not think that ten would be sufficient, he had no
objection that they should be increased to twelve.
Mr. JERVIS said, that if persons living at a hundred
miles from London, were obliged to come up to the me-
tropolis to prove small debts, it -was another objection
against the Bill, because it was tantamont to a denial of

.•
justice. it would not be worth their while to come
such a great distance to prove small debts.
Mr. M. PHIMPS said that Such was the increase of
business in Manchester, that if there were not two fixed
Commissioners he did net believe the business would be
performed.
On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM, it was proposed
to amend the clause by substituting the number 12 for 10.
Mr. JERVIS said he would divide the House on the
question. It was evident that the Bill had been brought
into the House in such a state that the Right lion. B.
ronet did not himself know how many persons would be
necessary to work the Bill he- proposed. He
did not know whether the Bill was to be
worked by a Central Board or by Circuits.
11 thought it was too bad to bring for Ward such a Bill
as the present at so lute a period of the session, as it did
not give Members an opportunity of consulting their
constituents on the subject, and especially, when it im-
peached the honesty of certain individuals.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM did not impeach the honesty
of any person.

Mr. ;JERVIS thought the responsibility of the altera-
tions proposed in the measure by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman should not rest upon -him ; he would not be re-
sponsible for the insertion of the wards ten, twelve,
twenty, or two hundred. He believed the Bill was no-
thing but a job, and it had been brought forward at the
present late period of the session in order that it should
not incur formidable opposition.
Sir .JAMES GRAHAM said, that as to the Bill
being a job, be was willing to leave the decision of that
question to the country at large. lle believed
the country would not accuse the present Govern-
ment with being guilty of jobbing for countenancing
the present Bill. The Government had determined to
support the insolvency Bill : that Bill, as well as the
present imposed fresh duties, and he was afraid, there-
nwe that 10 might not be sufficient, and, therefore, it was
that he proposed to insert not less than 1.2 Commissioners.
3L•. Al. PHILIPS was sure the objects of the measure
Could not be worked by the present number of Conunis-
sioners ; but he thought they might try if ten were not
sufficient before twelve were appointed. • •
Sir JAMES GRAHAM proposed to insert the words
" nut exceeding twelve," but he could assure the lion.
Member that an attempt would .be made with ten to see
how the measure would work, ,
Mr. JERVIS observed that, as to the Insolvency Bill
he did not believe it would pass this session, Dis-
claiming again being-any party to the Bill, he would not
divide after the explanation of the Right Ron. Baronet.
The clause, as amended, was ordered to stand part of
the Bill.

Clause 59 was agreed to without any amendment.
Clauses 60 and 61 were agreed to, with a few verbal
amendments.
Clauses to 63 were agreed to, with a few verbal
amendments,

On ohms. 64, which defines the power of the Commis-
toners, being read,
Sir T. WILDE objected to it as going much tro far,
Lind giving to one Commissioner the power which had
hitheyto alwvs been vested in three.
Attu• n few words from the ATTORNEY and Simla-
Tou-GENERALs, strangers were ordered to withdraw.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the clause . 59
Against

Majority for the clause
The olause was then agreed to.
Clauses 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 74, 71, and 72, were agreed
to without discussion,

BOROUGHS INCORPORATION BILL.
On the Order of the flay for bringing up the Report
on this Bill being read,
Mr. WILLIAMS presented 41 petition from Bolton,
signed by eight individuals, stating that their corpora.
tion was at present not legally constituted, and praying
..
for no interference to legalise it.
Sir J. GRAHAM regretted that such a petition had
been presented as that just laid on the table of the House.
Notwithstanding that petition, however, lie thought it
his duty to propose the report of the Bill, and lie should
make in the second clause the alterations suggested ',,,v
his Ron. and Learned Friend, the Attorney-t?eneral,
which he was happy to say had 'met with tk.e approba-
tion of almost all the parties eoncerned,---4llear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY could not allow this opportunity to
ptvs without tendering his that „;s to the Right Hon.
Baronet for the course which lie had punned with re-
gard to this Bill ; and he coneratidated all parties on the
happy consummation which, the
had effected. Right Hon. Gentleman
Dr. BOWRING 0130 begged to congratulate the .
Right Hon. Bar:,net, and all parties concerned, upon the •
passing of tLis Bill which he had no doubt would effect
much goat).
Sit' CILARLES DOUGLAS rose to state, as he had
been instructed to do, that the people of Birmingham
were riot ut all satisfied with the charter.
.The Report was then received.
The alterations in the 2d clause proposed by Sir J.
(raham were agreed to.
Sir .1. GRAHAM moved the suspension of the Stand-
ing Orders, that the Bill might be read a third time at
once.
Mr. M. PR 1 LIPg seconded the motion.
The Bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and the
third reading was appointed for to-night.
COVENTRY BOUNDARY BILL.
Mr. GREENE brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on this Bill, which was received, and the Bill was
ordered to be read a third time.
BOROUGHS INCORPORATION BILL.
This Bill was now read a third time and passed.
IVAR IN INDIA. Lord PALMERSTON rose to put a question to the
Right Hon. Baronet opposite, relative to a matter which
involved the honour of the country and affected the in-
terests of a large portion of our empire in India. The
last mail from India brought conflicting accounts with
regard to the orders said to have been issued by the Go-
vernor-General with respect to the British troops west
of the Indus. One report said that he had issued order,
for the immediate retreat of those troops, and another
that he had given different orders, which had been
interpreted as an order for withdrawal. The question
he wished to put to the Right Honourable Baronet was,
whether any order for the withdrawal of the British
troops from the country west of the Indus, had or had
not been issued by the Governor-General of India : and
he did hope that the Right lion. Baronet would be able
to state that there was not the slightest foundation for
such a report.
Sir R. PEEL said it had always been his wish to
give as much information to that House with reference
either to diplomatic affairs or to military operations, as
he could give ; at the same time it had been his deter-
mination to withhold any information which might pre-
judice the public interests. The House must recollect
that any answer he gave might be conveyed to India
within the period of six or seven Weeks ; it was there-
fore of the utmost importance that he should maintain a,
reserve which should prevent prejudice to our arms. At
this moment Candahar and Jellalabad were the
scene of military operations. The death of Shah
Soojah had placed this country in a new position,
with respect to that treaty which had been concluded
, by Lord Auckland ; and the relation in which we stood
in consequence of Shah Soojali's . death, was now the
subject of a diplomatic communication. lle, therefore,
must decline answering the question of the Noble Lord,
as to the orders which had been given. He would state
the facts. 'At this moment the British forces occupied
Candahar, and, he believed, jellalabad ; and he did not
of their immediate retreat
apprelii n 1 any probability
was all
the information
front these situations. That was the
' which he could, consistently with his sense of public
had said give. ' He
duty, consent to that- the British

I• On clause 73 being proposed,
Mr. MARK PHILIPS opposed the allowance pro-
pcized to be made to the Commissioners, lie thought
' 1,8001. a.year far too high a salary. The present _London
Commissiontri ha:II,NOL; it was proposed to increase their
salary to 4,i)noi Ile objected to that increase. The
liiishc 1-10. a. Baronet had told them that the cost of liv-
ini was to 1).1 greatly diminished by the operation of the
tariff: Ile hoped the Bight lion. Baronet would not
show the want of coutidenoe in . his own prophecy, which
he manifested 4 timposing such a salary for these Com-
missicAlWO as I,Boa a-year.
Mr, A( LIONBY thought that the travelling expenses
under the new Bill might be ver,y heavy. If the locality
in which the Commissioner was fixed .was very extensive,
the expense would be enormous. Great inconvenience
f Might arise from requirtng persons to come to the Corn.
missiop D 11. I,otn. a considerable distance.
l'he AT. 'OHNEY-GENERAL said that no inconve-
nience whatever arose from the Commissioners remain-
ing in the centre of the London district. With respect
to the sniftries of the Commissioners it should be remem•

• forces were in possession cf Candahar and ;le
and that he did not apprehend their immediate reteeitt
front these situations,—(ll*ar, hear.)
\VRIT.
Mr. LEFROY said, that (Inderstandin the Chairman
and the Members of the Ipswich Election eomMittee case
not intend to offer any opposition to :he issuing of the
writ, he thought he should best diseharge hi.s owi, duty,
and consult the convenionce of the House, by
from occupying their time in making any observaticnr.
upon the evidence laid on the table of the HOuSe. Neither
' would lie be tempted by the noticeof the Bill given by the
lion. Member for Finsbury to make any ebservations,
but he thought there was no support in the evidenro to
that Bill. lie felt confident that the Hon. Mentheo
would Lot persevere in that. Bill, because if he refiem-d
for a moment he would find that ht. %you d not only he
disfranchising the parsons named in the' Bill, but ha
would prevent the issuing of the writ for Ipswich. lie
also felt that he would experience 'Considerable diffionity
in persisting in that Bill, when the other members of ihat
Committee had deelared that they would not oPPO',e,
the issue of the wrir. He wind(' do no more than move
the issue of the writ ; and he hoped that those lion.
. Members who who were cledidates for the b(wough,
would be subject to as little imputations', an Nume not
with as uutnrnished honour, and With as independent and
unblemished integrity as the lion. G4ittemen 0)6 had.
lost their seats.— (Cheers.) ile would reserve to himsel'
anything he had to observe upon the Bi:1 of the Hon. 6,,--
tku.n. Ile concluded by moving the issuing of the a; rit.
Mr. STUART seconded the motion.
Mr. I'. M. STEWART said there was -a little misap-
prehension on the part of the lion. Member. He (Mr.,
Stewart) certainly did say that be should not or.pose
the issue of the writ, but in' (lid not say that kiehottla
not support the Bill of the lion. Member for Fir, by.
Mr. LEFROY said, he understood that the Govern-
ment would not oppose the issue of -the writ, therefore
he did not expect he could support a Bill wt ieh
have that effect.

Mr. DUNCOMBE said, that the Government had
expressed a hope that he would not persevere in his Bill,
es he ,had no case to Test: it upon. Now. he (Mr.
Duncombe), would -refer,. the House _to whet had
taken place within the last seven yeare. Re found
that. no less than. seven' petitions had been presented_
In 1835; there was one against..Mr.' F. Kelly , and On' that.
Mr; Bott Cool; Wes teperted 011ie- of bribery,
and :had'abseatidedi* In 1837 petitiou ate, nreSerued
against the return of his Ilan. Friend* Mr. TutfAi. Iu
• 1839 his Ito Friend Mr. Milner , tii!teceit eeeiguedr—
(llear) and it Thonets Cochrane was reCurreeh—
(Hear.) Then came 1841, when- Mr. It. Waeou unit 'Mr.
Rennie were unseated on account 'cif' lirdivry : and last
came the electimeat which Lod Desart and Ylr. G left-
stone Were returned. They were unseated one account of
bribery he their agents, but without their iteignisance..
If the Hon. 6i:title:nen feel taken the-tremble to read the
evidence, he would 'find that- the same in, lividnals had
been engaged in briber, in all those e. eine to which
lie (Mr. ,Duncombe) had referred.—epear, beer.)
It appeared by the evidenee tleit bribes add been eivea
tot the following. persons :—To Anhui: Bott. Coot, to
Henry G. Bristo, and that the wife of 'another voter had
received 10s.--(" hear. hear," from the Ministerial tide
of the House.) Ile supposed they wished it was 101.—
(Cheers.) It appeared that Amos Goodeldld was pro-
mised money to pay his railroad expenses —(" Hear,
bear," from the Ministerial side of the Ibuise.) Ile
thought that Cook, having been found guilty of bribery
in 1835, and again in .1842, was a person. who)» the:
Iloase ought to visit with reprobation. Wbat could he•
more jest Mr. Wason and Mr. Rennie, acid. again Mr..
Gladstone and Lord Desart, had been incapacitated from
`sitting in Parliament in consequence of acts ef bribery
committed by their agents ; and yet. Those*
iti-
dlviduals who were guilty of the. eriwe were
allowed to go unpunished and uneensured by
the House. He considered it was ft great anomaly
such was permitted to be the case, (Inc individual had,
received 3N. for the loss of time, though 2s. was tFtP
usual pay, and .lohn Downing hail received an indemnity
for his security of 25/. ; Thomas Bowman had received
etie or playing- in the band, and a person named Pack
had received es. 6d. because he would out vote. S
of those were old offenders, and upon their evidence, Mr..
Wason and Mr. Rennie had been unseated.- William;
,Brown was an old offender. He hail reeeiied 4/. los. rise
travelling expenses, and he was the principal evidence
by whom Lord l)esart and Mr. Gladstone verve,
unseated, and it was partly upon *his evit'onee
that Mr. Wason and Mr. Rennie were • unsea'ded nr
IS-11. The number against whom be meek bits
motion was 21, and he thought they ought be
.1-amea-
eitated for voting for the borough of Ipswich/ Bie, it
there were any other persons who ought to incapa-
citated for voting, and if he were allowed re bring its 3
Bill for that purpose, he had no objeetioe that miters
should be added. The question then would the
house consent to the issuing of the write,end would thee
allow those persons to make a repetitlett of the eorrnit
• practices of Which they were guilty; le the course ee
the next week ? There Was the case of Stiorehart,
which was a precedent tier whir he now moved. Tleee
ease occurred in 1777, and.. in that borough ex-
isted a society for the purpose of saint, the
votes to the highest bieder, which was l'alted
the Christian Club (Laughter) —so called 'from
the benevolent and eiutritable views which they' enter-
teined,_l(taeghter.) The 'Clnb consisted of sixty-eight
Members, and previous to the election, five of them were
formed into a Committee tee transact the, business, and
though they never voted themselves they applied to the.
Others to vote,. which was done by meens of a vertu;
sigaal. The consequence was that a Bill was brought in
to incapacitate those sixty-eight individual S who a ere
named, and they were incapacitated finr ever from vi /tine-
for Members of Pediment. The. ease of East It Nord
was enother precedent With regard to which a ?Al weey
i brought in In 1828, to incapacitate sixteen
duals from Noting who were reported ..guilty
bribery. The Bin passed the House of Collin ems,
but it was thrown out in the Rouse et' LOrds; but [ass
oily mentioned it to prove the opinion' the House of
Commons held on the subject. The R:ght lion. Batons,
Ititaselt; when the Iron. Member for Montgomery bretugh
a
his tote ion forward te the effect that the A Verney-
General should prosecute those persons who weeet guilty
,if bribery, when Mr. Wason and Mr. Rennie. were no-
sieteWaid, duet; it was a dangerous doctrirte that those
who received bribee,should be intleuntifi&!. It was trite
he said that the aces of some indiviOnals oueitt. not
be sufficient to disfranchise the borough, bat in
the present ease, he did not' ask to haeo
the toraugh disfranchised. He on) wished that the,
guilty persons should be disfranehiSed, which would his
a sufficient example. On another occitsion, in consequence
of a question put by him (Mr. Duncombe) to the Rigit
lion. Baronet, be stated that he believed the worst eat, es
of corruption had occurred in 'the Irrge towns, and xe
wished that those eases should he taken up by theiltem
and made an example of. Now, here; was the borer
of Ipswich, which had been twice reported to the 11 epee
in the ,course of one - session,. as having been guilty of
corrupt practices, and - it afforded, in his tutinion,
a fair opportunity to the Rouseeto take the sttliect into
its consideration,--(Hear, hear.) Ile thought it mettle-
impossible the Right lloo.Boionet, could agree ,to the
issuing of the writ, afe'er what he had stated, awl, what
had taken place it, the borough of Ipswielt. Wlt t sv*
the language, Sir Thomas Cochrane to the eletteitre
the ,_eer""II"P:of Ipswich, ilia letter he addressed to theta,
on ti!4 st of September, 1841? The Hon. Gentlettiaa.
the, read the letter 'of Sir Thomas Cochrane at ;rests
length, which slated sereral facts connected with his
standing for the borough of Ipswich, and that he be-
lieved it was necessary for a person to go down to tiitt
borough with 1,500/. lie had been asked to pay
money after the election ; and perhaps the same
demaod would be maele with regard to the last election.
Any one who read the letters must come to the eontlu-
sion that it was impossible for any person to think that
any party could behave more properly than Sir Thomas
Cochrane had done ; but what was the inferenee to he
drawn from that letter ? Why that nothing short of
1.500/. would answer the purpose of the Conseevat,hee
of Ipswich. The question was, bad the borough become
more pure since then ? His lion. Friend had said it
had. Now he (Mr. Buncombe) asserted that it had
not ; and for the proof of that he would refer to the
fact that four Members had lost their seats for that
place in consequence of bribery and corruption. lie took
the Report that had been made by the Committee to he
u fair and true one, and the effect of that Report was
that the electors had been bribed. It. wag net matter -
whether that bribery was 30s. or :iO/,—(!fear. hear.)
It' the House woubl allow him to bring in this Bill for;
the purpose of referring the subject to a Select Cot'
inittee' he had no hesitation in fixing any individetal
named with that with which he charged them, lee
knew it would be said that there would not he stifi',eiteu
time to consider the Bill properly, and pass it, during the,
present session ; but alt that tie asked was, chat the:
' Rouse should not issue the writ till the Bill heti pas,seet,
What would be the inconvenience of not issuing the wait. •
till next session ? In Southampton he had heard cern.
plaints of there being no Members, but that was net be-
cause no writ had been issued, but became the races
had taken place, and there was no ??embers'
plate.—(A laugh.) That, however, could not be the ease
with Ipswich. Time question for the House to consider
was whether they would not stultify their proceedings ie
they issued the writ in the face of the Report of the
Committee; but it' they were determined not to pay atten-
tion to the Reports of a Committee, then they would he.
justified in issuing, the writ. It; however, such a Ter p
was to be pursued, he thought the sooner- such a jut.
,
diction was taken from the House. the better.—(H ear,.
hear.) Ile had read through the evidence before, the:
Committee, and he thought the Report .illy- sustaie,e,l by
the evidence. Ile would not go through the evidemm; all he.,
proposed to do was what had been don', before% 'P it'd that
was where parties had been guilty of briher-i, not to,
allow the writ to go down in order to .-onow those.,
parties to be guilty el' bribery tiVee• in six :
months.—(dear, hear.) The lionortrable mete.,
her concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bin:
to incapacitate Arthur Butt Cook, Henry Gelfaut
Charles Steward, John Downing, Arti(is Goodehit
William Brown, Richard Bishop, John Cockle, Rob err;
Hines, William Fuller, Henry Graves, William Blyt
William George Cole, Edward 'Franks, William Fre ate;
Robert Pack, -Joseph Barrett Warren, Robert Wi
clam
iNli!,:enott.f,,:llll.:?tt:ii,rittitnbneuu
les!.
to sigxetreavrte,
elections
lit,einonrlillasi satn(liteo,,nevittAnfettniirii,i, andlitlia, o
hi
end for preventing bribery and eorrupenn e e 4, 7e_
orefr?s,.:lllprirrst..weliaticlsuhit,,ssAi countyti‘ctiv:tjil;seeseherrol.t)hixeie
tohfeSussex,
h
Em1::1111d.
(gone through; the
3entleman ha
and after doing. so, he had come to t.* T ditleree;.
v‘eittheltriseisopnectt: ‘t\o-hat lie did. Ito It 1. 1
many of them weeri.eve:';Ze l'eaent9:
agge
'vet tor a Bill a
Committee
eh t:hooilsi °lling:ollliAtarilteo:ll.isliblit';ol:::hrl't4l,'lsi'littll lit:oN:hwatv-t
ever, made a most impartial seleeaitin ; he had not ire-
ould, hciw'cver,
eluded a single yellow voter ; and such being the ease, he