moved, the House resolve itself into Committee on the Lord's Day Bill.

was anxious to ask a question as to the course which the House was about to take with this bill before they went into Committee. When the bill was last in Committee, he had endeavoured to introduce a clause respecting the employment of servants on the Sabbath-day. He wished to know from the chair, whether in Committee it would be competent for him to move a clause to prevent the doing or causing of labour on the Sabbath. His object was, that whilst the rich man escaped, the poor man should not be punished. He had this bill in his mind last Sunday, whilst he was walking down Pall-mall, and was very much shocked to find, that the club-houses were more actively employed on that day than on any other. It was a pleasing contrast to visit the other end of London, and to find all the shops shut, and the tradesmen enjoying some innocent amusement. If, then, they were to legislate for the observance of the Sabbath at all, he was anxious to know, whether it would be competent to him to move in Committee to alter the title of this bill, and to insert a clause to prevent labour, and the causing of labour, on the Lord's-day.

said, that this was a bill for the suppression of trading on the Lord's-day, and, therefore, it certainly appeared to him, that according to the title of the bill, no restriction could be placed upon what was done in private families, as contradistinguished from persons in trade. He did not know, that they might not extend the bill so far as to say, that it was a bill for the suppression of trading, and of labour for hire. The word "hire" would raise the whole class of cases to which the hon. and learned Member had alluded.

said, he should like to know, whether trade was not carried on at the club-houses, Brookes's and White's for instance. In those places, persons receiving refreshment, paid certain sums, and those sums were paid to the individuals who kept the houses for their own benefit. He wished to know, if the hon. Member (Mr. Plumptre) meant to admit of such proceedings, and yet to prevent a few nuts or a glass of ginger-beer, from being sold to the humbler classes. If so, it was sheer hypocrisy. He wished to see the higher ranks set a good example to their humbler fellow-subjects. This would answer much better with the mass of the population than coercion. Instead of restricting, they ought to enlarge every means by which the working classes might enjoy some innocent recreation on the Sabbath. He should move, that the bill be taken into consideration this day three months.

hoped, the hon. Member (Mr. Plumptre) would withdraw the bill.

appealed to the House, whether he was in a situation to withdraw the bill after the support it had received on the one hand, and the opposition it had met with on the other. He felt it his duty to carry the bill as far as he could; but at the same time, he was ready to meet fairly and honestly any objections that might be made to it.

The House divided on the original Question,—Ayes 45; Noes 57: Majority 12.

Bill put off for three months.

moved the third reading of the Sheriffs' Courts (England) Bill. In support of the principle of extending the operation of these courts, he observed, that out of 948 cases which had been tried under the new system, there had been only thirty-six new trials. The former bill which had been introduced on this subject, proposed to extend the operation of the Sheriff's Courts to all descriptions of civil actions; in the present bill, however, it was proposed still to restrict their operation to cases of debt, but to extend them to amounts of 50l. instead of 20l.

opposed the third reading of the bill. It had been stated, that the judges had approved of this bill, but so stated, he had reason to believe, without sufficient authority. Some of the judges might approve of it, but there was no doubt, that all those judges whose opinions on such a subject were entitled to most weight, were, with a single exception, opposed to the bill. He knew the history of the bill very well; it was originated by an attorney at Brighton, who wished to practise in the Sheriff's Courts, either by himself or his clerks. When the bill was last year under discussion, he moved a clause that no case above the value of 20l. should be tried before a barrister of less than three years standing. This clause was agreed to, and considered a great improvement of the bill; but, in consequence of it having been omitted to provide for the payment of the barristers so engaged, the bill was postponed. With respect to the argument of the Solicitor General in favour of the new system, because out of 948 cases, only thirty-six new trials had been granted, that argument bore in his mind very little weight, because it was well known, that there was a standing rule in the courts not to grant a new trial in any case where the matter in dispute did not amount to 5l. Innumerable instances of abuse, however, occurred, which were never heard of; and to show the way in which the system was liable to abuse, he would state that, in three cases in the appeals from which he was engaged, the attorney for one of the parties, being the under-sheriff of the county, had tried the cases himself. He was convinced, that if they were to throw out this bill they would be doing a benefit to the profession certainly, but at the same time a great act of justice to the public at large, and he would therefore move that this bill be read a third time this day six months.

seconded the amendment. So far from the country calling for an extension of the operation of these courts, there was a loud and general demand for the total abolition of the system.

approved of the bill, and contended that the new system had acted extremely beneficially. He had obtained a return which showed, that of every hundred thousand cases litigated, at least eighty per cent were for sums not exceeding 50l. The principle of this bill was already acted upon by allowing claims for sums not exceeding 20l. to be tried in Sheriff's Courts. He had not heard any complaints from the mercantile or trading community against the working of that bill; and the only reason why the present bill for an extension of the jurisdiction was opposed was, because it tended to lessen the fees of those whose notions of justice always exactly corresponded with the amount which they received for their services in its vindication. He supported the bill, then, because its principle was confirmed and established by experience, and because it had received the sanction of the solemn and sufficiently slow judgment of the legal authorities of the other House, from whom it came recommended.

His objection to the bill was, not that it gave an inadequate tribunal, but that it dispensed with a judge altogether. In reference to the calculation of the hon. Member for Southwark as to the number of causes in which the sums claimed amounted only to 50l. he would remind him, that though there were 100,000 writs issued in the course of the year, not more than 3,000 causes came to trial. Why was this? Because where the judgments were enlightened and unbiassed, and where the rules were clear and certain, parties did not speculate on the incompetency of the judge or his partiality, but were compelled, as it were, to take the course which strict legal principles required. He believed the balance of the advantages over the disadvantages of the present system was much in favour of suitors; and although the expense of the present mode of proceeding might be greater, he preferred it to a change under which a greater number of cases must be brought to trial, more litigation encouraged, evil passions longer prolonged, and decisions infinitely less certain pronounced He hoped the Members of his profession would always be found ready to agree to proper amendments of the law, but he trusted they would be equally forward to resist all rash innovations.

observed, that no greater evil could be inflicted on this country than to intrust the decisions of four-fifths of the cases which were litigated to an incompetent person.

The House divided on the original question—Ayes 54: Noes 23—Majority 31.

Bill read a third time and passed.

moved the third reading of this bill.

suggested, that there ought not to be a special officer appointed to try offences under this act, when officers already existing were sufficiently numerous to take cognizance of those offences, and he hoped the House would not consent to it. He was exceedingly surprised, that Government had given its sanction to such a proposition.

said, it was his intention to vote for the third reading. Government had not given any very active support to the hon. Baronet in promoting this bill; but most certainly they had not thrown any discouragement in the way of his very laudable endeavours on this subject. He thought, that bringing the whole of the management of the public carriages of the city under one office would be a great public advantage.

hoped, if his hon. Friend persisted in carrying this bill, that he would be held responsible for all the complaints and accidents that might hereafter happen. He believed, that the existing evils would remain in full force, and even in an aggravated degree, if the present bill should pass.

The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 13: Majority 47.

Bill read a third time.

moved the following clause to be added to the bill—"And be it enacted, that in every such carriage the number of passengers shall be painted or affixed in a conspicuous manner, both in the inside and on the outside of every such carriage, in such manner as shall be approved of by the registrar, or other officer to be appointed by virtue of this act, on pain of a penalty not exceeding twenty shillings, to be paid on conviction of neglect hereof, before any one of her Majesty's justices of the peace."

said, that the clause was so important that he should divide the House against it.

The House divided. Ayes 66; Noes 4: Majority 62.

Bill passed.

moved that the House go into Committee on the Bankruptcy Court Bill.

opposed the bill as objectionable on the ground of expense. It enabled the Lord Chancellor to establish roving commissions through the country, and when they were sent out, the commissioners were to be allowed 500l. a year, and they were to have a registrar with heavy fees. Now, in many of the country commissions the amount of estate was small, and would not be able to pay the 5l. necessary for each sitting. In addition to this, there were to be official assignees with salaries. He considered the bill so objectionable and the machinery to be so defective, that he would move, that the bill should be further considered that day three months.

concurred in the propriety of the part of this bill which would remove a large sum of money from the hands of the assignees, where it now remained undivided, and he did so in consequence of the good he had seen effected in London commissions, where more than a million of money had been divided in con- sequence of the searching powers given by the bill which Lord Brougham had introduced. It was not the intention of the bill to appoint official assignees in all cases of local fiats, but only to send commissioners to inquire into past commissions. Some of the details in the bill, however, were full of objection. He had been on a committee to inquire into this subject and the duties of the accountant-general, and who thought, that 1,000l. a year was an ample salary for the discharge of all the duties of the office, and he (Mr. Crawford) hoped, that no such call as that made by this bill for the increase of the salary would be acceded to. He would say, that one of the greatest evils of the Court of Bankruptcy arose in consequence of the inefficient individual appointed to keep the accounts. He had a great respect for the legal knowledge of the present accountant-general, but he had no respect for his fitness to discharge the duties to be performed by a practical mercantile man. By the bill, also, the commissioners sent into the country were to receive an additional 500l. a year, besides a sum for travelling expenses, at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor. Now, the suitors in the London court paid the whole expense, 45,000l. a year, and it was proposed at once to take these expenses out of the bankruptcy fund in London; but he would ask why the fund of the suitors in London was to be taxed for an experiment in the country? He thought, that ample means might be discovered for both purposes, but he objected to the mixing up circumstances hitherto distinct. He hoped, therefore, that no authority would be given by the House for carrying out the provisions of the bill, as it was then printed.

said, that the observations which had been made were rather objections to be considered in Committee than to be discussed in that stage of the bill. He admitted, that the great object of the bill was, to investigate the bankruptcy proceedings in the country, for which the fifth clause was intended. In favour of some such arrangements many petitions had been presented, stating the crying evils which now existed; and since he had been in the House a representation from a different part of the country had been put into his hands. But two circumstances they were entitled to assume in this case:—Whether in London or in the country were they to presume the proceedings were best conducted? In London, where they were under the eye of the public, or in the country, where they were in secret? The presumption was in a great degree against the country, where it must be assumed, that the abuses were the greatest. In London, however, where the system had been altered, what proof had they of abuses? The hon. Member for the City had said, that more than a million of money had been received from the assignees; but he (the Solicitor-General) believed, that nearly two millions had been got in. When Lord Eldon first received the great seal he complained of the great abuses of the country commissions. He thought, that, on this ground alone, they were entitled to say, that this bill was good. He denied, that, in practice, the official assignees were a burden on the creditors. Why, in 1835, in London the expenses of the assignees amounted to 16,000l. or 17,000l. But, in the same year, 6,000l. was got in by them in small debts under 40s., and 10,000l. in debts above, but under 5l. Now, every one acquainted with the working of these matters would know, that it was highly improbable that these small debts would have been got in except by the stimulus afforded to the exertions of the official assignees. Thus, in fact, although the creditors paid the assignees, they derived more than commensurate benefit from their exertions. Now, the object of this bit was, to appoint commissioners to go down to certain districts to investigate the state of bankrupts' estates, and to appoint official assignees where such seemed requisite, and in no other cases. If the getting in large sums by these means was an important object, surely the fact of its involving patronage ought not to prevent the adoption of the plan. The bill only appointed two commissioners, in addition to two London commissioners, who were to be sent down if they thought fit to go. He trusted the House would not refuse to go into Committee.

agreed with his hon. and learned Friend in respect to the abuses which existed in London under the old bankrupt law, and the advantages which had resulted from the appointment of official assignees, and that it was desirable that the same system should be ex- tended to the country. But the bill did not do that. The important part of it was the appointment of country commissioners, and the machinery for this was extremely defective. The bill did not profess to apply prospectively to future commissions. Then what did the bill intend to do? It sent persons with a roving commission with powers extremely objectionable. Assignees and solicitors, where the accounts of estates had been closed, might be summoned before the commissioners, examined in the most inquisitorial manner, and even committed by these commissioners, who were to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, with salaries of 1,200l. a-year, with registrars at 500l. a-year. The commissioners were not limited as to time; they might summon any solicitor or assignee before them, and all they had to do was to report to the Lord Chancellor. There was no power to appoint official assignees at all prospectively. All the bill did was to grant these powers to the Lord Chancellor and to the commissioners, to find out assets of bankrupts' estates. He should support the amendment.

said, the object of the bill was excellent, but the machinery bad. As there was no pressing necessity, it it would be better to postpone the bill, that it might undergo revision: He agreed with the Solicitor-General that estates in the country required the searching revision which existed in London. But the bill should be confined to that; and he did not see why commissioners should be appointed with salaries of 1,200l. a-year. The object seemed to be to confer unnecessary patronage on the Lord Chancellor. It somehow happened that Session after Session saw additional patronage given to the Lord Chancellor and to the other judges. After so many other measures had been deferred till next year on account of the advanced state of the Session, he thought that it would be the most prudent plan not to proceed with this, when so much good might be gained from reflection. He had heard nothing from the Solicitor-General which induced him to believe, that any real inconvenience would result from the postponement of the measure, which had been introduced and framed with more of precipitancy than judgment, and he therefore hoped, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press it this Session.

trusted, that the Solicitor-General would accede to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, and postpone the bill till next Session. He objected to inquiries into bankruptcies which had been wound up and settled forty or fifty years ago. He objected also to the whole system of centralization contemplated by the bill, and he should certainly vote against it.

The House divided on the question, that the Speaker do leave the chair:—Ayes 37; Noes 28: Majority 9.

The Bill committed, and the House resumed.