moved that the Bill be now read a second time.

said, that as the representative of a very large mercantile community, he wished to express shortly what he understood were their feelings and views with regard to this subject, and not only theirs, but those of the commercial communities in the north of England, as far as they could be ascertained. Their opinion was, that the Bill which now stood for second reading was likely to be an extremely valuable measure, as supplying a defect in the law under which the mercantile classes in the north of England, particularly, had for a long period been suffering. He could truly say that be had never visited his constituents since he had bad the honour of representing them without hearing from quarters which were entitled to the greatest possible respect and confidence, the loudest complaints with regard to the existing Bankruptcy and Insolvency Laws. He did not think there was a point upon which they were more perfectly unanimous than that; and he believed that the defects pointed out in the petition which he had presented to-day, were exactly those which it was the object of the Bill to remedy, and which, if the Bill went into Committee, it might be made effectual to remedy. When he stated that in the district which he had the honour to represent, it had been proved by a gentleman of the highest character—one of the Bankruptcy Commissioners—that under the present system there was a waste of no less than about 50 per cent of the whole of the assets proceeding from bankrupt estates, the House would see that it was high time that some remedy should be applied to that state of things. It had been stated distinctly by those who were most competent to form an opinion on the subject, that no less than 50 per cent on the average was waste, arising from the mode of working bankruptcy under the present system, and the litigation which was almost naturally and necessarily engendered by that system. They were decidedly of opinion that the preposterous distinction which had hitherto existed between insolvency and bankruptcy should be done away with for ever. They were also of opinion that the complications of the present Bankruptcy Law should be got rid of, and that it was of the utmost importance that the code should be made simple, plain, and intelligible, instead of being, as it was now, complicated, obscure, and unintelligible. The Bill of the noble Lord, and the schedule, repealed not less than twenty-eight different Acts and portions of Acts of Parliament, in which, besides a great variety of decisions upon the subject, the existing law was to be found. One great recommendation of the Bill in the view of those whom he (Mr. Baines) represented was, that it proposed to bring to an end this complicated system of law, and reduce to one Act of Parliament what would henceforth be the statutory law of England upon the subject. In the Bill which had been introduced into the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor, this had been unwisely lost sight of. That proposed to add one more to the existing Acts upon the subject; whereas the Bill of the noble Lord had this great merit, of a first-rate character, that it reduced into one Act of Parliament the whole of the statute law respecting bankruptcy and insolvency. It would have the effect of doing away with the distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency, and of supplying a remedy which had hitherto been greatly wanted with regard to the mode of rendering productive the estates of insolvents or bankrupts after their death. It would facilitate those voluntary arrangements which it was the very essence of every bankruptcy and insolvency system should be in the power of the creditors. At present there were so many difficulties thrown in the way of arrangements of that kind, that in many in-stances they became absolutely imprac- ticable. Moreover, the Bill would have the effect of lessening materially the expense of the system—an evil under which the commercial community were everywhere groaning from one end of the country to the other. He apprehended that the Bill, with such Amendments as might hereafter be introduced into it, would supply an ample remedy for these evils. There were, then, two points upon which those whom he represented wished to insist, and which he humbly considered deserving the serious attention of the House. The first was that the law should be consolidated into one Act, and made simple, clear, and intelligible; and secondly, that there should be no unnecessary delay in introducing a remedy for the state of things under which the commercial community were now so generally suffering.

said, he was inclined to concur in much that his right hon. and learned Friend had said; and certainly in nothing more than in the statement he had made of the urgent and over whelming necessity for some extensive alteration in the laws of bankruptcy and insolvency. He conceived, however, that it would be somewhat premature at that moment to say more than that, to this extent he quite agreed with his right hon. Friend; and he thought that with regard to the main principles of the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for London, to whom the House and the country were indebted for its introduction, there could be no doubt they were entitled to the favourable consideration of Parliament. Upon the first point to which his right hon. Friend had particularly alluded, namely, the great and useless expenses which were now incurred in bankruptcy, he would merely observe that while a serious evil was sought to be remedied by the Bill, he could not but hope that when the measure which was now before the House of Lords came down to this House and both Bills went before it, a great deal more would be effected. Much difference of opinion prevailed with regard to a number of points which were involved in that important question, the expenses incurred in bankruptcy. Whether they should diminish these expenses by doing away altogether with the percent-ages; whether they should confine themselves to the reduction of fees; or in what particular way they should diminish those expenses which his right hon. Friend bad certainly not exaggerated when he said that in many instances they were full 50 per cent on the total amount of the assets —all these were questions which it would be premature to consider now, but to which no doubt the attention of the House would be called whenever the Bill went into Committee. Another point to which his right hon. Friend had alluded was the total abolition of the present distinction between traders and non-traders, bankrupts and insolvents. In reference to that point he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and his right hon. Friend, that that Amendment ought to be embodied in any Bill which should receive the sanction of Parliament. With respect to the consolidation of the law of bankruptcy, to which his right hon. Friend had also adverted it would hardly be supposed that he (the Attorney General), who was anxiously awaiting the opportunity of bringing before the House a scheme for the consolidation of the entire statute law of the United Kingdom would raise any objection on principle to the consolidation of the bankruptcy laws; but as to this particular measure, when the Bill went into Committee, by which time he hoped the other Bill would have come down from the House of Lords, he should have an opportunity of stating the views he entertained upon the question. By that time he hoped that a series of Bills for the consolidation of one great branch of the statute law would have been laid before the House, and that he should be in a position to go into the whole subject and dealing with this Bill as a part only of that subject, submit to the House the question whether this should be merely an Amendment or a Consolidation Bill. He would take the liberty of suggesting to the noble Lord that, after the second reading of the Bill, to which he (the Attorney General) of course offered no objection, no further step should be taken until the other Bill alluded to was before the House, which, he expected, would be within a very few days. Then both Bills could he brought at once under the consideration of the House, and he hoped the result would be the completion of a Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill which would give entire satisfaction to the House and the country.

said, that from personal knowledge, he was able to confirm what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baines) had stated respecting the opinions of the mercantile community both in England and Ireland, with regard to the present state of the bankruptcy and insolvency laws He believed it was perfectly true that the expenses in bankruptcy were as much as 50 per cent of the assets, and that at least one half in that amount was owing entirely to the forcible system of realisation of assets which was unavoidable. He must, however, mention a few objections to the provisions of this Bill, which had occurred to him. There was a strong feeling in favour of the jurisdiction in bankruptcy being given to the County Court Judges; but when they considered that those Judges possessed little previous knowledge of the law, and had had little opportunity of practising in the Bankruptcy Courts, it must be admitted that they were entirely inexperienced in bankruptcy matters, and that they would not for a long time be able to adjudicate to the satisfaction of the public. We had already a large number of Commissioners of great experience in bankruptcy, and to them he confessed he would prefer leaving the management of these questions. He was also sorry to observe in the noble Lord's Bill a clause which excepted from the provision as to the distribution of estates of deceased insolvent's cases in which the administration was disputed. The clause took away all power of control by the Bankruptcy Court where there was a dispute relative to the proper administration of the deceased's effects—that was as to who might be his executor or administrator. The consequence would certainly be that, for the purpose of preventing the assets being divided by the Bankruptcy Court, suits would be got up, and that they would always find a dispute about the administration in order to evade the operation of the Bill. Another clause to which he objected was the 284th, which enacted that the creditors were to meet and pass a resolution with regard to the conduct of the assignee, after which the said assignee was to apply to the Court for his discharge. Why, there was not a mercantile man of standing in the country who would consent to be a creditor's assignee, if a judgment was to be passed upon his conduct by the general body of creditors, who might have interested motives in passing an adverse judgment, whilst he was not, to be discharged from the liability of his office until he had obtained the sanction of the Court. He was satisfied that that would prevent many persons from being trade assignees at all. Another clause to which he objected was the 261st, by which Friendly Societies would have a preferential claim on a bankrupt's estate to be paid in full. He (Mr. Vance) did not see why Friendly Societies who entrusted their property to a bankrupt should have such a preference. In his opinion it would be the introduction of a very false principle. He also objected to the clause which proposed to allow a person to become a petitioning creditor whose claim amounted to £20. This he (Mr. Vance) considered to be much too low. It would enable any hostile creditor to involve all the other creditors in the expense of a commission of bankruptcy. He noted also in the Bill a long list of superannuations which were to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Now he did not object to these charges being placed on the Consolidated Fund; but he really thought that House ought to know what it was about before it consented to pass this Bill. The aggregate amount of the compensations would be exceedingly heavy. Further, he observed a long list of penalties for crimes in bankruptcy, respecting which he would suggest that wherever a debtor entered into a composition by deed, or his estate was wound up in bankruptcy, there should be a registry of the transaction, and the means of ascertaining how much every insolvent's estate paid in the pound. He believed that if by the payment of a small fee the public could ascertain whether a bankrupt had failed for 1s. in the pound or 15s. there would be no need for any other punishment, as future credit would be given to him exactly in proportion to the realization of his estate, and the strongest inducement would be held out for men when they got involved in difficulties to call their creditors together without delay.

wished to say a few words on this question, having devoted a good deal of attention to it, and having two years ago introduced a measure somewhat similar for Ireland, on which, however, he admitted the present Bill was a very great advance. With some Amendments, which could only he made in Committee, he thought this Bill would be a great improvement on the present state of the law. The Bill which he had passed for Ireland, like the present Bill, abolished the Insolvent Debtors' Court and fused insolvency and bankruptcy, and the result had been most remarkable in simplifying the state of the law, in consolidating the courts, and in reducing the expense. It was a remarkable fact, that whereas in 1818 the petitions for relief in insolvency in Ireland amounted to 3057, in 1858 they were only 450; while the business proper to the Court of Bankruptcy had increased fourfold from what it was the year before the Bill passed. There was one clause in the Bill from which he anticipated great benefit, by which suitors in the Court were enabled to wind up the estates of deceased debtors. At present that could only be done by a petition to the Court of Chancery, which was both a tedious and expensive process, which would be greatly simplified and reduced in expense by this clause. The abolition of the Insolvent Debtors' Court was a large step towards an object which he hoped soon to see wholly accomplished— the abolition of arrest for debt, except in cases of fraud. Another great advantage was the facilities offered for friendly arrangements accompanied with a due regard for publicity, which would enable the public to know what was done. He hoped that as the Bill proceeded through Committee it would receive some improvements which it still needed, and he would particularly suggest that the punishment of dishonest debtors, while it was mitigated in amount, should be rendered still more certain. As a proof of the advantages derived from the Irish Bill, he might state that the banks and great mercantile companies now considered that it was better to take estates into the Bankruptcy Court than to wind up by a friendly arrangement.

said, he did not intend to enter into the general question, but he wished to state to the House that he was present at a large meeting of all the great trades of the country, held yesterday in the City of London, and the conclusions at which that meeting arrived he believed were entitled to great weight with the House. A committee of these bodies had been appointed to consider the two Bills now before the country —that of the Lord Chancellor, and that of the noble Lord now before the House. That Committee, representing the great mercantile interests of the country, considered both Bills, and the conclusion at which they arrived was that the Bill of the Lord Chancellor ought to be opposed, and that the Bill of his noble Colleague, with a few Amendments, ought to receive the support of the country. The meeting held yesterday concurred in the opinion of the Committee, and he thought that conclusion was entitled to great weight with the House.

thought the noble Lord was entitled to great credit for the immense labour and trouble he must have encountered in the preparation of this important measure. As a trader who had a good deal to do with England and Ireland, as well as Scotland, he hoped the day was not distant when there would be a great assimilation, if not a complete amalgamation of the bankrupt law of the three kingdoms. As an instance of the necessity that existed for this, he would instance to the House the cases of certain swindlers who had perpetrated their frauds on this side the Tweed, and then took refuge from their creditors in Scotland, often in the Hebrides, a kind of sanctuary where they set their creditors at defiance, on a pretext that they had been traders in Scotland for six or eight weeks. Large bodies of creditors were put to enormous expense and inconvenience by this course, and the learned Lord Advocate knew well how much of the time of the Scotch Courts had been occupied by these disgraceful proceedings. He hoped this Bill would be so altered in Committee as to prevent those villains—for they deserved no other appellation—thus fleeing from justice and cheating their creditors. He also thought the Bill should contain some provision to punish those traders who adopted what was now a growing evil, of keeping no books—very often for the direct purpose of perpetrating fraud.

said, that the mercantile body must feel grateful to the noble Lord for the introduction of this measure. No doubt it was a comprehensive, and some might think it a cumbrous scheme; but it had to deal with a very extensive and defective system which had grown up in the lapse of time. That which was wanted was not a resuscitation of the old law but an entire and total renovation, so as to meet the exigencies of trade and provide a cheap and summary mode of punishing fraudulent debtors, and this Bill, though it had many good points, was susceptible of much amendment. It was proposed to assimilate bankruptcy and insolvency, and mix them up before a common tribunal. But to attempt to do so was to attempt to mix up two things of dissimilar nature, and if the plan were persevered in, he predicted that the present bankruptcy Bill would be as great a failure as the last. In the main it perpetuated the old administration. The mercantile community were unanimous in thinking that the Courts of Bankruptcy ought to be raised to the dignity and importance of the other courts of justice. The present system, which might be useful in winding up large estates, was utterly useless in dealing with small ones, he considered that powers ought to be introduced to punish, in cases of fraud, similar to those given to the Commissioners in Insolvency who could imprison a fraudulent debtor for three years. Looking to the many objections which had been taken to the Bill out of doors, he thought the best course to adopt would be to refer it to a Select Committee, as the House could not possibly deal with a measure of this sort containing 480 clauses.

contended that the Bill had already been subjected to the test of Select Committees out of doors, for it had been examined by legal gentlemen and men of business, who had themselves suffered by the present law. It had been discussed in the Chambers of Commerce of all the great towns throughout the country, and they were all in favour of the Bill. One of the evils of the present law was that 90 per cent of all cases of insolvency were settled out of court, and not more than 10 per cent came before the proper tribunals, so that the law as it stood was practically inoperative. One of the advantages of the noble Lord's Bill was that it gave the creditors the power of self-management, and another was that it greatly reduced the expense — in this respect following the Scotch system, which in all matters of economy was greatly ahead of the English system. He looked also with great satisfaction on those provisions which allowed certain cases to be submitted to the County Courts, where they would be examined by tribunals in the locality, and by which the various classes of trade frauds would most certainly meet with their appropriate punishments. He regretted to say that a class of traders were making their appearance who could only be described as gamblers in trade, who were more like gamblers on the turf than men engaged in mercantile transactions, and to moot their case, he thought it was desirable the Bill should authorise an examination as to the past conduct of the bankrupt or insolvent, and then the law, while it gave protection to the prudent man who had been really unfortunate would stigmatize the trader who had conducted his affairs in a fraudulent manner, and had gambled with the money of other persons. He would give the noble Lord his cordial support, and he could assure him that the feeling of the north of England was in favour of his Bill in preference to that of the Government.

was anxious to say a few words on this subject, as representing a large trading community in the north of England, where they were most anxious for an amendment of the present law. It appeared that they were all agreed upon the main principles of this Bill. The hon. and learned Attorney General said that the Bill did not go far enough in the way of diminishing the expense. He (Mr. Headlam) thought they had gone as far as possible; but if the Government could suggest any further diminution the promoters of this Bill would be glad to adopt it. He had reason to know that the Amendments which had been suggested at the meeting in the City yesterday would be adopted by the promoters of the measure, and every effort would be made to make the Bill as perfect as possible.

agreed with the hon. Member fur Huddersfield, and others, that this was a question of the deepest interest to the whole community. At present there was a dread of going into the Bankruptcy Court, and if a creditor appeared and threatened to take the estate there he was often paid more than the estate would justify to get him out of the way. He would support the second reading of this Bill, as he believed that it was better than the measure introduced in "another place."

thanked the House for the general expression of favour with which they had received his Bill. He was happy to hear from the Attorney General that he approved of many of the principles of the Bill, and he was happy to hear from his own Colleague (Mr. Crawford) and others that the commercial classes, as far as they were acquainted with its provisions, approved of the Bill. He had no objection to the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General that this Bill should not go into Committee till the House were in possession of, and had time to consider the provisions of the Bill that was coming down from the other House of Parliament. At the same time he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not be led by any party affection to take part with that Bill against the present one, because he thought he could see that if loft to his own unbiassed judgment his hon. and learned Friend would prefer this Bill to the other. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance) had urged va- rious objections which, for the most part, referred to matters of detail, except one provision, which he thought was of great importance—the power of sending a certain class of cases to the County Court. But the Bill provided that that could only be done by a majority in value of the creditors; and while he admitted the force of the objection that some of the County Court Judges might not have experience, on the other hand he thought it was of great advantage to be able to refer to a tribunal near at hand, and which would he productive of less expense and inconvenience. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Akroyd), said, that not more than 10 per cent, of the bankruptcy cases came before the courts, and that the other ninety were settled by private arrangement. He thought no greater proof than this was needed of the inadequacy of the present state of the law. The hon. Member for Ashburton (Mr. Moffat) proposed to send this Bill to a Select Committee, at the same time that he objected to almost all the principles. The hon. Member should introduce a Bill of his own. For his part he should despair if the Bill were sent to a Committee up stairs, where they would waste probably three months, and then find that the judgment of the gentlemen composing it did not coincide with that of the House or the country. He thought that the House itself, having the advantage of the Attorney General to enlighten them, together with so many commercial men, would be able to decide fairly and impartially on all the questions involved. There was nothing political involved in this question, and, when the trade of this country was disgraced by gambling traders, he thought it of importance that the principles of the bankruptcy law should be authoritatively settled by the House itself. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan), had complimented him on the great labour he had taken in the preparation of this Bill. He could not appropriate that praise. The part he took was more consonant to his capacity with respect both to the law and the trade of the country. Persons connected with the trade of the country in all parts of the kingdom met together and consulted what the law ought to be; they submitted to him what they had agreed upon, and explained the principles on which they had proceeded; and when he convinced himself that their proposals were thoroughly rational he pro- ceeded to frame the Bill, for their kind reception of which he had again to thank the House.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said he had waited for some time in the hope that Government would do something on this subject, but up to the present time there had been no intimation on the part of Government of what they intended to propose. If the Bill were now read a second time, however, he would not press going into Committee till the House saw what the measure of the Government would propose in this matter. He reserved to himself the right to deal with the question hereafter according to the circumstances which might arise; and with that understanding he had, in conclusion, to move the second reading of the Bill.

said, he had to state, on the part of the Government, that they did not object to the course proposed by the hon. Baronet. They wished it to be understood that they assented to the second reading of the Bill on the condition that the discussion on its principles should be taken on the Motion for going into Committee. If the English Reform Bill should be read a second time before Easter he hoped he should be able to introduce the Scotch measure previously to the same period; and he was enabled to state that it would deal with that matter of the registration of voters as well as with other subjects.

said, that this measure departed in three essential particulars from the recommendations of the Commissioners who investigated its subject. The Commissioners had suggested, first, the establishment of a central board, to which should be intrusted the supervision and management of county lunatic asylums; secondly, that a change should be made in the constitution of the local governors; and thirdly, that an auditor should be appointed to examine the accounts. This Bill, on the other hand, proposed that the committee of visitors should be their own auditors; it also proposed that the General Board for the control of these institutions should be abolished, the only authority substituted being that of the Lord-Lieutenant in Council. The Commissioners had recommended that two-thirds of the local governors should be chosen by the grand juries, and the remainder by the Lord-Lieutenant in Council, whereas this measure vested the appointment of the whole number in the grand juries. The Bill would also transfer all poor lunatics now in workhouses, nearly 2,000 in number, to the county asylums, thereby throwing a charge, which was now divided between landlords and occupiers, entirely upon the latter. No doubt such a change would be beneficial to the lunatics themselves; but the landlords paid half the poor rate, whereas the occupier paid the whole of the county cess out of which the asylums were supported; and the occupiers had no voice in the management of the cess. If the Government would accede to the proposal of the right hon. Member for Ennis for referring this subject to a Select Committee he would be happy to withdraw the Motion of which he had himself given notice; but, as he had no such assurance, and as the measure violated the principle that representation should accompany taxation, he must now move that the House resolve itself into Committee on that day six months. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.

said, this question had been fully discussed on the second reading, which was carried almost unanimously; and the present Motion was, therefore, an unusual attempt to defeat the measure. The principal objection taken by the hon. and gallant Mover of the Amendment was that the Bill did not carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman could scarcely have read the Bill, or he would have seen that those recommendations had been entirely carried out in spirit, and also in almost all important particulars to the very letter. The composition of the Commission, over which Sir Thomas Redington, a consistent Liberal, had presided, was a complete guarantee that the Report had been drawn up without any bias towards the views of the party now in power. The first recommendation of the Commissioners was, that the management of lunatic asylums in Ireland should be transferred from the Executive in Dublin, to local bodies. This suggestion was strictly followed in the Bill. As the law now stood, these institutions were wholly under the control of the Executive Government, the ratepayers having no power of interfering until after the money had been expended. That was an insupportable state of things, and the Commissioners recommended that it should be at once done away with, and that the erection and management of county lunatic asylums should be intrusted to a body, two thirds of which should be appointed by the grand jury, and the other third by the Lord-Lieutenant. Whether this suggestion should be literally adopted, or whether it would be better that the whole number of visitors should be chosen by the grand jury, was surely a point that could fairly be determined when the measure was in Committee. With regard to the appointment of an auditor — another matter purely of detail—he had not thought such a provision necessary, inasmuch as the present system of checking the accounts was thoroughly efficient, and he had been anxious not to create any new offices. This latter consideration had no doubt deprived the Bill of the support of those who looked for new- patronage, and therefore it had nothing to recommend it but its own intrinsic merits. The Commissioners reported in favour of removing all lunatics from gaols and workhouses, a step which would be effected as speedily as possible under this measure. These asylums had been sustained from the county rates since their first establishment, and the Commissioners had not felt themselves justified in advising that the lunatic poor should be supported from the poor rates. Such a proposal would not only destroy this Bill, but would necessitate a reconstruction of the Poor Law system in Ireland. He regretted to say that very limited accommodation indeed was provided in Ireland for lunatics belonging to the class of farmers and shopkeepers. This Bill provided that on the payment of a certain sum of money accommodation should be given to that class of lunatics in the asylums to be established by it. The Commissioners recommended that the law should be consolidated, and that had been done. The Bill repealed all former Acts relating to lunatic asylums in Ireland, and was a code which would be found sufficient for every purpose connected with these institutions. There was only one recommendation of the Commissioners which the Government had not adopted — namely, that as to the creation of a Central Board, The Government believed that the inspection of these asylums could be very efficiently discharged by the ordinary inspectors, and that nothing but harm would result from a constant interference by a Central Board with the management of these institutions. If, however, it should be found (but, from the care taken in their appointment, he did not think it would) that these inspectors did not properly discharge their duties, the Lord Lieutenant would have power under the Bill to send a lawyer or a doctor (whichever might be deemed the more suitable for the purpose) to any lunatic asylum as to the management of which complaints might reach the Lord-Lieutenant. A great deal had been stated in the public papers in opposition to the Bill, but the opponents of it had said very little about the state of the lunatic poor in Ireland. This Bill would provide for the increased accommodation of the lunatic poor. A great deal had also been publicly stated as to the excellent condition and management of the existing lunatic asylums; but the report of the Commissioners showed that in most of those asylums the accounts were most irregularly kept, that written regulations were set aside by verbal instructions, that the records of the condition of the unfortunate inmates were most irregularly kept, that many minute regulations for the management of the asylums were not attended to, that the ventilation was imperfect, that sufficient accommodation was not provided for the sick, that although many of the inmates were capable of receiving instruction it was not given to them, that the infirmaries were occupied as residences by the officials, or devoted to other purpose, and that some of the unfortunate lunatics were put under restraint in a manner totally at variance with the entire spirit in which lunatic asy- lums were managed in modern limes. His Bill provided a remedy for that state of things. In the first place, it provided that the governor of an asylum should visit every part of it at least once a month, or oftener if possible. Then there was another provision which he thought would prove to be most efficacious. He proposed that the visitor of an asylum should make a yearly or half-yearly report of its condition to the grand jury of the district in which it was situate, and that that report should he printed and published, so that every one of the rate payers should be enabled to ascertain exactly what was the state of the asylum and of its inmates. On moving the second reading of this Bill he stated that the attendance of the governors of lunatic asylums in Ireland was very bad, and he would now repeat that of the 530 of these governors in the year 1856 only 276 attended the asylums at all. More than one half of the governors never set a foot in the asylums which were intrusted to their care. The meetings were usually held once a month. Exclusive of the governors of the asylum in Dublin, only twelve of the entire body of governors throughout Ireland regularly attended the meetings, only fifty-eight had attended the meetings once, about thirty had attended twice, and twenty-two had attended three times. Practically speaking, these institutions were managed by one or two gentlemen who lived on the spot. It was rarely that more than three governors interested themselves in the management of lunatic asylum. He hoped, therefore, that he had convinced the House that they ought, at all events, to proceed with the consideration of the Bill. Its principle was good, and it would set up a machinery by which these institutions would be efficiently and economically controlled. Where there were objections to any of the details, he should be ready to listen to suggestions of amendment in the Committee, and he therefore, hoped the House would go into Committee at once.

said, the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford, if successful, would have the effect of defeating the Bill altogether. He thought it was the opinion of those on his (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald's) side of the House that such a result would be undesirable. He by no means approved of the scheme of the noble Lord; but he knew that the present state of the law was bad, and, therefore, he thought that they should proceed to legislate upon this subject and in no party or political spirit. He appealed then, to his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw his Motion; and with that understanding he invited the House to concur in the Motion that stood in his name—that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The alterations which he considered necessary were large, and affected the whole scheme of the Bill, and he therefore thought that they would be better considered by a Select Committee than by a Committee of the whole House. The Commission that had inquired into this subject was issued when his right hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) was Secretary for Ireland. No doubt the Bill would carry out to some extent the recommendations of the Commissioners; but to many of their recommendations he had great objections. The law had hitherto been in a most anomalous state, the Act of Geo. IV. vesting the whole power in the executive; but the House would be astonished when he told them that the present Bill, the object of which was stated to be the transfer of the control to local bodies, actually left them no discretion whatever in the erection of asylums. In clause 9 of this Bill the Lord Lieutenant in Council might from time to time order any number of asylums for lunatics to be built and established. The grand jury would have no control, but would be absolutely bound to carry such order out. Now, he entirely objected to this provision, which he thought highly unsatisfactory and wholly inconsistent with the principles generally recognized in this country. He also strongly objected to the alteration proposed by the Bill of the existing law, as regarded the persons upon whom the expense of maintaining pauper lunatics should fall. Very few of the lunatic poor asylums were erected prior to 1838. The report showed that in Ireland the lunatic poor amounted in number to 9286, and all the accommodation afforded in the district asylums was only for 3824. It further appeared that there were 1707 in the ordinary workhouses. There were 3352 pauper lunatics, as contra-distinguished from the general lunatics, for whom provision was made. All the expenses attending the care of the existing lunatics, 3352, were paid by the county rate. There were then 1707 pauper lunatics at present maintained in the workhouses out of the poor rates. Half of the expense was borne by the occupier, and the other half by the landlord. There were still 3352 to be provided for. Now the noble Lord by his scheme proposed to throw the whole burden of their expense upon the shoulders of the occupier. The noble Lord proposed that the cost of providing asylums for 3352, as well as the 1770 in the ordinary workhouses, should be taken from the poor rates, and be paid by the occupier. The effect off this proposition would be to take from off the shoulders of the landlord a heavy charge, and to place the whole of it on those of the occupier. Now he (Mr. FitzGerald) could never assent to any such principle, which he considered to be most unjust. He should move that the Bill be not only referred to a Select Committee, but that it be an instruction to the Committee to consider this question in particular. The governing body, it appeared, were to be appointed by the grand juries of counties on the supposition that the latter represented the ratepayers. Now, the fact was well known that the grand juries of counties did not represent the ratepayers; they were nominated by the Sheriff for the year, and the ratepayers had no control whatever over them. The manner in which the nominees of the grand jury had performed their duty in other matters was anything but a reason in favour of continuing the present system. He proposed that it should be considered in Committee how the governing body could be best selected, both in reference to the giving due control to the ratepayers, and to the securing of the efficiency of the establishments. Another provision they ought to regard with extreme jealousy, that of placing persons who were represented to be lunatics in lunatic asylums. There ought to be the greatest care in surrounding such a provision with proper safeguards. It would be impossible to consider those minute alterations, and therefore he proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. If a Select Committee were assented to, he should be willing to leave the selection in the hands of the noble Lord, who was already in possession of all the facts with which the Committee would have to deal.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

then moved, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

trusted that the noble Lord would accede to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Ennis. A great necessity, no doubt, existed for an alteration in the law, but the present Bill was not framed in a manner to meet the reasonable requirements of the ratepayers. He thought it would be a great cruelty if the expense of 4,000 or 5,000 lunatics should be thrown upon the ratepayers wholly, whereas now they bad only to pay half. This Bill would impose a new rate to be levied on the occupiers of land in Ireland. The Bill ought to be sent to a Select Committee, and he hoped the Government would see the necessity of that step.

said, the Bill affected the most helpless class in Ireland, and the change which it proposed in the existing law was one of considerable doubt. Hitherto the Lord Lieutenant had been responsible for a duty which the Bill sought to transfer to the grand juries, who were irresponsible bodies, and who did not represent the ratepayers generally. He hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.

also pressed the noble Lord to yield to the suggestion for referring the Bill to a Select Committee. The question was one of great importance, and he hoped the House would not be put to the trouble of dividing.

complimented the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland upon his exertions to amend the law since he became Secretary for Ireland; but as it seemed to be the wish of the Irish Members to appoint a Select Committee, he thought the Government ought to yield. He objected entirely to the authority proposed to be vested in a grand jury, one of the worst bodies that such a power could be exercised by—a fugitive body packed by a fugitive person, that splendid annual the sheriff of the county. It was wondered how the Irish people could suffer such a system; but "sufferance was the badge of all their tribe." He was entirely opposed to governors of asylums being appointed by grand juries. There were two Motions on the paper for altogether altering or abolishing Irish grand juries, which there would be some good hope of accomplishing if the Irish Members could be for once unanimous —a contingency, indeed, which seemed to be extremely problematical: — and then what would become of the Bill. Why could not the Poor Law authorities be loft to deal with lunatics? The tax for lunatics was a new tax. The provision made for Irish lunatics in 1817 was for less than 200, and now there were 11,542 Irish lunatics to be provided for. This Bill would be generally unacceptable in its present shape, and cause agitation and discontent.

said, if the hon. Gentleman had any hope that there would be an unanimity of opinion amongst Irish Members on the subject of grand juries or any other subject, he might be fitly classed amongst that unhappy portion of the community for whom this Bill proposed to legislate. But was the present most discreditable state of things to be allowed to continue until the Irish Members came to a unanimous opinion on the subject of grand juries? The question was a wide one, and he was disposed to go with his right hon. and learned Friend, and send the Bill to a Committee up stairs. There were questions connected with religion which could be properly considered in Committee, and which, if discussed in that House, might perhaps excite the opposition of some Gentlemen whoso zeal outran their discretion. He, however, could not agree with the him. Member (Mr. B. Osborne) as to his remarks on grand juries.

rose to reply to some of the objections that had been urged against the measure. It was said that he was giving a new power, but he only continued the existing law which empowered the Lord-Lieutenant to order the building of a lunatic asylum wherever he might think it desirable; but at the same time he gave power to the grand jury, as representing the rate payers, to appear before the Lord-Lieutenant in Council, and make any objection they might think proper. He would not go into a defence of the excellencies of the grand jury system, but he must say his experience was very different from the description that had been given of it by the hon. Member for Dovor, and at the last assizes, at which he was present, when he acted as foreman, there were ten Roman Catholics on the grand jury. The small proportion of Roman Catholics on some grand juries might be accounted for by the smallness of the number of Roman Catholic proprietors in those districts, so that it could not be charged as a fault of the system. Even if grand juries were to be abolished there was nothing to prevent the power proposed to be vested in them being placed elsewhere. He doubted whether the good results prophesied would accrue from sending the Bill before a Select Committee; but as that seemed to be the general wish of hon. Members representing Irish constituencies, he should not interpose any objection. He must, however, protest against the Bill being shelved by this process.

said, that it was not his intention to move the instruction to the Committee of which he had given notice, not because he had changed his view on the subject, but because he found that it was unnecessary, and that it would be competent for him to press the view he took on the Committee if he happened to be a Member.

thought the conduct of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) with respect to the pains he had taken in bringing in this Bill deserving of all praise. He, however, thought the noble Lord right in giving way to the reference to a Select Committee. He defended the composition and conduct of grand juries throughout Ireland generally, so far as his knowledge extended.

hoped the Committee would commence their proceedings immediately.

said, that in Meath, in which he resided, there were many Roman Catholics on the grand juries; yet they had little or no influence. It was the Protestant Members who had for the most part the nomination of the appointments, He did not think grand juries were the impartial bodies they were represented, and was rather disposed to coincide with his hon. Friend the Member for Dovor (Mr. Orborne).

moved, that the House should go into Committee upon the Bill.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who bad conduct of this Bill proposed to rectify the Act passed last year. It was said that the Act of last year unintentionally made an alteration in the declaration which theretofore had been taken by Quakers, and the object of the Bill, as he understood it, was to restore the declaration to its original form. So far as the Quakers were concerned he had no objection; but when a proposition was made for the exemption of a particular class of Her Majesty's subjects, he thought it was only fair that the hon. Member who proposed it should say whether it was designed to destroy the regulation made many years back. No one doubted the loyalty of the Members of the Society of Friends; but the words "I promise to the utmost of my power to defend Her Majesty and the succession to the Crown" were not unimportant, and, if he consented to let the Bill pass a second reading, it must be explained that no objection existed on the part of those who sought relief to defend Her Majesty and the settled succession to the Crown.

said, that the House needed not to be assured that the Quakers were most loyal and devoted subjects of Her Majesty; and it must be understood that the Quakers, in desiring to stand in the same position which they occupied previous to the Act of last year, which was passed to admit the Jews, asked for nothing new. Ever since 1717 the Quakers had been authorized by statute to take the oaths in the way of affirmation, and in a form peculiar to themselves. That form was repealed per incuriam by the Oaths Act of last year; and the consequence was that Quakers were now required on becoming barristers, magistrates, or Members of Parliament to make an affirmation in language to which they objected.

was glad that his right hon. Friend had called the attention of the House to this subject. No one could doubt the loyalty of the Quakers, and he also agreed that it was the intention of the House that no men should take an oath with respect to which he had any religious scruples. But in his view the observations which had been made in that respect did not apply to the present case. The hon. Gentleman said that it was an accidental omission last year; but it seemed to him that the alteration was an intentional one to correct an obvious omission. Assuming that the Quakers were loyal persons, which no one could doubt, it was the duty of every loyal citizen in the realm to defend Her Majesty and the Throne, if circumstances should arise. He could not understand the right of any one to a seat in that House, who did not make an oath, or affirmation to that effect; nor did it appear to him to be a question of scruple, because the words were perfectly distinct, "I will defend to the utmost of my power." Could any man, whatever his position, decline to take such an oath or make such a declaration. They had heard no explanation from the hon. Gentleman opposite why the words should be omitted, and it did not appear to be a case of conscientious difficulty unless the parties opposed to it objected to the sense and spirit of the words. If, therefore, they disqualified themselves for any office, they did so in consequence of their own omission, and were not either eligible to a seat in the House or any post of responsibility in the country.

begged to ask the hon. Member for Northampton whether he could give an explanation of the particular grievance which the Quakers were to be relieved from?

said, he should be most happy to do so, but he was not aware that the Bill would have been brought on for discussion that day, and he had not yet finished the reading of the Bill.

said, that after that statement he should move that the Chairman leave the chair and report progress, as it was evident that such a course was one which was necessary in order to allow those most interested in the matter to inform themselves upon it.

said, that the only object of the Bill was to put Quakers into the position in which they had been for the last 130 years. Every one who knew them testified to the loyalty and respectability of that excellent body of men, and he knew of no reason why they should be shut out from exercising the offices of magistrate or justice of the peace because they objected to affirm something contrary to their religious principles.

could assure his hon. Friend that he was quite willing to make every concession to religious scruples, but the hon. Gentleman had given no reason why the words were inserted last year. The words were binding on the person who took the oath or made the affirmation to defend the Queen. Did the hon. Member mean that Quakers were the only men who would not undertake to defend the Queen? That portion of the Bill seemed to him to be perfectly unintelligible, and, therefore, he should be obliged if the hon. Member for Northampton would give an explanation of it. He moved the Chairman do report progress.

expressed his surprise that the hon. Gentleman, acquainted as he was with so many leading members of the Society of Friends, should be so ignorant of the principles which led them to object to the terms employed as to defending Her Majesty as he appeared to be. He ought to know as well as any person that the principles of that sect were opposed to what was usually called the principles of defence; and there were many other ways in which they conceived that they might defend her Majesty than by the actual taking up of arms. As had been stated, the object of the present measure was nothing more than to put them in the position they had occupied for a very long period of time. His right hon. Friend beside him was acting on behalf of the whole Society of Friends who preferred the form of declaration previously in use, and he certainly thought that after the character that had been given of them by the hon. Member for Norfolk, no one would object to replace them in the position they had been in for 130 years.

said, it was perfectly plain that the objection the Society of Friends entertained was merely the ordinary conscientious objection by which the Quakers were distinguished; that they were loyal people could not be doubted, and there were many modes of defence in which they could see they were better able to defend the Queen than by force. He therefore hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion.

coincided in the course which had just been recommended. It was evident that so far as the Quakers were concerned they did not entertain any conscientious objection to making the affirmation further than the conscientious objection they entertained against the use of force.

withdrew his Motion.

moved the Second Reading of this Bill, its object being, he stated, to give validity to certain marriages solemnized in a church, which was supposed to be legalized for the purpose, but which was afterwards discovered not to be so.

moved the recommitment of the Bill, in order that the provision by which the nomination of candidates was not to take place in open assembly, but through papers sent to the officers of the boroughs, might be reconsidered. It was only when more than the requisite number of councillors were proposed that an election was to take place. This appeared to him an unsatisfactory mode of conducting the elections, and it would be bettor to adopt that practice which was consistent with the usages of the people of this country—nomination in public meeting.

explained the present position of the law and the object which the Bill had in view. As the law at present stood, no notice was given as to who were the candidates for the office of councillor, and the burgesses were therefore unable to know for whom to give their votes. Any man, whatever his character might be, could get a number of his friends together and obtain his election by surprise. Moreover, the corporation was obliged to keep open the poll all day, whether there was any opposition or not, and this put the corporation to great trouble and expense. In a large corporation like Manchester it would be necessary, if the plan of the hon. Gentleman were agreed to, to have as many as sixteen polling-places, with their attendant confusion and excitement. He should oppose the Motion.

also supported the Bill as it stood. He was quite sure that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) could not have had any experience of municipal elections, or he would not oppose the provisions of this Bill. It would be a great been to Manchester.

asked the Government to express their opinion upon the question. It appeared to him that a system which worked well in the election of Poor Law Guardians, and of Members of Local Boards of Health should be carried out in municipal elections generally.

thought the greatest publicity should be given in conducting municipal elections. Complaints were numerous that after an elector had voted other candidates appeared, and the remedy proposed was, that all candidates should be declared and their names published one whole day before the polling commenced. He was as much in favour of maintaining the principle of open voting as any man, and would much regret seeing it laid by. He thought the Bill provided a beneficial scheme.

thought it highly important that the ballot should be introduced in municipal elections. It had been in use in the metropolis twenty-five years under Hob house's Act, and it had worked extremely well.

did not think the Bill provided a remedy for all the existing evils attending municipal elections; but it was good as far as it went, and he should support it.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved the omission of Clause 6, which substituted a revision by a barrister for the present revision before the mayor and assessors. He understood that this would not be opposed.

thought it would be more satisfactory if the lists were revised by revising barristers rather than by local authorities.

observed, that there would at present be considerable difficulty in transferring this duty to the revising barristers, and he was therefore willing to assent to the Motion.

said, that the 18th clause would abolish the system of voting papers which had hitherto been used at municipal elections, and would assimilate the proceedings in respect of voting to those of Parliamentary elections. He wished to know on what grounds this change had been introduced, as he believed the system of voting papers was generally approved. He could state, at all events, that the municipal electors of the borough which he represented (Northampton) were perfectly satisfied with that system.

replied, that the class of persons entitled to vote at municipal elections were, generally speaking, much below the Parliamentary electors in point of education, and it was found that, under the system of voting papers, electors who were unable to write were often fraudulently induced to vote for the wrong candidates. This practice had been going on for a long time, and, in consequence of the re-presentations made to him on the subject, he proposed by this clause that voting papers should no longer be used. The only advantage of these papers, which were delivered by the electors themselves, was that electors wrote down the names of the candidates for whom they voted, instead of repeating them to the poll clerks.

thought the system of voting by ballot adopted under the Metropolitan Local Management Act might be applied with great advantage to the case of municipal elections.