said, he would now beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If all means were taken by the Official Director of Electric Telegraph Companies, himself one of the ex officio directors of the Red Sea Telegraph Company, to insure complete and uninterrupted insula- tion in the Red Sea Telegraph Cable by an efficient and continuous testing of the Cable during the process of its manufacture, as empowered by the agreement entered into with the contractors.—Chairman's Letter of the 28th day of September, 1858?

said, that he was informed that proper and sufficient measures were taken to test the cable during the whole course of its manufacture. The company had servants of its own resident upon the premises of the contractors, who were exclusively engaged upon the operation of testing the cable.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government have come to a decision on the subject of Retiring Allowances to Barrack Masters, as promised last Session; whether any inquiry has been instituted on the subject; and whether he will lay the Report of the persons employed to make such inquiry upon the Table of the House, together with the decision of the War Department, if any has been made?

said, he thought the hon. and gallant Member was under some misapprehension in supposing that any promise had been made last year with respect to the granting of retiring allowances to Barrack Masters. He (Mr. Baring) could not find that any such promise had been given. Hon. Members, however, who took an interest in the subject would perhaps recollect that the Government, two years ago, had pledged themselves to consider the question of the claims put forward on behalf of the Barrack Masters; and since that time a considerable amendment had been effected in their position, by the Royal Warrant of the 7th of February, 1860. There had been no special inquiry into the subject of the retiring allowances of Barrack Masters; but a suggestion had been made that commissions should be granted to them which would involve an alteration in the system of their retiring allowances. The subject was still under consideration, and had been referred to a Departmental Committee. It was not usual nor, he (Mr. Baring) thought, expedient to lay before the House the Reports of such Committees.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government with the view of carrying out the recommendations of the Shipping Committee of last year on the subject of Belligerent Rights at Sea?

No steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government with a view of carrying out the recommendations of the Shipping Committee of last year on the subject of belligerent rights at sea; and perhaps the House will allow me to state the reasons for which I have not taken any such steps. I found that, when the matter was under discussion with the American Government, at the time of the Conference at Paris, the opinion of the Earl of Clarendon seems to have been unfavourable to the proposal that private property at sea should be respected during war. No final decision was come to, and no official communication was made, and the American Government subsequently expressed a wish that all communication upon the subject should be suspended. Some time afterwards Mr. Dallas read to me a despatch of considerable length and much ability, which was addressed to Mr. Mason, the American Ambassador at Paris. In that despatch it was stated by the American Government that it was impossible, as there proposed, that private property on board belligerent vessels should be respected at sea; but General Cass added that he considered that the right of blockade, as authorized by the law of nations, was liable to very great abuse; that the only case in which a blockade ought to be permitted was when a land army was besieging a fortified place, and a fleet was employed to blockade it on the other side; but that any attempt to interrupt trade by a blockade, or to blockade places which were commercial ports, was an abuse of the right which ought not to be permitted. That, of course, opened a still wider question. My answer to that despatch was simply that, as the war had ceased, and the treaty of Paris had been concluded, it was not advisable to continue that discussion. The proposition itself seems to me to be one of the utmost magnitude. It is, in fact, a proposal that, there being two Powers, one of which has a very strong army and a weak navy, the other having an army inferior in numbers, but a superior navy, that the Power which has the superior navy should forego all the advantage to be derived from that source, and allow the contest to be decided by military force alone. Its adoption would, in the next place, tend rather to prolong than to shorten wars; because one way in which a great maritime Power can act as a belligerent is to cripple the trade of its opponent. The greater its strength as a maritime Power the greater is its power to do this, and the better its chance of bringing the war to a favourable termination. If this proposition were accepted, the whole of the power would be gone which has hitherto rendered Great Britain so formidable at sea. In the next place, I perceive difficulties in detail which would be insurmountable. The mercantile navy of a belligerent would be free from capture; but no one could say, when a number of vessels, apparently merchant ships, appeared off the coast, that they might not be used for purposes of war, and that they did not contain—

said, he rose to order. He wished to know whether the noble Lord was acting regularly in going into a lengthened argument on a difficult subject in reply to a question put to him, when no other Member holding different views would have an opportunity of answering him.

It has always been usual to accord greater latitude to a Minister than to a private individual in answering questions which may be put to him. The noble Lord was explaining the reason why he had not acted in the manner which the hon. Member who put the question assumed that he ought to have done. Under these circumstances, the House will probably not consider that the noble Lord was transgressing the limits allowed on such occasions.

A Select Committee of this House having made certain recommendations in, I think, very positive terms, it might be assumed that it was my duty to have acted in conformity with them, and to have taken some steps for carrying them out. I, therefore, ventured to explain to the House why I did not consider it prudent to adopt such measures. I do not wish to enter further into the argument, beyond saying that I regard the question as one affecting the whole maritime power of this country, and that I think any Minister of the Crown ought to be most cautious in taking any final step in respect of it.

said, he rose to move a Resolution charging the salary of the Chief Judge of the new court and his secretary on the Consolidated Fund.

said, it would have been more convenient if these Resolutions had been printed before the Committee was called upon to discuss them. The House had objected to the principle of compensation in the matter of bankruptcy officials, and he wished to know whether the present was not another mode of obtaining compensation from the Consolidated Fund for these officials?

observed that the word "compensation" was not used in the Resolutions.

said, he had stated the other night that, in conformity with a Resolution of the House passed last Session, he had carefully abstained from attempting to charge the Consolidated Fund with any of those sums which were then objected to. These Resolutions were confined entirely to the salaries of the officers and the stamps to be used in the proceedings of the court.

said, from what he understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to say on a previous occasion, he had certainly not proposed to introduce compensation direct, but in the shape of a vote annually in the Miscellaneous Estimates. That was the nature of the change. As that in no way removed the objection he had to the principle, he should deal with the subject when it was brought forward in the Estimates.

said he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether a statement in the report of certain proceedings in the Court of Chancery was accurate, according to which the Master of the Rolls was represented to have said that, as far as he could see, no business had been cut out sufficient to occupy him during the present sittings and the following Term, and from that statement he understood that the Vice Chancellors were in the same happy position. It became im-

said, that it was probable that the time of the Master of the Rolls was not at present fully occupied, but he had no reason to believe that that state of things would continue. The Committee was aware that, in consequence of changes which had been effected some time ago, part of the business of the Court of Chancery was transferred from Court to Chambers. The amount of business now gone through in chamber was very considerable, and, though a portion of the time of the Mas- ter of the Rolls might not be occupied at present, he must repeat that he did not believe that to be anything like the ordinary state of things.

observed that his hon. and learned Friend had not satisfied him that the services of a Chief Judge and five London Commissioners wore required. In the Bill of last year his hon. and learned Friend proposed that the entire work of the London court should be performed by one or two Commissioners and a Chief Judge. To retain five Commissioners and appoint a Chief Judge would add to existing expense and create confusion; and the result would be that the business would be less efficiently discharged than at present. He did not intend, however, to go fully into the question on that clause; but he mentioned the matter now in order that his hon. and learned Friend might take it into his consideration with a view to the amendment of the clause providing for the number of the London Commissioners. If the latter were altered he should give his cordial support to the clause now under discussion.

said, he would ask permission to remind the Committee of some facts connected, with the various modifications in the Court of Bankruptcy since its establishment in 1831. By the Bill of that year a Court of Review, consisting of four Judges, was created; but before long it was discovered that so large a number was not required, and the Chief Judge was turned into a Justice of the Common Pleas, and another Judge into a Master in Chancery. By the Act of 1842 it was provided that the duties of the Court of Review should be discharged by a single Judge; but the matter did not stop there, for it was further found that the time of even one Judge was more than was requisite. An extremely eminent Judge, Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce, undertook to discharge the duties of the Court of Review in Bankruptcy in addition to those which he performed in Chancery; and he believed that the former were satisfactorily performed by the learned Judge devoting one day in the week to those appeals. When the functions of the Court of Chancery were modified, the reviewing of cases from the Bankruptcy Court was transferred to the Lords Justices; and they also had transacted this business by giving to it one day in each week. He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) did not find any reason for supposing that so much additional appeal business would arise under the new Act as to justify the appointment of a Chief Judge, whose whole time would be applicable to its performance. On the contrary, he thought that the observations of the Master of the Rolls referred to by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire afforded ground for presuming that some arrangement might be made with the existing Judges for the discharge by them of the business which the Bill proposed to entrust to the new Judge. If once this functionary was appointed the step, so far as expense was concerned, could not be retraced; and his £5,000 a year must continue to be paid, even if only one-third or one-fourth of his time were occupied. The Committee ought, therefore, to know whether the learned Judges of the Court of Chancery had been communicated with on the subject, and whether it had been found impossible for them to undertake any additional duties.

said, that the clause for the appointment of the Chief Judge was repeated from the Bill of last Session. When under discussion, as a part of that measure, it was agreed to unanimously. He did not say that it might not now be objected to on grounds which had not then been supposed to exist; but he must observe that without it no part of the measure would work. The continuance of the five Commissioners was not his act, but that of the House. Hon. Members would recollect that in his Bill of last Session he proposed that Parliament should release the London Commissioners, and that the functions of the London Court should be discharged by one Commissioner and a Chief Judge. They would further recollect that that proposition involved the further one—namely, that the released Commissioners should receive their full salary for life. The House showed itself reluctant to adopt the latter proposal; and, therefore, in the present Bill he was forced to continue the London Commissioners; but his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roll) must be aware that it was not intended to keep up the number of five, or anything like it. He (the Attorney General) contemplated eventually two Commissioners, with a Chief Judge; but the Bill at present supposed three, because it was possible that there might be that number for some time—three of the present Commissioners, and, having regard to the age and length of service of those learned gentlemen, as much work could not reasonably be ex- pected from them as might be looked for from younger men. Instead of three Bankruptcy and two Insolvent Commissioners, there would be two London Commissioners, with a salary of £2,000 a year each, which would make £4,000, and a Chief Judge with a salary of £5,000, bringing up the entire expense to £9,000. At present the Commissioners of the Insolvent and Bankruptcy Courts received salaries amounting to £13,500, so that the difference would be a saving of £4,500 a year. So much for the Commissioners. With regard to the necessity for a Chief Judge, hon. Gentlemen would do him the justice to observe that under the Bill a considerable portion of the bankruptcy business would, be discharged by the County Court Judges. The result would be, that the London Commissioners, the District Commissioners, and the County Court Judges would all be exercising original jurisdiction in bankruptcy. It was true that the present Court of Appeal had only so much business as to occupy a small modicum of its time; but the reason was not that there were no judgments for revision, but that the amount at stake was frequently so small that it was not thought advisable to incur the expense and delay consequent on an appeal. The result of the present state of things was that one-half of the administration of justice in bankruptcy was without effective superintendence. But in future all the important business was to be discharged by the Court of Bankruptcy under the provisions of the present Bill. The insolvent business alone would be sufficient to occupy the time of one Commissioner, so that there would only be the Chief Judge and one Commissioner to get through the business that was now discharged by five Commissioners and the Court of Appeal. It was also material to observe that the present Bill, for the first time, brought every trust deed within the control of the Court, and gave to all parties claiming under these trust deeds the most ready means of resorting to the Court, and of having an economical administration of their affairs. These trust deeds amounted annually to 8,000, and the ordinary number of petitions relating to them in the Courts of Bankruptcy and Insolvency were very considerable. By the enactments of the Bill there would be about four times the amount of business added to the court. Supposing a question on some important matter to arise in the case of every twenty trust deeds, they would have, out of the total 8,000, no fewer than 400 subjects of adjudication brought up annually from that source alone. In addition to these, they would probably have the 2,000 cases of bankruptcy and insolvency now adjudicated upon considerably increased. In order to provide a tribunal that could adequately discharge all the business that would arise, and to whose decisions there would attach dignity as well as power and authority, the Judge must be in every respect equal to the Judges of the Court of Chancery and of Common Caw. It should be recollected, also, that the Chief Judge would have most important functions to perform in connexion with the discharge of bankrupts, on which difficult and intricate questions would often arise. He contended, therefore, that the time of the Chief Judge and the Commissioners who might be permanently employed, would be wholly occupied in the discharge of the important business with which they were intrusted.

said, that omitting to employ the London Commissioners would not add to the expense in any way whatever. If these Commissioners could be employed usefully he would be satisfied, but he could not understand how they were to be usefully employed under the provisions of this Bill. If the Bill passed in its present form the machinery framed by it would be permanent, and his hon. and learned Friend would not be able to accomplish what he desired—the establishment of a Chief Judge and one or two Commissioners only. The expense, therefore, would not be lessened by the course proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. As to the question whether it would he possible for the Chief Judge to discharge the duties without the assistance of any London Commissioners, he (Mr. Bolt) was satisfied that with a proper staff of registrars it might be done. At all events the assistance of one or two London Commissioners at most, as proposed last year would be sufficient; all the difference that his hon. and learned Friend could show between this Bill and the one of last year in that respect was, that it was now proposed to bring into the Court of Bankruptcy trust deeds, which, he said, were 8,000 in number. He calculated that out of this number there would be 400 cases annually brought into Court, but he (Mr. Rolt) submitted that this was a very loose estimate, and that, in fact, the change would add very slightly indeed to the labours of the Court. Neither would the jurisdiction as to the discharge of bankrupts add materially to the business of the Court, and he contended that the result would be to leave the Chief Judge no primary jurisdiction whatever, while the appellate jurisdiction would occupy little more time than it did now—half a clay or so in the week. He believed that by the machinery provided in the Bill of last year the expense would be less than by the present, while the work would be efficiently done.

said, he was of opinion that the simpler course would have been to carry out the proposal of the Bill of last year, and to allow certain of the Commissioners to retire upon their full salaries. He thought such a proposition was very much calculated to simplify the working of the measure. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Attorney General that the present clause he omitted.

said, he held that the Bill of last year was of great value in doing away with the old system of bankruptcy, which had worked very ill. That Bill substituted for the present Commissioners a Chief Judge, who would have abundant time to despatch all the business of the court. But to keep the Commissioners to encumber the Judge, as was now proposed, and the Judge to encumber the Commissioners, was by no means an improvement. It was clear there would not be business for all; for three or four years ago he ascertained that the average occupation of the five or six Commissioners of that day did not exceed nine or ten hours a week. There was no great reason, moreover, under the present Bill, to expect any considerable increase of business. An objection was made to paying the Commissioners their full salaries, and relieving them of their duties; but, after thirty and forty years' service, it was not unreasonable that they should retire on their full salaries. He should be sorry to place any difficulties in the way of the Attorney General, but he would recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the subject, and not press the clause before the Committes.

said, he would beg leave to suggest that a new arrangement should be made of the several districts, and that a provision should be made empowering the registrars to travel to the different towns in their districts in them. They had five Commissioners, five registrars, five ushers, and five messengers, and nine official assignees in London; while all traders beyond Salisbury or Norwich had to come to London with their attorneys and witnesses to investigate each case of bankruptcy. He thought it would cause great saving of expense to such persons if a registrar and messenger were stationed in each of the cities he had mentioned.

said, he could not consent to the proposal to discharge three of the Commissioners, retaining only two, upon whom it would be very unfair to cast an amount of business at least five times as great as that which they now had to discharge. Undoubtedly, for himself, he should have preferred the arrangement of last year; but the House of Commons had ruled otherwise and he had bowed to their decision. It must happen, in the course of nature, that the number of Commissioners would be reduced before very long, and then there would only remain two London Commissioners and a Chief Judge. He repeated he should have been very glad if the House had assented to the proposal he had submitted last year, but hon. Members would remember how his opinion had been overruled. It must be borne in mind that the Chief Judge would possess, not merely an appellate jurisdiction, but he (the Attorney General) hoped that that Judge would exercise a general superintendence over the whole business of the Commissioners. With regard to the suggestion that registrars should go from place to place, with a view to saving trouble and expense to suitors, a provision to that effect was contained in the Bill; but, as to the distinct distribution of registrars and giving them a local habitation, that was a suggestion which required consideration. For the present he saw no better arrangement than to leave the London Commissioners as they were, on the understanding that the staff of the Court should ultimately consist of two Commissioners and one Chief Judge, subject to the provision that the Lord Chancellor should, if he saw fit, make an alteration.

suggested that the clause as it stood required alteration. The last words of the clause provided that the number of London Commissioners should always be three.

said, that a subsequent clause might be introduced, giving the Lord Chancellor the power to reduce the staff of the Court. He had, however, no objection to strike out the words "so that the number of Commissioners of the Court of Bankruptcy in London may be always three," and would propose their omission.

said, he must remind the hon. and learned Attorney General that the clauses relative to the constitution of the Court, as proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman last year, were sanctioned by Parliament, and were agreed to in Committee. The lion, and learned Gentleman was, therefore, scarcely justified in saying that his proposal to abolish the five London Commissioners was not approved by Parliament.

said, he was at a loss to understand how the County Court Judges were expected efficiently to discharge the duties imposed upon them by the Act. There now existed a proper number of districts and Commissioners throughout England, who were not overworked, and it was not proposed to abolish them. There was, consequently, an abundance of officers to do the duties of the Bankruptcy Court, and the County Court Judges, if additional work were thrown on them, would require additional salaries. He trusted, therefore, that these clauses would be omitted.

observed that the subject had been discussed last year, and he felt that the constitution of the County Courts was not adapted to the performance of business of this kind. Nevertheless, on the best consideration, he was obliged to come to the conclusion that the administration of justice in that, as well as in other matters, should be brought home to people's doors; and, not being able to suggest a better mode, he now felt the necessity of giving the proposed jurisdiction to the County Courts.

said, he would say a few words in explanation of the difference on that point between the present Bill and the Bill of last year. The Bill of last year proposed to enable the County Courts to receive petitions for adjudications in bankruptcy where the assets did not exceed £300. Upon consideration the Committee thought the arrangement inconvenient, and, therefore, the present Bill left the County Court Judges in possession of the jurisdiction which they already held by law. At present insolvents in prison might petition the County Court Judges for their discharge; and by the Small Debts Act small traders, not owing above £300, might likewise petition the County Courts. He left those courts in possession of the jurisdiction they possessed under that power; and whatever they acquired beyond would be by the means of voluntary transfer on the part of creditors—for, undoubtedly, the Bill gave to a certain majority of creditors in any bankruptcy who believed that the estate would be better administered by a County Court power to transfer it to such County Court, and thus the clause before the Committee was rendered necessary.

remarked, that if he understood the object of the clause aright, it was to throw an additional amount of duty upon the County Court Judges; and he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to propose any additional remuneration for them? He believed a proposition to that effect was made last year. What he wished to know, in fact, was whether it was intended to throw extra labour upon these officials without any extra remuneration, or whether power was to be given to remunerate them for extra work?

said, that the Bill of last year contained a clause which directed that, when under the provisions of the Act, any County Court Judge was vested with bankruptcy jurisdiction, he should receive an augmentation to his salary of £300. The present Bill did not, however, contain a similar clause, inasmuch as it provided no fund on which that augmentation could be charged. He could not, of course, charge it on the Bankruptcy Fund. So far as the justice of the case was concerned it might be well if the House consented to the augmentation payable from the same sources as their salaries were at present paid; for he anticipated that a considerable addition to the County Court business would arise from the voluntary transfer of bankruptcy cases to them.

thought the clause unnecessary, and at any rate he conceived that the power should not be given to the Government, but should rest with Parliament. He should oppose the clause.

remarked that he did not intend to oppose the clause, but he wished to express his very strong apprehensions that clauses of that description, giving County Court Judges jurisdiction in bankruptcy, -would destroy the value of those courts. There was an essential difference in the nature of the two tribunals; the one was as rapid in its operation as the other was slow. If the bankruptcy business were passed through too rapidly great injustice would be inflicted both on the Courts and on the public, and he could not help thinking that there was much danger that, in giving the two jurisdictions under one tribunal, the work would not be so efficiently performed as at present. But the Bill was so framed that if one clause were left out several others must be omitted. He should satisfy himself with saying that this was a very doubtful experiment; and, if it failed, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would have the courage to make such subsequent alterations as experience should prove to be necessary.

said, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman opposite in thinking that the power given under the clause to Her Majesty in Council of establishing new County Courts was a very serious one. The consequence would necessarily be to impose upon the country increased burdens in the shape of salaries for the new Judges. It appeared to him (Sir Henry Willoughby) that, at any rate, a limit ought to be placed upon the power. At the present moment something like £600,000 a year was paid by the country in the shape of salaries to Judges, great and small. It was somewhat extraordinary how those sums crept up, and then the people wondered how the Estimates had increased.

said, he believed it was generally considered that two paramount duties ft ere incumbent upon the Government of a country—the one being the protection of those whose interests were committed to its keeping from external violence; the other their preservation as far as possible from internal injustice and wrong. The former duty the House of Commons always performed in a liberal spirit; the latter, he regretted to say, was by some hon. Gentlemen, dealt with after a somewhat niggardly fashion. In that circumstance lay the great difficulty of making provision for such cases as those to which the clause applied. With reference to the observations of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, it should be recollected that it was the ordinary prerogative of the Crown to establish any court it pleased. If, however, a new County Court were established, the expense of it would, of course, be defrayed in the same manner as that of the other courts—namely, by the vote of Parliament. Although, then, the Crown might establish a court, by its prerogative, the expense of it could not be paid without the authority of Parliament. But the object of the clause was not so much in reference to the creation of new Courts as to other circumstances connected with the provincial administration of bankruptcy. As the law of bankruptcy was administered under the existing system, a single district extended probably sixty or seventy miles, and embraced a great number of towns and places. Now, that had been felt to be a great inconvenience at times, and a new distribution of tribunals had been thought desirable in order to facilitate and accelerate the administration of justice. Under such circumstances it might be necessary to establish one or two additional County Courts in large and populous places. Power was taken for that purpose in the Bill. He would also again remind the Committee that a great deal of the business of bankruptcy might be voluntarily transferred to the County Court Judges. If that were found to be the case, it would, of course, conduce to the interests of the mercantile and trading communities; but the fact might render it necessary to augment those tribunals as a substitute for the present Local Commissioners of Bankruptcy.

said, he could not but regret the line of argument which had been taken by the hon. and learned Attorney General. It seemed to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman was disposed to place too great an amount of power in the hands of the Crown. The hon. and learned Attorney General was no doubt right in his axioms as to the two great duties of Government. But in reference to its duty of protecting the subjects of the Crown from wrong and injustice at home, it was very questionable whether the authority to turn loose upon the country any number of County Court Judges would strengthen their security from such a contingency. It was the prerogative of the Crown undoubtedly to appoint those Judges, but Parliament must be applied to for their salaries. It did not appear to him that the Attorney General had properly answered the argument of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby). The objection of the hon. Baronet went to the increase of salary. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments there was no necessity for the clause at all. There were at present sixty County Court Judges. Now, the facilities afforded by the Bill to private arrangements would rather have the effect of decreasing the business of bankruptcy throughout the country, instead of augmenting it. If, however, it should be found that the sixty County Court Judges were unequal to the discharge of the duties to be thrown on them, it would be easy to come to Parliament for power to appoint eight or ten more. It appeared to him that the Bill, as it stood, gave great power to the Lord Chancellor to appoint County Court Judges, ad libitum, with salaries. [Mr. ROEBUCK: No, no.] Did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to appoint them without salaries? If he did, he doubted very much whether he would find a gentleman that would be willing to undertake the office.

said, it appeared to him that the distinction between appointing a Judge by the prerogative of the Crown, and appointing him by a regular provision of law, was this—if the Judge were appointed solely by the prerogative of the Crown Parliament would be under no legal nor moral obligation to provide for his salary; if, however, Parliament, by an Act, should specially recognize the prerogative of the Crown, and concur in the exercise of that prerogative, it would be under a moral obligation to provide a salary for such an officer. He, therefore, concurred in the propriety of placing a limit on the number of County Court Judges who might be appointed by the Crown under the clause.

said, it should be recollected that this very provision was the act of the House last year, and the Committee ought, therefore, to abide by it. It was quite clear, however, according to the Attorney General's argument, if they conferred by enactment the power upon the Crown, and any gentlemen were appointed under it, the hon. and learned Gentleman would come down to the House next year for the salaries of those Judges, and tell them they must abide by their own act.

observed, that if it were within the prerogative of the Crown to appoint as many Judges as it pleased, the clause under consideration was supererogatory.

said, his objection was that his hon. and learned Friend was pressing the clause prematurely. It was proposed to give the Crown power to exercise, under an Act of Parliament, the prerogative of appointing additional Judges; but they were not giving Her Majesty at the same time any power of paying those Judges. It followed that another application must be made to Parliament for means to pay the Judges and to fix their salaries. They were placing themselves, then, in the ungracious position of, perhaps, being induced to quarrel with the Crown for having exercised its prerogative after they had sanctioned that exercise, as the House might be of opinion that the new Judges appointed by the Crown were too numerous and unnecessary. He was further of opinion that all the business of bankruptcy might be performed by district Commissioners better than by the County Court Judges. If the time of the latter were to be occupied in the administration of bankrupts' estates, they might be unable to render those ordinary services to the country which had been hitherto so useful. The only objection he had heard urged against the district Commissioners being appointed for those duties was that they were resident and stationary in one locality. But the remedy was a very simple one. Let them be required to make a circuit, like the other Judges, in order to administer the business of bankruptcy within the districts where it arose. He, therefore, thought that the clause was unnecessary.

said, it was quite obvious that the course of procedure under this clause would be that, supposing Her Majesty in Council should be of opinion there was a necessity for a new district, then the scheme or order for such district would have to be laid upon the table of the House before any appointment was made under it. It would then be discussed, and if the House approved of it, and voted the necessary sums for the maintenance of the Court, the order would be promulgated. It would be impossible for the House to discuss the question until the scheme had been first arranged and matured, and the clause only provided the ordinary machinery for preparing that scheme. No apprehension need be entertained by the Committee of being surprised into any Vote, or of incurring any moral obligation on that head.

asked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would have any objection to introduce words to that effect into the clause at a future stage?

replied, that the scheme for a new district must necessarily be submitted to Parliament before promulgation; but he had no objection to insert words to that effect.

said, he wished to put a question to the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had held out, he (Mr. Newdegate) understood, not long since, hope to the gentlemen acting as County Court Judges that with an increase of business they would receive an increase of salaries; but it appeared that this intention had been abandoned, and no reason had been assigned for this abandonment. On the other hand, to the registrars and other officers of County Courts, an increase of remuneration was proposed. Now it seemed to him that if the one class of functionaries were deemed deserving of an augmentation of their salaries on the ground of extra labour, the salaries of the principal officers of the courts ought to be increased on the same ground. He wished to ask whether it was proposed to increase the salaries of the minor officers of the County Courts in consideration of the augmentation of business under the new Bill; and whether it was proposed that there should be no increase to the salaries of the Judges, the principal officers of those courts?

said, the officers of the County Courts were remunerated by fees, and the additional business would, of course, give them additional remuneration. He did not propose to augment the salaries of the County Court Judges, though he should have been happy to do so had it been in his power.

could not see why, if they could command the fees in the case of the registrars, they should not, by some transfer of part of these fees to the Consolidated Fund, if necessary, or otherwise, be able to give a just increase of salary to the Judges also with an increase of business.

said, that Clause 20 provided that all fees except those of solicitors and attorneys should be assessed by the registrars of the County Courts, and the clause now before the Committee, taken in connection with that clause, would give the registrars of County Courts, who would be the official assignees, power to settle their own fees, which was surely objectionable.

admitted that it would be the most unreasonable thing in the world to allow the registrar of a County Court, acting as official assignee, to send in his bill of costs and charges. There was, however, another clause which said that all the fees of the officers of the Bankruptcy Courts should be settled by the Judges of those courts.

complained that in some local districts fees of the most exorbitant kind were charged. It would be a great advantage if arrangements were made by which one taxing-master were appointed, all business being transferred to London, so that a uniform system might be adopted.

said, he thought the suggestion a valuable one; the only difficulty was as to the arrangement of machinery to give it effect with economy and despatch. If the hon. Member would embody his views in a clause it might be considered on bringing up the report.

remarked, that it would be very inconvenient to have but one taxing-master.

said, he would appeal to the Attorney General to postpone the clause until the clauses proposing to appoint creditors' assignees should have been considered. He thought it very doubtful that creditors would wish to take upon themselves so much labour and responsibility, with all the stringent regulations annexed. The complaint against the official assignees was that they cost too much. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) had stated, on bringing in the Bill, that the expenses of collection of the bankrupts effects by the official assignees amounted to 33 per cent on the estate. Now, he (Mr. Smith) thought the mercantile community were expecting too much if they expected a very inexpensive collection of a bankrupt's estate. The bankrupt himself generally got in all the assets which were easy of collection, and left the rest to be got in by the assignees.

said, he should oppose the postponement. There was no portion of the Bill which was so much demanded by the mercantile community as that which would give the creditors more power over the bankrupt's estate, and circumscribe the duties of the official assignee.

said, he saw no object that was to be gained by delaying the clause, which was, perhaps, more strongly demanded by the commercial community than any other portion of the measure. Mercantile men professed their readiness to undertake the duties of creditors' assignees.

observed, that the hon. and learned Attorney General, in introducing the Bill, had said that he contemplated a great increase in the business of Bankruptcy Courts, and yet he proposed to reduce the number of official assignees. Then, again, the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated the expense of the collection of bankrupts' estates by the official assignees was 33 per cent. The fact was it only amounted to 4½ per cent; and he (Mr. Roebuck) did not believe that by any other arrangement could the collection be made so cheaply. He knew there was a cry both in and out of the House among the mercantile public for divesting official assignees of their present functions. He had learnt that cries were often very senseless things, and he thought the present one would prove one of the most senseless. When official assignees had been got rid of he believed it would be found that inefficient and useless persons had taken their place, who would charge dearly for services that were ill-performed, and that then there would be a cry to have the official assignees restored.

said, the objections he had previously expressed to that portion of the Bill which related to the official assignees had in no wise been removed. He believed the machinery of the Bill would not work. There ought to be a class of public officers in whose hands the assets of bankrupt estates should be vested. The law would never be able to exercise the same control over the trade assignee as over the official assignee. The present system in connection with the official assignees might show abuses, and the salaries of those officials might be too high, but if so let them be diminished. The clause ought to be postponed, and the question re-considered.

said, he thought the time had arrived when official assignees should be reduced both in number and in fees; and he hoped that the clause would be at once proceeded with.

said, he could not consent to postpone the clause. No doubt it was the duty of that House to consider whether any particular "cry" had a foundation before they yielded to it. In this case the general demand certainly was, that creditors should have restored to them the administration of what was really their own affairs; and he could not say that that demand was unreasonable. He fully recognized the value of the services of the official assignees, especially in collecting small debts, because they had a large staff of clerks, and could easily resort to the Commissioner or the Judge. One of the provisions of the Bill, therefore, intrusted to them the getting in of debts not exceeding £10, which they could do more cheaply than a solicitor could. The number of those gentlemen was at present, however, far too many, and, indeed, he thought there would not be sufficient work for those whom the Bill proposed to retain.

said, he did not mean to assert that under no circumstances would mercantile men consent to act as creditors' assignees. What he maintained was, that the provisions of the Bill were too stringent and burdensome, and would tend to deter such persons from undertaking these duties.

said, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether it was proposed that the Chief Judge should have the power of dismissing messengers, whether they performed their duties properly or not, for, a3 the clause termed it, "sufficient reason?" He would suggest that, as another clause relating to the dismissal of the official assignees contained words implying that "during good behaviour" dismissal could not be ordered, the same words should be substituted for "sufficient reason" in this clause. There were but five messengers in London, one of whom had held office for forty-two years, and was now seventy-one years of age. It would, he thought, be a great hardship that such a man should be dismissed from office without compensation, as he might be under the Bill, and be told merely that the chief Judge considered he had sufficient reason. The office of messenger was, in his opinion, a highly important one; for upon their vigilance, perseverance, and integrity, especially in the cases of fraudulent bankrupts, depended very much the amount of assets realized.

said, that the phrase "sufficient reason" was a phrase perfectly well understood; it must be a reason sufficient, not only in the mind of the Judge, but of those under whose notice the order of dismissal (in which it was provided the reason must be stated) might be brought. The messengers were employed to take possession of property, and although the present holders of those offices were very respectable gentlemen, yet their duties were such as might be performed by very subordinate officers.

said, he wished to know whether it would be a sufficient ground for dismissal that their services were no longer required?

said, he would remind the Committee of the speech of the Attorney General when he introduced the Bill, and when he said that, if the measure became law, private arrangements would be the rule and bankruptcies the exception. That state of things would inevitably bring about the result referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and if so, it could not possibly be termed justice to dismiss a man who had held office with credit to himself, performing his duties satisfactorily for forty-two years, and tell him that he was entitled to no compensation, but that having nothing more to do in consequence of the passing of a new Act of Parliament should be considered a "sufficient reason" for his dismissal.

said, where it was meant the office should be retained "during good behaviour," those words were used. If it was not intended to get rid of the messengers by a side-wind, why not state at once either that they would be dismissed, or that they would be permitted to retain office" during good behaviour?"

said, this clause, while it left open the question of trader and non-trader, removed and modified many objections that were taken last year to the method by which it was then proposed to abolish the distinction between the two classes of debtors. The hon. and learned Attorney General deserved, in his opinion, great credit for the manner in which he had dealt with this question.

said, he wished to call attention to the position of the provisional assignee of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, who, by this clause, was to receive the same emolument as the other official assignees. As that officer had always performed his duties in a most satisfactory manner, it would be unfair to reduce him now from £1,500, the amount of his present income, to £1,200 per annum. He (Mr. Malins) would propose an Amendment to the effect that the provisional assignee should continue to receive the same amount as he now derived from his office.

said, the Bill provided that the provisional assignee of the Insolvent Debtors' Court should perform, the same duties as the official assignees. It would therefore be unfair that he should receive a different salary from the official assignees.

said, he wished to know why the provisional assignee should be placed in a better position than the official assignees?

thought it very hard that, after having discharged the duties of the office for forty-two years, the gentleman in question should now have his salary cut clown, especially as he would still have to do the same amount of work.

said, he believed that if they allowed the provisional assignee to retain his present emoluments, there would be a difficulty in dealing with the official assignees. He wished to know whether the officer in question was paid by salary or by fees, for from what had been stated an important question was opened up as regarded his remuneration?

could not specify the exact proportions, but the payment was by both salary and fees. He had no acquaintance with the gentleman whose interests he was advocating, had never seen him, never spoken to him in his life, but as an officer of the court he was well known in the Court of Chancery, and the facts of the case had been made known to him (Mr. Malins) by a gentleman, upon whose truth he could thoroughly rely.

said, the salary was originally £250 a year, but had become raised to the amount stated (£1,500) by fees—a sum which he thought was much larger than was necessary to a person performing such duties as the office required. By the present Bill the remuneration would be £1,200 a year, and he considered that an ample payment.

proposed that the persons described as clerks should be called registrars.

said, no doubt the clerks were desirous of being designated registrars, for they would be entitled to increased salaries; but he should object to the alteration.

suggested that some difficulty might arise from the clause as it was now worded.

then moved, that the word "Commissioners" should be substituted for "Commissioner" in the seventh line.

moved the omission of the two last words, "now pending," as they might lead to difficulty at a future time.

said, he proposed to omit the words "as nearly as may be out of the same funds, and payable in the same manner in all respects as if this Act had not been passed," and to substitute for them, "and the same shall be paid out of the fund standing to the credit of the chief registrar's account."

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not ex- plained the reasons why he proposed the alteration with regard to the mode of payment of the messengers and brokers of the Insolvent Debtors' Court. He hoped the Committee would allow the clause to pass in its present shape, on the understanding that it should be open to alteration on the bringing up of the Report.

said, he had given notice of an Amendment to the effect that the salaries of the official assignees in London should be £1,000 instead of 1,200, and in the country £800 instead of £1,000. It had been exceedingly difficult to ascertain the amount of remuneration the official assignees had received, for it depended upon the result of the ballot whether they got £3,000 or £4,000, or only £1,000 a year. Some assignees had been exceedingly fortunate in getting estates of great amount ballotted to them, whilst others received very little more than the cost of their establishments. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General, whether he could state what had been the average income of the official assignees, plus the cost of their establishments, and of the necessary assistance that they were obliged to have?

said, he wished to inquire whether the Attorney General had always been of opinion that £1,200 a year was sufficient remuneration for an official assignee; and whether he had acquired any further information upon the subject since last year?

said, that he had had the honour of receiving a deputation from the official assignees, and undoubtedly, from the representations which they made to him, he was led to think that their emoluments had been considerably more than he had been made aware of; and, therefore, he expressed his wish to fix the maximum at £1,500, and he introduced a clause into the Bill for that purpose. His own disposition was to give those gentlemen ample compensation, and he was only anxious to arrive at what was the proper amount. That clause, however, had led to a great deal of remonstrance, and was among the principal reasons why the Bill had been given up. Since then he had made a full examination into the matter, and though unfortunately, from accident, he had not brought with him an account of incomes for several years antecedent to 1856, yet he could say, from statements made by themselves, the average emoluments for several years previous to 1856 of these gentlemen were less than £1,200 a year. That was, at all events, the impression which remained on his memory. Prom a Return which had been made to the House of the emoluments of official assignees from the 11th October, 1857, to the end of the year 1859, a period of two years and four months, it appeared that their incomes amounted to the sums which he was about to state. He ought to add also that these gentlemen had been placed in situations of considerable peril from being made defendants in suits, and having sometimes to pay considerable sums for costs. From this liability they would now be effectually relieved. The Return showed that the net amounts received, after deducting the cost of clerks and other expenses, for the time he had mentioned, were as follow:— Mr. Patrick Johnson, £2,067; Mr. Bell, £3,716; Mr. Whitmore, £6,896; Mr. Cannan, £5,214; Mr. Graham, £4,363; Mr. Stansfeld, £4,313; Mr. Edwards, £5,633; All these gentlemen admitted, however, that the remuneration for the last three years had been very much larger than for preceding years; and if he were to take an account for ten or twelve years, their incomes would, on the average, very little exceed £1,200 a year each. On referring to the measure by which their offices were created, he found that the original intention was that they should receive £800 a year; but, having reference to their length of service, to the altered nature of their position, and to their average receipts for the last ton or twelve years, he thought it would be found that £1,200 a year was, by no means, an exaggerated estimate.

remarked that the clause only provided that the income should not exceed a certain sum; it did not provide for the other alternative, and state that it should not be less than a given amount.

said, that with reference to what had fallen from other hon. Members, he was in a position to state, that the salaries of the official assignees, taken for fifteen years, averaged £1,616 per annum; taken for twelve years they averaged £1,800; and taken for seven years they averaged £2,000.

said, he wished to point out that although the several official assignees received pretty much the same number of fiats, their remuneration materially differed; for instance, the income of Mr. Bell, one of the assignees, had, during the last three or four years, nearly doubled that of his colleagues. He took the liberty of suggesting that the proper course would be to fix the salary of the official assignees at a minimum of say £800 a year, and then give them above that a percentage. The evidence which had been taken before a Committee of the House, he thought, would be found to support the expediency of the plan he had mentioned. He did not think they could get the work well done without giving some remuneration above the fixed salary.

observed that by the clause, as it at present stood, the salary could not exceed £1,200, but it might be only 12s. Something ought to be fixed certain. He could not see the force of the observation of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Murray) that the official assignees could not be got to do their duty without a salary in addition to fees. As every other officer of the court was to be paid by salary, why should an exception be made in the case of the official assignees?

suggested that the clause might be amended by substituting the words "shall amount to" for the words "shall not exceed." That would secure the officers a salary of £1,200 a year.

said, that so much depended on the diligence used by the official assignees in the collection of the assets, it would be better to pay them partly by salary and partly by fees.

said, if he acted on his individual opinions he would carry out the arrangement proposed in the clause as it stood with regard to present assignees, and that proposed by the hon. Member for Marylebone, with respect to those to be appointed in future. If the Committee agreed with him as to the propriety of that course, he would postpone the clause and introduce another for the purpose of adopting it.

said, he thought the suggestion of the Attorney General an admirable one, and he, therefore, would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he would ask the Attorney General to postpone this clause.

said, he had no objection to the postponement, if the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone, who had given notice of an Amendment respecting the remuneration of the messengers, did not object.

said, he did not see what the messengers had to do, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford would inform them on a future occasion what was the proper definition of the term messenger, what duties the messengers to Bankruptcy Courts performed, what amount of money they had received, and how much they returned to the income tax.

said, he knew that the messengers had for very many years had most important duties to perform, and that they had always performed them well, and to the advantage of the public. He did not pledge himself to any particular course; but an hon. Member had mentioned that one gentleman had performed these duties for forty-two years; he had received considerable remuneration under the law—remuneration which he was clearly entitled to—and he believed the Committee would not do an act of injustice, and leave that gentleman, at 71 years of age, and after rendering forty-two years' valuable service to the country—stranded. That he believed to be a correct statement of one case; and that he might not make any statement which was not entirely supported by facts, he had asked the hon. and learned Attorney General to consent, with his usual good-nature, to the postponement of the clause.

stated that he had just received two petitions from messengers in Bankruptcy, but had not had time to peruse them. He had no doubt they contained important statements, and he should take care to make himself master of them.

said, that notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone, he could assure the Committee that on the honesty, integrity, and activity of the messenger much depended; he was not a man holding a mere nominal position. The messenger had to find out what property the bankrupt had immediately before he became bankrupt, what had become of it, and how it was to be got at for the creditors, and to get it. The realisation of the estate in a very large measure depended upon him, and in cases of fraudulent bankruptcy the discovery of the fraud depended mainly on the activity, the intelligence, and the discretion of the messenger. It was a very important office.

said, he would move the addition of the words:—"and shall be above sixty-five years of age." Many of these offices might be filled by men aged twenty-five, and they would be entitled to retire, even though in good health, when they were forty-five. While they held office they ought to provide retiring pensions for themselves.

said, he saw no objection to the insertion of the words proposed; he knew no reason why gentlemen in good health should be entitled to retire before they were fifty-five years of age in the enjoyment of two-thirds of their salaries.

said, he had an objection to the last four lines of the clause, whereby it was provided that compensations should be paid into the Bank of England to the credit of the chief registrar'sa ccount, by the Commissioners of the Treasury, out of monies to be from year to year voted for that purpose by Parliament. He did not wish to prevent the parties mentioned in the clause from obtaining remuneration, but he objected to the remuneration of the patentee being paid out of the public purse. The salary was created by no Act of Parliament; it was created by letters patent, and he objected to this large sinecure being placed on the public taxes. The question he should submit to the Committee was, whether they were prepared to open a new item of account in the Miscellaneous Estimates? It was the practice of the House to regret the vast increase which had taken place in those Estimates, and it had been stated by members of the Government that the fault lay with the House of Commons; but, although they objected, they were constantly adding to those Estimates. If the clause were agreed to it would bring under the annual notice of Parliament an amount of £20,000, and that sum would form the subject of a new and unpleasant discussion. The discussion would not be confined to the patentee of bankrupts, but it would be extended to the Commissioners and other officers. The House last year refused to place those items of compensation on the Consolidated Fund, and he now asked the Committee to leave them to be paid out of a fund from which they had been paid during the past forty years, and not to throw them on the public purse. The precise fund out of which the patentee and other officers were paid was called the "Secretary of Bankruptcy Compensation Fund," but there was a very considerable balance arising from the accumulation of many years, amounting to nearly a million and a half, the interest upon which was, or could be, applied in the same way as the fees. He objected to these compensations being thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, and he should move the omission of the last four lines of the clause, the effect of which would be to leave the patentee of bankruptcy and other officers to receive their payment of compensation out of the Bankruptcy Fund.

said, that he should feel it his duty to resist the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. The clause, as it at present stood, had been arranged by him within the last year, and he thought with the concurrence of the great body of the House. He must explain to the Committee that these particular compensations were thrown upon the Bankruptcy Fund by statute, when alterations were made in 1831, and they were compensations which were deemed right to he paid, and were paid, by the authority of Parliament. That fund arose from the contributions of creditors in their capacity as suitors, and he desired to know with what possible justice could money paid by way of indemnity for past errors, committed by a former generation, be charged upon future generations of creditors who should come to seek justice under this Bill? He begged the hon. Baronet to observe that when it was the duty of the State to provide for the administration of justice, it was the duty of the State to do that at the expense of the community. It was undoubtedly true that the Bankruptcy Court was partly judicial and partly administrative. He proposed that the Court should pay for the administrative duties, and those who resort to the Court would have to pay to the Court sufficient to discharge those duties; but so far as the Court performed the public duty—namely, of administering justice in this wide and important range of the law of debtor and creditor, it was the duty of the State to find the funds. All he now asked the House of Commons to do was to rescue the unfortunate suitors in Bankruptcy Courts from the unjust burthens that were placed upon them by paying for a fault—not committed by them, and from which they had no benefit—but a fault committed by former generations of legislators in that very House. The Commissioners of 1854, who went very fully into the subject, had pointed out the great injustice of this burden, and recommended that the compensations hitherto paid out of the suitors' fund should be placed upon the Consolidated Fund of the country. In accordance with that recommendation the Bill of last year proposed to put the payments on the Consolidated Fund, but an objection was taken to this on the ground that it would establish the payments in perpetuity. In the present Bill he had made an alteration which would have the effect of making the compensations payable by monies annually voted by Parliament. He trusted this proposal would be adopted by the House. There was nothing more unwise or unjust than to tax suitors, in addition to the expense they necessarily incurred on going into court, for the justice which they sought to obtain.

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General told them that he was throwing these payments into a charge which was to be paid annually by a vote of Parliament, but the words of the clause were to a contrary effect, for they declared that the amount "should be paid into the Bank of England out of moneys to be from year to year voted for that purpose by Parliament." The sums were to be paid, and the Parliament was to provide the amount. He denied that there was any injustice in paying those compensations out of the fund contributed by the suitors. The hon. and learned Attorney General might, with equal reason, contend that the law expenses of all who went to law should be paid by the State. The patentee of bankrupts was a mere sinecurist, and if the fund out of which he was now paid should, at some future time, be exhausted, and he should have a claim upon the charity of a future Parliament, he might bring it forward, but so long as there was a fund—as he understood was the case from the speech of the hon. Baronet—from which his compensation could be paid, there was not the slightest justification for charging it on the taxpayers.

said, he wished the hon. and learned Attorney General to state whether there was not a balance of the Bankrupts' Account amounting to £1,500,000, the interest of which, at £4 per cent, was £60,000. If that were the ease, it was surely fairer to go to that fund for these payments. The Committee could scarcely seriously intend to place an enormous charge of this kind on the tax-payers, as long as that fund was unexhausted. If they would do that they would do anything. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen, who, in words at least, professed to have strong objections to increasing the Miscellaneous Estimates, would take that opportunity of making a beginning of giving effect to their professions. They would thereby save themselves from many tiresome debates, for there could not fail to be a debate every year when this Vote was proposed.

said, that he voted last year against paying those charges out of the Consolidated Fund, and he confessed the present mode of dealing with it was ten thousand times more objectionable. If it were right that the money should be paid out of the funds of the country, and if it were right that those parties who, on the faith of Parliament, had had for thirty years the compensation assured to them, should receive compensation, then he could not conceive either a greater deception upon the public on the one hand, or upon those gentlemen on the other, than the mode in which it was proposed that the compensation should be paid. For what was proposed to be done? In the first place they were to have been paid out of the Bankruptcy Fund. Was the fund sufficient or insufficient? They had not been informed; but for fear it should be sufficient, they were to cut off a large portion of what should go to maintain the fund. And then it was pretended that Parliament could deal with the compensations as it pleased. Why, then, tie the hands of Parliament neck and crop? The first time any hon. Gentleman got up in Committee of Supply to object to the Vote he would be met by the reply, "You consented to take away the stream which fed this fund, and you have no choice now but to find the money." It was said they had made mistakes some thirty or forty years ago, and they had no right to make the public pay for them, or any part of them. Would the learned Attorney General get up in his place and inform the Committee whether the banker's balance, which had been alluded to, had or had not any existence when those sums were charged on it? The Committee had a right to be informed what the interest of that banker's balance was, and what those unnamed compensations would amount to, for then the Committee and the country would be able to judge what foundation there was for the assertion that they were taxing the persons coming into the Bankruptcy Court to pay those compensations. He confessed he considered this mode more objectionable ten times over than the plan of last year, because anybody could understand that, but this was pretending to give Parliament the power of dealing with the matter from year to year, while it did no such thing, but pledged Parliament irrevocably to it.

said, that if he understood the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, it was his intention to put the charge on the Consolidated Fund.

said, that the money was to be voted annually. The Bill of last year went to put it on the Consolidated Fund; the House would not agree to that, and it was then arranged in the manner that they now found it, and when the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) complained of the manner in which it was thus placed, he (the Attorney General) had no other alternative, for—to borrow the elegant metaphor which the right hon. Gentleman had used—his hands were tied "neck and crop."

said, he would have voted for placing the compensations on the Consolidated Fund if the proposal had been made. He saw no reason why creditors who came into the Bankruptcy Court in 1862 should have their dividends dimininished to pay compensation granted in 1832. The Government proposal to rely from year to year upon the justice of Parliament was inconvenient, and it would be more satisfactory to throw the charge at once upon the Consolidated Fund; but he would support the arrangement contained in the clause, which was one founded upon justice, exonerating the Bankruptcy Fund, as it did, from a charge to which that fund ought not to be subjected.

denied that he had ever said that Parliament would refuse to pay the money. All that he said was that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made it optional, whereas the Bill had been so framed that Parliament was tied hand and foot, and must do it. He would remind the Committee that to the fund which was thus to be exonerated for the relief of future creditors, those creditors had not contributed one farthing; it had grown up in course of years, like the Suitors' Foe Fund in Chancery, in some mysterious manner. These great Courts seemed to get as much money into their hands as possible, and to keep it as long as they could. The offices in question were abolished for the special benefit of the suitor in bankruptcy, and the fund being one to which the future creditors had contributed nothing at all, and had no claim whatever on, he was at a loss to know why it could not be applied for the purpose of paying the compensation.

observed, that he should oppose the clause, on the ground that the Irish tax-payers would be unjustly treated; because in Ireland a number of offices had been abolished, and the compensations thrown on the Bankruptcy Fund. In addition to paying those compensations, they would, if the clause were adopted, have to pay for the suitors in the Court of Bankruptcy in England.

said, that no Court Fee of this kind was paid.

said, he would not ask the Committee to proceed further with the Bill that night.

said, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the second reading, but as the measure was beginning to excite some attention in the country, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not propose to go into Committee for some little time, in order that an opportunity might be afforded to the country of considering the principle involved in it. If time wore given there would then be an opportunity for hon. Members to determine whether or not the better plan would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Looking at the Bill as it stood, without much explanation, he must say he was afraid of the expense to be incurred in carrying out its provisions. It might be possible to work it without very much expense; but on the face of it he did not think it probable that it would be so worked. One very ominous clause gave power to the County Boards to order maps. Now, when it came to mapping a country it was difficult to say what expense you might not run to. Some of their friends in the north knew something of mapping on an extensive scale, and it might happen that some counties might think it desirable to have their villages mapped on a scale of from six inches to a foot. It might be desirable to refer the Bill to a Select Committee upstairs, but in any case he trusted the Government would allow due time for its consideration.

said, he hoped the second reading would be postponed. He did not think the House had as yet sufficient information on the measure. The principle of the Bill was to give to county magistrates the power of assessing every parish in their county. And that was to be done by means of a County Board. Before the House conferred such powers they ought at any rate to make provision for the County Board being properly constituted. To his mind, in introducing measures of the kind in question, the Government were virtually putting the cart before the horse. There was a strong feeling in the country that county and local expenditure was running on at the same pace as that of the home Government. They had, besides, a measure before the House that they ought to have time to discuss—that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny), which would give a proper machinery for governing the expenditure of counties. There were several other Bills introduced, such as the Parochial Assess- ments, the Highway Rate, and one or two others, and they wanted good machinery for administering all these Acts.

said, he was still of the same opinion as he formed on the introduction of the Bill, that the machinery would be somewhat cumbrous, costly, and rather difficult of operation. With regard to parochial assessments it was desirable that inquiry should take place with respect to the principle on which they were made, with the view of attaining something like uniformity. He believed that in parts of the country many acts were done which savoured more or less of oppression, in consequence of the manner in which the assessments were carried out. Some farms, for instance, were very moderately assessed, while the tithes of clergymen were made liable to wholly extravagant charges. He should, therefore, wish to see a change made in the system of parochial assessment. But in the counties the magistrates were enabled by the existing state of the law to carry out a very fair system of valuation; and in that case he feared that, while the Bill could do no good, it might unnecessarily entail an increase of expenditure. As it was right that parochial authorities should be well acquainted with what was meant to be done, he had intended to propose that the second reading should be deferred, and he only refrained from pressing that proposition because he advocated making progress as far as possible with Government measures at an early period of the Session; but it should be understood that if the Bill were now read a second time it would be referred to a Select Committee, after a sufficient delay to enable parties to become acquainted with the details of the measure.

said, he decidedly objected to any proposal for vesting the whole of the taxation in that case in the magistrates; and, if that were a principle indispensable to the passing of the Bill, he should decidedly oppose the measure. But he believed that it might be remodelled in that respect, and he was prepared to assent to the second reading from a hope that under its provisions Boards of Assessment on which the ratepayers would be represented might be established.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that the Bill was a Bill of taxation. It did not propose to levy any taxes on the people, but merely provided that the mode of taking the assessment on which the taxes were levied should be fixed by a board of county magistrates. The Bill was brought in in order to prevent those inequalities which arose from the present system of parochial assessment. Therefore, the dogma that taxation and representation were co-extensive had no application to the present Bill. With regard to the conversion of the financial administration by county magistrates into an administration by a representative body, that subject might come under the consideration of the House at the proper time, and, if Parliament sanctioned the proposition, the present Bill would naturally follow that system of administration; but he proposed to found himself on the existing state of things as to the administration of the affairs of counties by county magistrates. The principle of the Bill was to provide better machinery for establishing fairness and uniformity in forming parochial assessments, and beyond that principle he did not conceive that any hon. Gentleman was pledged by voting for the second reading. All the details of the machinery were matters for subsequent consideration in Committee. With that explanation, he trusted that the House would that night agree to the second reading. The Bill had been in the hands of hon. Members for more than a week, it was printed and distributed last Session, and there had been ample opportunity to judge of its provisions. At the same time, if there was any wish on the part of the House that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of considering the clauses, he should make no objection. If that course were adopted, it would be convenient not to postpone the Select Committee until a very distant day, because the Bill must afterwards be considered in a Committee of the whole House; and, therefore, should the Bill be read a second time now, he would fix the Committee for Monday week, and then it might be decided whether or not it should be referred to a Select Committee. If it were not so referred, he undertook to allow further time for consideration.

said, he thought the Bill a decided improvement on the measure at present in force. He wished, however, to know whether there was any reason for limiting the operation of the Bill to parochial and county rates. Uniformity of assessment was very desirable with respect to them, but it was equally desirable in assessments for poors' rates, sewers rates, improvement rates, police rates, and property tax. The assessments on which these taxes were levied were made by different jurisdictions, and were by no means uniform in their amount. The Bill was a timid measure. If they were to hare a Board of Assessment it ought to embrace all the matters on which property was liable to he rated, so as to have uniformity of quota to their respective assessments. But such boards of jurisdiction to work well ought to be co-extensive only with the unions of the various parishes. The Act was also indefinite as to who were to be the assessors, and where the boards were to meet. The Bill, however, was capable of being made a very valuable one, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not deem it of less importance to introduce uniformity in the case of all other local assessments.

said, he did not rise to discuss the merits of the measure, but rather to invite the right hon. Gentleman to defer the second reading of it for some ten days. Hon. Members had not had the opportunity of ascertaining the sentiments of their constituents, who were much more capable than those who represented them of forming an opinion on the particular bearings of such a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had told them the Bill was not one for the imposition of taxation. Well, perhaps it was not so in one sense; but was it not an assessment Bill, and did it not fix the amount of taxation levied? And then the absurdity of appealing from the decision of five magistrates to the Court of Quarter Sessions—that was to say, from magistrates to magistrates—was so manifest that the House could never adopt the provisions of the Bill. Last year the second reading of the Reform Bill was postponed for a month; and there was nothing so pressing in the present measure that a little delay might not be conceded. If the right hon. Baronet did not concede it, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day fortnight.

said, he approved the general object of the Bill, but it contained some deficiencies in points of detail which he hoped would be corrected in subsequent stages; among them were the assessment of liberties, the manner of publishing the assessment lists, and the short time allowed to put in objections. A ratepayer might object to and appeal against successive rates; but if he did not lodge his objection to the assessment list within a fortnight, he was precluded from doing so at all. Many causes might prevent him from having any knowledge of the new assessment, and he thought the time within which objections could be made should be considerably extended.

said, that he had gathered two things from the discussion which had taken place—namely, that the Bill was one of considerable complication, and that very few Members of the House had had time fairly to examine it. As a consequence, the various constituencies throughout the country had not, as yet, had an opportunity afforded them of considering its provisions. He might add, that a very eminent authority in the town which he had the honour to represent had written to him for a copy of the Bill, stating that he was, so far as his knowledge of it went, disposed to regard it as in many respects highly objectionable; that he had complied with that request, but that he had not, as yet, had time to receive the definite opinion of the gentleman to whom he referred on the subject. Indeed, he had not himself had an opportunity of examining the measure, and the great majority of hon. Members stood, he believed, exactly in the same position—a state of things which it was not desirable should exist, when the House was asked to give its assent to a scheme which dealt with matters of a very complicated and irritating character. There was hardly any question which the House was bound to legislate upon with more care and deliberation than the one before them. He did not speak with the slightest idea of throwing any obstacle in the way of the right hon. Gentleman. All he asked for was, the adjournment of the debate for a fortnight. The House would not be taken by surprise, and there would be no hurtful delay, for it was not a Bill that would give rise to an adjourned debate. It would be accepted or rejected on the second reading. He did not quite understand whether the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes) desired that evidence should be taken before a Select Committee, or only that the Committee should have the power of considering, re-arranging, or in some respects altering the clauses if they thought necessary. Seeing that the House was almost dying by having nothing to do—Government having reduced the policy of doing nothing this Session to a system—the right hon. Gentleman might fairly adjourn the debate for a fortnight, which would certainly meet the wishes of the House far better than by pressing on a division at the present time.

observed, that it was rather hard upon a Member of the Government to have complaints made of his not bringing forward his measures early in the Session, and then when he did so to have a cry raised for their postponement. All he asked the House upon the present occasion to do was to assent to the principle of the Bill, which was simply the introduction of greater uniformity into the system of parochial assessment, without pledging itself to any of its details. If hon. Gentlemen would assent to the adoption of that course, he would fix the Committee for Monday week, and would then be prepared, if the House were desirous that he should do so, to send the Bill to a Committee upstairs, which would not examine witnesses, but simply go through the various clauses of the measure. That Committee would have accomplished its task, in all probability, about Easter; and then the Bill would come before the House in Committee, when any hon. Gentleman might take a division upon it. Nobody could, under those circumstances, be taken by surprise; and he trusted, therefore, the House would read the Bill a second time that evening.

said, it was impossible that the hon. Members for constituencies residing in remote rural parishes could have an opportunity of considering the measure and reporting their opinions upon it to their representatives before the day fixed by the right hon. Gentleman for the Committee. It was true that Ministers had been urged to bring in their Bills early, but it was never wished that they should be pressed on in a hurried manner.

said, he was struck with the remark of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) that Ministers had this Session reduced the policy of doing nothing to a system; that might or might not be the policy of the Government. But what he strongly deprecated was, that the House should reduce the policy of doing nothing to a system. There was no dispute about the object of the Bill. The only discussion was in respect to its machinery. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had not only given them another fortnight, during which there would surely be plenty of time for hon. Members to communicate with their constituents, but at the end of that time he was willing to send the measure to a Select Committee, so that it would not be before a Committee of the whole House for a month yet to come. Unless, therefore, the House was determined to reduce the policy of doing nothing to a system, they ought to read the Bill a second time.

said, he did not propose to take evidence before the Select Committee, which he had suggested, and, therefore, he wished to know whether the Government would definitively adopt his suggestion. No hardship would thus be inflicted, and the measure would be fully discussed.

said, that he was not aware whether the Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham or the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone; but he should support it.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment if there was a distinct understanding that, at the end of a fortnight, the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

said, that he was willing to give the required assurance.

Sir, I wish to call attention to the mode in which the business of this House is conducted by the Government. We have already appointed a Committee to consider whether any changes could be introduced into the mode of conducting the public business which would tend to facilitate its progress through the House. Among other objections, one has been made to an ancient privilege of this House, which is certainly productive of some inconvenience—that of bringing forward Motions on going into Committee of Supply. One great evil arising out of the exercise of this privilege is that the House never knows when the main business of the evening will come on for discussion. When the Navy Estimates, for example, are on the paper, we come down and find some hon. Gentleman bringing forward the grievances of Whitechapel. Perhaps there may be good reasons for that course of procedure, but I wish more particularly to call attention to the manner in which the programme of business is prepared for the information of the House by the Government. I came down tonight to discuss the Highways Bill, a subject in which my constituents—and the constituents, no doubt, of many hon. Gentlemen on both sides—are much interested. The Highways Bill stands first on the paper, but when it was called nobody proceeded with it. It ought to have been proceeded with; or, at least, those responsible for the Bill ought to have given some reason to the House why it was postponed. The second order is the Post Office Savings Banks Bill, a subject which at present engages public attention. I know that many hon. Members came down to-night purposely to receive information respecting that Bill, and to offer their opinions upon it; but that Bill also was passed over in silence, and the Minister responsible for it did not appear in his place to explain why the second measure appointed by the Government was not proceeded with. The next order on the paper—the Bankruptcy Bill—was certainly proceeded with, but only to a certain point. The Minister responsible for that Bill told us he believed there was an understanding that progress should not be made beyond a certain clause; and the consequence is that, at a comparatively early hour, there is no Government business before the House. As the Minister responsible for the Highways Bill was not in his place when it was called in its proper order it was postponed, according to our usual practice, until after the other orders. It has now been called again; but, although the Minister is present, he has not condescended to give us any reason why the arrangement of business devised by the Government has not been followed. I want to know what prospect there is of our conducting the public business with satisfaction to ourselves or to the country if the House is to be treated in this manner by the Government. I have always thought that, although there are many means by which the business of the House might be expedited, much must necessarily depend upon the management of Ministers. See what has happened to-night. Upon an important Government night, at the beginning of the week, we have a programme of business prepared and circulated for two days, and when we come down we find it is not realized in any respect. The only conclusion at which we can arrive is that the conduct of business in that manner, if not the only cause, is a cause of the unsatisfactory state of public business. I think an explanation is due to the House by the Government upon these heads, and I await it with some interest.

Sir, I regret that any inconvenience has been caused by the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred; but I think I can give an explanation which will be satisfactory to the House. I was perfectly prepared—indeed, it was my wish—to move the second reading of the Highways Bill to-night; but the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) on Friday evening asked me across the table whether, in consequence of the short time during which the Bill had been in the hands of hon. Members, I would consent to postpone the second reading. I said that as the time had been short I would consent to postpone the second reading, and I added that I would mention on Monday the day to which I should postpone it. Perhaps I ought to have moved the postponement on Friday night, but I distinctly stated that I would not move the second reading this evening. With respect to the Post Office Savings' Banks Bill, I believe my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is confined, if not to his bed, at all events to his room, by illness; and, consequently, it was not in his power to come down to the House to-night. If he had been able to attend in his place, he would have moved the second reading of the Bill. Such are the circumstances under which the Bankruptcy Bill came to have precedence; and I, for one, was under the impression that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had stated publicly that he would not proceed beyond the 50th Clause. I presume he expected, remembering the long debates which took place last Session, that the first fifty clauses would occupy the House the whole of the evening. I am always sorry when hon. Members have reason to complain of any want of notice, but I trust they will see that there was no intentional omission on the part of the Government upon this occasion.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not fix the Highways Bill for Thursday, as there was not much probability of its being proceeded with on that night. During the last Session he had come down forty nights expecting that the Highways Bill would be brought forward, without its being proceeded with, and of that he felt he had some right to complain. It seemed useless to fix the order for Thursday, when the Bankruptcy Bill was likely to occupy them the whole of that evening.

admitted it to be probable that the Bankruptcy Bill would occupy the whole of Thursday evening, but it might not, and in that case was the Government to expose itself to the reproach of not placing on the paper sufficient business to last the whole of the night? It was very difficult to anticipate all the contingencies that might occur, and he could only say that he had no wish to bring down hon. Gentlemen when the business in which they took an interest was not likely to come on.

said, he agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Bucks that the Government might fairly be expected to arrange their Bills in the order in which they were to be brought forward for discussion. Much inconvenience had been caused by the postponement of the Highways Bill and the Post Office Savings Banks Bill.

said, that in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he rose to move the nomination of the Select Committee on this Bill as follows:—Mr. Peel, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Mr. DUNLOP, Mr. CAVE, Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, Mr. EDWARD EGERTON, and Mr. BONHAM-CARTER.

said, he must oppose the appointment of a Committee in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wished to know what the Committee was to do—whether, for example, it was to inquire into the whole of the circumstances connected with the laying of the cable? He believed the contract was carried out in good faith by both the late and present Governments. Every one believed it would be beneficial both to India and to England; but the question, to his mind was, as to the power of the Committee to deal with the contract.

said, he thought the best way of determining the purpose for which the Committee was to be appointed was by referring to the object for which the Bill had been introduced. Now, the object of the Bill, as explained by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was simply to carry out the intention with which the late Government on the one hand, and the Red Sea Telegraph Company on the other, had entered into an agreement for a guarantee of the Company's capital. That intention, according to the interpretation of the contract, by the law officers of the Crown was not carried out either by the contract or by the Act of Parliament; and the question turned altogether upon what the intention was of the Crown and of the Company in entering into the agreement. Was it the intention of the parties that the guarantee should be conditional or absolute, entirely irrespective of the success of the undertaking—a guarantee in which the whole risk was to rest with the Government? The inquiry of the Committee would be as to the intention of the Government and Company in entering into the agreement; not as to the policy of the measure. If it was desirable that the general question should be inquired into it would more properly come before another Committee. For the present, and for the purposes of the Bill, the Committee would have to deal simply with the intention of the parties.

could not help observing that every question which had been put to the Government on this subject had been most vaguely answered. The question before the public appeared to be somewhat misunderstood. Many did not comprehend why there should be a Committee at all. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire had put a question, the reply to which the parties interested could not understand; and the reply of the right hon. Gentleman opposite had now made confusion worse confounded. That right hon. Gentleman said the question to be inquired into was whether the guarantee was conditional or unconditional. The public had taken up the matter with much interest; marriage contracts had been drawn up on the basis of this guarantee, the project had been recommended as a Government security, and money never could have been raised unless it had been believed that the agreement was to be an unconditional one. Public faith was most clearly pledged, and the only question was simply this, how the contract was to be carried out. The question was submitted to the law officers of the Crown upon the contract. Then arose the question as to the agreement being conditional or unconditional. Mr. Stepheson of the Treasury, actually gave the instructions to the solicitor of the Treasury, and the contract, therefore, was drawn out by the solicitor of the Government. It was thoroughly and entirely-understood that the contract should be fully carried out. This was clearly laid down by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford; and the statement now made would only confuse the public mind, and lead to the inference that it was questionable how far the contract should be carried out.

said, he had no doubt whatever that the guarantee was unconditional. There was a great desire on the part of the country generally to see that line of telegraph carried out; and the Government of the day were entitled to the highest credit for entertaining the question. They had endeavoured to make the best possible terms for the public. Without an unqualified guarantee the concern would not have floated. Whatever party had been in office at the time could not have made a better contract, and the late Government were entitled to unqualified praise for the patriotic and zealous manner in which they had given this guarantee.

said, he must insist that the House was entitled to the fullest information as to how the company had performed their part of the contract, as well as to know the degree to which the public faith had been pledged. No doubt the Company was respectably formed, and that the Government had guaranteed to be paymasters; but there was not a scintilla of evidence that the Company had fulfilled their portion of the contract, and yet the country was called on to pay £36,000 a year for fifty years. The question had been discussed three times, and yet the House had not been favoured with the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to whether the country was pledged to such payment.

said, he wished to recall the attention of the House to the real question before it. The House had already determined to appoint a Select Committee. That question did not now remain for discussion; the Motion was as to the parties proposed to be nominated. It would, therefore, be more convenient to confine the debate to who should be members of the Committee. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Alderman Sidney) asked for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. The hon. Gentleman, with his Parliamentary experience, ought to be aware that it was not the practice of the Government to lay before the House the opinions of the law officers; that those opinions were confidential documents, intended for the guidance of the Government, and which were not under ordinary circumstances to be produced. But with respect to the understanding come to when the contract was made, that would be the subject for the consideration of the Committee. It would not be their duty or business to go into the policy of the engagement—a question wholly foreign to their inquiry. All they would have to inquire into was what was the nature of the engagement that had been entered into. When that inquiry had taken place, no doubt the House would receive full information.

said, that with all deference to the right hon. Baronet he thought the question put by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld) was perfectly fair, and that when the Committee was proposed the hon. Gentleman had a right to ask what was the investigation into which they were to enter. Having heard the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Home Secretary, it appeared to him that this so-called Committee of Inquiry was to make no inquiry at all. He really thought, when they named the Committee, they ought to have a perfect understanding as to what it was about to do. It seemed that the Committee was to investigate a question which the House did not want to know anything at all about. What they did want to know was simply this—whether the Company had complied with the agreement made by the Government, and what that agreement was. His own idea—and he thought he knew something of this matter—was that the Company had not at all fulfilled the engagement for which they were now about to pay £35,000 a year. He believed the arrangement made was to this effect:—The noble Lord at the head of the late Government had determined that this line should be in work for thirty days; but, when the matter went back to the Treasury, on the accession of the new Government, somehow or other it was so manœuvred that at last the arrangement came to be this, that if a certain section of the line should be in working condition for thirty days, the Company should be I entitled to the £35,000 a year. Now, he believed the line had never been one single day in work throughout its whole length. That was the circumstance which ought to be inquired into in Committee. But if he gathered anything from what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary to the Treasury and the right hon. Baronet, he must say that that was a point from the investigation of which the Committee was to be interdicted. He wished to know, then, how the Company had fulfilled the engagement into which they entered with the Government. If the Committee were not to be at liberty to inquire into that, their labours would be of no use whatever, and the House had better go on with the Bill without their intervention. The explanations of the Government were not at all satisfactory, and he should be glad to hear that the Committee would not be fettered in their inquiry. If no such assurance were given, he would take leave to move that it be an instruction to them to investigate as to how far the Company had complied with the terms of the contract.

said, the arrangement was one for which the present Government were not responsible, it having been made by their predecessors. A question had arisen, on which the opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been taken, and that opinion was to the effect that the Government were not legally bound. Her Majesty's Government, however, conceived that if not legally, they were morally bound to carry out the agreement which was supposed at the time to have been entered into by both parties. He believed, with his hon. Friend who spoke last, that the line had never, as a whole, been in working order, but each portion of it had; and a certificate had been given by an officer on the part of the Government that sections had been in that condition for the time stipulated. A Bill had, therefore, been introduced to carry out the engagement under which they considered that the Government had come. The House had determined that a Committee should be appointed, and the question now simply was who should be its Members. That Committee might report in favour of or against the Bill; but by them that investigation would be conducted, which all who had spoken agreed in thinking necessary. The object of everybody would, therefore, be attained by the appointment of the Committee, whose Report would put them in full possession of the information they required. Surely, therefore, hon. Gentlemen who called for that information were defeating their own object by objecting to the nomination of the Committee.

said, he wished to give notice that he should move that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they should investigate all the circumstances connected with the undertaking, and how far the contract had been fulfilled.