said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has received official intimation of the passing by the General Assembly of New Zealand of a Bill constituting a Council to advise the Governor on all questions connected with the management of the Natives; and whether Her Majesty's Government have yet come to any determination in reference to the allowance or disallowance of such Bill?

said, intimation of the passing of a Bill of the nature referred to had been received. The measure was one of great importance as it altered the power and position of Her Majesty's Government, and, likewise, of the Governor of New Zealand. It had received and was receiving the anxious consideration of the Duke of Newcastle; but owing to its important nature, and forming, as it did, only a portion of a very wide subject it was doubtful whether any confirmation of it would be sent out—by the mail leaving to-morrow. At all events, he thought that any communication on the subject should be made through the Governor; and that the first intimation ought not to be given to the colonists through the public press.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the advisability of entering into Negotiations with Foreign Maritime Powers, with a view to a reciprocal recognition of claims for salvage of life occurring beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty; and whether the Mercantile Marine Fund would admit of larger rewards being given in cases of salvage attended with danger to the salvors?

said, that the subject of giving rewards for saving life had been under the attention of the Government. So far as our own law was concerned it might be effected by Act of Parliament; and it was proposed to insert a Clause for that purpose in a Bill for the Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act which would provide for giving rewards for salvage of life in cases which at present were not within the law, and where foreign maritime Powers were willing to recognize the claims for salvage of life occurring beyond the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. There was a general disposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government to be liberal in such matters, but it was necessary that some rule should be laid down for the guidance of those who had to grant those rewards. The National Life Boat Association had certain rules upon that subject which had been adopted as the basis of their regulations by the Board of Trade, but in special cases much larger rewards were given. In cases where loss of life had occurred in the efforts of men to save others they gave a large sum to the families of the sailors who had lost their lives. In the recent case at Whitby, which must be in the recollection of the House, they gave to the families of those boatmen who perished in the Whitby Life Boat something like £220. He did not know that he could give any further answer than that there was every disposition on the part of the Government to be as liberal as possible.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, When the Report of the Commission upon Submarine Telegraph Cables will be laid upon the Table of the House?

said, he had made inquiry and found that the Report and Appendix were in the hands of the printers and were undergoing revision. He hoped they would be ready for circulation in a very few days.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce this Session the Bill brought from the House of Lords last Session for the Incorporation, Regulation, and Winding-up of Trading Companies and other Associations; and, if so, whether he does not consider it will be advantageous to the House to discuss such Bill in connection with the Bill for Amending the Law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency?

said, he regretted very much that the Bill alluded to by the hon. Member had not been laid on the Table of the House. The measure was one which had been prepared the year before last under the direction of the Board of Trade, which naturally claimed a special property in the Bill. His right hon. Friend the President of that department was very unwilling to trust the result of so much labour out of his hands, but be had no doubt that he would very shortly bring it forward, and would recommend it to the House with that ability for which he was distinguished.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he intends to lay upon the Table his Bill to amend the Corrupt Practices Act? He put this question more especially in relation to the case of the boroughs of Gloucester and Wakefield.

said, he apprehended it was quite competent for any Member to make a Motion respecting the issue of Writs for Wakefield and Glocester; the only impediment consisted in the Resolution agreed to by the House requiring a week's notice of any such Motion. As regarded the particular Bill to which the hon. Member referred, he had to state that the Parliamentary draughtsman of the Government was at present so much occupied with other business that he had been unable to take it in hand. He hoped, however, that it would soon be in his (Sir George Lewis's) power to ask leave to introduce it.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it has been decided in Conference on the Affairs of Syria at Paris that the Occupation of Syria by French Troops shall be prolonged beyond the period stipulated originally by the Convention; and, if so, for what period; and whether the Representative of the Ottoman Porte present in such Conference protested against any longer Occupation?

Sir, it has not been decided that the occupation of Syria by French troops shall be prolonged beyond the period originally stipulated by the Convention; and, therefore, with respect to the second part of the Question, as to the period of such prolonged occupation, it is not necessary that I should give any answer. The Representative of the Ottoman Porte has not protested against any longer occupation, but I will state shortly what passed on this subject. The Representative of the Ottoman Porte stated in Congress that in the opinion of the Sultan's Government it was unnecessary to prolong the occupation of Syria by foreign troops; but he also stated that if the Powers of Europe thought the defined period of occupation should be prolonged he would refer the matter to his Government. No decision was taken on that statement, but the matter has been referred to the several Governments concerned.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Committee of Investigation appointed by the Great Western of Canada Railway Company, in which charges have been made affecting the character of Mr. Laing, the Financial Secretary of the Legislative Council of Calcutta; and, if so, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to cause inquiry to be made as to the truth or otherwise of the charges in question?

Sir, in answer to the Question of my hon. Friend I have to state that my attention was called on Thursday to the Report of the Committee of shareholder in the Great Western Canada Railway which appeared in The Times. I can only say that it took roe as much by surprise as I believe it did everybody else in London. I had taken pains before Mr. Laing's appointment to learn if there was any reason from his having been connected with railways why he should not be appointed to India. Two members of my Council, more or less connected with the City, made inquiries at my request; and the result was that he bore a high character amongst those connected with railways as elsewhere. Of late years he had constantly been a referee between railway companies who sought his advice, and that with the fairness and impartiality of his decisions they were perfectly satisfied. Therefore, I can only say that I was as much surprised as any one at the announcement that appeared on Thursday. Certainly, it will be my duty to inquire further into those circumstances. Indeed, I have, to a certain extent, inquired from several persons connected with those transactions. It is obvious, from the Report itself, that further investigation—legal investigation—is considered even by them to be necessary. Information which I have received from the chairman and directors leads me to the conclusion that the statement is very much of an ex parte character. At present, and until further information is received, it would be very unfair to the House, and especially unfair to Mr. Laing, to pronounce any opinion on the subject; and, therefore, I would beg of hon. Gentlemen to suspend their judgment until both sides of the case are before them.

said, he wished to propose an Amendment which should have the effect of leaving it open to the majority in value of the creditors to resolve that the proceedings in Bankruptcy should be transferred to any County Court. He wished it to be competent for Creditors to take the case into any County Court that might be most convenient for themselves.

said, he would propose as an Amendment, the insertion of the words "number and" before the word "value," in the 14th line; the object of his Amendment being to give the majority in number as Well as in value of the creditors the powers proposed to be conferred by the clause.

stated that the Chamber of Commerce of Leeds were of opinion that the majority of creditors, as well as the value, should be taken into account; and he, therefore, should support the Amendment.

said that he had been waited on by several members of Chambers of Commerce who wished this alteration to be made. But, after mature consideration, he had come to the conclusion that it would be better if the alteration were made in the next clause.

said, he was of opinion that it was very desirable that in some instances the number of the creditors should be taken into consideration. It very often occurred that in small bankruptcies a father, brother, or some other relative turned up as a creditor to a large amount, when if there had been no bankruptcy no such debt would have been demanded. The proposal was that the majority in value of the creditors should have the disposal of the assets and the regulation of the proceedings in bankruptcy; but he thought that in small bankruptcies, where the assets did not exceed £2,000 or £3,000, and where an uncle or relative came forward and claimed to be the largest creditor, regard should be had to the number of the creditors. He thought it desirable that in the clause under consideration the word "number" as well as the word "value" should be inserted, but that in the other parts of the Bill it should be value only.

said, that the principle of the Bill was to include numbers as well as value wherever a choice such as that of assignee was to be made, but to give to value the preponderance where anything connected with the disposal or the administration of the estate was concerned. A question might arise as to what tribunal should have the administration of an estate. He would take a case in which twenty creditors had debts to the aggregate amount of £1,000, and two or three other creditors with debts amounting to £8,000 or £9,000, the proportions being as nine to one. The smaller creditors might be desirous to have the estate administered in the County Court; while the larger creditors might be anxious to put it into the hands of a superior and more efficient tribunal. The question was should the men who had £8,000 or £9,000 of debts prevail over those who had only £1,000; or should the numbers who made up the sum of £1,000 preponderate over the smaller numbers who represented the larger sum? Acting on the principle that the estate ought to be regarded as the property of the creditors, it appeared to him that those creditors who had the largest interest in the estate ought to have a predominating voice in determining what tribunal ought to administer it. It was a question, however, for mercantile men to decide, and he should be ready to adopt any decision the Committee might come to which was not a departure from the general principle of the Bill. It had been said that a relation of the bankrupt might bring in a large debt, but it should be recollected that debt would not be admitted without examination; and if a relation was entitled to rank as a creditor, he did I not see that he should be deprived of his right merely because he was a relation.

then moved the insertion, in line 20, after the word "shall," the words "be at liberty to;" the object of the Amendment being to give the Court a discretionary power of sending eases to the County Courts, instead of making it obligatory. In the transference of proceedings in bankruptcy being transferred to the; County Courts they ought to consider well the position of the County Court Judges. There were many bankruptcy cases of great importance, which it might be expedient to consider before the Court above.

remarked, that if the resolution of the creditors were to be followed up by a contested application, the result would be that litigation would probably arise out of every one of these meetings. He could only repeat his feeling of regret that new duties of a laborious character were to be thrown upon the County Court Judges without their receiving additional remuneration.

said, he was unavoidably absent when the question just alluded to by the hon. and learned Attorney General as to the necessity for granting additional remuneration to the County Court Judges was considered, but he (Sir Fitzroy Kelly) should certainly feel it his duty to take a vote of the Committee as to the amount at which the salaries of the County Court Judges should be fixed. He begged to recommend the subject to the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues, so that the Committee might be relieved from a very painful discussion en the subject.

proposed to add to the end of the clause the words "and the bankrupt shall be entitled to an order of discharge."

said, that great inconvenience would be felt from the adoption of the words proposed, because the alteration would enable the bankrupt to go away and leave the creditors without the necessary information. He had no objection to substitute for the Amendment the words "and the bankrupt, having made a full discovery of his estate, shall be entitled to apply for a certificate of discharge." Security would, then, be taken that the bankrupt should be in attendance on the creditors until the estate was wound up.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the clause should be altered in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, it would be desirable that the creditors should choose whom they pleased to be assignee, and not be restricted in their choice to one of their own body. He moved an Amendment accordingly to that effect.

said, he had introduced the words objected to by the hon. and learned Gentleman in deference to the opinion of the House. It was thought that no person should be an assignee who was not a creditor. He should, however, prefer to alter the clause according to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.

supported the Amendment.

proposed after the words "assignee" to insert "as creditors' assignee."

said, he should perhaps meet the hon. Member's views by leaving out after the words "upon the appointment of the creditors' assignee" the words the "powers and duties of the official assignee shall cease and determine; and"

said, that it often happened that the most desirable man could not be chosen, or would not take the duties. In the north of England commercial men would prefer that it should be left to the determination of three-fourths of the creditors in number and value whether the estate should vest in the creditors' assignee or the official assignee. He had no Amendment to propose, however, as the Bill was being hurried through Parliament so rapidly that the Chambers of Commerce and solicitors in bankruptcy bad had no opportunity of considering its provisions.

said, he was very much of the same opinion. He had that morning received twelve or fifteen communications from Chambers of Commerce and others interested in the Bill in different parts of the country, but he had been engaged all day, and had not had time to look at them. The Attorney General's Bill was only introduced on the 12th of the month, and had been pushed on so rapidly that hon. Members were at the greatest disadvantage, because they did not know the opinion of their constituents and of commercial bodies. A great feeling, however, existed against the trade assignee; and many advantages had accrued from the appointment of an official assignee, who could devote his whole time for the benefit of the estate.

said, that the Bill had met public approval, because it gave the creditors the management of the property. Very sufficient precautions were taken against abuses by trade assignees. He would be willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General. MR. GLYN said, he was sorry to see any objection raised to the clause. With regard to cases of malversation, so many portions of the Bill protected the public against them that no distrust need be entertained. The mercantile community, while giving due praise to official assignees, were very desirous that in the management of estates a little more should be left to the control of the trade assignees than was the case at present. What they complained of was that after a man was made a bankrupt, and the official assignee appointed, the trade assignees were very little consulted, and the management of the estate passed away from them almost entirely.

said, the question was again raised by this clause whether it was intended that a majority of the creditors in number or a majority of creditors in value, or both, should require certain things to be done. Now, following out the principle of the Bill, he apprehended that the proper course would be to state the major part of the creditors in value. He should therefore propose, in line 24, after the word "the" to insert the words "major part in value of the."

said, he thought the Amendment was unnecessary, as the words proposed had been already inserted.

said, he had received a number of letters suggesting alterations in the Bill which the writers would have found they needed not to have written if they had read the Bill or the interpretation clause. With respect to the expression "creditors present at a meeting," hon. Members would find, by reference to the interpretation clause, that it would include creditors represented by any person duly authorized in writing, and that the authority would not require a stamp.

asked if it would not be better to give the power to represent an absent creditor to some public officer.

promised when they came to the passage in the interpretation clause to add the words "official assignee."

said, that the Bill would not work if the conditions imposed on trade assignees by this, clause and Clause 185 remained. It was difficult without such penal restrictions to get persons to act as trade assignees. Their object, he thought, was to obtain men of standing and of high credit and reputation; but such men would never accept the office with the conditions proposed. This clause required that the trade assignee should give security for the amount of the debts he collected; but, in the commercial world it would be considered a great offence to ask any one to give security where he voluntarily took an office for the benefit of others as well as himself. He proposed to strike out from after "assignee" to the end of the clause, and insert

"And if they shall so determine, the creditors' assignee may appoint any person to act as such manager, with such remuneration out of the estate as the majority shall think fit."

said, the hon. Member read the clause as if it were a matter of obligation that security should be given by creditors' assignees, whereas there was no obligation. Under the clause creditors had power to choose certain persons, not being creditors, to be managers of estates, and to remunerate them for their trouble; and it was deemed a very wise thing that they should be enabled to impose conditions on those persons. It would be better to leave the clause as it stood, as it conferred very wholesome power; and could not, he thought, give offence to any gentleman, and he hoped the hon. Member would consent to withdraw the Amendment.

reiterated his belief that if the clause and Clause 185 remained the Bill would be utterly worthless. He had proposed his Amendment at the suggestion of a number of influential mercantile men, and if the Attorney General would promise to adopt it when they came to Clause 185, which was still more objectionable, he would withdraw it now, but otherwise he would press the question to a division.

said, that if, when they arrived at Clause 185, the majority of the Committee were in favour of the hon. Member's Amendment he would defer to their opinion.

thought that the clause giving power to appoint a manager was one of the most important clauses of the Bill, and that it could scarcely be too much appreciated. He would, however, suggest the alteration of the wording of the latter part of the clause so as to correspond with the Amendment already agreed to.

said, that as far as his own experience went, he believed that if any creditor were asked to become creditors' assignee, and thus to confer a great obligation on the rest of the creditors, and, at the same, told that he must give security, although he would receive no remuneration whatever for his services, he would spurn the offer with the greatest indignation. The clause, he was quite sure, would never work well, and would not satisfy the mercantile community, but, as the Attorney General seemed determined to insert it, he could say no more.

said, he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General was asking the wrong person to give security. The clause did not provide that security should be taken from the manager, and yet the manager was likely to be the dangerous person, and not the creditors' assignee. He would have the custody of the property to a considerable extent, the collection of the debts, and the winding-up of the whole estate.

said, he was of opinion that, instead of appointing a manager, it would be far better to pay the creditors' assignee and make him responsible.

said, the principle of the clause in that respect was borrowed from the law of Scotland where it had worked admirably. In that country an official factor was appointed over an estate, and received remuneration; a committee of creditors controlled and advised him in the execution of his duty; and, according to the best information he had been enabled to get, the expense of winding-up a bankrupt estate in Scotland was about 13 or 14 per cent, whereas, in England, it was between 33 and 34 per cent. There was a great concurrence of opinion in the mercantile community in favour of the clause. He had no objection to insert after the words in the thirtieth line, "called for the purpose," the following, "a majority in value of the creditors present." It would be the fault of the creditors if any improper person be appointed manager.

said, he thought it desirable to insert the words "or manager" after the word "assignee," so as to give the creditors power to remove the manager for any misconduct. He moved the addition of the like words throughout the clause.

said, that the clause restricted the payment of monies by creditors' assignees to the Bank of England, to which there was this objection—that the Bank of England allowed no interest to depositors as other banks did. He should, therefore, move to insert, after the words "Bank of England," "or such bank as the creditors at their first meeting shall direct." No harm could be done by such a provision. The creditors were dealing with their own money, and it seemed but fair that they should choose where it should be invested.

said, he would propose an Amendment which would come before that of the hon. Member. He proposed to leave out the words "not necessarily retained for current expenses." He thought that all money received should be paid in, and that all the money required for expenditure should be drawn out. Retaining those words would leave a loophole for the assignee keeping money in his hands which ought to be in the Bank.

said, that the words "necessarily retained for current expenses" imposed a great check. The inconvenience of striking out the words would be, that the creditors' assignee would be compelled to pay every small sum he received, even down to £5, into the Bank, and he would not be able to get anything out without going to the official assignee; and the result would be that costs would be incurred for getting out £5, £10, or £20, as it might be required. The words "necessarily retained" throw on the assignee the onus of proving the necessity.

said, there was much observation abroad as to the large balance which would be kept at the Bank of England on this account. He was not prepared to say that some commission ought not to be charged by the Bank; but, at the same time, it ought to be regulated.

said, he had always heard in the City of London the opinion that for commercial service there should be a commercial remuneration, and he could not see why the creditors' assignee should not have some remuneration for his services. The great objection made to that was on account of the large sums carried off by the official assignee, and creditors had felt that it would be better if some of their own body had the management of their own affairs. He thought it was better that the money should be paid into the Bank of England, as the fact that no interest was allowed would probably cause the assets to be collected and divided with all possible expedition.

said, he was of opinion that the manager would be the person who would interfere on all occasions respecting the estate. He doubted if the assignee would undertake any duty, and if so, the necessity for the course recommended by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomans) would not arise.

said, he agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton). There would be a manager in place of an official assignee, and that manager would be appointed by the attorneys to the estate.

said, he would then propose his Amendment.

said, he wished to draw attention to the state of the account with the Bank of England. For 1S59 and the four or five preceding years, the Bank of England had an average balance of between £80,000 and £100,000, and for keeping the cash accounts they charged between £3,000 and £4,000 a year. There was no charge for receiving the money, hut there was a charge of one-fourth per cent for paying it: so that, in point of fact, every creditor who was entitled to £100 of dividend had 5s. to pay to the Bank of England in addition to other charges. The Report of the Commission, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) was chairman, drew attention to the necessity of making some alteration, and he thought that a good time for effecting a diminution in the charges. The Bank of England having a balance of from £50,000 to £100,000 a year, a running fund, it struck him that the least they could do was to receive the money and pay it without any charge whatever. He trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General, during the progress of the Bill, would take the matter into his own consideration.

said, that in introducing the Bill of last Session he drew the attention of the House in a pointed manner to the charge made by the Bank, and stated that he had no doubt an arrangement could be made with the Bank, by which he hoped at least that two-thirds of the charge might be saved to the creditors. He had no doubt that some such arrangement might now be made. At the same time, it was only fair to the Bank that he should call the attention of the Committee to the fact that these payments were made in different parts of the country, and that might be a reason for allowing some percentage to the Bank for making these payments. The hon. Member might feel assured that the subject would not escape his attention; and, undoubtedly, great care would be used in endeavouring to make a more advantageous arrangement with the Bank for the future. With regard to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield), he was sorry that he could not assent to it. When the alteration was made by which official assignees were appointed, the system of having private banks was entirely put an end to, and he thought most judiciously; for, under the old system, when the creditors chose the bank, they were never able to ascertain whether certain sums of money might not be left in the banker's hands undistributed. Accordingly, when the new system was introduced, the official assignees exerted themselves, and they found that very large sums of money were retained by different bankers throughout the country, who had profited by the detention of these monies for an indefinite period of time, and which might have been held until the crack of doom if it had not been for the new system. He could not by any means consent that money should be left in the hands of private bankers. When paid into the Bank of England, and it was carried to one account, it was impossible that it could be lost sight of. He thought it would be a very injurious thing to permit banks to bid, as it were, in competition for creditors' money by offering them a certain amount of interest. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the present practice, which ensured the payment to the whole body of creditors of every shilling of the estate, which might not be the case if the money were paid into private banks.

said, he should not press his Amendment against the opinions of the hon. and learned Attorney General.

said, that the clause in its present shape limited too much the func- tions of the official assignee. He would leave it to the creditors' assignee to state what debts should be recovered by the official assignee. He should, therefore, move to insert in the clause the words, "All such debts due to the estate which the creditors' assignee may require."

seconded the Amendment.

said, he hoped the clause would be allowed to remain as it was. The Amendment would at once put an end to the principle of the Bill, which was to leave the collection of the debts to the creditors' assignee.

remarked, that the adoption of the Amendment would lead to much confusion and expense in the management of estates.

suggested that the clause might be made a little more elastic.

said, that the Amendment proposed would never answer the purpose for which it was intended. Let them take a debt of £150, and suppose the creditors' assignee should direct the official assignee to get in that debt, resort must be had to the services of a solicitor. In that case, he would much rather it should be done under the immediate control of the creditors' assignee than that the debt should be handed over by him to the official assignee, who, in his turn, would have to resort to legal assistance. But in the case of small debtors the official assignee had a number of clerks, and as soon as a man was made bankrupt he would send round a printed circular requiring them to pay their debts. If that was not done the official assignee could then have resort to summons before the Commissioner, or to proceedings in the County Court, and he would discharge the debt much more readily and economically than it could be done by a solicitor.

said, he would not press the Amendment, but he hoped the clause would be postponed, as there was a general feeling in the country in favour of the proposal he had made, and it would be well to give time duly to consider the matter.

said, that it would be competent for the hon. Member when the Report was brought up, to move the omission of the clause, and to substitute any well-considered clause which he might have arranged in the meantime.

observed, that such postponements had rarely any other results than shifting the period of discussion on the substance of clauses; but he ventured to think that these clauses would require alteration at some future time. To pass the clauses in their present shape would be to add chaos to the present confusion. If the proposal in the Bill were some well-defined scheme of making the official assignee, paid by salary, act under the supervision of the creditors it would be intelligible. But as the Bill stood, with the divived functions of the two assignees, he was afraid it would not be found to work well.

said, that there never had been more prophecies of failure than with regard to the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill; and yet no law had been found to work more quietly or more efficiently than that. He thought there ought to be an efficient audit of both assignees' accounts; and it was a simple process for obtaining that audit which excited the alarm of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

suggested that some difficulty might be experienced under the clause in case of a business being carried on by the creditors, and he therefore recommended the insertion of the words "if the assignees should so require."

said, he thought the clause was better as it stood.

said, he should propose the omission of the clause. Clause 163 gave power to make the future property of a debtor available for the payment of his debts if he had misconducted himself towards his creditors; but Clause 141 was an absolute clause. It was confined to persons connected with the public departments; but he did not see why, if its principle was sound, it should not be equally extended to the servants of the Bank of England, of railway companies, and other private establishments. The Bill provided that any person surrendering his property to his creditors, and who had conducted himself honestly, should receive an entire discharge for past debts, but under the clause persons in the employment of the State would be subjected to an exceptional treatment, their future incomes being proposed to be made available for past debts. He did not desire to withdraw such a power from the Court in case of fraud, but he was anxious to see equal justice done to all classes of the community, and he maintained that there was no ground for making this distinction between the employés of the Government and other persons. He would, therefore, move the omission of the clause.

said, the clause was taken almost verbatim from the Insolvent Act, 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 56. Certain discharged bankrupts were in the enjoyment of half-pay, retiring pensions, or settled salaries for life. Their pensions or allowances were, in point of fact, their life estates, and undoubtedly some portion of them ought to be taken for the payment of their debts. It frequently happened, however, that these allowances partook of the nature of retainers for future services, and in such cases only such a proportion of the income ought to be taken for the creditors as would leave the public employé a sufficient maintenance to enable him to discharge the duties of his office. If a man for example, had a retiring pension of £800 or £1,000 a year there was no good reason why a certain part of it, after providing him with a sufficient livelihood, should not go to his creditors. His hon. Friend asked, why not make the clause universal? But the servants of private employers were in a very different position from the servants of the Government. They held their situations only durante bene placito, and their earnings could not, therefore, be dealt with as a settled permanent source of income. The only question was whether the clause went far enough; because, in the case of retiring salaries, it was doubtful whether the whole ought not to be taken like any other life interest.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not answered his main objection to the clause. It was true the provision existed in the Insolvent Act, but the principle of that Act was overturned by the principle of this Bill. The Insolvent Act only gave the non-trader exemption from arrest, all his future property being liable till the day of his death for the payment of his debts. This Bill, on the contrary, declared that the non-trader on surrendering his property at the moment should be entirely discharged from his debts, unless he had been guilty of fraud; but the liability of a bankrupt's future earnings for past debts was to he kept alive by the clause under consideration against a particular class of the community only. He asserted that what a man earned by his exertions in the public service could not fairly be distinguished from what a man earned in the service of the Bank of England, where his situation was as permanent as any under the Government. If a man's income was in the nature of a life estate it would pass to the assignees; but if it arose from services to be rendered, then it in no respect differed from the salary given by a public company. The clause was, therefore, not applied impartially.

said, that retiring pensions would not pass under a general assignment in bankruptcy, and therefore had to be dealt with under some such special power as that given by the clause. Under the present law of insolvency, if a man were discharged having a salary of this kind he might be brought up de anno in annum, and so much of his salary be assigned to his creditors as the Court might think right. What the Court could now do annually he proposed by the Bill that it should do once for all on the discharge of the bankrupt.

said, he objected to this clause also, by which the salary of a clergyman might be applied to the payment of his debts after his insolvency. A clergyman would be ill qualified for the performance of his duties if the stipend which was attached to his office was taken away from him. The clause was an injurious one, and he hoped it would be struck out.

said, he did not see any reason, on the ground of religion or morality, why the property of a clergyman should be protected after his bankruptcy any more than the property of other people. If a clergyman obtained credit upon his known possession of a fixed income he ought to be liable to the same consequences as other people. The clause, in fact, was only an extension of the preceding clause relating to pensions.

said, he was pleased to find that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was so great a friend to clergymen. He thought the clause would be beneficial rather than prejudicial to the clergy, by not creating any invidious inequality, such as that sug- gested by the hon. Member, in their favour. The clause proposed that if a clergyman had an income of £2,000 or £3,000, and ran into debt so as to bring himself into bankruptcy instead of afterwards keeping his carriage, and living at a proportionate expense, he should dispense with such luxuries for a time, live humbly, and pay his debts; and it could not be doubted that his ecclesiastical duties would not be worse performed in consequence of such a mode of living. The clause, however, introduced but little novelty, for, according to the present state of the law, the Bishop was permitted to step in and demand a certain portion of the income for the payment of a curate to perform the duties of the living. The clause proposed that the Bishop might select the bankrupt clergyman as the person to perform the duties, and receive the pay thus appropriated by the Bishop from the assets.

said, his observations applied to clergymen with small incomes; and, if the Attorney General had given the Bishop a power to remove from his post a clergyman who should become bankrupt he should have been much obliged to him. But he thought that the income which was intended to pay for duties to be performed in a parish or district, ought to be appropriated solely to that purpose. He did not desire to give clergymen a power to con tract debts with impunity, but thought the parishioners ought to be considered as well as the creditors of a bankrupt clergyman.

observed, that the clause was but the re-enactment of the existing law.

said, if the Bishop was to be compelled to remove a bankrupt clergyman from having his living, so as to prevent him from any future means of paying his debts, it would be better to pass another Act of Parliament making the Bishop pay the bankrupt's debts. He thought that his hon. and learned Friend had misconceived the effect of the clause. Clergymen were often subscribers to banks and other institutions, which sometimes failed. In fact, clergymen might become bankrupt by misfortune, and it would plainly be a great injustice to deprive them altogether of their livings on that account.

suggested that there was an apparent inconsistency between the clause and Clause 131. By Clause 131 it was provided that a majority of the creditors should have power to remove an assignee; but by the clause before the Committee any two or three creditors might apply to the Court, which could remove the assignee without the concurrence of the majority of the creditors.

said, he thought the two clauses were perfectly consistent. Clause 131 rendered the removal of the assignee a matter of course, where a majority of creditors in number and value desired it; but this clause gave power to the Court, upon complaint of any creditor, to remove the assignee upon proof of misconduct.

suggested, that the provisions of the Bill would be improved if they were extended to meet the case of a bankrupt who had effected insurances, thereby rendering himself liable for future premiums, though he had relinquished all his property. In point of law this was admitted to be an evil; and to such an extent was the hardship felt that a case had come to his knowledge in which a man regularly took the benefit of the Insolvent Act and was put into prison every year when the premiums became due.

said, his hon. and learned Friend had but anticipated his feeling. Any clause introduced with the object he had in view might also be extended to the case of bankrupts who, having taken shares in companies, though discharged by the Court, had been held to be liable for future calls.

said, he wished to ask the learned Attorney General if he had any objection to abolish the disqualification at present existing that a bankrupt should not receive a certificate after it had been once refused by the Commissioner? He knew of two cases where persons were exiles because they could not obtain certificates; and in one case the bankrupt had written to him to say that the cause of his failure was that of giving too much credit to certain customers; that he had no certificate, no protection, and no means of obtaining a livelihood. He (Mr. Malins) thought power should be vested in the Judge to enable him to give certificates to a bankrupt without the consent of the creditors.

said, that according to the existing law, a most severe power was given to creditors. If the discharge or certificate of any bankrupt was refused, any creditor who had proved a debt was entitled to go to the Commissioner and demand a certificate of that debt, and upon such certificate he could throw the debtor into prison. The same process might be repeated by each creditor who had so proved. The Commissioners of 1854 reported against that power as extremely severe, and by the present Bill it was proposed to repeal the clauses which allowed of these proceedings; and in consequence of that repeal he ventured to ask that the Chief Judge should, under certain circumstances, be empowered to commit the bankrupt to prison for twelve months. He thought it right that if the bankrupt was to be imprisoned, the Judge, and not the creditor, should imprison him, and perhaps this arrangement would effect the object which his hon. and learned Friend had in view.

said, the clause provided that any bankrupt charged with a misdemeanour should be tried by a jury if he should require it. He wished to move that the words "if the bankrupt should require it" should be omitted. He thought that in all cases where a bankrupt was put upon his trial for a misdemeanour he should have the benefit of a jury as a matter of course. He believed that that would be a great protection to the bankrupt; and he also thought that all cases of misdemeanour would be better tried by a jury than by a single Judge.

said, that he had been induced to adopt the clause as it stood for these reasons. In a great many cases they could not possibly have a trial by a jury without great inconvenience and expense. It constantly happened that in bankruptcy the matter turned upon a great mass of accounts and trade transactions, which it would be very difficult to bring to the mind of a jury; but which the Judge or the Commissioner might be perfectly familiar with in consequence of antecedent proceedings under the bankruptcy. If bankrupts were necessarily tried by juries it would cast upon them the very onerous duty of obtaining the assistance of counsel, and he believed many bankrupts would prefer having the charge investigated by a Judge alone.

suggested that if a bankrupt were to demand a jury he would put himself in opposition to the Judge, and he feared would bring into play an element of antagonism between the bankrupt and the person who was to try him, which ought not to exist. One of the great faults of continental procedure was that the Judge was put in opposition to the prisoner.

said, his fears lay in the opposite direction; for if he himself were the Judge he knew he should prefer that there should be a jury in all trials for crimes, because it would relieve him from the unpleasant necessity of finding the prisoner guilty. He preferred to leave the clause as it stood rather than to adopt the Amendment proposed, for he had no fear that the Judge would be influenced by any feeling of anger towards a prisoner because he had demanded a jury.

asked if it would not be desirable to give the assignees as well as the bankrupt the power of demanding a jury. There might be reasons also which would induce the assignees as well as the bankrupt to prefer to have the charge tried by a jury.

replied, that the Judge had at all times the power of directing a trial by jury, which he thought would provide for the case suggested by the hon. and learned Member.

moved as an Amendment that there be inserted in that part of the clause which declared it to be an offence in the bankrupt to carry on business "by moans of fictitious capital," the words, "or by means of accommodation bills for which no value has been received."

said, he would ask the learned Attorney General if trade could he carried on without accommodation bills. He believed not; and if they put an end to accommodation bills they put an end to the whole system of trade.

said, he could not agree to the Amendment. Accommodation bills might to a certain extent he perfectly innocent, and were in many cases very necessary. But it was different where they were used in excess, as in a recent flagrant case, where a firm and many satellite firms had carried on business by means of accommodation bills transferred from one to the other. Where a firm depended mainly upon such fictitious capital it would come within the operation of the clause as it stood; but it would be impossible to treat as an offence that which within a certain limit might be perfectly right and innocent, and which was wrong and criminal only in excess.

said, that one of the offences declared by the clause was the wilful omission to keep proper books of account with intent to conceal the true statement of his affairs. It was at all times difficult to prove a wilful intent, and he would submit whether under any circumstances a trader ought not to be punished who had not kept "proper books of account." The absence of such books afforded great facilities for fraud, and he did not think that a bankrupt who had failed to keep them should be free from blame, or even punishment. He would, therefore, move that the words "with intent to conceal the true state of his affairs wilfully," be omitted from the clause.

asked who was to determine what were "proper books of account." A simple form of books might be quite sufficient to show accurately the extent of his dealings, and yet a professional accountant might say that they were not "proper books of account." "Proper books of account" became, therefore, a thing so exceedingly indefinite, that he could not for a moment admit the Amendment.

said, he hoped that the hon. and learned Attorney General would very seriously consider the propriety of lessening the severity of the rule in reference to the imprisonment of bankrupts and the order of discharge. Great injury might be inflicted upon the future prospects of the bankrupt, and his family be ruined while no material benefit accrued to society.

said, that when a man was discharged from prison after undergoing punishment for an ordinary offence it was not thought necessary to give him a written character. Persons became bankrupt five or six times. They rose from the ground as often as they fell with new vigour, new means, and new prosperity. It was high time that more stringent powers should be put into the hands of the Judge, and, he had for that reason, vested supreme power in a Chief Judge, to whom this discretion might very properly be left.

said that a question arose on the sixth paragraph of the clause, which was connected with the distinction between traders and non-traders. He entirely agreed that there ought to be no distinction between the obligation of the trader and non-trader to pay debts. A distinction, however, there must be, greater than was made in the Bill as to the remedies for enforcing payment. But the whole question of abolishing the distinction between traders and non traders had been argued on the assumption that it was in favour of the non-trader. It was always assumed that the non-trader escaped an obligation which was imposed on the trader; and it was forgotten that under the laws of bankruptcy there was a boon or privilege by which the bankrupt's future estate was released from liability. In that respect he protested against the abolition of the distinction. The result of his observation was that the explanation of a great deal of commercial dishonesty was to be found in the trader knowing that if he speculated recklessly and successfully he kept his gains, and that if he failed his future property was safe. He was not speaking of any one class being more or less dishonest than another, but he felt strongly that the result of a wholesale abolition of the distinction between the trader and non-trader would be to bring to the latter incentives to dishonesty of conduct which were at present wholly wanting. The clause gave the Court power to grant an order of discharge, subject to any condition or conditions touching after-acquired property of the bankrupt, But he held that it was not sufficient that the Judge should have power in certain given and expected cases, nor was it just that when a young man got largely into debt he should be discharged from it by bankruptcy, and that his expectations, whatever they might be, should be realized without the payment of his debts. The effect of such a proviso would only lead to dishonesty among the non-trading community. Although he did not propose to move an Amendment to the clause, he thought it necessary to call the attention of the Committee to the question.

said, he could not concur in the observations of his hon. and learned Friend; but as no Amendment was moved it was not necessary to continue the argument. Still he could not help expressing his surprise that his hon. and learned Friend, who had been familiar for so many years with Courts of Equity, should speak of a creditor as a person entitled to the benefit of the expectations of a non-trader. The creditors were entitled to nothing more than the surrender of all the property actually held by the bankrupt. If persons were to be at liberty to give credit to a young man because he was known to be heir to a great estate, that would only encourage him in extravagance and a profligate course of life. A striking illustration was given in the Report by one of the Commissioners of the difference in the state of the present law between bankruptcy and insolvency. A country gentleman might collect a large sum of money, say to pay off the incumbrances upon his estate, and deposit it at a banker's. If the banker stopped payment he might get his certificate in bankruptcy, and a few weeks afterwards might be riding in his carriage. The country gentleman would, perhaps, become insolvent, and would resort to the Insolvency Court; but, unlike the banker, when he came out of it his debts hung round his neck for ever after. Was it right and just that the future property of the debtor should be taken in one case and not in the other? The present Bill removed this anomaly, but gave the Judge a discretionary power which would be sufficient to protect creditors against fraud.

said, that at present when an insolvent debtor obtained the benefit of the Act he had to give security for the future payment of his debts, if he ever had the power. The warrant of attorney given for that purpose, however, could not be put in motion by any vindictive creditor, but remained in the discretion and under the power of the Court, and if he at any time acquired property it was within the discretion of the Court to say whether it should be made available for the payment of his past debts. He had never heard any general complaint of the abuse of that power; and if the power so vested in the Insolvent Debtor Commissioners had been exercised with discretion, it might, he thought, be safely intrusted to the Chief Judge of the new Court. There was a wide distinction between a trader and a non-trader; for if a non trader having an income of £,2000 a year spent £3,00u any future sum to which he might become entitled could not be said to be fairly and properly his own. In exceptional cases, such as those referred to by the hon. and learned Attorney General, let the Judge have the power to give an unconditional discharge; but, as the Bill was now worded, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, there was to be an unconditional discharge of the non-trader.

said, that in Scotland they had had for about five years a system similar to that about to be introduced by his hon. and learned Friend, and they had found none of the disadvantages which had been spoken of. No extreme cases of hardship or persecution had occurred. In discussing these matters he thought they were too apt to deal with abstract cases, and not with the real practical cases to which the law was to be applied. The extreme cases on one side and the other were exceptional, and the ordinary cases of bankruptcy law lay between them. The real object of the bankruptcy law was not to punish persons for contracting debts by lavish extravagance—that was the exception—but to make the whole estate of the debtor available for the payment of his debts equally among his creditors; and that matter had been very much lost sight of during the discussion on the Bill. Other objects were the discharge of the honest debtor and the punishment of the fraudulent debtor; and in the case of fraud the Court was armed with the necessary power to punish. He could not conceive any benefit to society in tying round a man who had been unfortunate this chain perhaps all through his life, simply for the chance that he might possibly earn something for the benefit of his creditors. On the contrary, it was for the benefit of the creditors themselves that the debtor, on giving up to them all his property, should be exempted from any condition respecting his future property. The debtor might ultimately succeed in the world, and, from a regard to honour, might pay what he never would have paid if he had been kept in fear of his future property being seized for the payment of past debts.

said, in all cases it was desirable to proceed on general principles. He agreed with the general principle laid down by the learned Lord Advocate, that the object of a bankruptcy law should be to produce a cessio bonorum for the creditors, and a discharge from his debts for the debtor. Creditors should take care whom they trusted. In that respect he did not see that there should be any distinction made between traders and non-traders. When persons gave credit to non-traders they had the opportunity of knowing the means of the debtor, to a greater extent perhaps than they had even in the case of traders. There were reckless creditors as well as reckless debtors; and creditors ought not to be encouraged by law to give credit, not on the existing means of the debtor, but on the expectation of property to be hereafter acquired. Nothing could be more abominable than the system of giving credit to extravagant young men with large expectations in use amongst money lenders; and the greater the discouragement that could be given to those speculators on property in reversion or expectancy the better it would be for society. But the fact was that the Bill as it now stood did give power to the Court in certain cases, where the transactions of the debtor had been tainted with fraud, to make any future acquired property liable for the payment of his debts. As to the supposed or alleged hardship in the case of non-traders, those who were conversant with the actual practice of the Courts knew that nothing was so easy as for non-traders to get up a colourable and fictitious trading, and thus entitle themselves to all the benefits of the Bankruptcy Act. A few years ago the son of an Earl entitled to large property in reversion, in order to get rid of his debts, made himself a brick-maker—that was he turned over some clay, made a few bricks, and sold them, and then came before the Court of Bankruptcy in the character of a trader, and received a discharge from the whole of his liabilities. The law of debtor and creditor ought to be the same for all, whether traders or non-traders.

said, he supported the clause as it gave the Court just the power it ought to have of imposing conditions on the discharge of a debtor analagous, in fact, to that now possessed by the Insolvent Debtors' Court.

said, he bad given notice to move the omission of the clause which gave power to the Chief Judge to send cases of misdemeanour for trial in the Criminal Courts. That appeared to him to be contrary to the general principle of the Bill, and to the principle of legislation lately followed, of making every Court sufficient to try out to the end all the cases which were brought before it. On that simple ground he trusted that his hon. and learned Friend would consent to the omission of the clause.

said, the clause not only referred to the Chief Judge but also to the Commissioners; and it was thought better to give to District Commissioners the discretionary power of sending cases of misdemeanour to the assize courts, for this, among other reasons, that the persons so dealt with would not in the country be able to obtain the services of counsel to defend them. He thought, therefore, the clause was a very proper clause, and that it was necessary to adhere to it.

remarked that a person committing perjury either in the Court of Chancery or in courts which had no criminal jurisdiction, were constantly sent for trial to the courts of assize. The clause created no anomaly.

said, he must frankly admit that the reason given by his hon. and learned Friend in favour of this discretionary power had made a strong impression upon him; and he would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment. Still he thought that, in the generality of cases, the Court of Bankruptcy should begin and end the investigation into the charges against the bankrupt.

expressed his opinion that the clause ought to give a power of appeal to a bankrupt as well as to the creditors.

said, he had considered this matter a great deal; and it had occurred to him that where a case was tried before the Chief Judge, accompanied by the Commissioner, it was not desirable to give the bankrupt whose discharge had been refused a right of appeal; but in a case where the Commissioner heard and decided alone the bankrupt should have the right of appeal to the Chief Judge.

said, he would take occasion to reiterate his opinion that the assignee ought to receive remuneration. The duties and responsibilities cast upon him were enormous, while no return was made to him. At all events the penalty of 20 per cent was too high, a rate to charge him for retaining money in his hands.

said, 20 per cent was the rate charged in the Bill of 1810; and he really saw no reason for mitigating the penalty in the present Bill.

said, he objected to the enactment of a series of pains and penalties against the creditors' assignee. That person was not to be remunerated; he was to incur a great deal of trouble, and then, at the end of his trust, he was to appear before the creditors almost in the position of a delinquent, to submit the whole of his accounts to them, and to ask humbly for his discharge. No gentleman would accept an office burdened with such humiliating conditions. He would move the omission of the clause altogether, and the substitution of the following:—

"At a meeting for the declaration of a final dividend the accounts of the creditors' assignee shall he audited by the official assignee, in the presence of the Registrar or of the County Court Judge, as the case may be, and thereafter the creditors' assignee shall be entitled to his discharge, unless cause be shown to the contrary."

said, he would remind his hon. Friend that the Committee had already given power to the creditors to appoint to the office of creditors' assignee a person who might have nothing whatever to do with the estate, He maintained, moreover, that no honourable man, who had a trust to perform, would hesitate to do towards those who had confided in him precisely the things described in the clause—namely, call a meeting of the creditors, and lay before them all his books and papers of accounts. There was nothing in the clause to alarm any man who desired to discharge his duty properly.

said, that the language of the clause would deter any commercial man from accepting the office of trade assignee. Owing to the exceeding energy with which the Attorney General was pressing the measure the people in Lancashire and Yorkshire had hardly been able to form an opinion upon many parts of the measure.

said, he would support the clause for the reason which the two hon. Gentlemen opposite had given for opposing it. In his opinion, the official assignee would do the work much better than a creditors' assignee, but if there was a creditors' assignee stringent regulations would be necessary.

observed, that traders ought to be allowed to manage the estate by appointing, if they thought fit, an assignee from among their own body, and no derogatory conditions ought to be attached to the performance of this duty.

said, the clause directed that the creditors' assignee should convene a meeting of creditors, and submit to them his books of account. If it were thought desirable, he would omit the part of that provision which empowered the creditors to come to a resolution expressing their opinion of the conduct of their assignee, who would then merely lay before the creditors his books of account, and would afterwards apply to the Court for an order of discharge. He would move the omission of these words accordingly.

asked, whether it was intended that the Court should consider the conduct as well as the accounts of the creditors' assignee? Every three months he was to submit his accounts to the official assignee; and not only to submit but to swear to them. But, after his accounts had been examined and sworn to, he did not get his acquittance. He might have to go on appearing from three months to three months for seven years. But at the end of three months he might come under the cognizance of the Judge. He thought when the accounts of the creditors assignee had been examined, he ought to have an acquittance. But it was clear that the Bill was drawn to discourage any wish of the creditors to have an assignee, so that the business might go to an official assignee after all. The Bill was so framed that no merchant or tradesman would undertake the duty of creditors' assignee. If it was intended to lessen the work of the official assignee it might be fair to cut down his salary; but as most of the business would be turned over to him again it was not fair that his salary should be reduced.

thought, that after having displaced the official assignee it would be found they had increased the expense by the change.

said, the clause required no more than was demanded of every trustee before he was released from his trust.

said, it was his intention to move that the Chairman should report progress.

said, he would take that opportunity of expressing the satisfaction with which he had heard the other night the suggestion for withdrawing small transactions from the operation of the Bill. He believed the learned Attorney General was not fully aware of the great number of small transactions. He thought it would be very desirable, and would save great expense, to exempt altogether from the operations of the Bill every case where the debts did not exceed £500.

in moving the second reading of this Bill, said the only principle involved in this Bill being the filling up the four vacant seats, no Member, in giving his vote in favour of the second reading, would, he conceived, be expressing any opinion as to the particular destination of any one seat, or be in any way bound to vote in favour of the particular arrangement proposed in the Bill, or against any Amendment which might be proposed in Committee. Therefore, unless there were Gentlemen who thought that it would be advisable to keep these four seats open, or wished to negative the Bill proposed by Government, and allow other Bills which it was known were to be proposed by Members to have a priority of consideration, they would be prepared, he should suppose, to give their vote in favour of the second reading of this Bill. If that were the case, he thought very little advantage would arise from discussion at that stage. If Gentlemen were prepared to assent to the principle of filling up these seats, it would be more convenient, would save time, and be better for the valuable arguments Gentlemen might be ready to employ, to reserve them until the Bill was in Committee, or at all events until the Motion that the Speaker do leave the chair. He trusted, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen, if prepared to give their votes in favour simply of the principle of the Bill to fill up the four seats, would postpone discussion till they arrived at the next stage.

said, there could be no objection to the principle of transferring the seats of Sudbury and St. Alban's to larger and purer constituencies; but, at the same time, he could not concur with the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill should be permitted to pass sub silentio. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that the Government were not particularly wedded to the plan of allocating the seats as proposed in the Bill, and that, no doubt, would facilitate the passing of the second reading. His (Mr. Baxter's) purpose in rising was merely to state that in his humble judgment the claims of Scotland to at least one of the Members were altogether paramount, and to express a hope that the Scotch Members would unite on an Amendment to be proposed in Committee for substituting the Universities of Scotland for the borough of Chelsea and Kensington. His hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) had given notice of a Motion to that effect, and the question could not possibly be in better hands; and he (Mr. Baxter) hoped that the Scotch Members, altogether apart from political or party considerations, would give the hon. Member for Perthshire their support. The Universities of Scotland were utterly unrepresented, and yet they had a constituency very nearly as numerous as the University of Oxford, and nearly double that of Trinity College, Dublin; and every one would admit that the Scottish Universities were celebrated in all branches of literature, science, and art. He hoped, therefore, that the House would have little hesitation in assenting to the reasonable demand of his hon. Friend. The House, however, must not be under the impression that if this demand were granted the people of Scotland would be satisfied. He stated that freely and fairly, because he wished it to be understood that great injustice had been done to Scotland. The people of Scotland looked forward to a large increase in their representation by a gradual disfranchisement of boroughs that were every now and then convicted of bribery, and declared unworthy of electing Members to Parliament. He hoped the House of Commons would not be slow to deal with Berwick-upon-Tweed in precisely the same manner as they had dealt with Sudbury and St. Alban's. [An hon. MEMBER: Gloucester.] Yes, and with Gloucester, too. No doubt the House would see the justice of transferring from such a miserable constituency as that of Berwick-upon-Tweed the seats to such large constituencies as Dundee and Aberdeen, each containing more than 100,000 inhabitants, and yet only returning at the present moment one Member. Look, again, at the Scotch counties. He believed that not one-half the Members of the House of Commons were aware of the fact that not one Scotch county, however populous or rich, at this moment returned two Members to the House of Commons. He saw the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) in his place, and he had given notice of an Amendment to transfer two of the vacant seats to Ireland. Well, Ireland had just claims, and he (Mr. Baxter) would be the last man to refuse them; but he thought in this matter they had to look to the interest of the United Kingdom, and not to the people of Scotland or Ireland separately. But he rather thought that the hon. Gentleman could not have seen the Return which was presented to the House in March, 1859, scarcely two years ago. That Return contained a calculation of the number of Members returned by the three kingdoms, based upon population and taxation, which he thought was a fair basis. According to that Return Scotland should return 73 Members; but she only, at the present moment, returned 53. Ireland returned 105; but, according to this statement, she should only return 101: so that at the present moment, calculating on the just basis of population and taxation, Ireland was returning 4 more Members than she ought to do; while in Scotland the return was 20 less than she ought to return. But Scotchmen were not unreasonable men. They were not going to ask for 20 additional Members. Their reasonable claim at present was to have one of the four vacant seats for their University, and they highly approved of the plan of gradually disfranchising rotten boroughs. He hoped the House of Commons and Her Majesty's Government would go on in that policy, and in proportion as those boroughs fell in they should be appropriated to independent and incorruptible constituencies on the other side of the Tweed. He trusted that his hon. Friend would, in Committee, per- sist with his Motion, and that all the Scotch Members would support him.

said, he thought it was tolerably clear from the number of hon. Members who rose to address the House, that the pacific proposal of the Home Secretary was not likely to lead to a settlement of the question of Parliamentary Reform, and that there was every probability of a list of grievances on a large scale being laid before the House, similar to the last one submitted by the hon. Member for Montrose. He (Mr. Bentinck) did not, therefore, see why, amongst all those grievances, the only real grievance existing should not be considered. The hon. Member for Montrose, in urging forward his own grievance, had, it appeared, found out that Scotland had too few Members and Ireland too many. He (Mr. Bentinck) was much mistaken if raising that question would not tend considerably to protract their debates. But leaving that question aside he should like to say a few words in regard to the chief grievance, as it appeared to him, which was contained in the new Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. He viewed the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman as entirely unjust, for this reason—namely, he did not propose to bestow the whole of those seats upon the places that had the strongest claims to them. But, without wishing to find fault with the right hon. Baronet's motives, he was willing to admit that, like almost all the other zealous Reformers, the right hon. Gentleman was labouring under a great difficulty; and that difficulty was occasioned by a total misapprehension as to the real position of the question of Reform, and as to where the real grievance lay. They had heard many speeches from below the gangway as to what was called the rights of the Six Millions of unrepresented people. Those claims had been put forward in such a stentorian voice that for a time they appeared to be wholly irresistible. But nothing was said of the claims of a much larger class of the people, the millions who had not their fair share in the representation. There was an invisible stumbling-block in its way—and, somehow or other, invisible as the block was. Reform stumbled over it, and never was able to recover its fall—the real grievance had never as yet been dealt with, and, until it was properly dealt with, no Reform Bill would get over it. That grievance was the rural grievance. He contended that the real existing grievance in this country was the very inadequate share in the representation now enjoyed by the inhabitants of the rural districts. The fact was simply this: the rural districts had not within one-third of the representation to which they were entitled. The disinclination of hon. Gentleman opposite, who wanted to make great and magniloquent speeches on Reform, to admit the fact which he had just stated, compelled him now to submit the proofs of his assertion, and he dared them, if they could, to disprove them. The question was one simply of figures. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not wish to bore the House with figures, and should only read a short extract from the book he held in his hand. The facts connected with those figures were so important that they could not be too often repeated. Those facts had been stated before by an hon. Member who was not now in his place. He (Mr. Bentinck) should take the liberty of repeating them in order to impress them the more on the attention of the House, and to invite hon. Members on the other side to refute them if they could. The case was simply this. He was now assuming that which he ventured to state on a former occasion—a sentiment that was much cheered by the Gentlemen below the gangway—namely, that taxation and representation were convertible terms. He contended on that ground that taxation and representation were convertible terms; that the figures he was about to submit to the consideration of the House were conclusive as to the fact that the rural districts I of this country were denied their fair share of representation. The annual value of the property in counties of England at the last census was considerably above £60,000,000; the number of inhabited houses was nearly 3,000,000, and the population was upwards of 10,000,000. Let them now go the boroughs. The annual value of the property in boroughs was £42,000,000, as against £60,000,000; the number of inhabited houses was 1,200,000, as opposed to 3,000,000; and the population was 6,400,000, as opposed to 10,000,000. Now, those figures were easy of recollection; the calculations were simple enough, and unless hon. Gentlemen were prepared to upset Cocker himself, they must admit that the figures led to the conclusion he had stated. The simple fact was this, that, according to the numbers he had stated, the rural districts of this country ought to have nearly 140 more Members than they had at present. But that was not the only test. There was another grievance—namely, that in ad- dition to the inadequate number of Members for the rural districts returned to that House, there was a large proportion of the electors of those districts which he would term, by way of distinction, urban voters. There could be no doubt that the result of recent legislation had been to create an antagonism of feeling between the rural and the urban population, arising from an antagonism of interests which had been created by that legislation. They made the rural population feel every day that they required a distinct representation, and yet every proposal for Reform tended to make a still larger increase of the existing injustice, and to add to the disproportionate representation which the urban population had at present. Now, if that were not admitted to be as good a grievance as any that could be put forward in favour of Scotland he should confess he had not made out his case. He would appeal to hon. Members from the rural districts to recollect that this was not a party question—that it was simply a question whether those whom they represented were to be over-ridden by an overwhelming amount of unjust taxation. Every county Member who should vote for giving another seat to any borough in England, no matter how important, until the just demand of the counties had been satisfied, would go in the teeth of the interests he was supposed to represent in that House. But there was yet another point to which he claimed the attention of the House. It was proposed to increase the number of metropolitan Members. Now that appeared to him to involve a very serious principle; one which he thought the House should deliberate much upon before it gave its assent to it. He trusted that nothing should fall from him that could be considered disrespectful to those hon. Members. He could assure them that nothing was further from his intention than to say anything personally disrespectful to any one of those distinguished men who represented the Metropolis. He admitted them to be men of great ability and distinction—men who generally took an active part in many of the questions which were discussed in that House. Nor was he going to blame those hon. Members for what he was about to complain. But, taking them in the aggregate, he must say that they were so great an inconvenience in that House—not to employ a stronger term—that he thought it was high time that that inconvenience should be abated. He did not think he had expressed himself too strongly respecting the metropolitan Members. The grounds on which he held this opinion he would shortly state. As he had before said, he did not blame them for the course they often took. They no doubt firmly believed that they were doing that which was required of them in furtherance of the rights and interests of those whom they represented. But he thought that the House of Commons and the country at large were bound to take a more general and enlarged view of the question. What did they always find to be the case? He would appeal to all the other hon. Members whether it was not a fact that they were constantly met in the lobby by an urgent demand on them to come into the House to put down a metropolitan job, and prevent another inroad being made on the pockets of the people for the carrying out of some measure which interested exclusively the Metropolis. There was probably no Gentleman present who did not recollect having read in early life the exploits of that charming person Morgiana, who undertook to save the life and property of her master by destroying a great number of troublesome and dishonest men who had intruded themselves into the said master's premises. Now, let hon. Members but picture to themselves the dismay of that worthy spinster if, at the moment she was about to put her resolution into force, she found that the number of the forty thieves had been largely increased. What must that good woman have felt under such circumstances? In the same way, could they understand the feelings of hon. Members who, coming down to the House to do their best for their constituencies, and to save their pockets from spoliation, were suddenly horrified at hearing that there was to be a large increase of metropolitan Members? Those hon. Members saw at once it was utterly hopeless to contend against the representatives of the Metropolis, who had all the advantages of constantly meeting together and of concocting their plans. Why, the whole of the House of Commons were scarcely able to maintain a fair struggle against them, inasmuch as the metropolitan Members were a packed body, united together by what they conceived to be their vested interests. Now, he protested against such a system. The right hon. Baronet very fairly said, that the details of this measure ought to be discussed in Committee. He (Mr. Ben- tinck) was not disposed to contest the suggestion so properly put forward. But as other hon. Members had put forward their own respective grievances, he (Mr. Bentinck) thought it was only right and just that he should submit the grievance of the rural districts to the consideration of the House. He hoped that before they assented to the provisions of the Bill they would insist upon having some better reasons than had as yet been offered for giving any of those seats to a borough; and he trusted that they would hear more forcible arguments than had as yet been laid down before they would assent to the proposition of increasing the number of that very dangerous body of men the metropolitan Members.

thought the Bill did not go far enough, and that it ought to dispose of the seats now filled by Gloucester, Wakefield, and Berwick. The country would never believe that the House was in; earnest in its desire to put down political corruption until the principle was adopted that wherever a borough or county was: found to be corrupt it should be disfranchised, and the seats given to whatever constituency in the United Kingdom could show the best claim to it. If that were done it would enable the House to satisfy the just demands of large constituencies which were at present inadequately represented or wholly unrepresented. He did not deny the claims of any of the places mentioned in the Bill, but neither could he deny the claims of other places, such as Salford, Lanarkshire, Cork county, Staley-bridge, Dundee, and Aberdeen. It had been said that the numbers of Scotch Members had been fixed by the Reform Act of 1832; but so also had the number of representatives of the West Riding and the Metropolis been fixed. If a Member was taken from the centre of England and given to the West Riding, why should not one be given to any place which could show a just claim to it? He certainly thought that the Scottish Universities had put forth a very modest and very just claim when they asked for one Member. With a constituency nearly equal to that of Oxford, and exceeding that of Dublin University, they were entitled to have their claim considered.

said, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he agreed with the hon. Member for Forfarshire, who had just sat down, that those seats should be given to those electors who could show the best claim to them: and on that ground he regretted that the Government had allowed the opportunity to pass which this Bill afforded them of conferring direct representation on the working classes. He certainly would not reproach this House with being indifferent to the welfare of the working classes, for every one who had watched the tendency of modern legislation must allow that its aim and object was to elevate their condition and to promote their welfare; but he felt it was a practical grievance, of which they had a right to complain, that they had no direct representation in this House by which they might make known their wishes and bring forward their grievances. On the occasion of the second reading of the Bill of last year he threw out a suggestion that a fair way of settling the question would be to concede to some of the large towns, which might be regarded as the chief hives of industry, a more extended suffrage than that which was conceded to the other constituencies of the kingdom. He was then met by the objection, that if an extended suffrage was to be given to the working classes, what would become of the representation of the middle classes already existing? He thought the House had now an opportunity of dealing with the question by leaving intact the representation of the middle classes, while they granted additional representation to the working classes. He would take the two largest towns—Liverpool and Manchester—and he asked the House what objection would there be to give additional Members to those towns to be returned by persons living in tenements of a rental below £10, leaving the present Members for those towns to be returned by those occupying tenements above that value? He understood that the great object of the Constitution was to obtain as great a variety of opinion and of class interests as possible. It was the great fault of the Reform Act of 1832 that it destroyed the traditional variety of franchises which previously existed, and that it reduced the representation of the country to the dead level of a £10 uniformity by which too great a preponderating power was given to one particular class. He did not ask the House to subvert the political class, nor to submerge the existing constituencies beneath a flood of new electors; but he did ask them to allow the representatives of the working classes to sit in this House side by side with the representatives of the middle class. He for one considered that no political system could he safe or secure which excluded from all share of political power a large, and, as they were now, an influential and intelligent class, such as the working men of this kingdom. If they could not make their wishes known or their grievances heard, except by monster meetings and by platform agitation, then they might depend upon it that in times of distress the country would witness monster meetings and platform agitation. He could not see why, on the other hand, if the working classes had their special representatives within this House, they should not bring their grievances to be calmly discussed within its walls, instead of resorting to violent agitation without them. He was confident that if such a plan were adopted the working classes would return Members to this House as valuable as any that were likely to be returned by Chelsea and Kensington. He believed there was a deep-rooted feeling, not in this House only but in the country, that the number of metropolitan Members ought not to be increased. He did not speak with the least degree of discourteous feeling towards any of the metropolitan Members; but every one must have felt that their influence was not adequately measured by the mere numerical strength of those Members. If any metropolitan grievance arose the House was sure to have it brought before them within the space of twenty-four hours, and if it had a semblance of reality for its foundation it was immediately redressed. If they gave a Member to Chelsea and Kensington, that would be for all practical purposes to add one to the Members for Lambeth and Southwark; the new Member would represent no new class, no new feeling, no new interest. But Members directly representing the working classes would represent in this House a new class, a new feeling, a new interest. He had a strong feeling on this subject, and if any hon. Gentleman would bring forward a clause embodying such a plan it should have his hearty support.

said, he would not have risen but for the attacks on the metropolitan Members. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) was very generous to the working classes. He proposed to give new Members to Liverpool and Manchester, but how would that benefit the working classes if he kept up the present franchise?

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—I said just the contrary.

Well, but if the hon. Gentleman thought the working classe8, who, according to the hon. Member for Norfolk, amounted to 6,000,000, would be satisfied with such a flimsy boon as four Members to themselves, he could asssure him he was very much mistaken. The hon. Gentleman, and also the hon. Member for Norfolk, had opposed the giving any more Members to the Metropolis on the ground that they not only made any metropolitan grievance heard, but it was immediately redressed. That fact had certainly not been brought home to his apprehension. For his own part, he thought that the Government paid less attention to metropolitan grievances than to any others. Of this he was quite sure, that metropolitan grievances did not receive so much attention as Irish grievances, and that the metropolitan Members did not combine together so well as the Scotch Members. To these latter gentlemen it did not matter who was in and who was out. Whether the Lord Advocate was a Whig or a Tory he dined down at Greenwich with the other Members for Scotland; they were all banded together as one man, they acted as one man, and they got at least as much as they were entitled to. The hon. Member for Norfolk had talked of the greater population of the counties; but of what did that population consist? Of the working classes whom the hon. Gentleman would not enfranchise. The hon. Gentleman had also referred to taxation. Now, on the ground of population, or taxation—both or either—the Metropolis was entitled to a greater number of Members. The Metropolis contained 3,000,000 of inhabitants, and the taxation amounted to a far higher proportion than that of any other district. On this question the hon. Member had not done justice to his own principles; for, if he drew the correct inference from his own figures, he would find that on the ground of its population, on the' ground of taxation, and on the ground of the multiplicity and variety of interests which were included, the Metropolis, instead of twenty Members; eighteen for the boroughs and two for the county—ought to have at least forty.

said, that if the Government had taken the same course on the first reading which they had taken on the second, there would have been no occasion to make any observations. The Home Secretary and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had then compared the po- pulation of Scotland with that of England, and had argued on that ground that as the seats to be disposed of were English seats they ought to be given to England. But it was evident that if the number of Members was to be kept up always to 658, and the English seats were to be given up to England, the Scotch to Scotland, and the Irish to Ireland, there could never be any fair redistribution of seats. He (Mr. Blackburn) wished to treat this question as an imperial one, and he should, therefore, prefer to talk of the seats north and south of the Tweed, instead of talking of them as English and Scotch seats; and he accused the right hon. Home Secretary of unfairness, inasmuch as when he spoke of Scotland, he took the census of 1851 as his guide; but, when speaking of seats south of the Tweed, he relied upon the estimated population in the forthcoming census. The district south of the Thames, including Middlesex, had one Member for every 34,751 inhabitants; while that north of the Tweed had only one Member for every 84,000 of the population; so that if they took the population of Scotland into account, it was entitled to all the four seats, though it asked but for one. He admitted that when they looked into the proposition of the Government to give additional Members to West Yorkshire, South Lancashire, or Birkenhead, the proposition was not objectionable on account of the great manufacturing and agricultural or commercial interests of those places; but when they proposed to give an additional seat to the Metropolis it was quite a retrograde step. Hitherto the custom had been to give the disfranchised seats of the south, formerly the seat of wealth, to the new and populous constituencies of the north. Why, then, should they go back and give an additional seat to the Metropolis. The county of Lanark, with its population of 237,000 inhabitants, and but one Member, had a far better claim to an additional representative than Middlesex, because if they took away the Metropolis from Middlesex they would find that the population did not exceed 287,000. As far as material interests went, he believed it would be found that Chelsea and Kensington grew nothing but asparagus and cauliflowers. Would anybody say that six Members returned by the English and Irish Universities were not worth a dozen representatives of such mushroom constituencies? At all events, he cousi- dered that if one seat were given to a Member for the Scotch Universities he would be a worthy colleague of the four representatives of the English Universities. He claimed one of the seats for Scotland, and if the hon. Member for Perthshire persevered in his Motion he should certainly support him, and he thought he would be supported unanimously by the Scotch Members.

said, that there was one point remarkable in the debate, and it was this—that, although there had been an exchange of personalities in the course of the discussion, no exception had been taken to the proposal of the Government for the allocation of these seats by any Member on either side, although they objected to the particular constituencies which had been mentioned. It was always a difficult matter to deal with when one had to compare the rival claims either of counties or of boroughs. He could assure the hon. Member for Norfolk that he fully concurred with him in feeling that the rural districts had a full right to fair representation; but when he talked of the great amount of taxation on the counties, he would ask the hon. Gentleman if he included Schedules A and D in his calculation? He confessed that he had been struck by his figures; but he could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman had only included Schedule B in his calculation, and not the other two. Recalling the opinion which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire expressed in 1852, that the duty of filling up the numbers of the House devolved on the Government, and not on any private Member, he must express his satisfaction that the occupants of the Treasury Bench had thought fit to deal with the question themselves, and had undertaken the difficult and invidious task of deciding on conflicting claims. The claims of the Scotch Universities had been urged to some of the seats. He would frankly confess that were not his sympathies engaged elsewhere there was no claim which be would more gladly advocate than the claim of the Scotch Universities to representation—he should rejoice to see an increase of the unostentatious business-like element in that House from that part of the United Kingdom—but when they had four English borough seats to fill up, he could not help thinking that there were important boroughs in England which had a prior claim. With regard to the metropolitan Members as a body, it was true that they were not always very popular with the House, but he knew from experience that whenever they had a fair case to bring forward, they received the same courtesy and indulgence which other Members experienced; and he therefore hoped that for the future hon. Members would not begin with a compliment to the Metropolitan Members, and then end with assuring the Mouse that there was no class, the addition to whose Members they looked forward to with greater horror. But the claims of Chelsea and Kensington could not be overlooked, and though under this Bill it was only proposed to allocate to them jointly one seat, he flattered himself that in Committee he should be able to make out a case for giving them two Members, as was proposed both in the Bills of 1854 and 1859, as he believed that from population, rateable value, rental, and contributions to direct taxation, no other unrepresented borough in the United Kingdom could fairly compete with them.

said, that the reason for taking away the four seats from these boroughs having been on account of corruption, the proper course for the Government to adopt in selecting the new constituencies would be to give them to places in which they could expect to find the greatest amount of independence; and with all due respect to Kensington or Marylebone, and the other boroughs and places which it had been proposed to enfranchise, he thought the claim advanced by the hon. Member for Perthshire in favour of the University of Scotland ought to be considered paramount. Even in the larger boroughs of England there were mostly rumours of bribery and corruption having taken place, although no Parliamentary investigation was asked for. No such charges had ever been brought against the Universities of England or Ireland with respect to their choice of representatives, and he did not think that it was at all likely that such a charge would be brought against any Member elected for the University of Scotland. The constituency in that case would be highly intellectual, and altogether above the imputation of being actuated by unworthy motives in their choice, while they would probably send a Member who would do great credit to the constituency and the House. The Government and the House ought to take into consideration the great prestige which would be given to the cause of education in Scotland if the University of Scotland were recognised through returning a Member to Parliament. They ought to abolish all rival distinctions, and consider that they were a united empire on both sides of the Tweed, having only one desire, that of promoting the interests of the whole country.

said, he was anxious to address a few words to the House, to show why he should oppose this Bill at the present stage. He agreed with the hon. Member for West Norfolk, who had said that the agricultural and landed interests were not adequately represented in that House; they never had been. The agricultural interests of England, Ireland, and Scotland were not represented—indeed, the population of Ireland might be almost said to be entirely agricultural—and all the legislation at present was addressed to commercial and manufacturing interests. Two grounds of representation, valuation and population had last year been taken; and whether they made the calculation on the one basis or the other they would find the boroughs had an undue share of representation. In point of valuation the boroughs had three times the representation of the counties, for whilst one Member represented a valuation of £127,274 in the boroughs, a county Member represented a valuation of £380,906 in the counties. Again, as to population, a borough Member represented 1,292 electors, while a county Member represented 3,186 electors and pursuing this calculation it would be found that a borough Member represented 22,088 persons, and a county Member 64,800 persons. Thus, it was obvious the number of borough Members 337, was too large a proportion to the county Members who were only 159, in England and Wales. He would not enter into the question of taxation, as the hon. Member had fully entered into it, and he need not assure them that on that ground also they would find the counties were worse represented than the towns; and what made the matter still stronger was that the county Members did not only represent the counties which sent them, but were frequently more intimately connected with, and anxious for the interests of the working population residing in the towns. Much was at times said by hon. Members on the Opposition benches as to representing the working classes; but it was not those hon. Gentlemen who had passed the measures most for the benefit of the working-man. Who was it passed the Ten Hours Bill, the Fencing Machinery Bill, the Factories and the Bleaching Bill? Why, it had undoubtedly been the hon. Gentlemen who sat on his (the Opposition) side of the House. Truly, there was one or two brilliant exceptions, the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), who had from time to time raised his voice in the interest of those people; so did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, and so had Mr. Fielden; but taking the mass of the measures that had been passed for the amelioration of the inhabitants of the large towns it would be found that they were not carried by those who represented the towns, but by the county Members. The fact was that master manufacturers and the operatives were considered by the former antagonistic, and they preferred their own while the representatives of agricultural constituencies knew their own interest and those of the working classes to be identical. They had heard a great deal said by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the subject of extended franchises, and of liberties they would give to those operatives engaged in manufacturing districts; and this reminded him of the present doings and objects of the seceding States in America. There the Southern States seceded to get liberty, and that liberty they desired only to perpetuate slavery. Their cry was not at all unlike that of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, He protested against the arrangement not to give additional Members to Ireland. Two were promised to it when the Reform Bill was last under consideration; and what difference was there in its circumstances now? Surely if it were just to give Ireland two more Members last year it was not less just now, and that it was just then must have been the deliberate opinion of the framers of that Reform Bill, or they would not have asked the House then to consent to give Ireland additional Members, and he scarcely thought it could be asserted that since that period there had been any changes in the proportionate population. How those who proposed to give Ireland two additional Members could now oppose the same proposition, and he (Colonel Dunne) intended to make it in Committee, he could not possibly conceive. As to valuation, he did not think it could be regarded as a test between two countries; it might be all very well to apply it where the comparison was between different parts of one country; but there could be no justice in applying the test of valuation when they were com- paring Ireland, a poor country, and England, a rich one. No doubt Scotland was entitled to increased representation—whether by means of giving Members to her Universities or not he could not say; that was a matter for Scotland itself; but he must say that he almost doubted the advisability of giving Members to Universities to any greater extent than was done now, and he would prefer giving a seat to some Scotch county. But the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had said Ireland was over represented. Had the hon. Gentleman paid any attention to the population he would have seen this could not be the case, for, although in England there were one Member to every 36,612 persons, and in Scotland only one to every 54,014, yet Ireland had but one Member to every 65,034. How, then, could the hon. Member state that Ireland was over represented? They had a right to demand for Ireland, he thought, at least one of these seats, they having already been promised two, and for this reason he should vote against the details of this Bill. He could show at greater length the propriety of this course, but at so late an hour would not trouble the House further. There would be sufficient opportunity when the Bill came into Committee of doing so, and he would give notice before it did so. That this would prove the omissions of the proposed additions to the metropolitan Members of whom there were already sixteen, a number which he felt sure the House would consider more than sufficient.

said, that having a deep interest in what he hoped would be the future borough of Birkenhead, he trusted he would be excused in saying a few words in its favour. He believed that the claims of Birkenhead to have a representative were much stronger than those stated by the Home Secretary when he introduced this Bill. He had carefully examined the rate-books of the various places comprised within the intended borough of Birkenhead, and he found that the number of persons who would be entitled to vote in the event of the Bill becoming law to-morrow, was 5,319, of whom 2,500 occupied tenements above £20. The population of Birkenhead was between 50,000 and 60,000 persons, and it was progressing at a rate not equalled by any other part of the kingdom. Under those circumstances, so far from not being entitled to have a representative, he thought that Birkenhead might very fairly claim two Members.

said, that he desired, in consequence of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), to draw the attention of the House to one point which had not been adverted to in the debate. He wished, however, at the outset to say, that he could not join in the disparaging opinion which had been expressed with reference to the metropolitan Members. On the contrary, he thought such opinions not only invidious but unjust, and he was ready to bear his testimony to the high character and efficiency of the metropolitan Members. A paper, however, had been put into his hand, which led him to think that the conclusions which his hon. and learned Friend had arrived at upon his statistics would lead the House to au erroneous result. The hon. and learned Member stated that there were twenty metropolitan representatives, and that, taking wealth and population into account, there ought to be forty. He (Mr. Horsman) doubted whether they ought to take the number of representatives by those who theoretically sat for these constituencies in that House. He held in his hand a list of no less than seven very eminent London bankers, all of them representing other constituencies, but whose business, residences, and interests were all in the City of London, and whenever the political or the commercial interests of the Metropolis were affected, those Gentlemen were as much available as the champions or advocates of those interests as were those Members who happened theoretically to represent it. Then, again, there were no less than eight Bank Directors, who also had seats in that House as the representatives of other constituencies. There were four Aldermen of the City of London, who represented rural constituencies, and there were in addition to those five eminent merchants and capitalists representing other places; but no man in that House would say that where the interests of the Metropolis were concerned, they would not be representatives as accessible and as efficient as any of those who had been returned for metropolitan boroughs. There were likewise six very eminent shipowners, whose commercial and local interests were in the City of London; and without going more minutely through the list, he might say that there were no less than forty Members in that House, in addition to the twenty Gentlemen who represented the metropolitan constituencies, all of them eminent men in different classes of com- mercial life, and all as available and efficient for the representation of metropolitan interests as its own proper representatives. That was putting out of the question a great many others who, like himself, were electors for the metropolitan districts, having property in those districts, who were entitled to assist in all matters of local interest, and who were more or less representatives of metropolitan constituencies. Therefore, be far from there being only twenty metropolitan representatives in that House, there were more than the number of forty, which was the number demanded for the Metropolis by his hon. and learned Friend. He ventured to say that there sat in that House at least from forty to fifty Members unconnected with the representation of metropolitan districts, who still were as directly and as intimately connected with all metropolitan interests as any of those who had been elected by those constituencies to the House. There was another point also, which was very much lost sight of, which was that in the claim of any constituency to representation, the question of locality and vicinity should be considered. He held that any borough within the vicinity of the Metropolis, having two Members residing within the Metropolis, and who are at all times accessible, did not require so many representatives as a district in Ireland or Scotland of the same population. The Members from those kingdoms were far removed from those whom they represented, and had frequent occasion to be absent from London, and though, perhaps, representing equal wealth and numbers, could not exert in their behalf the same influence as a metropolitan Member, or one representing a place in the vicinity of the Metropolis could exert on behalf of his constituents. For these reasons he thought it was a question of very grave doubt whether the Metropolis was not represented far more in proportion to its wealth and population than more distant constituencies who might possess greater claims.

said, he was not disposed to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his discussion as to the merits of the metropolitan Members. The question before them was whether they should fill up the vacant seats:—as to that there was no question;—but, beyond that, there was the further question, on what principle the vacant seats should he distributed. He presumed the proposal of the Government was to distribute a part of them to coun- ties, and a part to boroughs; but he did not think the Government had effected that proposal in a satisfactory manner. He could not understand why the great West Riding of York should be put in the invidious category of some of the smaller counties, and that it should only be thought deserving of a third seat. He thought the experience of "unicorn" counties had not been very satisfactory; and if, instead of giving one additional Member to the West Riding, and another to South Lancashire, they had divided the West Riding into two, and so distributed the seats, they would have acted on a sounder principle. When the Government had made up their minds as to which of the non-represented boroughs should have the feats, they would, probably, be assented to, unless, indeed, the Scotch Universities found favour in their sight and got them. But at this stage of the Bill he would not enter further upon that argument, but he was now anxious at this moment to guard himself against being supposed to be in favour of that part of the scheme which simply gave a third Member to the West Riding of Yorkshire.

said, that many of the objections which had been raised by hon. Gentlemen to the Bill, might be far more fitly made in Committee. He desired to express his entire dissent from the opinions which had been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman). It did appear to him (Mr. Roupell) a most extraordinary notion that the Metropolis should be considered as possessed of forty or fifty representatives, who were returned by other constituencies, simply because they were more or less interested in the Metropolis. Surely the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy) could not be considered as representing an Irish borough or an Irish county, nor could a Scotch Member be supposed to represent any other portion of the Kingdom than that for which he was returned. Nothing could be more absurd than to say that the Metropolis was re-presented by forty or fifty Gentlemen, who were supposed at the same time to represent the special interests of those constituencies by whom they were elected. Did they represent the Metropolis, or did they represent their own proper constituencies? They might represent the general interests of the country—but it was idle to say that those seven or eight bankers, those six Bank Directors, and those Gentlemen connected with the ship- ping interest, were sent to that House as representatives of the metropolitan constituencies, rather than of the general interests of those constituencies by whom they were elected.

begged to remind the House that the Bill of last year was withdrawn on a Resolution which proposed to postpone legislative measures with regard to the representation of the people until the results of the census of the present year should be known. If the Government agreed with that Resolution, it would be unwise to proceed at present with this Bill, because the result of the Census might show a great alteration in the proportion of population. The hon. Member for Finsbury, also, bad given notice of a Motion with respect to the seats for Wakefield and Gloucester. The Government must have made up their minds whether they intended to oppose that proposition or no; and it was desirable that the House should be put in possession of their views.

said, that as hon. Members seemed all agreed as to the principle of the measure they ought to read it a second time at once, and leave details to the Committee. He must say, however, that he did not think the West Riding had had justice dealt out to it. Considering the large amount of its population and the importance of the district, it was entitled to a larger share of the representation. The West Riding, irrespective of the boroughs, contained a population of 800,000 persons; and the boroughs 400,000 more. It was sixty miles long and seventy broad, and, what was material, it could not be contested at a less cost than £15,000 aside. In the present state of political apathy he believed it would be utterly impossible to procure candidates. Considering the present state of the county the seat was virtually confined to a few leading families. At the last election every shilling of the Conservative candidates' expenses was subscribed by the gentry of the district; but they could not always rely upon that. There was a great desire that the county should he further divided, and he thought that two additional Members should be allotted to it. He hoped the Home Secretary would spare them the annoyance of having a contest hanging over them for the next nine months. He saw no reason why the writs for these seats should not be issued immediately the measure was passed.

said, he was not going to raise a discussion as to the respective claims of England, Ireland, and Scotland at that hour. He only wished it to be understood on the part of Irish Members that silence did not give consent. He did not think this was the proper time to re-distribute these seats. They had four seats to dispose of and some forty or fifty applicants. It was convenient to have a few vacant seats to distribute when they had a Reform Bill; and it would also he well to wait till they were in possession of the forthcoming census. He objected altogether to this system of bit-by-bit Reform and to this miserable Bill—this ridiculus mus—a sorry substitute for the comprehensive measure they had so long expected.

proposed to read to the House a letter he had just received from the Mayor of the ancient Borough of Sudbury. The mayor stated that at the time the borough was disfranchised it possessed the right of returning Members to Parliament—a right which it had exercised for three centuries. The charter was originally given for special services rendered to the Crown; that the borough was situated in the Western Division of Suffolk, which returned only nine Members to Parliament; while Sussex, with the same population and the same area, returned eighteen. Wiltshire, with a much smaller population and area, returned eighteen; while Buckinghamshire, with less than half its population and area, returned eleven Members. The hundred in which Sudbury stood contained 40,000 inhabitants. The mayor added that since the disfranchisement of Sudbury, numerous other constituencies had been convicted of the grossest practices of bribery and corruption, and yet had been allowed to return Members to Parliament. Even at the present time the writs for Gloucester and Wakefield were suspended, although apparently without any ultimate intention of their being disfranchised. The Report of the Berwick Election, just issued, contained more astounding facts than had ever been alleged against Sudbury. On these grounds the Mayor of Sudbury claimed that one of the seats should, at all events be restored to it. He (Major Parker) should be much influenced in his vote by the Government declaring that the smaller delinquents should not be treated with a greater measure of punishment than the larger ones. If the House in its wisdom should not think it prudent to restore to Sudbury her two seats, perhaps it might give it one. But at any rate he thought he had made out a claim for two more Members on the part of Suffolk.