said, he had been asked on a previous day a question respecting the case of Thomas Carter, who had been committed to prison for three weeks in the Isle of Wight, under the Vagrant Act. He had that morning received an explanation of the case from one of the committing Magistrates. His letter was dated from a place in Ayrshire, whither his (Sir George Lewis's) letters had followed him. The writer said he had instructed the Clerk of the Petty Sessions to forward to the Home Office a Report of the evidence in the case of Carter, but he (Sir George Lewis) had not yet received that evidence. The writer added that Carter was convicted on the sworn testimony of the police, who stated that two young women, on their way home to St. Helens, were so frightened by his jumping out nearly upon them, that they were obliged to return back to obtain the assistance of their brother. Carter was found by the police drunk in a field, and unable to give any account of himself. He had been seen previously by a sergeant of police wandering about the streets of Ryde, and unable to give any account of himself. He asked the Sergeant where he could obtain a bed, and the Sergeant told him, and told him also the price he would have to pay for it. Carter, however, did not avail himself of the information, but was found subsequently in a field drunk. That was the statement made by the Magistrate, and which had been thought by him sufficient to justify the committal.

said, he rose to ask, in reference to this measure, Whether the House had passed any Bill in the present Session authorizing Her Majesty to pay the Officers of the Navy Reserve, and whether the Government intend to pay them any sum, or make any allowance whatever to them?

said, that there was no engagement in the Bill to pay any of these Officers, and it was not intended to pay them. What he should propose was that in the Estimates of next year a certain sum should be set apart in order to give the Officers in question a small allowance, while under drill, for lodging and food. That must be voted by Parliament and, therefore, the House was not engaged to any sum by the present Bill.

said, that the noble Lord had not answered what he had asked, and was proceeding to explain the object of his question, when

said, it was improper to enter upon a discussion of a Bill stand- ing in the Orders of the Day before it came on in a regular order.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, By whose sanction the rule has been made at the Emigration Office, that Passages to Australia will be given to English and Scotchmen, but not to the Irish?

said, that the question was founded on a misconception. No such rule had been laid down as was implied in the question. The Emigration Commissioners only spent the money of the Australian Government, and that Government required that the emigrants sent out should be in proportion to the population of each of the three divisions of the United Kingdom. However, owing to an insufficient supply of emigrants from England and Scotland, the number from Ireland had always been in excess of the proportion. Between 1847 and 1858, out of 257,000 emigrants sent out, 79,000 were sent from Ireland, whereas, according to the proportion, the number should only have been 61,000. The Commissioners were endeavouring to redress the proportion, and were, therefore, obliged to refuse Irish emigrants at present.

said, he rose to inquire, Whether the Government intend to adopt the recommendations contained in the Report of the Thames Embankment Commissioners as regards the line of Embankment proposed to be taken; and whether they intend to appoint another Commission for the purpose of carrying out the work; and, if not, to what body they propose to intrust the construction of the Embankment?

said, that the Royal Commission who considered the question of the Thames Embankment had made their Report, in which they recommended a plan providing for the convenience of the public, with a due regard to private interests, in a manner much more successful than had been suggested in any previous plan; and the Government were prepared to give effect to that recommendation. The Royal Commission also recommended that there should be appointed a Special Commission to execute the work; but the Government were not prepared to adopt that recommendation. Considering that the Coal Duty was a local charge, he believed that it would be satisfactory to those who paid it that the expenditure should be in the hands of local representatives. He also thought it desirable not to establish new authorities for any object which existing authorities were competent to effect. The Metropolitan Board of Works were appointed by Statute for the execution of duties much resembling the duties required to be discharged in this case, and, therefore, in the Bill, which he should introduce next Session to give effect to the engineering scheme recommended by the Royal Commission, he should propose that the direction of the work and the expenditure of the money proceeding from the Coal Duty fund, should be entrusted to the Metropolitan Board of Works.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Returns relative to Salaries, Pensions, &c., for which an Address was moved on the 1st of March last will be presented?

said, these Returns comprised every person who received, £150 of the public money during the last year, and were, therefore, very voluminous. The greater number of offices had sent in their Returns, but there were one or two important offices whose Returns were still wanting, and he could not say when they would be presented to the House.

made an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department not to proceed with the measure. A comprehensive Report with respect to the whole subject, and dealing particularly with the class of lunatics to whom the Bill referred, usually called Chancery lunatics, was made by a Select Committee last year. The Select Committee found that those lunatics were less visited, and, therefore, in a sort, more neglected than any other class of lunatics, and recommended that one system of supervision and treatment should be applied to all the lunatics in the country. This object the present Bill did not effect. The 3rd Clause, giving power to the Court of Chancery, simply on affidavit, to take any lunatic's property under the value of £1,000 or £50 a year, and apply it for his benefit in a summary manner required to be carefully considered. That some such alteration was necessary he firmly believed, but he could not give his assent to the clause in the Bill, as it was drawn up too loosely and imperfectly. He also contended that the provisions of the Bill did not afford a security for the proper visitation of Chancery lunatics, and, believing that there was not one clause which did not require careful supervision he pressed on the Government the propriety of proceeding with the measure.

, as one of the Committee, and as one who had given great attention to the subject, entirely agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He earnestly implored the Government not to proceed at this time with a Bill of such importance, and in the absence of many hon. Gentlemen who, if present, would certainly have opposed the Bill. This Bill was brought down from the Lords on the 23rd of April, nothing was done with it in the months of May and June, it was not printed till the 4th of July, and now, on the very day that Her Majesty's Ministers were about to celebrate by the usual dinner the virtual termination of the Session, it was proposed to consider the Bill. He could not help urging on the Government to allow a short time for the consideration of the measure, and early next Session they would have an opportunity of introducing it in such a shape as might command the sanction of the House.

trusted, notwithstanding the festivity which had been alluded to, that the House would consent to consider the clauses of the Bill. This Bill consisted of two parts, the first of which related exclusively to the simplification of procedure with respect to the poorer classes of lunatics. He had observed in that House that there were two sets of objections which were played off upon any Bill according to the convenience of the moment. If the proposal was to introduce additional elaboration of procedure, then it was immediately said that they were multiplying technicalities, that the proposal was conceived in a red-tapist spirit, and that they were overloading the simplicity of justice with restrictions and obstacles. If, on the other hand, it was proposed as in that Bill to simplify the administration of justice, and to render it cheaper and more direct, then it was said that they were taking away the protection that was due to litigants, and that the liberty of the subject was placed in danger. Now the question was whether the clauses with respect to that class of lunatics who possessed but limited means were not advantageous? This Bill was prepared with great care by the late Lord Chancellor, and was well fitted for the object it had in view. With respect to the latter part of the Bill, he proposed, by the introduction of Amendments, of which he had given notice, to leave matters nearly in the same condition as they were in at present; but there was a clause which would enable retiring pensions equal to two-thirds of their present salaries to be given to the Medical Inspectors out of the Free Fund. One of those gentlemen was past eighty, and the other was seventy-seven. With respect to the salaries of the medical officers, which were now £500 a year, it was proposed to make them £750. He trusted with that explanation the House would go into Committee.

said, that the Bill came down from the House of Lords in April, and it was not until the present moment that they were asked to go into Committee on it. He protested against matters of public interest being treated in that sort of way.

said, that he was not aware when this Bill came down from the Lords. The hon. Gentleman knew very well that much important business, owing to the debates in Committee of Supply, had been postponed to the end of the Session. He was of opinion that a short Bill of this kind, which had come down from the Lords, might be considered up to the very end of the Session.

said, that this Bill, though a short Bill, involved some very serious principles — principles exactly contrary to those which the Select Committee recommended. They did not complain that a cheaper and more summary mode of dealing with property of a small amount was being introduced, but that this was to be done in so perfunctory a manner. Those who knew anything of lunatics, knew that lunatics sometimes got well. Chancery lunatics never did get well. He wanted to know what would be the fate of those poor people who on getting well would find their little property had been disposed of by order of the Lord Chancellor. There was no information given upon this matter, and was the House justified at this period of the Session in going into Committee? He must express his regret that the Government were determined to go on with the Bill, and considered that it was almost indecent to proceed with it at that period of the Session, They were asked to agree to the measure, not on its own merits, but because it had been well considered in "another place;" but was it evidence of its having been well considered that the Government had themselves altered it in a most material point since it came from the other House? The House of Lords came to the determination that the medical visitors should not have private practice; but the Secretary of State said they should have private practice, and gave notice of an Amendment to that effect. He submitted that they should not send back this Bill to the Lords at a period of the Session when it could get no consideration at all. It was proposed that pensions for the retiring officers should be paid out of the fee fund, which—were it not for a blessed accident—would have been swept away before the Bill was under consideration, and appropriated to another purpose.

said, it appeared to him that the best mode of avoiding unnecessary discussion upon that occasion was to take the sense of the House on the Motion immediately before them. He, therefore, moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

seconded the Amendment. The proposal of the Government was entirely opposed to the view of the House of Lords and of the late Lord Chancellor, who gave very great consideration to the subject. Where was the urgent necessity for this Bill? What reasons had they to suppose that the House of Lords, having deliberately passed the Bill in its present form, would agree to it in a totally different form. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day month, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.

expressed his surprise at the objections that had been urged against the Bill. It was not correct to state that the Bill was totally inconsistent with the Report of the Committee. It was only proposed in one instance to depart from the recommendation of the Committee. The Committee recommended that there should be no Chancery visitors, and that the Commissioners in Lunacy should visit the Chancery as well as other lunatics; and the Government declined to adopt that recommendation. They proposed to give to the visitors hereafter appointed an increase of salary, and to give retiring allowances to the present visitors, who had discharged their duties in an exemplary manner, but were unable from their advanced ago to do so any longer with the degree of efficiency that was necessary. The effect of refusing to pass the Bill would be compulsorily to retain in office gentlemen whose powers were unequal to the work which, for the benefit of the lunatics, the Government desired to have performed. If the Bill were not passed, the power of the Lord Chancellor to deal with the property of this class of lunatics would be paralyzed; and there was an urgent necessity that powers similar to those given by the Bill should be entrusted to the Court of Chancery.

said, that the only question was whether they ought to proceed with a Bill of this importance at this time of the Session. He was quite in favour of certain clauses of the Bill relating to poor lunatics; but there were so many other clauses of a debateable character that he did not think it ought to be proceeded with after it had lain on the table four months unnoticed.

objected to the Bill, as not going far enough. He thought it of great importance that lunatics should be visited at least twice a year. The present was a very imperfect Bill, and he thought that they ought not, at the present time, to proceed with any part of it excepting that relating to the appointment of visitors.

rose to put a Question, of which he had given notice, to the Se- cretary of State for War relative to the supplemental Volunteer Vote. He simply desired to elicit an explanation as to the manner in which this money was to be distributed, and what provision it was proposed to make for giving musketry instruction to Volunteer corps. The financial year of many corps commenced about this time, and in making their financial arrangements for the coming year it would be convenient to know what amount of grants would be allotted to them, either in "kind" or in money, for affording that instruction. He should not ask for any specific answer on the subject then, but should content himself with requesting that as soon as the details had been settled by the War Office, the Volunteer corps should be put in possession of the views and intentions of the Government in this matter. He desired to say that he thought the late Under Secretary for War (Mr. T. G. Baring) had rather a tendency to exaggerate the amount of assistance which was at present given by the Government to the Volunteer force, and he dreaded lest an impression might get abroad that they received more than they actually did. His hon. Friend had calculated that the Volunteers would receive, including the supplementary Vote, £190,000. He (Lord Elcho) did not think that the sum on account of Volunteers could be fairly put down at anything like that amount. In that sum was calculated £43,000 for the wear and tear of arms. But the House should bear in mind that at the time of the Crimean War the stand of arms in this country was so low that there was not 100,000 stand of arms over and above the arms in the hands of the troops employed in the different parts of this great empire. Therefore, a supply of arms was indispensably necessary, and it was rather hard to debit the Volunteers entirely with this large sum, which had been necessarily spent in putting in a stock of arms. It should also be remembered that if those arms did suffer a little more from being in use than if they were kept in the Tower, the Volunteers were obliged to repair any injury done to them at their own cost. They had also to provide an armourer, and pro tanto the Government were saved the custody of those arms. The Volunteers were also debited with £64,000 for ammunition. Now, he had calculated that about 140,000 Volunteers would draw that ammunition, and allowing ninety rounds per head, and putting that allowance at 4s., that would give £28,000 on 140,000 men, instead of £64,000. He desired on the part of the Volunteers to thank the Government for the assistance which they had already extended to them, and to express a hope that as soon as possible the scheme which they bad elaborated would be made public.

said, that at present Volunteer corps had not only to provide a store room for their arms, but also to pay an armourer to take charge of them, and this was a matter which he trusted would enter into the consideration of the Government. There were many battalions also which were composed of companies of Volunteers separated by long distances, who could only be brought together for the purposes of drill at the individual expense of the members, and ho thought something should be done to meet that case. Ho trusted that any arrangement which should be made for affording assistance to Volunteers would date from the commencement of the financial year. He was sure the country would gladly pay any slight increase of expense caused by this. With respect to rifle ranges, he thought Engineer officers might be employed with advantage in laying out these ranges. He suggested that the Government should take into consideration the giving assistance to Volunteer officers and Volunteers generally to avail themselves of the instruction at Hythe.

said, that he had much pleasure in answering the question, though he felt sure if the same question had been put to the Under Secretary when the Vote was proposed, the hon. Gentleman would have received an answer as satisfactory as those which he (Mr. Baring) had been in the habit of giving in discharging the business of his department. Of the £30,000 voted £10,000 was to be applied to the pay of adjutants, and £20,000 for drill sergeants. But this latter portion was, in fact, only for six months; therefore, it must not be considered to be merely a Vote of £20,000. If it had been taken for the whole year it would have been double that amount. The Vote had only been agreed to and reported a very short time, and there had not yet been sufficient opportunity of considering the regulations with respect to its expenditure. These were now under consideration, and would shortly be issued. When they were submitted to the public he trusted it would be found that proper discretion had been exercised in framing them.

thought, that both Parliament and the country would gladly have given their sanction to a larger Vote, and regretted that the Government should have been less generous than the House of Commons in dealing with the Volunteer force. Musketry instruction, which was quite as important as ordinary drill, would still have to be provided out of the private funds of the Volunteers. Ho hoped an addition would be made to the grant next Session.

trusted the House would permit him to take that opportunity, the last which would occur, to express his surprise and regret at the statement made by the First Commissioner of Works in the early part of the sitting with respect to the Embankment of the Thames. He had understood that the carrying out of so important an improvement as the Embankment of the Thames would be intrusted to the Metropolitan Board of Works; but it now appeared that the Chief Commissioner himself proposed to bring in a Bill on the subject, and that the Metropolitan Board were to be employed merely in the mechanical construction of the embankment. The Metropolitan Board had already resolved to examine the plans and bring forward a Bill themselves; so that if the Government persisted in their determination to take the matter into their own hands, unnecessary expense would be incurred by the preparation of two Bills. He protested, on behalf of the ratepayers of the Metropolis, against the proposal that the First Commissioner or the Government should decide what the plan ought to he, and that the Metropolitan Board should be treated like a parcel of masons. Nobody had seen the plan recommended by the Royal Commissioners, and for his own part he was entirely ignorant whether it was an economical plan or one which would be generally approved. It had received the approval of the Commissioners themselves; but, with all respect to those gentlemen, he doubted whether anybody would have selected them as the persons best qualified to prepare a plan for so important a work. Before the Government assumed the responsibility of adopting any particular plan, whether recommended by a body of Royal Commissioners or not, they should take further advice upon it. The Embankment of the Thames was to be paid for by the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and in their name he protested against the treatment which, according to the statement of the Chief Commissioner, the Metropolitan Board of Works were about to receive from the Government. Judging from the report which, he had seen in The Times, the present was the first occasion, although the matter had been discussed for years, on which a proposal had been made to dispense with docks and all means of carrying on traffic on the banks of the Thames in Westminster. As four-fifths of the embankment would be in Westminster, he thought that before any plan was adopted by the Government, the opinion of his constituents should be taken upon it. For these reasons, ho hoped to receive an assurance from the Government that they intended, not only to intrust the construction of the work to the Metropolitan Board, but also to impose upon that body the responsibility of bringing forward a Bill, and of deciding whether the plan recommended by the Royal Commissioners was the best which could be adopted.

said, that as a constituent of the hon. Baronet and a ratepayer of the Metropolis, he protested against the proposal to intrust the Metropolitan Board of Works with the embankment of the Thames. He knew that body only in one way—they were pepetually sending him bills for rates, and, up to the present moment, he had seen none of their works, except a fine Italian palace which they had erected for themselves in Spring Gardens. The embankment of the Thames was a great national work, and as such it ought to be carried out under the responsibility of the Government.

enquired whether it was intended to construct an embankment on the Surrey side of the river? That district was exposed to frequent inundations, and it paid a larger proportion of the coal duties than any other part of the Metropolis. The embankment of the north side, moreover, would throw a larger body of water into the south side. It was, therefore, entitled to have a fair share of the money expended in the improvement of the banks of the river.

, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Windsor, begged to assure him that the taxes he paid were to pay off the debts of the old Commissioners of Sewers, and he did not pay a shilling towards the erection of the edifice in Spring Gardens which he thought so grand. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley), he had made a mistake in saying that the Metropolitan Board of Works had taken up the plans in reference to the embankment of the Thames. At the present moment the Metropolitan Board of Works were perfectly blank on the matter. He thought, however, if the matter were left to them at all it should be left to them absolutely. If it were taken up by the Government, then perhaps the Government would pay for it. But if the inhabitants of the Metropolis were to be taxed for it, then the Metropolitan Board of Works should have the deciding upon it.

had little to add to the statement which he made in the early part of the sitting. The House had agreed to place the coal duties in the hands of the Commissioners of the Treasury, in order to await the passing of a Bill authorizing the money to be expended in the embankment of the Thames. Next Session the whole matter must come under the notice of the House in the form of a Bill, and, no doubt, it would then be fully discussed. Meanwhile he begged it to he understood that he never said anything which could lead the House to suppose that the Government contemplated taking any part in the expenditure of the coal duties on the Thames embankment. The Royal Commissioners had reported that in the first instance the embankment should be executed on the north side of the river, but he was himself strongly of opinion that the work would not be complete until it included the Surrey side also. He thought, however, it would be quite enough to undertake the embankment of one side at a time.

was glad that the Chief Commissioner had to some extent retracted the statement he made in the early part of the sitting, and that the Metropolitan Board of Works were to have some control over the preparation of the plans as well as over the mere stone and mortar work. He certainly thought that, if the Metropolis was to pay for the work, their representatives should have the management of it.

said, he had retracted nothing. What he stated in reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster, and what he had just repeated, was that the Government were not going to take any part in the management or execution of the Thames embankment. It was necessary, however, that the Government should take measures for passing the Bill which was to confer upon the Metropolitan Board of Works the power of making that embankment. Certain notices with respect to the purchase of property must he given in November next, unless another year was to be wasted, and, as the Government had obtained the consent of Parliament to their measure with reference to the coal duties, and had appointed a Royal Commissioner to consider the various plans which had been suggested for the embankment of the river, they would take the necessary steps for enabling Parliament to complete the subject next Session. His desire was that another year should not be wasted, but that, on the contrary, they should have an opportunity next Session of applying the coal duties to the embankment of the Thames.

regretted that the Metropolitan Board of Works were to have anything whatever to do with the Thames embankment. Hitherto they had done nothing at all, and he was afraid that, if placed in their hands, the plan recommended by the Royal Commissioners would never be carried out. It was not correct to say that the Metropolis was to pay for the embankment. The expense would be borne by the consumers of coal.

denied that the Metropolitan Board had done nothing. They were charged with correcting errors committed under the patronage of the Government for about 100 years in the drainage of the Metropolis, and when they succeeded in preparing plans for the work the Government appointed referees of their own to supersede those plans and to substitute new ones. The plans of the Board were to cost £2,300,000; those substituted by by the Government would have cost £11,000,000. The Board had intelligence and firmness enough to refuse to listen to the suggestions of the Government; and what was the result? The Government of Lord Derby had the sense to intrust the work entirely to the Metropolitan Board. Such was the policy of a Conservative Government respecting the municipal institutions of the country; and the consequence was that, instead of the funds of the Metropolis being squandered in the most unintelligible and stupid manner to the extent of £11,000,000, a plan was sanctioned by the Derby Government, under which the same benefits would be conferred upon the inhabitants of the Metropolis at an expense of less than £3,000,000. The works had been going on for some time; they were of great magnitude and importance, but, being under- ground, the hon. Member for East Kent ad not seen them, and so he jumped to the conclusion that the Metropolitan Board had done nothing. When completed they would be among the finest works of the kind in the world. With regard to the Thames embankment, a permanent Commission had been recommended, in order that some of the engineers and surveyors who had been engaged in the inquiry might continue to be employed in carrying out the work. That was the way he expected the thing would end. The right hon. Gentleman proposed a scheme which would deprive all the inhabitants of Westminster of exercising any power whatever in regard to the plans. The proceedings were to be carried on by the Chief Commissioner regardless of expense, and were to be paid for, not out of the imperial revenue, but from the local taxation. Before any steps were taken the inhabitants of the Metropolis should have the opportunity of expressing their opinions on the subject.

, regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had so far committed himself that this work should be carried on by the Metropolitan Board of Works. It would have been much better to take time maturely to consider the question. He much feared, if the work got into the hands of the Metropolitan Board, it would prove a never-ending job. If an independent Commission were intrusted with its execution, the expense might have soem chance of being limited to the amount of the estimate.

moved the consideration of the Lords' Reasons for insisting on certain of their Amendments to this Bill, to which the Commons had disagreed. The Clerk at the Table then read the Reasons as follows:—

"The Lords insist upon such Parts of their Amendments in the Preamble to Clause 1, and in Clauses 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 18, 22, 23, 33, 37, 39, 43, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 67, 68, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 99, 111, 112, 129, 142, 164, 169, 178, 202, 212, 213, 230, 243, and 246, and in the Schedule of repealed Parts of Statutes, as relate to the subject of a Chief Judge in Bankruptcy and Matters consequential thereon, and also to Clause (A.) added by their Lordships to the Bill, and which have been disagreed to by the Commons, for the following Reasons:—

"Because they consider the Appointment of a Chief Judge as the Head of the Court of Bankruptcy in London to be unnecessary; the original Jurisdiction which it is proposed to confer does not, in their Opinion, require a Judge of high Attainments and Authority, but would be equally well exercised by the London Commissioners, and the Creation of a new Judge to be the Judge of Appeals seems not to be called for by any Necessity, because the Appeals in Bankruptcy at present occupy the Time of the Lords Justices acting as the Court of Appeal for only a few Days in each Year, and there is no Reason to expect that the passing of the Bill will occasion such an increase in the Appeal Business as to prevent its being satisfactorily disposed of by the same Appellate Tribunal:

" Because the Proposal to confer original Jurisdiction on the Chief Judge is not at all calculated to secure Consistency in the Administration of the Bankrupt Law, in as much as this Jurisdiction would be confined to the Metropolitan District, and no Provision would be made by it for securing Uniformity of Decision amongst the Commissioners of the District Courts and the County Court Judges sitting in Bankruptcy, and if this Consistency in the Administration of the Bankrupt Law is to be obtained by means of 'a central and controlling Authority,' it is unnecessary to create a new Judge of Appeals for the Purpose, as the Object is already secured by the existing Court of Appeal:

"Because if it is a principal Object of the Bill gradually to supersede the Commissioners by means of the Establishment of the Chief Judge, so great a Change in the present System ought not to take place in this Manner, but should be made only by the express Authority of Parliament."

" With the preceding Exceptions, the Lords do not insist upon any of their Amendments to the said Bill to which the Commons disagree, and agree to the Amendments made by the Commons to their Lordships Amendments and also to the original Bill,"

moved that the House do not insist in their disagreement to the Amendments made by the Lords. They were well aware, and the reasons just read made it very apparent, that the Amendments to this Bill as it originally passed the House, and on which the other House of Parliament insisted, were those which related to the appointment, duties, and salary of the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy. If the House were to persist in the view they had taken when the Bill was last before them, the consequence would inevitably be that the Bill would be lost; and, under those circumstances, it had become the duty of the Government to consider what course they should advise the House to pursue; and, although Her Majesty's Government retained the opinion, expressed by its Members in the discussions on the various stages of the Bill, in favour of the appointment of the Chief Judge, and that for the Reasons adopted by that House and transmitted to the other House of Parliament, and although they still considered that the provisions of the Bill were greatly impaired, and its chances of working well at the outset were very much diminished by the omission of that portion relating to the Chief Judge, still they considered that even without that part of the Bill there was an amount of good in it which was capable of working, although defectively, and which ought to induce the Government to take the Bill mutilated and shorn, as he admitted it to be, rather than not carry the measure at all. Under these circumstances the Government had come to the conclusion to advise the House—f course it was for the House to consider whether they should adopt that advice—not to insist further in their disagreement to the Amendments made by the Lords; but practically to accept the Bill as amended by the other House. He should, however, have to propose certain verbal Amendments, to which he was sure no objection would be made, which were rendered necessary for the purpose of enabling those by whom the General Orders were to be made to make them in proper time, in the absence of the Lords Justices. He now begged to move that the House do not insist in their disagreement with the Amendments made by the Lords.

, before taking leave for the present of a subject which he was sure would soon again occupy their attention, wished to state that, representing as he did a constituency which had taken a deep interest in the question, he was disposed to concur in the course which the Government recommended the House to pursue. He thought the people out of doors were as competent to form an opinion on this subject as noble Lords elsewhere, and when it was said in the Reasons which had been read that it was not necessary that a functionary of high legal attainments and authority should be appointed in bankruptcy, the public would view the reasons with very great suspicion. He believed the Lord Chancellor would find great practical difficulty in the working of this Bill without the Chief Judge; but the responsibility rested, not on the Lord Chancellor, but on those who had, as the Attorney General said, mutilated the Bill. If it were found that the Bill could not be fairly carried into effect with- out the Chief Judge, another application would, no doubt, be made to Parliament, and they would then know what course to take. He only hoped, when the matter came again to be discussed, neither senile obstinacy nor professional jealousy would be allowed to interfere.

thought the hon. Gentlemen had not exactly appreciated what was stated in the Reasons of the Lords with reference to the functionary of high legal attainments. Already Commissioners, gentlemen of great learning and legal ability, and with thirteen years' experience in that department of law, exercised jurisdiction in bankruptcy, and so satisfactorily had they hitherto administered the law that only forty-two appeals had been made from their decisions during that time. And with respect to appeals the hon. Gentleman had apparently forgotten that now the Court of Appeal consisted of the Lords Justices sitting in bankruptcy, who were acknowledged on all hands to constitute one of the best legal tribunals in the country.