said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the very incomplete state in which the British portion of the Paris Exhibition is now placed; and, whether he intends to have it completed in a manner worthy of the commercial dignity and importance of this Country?

said, he wished at the same time to know whether there is any reasonable expectation that the sum of £116,000, already voted, will be exceeded, and to what amount?

Sir, the question of the hon. Member for Halifax seems to imply that the Secretary to the Treasury has the direction of the works at the Paris Exhibition. I am happy to be able to state that that is not the case. I will, however, read a statement which has been made to the Government by the executive British Commissioner—

"The present incomplete state of the British portion of the Exhibition is necessarily so, because the work is not yet done, but is only in progress. At present the Exhibition is like a house which is not furnished, but it will be completed and properly decorated within the sum provided by the estimate, and on the 1st of April."

That, I apprehend, is an answer to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Beresford Hope). Since that Report was sent to the Privy Council I have also received a Report from the person in charge in Paris, who says—

"The English Exhibition is more advanced than that of any other nation, and it will be ready for opening on the 1st of April. The arrangement for the Exhibition of the objects is generally thought to be one that will give better opportunities of displaying them than the system adopted by any other country.

By whom is that signed?

By Richard Thompson.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the purpose of the Government to bring before the House this Session a Reform Bill for the representation of Scotland; if so, whether the principles of representation to be adopted in the Reform Bill for England and Wales will be applied to Scotland; and whether any attempt will be made, to a greater or less extent, to adjust the number of Representatives in Scotland to the present wealth and population of the country?

Sir, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill to Reform the Representation of Scotland; but when it will be introduced it is not in my power at the present moment to state. Probably in the course of a short time it may be in my power to give this information. With regard to the principles on which it will be framed, they will be the same as those we shall recommend for the representation of England; of course, with such alterations as the difference between the laws of the two countries shall render necessary. With regard to the question of increasing the representation of Scotland, I beg to say that subject is under our consideration. We are giving it our best consideration, and we shall decide that question upon its merits.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he has taken any steps to investigate the two cases of Homicide which occurred at Dungarvan, and which formed the subject of the Coroner's Inquests held there; and, whether his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Justice O'Hagan to the Grand Jury of Waterford upon that subject?

said, in reply, that two inquests were held at Dungarvan upon the bodies of two persons who mot their deaths at the county of Waterford election. Those inquests were returned to the Crown Office, and through that office to the Crown solicitor of that circuit. On the 5th of February the depositions and the finding of the jury were laid before him, and on the 16th of February he gave instructions to the Crown Solicitor to the following purport:—

"Without coming to any conclusion as to the legal character of the homicides, I think every inquiry should be directed to ascertain by whom the homicides, or either of them, were caused, and of identifying the individuals. The Crown Solicitor should communicate with the county inspector of constabulary to ascertain if any faith worthy person can depose as to identity; he should also apply to the military authorities for the names of the soldiers engaged at Dungarvan, and if any faithworthy person comes forward, or can be found, who can identify the individual soldier or soldiers alleged to have caused the death of O'Brien or Keily, a communication should be made to the colonel of the regiment to have the soldiers who were at Dungarvan paraded for the purpose of identification."

He had received various communications from the Crown Solicitor subsequent to those instructions, and he felt satisfied that the Crown Solicitor had used every possible exertion to identify the individuals in question. With regard to the second branch of the question, Mr. Justice O'Hagan was reported in The Freeman's Journal newspaper to have said, in charging the grand jury on the 5th of March—

"There were two cases of homicide arising out of the late election, in one of which the jury had found a verdict of 'manslaughter,' and in the other a verdict of 'wilful murder.' Bills could not be sent up to them at the present assizes in either of those cases, the occurrence of which he deeply deplored, and trusted that the cause of them would be made the subject of searching investigation."

He thought it right to say that he attributed very little importance to the finding of the jury in one of these cases, in which they found a verdict of wilful murder. Although the counsel for the next of kin to the deceased closed an excited and exciting speech by demanding the highest verdict of the law, which was manslaughter, the jury, with a feeling of liberality which the learned Gentleman could not have imagined, actually found a verdict of wilful murder.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, as all the Chain Cables and Anchors manufactured in the Country are required, by the Act of 1864, to be tested to the Admiralty standard, the Board have terminated, or intend to terminate, the Contract between the Admiralty and Messrs. Brown, Lenox, and Co,, and to open-up to the competition of respectable makers the future supply of Chain Cables and Anchors for Her Majesty's Service?

said, in reply, that the contract with the Messrs. Brown, Lenox, and Co., with regard to cables, was only made in 1862, and the Admiralty had no intention to terminate it at this time. With respect to the contract for anchors, the usual notice would be given that it would not be renewed. As to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, he had to reply that Her Majesty's service was so amply stored with anchors at this moment that he should be sorry to fetter the judgment of his successor on the subject of throwing open the future supply to competition.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can communicate to the House any information with regard to the recent incursion of Indians into the Colony of Honduras, and to an action alleged to have taken place between them and a portion of the 3rd West India Regiment; and, whether his attention has been called to an extract from The Jamaica Gleaner, published in The Times newspaper of the second instant, containing serious imputations on the conduct of the English Officer in command on that occasion? He might explain that the imputation was that the Major in command, having about 150 troops under him, went into action with about fifty or 100 Indians, and beat a hasty retreat, leaving the ammunition, the medical stores, and the wounded behind him.

, in reply, said, a raid of Indians was made into British Honduras in December last, when great depredations were committed, and more than one British colonist was carried off for ransom. Upon that Lieutenant Governor Austin sent a Civil Commissioner with Major Mackay and some troops to the spot. The Indians were met, and a collision took place, but it appeared that both parties retreated. There is no report that the wounded of the West India regiment were left on the field. A statement had certainly been made to the Government reflecting very severely on the conduct of the English officers concerned; but he did not like to state anything more then, as only one side of the case had reached the Government. But the War Office at once commissioned Major General O'Connor, the commander of the Forces in Jamaica, to institute an inquiry into the matter. Lieutenant Governor Austin, immediately on hearing of the occurrence, applied for reinforcements from Jamaica. Sir John Grant instantly sent one detachment of troops, and followed soon afterwards himself with a second detachment. The report from Sir John Grant was that everything was now tranquil in the colony of British Honduras, and that there was an ample force of troops there to meet any exigency.

said, he would now beg to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, What is the reason of the delay which has occurred in the publication of the Board of Trade Returns for 1866, those Returns not having been in the hands of the public till the 1st of March of this year; and whether it is not possible to hasten the monthly Returns issued by the Board?

Sir, the accounts for the twelve months ended the 31st of December last were issued on the 2nd of this month; last year they were issued on the 27th of February. This delay of a day or two was occasioned by the necessity of a special reference between the Excise and Customs Departments. Generally speaking, the chief cause of delay is the difficulty of getting merchants to make complete entries and close their current accounts. If the same plan were followed with the annual as with the monthly Returns, of completing them on a certain day, without reference to outstanding accounts, something might be gained in time at the expense of accuracy; but then one year could not be compared with another. With regard to the monthly Returns, the growth of commerce makes their preparation a work of increasing labour. The Returns are received at the Custom House from all the hundred or more out-ports in a crude state, and have to be arranged, and their magnitude may be conceived from the fact that 1,000 entries are sometimes passed in a single day for a single article in one port alone, and that each monthly Return contains from forty to fifty pages of closely-printed calculations. The details have also been considerably extended for the purpose of giving the fuller information which the public have from time to time demanded. Formerly these Returns contained only totals; the monthly Returns now comprise values, and the countries of export and import of the principal articles, the aggregate of the expired months, and comparison for three years. The annual Returns contain the exporting and importing countries of every article, and a comparison of the trade with these countries for five years. The monthly Returns arrive at the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade about the 26th or 27th of the following month, and are kept there two days for the purpose of filling in the aggregates and printing. I doubt if this can be done more quickly With regard to the annual Return, the only alteration I can think of besides that of issuing the inexact form I have mentioned would be to publish separately that portion which relates to home consumption, of which the accounts can be completed earlier than the rest. I can assure my right hon. Friend that no time is wasted, and that the Departments concerned endeavour to meet the natural wishes of the public as far as is practicable.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a statement which has appeared in the newspapers to the effect that the Engine Drivers of the London and Brighton Railway Company have given notice of their intention to strike; and whether, in the event of such strike taking place, he docs not think the subject would be a fit one for being inquired into by the Commission on Trades Unions?

, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the statement in question, and he had heard that there was considerable foundation for it. He had no doubt that the subject of such strikes would fall within the terms of the Commission, and that it would be inquired into by the Commissioners.

said, that on a recent occasion he had asked a Question relative to the tenders for the weekly postal service to and from Bombay. The reply was that notice had been given to the Peninsular and Oriental Company for the early termination of the contract for conveying the mail to India, but he did not understand whether it was intended to terminate the contract for the mail to China. He believed that the service to China would come absolutely to an end in January next. The service to Australia would be carried on on the basis of the present contract, which was subject to a notice of two years. He wished, therefore, to ask, Whether any arrangements would be made, in the event of the contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company coming to an end, to continue the other two services, and whether any negotiations had been opened for the purpose of taking advantage of the French service, which was also connected with China?

said, the Committee which sat upon our East Indian Mail Service, did not recommend notice to be given for the termination of the service between India and Australia at the same time. The paragraph in their Report relating to the subject was rather against the simultaneous termination of the two services. Her Majesty's Government had had the question under their consideration, whether they should give notice of their intention of terminating the contract between India and China and Australia at the same time. He had consulted the Chairman of the Committee on the subject. That Gentleman, who had given great attention to the subject, might be said to represent the views of the Committee, and he represented that it would be exceedingly unfortunate to postpone the establishment of the weekly mail to Bombay for two years. In consideration of the great desire of the trade that the weekly communication should commence as soon as possible, Her Majesty's Government had determined to give notice to terminate the Indian contract in the first instance. They had been partly induced to take that step without also terminating the Australian contract, because they thought the colonists themselves might desire to undertake the Australian service. Communications were now going on between the Colonial Office and the colonies with a view to some such arrangement. He believed that communications had taken place with the French Government, but nothing definite had yet been settled. Tenders for the new service had been prepared, and negotiations were going on with the India Office on the subject. The contract for the service east of Suez would lie with the India Government. The form of the tender had therefore been sent to them, and when it was received back it would be advertised.

said, he wished to ask, whether it was true that it was in contemplation to raise the postage on letters for India and the East generally, in order to meet the increased expenditure upon the re-adjustment of the services. He asked the Question because this was a point which had been particularly dealt with by the Committee, and the Committee had protested strongly against the adoption of any such measure, for reasons which were fully set out in their Report?

said, it was determined, when the new postal service was commenced, to raise the postage to 9d. on the half-ounce letter, in order to meet the loss or increased expenditure expected to grow up through the increase in the number of the mails.

I rise, Sir, to

"Call the attention of the House to the delay that has taken place in the production of the Papers on the subject of Reform, alluded to by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, which the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on Tuesday the 5th instant, said he hoped to be able to lay upon the Table of the House in a few days."

I wish to call the attention of the House to the uncertainty which exists with reference to the statistics which we were given to understand were prepared for the Cabinet, and which (a circumstance which naturally makes the House much more curious than it otherwise would have been) resulted in the retirement of three of the Members of the Cabinet. Two of those late Members of the Cabinet made statements in this House, and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne) said that certain papers were submitted to the Cabinet, containing the statistics, on the 23rd of February. On the 25th of February the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to make his statement to the House as to the Reform Bill which the Govern- ment were about to bring in; but on the 24th of February, in consequence of those statistics not being to the taste of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, he sent in his resignation. Whether he did that on the 24th, which was Sunday, or on the 25th, I do not know. On the 25th, under these circumstances, of course the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not proceed with the statement on Reform which he had been about to introduce to the House, and which the House had expected. The right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Feel), and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, made their statements, and it appeared that the papers referred to—whether placed in the hands of the Cabinet, or read out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—had only been partially communicated to the noble Lord and the other Members of the Cabinet at first, but subsequently the noble Lord had an opportunity of looking at them, or part of them—how much of them I do not know—and the result was his resignation. Therefore it was that I thought it right that such important documents as those which contained the statistics upon which the Reform Bill was to be brought in should be submitted to the House, that we, as well as the Cabinet, might have an opportunity of judging with respect to the measure which was to be based upon them. I therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman a question, and perhaps I had better repeat the exact words that were used, because very much in this matter appears to depend upon the precise words uttered by those who take part in the question. On the 5th of March my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what would be the course of public business, and I followed before an answer had been given to my hon. and learned Friend. I asked—

"When the papers referring to the electoral statistics, submitted to the Members of the Cabinet, and alluded to by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne), would be laid upon the table?"—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1370.]

The right hon. Gentleman gave me this answer—

"I have given direction for the preparation of the papers, and I hope in a few days they will be in the hands of Members."—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1370.]

Now, I consider that answer was clear and distinct as to the identical papers alluded to by the noble Lord. There could be no doubt about the question, and none of the public journals, I believe, differ in any way upon it or upon the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. From that it was fair to infer that directions had been given—there could be no question at all about preparing the papers, which were all ready—that directions had been given by the right hon. Gentleman to produce the papers for the satisfaction of the House, and that they would be laid upon the table at once. However, they did not appear; and therefore it was that, on the 11th of March, I renewed my Question to the right hon. Gentleman, asking him—

"Whether the Government would lay on the table the statistics referred to by the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbourne) as having been laid before the Cabinet a fortnight since?"—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1648.]

This was the right hon. Gentleman's answer—

"No papers have been before the Cabinet which have not been laid on the table of the House. There is no new information. I believe that the House is in possession of all the information the Cabinet have. I have given instructions that for the convenience of Members certain information shall be prepared and, printed, but I regret that it is not yet ready. I am unable to account for the delay, but I will make inquiry as to the reason. It has probably arisen from the desire to impart some new information."—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1648.]

That struck me at the time as being an extraordinary statement, and so it appears to have struck the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), because he made some observations upon it. It was stated likewise by the right hon. Gentleman—and this appears in the reports of the leading journals—that there was nothing new in the papers. That called up the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, and after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Stroud, the noble Lord observed—

"It is necessary, in order to make my own statement clear, that I should say that I understood, when certain figures were laid before the Cabinet, that they were figures which had been obtained from the Departments for that purpose, and that they were new. So I understood them; but, of course, in that I may have been mistaken. They were exceedingly scanty, and few in number, and the investigation of which I spoke was mainly directed to comparing these figures which were sums total with the more detailed information contained in the voluminous Returns laid before the House last year."—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1649.]

It appears, then, that the right hon. Gen- tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford are at direct variance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, in the first instance—when he is asked to produce the papers, which are clearly designated as the papers containing the statistics which were laid before the Cabinet, or read to the Cabinet, or partly read to the Cabinet, and which were subsequently submitted to the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, and which caused him to resign his office—the Chancellor of the Exchequer says most distinctly that he will produce those papers which contain those identical statistics. When his attention is again called to the matter about a week afterwards the right hon. Gentleman says, "No, there are no now papers at all. Those figures which you mentioned are merely figures which are now upon the table of the House, scattered amongst nobody can say how many Returns," Whether that is so or not it is impossible for me to say; but, at all events, it appears that the noble Lord the Member for Stamford has not read the voluminous Returns amongst which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says those figures are to be picked out. The noble Lord says that he understood that the figures submitted to him on that occasion were entirely new. I think the House has a right to have a clear explanation upon this matter. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had chosen to say, in the first place, "I do not intend to produce those statistics at all; it was a Cabinet matter. I introduced them to the Cabinet, but I am not going to introduce them to the House," he might have done so, and the House could have dealt with the matter as under those circumstances. But the right hon. Gentleman distinctly said that the statistics should be produced, afterwards telling us that there were no new statistics to produce, although a late Member of the Cabinet distinctly says that there were, and that he understood the statistics shown to him to be new. I want to know, therefore, why it is that they have not been produced, and whether a satisfactory reason can be given by the right hon. Gentleman for not placing them on the table? It is necessary, for the satisfaction of the House, that such an explanation should be given as shall lead the House to a clear understanding of what was the real nature of the case.

AS my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to speak on another subject at a later period, it is better, perhaps, that I should answer the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The real fact of the matter is this. The figures spoken of were very few indeed. My noble Friend the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne) analysed them for his own purposes, and divided the totals among the different boroughs. The figures which were given to my noble Friend were derived from papers already on the table of the House; that is to say, the old figures obtained in the different Returns were arranged to show, as has been shown in the newspapers, the number of male occupiers in the various boroughs. However, the papers will be in Members' hands shortly. It is necessary that they should be carefully corrected, and they have to come back from the printer's to be revised; but they will probably be in Members' hands to-morrow. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harwich (Major Jervis) have moved for papers, which will also be supplied, and which will really put much more information into the hands of Members than the noble Lord the Member for Stamford had before him.

There are two questions which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not on exactly the same subject as the last Question, but in reference to the same chapter of information, and they refer to points which are very material for the convenience of the House. I should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Printing of the Reform Bill will be so expedited that it may be in the hands of Members on Tuesday morning? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes, it will.] That is very satisfactory. The other question I have to put is this: It will be recollected that in the blue book of last year there is a statement of the numbers of male occupiers, at different values of occupation, for every borough in the country. Those numbers include the persons who pay their own rates directly and those for whom the landlords pay rates, or who pay them in fact as part of the rent to their landlords. Those Returns draw no distinction between these two classes of persons, so that we have no ground upon which we can show how many of the occupiers are direct ratepayers, and how many are compound householders, or holders under Sturges Bourne's Act, or under the Small Tenements Act, or other Acts bearing upon the point. The question I want to put is one of great interest, and it is, whether the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to lay before the House any information affecting the division of those two classes into direct ratepayers or compound householders for each of the boroughs in the country? I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer this when he rises presently. Another point which I wish to mention is in reference to the procedure of this evening. Nothing would be more contrary to my own inclination, or to the inclination of my Friends around me, than to endeavour to interpose or intercept the progress of business; but, with reference to the proposal to enter into the discussion of the Navy Estimates to-night, the state of things is peculiar. The Navy Estimates of the present year are not common Navy Estimates; they involve a considerable increase of charge; and, besides that, they involve a considerable commutation of charge. They not only suspend certain descriptions of work now in progress, according to the plans of the late Government, according to the Estimates of last year, but they bring into view other descriptions of work of a very extensive character, and of very great importance; of such a description as to raise the whole question of supplying the naval stations abroad, and the whole question of the number of men to be voted for the navy. That being one of the material circumstances of the case, we have also this, that in the House of Commons to-night we neither have the Minister who prepared these Estimates (Sir John Pakington) to move them, nor the Minister under whose responsibility they are to be carried into effect (Mr. Corry). I trust that my noble Friend the present Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox) will not suppose that I am impeaching his personal competence to propose the Navy Estimates. I have often heard him speak in this House, and I never heard him when he did not do great credit to himself and great justice to the subject he had charge of; but I speak of his position and responsibility with reference to this subject. It is within my knowledge that many Members on this side of the House wish to bring into full view, by the discussion on the Navy Estimates, which will necessarily be a long one, the various important subjects of which I have indicated the heads. In the form of the present Navy Estimates it is obviously impossible that this discussion can take place in the House unless in the presence of the responsible Minister. We are not situated as we were on the subject of the Army Estimates, where there was a special necessity for obtaining the Vote of Men with a view to the passing of the Mutiny Act. With regard to money, if there is any necessity for passing a Navy Vote on that bead, a Vote can be passed on account to meet any emergency. Notice could be given of such a Vote to-night, and it could be voted tomorrow evening. With regard to the number of men, there will be an opportunity next week, in the interval between the introduction and the second reading of the Reform Bill, to introduce the Navy Estimates, and then the subject can be fully debated. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it is for the convenience of the House that we should proceed with the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) this evening. It is not necessary that we should object to the noble Lord making a statement, if the Government think the course of public business will be advanced by that. But it will be impossible for us to arrive at a Vote, as to the number of men, because the question turns upon and involves a number of matters which could not be dealt with except in the presence of the responsible Minister. Would it not, upon the whole, be for the convenience of the House that a day should be appointed, in the middle of next week, for the purpose of dealing with the Navy Estimates? I think I shall be justified in the suggestion I have thrown out by those who have given their minds to the subject and who have the intention of debating it.

I do not share in the interest which my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) seems to attach to the production of further statistics on the subject of Keform—in fact, I would much rather that we should have less figures and more frankness. We have reason to complain, not so much of the want of information as of the want of straightforwardness. Much as I love statistics myself, I am afraid we have had a plethora of them upon this subject. I complain, in common with many, of my brother Members around me, of the air of mystery—the un-English air of mystery—which has been indulged in by the Government in reference to this question. It was the remark of a distinguished statesman that a proper secrecy was the only mystery of able men, but that mystery was the only secrecy of weak and cunning ones. I do not say in which category the present Government may be placed; but if mystery be wisdom, they may be called pre-eminently wise. It was said some seventy years ago by the late Mr. Sheridan, that the English people had no faith in the "little Isaac" class of politicians—"roguish, but devilish keen." I trust the Government will not persist in this policy of mystery, and render Mr. Sheridan's remark applicable to them. In saying thus much, let me ask the hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Ministerial side of the House to accept the assurance that I believe the party to which I have the honour to belong would be benefited by a twelve months' absence from office; and in that spirit I do not begrudge them the tenure of their pleasant places on the Benches opposite.

I do not intend, Sir, to trouble the House with any remarks upon the observations of the successor to Sheridan. With regard to the inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), I must say I consider it unreasonable. He himself was a Member of a Government which for seven years regulated the destinies of this country, and during those seven years the Navy Estimates were always moved by the Secretary of the Admiralty (Lord Clarence Paget). We did not hear then that it was unsatisfactory to the House that the First Lord of the Admiralty should not be present, or that the Minister of the Admiralty, who is responsible for the preparation of the Estimates, should not be a Member of this House. If therefore, Sir, the Navy Estimates could be moved by the Secretary of the Admiralty for seven years I cannot understand the grounds of the objections taken upon this occasion, more especially as my noble Friend the present Secretary (Lord Henry Lennox) is so perfectly competent to the task. The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether the public business would be retarded or inconvenienced by the adoption of the course which he has suggested. In answer to that I have to say that considering that the First Lord of the Admiralty (if his presence be absolutely necessary to move the Estimates) cannot take his seat until the 25th of this month, I have no hesitation in saying that the course proposed would be most inconvenient to the course of public business, and would, moreover, seriously embarrass certain arrangements which have been made. The right hon. Gentleman talks much of the presence of the Minister of the Admiralty, who is responsible for the preparation of the Estimates. I have already shown to the House that it is not absolutely necessary that the First Lord of the Admiralty should move the Estimates; because for the last seven years this has not been done. But allow me, Sir, to remark that every Minister is responsible for the preparation of these Estimates. What was our proposal with respect to the business this evening? We proposed that the Estimates should be moved by the Secretary of the Admiralty; but when we made that arrangement it was thought that my noble Friend the Secretary would, according to all calculation and expectation, have had by his side my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington), the late First Lord of the Admiralty, who would have been prepared also to have spoken upon any subject which the House might think required elucidation. An accident, the non-return of the writ, has prevented this proposal being carried out. I repeat, that when the objection was taken, notice of which, owing to the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, was given us, the presence of my right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty was certainly counted upon. Nobody, in fact, doubted that he would be present. I must say, therefore, that I do not see in the tone taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) upon this subject, exactly that temper which I should have counted upon, whatever might have been the struggles of party, with reference to the better conduct of the public business. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman, that if no objection had been taken on the first night on which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) was prepared to move the Army Estimates, if he had been permitted to go on then, my right hon. Friend the then First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington) would on the Thursday following have moved the Navy Estimates, and we should not have been in the somewhat embarrassing position in which the House is now placed. I am perfectly aware that if hon. Gentlemen, acting from what they consider to be their duty, choose to control the necessary business of this House, it is impossible for us to resist an appeal of that sort, because Motion after Motion can be made. I think it undesirable that the Estimates should be moved unless there is a general concurrence in the House upon the subject. My opinion is, that it will be convenient for the public service that we should proceed as the paper indicates, but I must leave it to the House to decide.

The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the objection of my right hon. Friend. He did not mean to imply that the Estimates should never be moved by the Secretary of the Admiralty. When the First Lord of the Admiralty does not sit in this House, the Secretary is the recognised organ of the Department. His objection was, that it is unusual and inexpedient for him to move the Estimates when he is not the recognised organ of the Admiralty. When the First Lord has a seat in this House, it is he who should give the necessary explanations of matters of importance which may arise in the course of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to admit the force of that objection, because he says that he had counted upon the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War (Sir John Pakington.) If that right hon. Gentleman had taken his seat, there would have been no objection to proceeding with the Estimates, because he is the Minister who is directly responsible to the House for their preparation, and could no doubt have given every explanation that was required. No one, I am sure, will doubt the competency of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Henry Lennox) to deal with this subject. The House will be happy to hoar his statement if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that his making it to-night will advance the public business; but he must not expect that a debate can be taken as if the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State for War were in their places, or that any vote, except on account, can be agreed to.

Sir, it is so unusual a circumstance for me to find myself the subject of a debate in this House, that perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words with reference to what has been said by the right hon. Gen- tleman opposite. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his usual kindness, has wished to press my statement upon the House to-night. I was willing to make that statement, and should, under any circumstances, have prefixed it with an apology to the House that a person occupying so humble a position as I do should move such important Estimates as these. If the Opposition, led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), had, out of regard for the state of public business, been willing to allow me to make my statement, and to follow it up by practical action in the shape of a Vote for the number of men, I was ready to undertake a task the magnitude of which no one who has not attempted to perform it can appreciate, especially when it is undertaken, as I may be allowed to say I have undertaken it, at three day's notice. Under the circumstances, however, I must respectfully decline to make a statement which is not to be followed by any practical action of the Committee. In conclusion, I have only to state that when my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Corry) who will, I hope, be returned to the House in the course of next week—he having been eight years away from the Department over which he now presides, during which time matters have greatly changed—I may, perhaps, from the experience which I have gained in the last eight months, be able to be of some use to him. At all events, I shall be delighted to give to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire and his Friends any assistance that I can to elucidate the items of the Votes.

I rise for the purpose of explanation. I made no objection to the statement of my noble Friend (Lord Henry Lennox) being made if it were considered necessary or convenient by the Government. But I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not answered the rather important questions I put to him.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I think the first question was whether the Reform Bill would be in the hands of Members on Tuesday? Certainly, I believe it will. I have no doubt of it. The second question was, as to the distinction between the £10 householders—those who were rated and those who paid by their landlords. My impression is that such a statement can be made out. I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), and will give the information if possible.

I should be very sorry that it should go forth that this side of the House is unanimously of opinion that the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty should not be permitted to proceed with the Navy Estimates, and take a Vote to-night. It appears to me that the public out of doors will not be satisfied unless the Navy Estimates are brought forward. Due notice has been given. My noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox) is the recognised organ of the Government on the subject, and the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Corry) cannot possibly take his place in this House till Monday. [Sir GEORGE GREY: The discussion will all come over again.] But why not give the Government a Vote on Account of the Navy Estimates this evening? "We know that subordinates in this House are generally so sat upon by their superior officers that they have seldom a chance given them of showing their talents. The ability for perspicuity of statement possessed by my noble Friend is recognised by all. I am sorry, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on this occasion displayed such squeezable materials, and I think the House will do well to allow my noble Friend to make his statement, and, if necessary, to take a Vote on Account. We shall then be expediting the public business; at all events, we shall not be putting the country to any inconvenience. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put the noble Lord up, and that we shall go into the Navy Estimates forthwith.

I think there is some misunderstanding as to the course intended to be taken by the Government, and as to what is the objection of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone.) It is very reasonable that the noble Lord should be permitted to make his statement and take a Vote on Account. If that is the intention of the Government no objection ought to be raised. But I understood the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire to be that the statement ought not to be followed by taking the Vote for the Wages of the Men, which would involve the whole policy of the Estimates. That, of course, opens a large question, and I think it may fairly be considered by the Government whether in the absence of their recognised organ in this House it ought to be pressed forward to-night.

If, Sir, I am allowed to make my statement, and carry forward the Estimates as far as I can in the same position and under the same conditions as if the First Lord of the Admiralty was, like the late First Lord, a Member of the House of Peers, I am quite willing to go into the discussion; but I must respectfully decline to make any statement on sufferance.

The noble Lord is labouring under some misapprehension. I can assure him that so far as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), and all of us on this Bench are concerned, we are most desirous that he should make his statement. Our difficulty is this. The House is aware that when the Vote for Wages has been passed it is not competent to any Member to discuss questions of general policy. Now, there are a number of us, some upon this Bench, and some sitting behind us, who are anxious to discuss general questions arising out of the policy of naval administration. We do not doubt the ability of the noble Lord to deal with those questions or to reply to us; but we should like to hear the views of the late First Lord of the Admiralty, as some of us may have something to say upon them. Therefore, it is not so much the absence of the present First Lord as that of the right hon. Gentleman who was First Lord when the Estimates were prepared, that leads us to hope that the Government will, at and rate, consent not to take a Vote for Wages to-night, and will give us the fair opportunity of discussing the policy of the Admiralty, of which they ought not to seek to deprive us.

Should the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer be adopted by the House, we may have to wait till the end of the Session before an opportunity offers to discuss these Estimates, in the event of the first Lord of the Admiralty not being returned by his late constituency. The course taken by the Opposition appeared to him to have but one interpretation, and should the noble Lord be prevented making his I statement on that occasion the country would believe that the delay was caused by factious opposition. At the beginning of the Session the House was given to understand by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire that every possible effort would be made by those who sat on the other side of the House to assist the Government in carrying on the public business. But what had occurred since that assurance was given? Every measure brought forward by the Government had been, more or less, objected to. An objection was raised to the late Secretary for War (General Peel) bringing forward the Army Estimates, and now a similar objection was raised to the Navy Estimates being introduced by the noble Lord. After the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) upon this occasion the country would come to the conclusion that nothing was to pass this Session which the right hon. Gentleman and those who thought with him could possibly prevent being carried. He was much pleased to hear some time since the unanimous cheer from below the gangway when it was announced that the Government was to have fair play. He repeated, that if the House was prevented from going into the Navy Estimates that night, it would go forth to the country that those who sat opposite were the real obstructives, while those on the Government side of the House were doing their utmost to forward public business.

said, that there was a great difference between the case of the late Secretary for War introducing the Army Estimates and the present Secretary to the Admiralty moving the Navy Estimates. The House was willing that the right hon. Gentleman should explain the Army Estimates, which had been prepared under his directions, but he took no Vote for Men on that occasion. Taking into consideration the present state of the country and of Europe, he thought it un-advisable that any Vote should be taken in the absence of the present and the late First Lords of the Admiralty which would preclude future discussion upon important questions relating to the administration of the navy. He therefore hoped, if the noble Lord made his statement that night, detailing the general scheme and plan of the Government in reference to the administration of the navy, that no Vote for Wages would be taken.

said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had last spoken had inadvertently fallen into an error when he stated that his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon had not been permitted to take a Vote for Men on the evening when he moved the Army Estimates. His right hon. and gallant Friend did take a Vote for the number of Men. He did not see why any questions in connection with the administration of the navy hon. Gentlemen wished to discuss could not be brought on that evening, notwithstanding the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. As his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already observed, for several years questions of the first importance in reference to the navy had been always discussed in the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who with the Secretary for War had sat in the other House. It therefore appeared to him that whether the matter was looked at in the light of constitutional practice or of convenience to individual Members, there was nothing to prevent Her Majesty's Government from proceeding with the public business, and of taking a Vote in the ordinary course. He thought that the public convenience would be best consulted by the House permitting the noble Lord to make his statement.

said, he wished to suggest that the noble Lord should adopt a medium course by making his statement, but not taking a Vote that would preclude subsequent discussion. Could not a Vote on Account be taken?

I am sorry to be again obliged to trouble the House, or to appear unyielding, but in answer to the question of my hon. Friend I have to point out that the discussion of those questions would not be in the least degree less open if I moved these Estimates than it would be if they were introduced by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry). I must most emphatically say that I can only consent to move the Estimates to-night on the same conditions as if my Chief was in the other House of Parliament.

said, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon had prepared the Army Estimates which he had introduced, and therefore he was perfectly competent to give any detailed explanations which the House might require. But the First Lord of the Admiralty was not present to answer questions which hon. Gentlemen might wish to put to him on the subject of the naval administration. He therefore trusted that the noble Lord would not take any step which would prevent future discussion upon the subject.

said, he hoped that the Government would not bind themselves to follow the course of action dictated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The course for Government to pursue was to bring forward their Estimates and to move a Vote for the number of Men. If hon. Gentlemen opposite thought proper to oppose the Vote for the number of Men they could do so.

said, he gave the Bill in its entirety his most cordial support; but he wished to explain the circumstances under which the passage of the Bill through Parliament had been delayed for three successive Sessions. The Royal Commissioners reported, so far back as the month of July in 1863, that the practice and procedure of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, as then existing, required great amendment, and the Commissioners suggested what the Amendment ought to be. Such a matter, affecting the administration of the law, was of the highest importance, as everybody was interested in having the rights of parties quickly and finally adjudicated upon with the smallest, possible expense. The practice of the Irish Court of Chancery was, however, vicious in the extreme in both of these respects. The delays and expense were enormous, and the ultimate decisions in Appeals from the Masters' offices were excessively slow, not through the fault of the Judges, but because the system was so embarrassed and complicated. The existing practice of the Court of Chancery in Ireland was most cumbrous, and demanded instant remedy. The formalities that had to be gone through were very numerous and perplexing, and cost a great deal of time and money to litigants. The Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the matter reported that the practice of the Irish Chancery Court should be assimilated to that of England, with certain modifications applicable to the law of Ireland. Pounded upon the recommendations of that Report, the Government then in office, in the year 1864, prepared and introduced a Bill to give effect to them, which were in consonance with the opinions of the ablest lawyers upon the subject. The Bill, however, was met with the most decided opposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who now occupied the distinguished position of Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland (Mr. Whiteside), of another hon. and learned Gentleman now a puisne Judge (Mr. George), and of some few others who then sat upon the opposition Benches. The obstruction thus caused was the means of defeating the measure. The Bill was again introduced in the Session of 1865, the same course was adopted by its opponents, and it was again thrown out, although it sought to remedy a crying evil. In the year 1866 he himself assisted to introduce the Bill once more; but the promoters encountered the very same opposition as on the two former occasions, though it was supported by Lord Cairns and some of the Members of the present Government, and owing to various circumstances the attempt was again unsuccessful. There was great reason to complain of the conduct on this question of the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen of whom he had first made mention. He could not say that he regretted their absence from the House, inasmuch as they were now enjoying high judicial offices in Ireland. The present Government did right to introduce another measure upon this subject. The Bill now before the House was substantially the same Bill as was formerly brought forward. It was a measure that was greatly needed, and he should support it through all its stages. Great good would result from it, and his only regret was that it had not been passed into law three years and a half ago, when the proposal was first made.

said, he thought the measure was eminently desirable, considering the inconvenience and expense occasioned by the existing system. He was of opinion that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had overstated the opposition which the Bill had received from those who sat on the same side of the House as the present Lord Chief Justice Whiteside, when he opposed the measure. It should not be inferred that all who sat on the same side of the House on that occasion countenanced the opposition given to the Bill. The Members of the present Government did not countenance the opposition offered to former Bills, and for many years he had taken every opportunity in that House of calling attention to the great delay and expense involved by the practice in the Irish Court of Chancery. The former Bills had received the support of the present Lord Cairns. He thought that instead of raking up old stories, it would be better to apply themselves to the passing the Bill, which it was acknowledged was much needed.

I wish to make only one or two observations. This Bill effects a great improvement in the existing state of things, and the chief thing to be regretted is that it does not go further. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) has reserved to himself the decision of a point which he was urged by several deputations to decide by the Bill itself—namely, the extent and boundaries of the districts, each of which is to have an asylum, to itself. I wish to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of making these districts large; as large as the present or future Parliamentary districts. Less than this will not answer the purpose; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us this evening-some idea of what are his purposes on this subject. Another point of more importance is, that there should be created, to stand between the Poor Law Board and the local Boards, an intermediate representative body, which might be intrusted with the administration of the law concerning the metropolis as a whole, and which, although elected, might have the exercise delegated to it of some of the functions now reserved to the Poor Law Board. I much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken powers to establish such an authority, for we know that he is himself favourable for it. The value of large bodies representing large constituencies, as compared with small bodies representing small districts, is indisputable. I will at present confine myself to suggesting one or two practical cases in which it will be found of importance. Take the case of an epidemic likely to affect the whole metropolis, but for the present confined to a single district. In that case the resources of the entire metropolis could, through the administration of the general Board, be applied to the district in which they were wanted. Something like this was done lately in apprehension of a visit of the cholera, by the establishment of a central committee sitting at the Mansion House. That committee centralized the charity of the whole of London. Again, there is the case of destitution confined to certain districts. In these cases the buildings and beds in some parts of the metropolis are empty, while in the districts suffering the distress they are crowded. The value of a central or intermediate Board between the Poor Law Board and the local bodies, to superintend the application of the resources of the whole metropolis to the immediate exigencies of the distressed districts, is in such cases obvious. This function might well be discharged by a Central Board composed partly of the ratepayers' nominees, and partly of persons selected by the Commissioners. Another most important consideration is that referring to the providing of food, medicine, and other necessaries for the hospitals. In many cases, also, relief is most advantageously given in kind, which makes it very important that provision should be made for obtaining the best articles possible. To make contracts for the supply of these things is an operation for which no local or small body can be by many degrees so fit as is a central body either in point of efficiency or economy. Jobbing, which is inseparable from hole-and-corner proceedings, need not be apprehended in the case of a body representing the whole metropolis, making purchases on a large scale, and entering into large contracts competed for by opulent firms, for these transactions, being of a public nature, would be carried on under the eyes of the world, and subject to public criticism. No one can dispute, and the right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware, that efficiency and economy in contracts are better secured when the body which makes them must do so with publicity—when it stands conspicuous in the public eye. To any one disposed to object to the suggestion for creating an intermediate or central elected Board, like the one I am speaking of, that it is a step on the road to centralization, I would say that if the establishment of such an intermediate body be denied, the denial of it would be a fur greater step towards centralization. The powers which such a body is best qualified to exercise have become indispensable. They will therefore be necessarily assumed by a purely Government Board, without any elected body at all—by the Poor Law Board. These are the suggestions I offer to the right hon. Gentleman, and the reasons by which I support them.

said, he thought it must be evident to all that a Central Board—consisting partly of elected members, partly of representatives of the Government—was necessary, in order to obtain uniformity of system throughout the metropolis. It was the interest of the whole of the metropolis to cure the sick as rapidly as possible, and a Central Board could send the necessaries for the purpose to where they were immediately required, instead of allowing them to be idle elsewhere, and it would be most useful in taking the contracts. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carefully consider the matter.

said, he hoped that a clause would be introduced to the effect that every person, such as medical officers and others, claiming compensation under the Bill, should take any office under the Government for which his previous occupation rendered him eligible, and that in the event of a refusal he should not be entitled to compensation. The Act might involve great cost for compensation. A similar clause had been inserted in the Probate Act. He had always advocated the appointment of a Central Board, and he was glad to find that in this respect the views of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had considerably approximated to his own. He thought it was the general opinion that there ought to be a distinct Board to manage the asylums for sick and fever patients. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: Hear, hear!] Now, if one Central Board were constituted, we should have a foundation which could be built upon from time to time hereafter. He thought the concession which had been made, coupled with the provision since introduced into the Bill, that the Central Board might appoint committees to superintend matters of detail in different districts, would, to a great extent, meet the views enunciated by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill.) He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be encouraged by the support he had received to enlarge the powers of the Central Board, and extend them to other provisions which might very well be the subject of the general administration.

said, that twelve months ago the House was legislating in a panic on the subject of the cattle plague, and he thought the House had passed the present Bill with a certain amount of excitement and enthusiasm, which no doubt was due to the popularity of the right hon. Gen- tleman the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Gathorne Hardy.) If the right hon. Gentleman could take a lease of the office for a number of years, or for life, he, for one, should not object to the powers conferred by the Bill. But when it was considered what in a few months the Poor Law Board was likely to become, he thought it would be seen that, in all probability, the House had conferred upon it too much absolute authority. It ought not to be forgotten that the Poor Law Board had in its past career interposed the obstructions of routine, and in dealing with the poor had passed by the mountains whilst they had stumbled against the molehills. At all events, he hoped that the power delegated to the Poor Law Board of nominating one-third of the guardians would not be extended to other districts.

said, he was in favour of local self-government. The House ought not to distrust the local authorities, who, after all, were our own flesh and blood. The Bill unfairly reflected upon them.

There is nothing, Sir, in this Bill to abolish local self-government. Indeed, under its provisions local government will have the fullest scope for its exertions. With regard to what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), I must confess that I am deeply indebted to him for the support which he has given to this measure. As to compensation, however, there is a difference between the case to which he has adverted and that which will arise under this Bill. In this case there has been no patronage conferred on the Poor Law Board, with the exception of the single office of Receiver. The patronage, whatever it is, remains with the local governors of the metropolis. All the Poor Law Board will have to do is to see that persons do not claim unnecessary or unreasonable compensation. The whole system of compensation was placed on the footing of the Bill purposely, because new arrangements will have to be made, and any officer having a certain district which is altered in any respect may refuse to continue in it, and he must, of course, take his chance with the rest, the Board, as an impartial body, looking to every case on its merits, and taking care that no injustice is done to him. With respect to the Central Board, adverted to by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), it seems to me that in the course of the next year or year and a half that must elapse, before any of these buildings can he completed or brought into operation, we shall see the working of the Act, and whether those whoso work it is do their duty, and carry out the intentions of the House. If in the course of that time it should appear that new powers are wanted, even in the next Session of Parliament, there will be abundance of time to get those additional powers, if they be needed. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Read) was good enough to say that the Bill had been passed owing to popularity on my part. I should be sorry to think that it was. I believe that the Bill owes its popularity to the fact of the great grievances which were Buffered by the poor, the great injustice which was done to the ratepayers in expending money in other objects than those intended, and the injustice which was done to the public, which was obliged to look on powerlessly and hopelessly while such evils existed. This is an attempt on my part to make a beginning to redress those evils. I am far from thinking that the measure is perfect in itself. It is a sketch which may hereafter be filled up. Whoever may succeed me, or however long I may remain in my present office, it is clear that the House has taken up the subject with reality and earnestness, and will not admit of any weak or faltering policy. For myself, I should not hesitate, on whatever side I may sit, to appeal to the House—by the whole body of which I gratefully feel that I have been supported on this occasion in carrying the Bill—to grant any new powers that may be required, in order that the sick and imbecile poor may have justice done to them, and that the money of the ratepayers may be duty expended.

said, he considered this the most important measure respecting the management of the poor which had been passed since the new Poor Law. It had several great principles—to insure a better system of relief to the sick and aged poor, to make better provision in schools for the children of the poor; and, at the same time, to spread the expenses of that relief more equally on a different basis and over a larger area of the metropolis. He hoped this latter principle would be carried still further. The Union Assessment Act was a step in the right direction, this Bill was another step, but it must be carried out still further, so that the whole metropolis might be placed on one uniform and equal basis. He hoped this measure would not long be confined to the metropolis; it would have to be carried out in the different counties. Although there had been negligence in some parts, yet, taking the metropolis as a whole, the poor had been properly cared for, and the large body of guardians had done their duty without fee or reward. But with respect to the Poor Law Board, looking to its defective constitution, and the manner in which it had conducted the Department, it was well known that it was solely owing to the philanthropic exertions of a few public-spirited men—the most distinguished of whom was the late Mr. Walter—that, after a long course of agitation, the had succeeded in modifying the harsher features of the new Poor Law. Those who had the management of the Board had no right to take to themselves the credit of looking after the interests of the poor, while the guardians denied the poor their rights. Since its first formation down to the present time the Board had been restricting the guardians, remonstrating with them for spending so much money, and never urging them to spend more to I provide better for the wants of the poor. It was only in later times that agitation from without had acted on the Poor Law Board, inducing them to take a more humane view of affairs. He denied that the Board had always been the protectors of the poor. He looked forward to the time when one-half the charge for the maintenance of the poor would be put on the Consolidated Fund. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) for this Bill, which would be useful to the metropolis as a whole, and which he hoped was the first step towards spreading the taxation for the poor over the whole country. He believed that the present Bill would effect much good; but he looked forward to the time when the money required for the relief of the poor would be raised not merely on house property and land, but from all who had the means to I contribute, whether they possessed this description of property or not.

I rise, Sir, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to Bankruptcy in England. The laws relating to debtor and creditor are so important and so varied in character, and their details are so numerous, that to go into a full examination of the subject would require a very lengthened statement. But I am satisfied that the full discussion which this subject has received within the last few years, the evidence taken before the Select Committee of 1864, the Report of that Committee in 1865, and the Bill brought in by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) last year, have all made the House so familiar with the question that on the present occasion, and until the Bill is in the hands of Members, I may compress what I have to say into a narrow compass. Indeed, I think I might have followed the example of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, and laid the Bill on the table, deferring any statement till the second reading; but as the public mind has been so much directed to this matter, it may, perhaps, be as well that I should at once state the leading provisions of the measure. The principle of the bankrupt code is very simple. It is the just distribution of the assets of the insolvent debtor among his creditors. Whatever tends directly to that end ought to form part of the code; but whatever tends only indirectly to it should not form part of the code. There are many parts of the law of debtor and creditor which tend only indirectly to that end. Therefore, though I intend to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to abolish imprisonment for debt, I do not propose that such a provision should form part of the measure which I am now about to bring under the notice of the House. It is unnecessary to go back through three centuries of early legislation on the subject of bankruptcy. It may be sufficient to say, with reference to that legislation, that sometimes it was harsh and unjust to the debtor, and that sometimes it was unjust to the creditor; but after various fluctuations a more fixed character was given to it some thirty years ago. Before Lord Brougham's Act of 1831, in every fresh case of bankruptcy a new tribunal had to be constituted to administer the affairs of the bankrupt. The property was collected and distributed by the creditor's assignee, under the supervision of the Court of Bankruptcy, and the bankrupt's discharge was obtained upon the certificate of the Commissioners of Bankruptcy, on the consent in writing of a certain number of creditors being obtained. Of course, there were other provisions with reference to Acts of bankruptcy with which the House is familiar, and upon which I do not propose to dwell. The complaints that were made of this state of the law were of the following description. It was said that the constitution by commission under the Great Seal of a new tri- bunal every time a person became bankrupt was very clumsy and expensive, and I do not see how it was possible it could be otherwise; that the administration of the estate by assignees chosen by the creditors was found not to work well; that the estate was too much under the supervision of the court; that the assignees were not paid for the work they performed; that the only way to obtain payment for such work was to appoint a paid accountant; that when the estate got into the bands of professional men it was badly managed, and was eaten up by costs. Then, with regard to the certificate of discharge, it was alleged that it was most unfair to the bankrupt, inasmuch as he had to follow his creditors about in order to obtain their signatures, and that it was liable to abuse, and led to buying the consent of the creditors. In 1831 Lord Brougham introduced a measure, the material points of which were that it constituted a now tribunal, consisting of four Judges, six London Commissioners, assisted by registrars and official assignees in London, who were to collect and distribute the assets, the duties of the creditors' assignees, who were retained, being merely nominal. This Act established no local courts, although under it fiats were to issue to country Commissioners. The system introduced by that Act was as loudly complained of as the one it had superseded. There was an over-supply of official force in London, and there was no sufficient supply of official force in the country. Between the years 1831 and 1849 no less than three Acts were passed, with the provisions of which I will not trouble the House further than to state that they abolished the Court of Review and the functions of the four Judges created in 1831, the duties being performed by the Commissioners; that they appointed district Commissioners with district jurisdiction—the appeal from both the London and the district Commissioners being to a Vice Chancellor sitting in the Court of Chancery; and that they appointed official assignees for the country as well as for London. During the interval an attempt was also made to alter the mode of effecting the bankrupt's discharge. Up to that time his discharge had been effected by consent of creditors in writing, and the modification introduced was that the certificate was to be obtained at a public meeting of the creditors, when they had an opportunity of giving their consent verbally, or of making objections to the granting of the certificates, which were weighed by the Commissioners, who granted or withheld the certificate according to the conduct of the bankrupt. Power was also given to the debtor to institute proceedings in bankruptcy against himself. What I have stated will show that there have been considerable fluctuations of opinion during the last thirty years upon the points under consideration. Up to the time I have mentioned no satisfactory provisions were in existence under which the creditors could arrange with their debtors, so that the majority could bind the minority. Since that period this question has been looked upon as a matter of great importance. The point was originally mooted by the merchants and bankers of London in 1848 presenting a memorial to the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General, asking for some provision to be introduced into the law which would enable the majority of the creditors to bind the minority in any arrangement which they might come to among themselves. The memorial proposed that the requisite majority should be cither six-sevenths of both value and number, or nine-tenths of either number or value. I wish particularly to call the attention of the House to the number of the majority suggested in that memorial, because ever since that period there has been a continual tendency to reduce the proportion of the majority. Following upon that memorial came the Consolidation Act of 1849, which introduced, I think, for the first time carefully considered provisions for enabling creditors to arrange with their debtors and for enabling the majority of creditors to bind the minority. The arrangement clauses were of three sorts—the first enabling an arrangement to be come to before bankruptcy, but under the control of the Court, a proportion of three-fifths being sufficient to bind the minority; the second enabling the creditors of an estate in bankruptcy to take it out of the Court of Bankruptcy by a resolution of nine-tenths of the creditors; and the third enabled the matter to be settled by deed apart from the Court if six-sevenths in number and value of the creditors could agree to such an alternative. The Act reduced the number of Commissioners from six to four. Some special provisions were introduced of a very stringent character to meet offences against the bankrupt laws, and for different kinds of offences imprisonment for life, or for periods of seven years, three years, or one year, was enacted. The discharge was also made more difficult, and certain specific offences, such as gambling and keeping false books, were heavily visited. Then there was a Royal Commission issued shortly afterwards, over which my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole) presided, containing gentlemen of great eminence in the legal profession and in the mercantile world, and they turned their attention especially to the arrangement clauses, and made their Report in 1854. They pointed out that the business of the Bankruptcy Court had fallen off; they referred to the complaints made of the facilities with which traders were enabled to deceive their creditors; and with respect to arrangements by deed, they showed that, as the law then stood, great facilities were given to the debtor to get up fictitious debts in order to secure an apparent majority of consenting creditors. The Commissioners also pointed out that the stringent character of the penal clauses of the Act of 1849 was very objectionable. So much, then, for what took place in 1854. It would be unpardonable in me if I passed over the attempt at legislation upon this subject made by Lord Derby's Administration in 1859. A Bill was then brought in by the present Lord Chancellor founded, to a great extent, on the Report of the Commissioners of 1854. The Bill was read a second time, and the provisions of that Bill formed the basis of most of the legislation that has since been proposed on this subject. If that Bill had been followed more closely, I should probably not have been troubling the House to-night. That Bill proposed the abolition of imprisonment for debt; it provided a complete scheme of arrangement between debtors and creditors, and power was given to the creditors to dispense with official assignees, and to take the estate into their own hands. That Bill, however, did not come down to this House. Then I come to the measure introduced by Lord Westbury in 1861. It is right to state that that Bill did not pass entirely as it was brought in by Lord Westbury; he did not carry all the provisions he desired, and therefore he is not to be regarded as responsible for every part of that measure. The first part of the measure related to the abolition of the Insolvent Court, and provided for the abolition of the difference between the trader and the non-trader, thus enabling the non-trader to take advantage of the bankrupt laws. Then, jurisdiction was given to the County Courts, in practice found to be a most important improvement; and the provisions for arrangements between debtor and creditor were advantageously modified. There were three classes of provisions—the first enabled the creditors to take the estate out of bankruptcy; the second constituted a change of the whole affair from bankruptcy to an arrangement with the creditor; and the third enabled an arrangement by deed to be come to without bankruptcy, and provision was made by which a proportion of creditors, representing three-fourths in value, were able to bind absolutely the whole of the creditors. The Act, however, has been found to work disadvantageous to dissenting creditors, the powers conferred on whom are insufficient. The difficulties have been these:—There was no sufficient opportunity for dissenting creditors to challenge the deed; secured creditors, notwithstanding their security, ranked equally with the rest in their claims on other portions of the property; and thirdly, there were no moans of making the deed binding and conclusive in the Court of Bankruptcy, so as to prevent future litigation as to the validity of the deed. These three defects deprived the arrangements contemplated and sanctioned by that Act of much of their practical value. Discretionary power is also, by the Act of 1861, given under certain circumstances to suspend the certificate for a time, and power is given to subject the bankrupt to imprisonment. Power is also given to make orders touching the application of the bankrupt's future property for the purpose of payment of his debts. It is necessary also to refer to the state of things which existed previous to 1861 as to the future property of insolvents. Up to that time the Insolvent Court had dealt with non-traders; and on the surrender of all his property the insolvent was discharged from his debts, subject to this, that machinery was introduced which gave power to get at his future property. In practice what was done was this—that one-third of the property acquired by the insolvent either by gift, inheritance, or devolution, exclusive of his actual earnings, was as a general rule appropriated by the Commissioners for the payment of his past debts. I think that that provision was a very beneficial one. The Act of 1861 has now been tried for several years, and an opinion can be usefully pronounced upon it. The main objection made to it has been that it allowed too great an interference on the part of the court, and thereby prevented the creditors from managing the estate themselves, which it was said they would do with greater economy. It was accordingly recommended by a Committee over which the hon. Member for Southampton presided, and which carefully investigated the subject, that the creditors should be allowed to appoint a trustee of their own choice—that the particular estate in question should be handed over to them—that inspectors should be appointed from their own body, and it was considered by the Committee that under such arrangements the estate would be well and cheaply administered. I propose in this Bill unreservedly to adopt that part of the recommendations of the Committee in the fullest and amplest manner. There is an objection raised to this arrangement, founded upon the assertion that the creditors are often so supine that they cannot be got to attend to their own interests or to appoint a trustee. But that is no answer to such a proposition in cases where creditors are willing to appoint their own trustees. At the same time, no doubt in many cases creditors may be found too supine to act for their own interests, and in such cases it would be wrong to leave the estates of bankrupts, as it were derelict because the creditors will not appoint trustees. In respect to the number of cases in which the creditors have not appointed assignees, speaking of London alone, the total number of London adjudications in 1866 was 2,955, of which 1,673 were cases in which the creditors did not choose assignees. Those estates were, no doubt, very small, generally speaking, a large number of them being only from £200 to £300. Nevertheless, some provision ought to be made for such cases. I think, also, that in only about 56 per cent of the country cases have the creditors appointed assignees. I do not propose to create any new office for this purpose, or indeed to create a new office of any kind under the Bill. There will be a necessity for one or perhaps two provisional trustees, in regard to cases in which the creditors will not take the trouble to act for themselves, in whom, also, the property of all insolvents will be vested between the time of adjudication of bankruptcy and the appointment of a trustee. The registrars of the County Courts will perform the func- tions of the provisional trustees in their several districts, and one will probably suffice in the metropolis for all purposes of a provisional character. By a separate Bill I propose to abolish imprisonment for debt, except in cases of gross fraud and outrage. I propose as a consequence of this to extend the operation of the Small Debts Act from £20 to £50. I apprehend that the abolition of imprisonment for debt will greatly reduce the number of bankruptcies, inasmuch as there are at present a large number of cases in which there are no estates where men become bankrupts merely to escape imprisonment or to get out of prison. By placing the estate in the hands of trustees to be chosen by the creditors, the business of the Bankruptcy Court will be considerably diminished. The debts will be proved before the trustees, who will arrange the dividend: in cases of disputed debt only a question I would arise for the interposition of the I Judge or Commissioner. Indeed, the business of the Court will be reduced to these main points—namely, that of adjudication, or of determining whether the insolvent has brought himself within the operation of the bankrupt law; the examination of the bankrupt; the admission to proof of disputed debts; the question of the bankrupt's discharge, and the determination of questions arising under arrangement deeds. There must be opportunity given to creditors to challenge those deeds if they should I be so disposed, and therefore the matter must be examined before a competent tribunal. That being the amount and character of the business to be done, the next question is, what is the best tribunal for the settlement of these questions? It docs appear to me that the business to be disposed of will require to be done in local courts spread throughout the country. It appears to me that the business of this kind—subject, of course, to appeal—may; be well done by the County Courts in London and the country. It may be quite right also to have Commissioners or Judges in London. I see, however, no reason why the County Courts in the metropolis may not have jurisdiction; and I think it desirable that one or more Commissioners in London should have jurisdiction over the whole of England. Their functions will be the same as the Judges of the county courts in bankruptcy. The system will then be as analogous as possible to that of Scotland, where sequestration can be taken out in the Sheriff's Courts all over the country, limited to their respective jurisdictions, and also in the Court of Session for the whole of Scotland. It is desirable that there should be one settled and complete system of local courts. I believe the County Courts are sufficient for all local purposes. There will be no new appointment of district Commissioners. There should not be district courts especially for settling questions between debtor and creditor, district courts for bankruptcy, and district courts for the Admiralty, but there should be one good set of local courts, and if the County Courts are not sufficient for the purpose, they should be made so. I do not propose, therefore, any new appointment of district Commissioners, although it will be convenient to continue existing Commissioners. The whole business of the Bankruptcy Courts will under this Bill be done by local courts, and the Judges in London will act in bankruptcy in the same way as County Court Judges, but their jurisdiction will extend over the whole of England. This departs to some extent from the system proposed by the Committee of 1865, which recommended—

"That there should be established a Court of Bankruptcy in the metropolis, and the Judges of the Superior Courts of Equity and Common Law should sit as Judges in that court. That there should be an appeal to the Court of Bankruptcy from all orders of a County Court, or of a single Judge in the metropolis, relating to matters above the value of £20, and from all other orders when the court or Judge shall allow a special case for appeal."

I am at a loss to conceive how that could be carried into effect. A court composed of Judges of law and equity to sit in bankruptcy would disturb the business of all the courts in the kingdom, and there would be great difficulty in getting the Judges together for this purpose. I am at a loss, also, to conceive what we want with a Court of Bankruptcy in London thus constituted, or, indeed, any court apart from the London Commissioners or Judges, with an appeal to a competent court. The Commissioners or Judges in London would have the whole jurisdiction in bankruptcy, extending over the whole of England, in which they would find important, and I believe ample judicial labour, and which they would ably discharge. I believe, as it now stands, you have the most satisfactory appellate court that could be made, the appeal to the Court of Chancery, I admit that that court is overworked; but I am not proposing to throw additional work upon that court. The appeals in bankruptcy now occupy, it may be, one day a week, and the House would surely not constitute a new court to do business that would only occupy one day a week, and I think that we should leave the Court of Appeal as it now stands. Of course, there is a great change going on in reference to winding-up public companies, and this creates business so vast, that if it continues it may be necessary to constitute some new tribunal. But at present, in considering the nature and character of the business to be transacted, I think that a great portion of business will be taken off the hands of the Court of Bankruptcy by the whole estate being put into the hands of the creditors. Another great part of the business is to be transacted by the registrars, and what remains afterwards will be most satisfactorily discharged by the County Court Judges with Commissioners or Judges in London, who will, however, have a jurisdiction over the whole of England. There is another point of considerable importance. In one of the recent Acts, power is given to the debtor to make himself bankrupt at his own option. At first it was done without any condition, afterwards upon the condition that the bankrupt should show 5s. in the pound. Last year it was proposed to take away the power of voluntary bankruptcy altogether. No doubt the voluntary power was open to abuse, but it was extremely useful in some cases. It will sometimes happen to the honest debtor that to distribute his property fairly he should have the power to prevent any one creditor from having execution against the whole of his property, and I think that this may be done in some such mode as this. Let the debtor petition the Court of Bankruptcy, and upon his petition let his property be protected from execution, and then let the creditors be called together and determine whether he shall be allowed to make himself a bankrupt or not. Then as to those arrangement clauses, which now enable the creditors to take the estate out of bankruptcy, leaving the debtor subject to the bankruptcy law, and the other clauses which take the whole affair out of bankruptcy. These work very well, and I do not propose to alter them. As to the arrangement clauses for preventing the affair going into bankruptcy at all, I have given great attention to this part of the subject, and I hope that part of the law may be considerably improved, If you take the estate out of the debtor and vest it in a provisional trustee, the moment he proposes to arrange with his creditors, he will not come to any such arrangement. His object is to continue his business, and if you take his estate out of him, and also say that no one shall be deemed a creditor until he proves his debt before the court, it would interpose such difficulty that there would be no arrangements at all. On the other hand, there is difficulty in allowing the debtor to make out his own list of creditors, for by so doing he is enabled to commit gross frauds on his bonâ fide creditors. Of course the object is to find some middle course, and what I propose is to this effect: that the debtor shall file a deed within a given number of days, after its execution, six or seven days, in the court having jurisdiction over him in the matter of bankruptcy, and that at the same time that he should file with that deed a list of his debts, and an account of his property, and that the fact of filing shall forthwith be gazetted. The deed is to be deemed completely executed when it is assented to by a majority in number and three-fourths in value of the creditors. Of course, it will be for the House to consider whether this shall be the proportion; but if provision is offered for the creditors satisfying themselves as to the fairness of the arrangement, I think that three-fourths in value will be sufficient. Creditors who are secured must deduct their securities from their debts before they are comprised in the list of consenting creditors. Such a deed when executed can now be challenged in any court in the kingdom; but I propose to remedy that by providing that the Court of Bankruptcy shall within three months declare whether it is or is not completely executed, and whether it is or is not a valid deed. There will be every opportunity of challenging the deed if there be anything wrong in it within the period of three mouths; but it must be challenged in the court where it is filed, and the numerous actions arising in the other courts upon such deeds will thus be put an end to. This, I think, will remove all the objections that now exist to these arrangements by deed; and, if so, I think that we shall have gone a long way in accomplishing an object admitted on all hands to be desirable. Then, as to the discharge of the bankrupt. Hero I admit that there is very great difficulty. The old system looks, at first sight, very plausible; that the bankrupt should be discharged if the Commissioner sees no reason to say that he had not conformed to the law, provided that his creditors assented. But it is impossible to go back to that; it has been, as I have said, found very vague and unsatisfactory, and it is equally difficult to define the particular offences for which certificates should be refused. It is, no doubt, quite right to say that if a bankrupt has got into debt fraudulently he should not have his certificate; but beyond that I find it very difficult to say upon what special grounds the certificate should be refused. The Committee of 1865 recommended that wherever a bankrupt had made a full disclosure and surrender of all his property, and paid 6s. 8d. in the pound to his creditors, he should be free from all claims capable of proof in bankruptcy; and in all other cases where there was a full disclosure and surrender he should be free from all such claims after the expiration of six years from the adjudication. I have had very many objections made to me as to this proposed mode of granting these discharges. A man, it is said, is getting into difficulties, he finds he can pay 4s. or 5s. in the pound, he has credit, and he sees that if he can get some £300 or £400 worth of goods more, or, if he be in a larger way of business, some £3,000 or £4,000 worth, he will be able to pay 6s. 8d. in the pound. Now, gentlemen of experience assure me that a man in this position will very commonly resort to the practice of contracting further debts of this kind. And now the question is what are we to do? If he does not pay 6s. 8d. in the pound he has to wait six years. I know of no way of safely making the payment of 6s. 8d. in the pound a condition of obtaining the certificate, unless to say that in no case shall he have his certificate for less than twelve months, and not then unless he pays 6s. 8d. But this would not be satisfactory, nor is it satisfactory, to say that, as a matter of course, merely because he conforms to the bankruptcy law, he shall be entitled at once to his discharge. I think there is no alternative but to resort to the principle of the Insolvent Debtors' Act—that is, to make his future property liable at the discretion of the Court to his past debts, and let him have his discharge at once. I would not leave the discharge to the discretion of the Judge, except in cases of direct violation of the Bankruptcy Act; in all other cases I would say, "Unless you pay 10s. in the pound your future property shall be liable, subject to the payment, in the first place, of your future debts, until you make up a dividend of 10s. in the pound," or such other sum as may be thought proper. If the matter were I new, if we had not proceeded on a contrary principle of legislation for three or four centuries, I think we might have gone farther than that. The basis of all legislation on the subject of debtor and creditor should be to insure the performance of the contract. In all such legislation the remedy should be cognate with the contract, but it is not so if you propose to imprison the debtor. He has contracted to pay money for money's worth; to imprison him does not necessarily tend to the performance of that contract; to provide that if at any time he has the means of paying he shall pay, does tend directly to insure its performance; and if I do not propose to make him do so to the full, it is because we have legislated on a contrary principle for so long a time. These are the principal outlines of the Bill. The subject is a very large one, and grows under one's hand, the details are so numerous. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), whose absence to-night I very much regret, has placed at my disposal all the communications he has received and all his papers upon the subject, and, of course, I have derived great assistance from them. At the same time, there are one or two points on which I have not followed his Bill, especially with regard to the discharge of the bankrupt. I have also had the example of what is done in Scotland. I have had every facility that any one could have in framing my Bill, and it is my fault if it be not a good one. Of course, there are a great many difficulties in the subject—in point of detail, it is extremely hard to realize everything that is desirable; but when hon. Members have the Bill in their hands, as I hope they will in a very short time, I trust it will be found a satisfactory basis for legislation of a permanent character, and not merely one of a series of attempts at legislation, destined in its turn to be shortly swept away by some new measure. Sir, I beg to move for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, that having been a Member of the Select Committee of 1865, and as representing a commercial community, he wished to say that he had listened to the able statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman with a great deal of pleasure. Without being as yet able to judge of the Bill as a whole, he thought that the commercial world would be satisfied with many of the proposals contained in it. The questions connected with bankruptcy fell under two heads—questions of principle and questions of administration. The former related to all matters connected with the discharge and punishment of the debtor, and to such matters as whether a majority of creditors should bind a minority and so on. The question of administration was a subordinate one, which had reference chiefly to the mode in which the assets should be collected and distributed, and to the best kind of tribunal for that purpose. The hon. and learned Gentleman had truly said that the chief element in a bankruptcy law was a just distribution of the assets; but he thought it would be admitted that at the bottom of the whole system was the question of discharge and the future liability of the property of the bankrupt. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that he had abandoned the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1858; that the discharge of the bankrupt should only be granted after a payment of a dividend of 6s. 8d. in the pound; and that the bankrupt should remain without his discharge for a period of six years, if the dividend did not reach that figure. He was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman had abandoned those suggestions. Great difficulties surrounded them, and he did not think that they had met with the favour of the commercial world. He was aware of the objection alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, of the debtor going on, after he was practically insolvent, in the hope of reaching a 6s. 8d. dividend, but that was not the chief objection to the system. The idea of the Committee was, that unless it was made to be the interest of the debtor to pay a certain dividend he would go on trading to the last, and would by so doing swallow up all his assets. It was that consideration that induced the Committee to recommend that his discharge should have relation to a dividend of 6s. 8d. But very often the value of a trader's assets underwent violent fluctuations, from causes beyond his control, and was lessened thereby much more than it would be by a long course of injudicious trading. A crisis like that of last year might render the assets unequal to the payment of a dividend of 6s. 8d,, and that from no fault of the bankrupt, as the blame might be much less than in cases occurring at ordinary times yielding 15s. That criterion, therefore, could not be considered a safe one, though it was difficult to find a better. With regard to the question of the liability of the future property of the debtor, he agreed with the Attorney General that, on public grounds, it would be unadvisable to impede the future progress of a man who had become bankrupt by making him, at all periods of his life, subject to the claims of his original creditors. At the same time, great scandal was unquestionably occasioned when it happened that a man rose to great wealth, and yet failed to pay his creditors a single halfpenny of what he owed them under a previous bankruptcy. Under the Insolvent Debtors' Act the money that a man, under such circumstances, acquired, by bequest or inheritance, was made liable; that which he earned was exclusively his own—a distinction which seemed to him to be a reasonable and proper one. The plan sketched out by the Attorney General might contain the elements of a successful settlement of this question; but until the Bill was before the House it was impossible to express an definite opinion on the point. It was wise to place a bankrupt not at the discretion of individual creditors, but at that of the court, and to make only a portion of his future property liable for his former debts. He was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman had adopted the plan of placing the administration of the assets of a bankrupt in the hands of the creditors as far as possible; and he was glad also that he proposed to remove the punishment of the debtors, in cases where punishment was due, altogether from the Bankruptcy Law, because at present it frequently happened that the creditors who desired to punish a fraudulent debtor could only do it by wasting a portion of their assets in the prosecution of him. He would also say, in reference to another topic touched upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that there was a strong feeling among the mer- cantile classes in favour of the appointment of a Judge of the same rank and standing as the other Judges of the land, who should make these cases—like Admiralty and Divorce cases were—his exclusive department. He did not consider the Court of Chancery a satisfactory Court of Appeal for cases of mercantile bankruptcy; and he thought that the whole question of the tribunal would have to be carefully considered by the House in Committee on the Bill. With regard to the deeds of inspection and assignment, he could not but express the opinion that the system of winding-up under inspection had been a fertile source of every description of fraud, and that it generally meant only a winding-up under a friendly accountant or a friendly solicitor. It would be better, he thought, so to deal with the Court of Bankruptcy as to attract the estates of bankrupts to that court, rather than to encourage the making of deeds of inspection and assignment. As he had said, the creditors were, in his opinion, much better able to collect the assets than anybody else could be; but it was doubtful whether they were equally capable of distributing them equitably under deeds of inspection and assignment, and it might be well that the court should be held, in some degree, in terrorem over them, to take care that the distribution was just. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not alluded to the question of expense; but if the machinery he proposed could be placed in the hands of the creditors, the great cost which now frightened people from having anything to do with the Court of Bankruptcy would, he hoped, be avoided. It was difficult to advance any opinion upon the Bill before it was in the hands of the House; but he thought that, while it would require important modifications in Committee, it contained many valuable suggestions, and many proposals which would be received with great satisfaction by the commercial world.

said, he considered that the Bill would meet with great approval on the part of all interested in it; but he should have been glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman had acted more boldly on the sound principles contained in the latter part of his speech, and if he would explain more distinctly how he proposed to deal with the 600 gentlemen, or thereabouts, who made themselves bankrupts every year, who paid not a-farthing in the pound, and always obtained their discharge. He should also be glad to be informed what was for the future to constitute an act of bankruptcy—whether it was to be involved in the present difficulties that surrounded it, or to consist of some simple act about which no doubt could exist. There were 8,100 bankrupts last year. Of these 170 had paid 10s. and upwards in the pound; 600 paid nothing at all. As a rule it might be said that when a trader was only able to pay 2s. in the pound he must have known for some time that his affairs had not been in a solvent state. When a man became unfortunate the most advantageous method for himself and his creditors was to settle his affairs by a composition deed, for he could better manage his estate for himself and his creditors than any one could do it for him. Of 1,210 compositions 127 paid more than 10s. That showed that the method of composition was the most satisfactory settlement for the creditor. The bankruptcy laws afforded facilities for every kind of fraud, for if the creditors would not accept a composition the man could at once take the benefit of the Act. He believed the present Bill would to some degree obviate the evils of the present system; but he could not entertain the hope that it would effect any material improvement. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would give the matter further consideration, and that some modifications of its provisions would be introduced in Committee.

said, he thought that two or three Resolutions which he submitted to the Committee upstairs had not received from the Attorney General the justice to which they were entitled. One was a proposition that imprisonment for debt should be abolished, instead of which the Attorney General was going to aggravate imprisonment for debt and make it more unjust to numerically the larger portion of Her Majesty's subjects, who had not the advantage of getting into debt to the extent of £20. At present the humbler classes were brought before local courts, were ordered to pay money, and in default were imprisoned again and again, so that in some cases they were kept in prison for two years, while those who owed debts above £20 were waited upon by an officer of the court and invited to go out of prison. The Attorney General now proposed to enlarge the power of imprisonment for debts to £50. He hoped the House would put the poorer classes of society on the same footing as the richer who incurred debts to a larger amount. The next point in the Resolutions of the Committee was, as to what constituted an act of bankruptcy, and the Committee recommended that it should be so simple that it could not become the subject of litigation. They intended bankruptcy to be a substitution for imprisonment for debt—that it should be a formal sort of proceeding, a mere record of the fact—having the effect of transferring the man's property to his creditors. The principle involved in that Resolution was that the legal settlement was to be formal, and that the substantial element was to be commercial, so that the administration of the bankrupt's estate would be the carrying on or winding-up of the business in the ordinary way. The Committee thought that the creditors were the best persons to look after the property. With regard to the Attorney General's method of dealing with the bankrupt, it was the only one that could be adopted—namely, that all his future acquired property should be made available to discharge the debts contracted under the bankruptcy. When the Act of 1860 was under discussion he himself succeeded in introducing into it a provision making the future acquired property of traders, under certain conditions, liable for their past debts; but he believed that in the Bankruptcy Court that provision had hardly ever been put in force. He was glad that the Attorney General had now adopted that principle; but he would ask him whether there was to be no limit of time fixed as to its operation, or whether it was to apply during the whole of the bankrupt's life? If there were no limit it would not be satisfactory. The Select Committee which sat on that subject having determined that the administration of bankruptcies should be a very simple matter, scarcely ever requiring the intervention of the judicial mind, they suggested that the County Courts should have a bankruptcy jurisdiction, but that there should be one court in London with that jurisdiction, though without a Judge specially appointed for it. In that one court the ordinary business of bankruptcies in the metropolis might be transacted; and the aid of the Judges of the land might easily be called in—as was the case in the Central Criminal Court—whenever any legal difficulty arose, or any matter about which there was contention by counsel. The Resolutions of the Committee were not so chimercial or impracticable as the Attorney General seemed to imagine. With regard to deeds of composition, they were very often a cover for fraud and a contrivance of lawyers and others for plundering the bankrupt's estate and cheating the creditors. If the Bill were properly framed those deeds would be rendered wholly unnecessary. The law ought to be extremely comprehensive, giving the greatest power to the creditors for regulating the mode of dealing with the assets, but not enabling them to discharge the debtor from liability to the creditor without the latter's consent—which he thought monstrous. He was glad that the Attorney General had taken up that subject, and believed that he would receive every assistance from that (the Opposition) side of the House in passing his measure in a satisfactory shape.

said, he wished to express his sincere gratification at the attempt of the learned Attorney General to introduce a sound principle into the bankruptcy law of this country, by making the future acquired property of the bankrupt liable for his previous debts. That House would, he thought, be only performing one of its clearest duties by doing something to correct the lax commercial morality of the present age. He knew of nothing which would be likely to cast a greater gloom over our commercial prestige than if one were to go into our large towns, the centres of our industry, and make out a list of all the men living extravagantly who, having failed, had not had the honour or honesty to pay their past debts. The hon. and learned Gentleman, if he could introduce some amendment of the law calculated to alter that state of things, would in his opinion richly deserve the gratitude of his country.

said, he thought the measure which the Attorney General had submitted to the notice of the House was one which was likely to be productive of great advantage in dealing with a very difficult question. He wished, however, to observe that he had not heard the hon. and learned Gentleman make any allusion in the course of his statement to the taxation of the bills of costs of solicitors and assignees in bankruptcy. Unless that taxation was taken out of the hands of local officers and placed in the hands of officers entirely removed from local influences, the hon. and learned Gentleman's meritorious labours would fail to produce their due effect. He suggested the appointment of an accountant in bankruptcy. It had worked most successfully in the Scotch measure of 1856.

said, he thought that many of the clauses of the Bill would operate very usefully. Much scandal arose from the fact that so many persons became bankrupts and again set up immediately in business—living extravagantly and without the slightest wish apparently to pay their just debts. He knew thousands of instances in which that had been done, and he was of opinion that in all cases in which a man failed to pay what was justly and lawfully due from him, he should have some penalty imposed upon him, such as that he should not be permitted to enter into business afresh to repeat perhaps the same conduct. If that were done we should not have one quarter of the bankrupts we now had. The present position of the bankruptcy laws was a disgrace to the country. What they wanted was an administration of the law which would be easy, cheap, and speedy; and no doubt the Bill would tend to that end.

said, he thought the Attorney General had done rightly in departing from some of the Resolutions of the Committee. He approved of the Bill. Much had been said about the facilities offered for, and the frauds which had been committed under, deeds of composition and deeds of assignment. Those frauds, he believed, had been chiefly occasioned by the departure, in 1862, from the principle enacted in 1859, that all those deeds should come under the supervision of the Court of Bankruptcy, and that the court should determine in every case whether it was a proper case for composition. At present those deeds never went before any court, and there was no tribunal to which a creditor could go to prevent a bankrupt from entering into a composition to defraud creditors of their just rights. He approved of the suggestion for having a special court of jurisdiction in London for bankrupts, and he thought the appeal cases could go very well as they did at present—to the Lords Justices.

said, that the objection to utilizing the local County Courts, which was alleged to exist in London, did not prevail in the provinces, which would be glad to obtain through them a ready and cheap access to justice. Their jurisdiction might be extended, if the Judges were adequately remunerated, and that extension would relieve the Superior Courts of much business. Three months was too long to allow a deed to remain open, and it might be closed in one or two months upon due notice being given. The winding-up of the estates of deceased insolvents had not been mentioned. He hoped it had not been lost sight of.

said, it was of unquestionable importance to encourage commerce, but it was equally important to avoid encouraging rash speculation which proceeded upon the calculation, "If I succeed the profit is mine; if I fail the loss is my creditors." The question of what acts constitute a bankruptcy was not referred to at all in the Report of the Committee; but there were, of course, many tests of bankruptcy, such as a debtor's declaration of insolvency, a trader-debtor summons, and the failure to pay a debt or to give security. He did not admit that the Bill aggravated the law of imprisonment for debt; but he would not release a debtor from attachment made by a court of competent jurisdiction after due consideration of the circumstances of his indebtedness, for there were cases in which it would not be right to abolish imprisonment for debt. The expenses which had been referred to by his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh could only be regulated by taxation; but the services of an accountant might be dispensed with. The estates of deceased insolvents were administered so cheaply, and, indeed, were so wholly a matter of administration in the Chambers of the Vice Chancellor, and so far removed from the jurisdiction of counsel and of courts, that he knew little about them, but he believed that new provisions were scarcely necessary. He would consider the remarks that had been made, and do all he could to give effect to the views of hon. Members.