said, that the Bill had only been delivered to Members on Thursday, and there had consequently not been time to ascertain the feeling of the country either respecting it or the other measure (Imprisonment for Debt Bill) which must be considered with it. He would therefore suggest that, in order to afford the Attorney General every possible facility for carrying the measure forward, the Bills should now be read a second time, but that the discussion should be postponed until the Motion for going into Committee.

I have no objection to such a course being pursued.

said, he did not propose to go into the details of the Bill now. They were better reserved for discussion in Committee, but there were one or two observations which it might not be deemed presumptuous in him to make with regard to the general principles of bankruptcy law. There was no law in the world affecting civilized communities which was much older than the Law of Insolvency; and, therefore, in discussing this question, they had the benefit of a more extended experience than it was possible to obtain on any other subject of commercial law. The principles established were few in number, and of general application. Everyone must admit that the chief object to be secured when a man failed to pay his debts was to obtain as soon as possible an arrangement between him and his creditors. He spoke, of course, of an honest debtor, leaving dishonest debtors to be dealt with by the criminal code. In the case of an honest debtor it was established by what might be called universal legislation that such an arrangement was the first thing to be secured, and that it should be limited simply by the will of the contracting parties. When talking of an arrangement of this nature they must remember that it was impossible on any occasion to get entire agreement between large numbers of persons. Therefore the legislation of almost all countries had given a right to the majority of creditors to bind the remainder. The Roman law had formed the basis of the legislation of almost the whole of the civilized world, and only in a sense was it true that our Common Law was not based on the Roman law, for we had used the Roman law as the Turks used the remains of the splendid temples of antiquity. We had pulled out the stones and used them in constructing buildings which we called our own. On this subject our laws began with the Roman legislation more or less corrupted, and adopted as something entirely new. The main object of bankruptcy legislation in almost every continental nation was to bring the creditors to an arrangement by enabling a majority to decide; the requisite majority being, in most States, a majority in number and three-fourths in value. The smallest majority required was in the State of New York, where two-thirds were required. On this point English legislation had been far from uniform. The old law did not enable creditors to make arrangements, but it empowered them to give a creditor his discharge; and that power was limited to a majority of at least four-fifths in value. This amount of four-fifths was subsequently altered to three-fifths in value, and a provision was adopted giving power to the creditors to stop commenced proceedings in bankruptcy and to turn them into arrangements. That was then thought a terrible innovation, and therefore it was required that the assents should be nine-tenths in value. The amount was afterwards changed to six-sevenths, and again to three-fourths, and he saw no reason for the provision in the present Bill altering the figure to five-sixths. He thought it ought to be the guiding principle of legislation on this subject that the majority of creditors should be perfectly free to make any contract they pleased with the creditor. Such was the law on the Continent, where they might agree either to a composition or to give the creditor time, or do both, granting him a complete or only a limited release from his debts, and leaving the whole or a portion of his after-acquired property liable to pay the rest. When once this principle was adopted, precautions must be taken to secure a genuine majority of creditors, by preventing persons not really creditors from voting in that capacity, and also by preventing real creditors from voting in respect of a larger debt than was due to them. One great reason, he believed, why the Bankruptcy Law of 1861 failed to give satisfaction was that there were in it no adequate means for preventing this. It was another defect in the law that the debtor himself was allowed to make the arrangement. The deed was drawn up by his solicitor and then proposed to the creditors. This was the reverse of the practice in foreign countries, and anyone acquainted with the law of contracts could not be blind to the enormous difference in the results produced by the two systems. It was important that the principle should be adhered to that the creditors should propose the arrangement to the debtor; and to secure the object of excluding all but genuine creditors he would have all persons prove their debts in the same way as in bankruptcy. Such was the practice in France and, so far as he knew, in every other State of the Continent. Having ascertained who the creditors were, the next step would be to ascertain their wishes. At present, a solicitor took up a case for the petitioning creditors; and sent round to the other creditors a letter authorizing him to prove for them, and enclosing a proxy to vote for the choice of assignees. The creditors, to save themselves trouble, signed both, and the result was that the assignee was chosen not by the creditors generally, but by one, or perhaps two, solicitors who had obtained the largest number of nominations. This could not occur if there was a general sitting of creditors to discuss not only who was to be the assignee, but whether there was any possibility of coming to an arrangement with the debtor in order to avoid bankruptcy. Then, another danger to be guarded against was the possibility of any creditors assenting to unfair arrangements as regarded others, by being paid in some way or other to give their assents. This practice had never been made penal in this country, though in every foreign code it was a fraud which was criminally punishable. Not being aware that this country was entitled to consider itself superior in morality to other nations, he did not think that on this point there should be an exemption from the terrors of the eriminal law, which alone were sufficient to prevent fraudulent practices of this nature. Having secured these objects, he would give the creditors the fullest power to make arrangements before bankruptcy proceedings commenced, or at any other time before they were finally closed. Their arrangements should be altogether independent, if they thought fit, of the transfer of property by the debtor, and of his freedom or non-freedom from liability as regarded his future-acquired property. Now, without wishing to speak disrespectfully of the framers of this Bill, he must say, looking at the 75th clause, which was the only clause in the Bill relating to this point, it was extremely imperfect. It seemed to be confined to the disposition of property and to liquidations similar to bankruptcy. It ought to extend to stopping the bankruptcy proceedings at any time the creditors thought fit, a power possessed, with certain limitations, under the present law. Passing from that which was the first principle in bankruptcy—namely, that of arrangement, they came to the case where, for reasons that occurred now and then, it was not possible to make any arrangement with creditors. They had here only two principles to look to—first, to secure that the property of the debtor was fairly divided among his creditors; and, second, to protect the debtor in his endeavours to re-instate himself in the community, and obtain future property with the view of satisfying his creditors. He must respectfully dissent from the proposition now made to relieve the bankrupt's future-acquired property when he paid 10s. in the pound. He thought the future-acquired property of the debtor should be liable until he had fully paid his debts. That appeared to him not only sound morality, but also prudent legislation. He could not conceive any state of society more discreditable or more distressing than that in which they might see a man who had been bankrupt three or four times, a daring and unscrupulous speculator, riding in his carriage, while his unfortunate creditors were ruined. It was sometimes said if a bankrupt were to be always liable for his debts until they were discharged, he would not exert himself—as it was for the interest of society he should—to acquire future property. But, looking to experience, that objection was without foundation. The Roman legislation—the law of cessio bonorum—contained in the Digest, did not allow the debtor to free his future-acquired property from his debts, but simply protected him from being cast into prison. That law had prevailed for thirteen centuries over the whole civilized world; and under that law debtors did exert themselves and acquired property. The decay of the Roman Empire was followed by the rise of the great commercial cities of Italy, and at a later period of the North of Germany and Holland; and in every case they adopted the Roman law. And, as had been shown by Mr. Burge in his third volume on Foreign Law, and by Professor Leone Levi, in his great work on Commercial Law, that principle was carried out by Louis XIV. in France, and by other European States. When a debtor had made cessio bonorum, his creditors could no longer proceed against him for any debt incurred before the bankruptcy; but the curators, or, as they were called here assignees in bankruptcy, were entitled at any future time to bring him before the commercial tribunal, and compel him to give an account of his affairs; and if the state of his affairs warranted it, the tribunal made an order, by which he should pay a portion or the whole of his debts. That law prevailed in every civilized community except our own, and he could not conceive on what principle our law formed an exception. Whenever he found that the English law differed in some point from what he called the universal law of other nations, he was tempted to believe that the difference had arisen from accident; and so he found in the present instance. The first statute of bankruptcy was the 34 & 35 of Henry VIII., c. 4, passed in 1542, which not only contained no discharge of the future-acquired property of the debtor, but the 6th section expressly enacted that if the creditors were not satisfied by the means provided by the Act they should have the same remedy for the recovery of the residue of their debts as before the passing of the Act. The next statute of bankruptcy was the 13 Elizabeth, c. 7. That did not contain any discharge. The 10th section was almost verbatim with the 6th section of the Act of Henry VIII. The statutes of James did not alter the law in this respect; so that from the passing of the Act of Henry VIII. till 1705 there were no means by which a bankrupt could relieve his future-acquired property from the claims of his creditors. Up to that period English law was in exact accordance with that of the rest of the civilized world. The 4 & 5 Anne, c. 17, for the first time, introduced what was called a certificate of conformity, by which a bankrupt conforming to the law was allowed 5 per cent of his property, and was discharged from all further liability for debt theretofore contracted. That met with universal disapproval, and the next year the amendment was introduced that no certificate of conformity should avail a bankrupt, unless it was assented to by four-fifths in value of his creditors, nearly the same proportion as required in other countries. The law was slightly modified by the well-known Act of Geo. II., but remained substantially unaltered, until the 122nd section of the Consolidation Act of 6 Geo. IV. which provided that the certificate should be signed by four-fifths in value of the creditors, unless an interval of six months had elapsed, and then by three-fifths. Up to the time of the passing of the 5 & 6 Vict., c. 112, no man's future-acquired property was freed from liability for his past debts without the consent of his creditors; but it was then suggested that creditors sometimes withheld their consent vexatiously or from some improper motive, and instead of providing for that, as other countries had done, by preventing the creditors taking the law into their own hands and harassing the debtor, the Act of 1842 gave the Judge the power, or rather enforced on the Judge the duty, of discharging a bankrupt's future property from the payment of his debts, if the bankrupt was not fraudulent and had conformed. When the great Consolidation Act of 1849 was passed, an attempt was made to classify certificates, but the classification was abolished by the Act of 1861, and neither of those Acts made any alteration in the power of the Judge to relieve the future-acquired power of the debtor from liability for his debts without the consent of his creditors. Since 1842 it had been possible for a man to speculate at other people's expense. He might speculate rashly four or five times and lose the property of his creditors, but if he happened to succeed the sixth time, and to make £ 500,000, he might laugh at his former creditors, who might be starving. That state of things was, he thought, a disgrace to our system of legislation. They ought not to neglect the experience of the whole world. He believed a man would not work less hard because he knew he was working for an honest purpose, and with a view of paying his creditors who had just demands upon him; and he thought that the only way to make people less reckless in their expenditure and more honest in their dealings was to compel a man to pay his creditors when he was fairly able to do so. He therefore hoped that when the Bill went into Committee the law in this respect would be made consistent with the principle and practice of every civilized nation. Upon another point our law stood alone. It was right to divide the property of the bankrupt among the creditors, but it was not right to divide the property of other people among them. The doctrine of reputed ownership arose from an accident. The original notion was that if a man put property into the hands of another in order that he might represent that property to be his own and obtain credit upon the strength of possessing it, the creditors had the right to take those goods. That was the Roman law, and the law of every civilized country. But how did it happen that this country had allowed the bankrupt's creditors to take other people's goods? Merely from a slip in framing an Act of Parliament. The doctrine of reputed ownership was that whenever any goods were allowed to be left in the possession or disposal of a man with the consent of the true owner, and that possession remain undisturbed until an act of bankruptcy was committed, the assignees were to take the goods and divide them among the creditors; and although the person to whom they belonged left them with the bankrupt, in perfect good faith, and although the creditors did not know at the time of their dealings with the debtor that those goods were in his possession, yet the owner was deprived of them for the benefit of those who had no moral claim nor any legal claim, except under the bankruptcy law. The law was so inconsistent that though that was the practice in bankruptcy, the creditor could not take the goods in execution even though he had lent on the faith of such goods being the property of the debtor. The mistake arose in this way. The statute 21 James I., c. 19, contained this clause—

"And for that it often falls out that many persons, before they have become bankrupt, do convey their goods to other men upon good consideration, yet still do keep the same, or are reputed the owners thereof, or dispose of the same as their own, be it enacted, that if at any time in future a man shall become bankrupt, and shall at such time be the true owner and in possession of any goods or chattels, and shall be the reputed owners of them and take upon themselves to sell them, the Commissioners shall have power to sell the same for the benefit of all the creditors."

The persons who framed that Act intended to prevent fraud arising from the practice of reputed ownership, when persons about to become bankrupt conveyed their goods to others upon good consideration and yet were the reputed owners thereof. For many years this clause was construed, in accordance with its Preamble, to apply only to such cases. In 1708, however, it was expressly decided by the Court of Queen's Bench that according to the interpretation of the clause it was to be thus restricted. That was doubted by Lord Chancellor Cowper; but it continued to be the law, and in 1750 Lord Hardwicke decided that it was the law, and things remained as they were till 1774, when Lord Mansfield, in the Court of Queen's Bench, reversed the law. He had no fault to find with the logic of the Judges, except that it seemed to be logic run mad. They declared that what was supposed to have been the meaning of the section could not be so, because of the prohibition contained in the statute of Elizabeth against fraudulent debtors, of which they could not suppose the framer of the section to have been ignorant. To give effect to this view they were compelled to read the enacting half of the section, without any reference to the Preamble, reversing all that had been done from the time of James. When the Acts came to be consolidated in the time of George IV., the draftsman left out the Preamble, and retained only the enacting part of the section; and so the law remained till the present moment, and that law was proposed to be continued. Let the House bear in mind to what an extent that principle had been carried. A bankrupt might be entitled to a reversionary legacy, which might be called invisible property—nobody knew he had it; and he sold it to a man who paid him the money, but by some slip forgot to give notice of the assignment to the executors. The consequence was, that the legacy might possibly be transferred by the bankrupt to somebody else who might acquire a title by giving the notice; and, therefore, the law deemed the legacy in the reputed ownership of the bankrupt and the unfortunate purchaser lost the reversionary legacy, and it was distributed among the creditors. Let them then take the case of a man who assigned a policy of assurance to the trustees of his marriage settlement. The trustees neglected to give the notice to the assurance office, and the innocent people claiming under the settlement were thus robbed. He did not wish to interfere with the beneficial provisions of the Act of Elizabeth, but when the Bill went into Committee he would ask the House to strike out that clause of it which was a mere repetition of the clause which had stood so long, and had been inserted originally by a mistake; which created an anomaly and every now and then worked great hardship. He would now pass to a matter of much greater importance, involving a state of law which existed in this country alone—he meant the mode of disposing of the property of a man who died insolvent. No one but a lawyer, and one who had devoted considerable study to this subject, could fully understand the complexity and injustice of the law relating to bankruptcy and insolvency. Was it credible that if a man who was insolvent was adjudicated bankrupt, and died the day afterwards, his property would be divided rateably among his creditors, while if he died the day before adjudication his property would be divided among different persons and in totally different proportions? According to the law which prevailed in most Con- tinental countries, the estate of a deceased insolvent would be divided rate-ably among his creditors, without preference or priority; and the majority of his audience, even those who were lawyers, would be willing to admit that such a division was consistent with equity and justice. But in this country, on the death of an insolvent trader or non-trader, all those claimants who had got a seal to their contract, came forward and got 20s. in the pound, while those who held promissory notes, bills of exchange, or book debts very often received nothing at all. As a general rule, trade creditors did not get bonds or mortgages, but merely bills of exchange or promissory notes. On the other hand, members of the family or private friends who lent money, got things signed and sealed; and the consequence was that when an insolvent trader died before he was made a bankrupt, all his friends and relatives, including of course the trustees of his marriage settlement, came in and were paid in full, while the ordinary creditors got little or nothing. The wonderful results produced by affixing a seal he had never been able to make a foreigner understand, though he had seen them exemplified but too clearly in practice. A few years ago an attorney died insolvent, having committed several frauds. He was a trustee of two marriage settlements, and in each case managed to possess himself improperly of £5,000, making £10,000 in all. His assets were about £4,000, and the estate was brought into Chancery, when it turned out that in one case he had executed a deed by affixing his seal to it, while in the other case he had omitted that ceremony. As long as the attorney lived this made no difference, for the stock had been transferred to him in both cases, and he robbed both parties equally. But when he died it made all the difference; and the result was that the claimant who had got the seal got the whole of the £4,000, while the other parties got nothing, and, moreover, had to pay the whole of the costs, including his (Mr. Jessel's) fees. That was a case calculated to make a strong impression, but he had witnessed in his own practice still more remarkable illustrations of the state of the law. An insolvent trader, possessing a great deal of property, but owing debts to a still larger amount, and, therefore, not being worth a fraction, got married. He had nothing to settle, but he covenanted that his executors should pay to the trustees of his marriage settlement the sum of £10,000 for the benefit of his wife and the children of the marriage. Men of that stamp were apt to be liberal in their promises. He was insolvent at the time of the settlement; he lived and he died insolvent; and when they came to administer his property in Chancery it was found that he had died worth a little over £10,000, and that he owed his trade creditors £25,000. The estate was administered according to law. First of all, the costs of the Chancery suit were paid, thereby reducing the fund a little below £10,000, and then the whole of the estate was handed over to the trustees of the marriage settlement, the creditors obtaining nothing beyond the pleasure of paying their own costs. That case afforded probably as good an illustration as could be found of the evils of a state of law which, having existed for centuries, would, he hoped, be abolished on the passing of this Bill. Again, if a man had a mortgage or other charge upon a debtor's property, and the property was insufficient to pay the mortgage or charge, and the debtor became a bankrupt, the value of the mortgage or charge was deducted from the secured debt, and the creditor proved for the difference; but if the debtor died first, the creditor proved for the whole against the personal estate, without making any deduction on account of the mortgage security. He came next to a still more important point in the administration of assets. As long as a trader was alive he must not commit what was called a fraudulent preference. A debtor, knowing that he was about to become bankrupt, must not go voluntarily to any of his creditors and pay him the amount of his debt in full; and if he did these consequences followed,—the bankrupt was punished and the creditor was made to refund. But supposing a man died insolvent before he had been adjudicated a bankrupt, what was the law as regarded his executor? Why, the executor had a full right to prefer one creditor to another amongst creditors of equal degree. He might pay one creditor in full, and leave the rest to go without anything; the executor was not punishable, and the creditor who received the money could not be compelled to refund. He would illustrate the operation of the law by giving two instances that had come within his own knowledge. In the first case a gentleman of high rank, who had a life interest in large property, died, owing large sums to tradespeople and others. His personal property, if equally divided among his creditors, would have paid 4s. or 5s. in the pound. The executor, being a man who had some knowledge of law, came to the conclusion that the tradespeople ought to be paid, and therefore he collected the assets as quickly as he could and paid those persons in full before his (Mr. Jessel's) client could file a bill in Chancery to stop him. The result was that while the tradespeople were paid in full, the other creditors only obtained 9d. in the pound. The second story to which he had alluded was as follows:—Four or five years ago a China firm sent over to this country a young man who had been a clerk, and established him in business, giving him credit to a large amount. The young man's affairs did not prosper; he borrowed large sums from his father-in-law, his wife's brother, cousins, and other relatives and intimate friends. Well, he died one day, when it was found that he was insolvent. His widow proved his will, and being a woman, she put the administration of his affairs in the hands of her father, who adopted this course—In the first place, he paid himself in full; next he paid the brother, then the cousins, then the other relatives, and then the intimate friends. By the time that the principal creditors, who resided in China, could file a bill in Chancery the remaining assets were not sufficient to pay the costs of the suit. These were not isolated cases, they happened under the eyes of Chancery lawyers daily. And why should the executors have this power? Why should they possess a power of dealing with the estate which the persons whom they represented did not possess? The law might be altered easily by enacting that no executor or administrator should be allowed here- after to give any preference to his own or to any other creditor's debt as between the creditors; and, secondly, that there should be no priority between the creditors themselves; and, thirdly, that mortgage creditors should be put on the same footing as other creditors. He had only one further remark to make, which was to thank the House for the patience and kindness with which they had listened to his observations.

said, he was anxious to have the opportunity of making a few remarks upon this Bill, as he had conferred with several Members of his profession upon the subject. He would endeavour, as clearly as he could, to lay before the House the conclusion at which they had arrived with respect to the changes that ought to be made in the existing law, and he trusted that the suggestions he might make would be of use to the hon. and learned Attorney General. In the first place, the gentlemen with whom he had the honour of acting were of opinion that the object of a Bill of this nature should principally be to meet the views and the interests of the mercantile and the trading classes of the country, and that it was the duty of that House to co-operate with those classes in endeavouring to render the Bill efficient for that purpose. What he might call the great principle of the Bill—the administration of the bankrupt's assets by the creditors themselves—had met with general approval; but the establishment of a special bankruptcy tribunal was much deprecated. The first objection to a special tribunal was the natural tendency of such tribunals to take narrow views of the principles of the law; and another objection was that, although the first appointment of a Judge might be a very good one, made with great care and the greatest regard to his qualifications for the office, the same might not be the case with the second or third; and they might have a Judge ill-adapted for the special functions he was to fulfil, while suitors were bound to his court, having no choice of going elsewhere. Again, he would point out that, except for the purpose of appeals from the counties, the jurisdiction of this special tribunal was confined to the London district. As regarded these county appeals he thought it would be more satisfactory if they went to the ordinary courts of law in the usual course, in i the same way as motions for now trials; and it would also be preferable for the metropolitan bankruptcy business to be taken before those tribunals. They were to use the existing tribunals in such places as Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester, and, therefore it appeared to him that they might very well use the existing tribunals in the metropolis also. That was the only objection he had to offer upon this subject, and he did not propose to trouble the House at any length upon the details of the Bill; but there were one or two points to which he thought it right to advert. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would find he had limited the Bill a little too much with respect to his definitions of partnership and of trade; and he did not see why he should have made any difference between traders and non-traders at all. It might lead to difficulties of construction hereafter. It would also have been as well if further facilities had been given for the inception of bankruptcies. He considered it very objectionable that the whole of the proceedings should depend upon personal service. Under the present law great difficulty and expense were often incurred in putting bankruptcies into force. It was now provided that a bankruptcy should not be effected unless the proceedings for making a man bankrupt were brought to his knowledge. He need not say that this was a species of knowledge which many gentlemen were anxious to avoid, and which they had facilities for avoiding. Again, with reference to the administration of assets, he thought it was desirable to give the creditors an opportunity of knowing what was going on; that they should have full access to the accounts, and should have power to bring the assignee or the liquidator before the Judge, and raise any question they judged necessary as to the mode in which the administration of the assets was carried on. He spoke on that point with some experience of proceedings in the Court of Chancery connected with the winding-up of joint-stock companies, which were often of a character discreditable to any civilized country. Under the "Winding-up Act an official liquidator was appointed by the Court, and in those cases in which the services of a man of high standing happened to be secured matters were managed very fairly and honestly; but there were instances in which the appointment was referred to the Judge's clerk; when it was made no adequate control was exercised; the result being that nearly the whole of the assets realized by repeated calls upon the wretched shareholders were expended in meeting the demands of the liquidator and the attorney whom he employed. Unless an individual creditor were af- forded an opportunity of knowing how matters were going on, and bringing them, if necessary, under the notice of an authority competent to deal with them, the provision in the Bill would not completely meet the objection to which he referred. The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel) had touched on the question of securities, and particularly on securities on mortgage. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had carried his doctrine a little too far. He even thought that the provisions of the Bill went too far, in giving power to the administrators to take mortgage securities out of the hands of creditors and realize them, whether they would or not. That was a new doctrine. He had always thought that a mortgage was in strict right and justice the property of the mortgagee, all that remained to the mortgagor or his representative being the equity of redemption; and he thought that a shock would be given to property in general if mortgage securities were to be placed on something like the footing of bills of exchange. He wished also to say a word with regard to composition deeds. The Bill in its present stage placed those deeds very much on the footing of bankruptcy. He was aware that they had been frequently attended with fraud, but it should be borne in mind that this species of fraud had, to a great extent, been put a stop to by the Act of last Session, requiring a declaration from those who were parties as creditors to these deeds. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Dover as to the manner in which these composition deeds originated. They were usually the result of a meeting of creditors who fairly represented the general body, and who agreed upon a composition which it would be fair and right for the debtor to pay; and they entered with their eyes open into the arrangement for the purpose of avoiding the expense and annoyance of proceedings in bankruptcy. He did not deem it expedient, therefore, that these deeds should be dealt with, as the Bill proposed. There were other details which he would not at present enter upon, but he was sure that all would appreciate the motives of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had brought in the Bill, and thank him for having taken upon himself the responsibility of it. He had ventured to make these remarks under the impression that the hon. and learned Gentleman was open to receive any suggestions which had a tendency to increase the efficiency of the Bill, from whatever quarter they might proceed.

said, he concurred with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel) in much that had fallen from him in the course of his able speech, but there were, at the same time, some remarks of his from which he felt bound to express his dissent. He highly approved, in the main, of the Bill, because it struck out in the right direction, and sought to attain what ought to be the first object of a Bankruptcy Law—a fair distribution of the assets of the insolvent debtor among his creditors. One great feature in the Bill was the separation of what he might call the penal branch of the Bankruptcy Law from that which related to the distribution of the property. Under the present laws they had not only provisions for the distribution of the bankrupt's estate, but they had also provisions for punishing fraudulent or improvident bankrupts, and these provisions were so elaborate as to bring almost every conceivable misconduct within the jurisdiction of the Court. Much time was spent and great expense was incurred by examinations for this purpose. The present Bill would be a great improvement on that course, and he congratulated the Attorney General upon his proposal to separate these two branches, and to refer to another Bill—which would be read a second time afterwards—all offences against trade, whilst he confined this Bill to the true and cardinal object of a Bankruptcy Law—a settlement of the affairs of the debtor with his creditors. With regard to what the hon. and learned Member for Dover said respecting the pro-portion of creditors that were to have power to effect a composition, he confessed he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) did not clearly understand his hon. and learned Friend's argument. He would not go into such legal antiquities as the lex Julia or the cessio bonorum; if so he might perhaps, go higher still, for there was once such a thing as a cessio personarum. But the Bill was to be tested not by the wants or necessities or the sentiments of a re-mote age, but by the wants and necessities of the age in which we live; by what was morally right and just, and what was expedient and practicable under the circumstances of the case. The principle of the Bill was correct so far as it sought to secure that the estate of the bankrupt should be dealt with for the benefit of his creditors. With regard to the majority of the creditors that was to bind the minority, that was, to a great extent, a matter of expediency. Up to the time of George IV. the whole question was left in the hands of the creditors themselves. The creditors could do as they pleased, and it often happened that a large creditor would vote himself an assignee, and pay himself out of the funds. The only redress the other creditors had was the slow and expensive one of going before the Court of Chancery. By the statute of William IV. Parliament went to the other extreme. It took the assets out of the hands of the creditors, and placed them under the protection of a court of law and equity—the Court of Bankruptcy with the Court of Review. It was found that that did not work beneficially for the creditors; and then there was a Consolidation Act, in 1849, which abolished the Court of Review, but which did not take away the cumbrous legal process. He therefore congratulated the Attorney General on having taken, what he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) believed to be, the best course in giving the creditors power over a bankrupt estate, tempered by a certain amount of control by a legal and impartial Judge, who would keep matters straight as between the creditors and the debtor, and as between the creditors among themselves. He did not see why a creditor, because he had a large claim should be allowed to fiver-ride a number of smaller creditors, who, though their claims were smaller in themselves, could less afford to lose any portion of their debt; and he therefore approved of the provision of the Bill which, would place the proportion of creditors who were to approve of the settlement as nearly as possible at the whole number. With regard to the question of reputed ownership, the lion, and learned Member for Dover had given examples of cases where great injustice was done. But he would give one case where a person who had become a bankrupt had had a few pictures sent to him by members of his family for his inspection; they were, unfortunately, allowed to remain in his house till the bankruptcy took place; and then, because they were sent back to their owners, the bankrupt's whole family were summoned before the Commissioners and charged with the fraudulent removal of the property. The creditors claimed the pictures and received the proceeds of their sale. He did not say that the clause ought to be struck out of the Bill altogether; but he thought that it might be so modified as to protect the creditors against fraud, while, at the same time, property which had come by accident into the hands of the bankrupt, but which did not belong to him, and by the possession of which he had not obtained credit might be protected against the claims of strangers. With regard to the appointment of a Judge of the court he could not agree with the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and he must ask him to consider if the County Court Judges in the country were able both to distribute the bankrupts' estates and to administer the law in addition to their ordinary duties. Then if they had a separate court in London the business would be either too much for a single Judge or it would not be enough. One Judge could not dispose of the bankruptcy business of the London district and also hear appeals from the country. On the whole, it appeared to him that it would be well if a Commissioner were appointed to administer the law in London, and that the hearing of appeals should be left, as at present, to the decision of the Lords Justices. He did not approve of one of the Judges of a Court of Common Law being appointed to administer all the details of bankruptcy, and to act as a Judge of Appeals as well. If he were to sit to administer the law as a Commissioner, and at the same time to hear appeals from the County Courts, then he wanted to know who was to hear appeals from him. The Judge would, he presumed, have to hear appeals from his own judgments, but on this point the Attorney General would, perhaps, be able to give some explanation. There was, indeed, a clause in the Bill providing for a second appeal to the Lord Chancellor, and in certain cases to the House of Lords; but for his own part, he was strongly opposed to a multiplicity of appeals, especially in bankruptcy, and he thought it would be much better, both in respect of economy and efficiency, if there were but one appeal, and that should be to the present Court of Appeal in Bankruptcy. The Attorney General had introduced into the measure an excellent amendment, that of depriving the insolvent trader of the power of making himself a bankrupt; but no provision was made against cases of collusive petitions. Any friend of the debtor might present a petition for his bankruptcy under the Bill as it now stood; for it allowed a creditor of £50 to present a petition. He would suggest the introduction of a clause to prevent this provision from being fraudulently used. With regard to another part of the measure—the release of the bankrupt—he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dover. He thought it was a distinction without any foundation in expediency or justice that any person who was a trader could get a release from his creditors, while a man who was not a trader had his property always subject to the action of his creditors. He knew the reason of the law to be this—it was said to be for the advantage of commerce—that credit was a necessity for commerce, but was not necessary in the other walks of life. But that was not so. Credit was necessary to every man. It was as necessary to the man who was not a trader as to the man who was. He thought, however, that if the present system of release allowed to creditors were abolished a wholesome check would be given to the reckless speculations that were often undertaken. It would also be a wholesome check on the abuse of credit—it could, in fact, be salutary to all parties. It was said that the state of the law encouraged trade—he said it encouraged dishonesty. He believed there was always a disposition among mercantile men to treat bankrupts with every degree of fairness and consideration. He had not been for twenty-six years in the profession of the law without having seen much of the working of the Bankruptcy Law, and he had witnessed much kindness and commiseration shown by creditors to bankrupts—not only to persons who had failed through misfortune, but even to those whose failure had been owing to their recklessness, if only they had been honest. But the law did not protect men whom it was intended to protect—it protected swindlers who had no capital but the credit which they had dishonestly obtained. He thought it was derogatory to the country, and discreditable to commercial morality that this scandal should be suffered to continue. As to the provision in the Bill that the debtor should be released on paying 10s. in the pound, he could see no principle in it. Why should they stop there? He would insist, in all cases, on the payment of 20s. in the pound, unless the creditors, or a certain proportion of them, agreed to release the debtor from further obligations- To them only was it fair to give the powers of release. He had made these observations in the hope that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would consider them before the Bill came into Committee.

said, it appeared to him that there were two points in the Bill which seemed to re- quire consideration. The Bill provided that the estates of bankrupts should be made over to trustees. But some provision was requisite for the case of a fraudulent trustee. Under this Bill, a trustee might receive a large sum of money; he might leave the country and retain the money; and there was no power of treating him as a fraudulent person and a criminal. The Bill merely provided that the trustee was not to retain in his possession any larger sum than £50 for more than fourteen days, under a penalty of paying 20 per cent interest upon it; but if the trustee chose to disregard this provision, there was no further power afforded of dealing with him. Again, he thought full power should be given to every creditor, either by himself or his legal agent, to examine the bankrupt in a public court, not only as to the disposal and the concealment of any part of his property, but also as to any transactions in his trading which might have led to his bankruptcy. The Bill, he believed, was taken from the Scotch Law of Bankruptcy, and the principle of that law was favourable to the examination of bankrupts. It was often most important, in connection with certain kinds of trading, that the whole system should be unfolded before the public, in order not only that the bankrupt himself and those; who might have been connected with him might be exposed, but that a check might be placed upon a particular mode of trading. Sometimes strange causes for their insolvency were assigned by bankrupts, as, for example, insufficiency of income. That ought never for a moment to be allowed to appear in a schedule as the cause of a man's running into debt and avoiding the payment of hi? creditors. In conclusion, he begged to congratulate the Attorney General on having so far produced a Bill which, upon the whole, met with the approval of the trading interest of the country.

said, the reason why hon. Gentlemen connected with the various Chambers of Commerce in the country had not expressed their opinions upon this measure was that several of them had seen the Attorney General in reference to many matters of detail connected with the Bill, whom they had found ready to listen to any suggestions which they had to make; and it was thought by those on whose behalf he (Mr. Morley) spoke that it would be convenient to defer any discussion in regard to the measure until the House came to deal with it in Committee. He could not, however, refrain from expressing his conviction that the Bill was an excellent Bill, the chief and leading feature of which was its simplicity. The Preamble of the measure might run somewhat in this way—If the creditor class of England desire to secure for themselves promptitude and economy in the realization and distribution of assets, they must mind their own business—in other words, the time for the employment of officials had gone by. He was thankful that the hon. and learned Gentleman had decided upon sweeping away the officials in Basinghall Street, and saying to the trading class for the future—"You must meet and conduct your own business for yourselves; we have tried to help you by messengers, by brokers, by official assignees, by all conceivable agencies, which have involved an enormous outlay of money; henceforth if your business is to be conducted expensively it will be your own fault." There were many questions which would need to he considered, and which those whom he represented would be prepared before the Bill got into Committee to submit to the Attorney General for his consideration. He was thankful that they were to have a Chief Judge. The Judge to lie appointed would, he hoped, have a real sympathy with the trade of England. He used the term advisedly. The trading classes wanted no favour, but they desired that in the arrangements of the court every proper facility should be given them in dealing with bankrupts. They contended that if protection against vindictive treatment on the part of his creditors were extended to the insolvent debtor, then every facility should be given to the creditors to secure possession of property which they alleged belonged to them, and not to anyone else. He understood that to be the principle of the Bill, and he was satisfied, therefore, that it would meet the just and anxious expectations of the trading community. He thought, however, that the present measure was dejective in two points—namely, in excluding certain acts of bankruptcy which existed at present, and as to its penal clauses. There were many acts committed by traders which would require to be dealt with more distinctly than the Bill proposed to deal with them. He saw an increasing need of a public prosecutor. They had no guarantee at present for the prosecution of a fraudulent trader. Action in that matter was made to depend upon the will of the creditors; and he (Mr. Morley) was enabled to state, from many years' experience of these matters, that when a body of creditors met to consider a bankrupt's estate, they were unwilling very frequently to add to the heavy loss which might already have been incurred, the enormous expense which would be entailed by the prosecution of a fraudulent trader. He had known, however, cases in which a small number of the creditors, unassisted by the general body, had undertaken to bear the expense of such a prosecution rather than allow the trader to go free. If some agency could be devised, irrespective of the creditors, for prosecuting fraudulent traders, it would be an immense improvement. He also wished to impress upon the Attorney General the necessity of some better mode of dealing with deceased insolvents' estates. In that matter creditors were frequently plundered, and some provision ought to made to meet such cases. They might be told that they had a remedy by applying to the Court of Chancery, but they had generally found that where it had been necessary to go to that court the shells had been thrown to them, and the oyster itself had disappeared. The present measure was certainly defective in some of its details, and it would require careful looking at when in Committee; but taking it as a whole, he thanked the Government for introducing it, and he believed that the trading classes would hail it with great satisfaction.

said, he would put it to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General whether it was worth while to do away with the facilities by which a debtor became bankrupt on his own petition, when it was left open, by a slight collusion with one of his creditors, for the creditor to file a petition on which the debtor might be made a bankrupt? It seemed to him that it would be almost better to allow a person in insolvent circumstances himself to petition to be made a bankrupt, in order that he might free himself, as far as he could do under the Bill, from the debts which were pressing upon him.

said, that the suggestions which had been thrown out by legal Members were most valuable, but the fact that the measure had been received with general approbation by influential Gentlemen connected with commercial interests was even more important than any approval it might meet with at the hands of the legal element in the House. One of the greatest misfortunes hitherto attendant upon our system of administration in bankruptcy was that it had been too much overridden by legal officialism; and he regarded it as one of the great merits of the Bill before the House that it altogether abolished the system which had proved so entirely abortive. There were various details in the Bill which would require amendment in Committee, but its main principles, he was glad to find, had been sanctioned by the commercial element in the House. That there should be a Chief Judge he regarded as a most wholesome provision, and he hoped it was one which his hon. and learned Friend would not abandon without mature consideration. He believed it was one source of failure in the Bill of 1861 and other measures that there had not been a recognized chief Judge, who should be looked upon as the head of the bankruptcy administration of the country; and the reason was because it involved more than the hon. and learned Serjeant (Serjeant Simon) had taken into account; for such a functionary, besides hearing appeals, would have, under the sanction of the Lord Chancellor, to frame a code of practice, and lay down such rules and regulations as would be required in order to inaugurate a new system. This measure was the commencement of an entirely new era in bankruptcy administration. By vesting in the creditors themselves the administration of the bankrupt's estate, it would prove a great advantage to the commercial interests of this country.

said, he had listened with great attention to the speech of the Attorney General, when introducing the Bill, and was sorry to say that he (Mr. Peek) differed from the hon. Members for Bristol (Mr. Morley) and the City (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence), and could not receive the measure with the same satisfaction that they had. He had taken care to place the Bill in the hands of some of the best accountants in London, and had gone very attentively through its provisions himself, and the conclusion he had come to was that if it were intended that we should start fresh with a comprehensive bankruptcy law, it would be much better if the present Bill were withdrawn and another introduced in its place, even at the cost of going on as we were for another year. How much so ever the Bill had been praised almost every Member who had spoken had found some fault with it, and even the hon. and learned Attorney General himself pro- posed to introduce two important Amendments. If that were so would it not, on every ground, be well to withdraw it and bring in another? Hardly any subject could engross the attention of the House to better purpose than the Law of Bankruptcy, because, in his opinion, it had done more to lower English character than almost any series of measures that had been passed in this country for a long time. He was one of these who thought that when a man could not pay 20s. in the pound the onus of proving himself an honest man should rest upon him. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated on a former evening that the delay which had arisen in placing the Bill in the hands of Members had been owing to instructions which had been given to the draftsmen to make it as short as possible. But if this Bill were to be a codification of the law, as he under- stood was intended, brevity might, perhaps, be obtained at the cost of efficiency. What the Bill contained was, on the whole, good, but the omissions were striking. There was no clause in it enabling an estate to be taken out of bankruptcy, nor any under which composition could be arranged if the estate was in bankruptcy; and, what was very singular, there was no clause repealing the Acts now in force.

said, that a separate Bill would be introduced as part of the scheme.

said, he thought the remark of the Attorney General had given great force to his (Mr. Peek's) words. If he had already put two important Amendments on the Paper, and would have to introduce a supplementary measure, would it not be bettor to withdraw the Bill at once, and if we were to have a codification of the law let a good strong Bill be introduced. A short Bill had been brought in by the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Moffatt) last year which had given great satisfaction to the commercial classes; but the principle of that measure had been, he would not say ignored, but omitted in the present Bill. He hoped the Attorney General would take that Bill into consideration. It was his earnest wish to see a Bill on Bakruptcy that should be a credit to the country, which previous measures on the subject certainly had not been.

said, there was one point, not without importance, to which he wished to draw attention, and that was the mode of appointing a Chief Judge, which he found laid down in the 57th and 58th sections. It was there proposed that one of the Judges of the Common Law Courts should be selected for the office, and that if thus a want was created in the court from which he was taken, a new Judge of that court should be appointed. If the House had been informed positively that a Judge could be spared from one of the Common Law Courts, there might be an economy in doing what was proposed, but the step had not that recommendation, and the only effect of it would be to exclude any gentleman at the Chancery Bar from the appointment. Now he saw nothing in the character of the Chancery Bar which would justify such an exclusion, and the only precedent for it was to be found in the Election Petitions Act of last Session. In that case, however, there were reasons that did not in the least apply in the present instance. There it was considered advisable, he presumed, to encourage the idea that bribery was a crime, by appointing to hear election petitions, functionaries, part of whose previous duties it had been to preside at criminal trials. Besides, it was thought desirable to endeavour to avoid the suspicion of political bias in a matter so closely connected with politics, and therefore each of the principal courts of Common Law was required to select one of its own members to try election petitions. It was also truly stated that those Judges were in the habit of hearing and weighing vivâ voce evidence, and that such evidence would form the principal material for the decisions on election petitions. But in the present case, not only did none of these reasons apply, but it was also true that bankruptcy business was more analogous to the business of a Court of Equity than to that of the Courts of Common Law. Nor could it be doubted that at the Chancery Bar were to be found gentlemen as intelligent and honourable as in the other branches of the great profession of the law. On these grounds he thought it very objectionable to limit the discretion of the Advisers of the Crown in the way that was now proposed.

said, he hoped that the Attorney General would be firm and push the Bill through. We did want a change in the Law of Bankruptcy, for at present it was so monstrously bad that a measure must be a very poor one indeed which would not make it better. The present Bill was considered a great improvement on former Bills. This was the fourth Bill he had seen introduced, and he hoped it would not be talked out, and end in nothing. It was said that hard cases made bad law, and though there might arise an occasional hard case under the present Bill that was no reason for throwing doubts on the measure; it might prove the contrary. He found almost every one out-of-doors say that the Bill would be a great improvement, and therefore he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not withdraw it.

said, he wished to offer his cordial thanks to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for his introduction of that excellent Bill. He hoped that it would soon become law. He thought if a bankrupt paid 10s. in the pound he ought to be let go free. If a bankrupt were to remain liable for a certain number of years in the event of his debts not being paid in full, such a liability would exercise a prejudicial effect on the trade of the country. The bankrupt would not then be put in a fair position, because it would be hardly possible for him to obtain credit for the purpose of carrying on any kind of business, and he (Mr. F. C. Smith) therefore hoped the provisions of the Bill which related to that subject would remain unaltered.

AS one of the Scotch Members I might have left this discussion entirely to the English Members, but inasmuch as the firm with which I was connected often suffered from the bad state of the English Bankruptcy Law, I shall be much pleased to see the change which the present Bill proposes. In my opinion that law is so bad that almost any change must be an improvement. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has told us that his Bill is for the most part founded on the Scotch Law, and I think I may congratulate him upon the fact that he has adopted from the Scotch system a great deal which is good, and he has even introduced some improvements. I think that particularly the proposal by which parties are to be induced to make known the state of their affairs before they have run their estates down to the dregs is a very great improvement. I will only add one further observation, and it is in confirmation of a remark of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) as to the want of a public prosecutor in cases of fraud. Of course, it is desirable that fraudulent bankrupts should be punished, and you never can secure this object without first taking the step suggested, and appointing a public prosecutor. You never will get creditors to go to the expense and trouble of a prosecution unless you have some such officer appointed. Indeed I may go further, and say that it is somewhat surprising to a Scotchman that you in England should have so long submitted to the annoyance, the trouble, and the expense of having to be prosecutors whenever any man does you an injury of a criminal character. In Scotland we have long recognized the principle that when a man perpetrates a criminal act he does an injury not only to the person who is the principal sufferer, but to the public at large, and consequently we have a public prosecutor to see that punishment is awarded to the offender. The Lord Advocate is at the head of this procedure, and in every district there is a Procurator- Fiscal under him. I think that in any- thing you may adopt from the Scotch system you could not do better than adopt this also.

said, he had to express his satisfaction at the manner in which the Bill had been received. With one exception, every hon. Member who had spoken approved of the general principles of the Bill. Differences of opinion on particular points would, of course, arise in the consideration of such a vast number of provisions in so complicated a measure as a Bankruptcy Bill, but he assured the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley), and those in whose behalf he spoke, that he would carefully consider any suggestions that might be made to him and adopt them as far as possible. Most of the topics which had been raised could more conveniently be discussed in Committee: he therefore proposed to deal with them lightly at present. The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel), in his able speech upon the general Law of Bankruptcy, appeared to find but little fault with the leading features of the measure, but suggested that more powers should be given to creditors by arrangement clauses, and that they should be empowered to put an end to a bankruptcy if they thought fit. The Bill, he believed, already gave this power, but, if it did not, the addition of a few words would readily supply the omission. The hon. and learned Member also expressed an opinion on the subject of after-acquired property and the extent to which it should be liable. Upon this point he assured the hon. and learned Member that the Bill went further in the direction of severity than any that had ever before been proposed. Hitherto a bankrupt had been allowed to obtain his discharge, as regarded his future property, without paying any dividend at all; indeed, in the majority of cases during last year and for some years previously, no dividend whatever had been paid, yet the bankrupts in these cases had obtained their discharge and their future-acquired property had been in no respect liable. The Committee of 1865 recommended that a bankrupt should be re- leased on payment of a dividend of 6s. 8d.; in this measure the minimum was fixed at 10s. 6d. If it were resolved to make a bankrupt's future property liable to the extent of 20s., as some hon. Member had proposed, before a release were granted, the law of bankruptcy might as well be abolished altogether. It was desirable that the bankrupt should have some inducement for stepping early, before the estate was completely dissipated by unsuccessful efforts to regain solvency; it was desirable to make it his interest to stop when he could pay a dividend and not to go on until nothing was left; and it was desirable also to give him a fair chance after being declared bankrupt. He would have five years to relieve himself, and if he paid 10s. 6d. in the pound he would be released from his debts for ever; while if he did not pay that dividend his after-acquired property would be liable, but at the discretion of the Court. These requirements the Bill met, and he claimed the co-operation of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Jessel) in Committee. With regard to the question of reputed ownership the foundation of the rule was sound, though no doubt it worked harshly in some cases, and it was certainly carried too far when extended to what was called choses in action—invisible property on which the bankrupt could not have obtained, credit. But evidently the creditors had some claim upon property intrusted to a person who became bankrupt after having obtained credit on the strength of Ids reputed ownership of that property. The rule, therefore, was not dealt with in the Bill, but some modification of the clause on the subject might be made; and he would not follow his hon. and learned Friend in his remarks upon the subject further. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had objected to some of the provisions of the Bill with respect to the service of notices and some other matters; but it was proposed to intrust' the Judge and the Lord Chancellor with a power of making rules and regulations for the guidance of the court in London, and of the different courts throughout the country. It was better to leave such matters of regulation to the discretion of a Judge in whom confidence could be placed, than to attempt to prescribe every rule of practice in an Act of Parliament. He relied on that provision in a great mea- sure for the working of the Bill. That arrangement enabled them to make the measure much shorter than it otherwise would have been, and thus it was that, while the Bill of last year contained no less than 530 clauses, the present Bill contained only 130. The worthy Alderman, the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) seemed to fear there would not be power to reach fraudulent, absconding, and embezzling trustees; but such cases were met by the Fraudulent Trustees Act. He believed it would be found there was ample provision for the examination of bankrupts; and his answer to the suggestion that penal clauses should be introduced was that they would be found in the Imprisonment for Debt Bill—which he should presently ask the House to read a second time—where it was thought by the draftsman and himself better to place them. There had been no omission, either in this respect or as regarded the repeal of existing Acts, for it was thought better to have a separate Repeal Bill and to bring it in when the Bill had passed through Committee and it had been seen what statutes had been repealed. Only one more question required any remark—namely, the appointment of a Chief Judge. To that appointment he attached a good deal of importance. It was proposed by Lord Westbury, in his Bill of 1861, and it was approved by this House; but the House of Lords rejected the proposal, and to that the author of the Bill attributed almost entirely the failure of his measure, for the provision was material to the working of that Act. Lord Westbury likened the Judge in that case to the mainspring of a watch; and although he (the Attorney General) was not prepared to go quite that length, he regarded the appointment of a Chief Judge—a Judge of the highest authority—as a most important portion of the scheme. He looked upon it as the keystone of the arch, for they must rely upon a Chief Judge to frame rules of practice for London and provincial courts, and to introduce uniformity of procedure and of practice. Without disrespect to the Commissioners of Bankruptcy, it must be said there had been an utter absence of control over the officials of the courts, which had not existed in the superior courts; and it was hoped that by the appointment of a Chief Judge it would be possible to keep better order among officials and to exercise more control over them; there would be fewer officials in future, for it was proposed to make a clean sweep of several. It was necessary to have a Chief Judge also for the purpose of trying important cases and hearing appeals; and he could not help thinking it was a proper provision that the appeals should go to that superior Court of Common Law, from which the Chief Judge was taken. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) as to not giving the Chancery Bar a chance, it might be said that no chance was given to the Common Law Bar either. The appointment of an existing Judge who had proved his capacity would probably carry with it more weight than the appointment of any gentleman who could be selected from either the Chancery Bar or the Common Law Bar. The main objects sought by the Bill were to simplify the law, to abolish a vast amount of officialism which had encumbered the operation of our bankruptcy system, and to cheapen the administration of bankrupt estates which, in many cases, had cost 75 per cent in this country, while in Scotland the average cost was not more than 12 or 13 per cent. These figures pointed strongly to the expediency of adopting as far as possible the Scotch system; and they had the testimony of a Scotch Member (Mr. Anderson) that the Bill not only embraced the main elements of that system, but was, in some respects, an improvement upon them. They had endeavoured to go upon the principle of separating the judicial from the administrative functions, leaving the administration entirely to the creditors, and giving the judicial functions entirely to the Court. He was glad to hear the general judgment which had been pronounced upon the Bill by his hon. and learned Friends, and by those Gentlemen who were entitled to speak in behalf of the mercantile community, and he should be happy to receive any further suggestions for the purpose of making it more acceptable to the public. Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 19th of April.

said, he rose to renew the protest he had already made against proceeding with the Bill, which was not in the hands of Members until Friday last. Several telegrams were received in London, from various Chambers of Commerce throughout the country that morning, requesting second reading might be postponed on the ground that it had been totally impossible to examine the Bill. Although it was rather unfashionable not to believe in the abolition of imprisonment for debt, he did not see the hardship of the pre- sent law, for a man could be imprisoned only after a final process, and then for a very limited period, as Registrars were obliged to go round to prisons and almost to drive debtors out by compelling them to pass through the Bankruptcy Court. He believed that if the power of imprisonment were given up very great fraud would ensue. Persons arrested for debt were seldom mercantile men, for these had assets and came readily under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Law; but persons arrested were for the most part non-traders who had no ostensible or available means on which to levy executions or defray expenses of bankruptcy, so that imprisonment was the only means of securing the payment of the debts owing by them, He objected to the want of principle in this measure. By the Bill it was pro- posed to retain the county system of imprisonment in respect of debts below £50; but there was no power to touch a fraudulent debtor who owed £51, who might be a non-trader and have no avail-able assets, so that he would not be made a bankrupt, and who yet might have re- sources which were withheld from his creditors, and upon which he might be living in affluence. This would be making one law for large debtors and another for the poorer classes, and he was certain the Bill would not give satisfaction by placing such a premium on roguery. The limitation of £50 ought to be removed, and, whatever the amount of the debt, the debtor ought to be liable to be summoned before a Judge, and then if it were proved that he had the power of paying the debt, or a portion of it, imprisonment ought to follow. He distinctly protested against the short time that had been allowed for the examination of a Bill, which, as it stood, would open the door to considerable fraud.

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down in hoping that the Attorney General would not press the second reading of a Bill which had only just been placed in the hands of Members, and which contained provisions requiring much consideration. He did not, however, agree with the hon. Gentleman in his opinions respecting the 6th section. He hoped that section would be fully discussed before its principle was sanctioned. If there was one thing more than another which pressed hardly upon the working classes, it was the power of commitment possessed by the County Court Judges. It involved the loss of more labour, the wasting of more money, and the infliction of greater hardship than those who had not had practical experience or seen statistics on the subject could easily imagine. As the Bill also introduced an entirely new principle into our law—that of allowing persons accused to give evidence before a criminal tribunal—he trusted that the second reading would be a little longer delayed.

said, he hoped that the Attorney General would proceed with the second reading of the Bill, which really represented nothing more than a return to the old Common Law of the land. At the Civil Law a debtor might be arrested and sold in consequence of his inability to satisfy his creditor; and by one law if he owed money to several people, which he was unable to pay, his creditors might seize him and cut him up. But by the Common Law imprisonment for debt was a special Prerogative of the Crown and the King, who might, in satisfaction of a debt, seize the body, lands, and goods of his debtor. The whole system, as it now stood, of final imprisonment in satisfaction of debt was merely Judge-made law. lie hoped that when they went into Committee on the Bill, a clause would be inserted repealing all the statutes on which the Judges had founded the right of imprisoning a man for debt. When arrest on mesne process was abolished shortly after the passing of the Reform Bill, it was then said that credit would be disturbed, and that traders would not be able to carry on their business. But those forebodings were purely imaginary, and in the same way he believed no evil would attend the good that must undoubtedly result from the abolition of final imprisonment. If, however, they allowed the rich man to escape under the bankruptcy system they ought not to permit the poor man to be liable to imprisonment; for, by so doing, they would certainly be open to the charge of having one law for the man in broadcloth and and another for the man in corduroys. At present the County Courts were converted into agencies for the collection of small debts, many of which were incurred by the wives of poor men in consequence of the importunities of traders. These debts were frequently left outstanding till the harvest season, when the creditors insisted upon payment or sent the debtors to prison, and the men so imprisoned were committed again and again unless they satisfied the harpies to whom they were indebted. In White cross Street Prison, he was told, the County Court debtors were imprisoned in something like the cages for wild beasts at the Zoological Gardens, while persons imprisoned for large debts were provided with all the luxuries to which they had been accustomed. All political economists, from Adam Smith to Mill, laid down that it was not for the interest of a State to encourage credit, and he believed that if they were to-morrow to abolish imprisonment for debt trade would be all the more flourishing, and men would be less tempted to embark in those specculations where their gains were their own and their losses their creditors'. He contended that unless a fraud or a crime were committed it was not the province of society to interfere, and if this interference were to cease both the trade and the morals of the country would benefit thereby. He trusted, therefore, that the measure would be proceeded with.

said, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) that the Bill made one law for the poor man coming before the County Court with a debt under £50, and another for the man whose liabilities were greater. The principle in both cases was the same; the procedure only was different. The Bill gave power to the County Court Judge to imprison if the debtor had been guilty of fraud, or, having the means, persistently refused to pay; whereas debtors in bankruptcy of upwards of £50 would have to take their trial before a jury in a criminal court. That was simply a difference in procedure. He believed that imprisonment in cases of fraudulent indebtedness was right, but that the man who was merely unfortunate should not be regarded or treated as a criminal. He trusted that the learned Gentleman would proceed with the measure, though there were one or two points which he should like to see altered. He would suggest that instead of referring, as in Clause 4, to other statutes the Act should be complete in itself. In Clause 10 there was a sub-section directed against the concealment of goods, and the onus of proving innocence was laid upon the person charged. In the next sub-section it was provided that if a man removed his goods from the premises he was presumed to be acting innocently in so doing, and the onus of proving him guilty lay upon those who charged him. Now, he could not see any good reason for this distinction. He could not see why in the case of concealment guilt should be presumed, while in the case of removal the presumption was to be in favour of the party's innocence. This measure, in connection with the Bill for amending the law of bankruptcy, was, however, a great improvement upon the present Bankruptcy Laws, and he thought the thanks of the whole commercial community were due to the Attorney General for having introduced this and the Bankruptcy Bill.

said, that, while anxious to assist the Attorney General in carrying out the principle on which this Bill was founded, he thought that Section 6 was open to very serious objection, and not calculated to give satisfaction to any portion of the community. He had never been an advocate for imprisoning men merely because they had the misfortune of not being able to pay their debts. He would not imprison a man merely because he had been unfortunate; but, at the same time, he thought that there ought to be some protection for persons who, in the course of business, were obliged to give trust, and who without such protection might find themselves defrauded. Section 6 of this Act preserved to the County Court Judges the power of committal in certain cases. He did not complain of the principle of the section, but what he did complain of was that it made a distinction between the rich man and the poor man, because the power of committal would only apply in cases where the debt was £50 or under. He did not see why the operation of the Bill should be thus limited. Why should the man who owed £50 or less be punished, and the man who owed £500 or £5,000 be allowed to escape with impunity? Provisions existed under the old Insolvency Law and the Bankruptcy Laws for meeting cases of reckless trading, and of persons who contracted debts without a reasonable prospect of paying. These provisions were to be withdrawn; the new Bankruptcy Bill confined the functions of the Judge in Bankruptcy to the administration of the assets; while the effect of this Imprisonment for Debt Bill would be to authorize, under certain circumstances, the imprisonment of persons who owed only small amounts. As the Bill at present stood the Attorney General was not faithfully carrying out his own principle with regard to the total abolition of imprisonment for debt. He proposed to punish the man who committed a fraud upon a small scale, whilst he allowed the man who committed it on a large scale practically to escape. He (Serjeant Simon) hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would make the 6th section applicable to all classes of debtors. In that case he (Serjeant Simon) would give the Bill his support.

said, that the credit given under the protection of the County Courts was given with the idea of making those courts agents for the collection of small debts. A working man's wife was induced to incur a debt for an article which perhaps she did not really want. and then the County Court obliged the husband to pay. In another respect his constituents were of opinion that the Bill did not go far enough. It was no doubt a great improvement upon any previous legislation, because, to a certain extent,it supplied the want of a public prosecutor, directing the Judge in certain cases to order a prosecution. Now, if the Judges had done their duty under previous Bankruptcy Acts, and had carried out the law as it was meant to be administered, very different results would have ensued, but the most important pro- visions of those Acts were reduced to dead letters by the mode in which they were interpreted. What he now suggested was that, instead of leaving the prosecution of a fraudulent debtor permissive, it should be made compulsory. To undertake this disagreeable duty required an amount of moral courage which few men possessed. The Bill should therefore be altered so that a trustee should be required to report, and the Judge to order a prosecution in cases of fraud.

said, he had come to the same conclusion as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hill) had arrived at with regard to commitments for small debts. He trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would give a candid consideration to the arguments which had been advanced in regard to the distinction between debts of £20 and debts of a greater amount. The 6th section would in his opinion require careful consideration in Committee, but he thought that the Bill might meanwhile be read a second time.

said, he did not under-rate the importance of this question, and hoped no Member of the House would suppose that he intended to stifle discussion upon it. If, therefore, he asked hon. Members to allow the Bill to be now read a second time it was on the distinct understanding that there would be further discussion on going into Committee. Although as a whole the Bill had been favourably received, certain misconceptions seemed to prevail with regard to it, and he should like, if possible, to clear away some of those. The principle of the Bill was the abolition of imprisonment for debt, and he did not think it necessary at this time of day to enter into any lengthened argument on that point. The question, as he had before said, was almost concluded by authority. The Commission of 1832, consisting of a number of the Judges, had reported in favour of abolishing imprisonment for debt. The Report of the Bankruptcy Commission in 1842 was to the same effect; the Bankruptcy Committee which sat in 1864 and 1865 were also unanimous on the subject; and all the Bills introduced since that time—the Bill of the hon. and learned Member (Sir Roundell Palmer), and that of the Lord Chancellor last year, as well as the present Bill—were founded on the same principle. Imprisonment for debt, he would repeat, was not justifiable as a punishment, because it made no distinc- tion between the innocent and the guilty, and, if it were meant to be an effectual remedy for recovering the debt, recent legislation had prevented it from being such a remedy, because, if a man were imprisoned for debt, he could not be kept in prison; he might get out on his own petition, or would be turned out by the Registrar in Bankruptcy. There was one important reason for abolishing imprisonment for debt, and this had not hitherto been dwelt on. Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, when examined upon this question, said—

"The consequence of retaining imprisonment for debt in final process has been that a multiplicity of petitions for adjudication of bankruptcy on the debtor's own petition are filed where there are no assets whatever, and these are resorted to mainly, either for the purpose of being released from prison or to avoid being put into prison. In most of these cases a certain expense is incurred without the least utility to the creditors. The following are the number of cases where there were no dividends in the years 1862 and 1863, and, therefore, where there were little or no assets:—In 1862, 6,910 out of 9,663; in 1863, 5,630 out of 8,470."

It was upon the abolition of imprisonment for debt that he founded his proposal to put an end to adjudications of bankruptcy upon a man's own petition. It was a process which had been most pernicious, which realized no assets, produced no dividends, crowded the gaols, and was of no use to anybody. It was said—"If you abolish imprisonment for debt you ought also to abolish it in the County Courts." Now no one could suppose that he was favourable to any extension of the power of imprisonment in the County Courts, for he had given earnest of an opposite tendency by introducing a Bill for the limitation of that power, which had before been very much abused. He was not, therefore, too friendly to this power of imprisonment by County Court Judges, and he could only say that he should rejoice if the House could come to the conclusion in Committee that this power could be abolished without danger to the working of those courts. It was his duty, however, to lay before the House the reasons which had induced the Government to maintain this provision. In the first place, it was a mistake to suppose that the County Court Judges had the power of imprisoning for debt. They had only the power of imprisonment in the cases specified in this Bill, which re-enacted the existing law—namely, where it appeared to the satisfaction of the Judge that in incurring the debt which was the subject of the action the defendant obtained credit—

"Under false pretences, or by means of fraud or breach of trust, or wilfully contracted the debt or liability without having had at the time a reasonable expectation of being able to discharge the same, or had, with intent to defraud his creditors or any of them, made or caused to be made any gift, delivery, or transfer of, or any charge on his property, or had with such intent concealed or removed any of his property."

And then there was another case in which imprisonment was allowed—where it was proved to the satisfaction of the Judge that the person contracting the debt had since the date of the order obtained against him the means to pay, but refused to pay. It was only in those cases that the Judge might imprison, and that was in the nature of a quasi criminal imprisonment. The Bill also limited to some extent the power of imprisonment, for it required that every order for imprisonment should be made in open court. This provision applied not to the County Courts, but to the Small Debts Courts, where orders were made by Registrars; and, further, the term of imprisonment for default in the payment of any one debt was limited to three months. He had received a deputation of County Court Judges, and had put it to them whether they could safely answer for the operation of the system if this power were abolished, and they replied that they could not. They observed that in reference to the orders of imprisonment not one in fifty really took effect, and that with respect to the class of persons appearing in the County Courts the possession of the power of imprisonment was absolutely necessary to insure the payment of debts. It appeared that in many cases men came into a County Court with the money they owed in their pockets, but refused to pay the debt until an order for imprisonment was made out. The power of imprisonment, he had also been informed, operated in favour of the labouring classes, for without its existence they would not be able to obtain credit, and in some cases credit with them was almost a necessity of existence. On these grounds the Government had not felt justified in abolishing this power, which was retained in the Bill, subject to consideration by that House. It had been observed that a distinction was drawn between the cases of the rich and the poor, but it should be recollected that in respect to the debts above £50 the bankruptcy law could be put into effect. The debtor could then be compelled to appear in the Bankruptcy Court, and to discover all his property, and if he did not do so his income could be sequestered, and himself made liable to penalties far more severe than any to which a debtor in a County Court was subject. The longest term of imprisonment which the latter could suffer under the sentence of a County Court was forty days, but a debtor for an amount above £50, if he committed offences of the same description, would, in the Bankruptcy Court, be subject to imprisonment for twelve months, and in some cases might be deemed guilty of felony, and be imprisoned for two years. However, those were matters for consideration in Committee, and if it should be deemed possible safely to withdraw this power from the County Court Judges he should be glad to do so.

said, he must take exception to the item for slaughtering and curing meat at Deptford Dockyard for the Navy. He objected to the system as carried on there. Government, as a rule, were not successful manufacturers, and in this instance they could not be fortunate. They went to the dearest market in the world—namely, the metropolitan market—whereas they might get better and cheaper meat in Ireland, in America, and at Hamburg. They entered into competition with all London, and the consequence was that they paid, as shown by a Return he held in his hand, £10 a tierce for beef, though the same quality for the last five or six years had been obtained by other persons for £6 to £7 a tierce. Govern- ment could get plenty of salt beef to purchase by contract as they did salt pork. In reference to preserved meat, which they also manufactured, they were equally at fault, as it cost nearly a half more than the Australian meat, for example. The Duke of Edinburgh had given a testimonial to the Australian merchants that this article was exceedingly good. A great quantity of it had gone into consumption in this country. Not less than 380,000lbs of it had been sold in Birmingham alone in one week lately. But he particularly referred to the Scotch preserved beef, which was the best, and might be had at 7d. or 7½d. per pound, while that made at Deptford cost 11d. The Government said the beef preserved at Deptford was better; but he was told that in point of fact it was inferior to that preserved by private firms. Those who were engaged in business, having to provision ships of their own, very well knew the best market to go to for the goods they wanted, and they were not to be pooh-poohed by those who had only a theoretical knowledge. Let the Admiralty go into the open market and buy by tender goods of the description they wanted, just as they did in the case of salt pork. A Government officer could surely survey the goods if he could manufacture, although there were instances in which it was said that what had been rejected at Deptford was sent to Haulbowline and passed there. He hoped this matter would be thoroughly looked into, for he was quite sure £20,000 or £30,000 a year might be saved by going into the open market and purchasing by tender.

said, he was very grateful to his hon. Friend for having introduced this subject. The Admiralty had for some time been giving considerable attention to it, and it was due to the late Government to say that they had taken an opportunity some time ago of obtaining a quantity of preserved meat in order to try whether the use of it would be of advantage to the public service. But his hon. Friend said—and in this he did not agree with him—that they ought to take his advice, being in the line of business—that they, not being men of business, ought to take the advice of those who were. It should, however, be remembered that they represented not only those who paid for the provisions but those who consumed them. At the same time he had no doubt great advantage would result from the introduction of a certain portion of preserved meat into the Navy. With that view they had asked for tenders in the course of the present year for a very large amount, about 200,000lbs, but from some little misunderstanding as to the conditions it had been thought advisable to put the matter off. They proposed to call for tenders for perhaps a still larger amount, if it could be had of a sufficiently good description for the Navy and on terms that would offer the advantages anticipated on the score of economy. His hon. Friend seemed to be under the impression that they had always been manufacturing salt meat in the Government yards. But that was a great mistake. They began to manufacture salt meat at Deptford in 1863, or rather in 1861, and it was begun because they found they were unable to obtain meat of sufficient goodness and to last good a sufficient time by the very process which his hon. Friend now recommended. The loss in boiling down the salt meat between 1861 and 1863, when the meat was cured by contractors, was about 4 per cent; since then the loss was only a trifle over 1 per cent. He did not say that was conclusive—he did not say they might not buy conveniently and advantageously for the public interests. There was something to be said on both sides. They were considering the matter with very great care. They had found no reason to change the present plan; but, following out the policy indicated by the late Government, they were quite disposed to experiment on the subject, believing that, if they succeeded, a considerable sum of money might be saved.

said, he agreed in the opinion that there was a great advantage in the curing of their own meat for the Navy, although it might entail a greater cost to the Admiralty, because such meat would probably remain good for consumption for three or four years. There was, no doubt, now a great improvement effected in the preservation of Australian meat; but, though it might prove excellent for short voyages, he must strongly protest against it being used in ships that were proceeding to the Pacific or other long voyages—where there would be no opportunity of changing them with any provisions except those cured at the Government yards.

reiterated he was quite sure they would get excellent American beef, as good as they prepared at Deptford, for £3 less per tierce than the Government could produce it.

said, he concurred in what had been said by his noble Friend (Lord John Hay) on this subject, and he was glad to hear that the present Board of Admiralty were not going to obtain the meat for the Navy entirely by contract. The necessity for the adoption of the system of curing their own meat at Deptford was occasioned by the very inferior quality of meat which had been furnished to the Navy by the contractors. According to the Report of the Committee that had investigated the subject it appeared that the meat furnished by one contractor named Goldner was extremely bad; on many of the tins being opened their contents were, in many instances, found to be wholly unfit for human food. The process of preserving meat for the sea service ought to be carried on with the greatest care, because the food of the sailors was taken to the most distant parts of the world, where there was no means of obtaining other provisions for use at sea, and the men would either starve or contract scurvy and other diseases if the Admiralty sent them to sea with unwholesome provisions. An hon. Member remarked that fresh fish would be a good substitute, but he had always found that fish were not particularly anxious to be caught when wanted at sea, and neither would the hon. Member if he knew he were wanted as a substitute for preserved meat. He, therefore, did not think that the Board of Admiralty ought to trust to fresh fish or to articles furnished by contractors, because it was almost impossible to investigate closely the quality of such articles on their receipt.

said, he did not know anything that would disgust a sailor with the service more than supplying objectionable provisions. Any change, therefore, in the victualling arrangements must be tentative. The quantity of meat preserved both at home and abroad was much greater now than formerly, and it was, he believed, true that some of the finest meat could be procured from Australia and elsewhere at a cost on the spot of a third of that for English meat. Delivered here the difference, of course, would not be so great. If the investigations which were now being made were successful the Committee might look for a considerable diminution in Vote 2, and also partially in Vote 17.

said, he could not allow this Vote to pass without congratulating the First Lord of the Admiralty on the discrimination he had shown in appointing Inspector General Armstrong to be Director General of the Medical Department of the Navy. He felt bound on public grounds to say he believed that this appointment would be conducive to the best interests of the Navy.

said, that having little personal acquaintance with the senior naval medical officers, and as he had been glad to have the opinion of civil medical men as to the organization of the hospitals, he had taken three months to make this appointment. He was glad to hear the testimony borne by the right hon. Gentleman to Dr. Armstrong's claims.

said. he wished to know what were the reductions made or contemplated by the Admiralty? The large discharge of officers at forty-eight hours' notice had been productive of the greatest alarm and hardship. The officers on so short a notice had had no means or power of providing for themselves.

said, it was unnecessary to repeat the explanation he had given on Vote 1, but he would remind the Committee that in 1867 a reduction of 200 men in round numbers, and an increase of twenty-three officers, was made. In 1868 there was a further reduction of 1,700 men and no reduction of officers. In 1869 he found an Admiralty arrangement for the reduction of 700 men, and it was left to him to reduce the number of officers. He had, therefore, been obliged to provide in round numbers for the reduction of 100 officers, besides refusing, at present, commissions to those who had passed the examination a few days before he took Office. That was a very painful and disagreeable task, and he could not understand how it happened that when the reduction of 1,700 men was made last year the proper reduction of officers was not made. However it was not done, and he had to do it. The way in which the reduction of the corps had been effected was by breaking up the Woolwich division, and by incorporating the officers and men, as far as possible, with the remaining three Light Infantry divisions, and by transferring some to Deal. The officers were disposed of as follows:—In the Royal Marine Artillery one lieutenant-colonel, two captains, and two second captains were placed on reserved half-pay. Two lieutenants, at their own request, were also put upon reserved half-pay. In the Infantry one colonel-commandant retired on full pay; one colonel second commandant received the command at Deal; one lieutenant-colonel and three captains retired on full pay. Three lieutenant-colonels, twenty-five captains, and thirteen second captains were placed on reserved half-pay. Twelve lieutenants, at their own request, were also placed on reserved half-pay. The remaining lieutenants were borne as supernumeraries on full pay. No officer below the rank of second captain had been placed upon half-pay. He had been as moderate as the circumstances of the case admitted in the reduction of officers, and he had been as tender as possible in the arrangements he had made. With respect to the officers transferred from Woolwich, he had done what he could to give them some allowance for their houses. He did not know that it was in his power to do more.

said, he had arranged all the details as to the reduction of officers, and if his official existence had been spared a few weeks longer, his plan would have been carried out by an Order in Council. He was. however, cut off in the middle of his career, and the work was, therefore, necessarily left for his successor.

said, he did not blame the right hon. Gentleman in respect to the officers who had to be retired this year, but only as to those who ought to have been retired last year when the reduction of 1,700 men was made, and also for nominating young gentlemen for commissions when there were so many superfluous officers. There was, therefore, an accumulated reduction of officers necessary for two successive reductions of men.

said, he wished to ask what securities the Government had to offer that the sum asked for would not be exceeded at the end of the financial year; and whether the Estimates submitted under Vote 10 for the year ending 1868–9, had or had not been exceeded. He would call attention to the immense discrepancy between the estimated amount and the sum actually expended under this Vote for 1867–8. A statement had been put in the hands of hon. Members of the savings and deficiencies upon the grants for Navy services for the year ended March 31, 1668. One of the items, for paint materials, oil, pitch, tar, tallow, and other miscellaneous articles, was estimated at £ 187,194, while the actual expenditure was £229,654, or an excess of no less than £42,460, or 22½ per cent. A note appended to the Estimate stated that this excess was due to a larger purchase of miscellaneous stores than had been anticipated, and to a rise in the price of oils and materials in the market. As far as any unforeseen rise in prices went, the excuse was valid, but it was the business of the Department to anticipate accurately the wants of the year. For coals, in like manner, the Estimate was £207,531, and the actual expenditure £345,520. Of that amount £36,000 apparently were paid for coals sent out to the Cape of Good Hope for the transport service connected with the Abyssinian Expedition; but, after deducting that amount, there was still an excessive expenditure of £101,409, or 50 per cent on the sum voted by Parliament. The note to the Estimate again explained that the purchases on foreign stations had greatly exceeded the anticipations formed at home as to their probable requirements; but it was the duty of the Department to be as well informed about the probable wants upon foreign as upon home stations. The total sum granted by Parliament upon the 1st section of Vote 10 was £855,511, and the total expenditure under the same head amounted to £1,085,926, being an excess of £230,415, or 27 per cent on the sum voted. On the 26th of March, 1868, application was made to the Treasury by the Lords of the Admiralty, setting forth that from Reports received from the Storekeeper and Accountant General of the Navy there was reason to believe there would be an estimated excess of £100,000 on Vote 10, section 1, and also some minor excesses. The Treasury was accordingly asked to authorize a Supplementary Estimate for £111,000; but were, at the same time, informed that no material alteration was to be expected in the other Votes. That official letter was dated the 26th of March, just before the close of the financial year. But only five days later this excess of expenditure, which was officially placed at 111,000l., hadgrownto230,000l. Upon the whole of the Navy Estimates, there appeared to be an excess of £366,000. He wished to ask his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty what explanation could be given of these circumstances—whether there was any reason to apprehend inaccuracies of a similar nature in the Estimates for the year 1868–9, and whether any guarantee could be given that the present Estimates would not be subject to a similar expansion in actual expenditure?

said, that although the Estimates were prepared before his appointment to the Admiralty, yet, as he held the office of First Lord during the year in which the considerable deficiency referred to had accrued, he should like to give some explanations respecting it before the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty replied. The Admiralty always laboured under this difficulty that they never knew actually how they stood till the expenditure during the financial year on foreign stations was brought to account; and in the year 1867–8 a combination of unforeseen events most unfortunately frustrated their calculations. Exclusive of the expenditure on account of the Abyssinian Expedition, the total excess amounted to £366,545, the whole of which had arisen from circumstances which the Admiralty could not by any possibility control. Upon Vote 2, where an excess of £97,000 was shown, he had calculated upon a saving of £28,000, in consequence of the smaller number of men borne than voted. Of this excess no less than £35,000 was owing to the rise in the price of flour for biscuit. Moreover, for the first time, and as an experiment, soft bread had been issued as a general ration to the ships' companies in port in lieu of biscuit; it could not by any means be foreseen how they would like the change; but the men liked it so well that, instead of so much biscuit being left and entered as savings—which were purposely fixed at rates considerably below the cost prices—when soft bread was issued they ate the whole of it, and this made a difference in the figures of £16,000. A rise in the price of rum accounted for £4,791; stores purchased for the War Office, but not taken off the hands of the Navy and paid for during the year, occasioned a deficiency of £4,053. The new rations of preserved meat, issued, for the first time, in lieu of salt beef, were found so palatable that the men ate whole of them' instead of leaving, as they had done in former years, meat to the value of £38,000. In all these matters the Committee would perceive that the Department had really nothing to guide them. The sums which he had enumerated made up £97,844, the excess upon this Vote being £97,058. He came next to the excess of £48,918 upon Vote 6. This excess had been foreseen and authorized by the Treasury under these circumstances—In the course of the autumn the department of the Controller represented to him that upwards of £50,000 of the Vote for building contract ships would remain unexpended, principally owing to the late period at which the contracts had been taken up. Being very much dissatisfied with the state of the reserves of ships in the ports as he found them, and having then no reason to expect that there would be an excess of expenditure under any other head, he wrote to the Treasury, and obtained their sanction to apply this estimated surplus, under Vote 10, section 2, the greater part to the hiring of temporary artificers in the dockyards for the purpose of expediting the ships being Brought forward for the reserves, especially the ironclads, and the remainder towards building the Active, a sister corvette to the Volage—a class of ships in which the Navy was very deficient. He had explained this in moving the Navy Estimates last year. Unfortunately it so happened that, from causes which again could not be foreseen, the saving which was anticipated under Vote 10, section 2, did not accrue. The admiral on the station, without authority from home, expended a large sum in repairing gunboats in China. This was a system not to be encouraged; but, at the same time, it ought to be remembered that the admiral was sent to a distant station to protect commerce amounting to the value of £100,000,000 a year, and if any considerable number of his ships proved unfit for that duty without extensive repairs, it was not unnatural that he should undertake the responsibility of putting thorn into serviceable condition. This sum of £49,000, therefore, instead of being recouped from Vote 10, section2, remained as an excess under Vote 6. On Vote 10, section 1, there was a gross excess, exclusive of the Abyssinian excess, of £193,915. The first item of this excess was on account of some pitch pine delivered in 1867, under a contract which had been entered into some years before, but the execution of which had been delayed in consequence of the Civil War in America, and the blockade of the ports of export. When the ports were reopened at the close of the war the contractors proceeded to fulfil their engagements, and the Law Officers of the Crown having given the opinion that the contract still remained in force, the Admiralty was compelled to receive the pitch pine, and had thus to pay unexpectedly the sum of £11,100 in excess of the Estimate for the purchase of stores. The next item of the excess was £14,500, in consequence of the rise in the price of oil, while the excess of £80,915 was due to an unexpected expenditure of coals and other stores—chiefly on the China station. This was occasioned by political events of great magnitude which occurred in Japan during the course of the year, and led, as the Committee was aware, to a civil war. At the urgent request of the British Minister, Sir Henry Keppel proceeded from China to that part of his station with the greater portion of the force at his disposal—including his flagship the Rodney—the Ocean (an armourclad), and several corvettes. Other nations, including Franco and America, Portugal, Holland, and Spain, also collected a considerable force in Japan, the whole amounting to no less than twenty-seven pendants. The unforeseen employment of so many of our ships at a distance of nearly 200 miles from their depôt of stores, necessitated large purchases of coals—more especially in Japan—at exorbitant prices, and to this cause the greater part of the excess is attributable. An excess of £25,930 on Vote 14 was occasioned by the Go- vernment having to pay damages for the sinking of the Osprey by the Amazon, which was not known when the Estimates were under preparation. On Vote 17 there was a total excess of £84,000, composed of £50,000 for the carriage home of troops from New Zealand provided for in 1866–7, but not expended until the following year in consequence of the troops having been unexpectedly detained in the colony; £10,000 for the naval proportion of the charge for the Crocodile and Serapis, troopships, under the arrangement entered into between the Imperial and the Indian Governments subsequently to the period when the Estimates were prepared; £15,000 for arrears of old War Office claims standing over for many years, but which had been brought to a settlement in consequence of changes effected in the system of accounts. There was also £9,000 for expenses incurred under the recent arrangement for landing of Indian troops intended for the western districts, at Plymouth, which necessitated the establishment of a second depot at that port, for the special descriptions of provisions with which troop-ships are supplied. It would be seen that the figures he had enumerated amounted to within £3,000 or £4,000 of the total excess over the Estimates. On the other hand he had anticipated that savings on the Estimates under Votes 1, 2, and 11 would have amounted to something like £100,000, but in the place of there being that sum in hand at the close of the financial year there was, he was sorry to say, a balance the other way of £366,575. That, of course, was the amount of the difference between savings and deficiencies, and among the latter there was an excess of £55,000 above the Estimate for the purchase of "miscellaneous stores." That item provided, among innumerable other articles, for the purchase of metal fittings for gun carriages made in the dockyards, slides, racers, and for armour-clad ships themselves—nearly the whole of new types and patterns, on which it was absolutely impossible to calculate with any degree of accuracy what the expenditure would be. This item was usually exceeded, as it was the practice to keep the Estimate low, with the view of discouraging expenditure as much as possible. He thought he had shown that the excess had resulted from causes which could not have been foreseen at the time when the Estimates for the year were prepared.

said, that not having been concerned in any way with the preparation of the Estimates for the year 1867–8 he could add but little to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite upon this subject. He could, if necessary, have verified most of the right hon. Gentleman's statements. One considerable item of the excess arose from the increase of the expenditure at the dockyards at the end of 1867. In October, 1867, the right hon. Gentleman engaged 2,000 additional men in the dockyards, and in the following March he discharged 5,000 men from them, a course which he (Mr. Childers) felt bound to say, was intimately connected with the distress now existing among the dockyard labourers. It would have been far better to have spread that additional outlay over two years than to have expended it in the short space of six months. An hon. Member near him (Mr. Candlish) had inquired whether the Votes of 1868–9 would be exceeded, and particularly whether there was any security that Vote 10 would not be exceeded. As a question of fact he was not in a position to state definitely the exact condition of Vote 10, because the expenditure under that Vote was dependent so much on the action of officers on distant stations. He did not think that the expenditure under that Vote, under the former system, under satisfactory control. The whole of the expenditure in the first part of Vote 10 would be in future distinctly under the responsibility of the Controller of the Navy, a reform which he believed would be a very useful one. He could not, however, at the present time, accurately give all the particulars he would wish to give respecting thi3 Vote, because the information received from distant stations respecting the stocks and issues of stores was not wholly satisfactory. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had, however, been endeavouring by all means in their power to procure precise information on that head, and they hoped to be able at a future period to control expenditure for stores both at home and abroad more effectually than was now practicable. No little economy might be effected in the purchase, custody, and sale of stores, and he trusted that when the new arrangements were matured there would be a decided improvement in the construction of Vote 10.

said, he should be glad to have some explanation as to why they were called upon year after year to vote much larger sums for the purchase of timber, anchors, cables, and cordage than were actually required, and what became of the surplus. The sum taken last year for cables was £150,000, the quantity issued, £24,000; for anchors, £182,000, quantity issued, £25,000, and he gave many other similar instances.

said, that in reply to his hon. Friend he could only repeat that he and his Colleagues had taken very great pains in preparing this Vote, and that, considering the short time they had to deal with it, they had already effected very considerable reductions. It was not intended to buy a single ounce of oak timber this year, and only £10,000 worth of teak would be purchased. Neither was it proposed to buy any new anchors during the present year. The supply of canvas about to be bought would be much less than formerly, but the supplies of hemp, yarn, and cordage would be placed on a more satisfactory footing.

said, he wished to ask what would be done with the very large stocks of timber which must have accumulated in the dockyards which were to be suppressed? In his opinion considerable reduction in the Estimates ought to be effected by transferring those stores to other yards where timber was required. He was doubtful whether at least £12,000 worth of timber would not be found in the dockyards, and his impression was that there was a considerable quantity at Woolwich. He quite concurred as to putting the stores under the control of the same officer who took charge of the building, and thought great advantage would result.

, in reply, said, that most of the stock of timber at the yards which were to be suppressed had been used up. There was but a very small quantity of teak timber at Woolwich—not more than 100 loads.

said, he thought the reduction of the sum set apart for experimental purposes from £12,000 to £2,000 was very injudicious. In these days of new projectiles, new guns, and new modes of covering vessels with armour it was necessary to make a large number of experiments at Shoeburyness to see how those inventions were likely to answer; and yet they were placed in the position of giving up all, or nearly all, the valuable information to be obtained in that way for the sake of a matter of £10,000. That he could not regard as at all a wise economy. Again, while that item had been largely decreased, there had been an increase from £2,000 to £8,000 for the inspectors who superintended the building of contract ships. That was 5 per cent on the cost of construction. This year they were to pay only £161,000 for ships built by contract, against £435,000 paid last year, and yet the cost of inspectors was quadrupled. This was a matter which required explanation.

said, the reduction in the Vote for experimental purposes did not proceed from motives of economy. That Vote had fluctuated up and down from year to year perhaps more than any other Vote in the Navy Estimates; and in the present financial year they did not look forward to its being necessary to spend much in experiments. The cost of the experiments on guns at Shoeburyness did not fall upon the Admiralty, but on the War Office. [Mr. SAMUDA said, he believed the cost of the targets fell on the Admiralty.] The cost of the targets was only a small part of the cost of experiments. As to the increase from £2,000 to £8,000 for the superintendence of ships building by contract, that was only an apparent, not a real, increase, because formerly the salaries of those officers were borne on other Votes. He did not understand what his hon. Friend meant by the item of £161,000, The Vote for ships building by contract was £420,000, and for engines, £295,000; in all, £715,000; on which, £8,000 was a little over 1 per cent.

thought that it would not be an inconvenient moment for him to say a few words on the subject of our foreign squadrons. In the speech made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) two years ago on that question he assigned only one corvette and one small vessel for the service of Japan, and that alone would have been sufficient to satisfy him how ill-considered the whole scheme of the distribution of our ships on foreign stations, as then proposed, had been. Such a force was obviously insufficient for the protection of British interests in a country strongly averse from communication with foreign Powers, with which we had treaty rights to maintain, and the internal affairs of which were then, and still continued to be, in a very unsatisfactory state. Soon after his right hon. Friend spoke, a civil war broke out in Japan, and the presence of no less than twelve of the vessels of Sir Henry Keppel's squadron, and of fifteen vessels belonging to other nations, was deemed necessary to the security of commerce, and of the lives of those engaged in it, and of the ministers and consuls representing the various Powers. For himself he greatly regretted that the chief reduction proposed to be made by the Government in our foreign squadrons would fall on the China station—the foreign station on which of all others it was perhaps most important that the strength of our squadron should be maintained. It was now proposed to reduce the naval force there from thirty-four ships to twenty-five, and the men from 4,000 to 2,800. He was surprised to hear that the Foreign Office concurred in any large reduction of the squadron in China, because our ministers and officers in those distant quarters had always written home in a very different sense. On what authority was the proposed reduction based? Certainly not on that of Sir Henry Keppel, for he had asked for more vessels just before he (Mr. Corry) left the Admiralty; neither on that of Sir Harry Parkes, for on January 30, 1868, Sir Harry Parkes wrote that the force in Japan was not larger than usual—namely, one ocean iron-clad, four sloops and three gunboats; making together eight ships, in lieu of the two which his right hon. Friend proposed to keep there. Sir Harry Parkes added that "the United States had four heavy vessels, and France one frigate and four corvettes, so that it would be seen that the force maintained by those two other Governments was not generally dissimilar to our own." In the month of February, 1868, Sir Harry Parkes wrote to Sir Henry Keppel in these terms—

"I think it is my duty to represent to you the importance of Her Majesty's naval force in this country (Japan) being maintained at a standard of not less than six or seven effective vessels, in which I do not include gunboats. We have already six points to protect—Osaka, Hiogo, Na-gaski, Tedo, Yokohama, and Hakodadi."

In July last, Sir Henry Keppel wrote thus—

"The protection of our vast trade, the suppression of piracy, and the large number of consular ports in China and Japan render it apparent that the number of pendants cannot well be less than at present."

And in a more recent letter Sir Henry Keppel referred to the unsettled state of affairs and the necessity of maintaining, and even adding to, the strength of the squadron. He confessed therefore that he was surprised to find his right hon. Friend proposing to reduce, by something like one-third, the whole force in that part of the world, with which we had an enormous trade, which, as well as the lives of those engaged in it, would be exposed to great peril if not properly protected. With regard to the flying squadron, he wished to know what the intention of the Government on that subject was. It was doubtless important that our crews should be taught evolutions and seamanship as they already were in the Channel and Mediterranean squadrons; but at the same time there were objections to a flying squadron. He believed that squadron would be composed of some of the finest ships in our Navy, and he should like to know where, in the case of emergency, they were to be found—on this or the other side of the Cape, in the Atlantic, in the Pacific, or where? When the Russian War broke out the Government of the day was able to recall the Channel squadron, then commanded by a gallant relative of his own, and cruizing in the Atlantic, without delay; because there was an appointed rendezvous where it was to be found; but this would be impossible in the case of an expedition circumnavigating the globe. Our officers and men, he believed, would derive more advantage from the actual work on a station than by going on a sort of excursion all round the world. Wars now-a-days were finished in a single campaign—as, for example, that against Abyssinia and other recent wars—and if our squadrons were reduced down to starvation point, and a sudden emergency arose, how was it to be met by a flying squadron, which would, probably, be everywhere when it was not wanted, and no where when it was? The advantage of having a few ships to spare on the several stations was strikingly illustrated in the case of Abyssinia. We had no reserve of ships at home, but we were fortunately able to reinforce the East India squadron by four ships from other stations. One of these was commanded by the late lamented Captain Edye, and it was not too much to say that it was more than doubtful whether the war could have been finished in one campaign, if it had not been for the skill and the energy displayed by him in the landing of troops and stores, and obtaining a supply of water. Millions may thus have been saved. Again, the moral effect of a flying squadron would be absolutely worthless; and the sight of a single pendant, flying, in a port where British honour had been insulted, or British interests endangered, even from a gunboat, would be more efficacious than a fleet of armourclads, to be found Heaven knew where. He wished therefore to know what the intentions of the Government were with respect to the flying squadron, and what was to be the composition of that squadron? He would now turn to another point, although one which was intimately connected with the maintenance of our squadrons abroad. The late Government had been much blamed, during the Recess, for building unarmoured vessels, but the present Government ought to be much obliged to their predecessors for what they have done; because, without it, the reduction in the present Estimates could not possibly have been made. He would give a few figures which would vindicate the policy of his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) and show that it would be absolutely impossible to maintain even such squadrons as the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposed but for what had been done by his right hon. Friend when at the head of the Board of Admiralty. He found that in seven years, from 1860 to 1866, there were either sold or broken up 244 unarmoured ships, of which 139 were steamers—namely, seventeen steam frigates and corvettes, thirty steam sloops, and ninety-two gun-vessels and gunboats. During the same period only twenty three un- armoured ships had been built and converted—namely, seven frigates and corvettes, nine sloops, and seven gun-vessels and gunboats. But that was a very imperfect representation of the state of things in 1866, because his right hon. Friend knew very well what the condition of the remaining unarmoured steam vessels was, and that a large number of them were so unsound that they never could be again put into commission. In addition to the 139 steamers removed between 1860 and 1866, no less than fifty-five steam vessels, exclusive of line-of-battle ships—which he excluded as they were considered obsolete—were also removed up to last Christmas, when the late Government resigned—namely, ten frigates and corvettes, seven sloops, and thirty-eight gun-vessels and gunboats. But that was not the whole story, because before he left Office he called for an account of the number of effective unarmoured vessels we had on the list, with the number estimated to be worth repairing, again, exclusive of line-of-battle ships, and he was informed by the Controller's department that of the older steam vessels of all classes, built before 1860, there were seventy-nine above the rank of gun-vessels—namely, thirty-one frigates, twenty-one corvettes, and twenty-seven sloops, but of these only one-half, or, say, forty were repairable; of twenty-five gun-vessels, only one-third were likely to be repaired; and of seventy-three gunboats only ten were in a state to be again commissioned. Therefore, exclusive of line-of-battle ships, only fifty-eight of the old unarmoured vessels remained in a state fit to be re-commissioned. If to these were added the twenty-three built between 1860 and 1866, and the forty ordered to be built by the late Government, that would give a total of 121 unarmoured vessels fit for service in two or three years from the present time. Now, as his right hon. Friend opposite proposed to maintain sixty-four in commission, exclusive of the two largest stations—that of the Mediterranean and that of North America—and as no more than one-third could be in commission at the same time, because the rest would be either going out as reliefs, or would be under repair or fitting for service, he would like to know how his right hon. Friend could maintain his squadrons had it not been for the policy of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich? That was a most complete vindication of his right hon. Friend's policy, because, if he had not built those forty unarmoured ships, it would be absolutely impossible for his right hon. Friend opposite to maintain his squadrons even at the reduced standard which he proposed to maintain them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), had said that the unarmoured vessels built by his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) were small, weak, slow, ill-armed, worthless. It was true many of them were small, but if they had not been small they would have been worthless for their purpose, as they could not have gone up the rivers in China where their services would be required; and so far from being weak and ill-armed, they were very powerful vessels and carried 6½-ton guns, that is to say the heaviest guns carried by corvettes of the largest classes. He thought, therefore, that the policy of his right hon. Friend, instead of deserving the uncourteous remarks that had fallen from right hon. Gentlemen opposite, should have met with much better treatment, and that his right hon. Friend, himself, and the late Government were entitled to the thanks of the First Lord of the Admiralty for having enabled him, by their policy, to effect a reduction in the amount of the Navy Estimates, which no minister could otherwise have ventured to propose.

said, that if his right hon. Friend had been good enough to give notice that he was going to discuss this subject, which was hardly germane to the present Vote, he should be in a much better position to answer the questions he had put; but he should try off-hand, with the Papers he happened to have with him, to give the best explanations in his power. His right hon. Friend spoke of the China station, and complained, that two years ago, he (Mr. Childers) proposed to keep only two ships in Japan; and having made that assumption he compared that small force with the squadrons kept there by other countries at this time. He was speaking now from memory, but he thought the number of ships he and his right hon. Colleague (Mr. Stansfeld) proposed, without any official knowledge whatever, but only tentatively, and with much caution, two years ago for the whole China station, was seventeen or eighteen, and the number they proposed to keep on the China station now, including harbour ships, was twenty-five. Whatever he might then thought enough for Japan, we certainly now proposed to keep there more than two ships. On the whole station there would be twenty-five ships, with from 2,700 to 2,800 men, as contrasted with the 4,000 men which was the programme of his right hon. Friend last year. Then his right hon. Friend said that he did not understand how the Foreign Office agreed with the Admiralty in that proposal. He was not responsible for the late Foreign Office, but he could speak for the present Foreign Office, and say that the arrangements were entirely in accordance with their views, and that he and Sir Sydney Dacres had taken great care in concert with the Foreign Office, to determine the exact force for the China station. He thought his right hon. Friend was entirely in error as to the force kept in Asiatic waters by foreign nations, for it appeared, from the latest Report of the American Secretary to the Navy that the United States had on the Asiatic station at the present moment eight ships and one store-ship, nine in all, as compared with the twenty-five which we kept there.

I said that the American Government had five vessels in Japan.

said, they had altogether nine vessels on what was called the Asiatic station, whereas we had twenty-five, or taking all in Asiatic waters, thirty-one. Then his right hon. Friend came to the flying squadron, and asked for information about it. First of all his right hon. Friend said he assumed it would consist of some of the finest ships in the fleet, which was the case, but then he asked how was the Admiralty to know where the squadron was, supposing it was wanted on any occasion. His right hon. Friend must be aware that before any such squadron was sent off, very careful arrangements would be made with the aid of the Hydrographer of the Navy, by which it would be known to the Admiralty at what point the squadron ought to be at certain dates; and it could be communicated with accordingly. His right hon. Friend doubted whether flying squadrons were good for the Navy, and was of opinion that both vessels and men would be better trained if they were kept on foreign stations, as they were now. But there were but few naval officers who shared in that opinion. The almost universal opinion of naval men, especially those in command at present, was that to keep our fleet, as it was now kept, in foreign harbours, might, as his right hon. Friend said, make our officers good diplomatists—possibly a little too good, but would not make them good sailors. He had said in opening the Estimates that one of the faults he was bound to find with the present state of our Navy was, that while our officers were most gallant and zealous—there were none better in the world—they stood in need exactly of that kind of training which a flying squadron would give them. His right hon. Friend had also referred to speeches made in the Recess, and had remarked with reference to them that some want of courtesy had been shown to the right hon. Member for Droitwitch, a remark which he would probably have withheld had he reflected. Speaking for himself, he was unconscious of having alluded to the right hon. Baronet in any but the most respectful terms. It was true he had once or twice had occasion to comment upon the policy of the late Boards of Admiralty; and in doing so he had expressed the opinion, which he did not hesitate to repeat, that it was a mistake in 1866–7 suddenly to build a very large number of unarmoured ships when part of that money would have been much better appropriated to building armoured ships. It was a mistake, also, suddenly to discontinue building unarmoured ships and to commence building a large number of armoured ships, spending much more money in a few months than Parliament had voted, and then suddenly to discontinue that work also. All this work should have been spread over several years, and that would have prevented suddenly taking on 2,000 men and afterwards discharging 5,000, a proceeding which had produced a great deal of the existing dockyard distress. It was these sudden fits of building and stopping which had caused all the mischief. He had objected to this policy in 1867, and again in 1868, and he had only renewed his objection during the Recess. Such vacillating policy had largely contributed to the discharge of numbers of men in the early part of last year, and to the consequent distress so often lamented in the House.

said, before the Vote was agreed to, he trusted the Government would afford them some information respecting their relations with China. He wanted to know whether it was necessary to keep twenty-five ships and 2,000 men in China waters? England had entered into treaties with China and carried on a large and valuable trade with her; it then became the duty of the Chinese Government to protect that trade against pirates. If our representatives in China could not by mere diplomatic action insure the due observance of our treaties, it was quite time our relations with China were put upon some different footing. If we were to maintain our treaty rights in China by force of arms, we should never be safe from war.

said, he would not have risen but for the remarks of the First Lord of the Admiralty on the policy of the last Board, in 1866–7, which he had characterized as vacillating.

said, that in using the word vacillation he had alluded to the period between October, 1867, and June, 1868, when the dockyards were first increased by 2,000 and then reduced by 5,000 men.

said, he understood, then, that the charge of vacillation was preferred against his right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry), but, as he had taken part in the preparation of the Estimates, he did not shrink from sharing the responsibility of the policy then adopted—on the contrary, he thought it a sound and wholesome policy. Without bringing any charge against the Admiralty that was in power before 1866, he must remind the Committee that soon after taking Office he had felt bound to state that our fleet had been much neglected, that the Admiralty had not the means of sending out proper reliefs; and he contended that, in the event of war with a maritime Power, nothing would prove more serviceable than the fast-sailing fully-armed wooden ships the late Admiralty had provided for defending our own commerce and assaulting that of an enemy. Possibly the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman had fallen from him in the heat of electioneering time, when perhaps they were not always as nice or cautious as they should be; he had, however, some re- collection of having been charged with extravagance both by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Prime Minister, but his best answer to that was the admission made recently, when the Estimates were brought forward, that one-half of the saving shown by the present Estimate was owing to the economical arrangements he had made.

said, as the charge of vacillation was made against him, he begged to say that his policy had uniformly consisted in applying every energy of his mind and every halfpenny he could scrape together for the purpose of developing the power of our armour-clad Navy, to which he had added seven vessels, in addition to three ordered by his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington), and to rescue the reserves of ships from the deplorable condition in which they had been left by the preceding Government. The reason why he had taken on 2,000 men in 1867 was because he had found that the whole of the reserve left him by the Government that had preceded him in Office was a single frigate, which was the only ship he could have commissioned if a war had suddenly broken out with France or America, and the salvation of the country had depended on it. He immediately set about bringing the reserves up to something like a respectable condition—for he belonged to the old school, having served at the Admiralty with Sir George Cockburn, who could not have slept in his bed if he had not a reserve of thirty line-of-battle ships, some ready, and others in an advanced state of preparation for being commissioned, if the safety of the country should require it. Having obtained the permission of the Treasury, he had at once set to work to bring forward armour-clads for commission, and had put on men to hasten the equipment of the reserves, so that by the time he had left Office he had ready for any service, instead of one frigate, four armour-clads, four heavy frigates, three or four corvettes, and seven or eight gun vessels, and this reserve would have been materially increased, as respects armour-clads, if he had continued in Office. He could not understand how giving employment, although temporary, to a body of workmen, could have added to their distress. If his policy had been a vacillating policy, it was one which he hoped the present Government would imitate.

said, that the observations of the right hon. Gentlemen fully justified what he (Mr. Childers) had said. If, instead of, in a panic, building a large number of wooden ships, and then a large number of iron ships, and if, instead of increasing the dockyard men by 2,000, and then suddenly reducing them by 5,000, these operations had been distributed over two or three years, they would have had quite as efficient a fleet and a not less economical administration of the dockyards without the distress which was now deplored on both sides of the House.

said, the discussion had taken a turn which raised the whole question—Have we yet an efficient fleet? There had been laid on the table a most able Report by his gallant friend Admiral Warden; and any one who studied that Report would be of a very different opinion from the First Lord of the Admiralty as to our having such a fleet. We had ships that would neither sail nor steer, and he believed the Admiralty did not know what kind of ships they were going to construct. The gist of Admiral Warden's Report was that the ships of the Achilles type were the best ships we had; that we had only four good ships, but they were too large, and that it was reduced copies of this Achilles or Minotaur we ought to build now. Now, however, we were going to build ships without masts, although we knew nothing whatever about such ships. He could only hope and trust that they would soon have a discussion of Admiral Warden's most able Report, and that they would come to some decision as to what kind of ship was to be built in the future. If the fleet were now ordered out to Madeira and back, he believed there would be a week between the return of some vessels and that of the others. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh, but such a difference in the speed o£ vessels as would lead to that result was a most serious thing. However, let hon. Members read Admiral Warden's Report, and they would see what a position we were in. The Hercules and the Bellerophon were, perhaps, the best ships we had, and they were a little handier than others because they were shorter; but they were moved at much greater expense than ships of finer lines, and, therefore, Admiral Warden recommended the building of reduced copies of the Minotaur. But were we building ships of that kind? It had been remarked that the sum voted for experiments had been reduced from £12,000 to £2,000; and that was not a prudent measure, because there were points in reference to which we ought to be continually making experiments, until we had arrived at something like a final and satisfactory conclusion. Among other things we had to devise some means of keeping the bottoms of ships clear of barnacles. Then, the consumption of smoke had been too much neglected in the Navy. Again, we had to develop the hydraulic turbine principle, which must in a few years supersede the screw. The principle had been tried with perhaps the worst and the most unseaworthy ship in the Navy—the Waterwitch—belonging to a class the two or three other members of which had been smuggled out of the country, had never been heard of since, and probably never would be, because no one would go to sea in them; but this trial—touching the greatest question of the day in regard to motive power—had been no experiment at all. It was well known that vessels had been worked up to ten knots an hour upon the hydraulic principle, and the most eminent engineers of the day declared there was no reason why a greater speed should not be obtained with the turbine than had been obtained by the screw. With the turbine you got rid of the immense swag of the screw and of the fouling of the screw, and the vessel was perfectly handy, and if you made sail the motive power obtained went to increase the speed; whereas, if you made sail with the screw, you had. to get up to the horse-power of the screw before the sails were any good to you. These were matters upon which experiments ought to be made until conclusive results were arrived at. Again, there was the question of liquid fuel and of the economy that would be effected by the use of oils obtained from petroleum. We could not use the oils at present, because they were inflammable at certain temperatures; but he had the greatest possible confidence that it was in the power of chemistry to discover some means of making them available, and the application of such oils to the production of steam power would be an enormous benefit to navigation. It was a mistake, he feared, to suppose that the Chinese Government could control the hordes of pirates who infested the 3,000 miles of Chinese coasts and resorted to the adjacent islands. They were ferocious and skilful; they preyed not only on Chinese vessels, but on vessels carrying the British and every other flag, and it was our own trade which we protected as well as the Chinese trade. At the same time, it was clear that if the Chinese Government was not able to protect its own coasts, it ought to pay a large subsidy to the Power which provided the necessary defence.

said, that without following his gallant Friend through the discussion of the hydraulic principle, and of the best form of ship, he believed all the points involved were as yet in the experimental stage; and the misfortune was that success or failure on one point threw no light on the principle of another. He thought the discussion showed that he was not wrong on Friday night when he abstained from giving a personal opinion on those points. In spite of the strong observations made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) he voted on Friday night for the building of the two iron-clads, and that fact seemed to suggest the question whether we were to be guided in building our Navy by minute details relating to ships, or by other considerations such as might have induced the hon. Baronet to vote as he did. It was to be presumed he desired to see a ship built at Portsmouth [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE: Hear, hear!]; but if we were to adopt a particular class of ship, let the Committee consider the reasons which had been advanced for and against particular classes, and let us abstain from these experiments which were loading the Navy with vessels that would certainly become obsolete, and involving us in expense of which we could not see the end.

said, he wished to correct the statement that he had said the twin screw had failed. He carefully guarded himself against expressing such an opinion; but what he said was, he had received an opinion from one of the highest practical authorities upon the twin screw, and that opinion was highly unfavourable to it in a vessel with a large draught of water; and not a single word had fallen from any Member during the discussion of the Estimates to remove from his mind the impression which he had derived from the opinion he alluded to. Reference had been made to the twin screw for vessels of light and of moderate draught, with which it had answered well; but the only vessel with a draught of twenty-two feet that it had been tried upon was a vessel built for the Dutch Navy; and one of the constructors of that navy told him that which he communicated to the House—namely, that the twin screw had failed, and must fail with vessels of a large draught, for the reasons deduced from the experiments made with the Dutch ship in question. We had now six or seven of those vessels. Two or three of them would be tried in the course of a few months, and all he would ask his right hon. Friend to do was to pause until their principle had been shown to work satisfactorily. These new vessels were only estimated to make 12½ knots an hour, and it was usual for ships when tried to go a knot less than the estimate. He was quite aware that the twin screw gave a greater power of turning and, if it did not interfere with the speed and steering power, it would be valuable; but they must remember that with the adoption of the turret principle, the rapid turning of the vessel was a secondary consideration, however important it might be in the case of broadside-vessels. With respect to masts—which had been alluded to in the course of the debate the other evening—he believed a vessel, by the proper distribution of weights, could be as safe at sea without as with them, although, if they dispensed with sails as motive power they must remember that they would have to place all their reliance upon their engines, and if those broke down the ship would be helpless. There was, therefore, all the more necessity that the machinery should not be merely experimental, but adequate for all emergencies. Notwithstanding the Vote that was taken the other evening, he believed his right hon. Friend would pause before he went on with these vessels, though he had obtained the money to build them with. He trusted, at any rate, that his right hon. Friend would proceed with caution, and satisfy himself thoroughly as to the working of the principle. We have had enough of experimental buildiner—half our shins are mere experiments and failures. There could be no reason for injudicious haste, and he warned the First Lord of the responsibility which would now attach to him. He was glad to find that the importance of carrying on board a sufficient quantity of coal—a principle for which he had always contended—was being recognized, and that these new ships were to be capable of carrying seventeen days' coal. At present there was in our Navy a great extravagance in the consumption of fuel, combined with a very small space for carrying of coal on board the vessels themselves. The Admiralty, for some reason or another, appeared entirely to ignore the principles which were adopted in our mercantile marine—principles by which a large saving of fuel was affected. If the right hon. Gentleman would grant him a small Committee, he would undertake to prove that the engines in use in the Navy were in this respect of such a character that if employed, in the vessels belonging to any public company they would effectually prevent the company from being remunerative. He would simply, as an instance of what could be done, refer to a vessel that had sailed some fortnight since, to which he had already called his right hon. Friend's attention. That vessel, of 3,000 tons, was on her way to the Pacific—9,000 miles. She had reached Lisbon with a consumption of Scotch coal, which was 10 per cent worse than Welsh coal, of thirty-three tons, making the passage at the rate of twelve knots an hour. If his right hon. Friend would but institute a comparison between what was done in the mercantile marine of this country and in the Navy, he would find that there was something to inquire into. One firm, he understood, were now making fifteen engines upon this improved principle, which only showed that the managers of the mercantile marine had their eyes wider open that the Admiralty. Then, with reference to coal, he would venture to suggest that a great saving might be effected by the increase of railway communication between some of our collieries and coaling stations. Indeed, under the present cumbrous way of bringing the coals round the coast, it cost more, he believed, to coal a vessel at Portsmouth than at Malta. A small line of railway run from the existing Lines to Portland harbour would, he be lieved, be so advantageous that the saving effected in the course of a few years would more than pay the expenses which would be incurred. The same thing might be said with regard to the coaling depots on the Thames. He held it to be of the highest importance that arrangements should be made by which a continuous supply of coal could be maintained in cases of emergency especially, and that ships should not be dependent, as at present, on the arrival of colliers and fair winds. There was another point which he wished to urge upon the Government. His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir James Elphinstone) advocated the building of vessels at Portsmouth. He was scarcely surprised at the recommendation made by his hon. and gallant Friend, but he would suggest whether it might not be advisable to build some of our vessels in Ireland? The Admiralty got ships built in Scotland and Wales, and on various parts of the English coast, but they got none built in Ireland; and he asked, why was that? We had heard a great deal about what should be done for Ireland; and in this direction we could confer a material benefit on the people of that country. Ample facilities existed, as might be seen from the splendid 4,000-ton steamers running to Alexandria, which were built at Belfast. In Cork there was a naval yard. As an Irishman himself, and as having had practical experience in this matter, having himself had ships built in the North, South, and centre of Ireland—at Dublin—he trusted his right hon. Friend would not, in dispensing his favours, forget that there were shipbuilding yards in that country fully equal to the work which might be required.

said, that he was not an Irishman, but a Greenwich man, and he hoped that his right hon. Friend (the First Lord of the Admiralty) would not abandon Woolwich.

said, he could corroborate the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves), as to the facilities for shipbuilding in Ireland. A vessel was built in Ireland by the directions of the late Admiralty, and she was not only built as cheaply as others, but was superior to those turned out from other places.

said, he desired to to apologize to his hon. Friend for having misrepresented him the other evening. He would not enter again into the question of the turret-ships. With reference to the last part of his hon. Friend's suggestion—that the Government should build ships in Ireland—he would receive it with the attention it deserved. He could quite understand that his right hon. Friend who had preceded him as First Lord of the Admiralty being himself an Irishman, might have hesitated to give contracts in Ireland. [Mr. CORRY: We did give a contract there.] It was true that the late Government had given a contract for one gunboat in Ireland; but he could quite understand that a Board on which there were two Irishmen might have a delicacy in respect of giving contracts in Ireland, which the present Board, on which there was no Irishman, would not have;. With respect to engines he had already caused an inquiry to be made in consequence of a communication from his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves), and he could assure him that any representation he might make on a subject with which he was so conversant would be received in the best spirit by himself and his Colleagues.

said, that the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves;, might very well be left to the consideration of the First Lord of the Admiralty. In Ireland they got but few crumbs from the Treasury, and they accepted gratefully what came to them. He wished to call attention to the state of the Government dock in Cork harbour. It was now nearly four years since this work was undertaken, having been sanctioned by a Committee of the House. When it was commenced, it was said that the work would take six years for completion. Stones had been quarried, but, practically speaking, nothing had yet been done. The real cause of the little progress had been that there had been no adequate supervision. The works were under the direction of an eminent engineer, but the person who supervised them was little more than a clerk of the works. Only 100 yards of the coffer-dam had been carried out, and even that part of the work was imperfectly executed, and the sea had broken in several times. Spike Island and Haulbowline being so near, it was thought that convict labour might be rendered available, but that supposition had not been realized, the number of convicts having diminished. The Government had been compelled to fall back on free labour, and of the 150 men employed, only thirty were mechanics. The work was carried on in the most lingering manner and, if the present rate of progress were continued, the work would take fifty years for completion. There had been a grant of £150,000 for the work, but of that sum only £38,000 had been expended, and he did not think proper value had been obtained for the expenditure. All naval authorities agreed that it was most important that they should have a dry dock in that part of Ireland, so that iron vessels might be examined and cleaned. He hoped his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty would give him an assurance that these works would be carried on more rapidly, and completed within a reasonable time.

said, he wished to make a few observations with reference to Woolwich and Deptford Dockyards. It appeared that the work of Woolwich Dockyard was to be transferred to Chatham. He would not dwell upon the policy of this, but he could speak of the great distress that was consequent upon such a decision. If the transfer must take place, why should that valuable shipbuilding space immediately opposite the river be left to lie waste and unoccupied? Great facilities for shipbuilding had been provided both at Deptford and Woolwich, and, both as regarded the national resources and the interest of those localities, he thought some promise ought to be made by the Government that this valuable space should be used for some purpose, if possible, equivalent to that for which it had been turned to account for so many years. He hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to give him a satisfactory answer. The distress at Woolwich was very great, and he was daily receiving letters from men who said if they could not get work here they were willing to emigrate. He understood that Government were going to send out transports to Canada to bring home the troops which were no longer needed there, and he hoped that he might receive a promise that some portion, at all events, of these vessels might be utilized for the purpose of carrying out the distressed artizans of Woolwich and Deptford.

said, in reply to the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire), that the House of Commons had assented to the construction of the dockyard at Cork only on the understanding that the works were to be executed by means of convict labour. At first that labour was not found to be available, and the construction of the dockyard proceeded very slowly; the number of convicts employed at the outset for a period of eighteen months or two years being not more than eighty. Of late, however, the Government had recourse to free labour, and at the present moment 589 convicts and 189 free labourers were engaged. Not only, he might add, had £20,000 been expended on the works last year, but also a sum of £14,000 spared out of another Vote, and he could assure his hon. Friend that they were now being prosecuted pretty quickly. He was, moreover, informed on high professional authority that they were likely to be completed within a period, not of fifty, but of five years.

said, he was a Member of the Committee which had reported on the subject, and could most distinctly assert that it formed no part of the conditions on which the works were to be undertaken that they should be executed solely by convict labour. It would be an insult to say anything of the kind and no Irish Member would submit to it. He could also state on the best authority that, owing to the want of adequate local superintendence, a great deal of the money granted by Parliament for the purpose of carrying out those works had, as it were, been thrown into the sea, so imperfectly were they prosecuted.

said, that as a Member of the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and having the Report before him, he felt bound to corroborate his statement as to no stipulation having been laid down in their Report that the docks at Cork should be constructed by means of convict labour.

said it was true that there was nothing in the Committee's Report about convict labour, but it was also true that the first Votes had passed the House with the understanding that the work was to be performed by convict labour, and this was mentioned in the Appropriation Act. That condition was omitted, in the last and present Estimates, and the Government were therefore at liberty to employ free labour in the construction of the dock. He would inquire into the matter of superintendence of the works, but those who knew Cork harbour would admit that it was one of the most difficult places in the world to carry out hydraulic works of this kind. The hon. Member for Greenwich, (Mr. Alderman Solomons) had asked him whether the Government would take care, in reference to the closing of the dockyards at Deptford and Woolwich, to utilize to the best of their power the dockyards at those places? The Government were doing so, and he had taken steps which had induced inquiries as to whether the Government would sell or let the dockyards to private persons. He hoped that something would come of this, and Government were using their best energies to that end. As to the question whether the Government would convey some of the discharged workmen to the colonies, it was their intention to give the workmen at Woolwich the same opportunities as had been given to those at Portsmouth and Plymouth. They did not propose to take distressed persons generally, but only a limited number of artizans discharged from the dockyards, of good character, and whom they hoped the colonists would be glad to receive.

complained of the growing item for new machinery, new works, and new foundations at the various dockyards. In 1861 it was understood that Chatham Dockyard was to be the place for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Government could manufacture iron vessels as well and as cheaply as they could obtain them from private dockyards. But the fact was that not only two or three yards had got new machinery, but that there was not a single yard out of the seven that had not got it. There was a sum of £16,000 for new machinery, and £55,000 for repairs in the different dockyards. It was unfair to the community generally that, while the Government were not issuing a single order to a private yard, although the work could be done more cheaply outside than in the Royal Dockyards, they were adding immensely to their own means of production by increasing the machinery in their own establishments. The expenditure upon machinery ought to be looked after and prevented. With regard to the distress at Woolwich, he thought that the Government ought not to confine their assistance to their own discharged mechanics. The funds were those of the nation, and ought either to be placed at the disposal of all in that unfortunate position or of none. He had before protested against the closing of these yards, and he asked the House now not to accept the decree as one against which nothing was to be said or done. In his opinion the policy was a mistaken one, especially as regarded Woolwich, which possessed many advantages. In the case of a threatened invasion Woolwich required no special protection, because the lines for the defence of the metropolis must of necessity include it. Again, it was situated close to the great offices of State; and the great manufacturing establishments of the country. The Admiralty possessed there an area which was, he believed, only exceeded by that at Chatham. There was very little difference with regard to the draught of water; and on all these grounds he contended that Woolwich ought to be retained. We had spent £7,000,000 in protecting Portsmouth, and probably it would be necessary to spend £7,000,000 more before the works were perfect. Yet distinguished military authorities assured him that it would be impossible to carry on the work of naval construction or maintain a fleet at Portsmouth, in the event of serious war, unless we had absolute command of the sea, and in that case of what use would these forts be? The chances were that we should be unable to spare the troops to man them, and then we should have to abandon the dockyard which we were now spending so much money to protect, while we were giving up a dockyard which possessed a natural defence. In his opinion, the three best dockyards to maintain were Pembroke, Woolwich, and Chatham; but, at all events, Sheerness ought to be sacrificed before Woolwich, and he would also give up Pembroke rather than Woolwich, because Pembroke, however much it was fitted for our purposes in the days of wooden shipbuilding, was at present of comparatively little value. He thought it was absurd for the Government to give up Woolwich Dockyard to a private firm, and expect to be able profitably to reclaim it at some future period. In the first place the dockyard was upon too large a scale for the requirements of any private firm, and the alterations which would have to be made in it would quite destroy its usefulness as a public yard. Should the Government plan, therefore, be carried out, and should it be found necessary hereafter to take back the yard, the expense would be very great, and what was saved just now would be more than lost ultimately. It would be much better to preserve such dockyards as were shut up in a state of proper efficiency, so that they could be easily and quickly re-opened again should the requirements of the public service demand such a step.

said, he had been a Member of the Dockyard Committee which sat in 1864, and he could state that the whole subject had been very fully and carefully considered. That Committee unanimously recommended that Deptford and Woolwich should be closed, and by a large majority the Committee also recommended that Pembroke should be shut up. He was sorry that the case of Sheerness had not been brought forward, because he believed that the Committee would also have advised that it should be closed. The Committee, among other things, had considered whether the work of the country could not be efficiently done if concentrated in the three great dockyards of Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devonport, and the opinion prevailed that it could. His own belief was that the work would be as well done, and £250,000 a year would be saved. He hoped that the Admiralty would take into their serious consideration the advisability of closing Pembroke and Sheerness.

said, that the process of abolition, whether in respect to dockyards or clerkships, was not a very agreeable one for anyone to undertake. The abolition of Deptford and Woolwich Dockyards was an operation of great difficulty, and he was not prepared to take in hand, besides, the closing of Portsmouth and Sheerness. His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Samuda) had made some remarks in reference to the expenditure on new machinery, but the amount, £16,000, was not very large, when it was considered that the dockyard work represented £2,000,000 a year out-turn. The greatest part of this charge for new ma- chinery was for the factories, the tools in which required expenditure as improvements were made. The amount for shipbuilding machinery was very small.

said, that the Government, in assisting their employés to emigrate, only took on themselves the responsibility which attached to employers of labour, but it would be a great blunder if they undertook to relieve the distress existing among all other classes.

asked whether it was intended to take the Vote that night, as some discussion would arise on the proposal which the First Lord of the Admiralty intended to make with reference to a scheme of retirement for officers?

replied that he proposed to bring in a Bill on the subject of compounding half-pay and retired pay, and the subject could be discussed on the introduction of the Bill.

said, he hoped the Vote would be postponed. Some discussion would arise on it.

said, the Vote was word for word what the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposed. No change had been made. It was a mere formal Vote for Half-pay.

said, he wished to know whether any increased expenditure was contemplated in the Bill to which his right hon. Friend had referred?

replied, that if there should be any increased expenditure it would be put into an Estimate and brought before the House in the usual way.

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. The Estimates for Greenwich Hospital usually followed the Navy Estimates, and as an impression prevailed out-of-doors that a Bill was in preparation on the subject of the general arrangements of Greenwich Hospital, he wished to know whether the Estimates relating to it would be postponed till the House had an opportunity of considering the Bill?

said, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was an exceedingly proper one. They intended to introduce a Bill on the subject of Greenwich Hospital, which would take effect on the first of October; but they would only i propose the Estimates for six months, so that the House would have an opportunity of considering the Bill before the Estimates for the remaining six months were taken.

said, he would move, "That this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee." Every piece of legislation that sought to set up anew, aim revive such mediæval institutions as this court was likely to retard any comprehensive system of law reform. The curse of our system of judicature was the number and variety of our courts of law. This was an ancient court, established when counties palatine were erected, with a view to protect the inhabitants from the incursions of the people of Scotland and Wales, but now there was no use for it, and why should this special; jurisdiction be not only preserved but encouraged? In 1867 a similar measure was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, at that time Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and it was with drawn on the ground that the Judicature Commission was about to issue. That Commission had just made its first Report, which would be on the table in a few days; and considerable changes had been recommended. The object of the present Bill, which had been introduced and pressed forward with undue haste, was to defeat the measure proposed by the Commission. The Judges of this court were generally the Judges who attended the circuit, but the centre of the court was in Preston, and no attorney in Manchester and Liverpool would think of bringing an action there unless he expected to get a judgment by default, preferring to come to London, where he had the advantage of the best legal advice. In the last cause list at Liverpool out of seventy-three cases only eleven were taken out of the Court of Common Pleas of the County Palatine of Lancaster. The Bill would establish prothonotaries at Liverpool and Manchester, for the purpose of saving agency fees for the attorneys in those towns. He would undertake to say that it would not confer the slightest benefit on suitors, or lessen in any appreciable degree their expenses. It would simply benefit a few attorneys in Liverpool and Manchester, who were promoting it. Why should not Bolton, Warrington, and other large towns in Lancashire be considered, as well as Liverpool and Manchester? These prothonotaries, considering the important powers they would have to exercise, must be paid large salaries. Why should this expense be put upon the country, and that, too, when we were on the eve of a great reform of our judicature? If they were once appointed, it would be impossible to get rid of them without heavily compensating them. There was no public ground whatever on which the Bill had been brought forward, and it ought to be rejected. There was not, he believed, a single Petition in its favour.

said, that the feeling in Lancashire was almost unanimously in favour of the Bill. He was surprised that it should be supposed that the Bill would occasion any charge on the Consolidated Fund, for since the reign of Henry IV. the funds of the Duchy of Lancaster had been kept separate and distinct. The measure could hardly be said to have been brought on hastily, for legislation on the subject began in 1867, and this very Bill had been read three times in the House of Lords. In former days the Assizes for the county palatine were held in Lancaster, but by an Act passsed in the reign of William IV. the Crown was enabled to give Assizes to other places. The southern division of the county had now become more important than the northern, and in 1835 Assizes were given to Liverpool, and subsequently to Manchester. The prothonotary's office, however, still remained at Preston; and to this day all the solicitors in the county having to transact business similar to what was transacted by the Master of the Queen's Bench at Westminster, had to repair or send to Preston for the purpose. It was extremely important that prothonotaries should be appointed for these towns, in order that writs, &c, might be obtained there at once, without the necessity of employing agents at Preston. In fact, the opposition to this Bill proceeded from the attorneys of Preston, who were afraid of losing their fees for agency. It had not been deemed necessary that the office of prothonotary should be held by a lawyer. From the time of John of Gaunt, almost, it had been held by some one who was either a favourite of the King or a friend of the Chancellor of the Duchy for the time being. The last holder of this somewhat lucrative sinecure was the late Sir Charles Phipps, who probably never was at Preston in his life. He had, however, a deputy, a most excellent officer, to whom he paid a small salary, and by him the duties of the office were performed most efficiently. On the death of Sir Charles Phipps it was suggested to Her Majesty that the office ought not to be filled up; and Her Majesty, ever willing to subordinate her undoubted rights of patronage to the benefit of her people, acquiesced in the proposed surrender, so as to admit of the appointment of competent officers in the different districts. Before the arrangement, however, was completed, a change of Government occurred; but hon. Gentlemen opposite took the same view as their predecessors, and a measure was introduced which was only defeated by the pressure upon the time of Parliament occasioned by the Reform measure. Now that this difficulty was removed, the Bill, which had obtained the sanction of two Governments, ought surely to be passed.

said, the hon. Member who opposed this Bill (Mr. Serjeant Simon) must be aware that the court to be affected by it was to all intents and purposes a Superior Court. That the number of cases tried in this court at present was comparatively small was, he thought, an argument in favour of the Bill. If a man was to send out of his town for a writ for the purpose of trying his cause, he might as well send up to London for one at once. There was another court as ancient as the one in question—namely, the Court of Chancery in the County Palatine of Lancashire, and they were only now asked to do with reference to the court in question what had been done with reference to that court. The offices in connection with that Court of Chancery were formerly in Preston alone, but by an Act, which was passed a few years ago, they were extended to Liverpool and Manchester. Since that was done the business of the court had increased in an untold degree, and he was convinced that a similar benefit would result from the passing of the present Bill.

said, that the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill (Mr. West) had shown himself very oblivious of the objections that had been urged against it. He should like to know whether the First Lord of the Admiralty was in favour of the scheme. His hon. and learned Friend had entirely evaded the question, whether this court should be continued or not. There could be no necessity whatever for hurrying through this Bill when the Report of the Judicature Commission, of which the First Lord of the Admiralty was a Member, would be presented within a few days. He hoped the House would not go into Committee on this Bill.

said, the legal profession in Liverpool were decidedly of opinion that considerable advantage would result from the Bill, and the Bill was generally approved of there. The whole course of legal reform had been to bring justice to the door of the populations of the large towns, and, in ac- cordance with that policy, he hoped that the House would agree to the passing of the present Bill.

said, that last Session reasons were given why this Bill should not be proceeded with before the Report of the Judicature Commission was presented, and he had found it desirable to yield to those representations. He would advise his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. West) to postpone the Bill for a short time, until the Report appeared.

said, that on the remonstrance as to the Judicature Commission the Bill had been hung up for two years, and yet its promoters were now taunted with acting in indecent haste. If the Report of the Commission should prove to be in favour of this court being done away with, by all means let it be abolished, but meanwhile it was only fair that the inhabitants of Lancashire should enjoy the benefits which would be conferred by the Bill. He hoped the House would now allow the Speaker to leave the Chair, in order that Progress might be reported, if his hon. Friend would not proceed further with the measure for a reasonable time, but wait in order to see whether the Report of the Judicature Commission would be in the meantime presented.

said, that in Liverpool and Manchester the inhabitants were generally strong supporters of the Bill, as a measure for the extension of legal conveniences to the whole county, which | were now in a great measure confined to Preston.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.