said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the re-organization of the Secretary's Office and other Departments of the Admiralty have been completed; if so, what is the result of such changes; whether the reductions have been effected by the voluntary retirement of Clerks; and, whether the Report of the Committee and the Correspondence relating to these reductions will be produced?

Sir, the re-organization of the departments of the Admiralty in London is not completed. It is proceeding steadily, but not with undue haste, in order that it may be as complete as possible, and that personal interests may be fully considered. The department of the Controller of the Navy, the Store Branch, the Contract Branch, the Medical Office, and the Coastguard Office may be considered as finally dealt with. The new arrangements of the Accountant General's Office are under consideration of the Treasury. Those of the former establishment of the Secretary are nearly complete, but will not be finally settled until the new permanent Secretary has had time to consider them. The establishment of the Victualling Office is now being re-arranged. That of the Transport Office has not yet been taken in hand. Up to the present time fifty-two clerks in these offices have been discharged, or decided to be discharged, whose salaries were £20,250. Of these, forty have actually left. This reduction has been effected with the help of the Committee, of which the Earl of Camperdown is Chairman, who first consulted the heads of departments as to the abilities of their officers—both those who applied to retire and those who did not —and then personally saw those whom it was desirable to pension off. The Committee heard and considered every representation made by these gentlemen, and the public owe much to their considerate and careful action. The result so far is that whereas the salaries of the establishments in last year's Estimates were at the rate of £148,823 a year, and in this year's Estimates at £135,368, we have already reduced them to £125,644, or by £23,000. But when the other establishments are revised still greater reductions will be made, because writers will be substituted for a considerable number of clerks as vacancies occur; and, besides, other clerks than those already retired are expected to apply for retirement shortly. No clerks have been discharged against their will. In several cases there was hesitation, and some correspondence, but ultimately I believe that in every case the retirement was voluntary under the terms approved by the Treasury. I cannot give the exact financial effect yet; the pensions not being all settled, and the reductions not completed. On the whole Vote I do not think that the reduction will be less than £25,000 a year. Against this there will be the increase of superannuations to the extent of £15,000, but these of course will fall off every year. I propose to lay on the table, when the operation is complete, the Report of the Committee and all the correspondence between the departments of the Admiralty and with the Treasury as to this and as to other reductions, and I hope before the end of the Session to have an opportunity of giving the result of other economical arrangements as to contracts and stores. I may add that we have commenced further reductions in the establishments of clerks and civil officers at the dockyards. Twelve have been already reduced, all at their own request, but the inquiry as to the future strength cannot be fully made until the autumn.

said, he would beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer; and to ask whether he will engage that the case of those gentlemen whose interests have suffered and are suffering from the delay which has occurred in the organization of the office will be taken into consideration by the right hon. Gentleman when the organization has been completed?

I am not aware that anyone's interest has suffered from delay; but, on the contrary, I have always been apprehensive that some might suffer from haste. However, I will undertake to say that any case where personal interests have suffered shall have my best attention on its being brought to my knowledge.

said, he would state, in a few words, the course proposed to be taken by Her Majesty's Government. He understood that a very strong opinion had been expressed by many of his hon. Friends that it would be somewhat invidious to place the Commissioners in a different category from that of the Registrars. He would accordingly propose to strike out Clause 130, and to deal with all entitled to compensation in Clause 131. In that way the Commissioners, the registrars, and all who held office during good behaviour, would be dealt with alike. A wish was also expressed by several hon. Members that there should be a power given to the Lord Chancellor —and he was sure that the Committee would feel that the Lord Chancellor might be safely trusted—in certain special cases to award to the Commissioners or registrars the full amount of their salaries where he might think that justice required it. A provision had, therefore been introduced to that effect. Where any claims to compensation beyond the ordinary amount of two-thirds arose those claims would come before the Lord Chancellor, who, with the consent of the Treasury, would be empowered to deal with them, and award the compensation which he might think just. He begged to move that Clause 130 be struck out.

moved in line 12, after "office," to insert "or employment," which he believed would meet the views of the Committee.

proposed after the word "abolished" to insert "or discontinued," with the view of compensating short-hand writers who had given their whole time to taking notes of the evidence.

said, that the word "employment" which had been introduced in the clause would embrace all who had any title to compensation. He must therefore oppose the Amendment.

said, he thought the Government had gone quite far enough.

asked what security they had in the case of future employments against this claim of freehold?

said, the matter would require legislation, and he had it in hand.

said, he was glad to hear it.

moved a new clause, embodying the regulations under which the creditors of a debtor unable to pay his debts may, without any proceedings in bankruptcy, by an extraordinary resolution, resolve that a composition shall be accepted in satisfaction of the debts due to them from the debtor.

proposed a clause providing that every solicitor of the Court of Chancery shall be, and may practise as a solicitor of, and in the Court of Bankruptcy, and in matters before the Judges, Commissioners, or Registrars, in Court or in Chambers, may appear and be heard without being required to employ counsel. His object was to put the solicitors in the London district on the same footing as solicitors in the country in the respect of bankruptcy practice. He submitted this proposal with no wish to make any invidious reference to the other branch of the profession; but there was a great deal of rough - and - ready practice in bankruptcy, and he thought it would be admitted that the business devolving on solicitors there had hitherto been satisfactorily discharged by them.

said, that barristers should not have priority of audience in bankruptcy.

thought that solicitors should be allowed to continue to practice as they had hitherto done in the Court of Bankruptcy, though he thought that the clause was hardly necessary for that purpose.

thought that the phrase in the clause should be "solicitors and attorneys."

said, that so long as we had a separate set of practitioners for advocates the privileges of these advocates should be maintained; but, as the other branch of the profession had for many years had the privilege of practising in bankruptcy, he would ask the Attorney General to agree to the clause, especially as it would tend to save expense. The clause, however, would want some amendment, for otherwise it would give solicitors the right of appearing in the Court of Appeal.

said, he doubted whether the clause was necessary; but, as it might be, perhaps, a matter of some doubt, it was desirable that the law should be clear. He quite agreed that it was for the public benefit that solicitors should practice in the Court of Bankruptcy. He would therefore accept the clause, but proposed to make a slight alteration, and that it should run—"Every attorney and solicitor of the Superior Courts."

moved the insertion of a new clause (Fees and expenses of sheriff)—

"Where the trader is adjudged a bankrupt after his goods have been taken in execution by the sheriff, but before the sale thereof, the fees and expenses of the sheriff consequent on such seizure, including therein mileage, levy fee, and possession money, shall be paid by the trustee out of the property taken in execution, or the proceeds thereof."

opposed the clause on the ground that it dealt with too large a question—the reform of the law of sheriff. The person to pay the sheriff was the execution creditor, because he set him in motion, and he paid nothing if the sheriff got nothing from the debtor. He could understand a proposition to make the execution creditor pay in such a case as the hon. Member contemplated, but the hon. Member wanted to make another person pay. If the law of the sheriff's officer was altered, he would recommend that he be made an officer of the court and paid a salary; but he deprecated any Amendment of that law in a Bankruptcy Bill.

observed that the sheriff was bound to act by order of the Court, to take possession of the goods, and to advertise their sale; and it would be unfair that he should be put to that expense without being recouped.

said, that it was really only carrying out a principle of the general law that a sheriff should be paid his expenses.

said, he did not see sufficient reason for the proposed change in the law. The effect of it would be that the sheriff, or rather the under sheriff, would receive certain fees out of the bankrupt's estate which he did not receive now. That would be a premium to execution creditors to issue executions when they ought not. He was not prepared to alter the law in the direction of paying sheriff's fees out of the bankrupt's estate.

supported the clause. The sheriff was acting in obedience to an order from a Superior Court, and it was only right that he should be indemnified for the expenses incurred in the execution of that order.

objected to the clause as not possible to be adopted in its present shape.

said, that under all circumstances, he could not accept the clause.

proposed a new clause to provide that County Court Judges should receive an increased salary in case they had conferred upon them jurisdiction in Admiralty or Bankruptcy under "the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868."

said, he was by no means sure that this Bill would throw extra work upon those Judges. The question ought to be left until it were seen whether they had to perform extra duties or not.

contended that the duties of the Judges would be increased by the provisions of this Bill.

said, he hoped the Government would not consent to the clause. It would be time enough to increase the salaries of the Judges of the County Courts when they ascertained that this Bill would increase their duties.

proposed a new clause to regulate the retiring pensions of Judges of County Courts.

then moved a clause to repeal the 11th, 12th, and 13th sections of 29 & 30 Vict. c. 14. Those clauses enacted that in the event of a vacancy occurring in the office of high bailiff in any County Court, if the registrar of such Court were willing to perform the duties of that office, no successor to such high bailiff should be appointed unless the Lord Chancellor should otherwise determine. Most of the County Court Judges had remarked that this change, which was hastily made, was by no means a desirable one; and the result of it had been that in many large towns the registrars had undertaken the duties of high bailiff, whereas in small places the two offices had been generally retained, because the office of bailiff was not sufficiently remunerative to induce the registrar to accept it.

said, that his hon. Friend's proposition was irrelevant to the present Bill, and, besides it would be very imprudent to resuscitate those officials who had been got rid of with so much trouble. The clauses referred to in the Amendment had been enacted after the fullest consideration.

(in the absence of the hon. Gentleman Mr. Whitwell) proposed the insertion in the first Schedule, line 6, after "dyers," of the word "farmers" contending that there was no good reason why farmers and graziers should not come under the head of traders.

contended that farmers and graziers were not traders, but producers—they never had been treated in any other capacity, and he hoped the Attorney General would not consent to the Amendment.

said, the object of the exemption was to exempt non-traders from the penal consequences of the law, and he saw no reason why the farmers should be exempted.

said, there could be no doubt that in one sense farmers were traders; but they had never been treated as such, and he saw no reason to alter the old and settled principles of law. There was the less reason for this, as everybody could now be made a bankrupt whether he was trader or non-trader.

said, notwithstanding the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he must urge his hon. Friend to persevere with his Amendment. Farm- ers were traders in every sense of the word—they traded in manures and seeds, and produced a marketable article. He hoped his hon. Friend would persevere with his Amendment.

suggested that, as the Bill had undergone so much amendment, it should be re-printed, and that the Report should not be brought up for a week.

concurred in this suggestion.

said, he had intended to bring the case of the Commissioners and Registrars before the Committee; but when he rose for that purpose he was told by the Attorney General that that was not the occasion. He afterwards found that that was the occasion, and that he had lost his opportunity. These gentlemen had been appointed under an Act of Parliament, under which they had a freehold office for life.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman would find that he was right in stating that the matter in question did not rise on the clause which they were discussing when the hon. Member rose, but on Clause 131 and the two following clauses. He thought that the Commissioners and registrars had had ample compensation awarded them. With regard to the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Norwood), he had to acknowledge his services and co-operation in passing the Bill, and had no doubt he was sincere in his desire that the Bill should become law this Session; but his desire to postpone the Bill for a week was hardly consistent with that desire. They were now arrived at the end of June, and there were many other measures of great importance before the other House. Then, though there had been a great many Amendments made in the Bill, the substantive principle of the Bill had not been altered. The Bill would be printed to-morrow, and he trusted that the House would not think it unreasonable if he proposed that the Report be brought up on Friday.

said, it would be convenient that he should now state the reasons which had induced him to make a change of some importance in the Bill. The principle of this Bill was the abolition of imprisonment for debt. By imprisonment for debt he meant the power which a creditor had to imprison a debtor for an unlimited time until the debt was paid, without reference to the question whether the debt was contracted by fraud, whether the debtor was or was not able to pay, or whether non-payment arose from misconduct or unavoidable circumstances. That power of imprisonment for debt he proposed to abolish; but, if so, it was only fair to give the creditor every reasonable facility for obtaining the property of his debtor, and for that purpose the Government believed they had made the Bankruptcy Law simpler, cheaper, and more stringent. But that law applied only to debtors of a certain amount. It would be obviously absurd to make a day-labourer a bankrupt; there must be some limit, and the limit which the House had adopted was that of £50; so that, where a man owed above £50, the Bankruptcy Law could be enforced against him, and he could be examined, under some circumstances, arrested, and his property taken from him and divided amongst his creditors. But then came the question, what were they to do with the debtors below £50, and who were not subject to the Bankruptcy Law? Were they to be allowed to escape from the payment of their debts altogether? This raised the very difficult question of the County Court jurisdiction. The County Courts had not the power of imprisoning a debtor merely for non-payment of debt, but they could commit a debtor to prison, under two sets of circumstances which it was desirable to keep distinct. The first was where the debt was originally contracted by fraud, or incurred by the debtor knowing that he had not the means of payment; and, secondly, where the debtor could pay the debt, but wilfully refused to do so. The desirability of abolishing the power of imprisonment in County Courts had been pressed upon him in many quarters; but he did not feel himself justified in acceding to the request, although he had acceded to it so far as imprisonment under one set of provisions was concerned; and he did propose to abolish the County Court power where the debt had been originally contracted by fraud, believing that the acts of such debtors would be better dealt with by the general criminal law. Therefore, instead of leaving a fraudulent debtor subject to the County Court jurisdiction, he proposed to transfer him to the Criminal Courts, where the rich and poor would be dealt with on the same footing, and punished accordingly. But then came the other question of County Court imprisonment, where a man was able to pay his debt, but would not do so. He did not regard that imprisonment as a mere punishment for a past offence; but it was a process of imprisonment for the purpose of compelling the payment of a debt, and it was a process very analogous to the principle of the Bankruptcy Law. He had had conferences on the point with the County Court Judges, and he found that they were almost unanimous in favour of maintaining the power of imprisonment in the latter case, as they thought that the Courts could not be worked without it. The power, however, was exercised in comparatively few cases. He found, by a Return showing the proportion of debtors imprisoned to the number of plaints issued in the years 1864, 1865, 1866, and 1867 in all the County Courts of England, that the average for the our years was 834,088 plaints entered, 93,383 judgment summonses, 26,833 warrants issued, and 7,202 debtors imprisoned, or one imprisonment to 104 plaints entered. Many men would not pay their debts until the order of committal was made out; and he had received representations not only from County Court Judges and the trading classes, setting forth that these debts would not be paid if this power were not continued, but also on behalf of the working classes themselves, stating that if it were abolished their credit would be gone, and credit to a poor man, let it be remembered, was almost a necessity of his existence. For these reasons he had come to the conclusion that this power of imprisonment in the one case he had mentioned must be maintained. Then came the question, if maintained in the County Courts, why should not the same power be extended to the Superior Courts in cases where the debt exceeded £50? And as the general feeling of the House appeared to be in favour of such extension, he was ready to amend the Bill in that sense. He therefore proposed that the Superior Judges should have the same power of committal as the County Court Judges—namely, for six weeks. He trusted that this proposition would meet with the approbation of the Committee, and he now moved to omit at the end of Clause 4 the words ''in the County Courts and other inferior Courts."

intimated that a previous Amendment had been given notice of by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson).

said, he had given notice of an Amendment to leave out paragraph 6—

"Default in payment of sums, in respect of the payment of which orders are in this Act authorized to be made in the County Courts and other inferior Courts."

said, his experience had shown him that a very strong objection existed among the working classes against the abolition of imprisonment for debt, because the present state of the law was the only security a large proportion of the community was able to offer for credit. The position of the large and the small debtor was essentially different. The man who owed a large sum was almost always able to give security. The man who owed a small sum had nothing but his person to pledge. By taking away the power of imprisonment for debt a large portion of the community would be prevented from obtaining any advances at all. He hoped the Committee would pause before taking a step which, in the supposed interests of the working men, would inflict a considerable evil on that large class of the community.

stated that his position in Manchester obliged him to deal very largely with small-debt summonses, and his experience had led him to conclude that the sooner they were put an end to the better. In the first place, the cost to the public of maintaining prisoners and their families was very considerable; but besides that, the sacrifices which the law forced the working classes to make, in order to avoid committal, amounted to a very serious burden. It had been often stated that the County Court Judges were opposed to abolition of imprisonment for small debts, but the weight to be given to their objection was diminished by the consideration that they seemed to think that society only existed in order to maintain some work for them to do. Now, if the small-debt summonses were abolished there would be hardly any work for the County Court Judges, because as it was now they only sat on an average two days and a fraction of a day a week. He thought the argument with respect to credit had been put rather too strongly. It was said that these small debts ought to be regarded as debts of honour. He believed that to be the right view, and was fortified in that view by the opinion of Lord Abinger, who said a man of good character could always get credit; if his character was bad he did not deserve to have any, and it was better he should not be trusted at all. He had great experience in these matters, and he could say that there was no part of the duty of the Judge in the Small Debts Court so painful or unsatisfactory as the decisions which he had to give in these cases. How could a County Court Judge give an opinion as to whether a working man would be able to pay or not? He admitted that there was a strong feeling throughout the country on the question, and that probably the country was not ripe for the abolition of imprisonment for debt altogether. He was glad that the Attorney General proposed to apply the same law to the rich and to the poor. The proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, perhaps, the most satisfactory that could be made in the present state of public opinion, and under the circumstances he should give it his support, reserving to himself, on a future occasion, to move the total abolition of imprisonment for debt, when he should find the country in favour of it.

said, he was sorry to think that the Government were taking in this matter a decidedly retrograde step. In what was entitled a Bill for the Total Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt they were giving to the Judge an arbitrary power of imprisonment if he thought the debtors were able to pay. It was rather a fine distinction for the Attorney General to say that this was not imprisonment for debt. The injustice which had been going on for some years was never made more clear than by what was now attempted to be done. They could not justify a state of things by which a man who owed a debt below £50 was liable to imprisonment, while one who owed a large sum went free, and therefore it was now proposed to extend penal imprisonment—for penal imprisonment it was—to all persons. The Attorney General did not state in what condition in the prisons the new class of prisoners would be — whether they were to come into the same category as those whom the County Court Judges made prisoners. The Attorney General had justified his proposal by the opinions of the County Court Judges; but those who had lived some time in the world must remember when a man might be hanged for stealing a shilling's worth, and plenty of learned Judges gave it as their opinion that it would be impossible to say what might happen if this penalty were taken away. And so also, when imprisonment on mesne process was taken away an injustice was got rid of, but now they were taking a backward step. It appeared from the last Return of judicial statistics that there were more than 8,000 cases of imprisonment under the County Court Acts, and he should like to ask how many there would be under the proposed new process. He had hoped that when they spoke of a Bill for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt that it would have been fairly carried out, and that the humble would have been exempted as well as the great; but, as he had said, they were retrograding—giving to the higher a power of appeal which was not secured to the humbler debtor. As to stopping credit, he did not believe that the abolition of imprisonment would have any such effect.

said, that if imprisonment for small debts were abolished they would inevitably do away with the system of credit, without which, the poor man in periods of scarcity and distress would not be able to get on. He had experience of a working population which earned large wages for nine or ten months of the year, and were out of work for two or three; and were it not for the credit given to these poor people when out of employment their homes would inevitably be broken up and they would have to go to the workhouse. Instead, therefore, of having to maintain a certain number of debtors who would not pay, the country would be saddled with the expense of keeping a great number of people in the workhouses. On behalf of a considerable number of small shopkeepers in the city which he represented (Bath), he could state that they were adverse to the abolition of imprisonment for debt.

said, he thought that grave consequences had followed from the extent to which we had already gone in the abolition of imprisonment for debt. That could not be altered, but still graver consequences might follow if we were to go further in the same direction. He would therefore support the proposal of the Attorney General.

said, if he understood the proposition of the Attorney General, it was this—to confine imprisonment for debt to the case of debtors who, having means to pay, refused to do so. Of late years the current of our legislation had taken one direction—that of gradually depriving the honest creditor of his right and remedy. He had placed an Amendment on the Paper, by which he proposed that a man incurring a debt with the knowledge that he would be unable to meet it should be liable to imprisonment, and in support of this principle he could refer to the Bill now under discussion, because one of its clauses made this a criminal offence, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. By adopting this course, however, you would take away from the creditor every opportunity of recovering his money, because he would have to incur all the expense of a criminal prosecution, and, if he abstained from going on with it in consideration of the payment of his debt, would lay himself open to a prosecution for compounding a misdemeanour; while if he failed in substantiating the charge, as he probably would, because the knowledge of a man's financial position could not well be obtained from anyone but the man himself, he would expose himself to an action for malicious prosecution.

said, that a good deal had been said as to the poor man in reference to the question before them. He believed there was no real hardship in the law as it at present existed, and in support of this view referred to a Petition which he presented to the House some three weeks ago, in which 107 clerks, artizans, and others living at Reigate and in the neighbourhood objected to the Bill on the ground that the powers intrusted to the County Court Judges were not harsh towards the working classes, while their removal would prevent the working classes from obtaining credit when out of employment. He had ascertained that at Reigate, during three years, there had been only nine persons imprisoned by committal from the County Court; while at Dorking, from January, 1866, to December, 1868, out of 690 plaints there had been only twenty-three committals, and of these only six were actually imprisoned. He was glad that the Attorney General proposed to keep the law in its present state.

said, that though he should vote for the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, yet he confessed that for a long time his own opi- nion had been in favour of abolishing imprisonment for debt; and, as a question of general policy, he believed that the majority of the people were prepared to support total abolition. He believed it was a mistake for people to imagine that with the removal of the power of commitment for debt the practice of giving credit would also cease. The same thing was said when imprisonment for mesne process was abolished, and he believed the objection now urged to be as much without foundation as it was then. As the Government, however, were very much better able to judge of the opinion of the country than he was, and as they did not feel themselves justified in entirely abolishing imprisonment for debt, he did not feel warranted in dividing the House on this point. The Bill proposed to punish a man because his friends could not, or would not, pay his debts, and to imprison him for an indefinite time. Perhaps, until it was possible to get the public mind to advance as far as to say that in no case should a man suffer penal imprisonment because he failed to pay a certain sum of money under a private contract with which the public had nothing to do, the proposition of the Attorney General was the best that could be adopted, and therefore he should not divide against it. He trusted, however, that at some not long distant period public opinion would be in favour of the abolition of imprisonment for debt altogether.

said, that every one would be glad to see imprisonment for debt put an end to; but he thought that the Attorney General's Amendment was a proper one under the circumstances.

moved, at the end of clause to add—

"Provided, That no person shall be imprisoned in any case excepted from the operation of this section for a longer period than one year."

moved, in page 2, after Clause 4, insert (Actions for debts of £50 in Superior Courts)—

"Provided, That in any action brought in any of the Superior Courts at Westminster, where the sum recovered amounts to £50 or upwards in respect of any debt or liability incurred for or on account of any loan or advance of money, or for the price of goods sold and delivered, it shall be lawful for the plaintiff in such action to obtain and issue a summons from the Court in which the said action shall be brought, calling upon the defendant to appear before a Judge of the said Superior Court, and to show cause why a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum should not issue against him; and if on the hearing of such summons it shall appear to such Judge, by examination on oath of the defendant or other oral or documentary evidence, that the defendant has the means of discharging that said debt or liability, and neglects so to do, or that the defendant has wilfully contracted the said debt or liability without having had at the time of so contracting it a reasonable expectation of being able to discharge the same, or that the defendant is wilfully evading service of the said summons, it shall be lawful for the said Judge to direct a writ or writs of capias ad satisfaciendum to issue against the said defendant; Provided always, That if the said defendant be dissatisfied with the decision of the said Judge, he may appeal against the same to the Court in which the said action was brought."

said, that the proposed clause would give a penal jurisdiction to the Superior Courts, and would be reviving in an important degree the principle of imprisonment for debt. Under these circumstances he trusted that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton would not press his Amendment.

said, that in the face of the concession that had been already made, it would be scarcely right to press the Amendment to a division, though, for his own part, he much sympathized with the view embodied in it.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

promised that the matter should be considered.

moved an Amendment by which a Judge of a County Court was prohibited from sending any debtor to prison in respect of any sum not exceeding 20s. exclusive of costs.

, in rising, pursuant to notice, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Site and Charge of the New Courts of Law, said: I need not trouble the House at any great length in stating the reasons which have induced the Government to think that it would be expedient to refer this subject to a Committee. I need not especially enter into the comparative merits of one or other of the plans which have been brought under our consideration. The manner in which the question has risen is this—It will be recollected that at the commencement of the Session my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had then only recently came into Office, was very much startled, and even shocked, at the probable outlay of about £4,000,000—which was, I think, the estimate as the project then stood— on the erection of the new Courts on the Carey Street site. He made a statement to the House, in which he strongly objected to an expenditure on that scale, and he went on to make a suggestion which was supported by my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works —to the effect that the Courts should be erected on a new site on the Thames Embankment, which, in his opinion, would be preferable on the score of economy and convenience, and the selection of which would not be likely to give rise to any considerable delay—if, indeed, to any delay at all—in comparison with the Carey Street site. When my two right hon. Friends had developed their plans, they so far made a decided impression on opinion out-of-doors and within-doors that it was generally admitted, both by friends and opponents of the Carey Street site, that it might be advisable to think of a great contraction of the plan. But it was said— "Granting that it may be right to diminish very much the area and the cost of the new Law Courts, why should we leave that site which has received the sanction of an Act of Parliament, which cannot be disposed of without a considerable loss, and with respect to which we have already incurred and inflicted all the inconvenience of clearing away a very considerable population?" I wish, however, to point out that the plan which we found in possession of the ground at the commencement of the year—namely, the great scheme in Carey Street, for which seven or eight acres had been acquired and six or seven more were to be acquired—has practically disappeared, and that the plan for a reduced edifice upon the Carey Street site is, in fact, a new plan for all practical purposes like the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Commissioner of Works upon the Thames Embankment. It may be said that this is not a new plan, inasmuch as it is a return to the scheme which was originally contemplated. But then it must be borne in mind that the authorities to whom the maturing and execution of that project was entrusted did depart from that original plan, for reasons which we must assume to have been sufficient; and, therefore, I contend that the question whether we can revert to a contracted plan upon the Carey Street site is a question which must be considered either altogether or at least in a great degree as a new question. Now, my right hon. Friends were probably sanguine enough to believe that they would be able so to impress opinion in favour of the plan on the Embankment site that no opposition would be raised to it in favour of a contracted plan on the Carey Street site. But that has not been the case. Naturally enough, those who had originally projected the Courts upon the Carey Street site, and had obtained for that site the verdict of a Commission—although they obtained it at a time when the Carey Street site was not in full competition, nay, was hardly in competition at all with the Embankment site—these highly intelligent persons and the powerful interests which they represent could hardly be expected to forego the advantages they had gained by the sanction of Parliament and by the fact that important steps had been taken towards the execution of the plan. We have also to take into view the period of the Session at which we have arrived, the great pressure and importance of the public business which has to be transacted, and the almost absolute impossibility of asking the House of Commons at this period to devote so much time upon the floor of the House as would be sufficient for that examination and settlement of all the matters controverted between my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer), the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners), the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper), and others on the one side, and those who, on the part of the Government, and as independent Members, have given their decisive adhesion to the Thames Embankment, and the plan recommended with singular ability and great fertility of resource by the distinguished architect who was selected by the noble Lord opposite for the execution of the new Law Courts. Under these circumstances, as well as from former experience, the Government are aware that these are not subjects upon which the House of Commons is to be led merely by authority, and that there is no way of obtaining its assent except by carrying conviction to its mind. The Government, therefore, desire to associate the House of Commons with themselves, and not at the close of a Session, when the power of an Administration is generally supposed to increase greatly in relation to the power of independent Members, avail themselves of that or any other collateral advantages for the purpose of giving less than fair play to the contending merits of either of these places. We think, therefore, that the most convenient course for the House of Commons and the fairest for all parties would be to ask the House at once to appoint a Select Committee for the purpose of examining into the questions immediately connected with the site and the charge of the new Courts. Another question, into which I will not enter at any length, arose in connection with the Committee on Standing Orders. The Committee on Standing Orders very naturally felt that they were hardly in a condition to recommend that the Standing Orders should be dispensed with, so as to allow the Bill to go forward, unless the authority of the House had been definitively given to the plan recommended by my right hon. Friend. They being appointed for the defence of private rights and interests would not have been justified in setting aside those private interests under any sanction less than the authority of the House. For that purpose an immediate vote in favour of the Embankment plan would have been necessary, and the House is not in such a state of opinion as to justify us in asking for such a vote at the present moment. Upon this ground it is that, without entering into the controversy between these plans, or asking any Gentleman to abate any opinion he may have formed or expressed in favour of either of them—as a measure of general fairness and convenience, and one intended to promote expedition—I beg to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Site and Charge of the New Courts of Law.

The House will hardly be surprised to hear that it is not with entire satisfaction that I assent to a proposal tending to keep open a question which in my mind ought to be considered as closed by reasons upon which existing Acts of Parliament have been founded. Having on former occasions had opportunities of stating my opinions on this matter to the House, I should not, however, do right to depart from the example of my right hon. Friend by going into the merits of the general question. I own it is with regret that I find the Government suggesting any course which leads to delay in a matter on which we have available materials for an immediate decision. I regret also the cost of this delay, for the interest on the capital expended amounts to £30,000 or £40,000 a year. On the other hand I feel, and I think the House will feel, that it would not become me or any other Member to oppose a proposition for inquiry recommended to the House by the authority of my right hon. Friend and upon his responsibility. But I am bound to say that I think the time at which the inquiry is proposed is very inconvenient. Personally for me to take part in such an inquiry would be a simple impossibility. My engagements make that out of the question. Now, much will depend upon the manner in which the proceedings of that Committee are conducted and upon the nomination of the Members. I need not say that, whatever may be the decision of a Committee so appointed, it is not necessarily the decision of the House. Of course, if a Committee were nominated with a majority of persons already known to entertain opinions either in favour of the Carey Street site, or in favour of the River site, although they might be instrumental in collecting important information, no one would be surprised if in the end they adhered to the opinion with which they began. I feel perfectly sure, however, that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to constitute that Committee in the fairest manner possible; and I do not doubt that the proceedings of the Committee will be conducted, by the help of those who entertain opposite views, so as to add something to the materials already existing for a correct judgment upon the subject, or at all events, to bring those materials forward with some additional authority. I therefore acquiesce, though with some reluctance, in the proposal of the Government.

, referring to a question which had been put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject, wished to state that a Petition had been presented to this House by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) expressly stating that the Hon. Society of Lincoln's Inn were ready to abide by their original proposal as to the erection of the Equity Courts in Lincoln's Inn. The right hon. Gentleman had reminded the House that a reduced building to be erected either on the Carey Street site or on the Thames Embankment, and if there was to be any deviation from the original design in this respect the Committee should consider whether the proposal of the Society of Lincoln's Inn should not be entertained. By the adoption of the proposal of Lincoln's Inn an outlay of at least £100,000 would be saved to the country, and on another opportunity he would move that the Petition he had mentioned should be referred to the proposed Committee.

thought that before the question was put it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would state whether or not he considered that, not only the respective sites and charges, but also the particular plans and designs of the different architects should be submitted to the consideration of the proposed Committee, for it must occur to everyone that a design suitable for one site might not be suitable for another. He doubted whether the whole question could be properly considered by the Committee without the particular plans being brought under their consideration.

said, that as far as he was able to judge, the designs would not be brought under the consideration of the Committee, but the details of the plans would naturally come before them. He need hardly say how completely he concurred with his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer) as to the necessity of having an impartial Committee. It was quite obvious that one which was not so would have little weight with the general judgment of the House.

said, that as it was the intention of the hon. Member to alter the Bill by introducing certain definitions, and as hon. Members had not been made acquainted with the nature of the alterations, the most convenient course to pursue would be to commit the Bill pro formâ now for the purpose of introducing the Amendments.

said, the alterations he intended to make were exceedingly slight, and were prepared in order to meet the views of the President of the Poor Law Board. He hoped he would be allowed to proceed with the Bill in Committee.

said, he thought the course now proposed to be taken most objectionable. A Bill had been introduced to exempt certain things from taxation. [Laughter.] He called them things because they did not yet know exactly what they were, but the people were to be called on to contribute the amount which certain institutions should pay. It was reasonable before going into Committee that the House should know what the institutions were. They were called Ragged Schools and Sunday Schools; and as definitions of those terms had been asked for the hon. Member stated that he had prepared them, but unreasonably asked the House to go into Committee without explaining what they were. It was proposed to make, in favour of denominational Sunday Schools, an exemption which was equivalent to a grant. Under compulsory church rates the minority was compelled to contribute towards the support of the religion of the majority, which was bad enough; but in this case it was proposed to make the majority pay for the schools of the minority. Everybody who set up a Sunday School was to have a grant towards the expense of it. The House had a right to see the terms defining the schools that were to be exempted, and he therefore trusted that the Committee would be postponed for three days, in order that the Bill as amended might be re-printed.

said, the Bill was one of the utmost simplicity. There was only one clause likely to provoke discussion. He wished the Government to give an undertaking that progress should be made with the measure at the end of the three days, if the suggested postponement were acceded to.

said, that there was an Amendment on the Paper to establish certain definitions. Was it reasonable they should impose taxation without knowing its limits? It was all very well to talk about exemptions, but exemption to one man was increased taxation to another.

said, he hoped the Bill would be proceeded with. The Bill was good as far as it went, and, if necessary, an interpretation clause could be introduced. The House had affirmed the Bill by a large majority on the second reading.

said, that if the hon. Member wished to proceed with his Bill he had better accede to the suggestion of the Government. A great principle was involved in the Bill that required consideration.

appealed to the hon. Member not to insist on proceeding with the Bill. Although the Government might be opposed to the principle of the Bill, they offered no opposition to its introduction. It was necessary to pause until they had the fullest information on the subject. The Bill proposed only to deal with one part of a great subject. There was extreme danger of extending Ragged Schools at the expense of other schools. However necessary Ragged Schools might be, their number should be limited to the strict wants of the locality, as they were not fit receptacles for the children of respectable persons. Partiality to these schools would tend unduly to multiply them at the cost of better schools. There were grave doubts whether the House ought to proceed further with the Bill.

said, that if the Members of the Government entertained objections to the principle of the Bill they ought to have been in their places on Wednesday, and to have supported the President of the Poor Law Board. This was a question of rating rather than of taxation, and the reasonable and logical course would be to permit the parishes to exempt these schools if they thought fit. For Parliament to do it was to impose fresh contributions on the owners of other property. He should endeavour to oppose the further progress of the Bill.

said, the Government had exposed themselves to an unfair reproach by abstaining from discussion on the second reading of the Bill, which they did out of consideration for the hon. Member in charge of it, and in order not to obstruct him; but the Government was largely represented in the division. To press the Bill on was not the best mode of making progress with it.

said, he thought the object of the hon. Member would be best promoted by acceding to the suggestion of the Government.

considered the proposal a very fair one. The House ought not to be called on at one o'clock to discuss Amendments which they had never seen.

had never said he desired to press the Bill against the feeling of the House; but he wished to retain his position in regard to a measure the principle of which had been affirmed by the vote of a large majority of the House. He confessed himself astonished at finding the Home Secretary that night attacking the principle of the Bill. He simply asked the Government to give him a day on which he could bring his definitions, prepared at the request of the Government, before the House. He supposed there would be no objection to the Bill now being committed pro formâ.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the measure (Mr. T. Chambers) not to go on with it at that late hour (one o'clock). If it was too late to discuss the question of the rating of Bagged Schools at half-past twelve, a fortiori they could not proceed half-an-hour later with an alteration of the whole Marriage Law of England. The proposed Instruction to the Committee that "they have power to make provision for a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother," opened up a very wide question. He honoured Dissenters for opposing this Bill. The argument for extending marriages might be pushed further on the same ground, for a father to marry his son's wife, for who was more likely to be a good father to his son's children than their grandfather? He moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, those who proposed the Instructions were not doing it for increasing the efficiency of the Bill, but to defeat it and a principle that had been sanctioned over and over again. If the Amendments were withdrawn, he would not press their going into Committee.

moved the adjournment of the House.

said, if a man were allowed to marry two sisters, a woman ought to be allowed to marry two brothers. The Marriage Laws should be discussed in a whole, and not in this piecemeal manner. Let it be done broadly, and not in this wretched manner. He supported the Motion for the adjournment of the House.

said, that as an imputation had been, made on him and the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) who had placed Instructions to the Committee on the Notice Paper, he begged to say he had not been actuated by any factious feeling against the Bill. It was impossible to discuss the Bill without noticing the absence of principle in every clause. He had no such sinister motive as had been attributed to him by the hon. and learned Member for Mary- lebone (Mr. T. Chambers.) He called upon the First Minister of the Crown and upon the Government generally to oppose a measure which was so exceptional to the general law of marriage of this country, while the Report of the Commissioners on the Laws of Marriage was lying on the table and recommended uniformity in the three Kingdoms. The Bill proposed to allow a man to marry his wife's sister, who stood towards him in the second degree; but it did not propose to allow him to marry his wife's niece, who was related to him in a more distant degree.

The hon. and learned Member who introduced this Bill has just told us that this measure has been before the House for at least thirty years. It has passed this House on repeated occasions, and by considerable majorities. It passed the second reading after as much discussion as such a Bill was likely to have by a majority of 100. To-night the division shows a majority of 2 to 1, and there can be no doubt that, so far as this House is concerned, the Bill is destined to pass; and there are strong reasons for supposing, looking at the opinions of those who direct the conscience of the other House, that the Bill may meet with a not unfavourable reception there. The hon. Member (Mr. Monk) says it is an exceptional measure. What was the Bill of 1835, which this Bill is intended to meet? There is nothing in this Bill more exceptional than that Bill. I will not now go into the discussion whether the hon. Gentlemen opposed to it have any reason in their objections or not. But see how many hundreds of fathers with their wives and children throughout the country, whose interests, whose peace of mind, and in some sort, whose characters are concerned in the passing of this Bill; and I ask hon. Gentlemen whether, when the Bill has received the sanction of the House so many times—and during this Session, I believe, by a larger majority than on any former occasion—they will not consent to let it go through? The hon. Member says—why pass a partial measure like this? If they were in favour of this Bill, so far as it goes, and wished for something farther, they could consider it in Committee. But they are not in favour of the Bill so far as it goes. The object of the Bill is to meet an existing and admitted grievance. When the brothers and the nieces, of whom the hon. Members (Mr. Collins and Mr. Monk) speak—when they are in great suffering and have a great cause of grievance, then the House of Commons shall take that into consideration. For it is a good custom of the House to take a grievance as it stands, and not to remedy grievances and put into Bills more than the public ask for and are prepared to accept. I do not want the Bill to go over, because I think there are many hundreds and many thousands in this country who have a right to ask Parliament to relieve them from the sufferings which they now endure; and when the House of Commons has said they should have that remedy, I should not like to be in the position of those who, after such incessant action on the part of the House of Commons, should still interpose against this great measure of relief, which many hundreds of fathers, as good as any Members of this House, ask to meet their case. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will allow the measure to go into Committee.

said, that nothing could be more inconvenient than business upon which there was a difference of opinion being brought on at so late an hour of the night. The question raised by the Bill was whether there was to be a different Marriage Law for England, Ireland, and Scotland. Sir Robert Peel's rule of allowing no contested business to come on after twelve o'clock at night was an excellent one, and facilitated Public Business.

said, that the rule the right hon. Gentleman referred to was well worthy of consideration; but it was scarcely fair to revive it, after it had been a dead letter for so many years, just in time to put off the hon. and learned Member's Bill. The proposition of the hon. and learned Member that the extraneous Instructions should be cleared out of the way was only reasonable, and he trusted that the House would assent to it.

moved the adjournment of the debate. It was time that the House should be adjourned.

said, that all that had been yet done was in the way of obstruction, and he wished to know whether the hon. Member who had proposed the Instruction would at any time, or under any circumstances, take the sense of the House upon it. He should submit to the wish of the House.

complained at the delay that would be occasioned by the adjournment of the debate, but he was ready to concede it.

remarked that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—that this Bill had been incessantly passed by the House of Commons—was inaccurate, as it had been thrown out by the last Parliament, and he believed the Parliament before.

said, that the hon. Member who had accused him of obstruction did not know what he was talking about. No opportunity of moving the Instruction had yet been afforded to him.

urged the Government to give a Morning Sitting for the discussion of the question.

reminded the House that the principle of the Bill had been already discussed, but of course he should be glad to get a Morning Sitting. He could not then, however, further resist the opposition on the other side.