creditor any power he might possess under it of arresting the debtor. If the noble Lord wished to have an alteration in the existing law, he should propose a distinct Amendment. LORD TEYNHAM said, he did not wish to do away with arrest when the debtor was deserving of imprisonment, but he wished to render the arrest certain in such a case; the arrest being always in the power of the Court alone, and execution never issuing without arrest actually taking place. THE LORD CHANCELLOR suggested that as there were penal clauses in the Bill, it would be better that the noble Lord should propose an Amendment when they were under discussion. but he thought it could not be but that the creditors selected to manage the affairs would neglect, after a time, the interests of the other creditors. For that reason he could not help most deeply deploring that his noble and learned Friend had been induced to listen to suggestions to put it in the power of creditors to place the affairs of the estate under the old system if they pleased. He knew that this clause would, to a certain class of persons, be a very great sop, and that there was a wish among a great mass of professional persons to see this clause passed. But that ought to pre-eminently put that House upon their guard, and induce them to take care they did not do anything which might result in causing grievous loss to small creditors, who looked to them for protection. For these reasons he thought this clause ought to be omitted. It was evident that the noble and learned Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor) was distrustful of the principle recognized by his clause, inasmuch as by the 95th clause he provided that the creditors if they thought fit, might appoint a Committee of their own body to check the trustee or assignee they might choose. It was a vicious principle to get rid of the public functionary in question, whose payment depended upon the realization of the property, the economy and the expedition observed in obtaining it. Now, the trustee to be appointed under the clause in question had no such interest in the cheap or speedy realization of the property or in getting rid of the expense of litigation. LORD CRANWORTH said, he objected to the alteration in the law which was proposed by this clause, and which he did not think would be conducive to the interests of creditors. The effect of the clause was that the system, which was founded by the Act of Lord Brougham in 1831, with regard to official control, should be abolished. The proposed abolition of the present system of the law would lead to much wrong being committed. On a recent occasion the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) said that he could. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, the bring as many witnesses to give their evi- great difficulty the Government had to dence against official assignees, and that overcome in this matter was to understand they should be abolished, as could be what was the best course to adopt among brought in favour of their retention. Under the conflicting opinions by which they were these circumstances, let their Lordships besieged upon this subject. His noble and calmly look at the question, and see upon learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) had prewhat the arguments rested. Before 1831 sented that evening a petition, signed by the estates of insolvents and bankrupts 800 merchants and bankers of the City of were managed by persons selected by the London, objecting to the abolishing of creditors and under that system the funds imprisonment for debt; last Session he of the estates were so badly collected and (the Lord Chancellor) presented a petition administerd that in many cases credi- signed by 4000 merchants and bankers, tors, though no doubt angry at first at praying that they might have a greater conthe loss sustained, wrote off the bad trol over the effects of bankrupts. In order debts from their books and forget them. to give their Lordships a sample of the feelUpon the creation of the official assignees ing out of doors on this subject he would in 1831, those officers in a very short call their attention to a paper which had time collected and distributed more than been sent to him. There were two classes £2,000,000 of money belonging to various of persons who formed different opinions estates which had lain neglected. It was on this subject-one desiring publicity, the now proposed to revert to the old system other secrecy. The gentleman who sent by giving the creditors power to dispense him the paper to which he had alluded with the service of the official assignee; said, "he did not think any legislative LORD ST. LEONARDS was of opinion that the creditors ought under due regulations, particularly giving publicity to the transaction, to have the power to appoint their own trustees: there was no danger in these times that creditors would not look after their own interests. assistance should be given to enable any LORD CRANWORTH said, he would Clauses 94 to 110 agreed to. Clause 111, (Estate Tail of Non-Trader Insolvent not in Possession-not to be to give up the whole of his property, and his noble and learned Friend did not propose to alter that provision in respect to traders; but when a non-trader became insolvent it was proposed now for the first time to enact that, if he had any real property in reversion, it should be sold at the time when it would be most convenient to himself to sell. The reason given was that otherwise "vindictive creditors might dispose of the property at a time when it would be productive of but little advantage to the insolvent. But meanwhile the creditor might be ruined if his debts were not at once paid. What answer was it in such a case to say what the reversionary interest would produce more if the sale were delayed until it came into possession? Why, delay might ruin the honest creditor and drive him into the Gazette. In some other respects the Bill was perhaps rather too favourable to debtors; but this seemed to him the introduction of a principle which he deeply regretted should originate in this House. It would put abroad the notion that they were legislating for the sons of the landed aristocracy at the expense of the honest tradesman. LORD CRANWORTH said that this and vestigation into the affairs of the insolvent. the following section would commit a most A noble Lord, who was supposed to repre- monstrous and unmitigated injustice. Unsent to a great extent the views of the com-der the present law an insolvent was forced mercial community on the subject under discussion, (Lord John Russell) had intro duced in the other House a Bill in which he had gone even further than the Government in dispensing with the services of official assignees, inasmuch as he proposed to make it compulsory on the creditors to decide whether they would choose an official assignee or appoint their own trustee, whereas the Bill of the Government left it entirely at the option of the creditors to select their own trustee or to make use of the official assignee in that capacity. His noble and learned Friend said it was very hard upon small creditors that they should be overborne by a smaller number of larger creditors, because the latter would select a man who at first would do his duty, but would gradually become negligent, and then the small creditors would be placed in the hands of a solicitor who would only work for his own advantage. He (the Lord Chancellor) had had some little experience in commercial affairs, and he always found that creditors, whether large or small, were likely to look after their own interest, and that if they were to choose a trustee instead of an official assignee, they would take care that he did his duty. The question really was this, considering the difficulties of the case, and that the greater part of the commercial community were desirous of having a greater control over their affairs than they now possessed, had the Government not chosen well in adopting that system which they found was desired by a very considerable class of the commercial community, being perfectly aware that if they adopted a different system they would not have disarmed opposition. Under these circumstances, he trusted their Lordships would not consent to the clause being struck out. LORD WENSLEYDALE entirely concurred in these objections to the clause. Every man who incurred debts should be liable to the sale of his property to satisfy those debts, and if any loss were sustained in selling, the insolvent must expect to bear it. He could not conceive why the debtor should be called upon to postpone his claims. Such a principle was quite unprecedented. THE LORD CHANCELLOR thought that as the Bill for the first time compelled non-traders to surrender their property for the benefit of their creditors, it was right that settled estates in remainder should be protected in the manner proposed by the clanse. If the sale of a reversionary interest were forced, it might not be worth one-half or one-twentieth of the sum it would fetch when it came into possession. It did not take away the property from the creditors. Creditors were still to receive, to the extent of their claims, the produce of the estate; but they would not be empowered to sell it before it came into possession, unless the insolvent consented. It did not prevent the sale with the consent of the debtor. LORD CRANWORTH said, it was true that you could not now force an insolvent non-trader to surrender all his property, but you could imprison him until he did. This Bill now substantially took away the power of imprisoning for debt, and he entirely approved of the proposal; but surely it ought to be accompanied with even more stringent powers of enforcing the distribution of property. It was said that these estates would realize much more when they came into possession; but that might not happen for fifty years, and in point of fact they might never come into possession; for if the tenant in tail in remainder died without issue in the lifetime of the tenant for life, they could not be sold at all, but would pass to the ulterior remainder. When, therefore, it was said that the sale should not be anticipated, so as to guard the interest of the debtor, non constat but that by delay that interest might become wholly exhausted. He was sure the clause would be misunderstood and misrepresented out of doors, and it would be said, not without the appearance of truth, that their Lordships were passing a law to prevent the sons of landed gentry from being imprisoned, and at the same time to prevent their reversionary interests from being sold for the benefit of their creditors. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, it had been observed that a reversionary interest might not come into possession at all; but what would be the value of such an interest if it were forced to a sale? THE EARL OF DERBY thought the compulsory sale of reversions would be most objectionable. Clause agreed to. Clauses 112 to 140 agreed to. Clause 141. (If suspended on Rehearing subsequent Creditors to prove first against subsequent Property) LORD WENSLEYDALE intimated an opinion that some provision should be made to render liable the after-acquired property of an insolvent non-trader for payment of his debts. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the clause in its existing right seemed just and right, and therefore he trusted their Lordships would not assent to any alteration. By the existing law bankrupts were discharged by their certificate from all claim on after-acquired property; but insolvents were obliged to give a warrant of attorney before they were discharged, which allowed the creditors on application to the court to issue execution against such property. The practice of the Insolvent Court had been never to touch property subsequently acquired by an insolvent's own industry, and only to require a third of other property coming to him by bequest, to be given up for the benefit of the crediors. Such a practice showed an impression that the system was not a just one, and the Government considered that when it was proposed to abolish the distinction between traders and non-traders, and to compel non traders, for the first time, to distribute the whole of their property for the benefit of their creditors, it would be only just and fair to place them on the same level as bankrupts. Since by the alteration of the law they were about to allow the creditor to strip the non trading debtor and turn him naked on the world it seemed to him they ought to extend to him the same benefits which were given to the trader debtor. He mentioned, on moving the first reading of the Bill, that the power of the Court to compel the application of after acquired property principally affected small traders, as of 1,042 persons who applied last year for the protection of the Insolvent Court only fifty were non-traders and of above 4,000 who applied in the country, there was a much smaller number. There were very few cases in which the power was ever exercised, and he knew no valid reason why insolvents should not have the same benefit as bankrupts, when they were to be made obnoxious to the same liabilities. LORD CRANWORTH said, the blame to be ascribed to a nou-trader for getting into debt was much greater than the blame attributable to a trader, and he feared the public might think the change was made to protect non-trading spendthrifts-sons of the richer classes-wbose after acquired property was now liable. Although there might be some doubt, his feelings inclined him to concur with his noble and learned now allowed on books in the Latin, Greek, Friend. Clause agreed to. Clauses 142 to 146 agreed to. Clause was inserted, providing that in any indictment or information for misdemeanour under the Act, it should be sufficient to set forth the substance of the offence charged without alleging or set ting forth any debt, act of insolvency, trading, petition or adjudication, or any summons, warrant order, rule or proceeding, of or in any Court acting under that Act. Remaining clauses agreed to. The Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next. House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock. NEW MEMBER SWORN. For Midhurst, John Hardy, Esq. PUBLIC BILLS.-1o Public Offices Extension; Oriental, and Northern languages, printed by the Universities. Also, what books are considered to be free from duty under the description of " books in the Northern languages. Were SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, that such an exemption as that referred to by the hon. Member would scarcely be possible. In the first place it would be difficult to say what were really school books even amongst the lower classes of school books. In the higher classes it would be altogether impossible. an exemption given to all books printed by University, it would establish a monopoly for Universities. The books considered to be free from duty under the description of books in the Northern languages were those printed in the Russian, Scandinavian, Danish, Dutch, and German languages. NEW SOUTH WALES ELECTORAL BILL. QUESTION. MR. H. BERKELEY said, he would Colonies if the Royal Assent is given to the beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Electoral Bill passed by the Legislature of New South Wales. SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTON, Court of Probate, &c. (Acquisition of Site); said, there was a slight inaccuracy in the Remission of Penalties. 2o Evidence by Commission. BRITISH COLUMBIA.-QUESTION. SIR WILLIAM DUNBAR said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Returns relating to British Columbia ordered by the House will be presented? SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTON said, he had taken some pains to urge on the printing of those Returns, but they did not belong entirely to his department; some part, relating to the expenses of the Engineer's staff, belonged to the War Department, and that connected with naval matters to the Admiralty. When these should be received the whole would be ready, but he was afraid it would not be for a week or ten days. EXEMPTIONS FROM PAPER DUTY. MR. FINLAY said, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate whether he intends to introduce any measure for the better regulation of the Herring Fisheries on the West Coast of Scotland. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that he had been in communication with his right hon. Friend the late Secretary for the Home Department on the subject; and he wished, under present circumstances, to postpone his answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. MR. W. EWART said, he desired to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury has considered the propriety of TENANT RIGHT.-QUESTION. extending to school books generally the THE O'DONOGHUE said, he rose to exemption from the Paper Duty which is ask the Attorney General for Ireland whe ther he cannot introduce, without further | referred to by the hon. Member, there was delay, the Bill which is intended to amend the existing relations of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland. MR. WHITESIDE said, the subject, as promised by the Government, had been consigned to his care, and the measure was perfectly ready to be introduced; but, as there were other important Bills for Ireland now before the House, he thought it would be more convenient to get them substantially disposed of before this was introduced. When the discussions on those Bills had closed, he would ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appoint a day for the introduction of the Bill which is intended to amend the existing relations between Landlord and Tenant in Ireland. SUPPLY OF MARINE ENGINES. QUESTION. MR. H. G. LANGTON said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as Her Majesty's Government have thought it necessary to apply for tenders for the supply of Marine Engines from Liverpool, Scotland, and most of the eminent houses engaged in this particular business, Bristol is included amongst the places to which invitations for tenders have been made? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, no invitations for tenders had been sent to any house in Bristol, but the Government had no desire to exclude any particular locality or any particular house whose competency and respectability brought it within the conditions required. CLAIMS OF BRITISII TRADERS AGAINST PORTUGAL-QUESTION. MR. CRAWFORD said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether steps are being taken to induce the Portuguese Govern ment to satisfy the claims of British Traders for injuries done to them on the African Coast. MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that no effort had been spared by Her Majesty's Government to induce the Portuguese Government to satisfy the claims of those traders to whom the question of the hon. Gentleman had more immediate reference; but he regretted to say that repeated representations and remonstrances had had no satisfactory result. Besides the case another, that of the Messrs. Horsfall, which arose in 1842-sixteen years ago. Her Majesty's Government had protested to the Government of Portugal against the treatment which British traders in that case received; but after sixteen years' remonstrance the only result up to the present had been the promise of a reply. AUSTRIA AND THE ITALIAN STATES. QUESTION. MR. HORSMAN said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Treaties which subsequently to the Treaty of Vienna have been concluded between the Emperor of Austria and the different Sovereigns of Italy, and having reference to the internal Government of their Dominions or their Military Occupation by Austrian Troops, have been communicated to the British Government, and whether there are copies of them in the Foreign Office; and, whether there is any objection to lay them before Parliament? MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said, that as a general rule it had never been the practice of the Government to lay upon the table Copies of Treaties that were made between Foreign Powers, unless they were communicated directly by those Foreign Powers for the information of the Executive of this country. Perhaps, however, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) wished him to reply more in detail, and he would do so. With regard to the Treaty of Vienna, it was not necessary to lay it upon the Table of the House, because it had been printed, and any hon. Gentleman who wished to refer to it could do so in the Library. The next Treaty that would come under the question of the right hon. Gentleman was a Treaty admitted to have been made between Austria and Tuscany on the 12th June, 1815. Her Majesty's Government had no official knowledge whatever of that Treaty; but it was printed in the Austrian collection of Treaties, and might also be found in the library. The next Treaty was one between Austria and Naples. Of that again there was no official copy in the Foreign Office ; though, with reference to some portions of it, they had received such information as put them in possession of its nature and character. In the Morning Chronicle of the 10th October, 1848, would be found what, as far as Her Majesty's Government |