tained and an atonement was made to which the noble Earl had advocated the society for the transgression of its laws, it Bill. He would, however, suggest to was the privilege of the Home Secretary the noble Earl whether it might not be to step in, to grant a conditional pardon, desirable to leave the subject, for one Sesand to modify the iron rule of justice by a sion at least, in the hands of the Secrefair consideration of the circumstances of tary of State for the Home Department. the case. The noble Earl concluded by That right hon. Baronet had not neglected moving that the Bill be read a second this question; and a Bill was now before time. the other House, where it would probably be read a second time that evening. That Bill certainly did not go so far as the one proposed by the noble Earl in extending the ages at which youthful offenders could be received into reformatories; but it contained provisions for a vote in aid of reformatory institutions. The real effect of the present Bill was to create a new system of institutions for older offenders. There was a wide difference of opinion among persons of the greatest experience on this subject in reference to this particular proposition, and it would require the most deliberate consideration before coming to a decision upon it. It was no answer to these objections that the measure would be discretionary and optional. Youths between sixteen and twenty, if criminals, were perfect adepts in depravity, and the proposed system would really form a portion of prison discipline. He would, therefore, suggest that the noble Earl should refrain at present from pressing the second reading of his Bill, but should wait until the other Bill came up from the House of Commons, when his proposition could be taken into consideration. LORD BROUGHAM supported the second reading of the Bill. He had had some conversation with the noble Lord who introduced the Bill on the important question which formed its subject. If he were to say that he approved of the whole details of the Bill he should be going a great deal further than he was prepared to go without taking more time to consider the matter. As President of the Reformatory Union, his attention had been called to the very great difference of opinion among the members of the association on the important question whether Government or any of the authorities should interfere in these matters, or whether they should be left entirely to private and voluntary exertions. One very important class among the members of the Union held and supported very strenuously an opinion against any interference of the Government, or Legislature, and amongst those were Mr. Adderley the Recorder of Birmingham, and a lady whom to name was to honour. Miss Mary Carpenter, the founder of one of the most important of the reformatory institutions, at her own proper cost-a circumstance which not only redounded to her credit and honour, but ought to give very considerable weight to her opinion. On the other hand, there was a very powerful body of the same great institution who held a directly contrary opinion, and who, he had no doubt, would be disposed to support this measure, though he had no right to speak for them; but only judged according to the views they usually advanced and supported. Under these circumstances he (Lord Brougham) would only express his approval of the principle of the measure; and he might mention that among those who probably would approve of it was Lord Stanley, whose zeal and general ability were the theme of universal admiration. EARL GRANVILLE agreed with the noble Earl that it was quite time there was some legislation upon this subject, and that a fair trial should be made of the reformatory system. He felt bound also to acknowledge the ability and zeal with THE EARL OF DERBY thought that although it might be very desirable to know what were the intentions of the Government upon this subject, and to see how far their measure corresponded with and how far it differed from that of his noble Friend, yet that was hardly a reason for rejecting a Bill against which no serious objection had been urged. It was perfectly reasonable that the Government should wish to have a fair field for the consideration of their own Bill, and if they would consent to the second reading of this Bill, thereby affirming its principle, he would recommend his noble Friend not to press it beyond that stage until the Government measure had come up from the other House, when the two could be considered together, and their Lordships could decide how far the provisions of the one could be incorporated with the other. It would be hardly fair, however, to his noble Friend, after the trouble which he had taken, and after the very clear statement which he had made, to reject his Bill when no serious objection had been urged against it. EARL GRANVILLE said, he understood the principle of the Bill to be the establishment of reformatories for young men between the ages of sixteen and twenty, and to that principle he certainly could not consent, by reading this Bill a second time, to commit the Government. LORD BROUGHAM suggested that the noble Earl's Bill and the Bill of the Government when it came up from the other House should both be referred to a Select Committee, so that a third Bill might be framed from them. THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE objected to acceding even in appearance to the new principle contained in this Bill, and he hoped, therefore, that the noble Earl would not press it to a second reading, at least until the Government Bill had come up from the other House. THE EARL OF CARNARVON was sorry that the Government were unwilling to agree to the proposition of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby). If their Lordships would give a second reading to this Bill he would pledge himself not to ask them to commit it until the Government Bill was also before them. would adopt the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, that the debate should be adjourned. Further debate on the said Motion adjourned sine die. BATHING BILL-SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH, in moving the second reading of this Bill, referred to what habitually took place in the way of sea-bathing at Margate and Ramsgate, not because those places were worse than other sea-bathing localities, but because, from their position, they were more frequented by what he called a fluctuating population. The magistrates of those places found themselves unable to grapple with the evils complained of in the present state of the law. The magistrates of Ramsgate petitioned in favour of the Bill, and he was in a condition to say that they and the magistrates of other seabathing towns were unable at present to deal with the transactions complained of. No doubt the offence of which he complained-that of unnecessary exposurewas a misdemeanour, but Parliament had often interfered to give additional powers to magistrates in such cases. The necessity for Parliamentary interference had been shown in numerous communications that had been put into his hands--some of these being letters which appeared in the public newspapers in the course of last summer, written by fathers of families bitterly complaining of the scenes which had been exhibited before their eyes. The respectable inhabitants loudly denounced the practices which were carried on, and called for an alteration of the law in order to their repression. At this season of the year it was the practice for women to go down to the sea-bathing places and dance in the water, without any covering whatever, to the great disgust of the respectable inhabitants and visitors; and he THE EARL OF POWIS said, he was thought it was high time for their Lordafraid that if his noble Friend acceded ships to interfere in the way of legislation. to this proposition he would place him- The Bill before the House empowered five self in a very unfavourable position when magistrates in any place to make bylaws the Government Bill came under discus-and regulations, chiefly with a view to the sion, for it would then be said that the principle of this Bill was of far too great importance to be tacked on to a Bill which had been agreed on by the other House of Parliament. LORD BROUGHAM said, that, as many of their Lordships had an objection to assent to the second reading of a Bill with which they did not entirely agree, thinking that, notwithstanding any understanding which might have been come to on the subject, they thereby affirmed its principle, it would perhaps be better to adjourn the debate on the second reading, and thus to avoid giving a vote either one way or the other. LORD KINNAIRD supported the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, being equally unwilling to vote against the second reading of this Bill, and to affirm a principle which was objected to by many persons of great experience on this subject. THE EARL OF CARNARVON said, he prevention of this evil, and he proposed also that no one should be permitted to bathe in publie without a decent dress. As the regulations would be subject to the revision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the provision was not likely to lead to abuse, and he was in hopes that by such means the great evil complained of would be remedied. EARL GRANVILLE thought any attempt to deal with the matter would tend to throw ridicule on legislation, more especially by dealing with it in the way sug. gested. The object of the Bill, that of putting a stop to indecency in populous places, could be effected in all important towns which had got an improved Act by passing such by-laws as they thought necessary. It would be quite impossible by the common law to give magistrates the power to interfere in that matter. He thought any of those public bodies were the most proper to deal with questions of that sort. In country districts the evil did not exist, and if it did the regulation proposed would be inapplicable. The noble Marquess applied the Act to England and Ireland; he presumed it was to be applied to Scotland. THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH did not intend to apply the measure to Scotland, believing that noble Lords connected with that country would take the matter up as soon as the Act was in operation in England and Scotland. EARL GRANVILLE said, he did not see why the Act should be applied to England and Ireland and not to Scotland. He thought, from the reasons he had stated, their Lordships would not think it desirable to adopt the Bill, the effect of which, he believed, would be to cast a degree of ridicule on legislation. THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH, in the face of opposition of Her Majesty's Government, would not press the Bill, but he trusted the Government would take the matter into their own hands, and endea vour to remove a state of things which was disgraceful to a civilized community. On Question, Resolved in the negative. mmmmm HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, June 16, 1857. Motion on the paper to move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, said that he was unable to make that Motion by the forms of the House; but that he would proceed to make the objections which he entertained towards the pecuniary and official part of the Bill, and state the reasons why he thought those clauses should be postponed until they had been referred to a Select Committee. The Bill proposed to abolish the present Courts of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Ireland, and appoint one Court for the disposal of the business now performed by the two Courts. In taking that course it had been deemed expedient to deal with the officers of the existing Courts in a manner which, in his opinion, was scarcely fair with reference to the public funds. The salaries of the Judges had been formerly paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and that of the officers by Votes in the Estimates. It was now proposed to pay all the salaries out of the Consolidated Fund. Under the Act which constituted the former Courts there was no provision for retiring pensions. Under the new Bill retiring allowances were given, and both the Commissioners of Bankruptcy-who were old men and had served twenty years in these Courts-would be entitled to claim, the day after the Bill passed, a retiring allowance of £1,300 a year instead of £1,000 a year, to which they would have been entitled under the former arrangement. The Commissioner of the Insolvent Court could retire at once on his full salary after only three years' service. He should suggest that the senior Commissioner of Bankruptcy should retire at once on the old allowance, and that the other should be made first Judge, and the Commissioner of the Insolvent Court be appointed the second Judge. It would have been far more satisfactory to the people of Ireland, and to those who would have to vote the money, if a Commission had been appointed to consider this subject, and to say what alterations and what consolidations were necessary; and, also, from what source salaries and compensations were to be paid. He suggested that much might have been done to deal with the bankruptcy business by transferring a good deal of it to the assistant barristers, and BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRE- reducing the establishment in Dublin. LAND) BILL-COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. House in Committee. Clause 1. This Bill consisted of 411 clauses; those relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency being so mixed up that it would require a Select Committee to put them into shape. MR. MACARTNEY, who had put a The charge for salaries and compensations, taking them together, would be £14,542. | be surprised at it. That state of things It would be desirable, therefore, he re- the Bill under their notice tended to conpeated, that the pecuniary and official clauses should be suspended until the opinion of a Select Committee should be obtained upon them, and he thought that Committee ought to consist of hon. Members unconnected with Ireland. He complained of a loose system which had sprung up between the Government here and the Government in Ireland, by which upwards of £37,000 had in two years been paid out of the Civil Contingencies towards the bankruptcy compensation fee fund and the suitors' fee fund in Ireland. Holding these opinions, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would consent to postpone the pecuniary clauses until after a Select Committee had reported upon the subject. MR. VANCE thought the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was entitled to the thanks of the Committee for those portions of the Bill which had a tendency to place the law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Ireland upon a better footing than that upon which it now stood. He was, however, opposed to the proposal to confine the operation of that law to a single Court, because, owing to the increasing commercial prosperity of Ireland, he did not think one Court would present the necessary facilities for the increased number of traders who would be likely to resort to it for assistance. What was required was a simple law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, and he thought it would have been better to have dealt with those subjects by two separate Bills unencumbered with any provisions for salaries and compensations. He might also state that the Bill, instead of providing for the immediate retirement upon a large salary of the present Judge of the Insolvent Court, might more properly have made his services available in the new tribunal. MR. WHITESIDE said, the granting of £2,000 a year more or less for the purpose of portioning the eldest daughter of the Sovereign had given rise to considerable discussion in that House, but he should like to know in how many instances the public money had been expended in Ireland in abolishing offices whose occupants, men in health and vigour, were now walking about and receiving large salaries for doing nothing. Ile intended to move for a Return of the number of those offices, for he felt assured that the Committee would tinue; but while he was opposed to it upon that ground, he objected to it also upon the principle that it was in no way calculated to place the laws with which it proposed to deal upon a satisfactory footing. It did not, for instance, provide for the abolition of that distinction between the laws of insolvency and of bankruptcy, for the maintenance of which he had never been able to hear any good reason assigned. He could never understand upon what principle of reason or justice it was that the trader who had given up all his property to his creditors was allowed to start anew in life, while the non-trader, who did the very same thing, was placed in exactly a contrary position, inasmuch as his creditors possessed a lien upon any property which at any period subsequent to his insolvency he might acquire. Now, that was a point which, in any measure dealing with the bankruptcy and insolvency laws, ought, in his opinion, to be taken into careful consideration. The Bill before them, however, not only did not deal with that important question, but would be found to perpetuate that conflict of jurisdiction between the existing Courts of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, of which, by the establishment of one Court instead of two, it was proposed to get rid. It was also open to the objection that it was likely to throw an increased charge of £7,000 or £8,000 upon the consolidated fund, taking into account the extent to which the expense of the judicial staff, in the shape of salaries and retiring allowances, might, under its operation, be increased; for while the Bill abolished certain offices, it gave to the holders of them their full salaries for life, although some of those persons had not held their situations for more than three years; and some of these salaries were over £2,000 a year. Under this Bill those persons could retire, and then new Judges would be appointed for the new Courts, so that, in point of fact, under this Bill there would be two sets of Judges at full salaries. The measure therefore was, in his opinion, calculated to entail a considerable charge upon the country without any corresponding benefit, and he should under those circumstances, suggest that it should be referred to a Select Committee, which should include one or two commercial and legal gentlemen, with the view of having the subject to which it related dealt with in a satisfactory and comprehensive manner. which they considered they were justly entitled to withhold. These imprisonments for debt and contempt were a scandal to the law, and he hoped the Government would at length abolish them. MR. MALINS said, he concurred with his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken in the opinion that no good reason existed why the present distinction between the bankruptcy and insolvency laws should be maintained. He had asked the quesMR. MALINS said, he entirely contion why such distinction existed over and curred in thinking it was a monstrous over again, of learned Friends, but he had evil that persons should be imprisoned for never been able to obtain a satisfactory an- years for debt or contempt. He begged, swer. The object in the case of the trader however, to assure the hon. and learned as well as the non-trader being a cessio Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, in bonorum for the benefit of the creditor, he whose remarks he entirely concurred, that could not understand why they should be there was a class of persons who were so placed upon a totally different footing. He enamoured of imprisonment that they would might also observe, that while the bank- not be set at large. He knew a case in rupt, as a general rule, was not liable to im- which a man (a client of his own) was prisonment the insolvent was, and that his twenty years in the Queen's Bench, and confinement operated in many instances to positively refused to leave, when an order the complete ruin of his family, and of his for his liberation was obtained, notwithfuture prospects in life. He especially standing that he had been constantly dwelt on another very important difference making applications to the Court with in the practice of bankruptcy and insol- that view; while, in another instance, he vency, namely, that in the former there knew that a lady who was directed to give was an appeal to the Lords Justices in up certain deeds sat upon the box in which Chancery, while in the latter there was no they were deposited, and declared that no possible appeal from the decision of the power on earth should remove her. For Commissioner of the Insolvent Court. He all he knew she was sitting on that box at had hoped that that anomaly, as far as the present moment. He thought the only Ireland was concerned, would be remedied way to meet such cases would be to arm in the present Bill. If the absurd distinc- the Court of Chancery with powers to open tion between bankruptcy and insolvency boxes and execute deeds. The hon. and was to be preserved, he objected to the law learned Gentleman concluded by moving being administered in one Court. The that the Chairman report progress—a subject was one of the utmost importance, course which he said would, under all the and he should therefore advise his right circumstances, be the most convenient to hon. and learned Friend the Attorney Ge-adopt, in order to have the subject reconneral for Ireland, as there was no reason- sidered. able prospect that the Bill, with its 400 clauses, would pass into law during the present Session, that the question with which it proposed to deal should be referred to either a Select Committee or a Commission. With that view he should move that the Chairman should report progress. MR. J. D. FITZGERALD said, that the course which had been taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Enniskillen in introducing in Committee upon the Bill the discussion of an important principle was attended with great inconvenience. The present was the third year in which the Bill had been before MR. HADFIELD said, it was high time Parliament, and he certainly could notthat some steps were taken to amend the seeing that it had been upon the point of present state of the law as to the imprison- passing last Session had it not been that ment of debtors, which, he contended, was he had been a day too late in complying altogether unnecessary, and only productive with the standing orders of the House of of ruin to individuals. Again, the power | Lords-consent to throw it over altogether of imprisonment for contempt of the orders by complying with the suggestion to refer of the Court of Chancery was most cruel it to a Select Committee. He would reand vexatious. There were persons who had been imprisoned for thirty years, and he himself had been concerned in a case in which two ladies had been imprisoned for fourteen years for contempt of the Court of Chancery, their only offence being the refusal to give up a paper VOL. CXLV. [THIRD SERIES.] mark, too, that the Bill had been printed since last Session, and that copies of it had been widely circulated with the view of inviting criticism and amendment, but that no suggestions had been offered to improve the measure. The object of the Bill was to consolidate the law of bank 3 P |