retiring Bishop. He criticized, also, the difference between the provisions for the replacement of a Bishop and for that of an Archbishop, the interests of the latter being, he was of opinion, indifferently cared for.

The Archbishop of York defended the Bill against Lord Nelson's comments, as did the Bishop of London against those of the Duke of Cleveland, who, while approving the Bill generally, had intimated an opinion that in some particulars it did not go far enough.

The Duke of Somerset would have liked some compulsory provision, to meet the case of infirmities other than mental; and the Bishop of Gloucester admitted this point deserved consideration.

Lord Carnarvon criticized minutely certain of the provisions, particularly those respecting the proportion of emoluments left to the retiring Bishop, which he thought excessive, and those relating to the constitution of the tribunal for ascertaining the mental incapacity of a Bishop.

Earl Powys suggested that three-quarters of the proposed salary of the incoming Bishop should be provided by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Lord Cairns pointed out various difficulties of detail in the machinery provided for proving episcopal lunacy, and suggested emendations. He objected, however, altogether to the appointment of a Coadjutor to an Archbishop. It would be preferable, he argued, to insist in such a case on resignation.

The Lord Chancellor said that it should be borne in mind that this was in every respect a voluntary Bill. It was not intended to effect by any compulsory procedure whatever the resignation of any Bishop. If a man was absolutely incapable of acting, evidence as to his supposed mental incapacity was to be submitted to one of the Secretaries of State, and then it remained for the Crown to make or not to make the appointment of a coadjutor as it should think fit. Under such circumstances there could not be any contemplation of doubtful cases, or such as involved serious difficulty in investigation. As the Bill had for its object simply to provide for the discharge of necessary duties in the one case at the desire of the Bishop, and in the other where there was a clear case of incapacity, it seemed to him very desirable.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, in reply, pointed out that several of the criticisms that had been made upon the Bill applied equally to the 6 and 7 Vict., c. 62, on which it was founded. He was satisfied that the Bishops now afflicted would thankfully accept the alternative offered by the measure.

The Bill passed a second reading in the House of Commons with little or no discussion. It was suggested, however, by Mr. Henley, that it should be made temporary and limited in its operation to two years. On the committal of the Bill, Mr. Gladstone explained its general objects, and intimated that the Government would accede to Mr. Henley's proposal, as the time so limited would be sufficient

to test the soundness of the measure, and to determine how far the principle could be carried.

Mr. Hadfield moved the rejection of the Bill.

Mr. Dickinson criticized its arrangements, and urged the Government to withdraw it and take time to devise a more comprehensive Mr. Kinnaird and Mr. Dalrymple also raised objections

measure.

to the scheme.

Mr. Bouverie opposed the Bill. Limited as it now was in duration, it could only be meant to apply to two cases, Winchester and Exeter, and he objected to a scheme which, he showed, in one case would give a retiring allowance of 60007., and in the other of between 50007. and 6000l. a year.

Mr. Mowbray, Mr. T. D. Acland, Mr. McLaren, and other Members spoke in favour of the Bill as the best mode that offered of meeting an urgent necessity, and the House having resolved to go into a Committee by a majority of 112 to 26, the clauses were agreed to with the amendments which Mr. Gladstone had indicated.

The Bill received the Royal Assent on the last day of the Session. Shortly afterwards the Bishop of Winchester, who had been for some months in a state of partial incapacity from paralysis, announced his intention to resign his see. His example was followed not long afterwards by Lord Auckland, the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Another Bishop, the oldest on the Bench, Dr. Phillpotts of Exeter, who was also incapacitated for duty, and whose retirement under the provisions of the Act was generally expected, was removed by death. It was somewhat remarkable that the Primate himself, the author of the measure, was, to the general regret of the members of the Church of England and of the public, attacked shortly before the close of the year with a most serious illness, which for a considerable time completely disabled him from the duties of his office.

CHAPTER VI.

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES-The Bankruptcy Bill brought in by Sir R. Collier, the Attorney-General-Character of the Measure-It meets with general approval in the House of Commons, and, after much discussion, is sent to the House of LordsStatement of the Lord Chancellor on moving the Second Reading - Remarks of Lord Cairns-The Bill is referred to a Select Committee, and finally passed-Consideration of the Habitual Criminals Bill by the House of Commons-Criticisms upon and Amendments made in the Measure before it is passed-Legislation on Trades Unions -Mr. T. Hughes brings in a Bill to modify the Combination Laws in favour of these bodies-Debate on the Question-The Bill is not proceeded with, but the Secretary of State for the Home Department carries a Provisional Measure to protect the Funds of the Unions-Life Peerages-Earl Russell brings in a Bill to authorize the Crown to create Peers for Life, subject to certain restrictions-It is much discussed, and passes through all stages till the Third Reading, when it is thrown out on the Motion

of Lord Malmesbury-Earl Grey proposes a Bill to alter the mode of Electing Scotch and Irish Representative Peers, but it is not proceeded with-Protection of Property of Married Women-A Bill for this purpose is brought in and carried through the House of Commons by the Recorder of London-It is taken up in the House of Lords by Lord Penzance, supported by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Romilly, Lord Cairns, and Lord Shaftesbury-The Bill is read a Second Time, but is not proceeded with-Mr. Locke King renews his attempt to assimilate the Succession of Real to that of Personal Property in cases of Intestacy-He obtains a majority for the Second Reading of his Measure, which is then withdrawn-Marriage with Deceased Wife's Sister-Question again mooted by Mr. Thomas Chambers, who brings in a Bill, which is carried by a large majority on the Second Reading, but meets with repeated postponements, and is finally abandoned-The Permissive Bill restricting the Sale of Liquors-Again introduced by Sir Wilfrid Lawson, but thrown out on a division by a great majority-The incident of the Mayor of Cork-Extraordinary conduct and intemperate language of that functionary-His sympathy with the Fenian cause, and expressions respecting the attack on the life of the Duke of Edinburgh-The Government determine to take proceedings to deprive and disqualify the Mayor, and propose a Bill of Pains and Penalties-Various opinions expressed by Members of the House of Commons upon that mode of procedure-Leave given to bring in the Bill-Further proceedings are put an end to by the voluntary resignation of the Mayor-Foreign and Colonial Policy -Paucity of Discussions on these topics-The Alabama Controversy-Rejection of the Reverdy Johnson Treaty-Brief allusions to the subject in the two Houses by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe and Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer-Answers of Lord Clarendon and of Mr. Gladstone, who deprecate discussion-Debates on Imperial Policy towards New Zealand-In the House of Lords Lord Carnarvon, and in the Commons Viscount Bury, bring the subject under discussion-Summary of opinions expressed in both Houses-The Prorogation of Parliament on the 11th of August by CommissionHer Majesty's Speech-Retrospect of the Session and of the principal events of the year--The Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and other leading Measures of the Session-Serious increase of disturbance and disaffection in Ireland-Release of some of the Fenian convicts by the Government-Their return for the indulgenceStrengthening of the Military Force in Ireland-Review of the Commercial features of the period-Continued dulness of Trade, and increase of destitution in some districts-Partial agitation against Renewal of the French Treaty, and in favour of Commercial Restriction-Similar agitation in France on the same subject-More hopeful Commercial Prospects for the New Year-Symptoms of Revival of Trade, and greater confidence in the Employment of Capital-Board of Trade Returns of Imports and Exports-Fluctuations in the Public Stocks, the Bank Rates of Discount, and the Prices of Staple Commodities-Public Losses by Death during the Year-Decease of the Earl of Derby-His career and character.

THE question of the Irish Church, though it overshadowed the whole Session by its magnitude, did not, however, so entirely absorb the time of Parliament as to preclude legislation on some other subjects. Several useful Acts were passed, and other subjects were advanced, though not carried to their consummation in a legislative form. Of the former class the Bankruptcy Bill deserves prominent notice. For several Sessions the difficult questions involved in this branch of the law had demanded solution, and attempts had been made to grapple with them, but it was reserved for the Session of 1869 to pass an Act embodying what was regarded as a promising experiment in the right direction, if not a satisfactory settlement of this difficult subject. The Attorney-General, Sir R. Collier, is mainly entitled to the credit of this achievement, he having introduced and carried the Bill through the House of Commons, where it was very fully discussed, but was not materially altered in its progress from the original draft. The first step of moving for leave to bring in the measure was taken on March 5,

when Sir R. Collier made a statement explaining the leading provisions which it would contain. Having reviewed the failure of former measures, he said the main object should be to collect and distribute the estate of a bankrupt as fairly, cheaply, and speedily as possible. In the first place he proposed but by a separate Billto abolish imprisonment for debt, though the power possessed by the county courts would be still continued, placed, however, under stringent regulations. The main Bill, which made a clean sweep of the present system, would to a great extent be based on the Scotch system. When a man had been adjudicated a bankrupt his creditors would be summoned together, and there would be a preliminary proof of debts to determine the right of voting. The creditors would then have three courses-to accept a composition, to agree to a deed of arrangement, or to proceed in bankruptcy. If they chose the latter, they would appoint a trustee-not an official of the court, but any one they pleased; they would also nominate inspectors from their own body, the accounts would be audited by an official auditor, and the whole operation would be conducted under the superintendence of the court. A debtor would not be allowed to make himself a bankrupt, and after his release his subsequently acquired property would be liable for his debts for six years, unless he had paid a dividend of 108. in the pound. Five-sixths, however, of his creditors would have power to release him. Criminal offences in bankruptcy would be sent to the ordinary criminal courts, including quarter sessions and magistrates, and the stringency of the criminal law against fraudulent debtors would be increased. The administration of the bankruptcy law would be entrusted in the country to the County Court Judges, the present jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Commissioners being retained until they died off; and in London one of the judges of the superior courts would be constituted Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, with power to make rules and regulations, and in certain cases to summon a jury. Appeals would go to the court from which the judge came, and in a few instances to the House of Lords. The funds of the court would suffice to pay all the necessary compensations, and the Bill-though only half as long as that of last year-would be a consolidating statute.

The reception of the Bill by members representing commercial interests was favourable. Mr. Jessel, however, a leading counsel in the Equity Courts, made some critical observations upon its provisions. Leave was given to bring in the Bill, and also another which accompanied it, having relation to the same subject-matter, the abolition of imprisonment for debt.

On the second reading being moved, Mr. Jessel again stated his views on the subject, and laid down three main requisites for a good system of bankruptcy law-that it should facilitate arrangements between creditors and honest debtors who could not pay their debts, should secure the fair division of a debtor's property among his creditors, and the protection of the after-acquired property of a

debtor. Under the first head he complained that the majority of creditors necessary for an agreement was increased from threefourths to five-sixths, and he held it to be a shortcoming in the Bill that it failed to exclude persons who were not bond fide creditors from voting, and that it was the debtor, and not the creditors, who drew up the agreement. He was strongly opposed to relieving a debtor's after-acquired property from liability for his debts, the only effect of which would be to allow unscrupulous traders to speculate at the expense of others. Mr. Jessel insisted on the necessity of further changes in the mode of distributing the assets of deceased insolvents, giving some instances from his own practice of the hardships and inequalities of the present system.

Mr. H. Gregory, who professed to represent the opinion of the body of solicitors, approved the principle of giving creditors the management of insolvent estates, but objected to the creation of a special legal tribunal. He criticized the language of the Bill as being too limited in respect to partnerships and the definition of traders; he thought, also, that greater facilities ought to be given for the inception of bankruptcy.

Many members conversant with commercial subjects expressed approval of the principle of the Bill, among whom were Mr. Samuel Morley, Mr. Alderman Lusk, Mr. Anderson, and others, and of the legal members, Mr. Serjeant Simon and Mr. S. Hill were also favourable; other members expressed doubt or dissatisfaction as to particular provisions.

Mr. Peek complained that the arrangement clauses were vague; that there was no provision for taking estates out of bankruptcy; and that there were no repealing clauses. He went so far as to suggest that the Bill should be withdrawn, and another, not so much needing amendment, brought in.

The Attorney-General avowed his readiness to give full consideration to all reasonable objections or suggestions of amendment.

The Bill was minutely discussed in the Committee, which was occupied for several days in considering the numerous clauses contained in it, and many amendments were made, but none that involved material departure from the original scheme.

The Lord Chancellor moved the second reading on the 8th July, and explained its principal provisions. He justified the introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons rather than in that House. The subject of Bankruptcy Law had been so often discussed that he need not go farther back than 1821 in his narrative of legislation on it. He pointed out the novelties and defects of the previous Acts. In preparing the present Bill he had found a general desire to leave-subject to protection of the smaller against the larger creditors, and to the creation of sufficient supervision in getting in the assets as much power as possible to the body of creditors to manage their own affairs. To secure the assets; to encourage the debtor to declare himself insolvent as early as possible; to give the initiatory power of putting the Court in motion to the creditors and