The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-21 00:00:00

ceeding three years from the date of your vesting
order. Hard, indeed, is the fate of the man who comes
between these conflicting fires—for whom escape
is impossible, inasmuch as he must fall on either
one side or the other.
" Dextrum. Scylla latas, lcecum implacata Charybdis
Obsidet."

There is no central course. The whole way is
blocked up, and in avoiding one danger he must
be immersed in the opposing one. Nor was this
Parliamentary oversight, as is generally supposed.
The Legislature deliberately framed the clause
(9 and 10 Via. c. 95, sec. 162), which provided
that " no protection order or certificate granted
by any Court of Bankruptcy, or for the relief of
insolvent debtors, shall be available to discharge
any defendint from any commitment under such
last mentioned order" (i.e. of the County Court).
This then should be immediately redressed, even
before the termination of the session, or great in-
justice may be inflicted under an enactment af-
fording so formidable an opportunity for oppres-
sion and extortion, and holding out so direct an
incentive to wilful and corrupt perjury.
But this is not all. We have recently seen
that after a hearing and discharge by the Insol-
vent Debtors' Court, the County Court Judge
may allow the seizure of the " excepted articles"
for a debt, or grant a warrant of commitment
against the debtor. This was an oversight—a
clear mistake on the part of Parliament,
and the error should be forthwith avoided.
Is it not palpably ridiculous that a party
should be enabled to plead a diNharge by
the Insolvent Court as a defence to a suit, and
that it should be sufficient to prevent the obtain-
ing a judgment, but not to prevent execution
being issued on a judgment already obtained.
There might be some plausible reasons offered in
favour of reversing these positions and allowing a
judgment to be obtained, although not to be exe-
cuted against an insolvent ; but the present system
is utterly indefensible. Were it not for the pre-
cedents afforded by Mr. Sergeant MANNING and
Mr. G. CLIVE, we could not have conceived
the possibility of any man selected for a seat on
the Judicial Bench wilfully setting at defiance the
authority of a court of concurrent jurisdiction,
and practically sanctioning appeals from the
Learned Commissioncirs of the Insolvent Court,
where such appeals were manifestly not contem-
plated by Parliament.
There is another evil also worthy of notice.
The discharge of the Insolvent Court may extend
to all payments, "by way of amenity or otherwise,
at any future time or times," by virtue of any
bond, covenant, or other securities of any nature
whatsoever" (Ist and 2d Via., cap. 110, sec. 80).
But if there is an agreement that, in default of
payment (as, for instance, of a premium of insu-
rance), the obligee may himself pay it, and then
recover from the obliger, there is no exemption
—and the party may be sued time after time
for what, to all intents and purposes,
is the same debt, and founded on a liability
existing before, and adjudicated on under
his insolvency. In this point also (another Le-
gislative oversight) adequate redress should be
afforded ; and Mr. Commissioner MURPHY will
entitle himself to the thanks and gratitude of the
community if he procure the enactment of a suit-
able measure.