The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-05 00:00:00

Under the present system three of the creditors,or agents
' of the creditors, were chosen as commissioners. These
commissioners had no qualification, and weresupposed to
be a council, by whose advice and opinion the trustee
might if he thought fit, be ruled, though he was not
' bound to be so. The natural consequence was, that
when the trustee considered there was a responsibility
involved in the case he would call in the council, but
when he thought he could do without them he would
not call them in. One function of great importance was
performed by these commissioners—they audited the
accounts of the trustee and awarded his commission, so
that his salary was so far in their hands. Now, the
trustee was frequently enabled to exercise a great voice
in the choice of the commissioners ; the kind of votes
by which they were elected very much depended upon
him ; and the consequence was, that in many cases it
was found that the commissioners, owing their election
to the trustee, were disposed to favour him in auditing
his accounts and in fixing his payment. There was one
part of the existing law which very much facilitated any
improper proceedings on the part of the bankrupt and
trustees. Not less than eight, though not more than
14 days from the period of sequestration, as the bank-
ruptcy was called, were allowed the bankrupt for all
these contrivances, and for fraudulent purposes, if be
was inclined to devote it in that way. There was no
power of taking possession of the bankrupt's property
until eight days, and it might be 14 days, after the
bankruptcy. In the meantime the bankrupt could
make away with his property, and, if a dishonest man,
he might occupy that time in creating votes on fraudu-
lent or fictitious claims so as to elect a trustee of his
own nomination, in giving illegal preferences, and in
making away with and concealing his property. Now,
it was quite bad enough that there should be an elec-
tive court of justice at all, but it was monstrous that
there should be a court of justice appointed by election
in each particular case—and that, be it remembered,
not a court of arbitration appointed by the choice of the
two parties, but by a number of creditors, with all the
evils incident to such a system. By that body, and in
that way, was the court in each instance constituted.
He had referred to the possibility of appeal. The ap-
peal might take place in the case of the choice of the
assignee, or trustee as he was called in Scotland, and
perhaps two or three years, as had been known to be
the case, elapsed before the choice was confirmed. All
this while the unhappy creditors, who had or ought to
have no interest whatever in the matter, were kept out
of their rightful claims. They did not care one rush
which of the two rival candidates to the office was sue-
cessful ; all they wished was to have the business done.
The petitioners stated how much they suffered under
this system. " The season," they said, " for which the
bankrupt's goods were manufactured passes away, the
articles get out of fashion, and a fall in the market
often takes place which greatly diminishes the value of
the bankrupt's property." Another evil was, that the
bankrupt was often disposed to offer a composition with
which the creditors would be satisfied, but, until the
choice of the trustee was finally confirmed, that composi-
tion could not be accepted, andin the meantime the bank-
rupt otherwise disposed of money with which he had
intended to satisfy the claims against him, and the cre-
ditors were often entirely frustrated in their endeavours.
With regard to the system of class certificates which
now prevailed in this country, instead of adopting the
English change in the law in this respect, and taking
from the creditors the whole of the power of granting
certificates, this power remained throughout Scotland in
the hands of the creditors, subject to all the evils pointed
out by the commission of 1839 and 1840. By dint of
canvassing, by private interest, and not unfrequently
by direct bribery, the bankrupt now gave certain powers
to certain creditors for the express purpose of obtaining
their vote. Again, no provision was made for the public
examination of the bankrupt. The old act said he should
be examined publicly, but, practically, the bankrupt
was never examined in public, but always privately.
There was also no examination—at least no effectual ex-
amination of the creditors themselves. He would fain
hope that the petitioners were mistaken in the state-
ment that, under the present system, there was no pro-
vision for the examination either of the bankrupt or of
the creditors. He thought that must be a mistake,
because under the act of 1851 he believed provision was
made to enable the court to examine the bankrupt,
and, in fact, to compel his examination. Upon all these
grounds the petitioners prayed their lordships to adopt
the bill which now lay before them awaiting a second
reading—a bill which he had the honour of introducing ;
and they added, also, that the course which that bill
took relating to arrangements in cases of insolvency was
advisable and ought to be adopted. The Faculty of
Advocates having bad under their consideration the
Lord-Advocate's bill on the subject, disapproved a good
part of the bill, expressed no opinion as to whether it
went far enough or not, but added that they did approve
one portion of the bill, which, in his opinion, was the
only step of any importance in the measure—namely,
that of giving immediate possession of the bankrupt's
papers and books. He was bound to say that the mea-
sure which he brought before their lordships, and in be-
half of which these petitioners addressed the house, the
other petitioners joining in that prayer, had been most
carefully prepared by persons well versed in the Scotch
bankruptcy law— by practitioners both at the Scotch
and English bars ; and the measure had been by them
prepared with the greatest possible knowledge of all the
details. He had only to mention the name of Mr.
John Gilmour to prove that the bill had received atten-
tion from one possessing a perfect knowledge of the law
on the subject, and a complete acquaintance with the
practical working of the present system. It was
said that the change which had taken place in the
English law, and to which he had alluded, was less
applicable to Scotland than England. There might
be other parts of the law than those he had mentioned
in which the Scotch was more to be approved
than the English law. What was the moral of this ?
It was, that the whole matter should be carefully
considered by those commissioners who had been re-
cently appointed to take into consideration the assimila-

tion Of the mercantile law in different parts of the United
Kingdom. That commission proceeded from the Go-
vernment, as their lordships were aware, in consequence
of a great conference held last year, at which, in the
first place, the noble lord on the cross bench (the Earl
of Harrowby) presided, and over which, secondly, he
(Lord Brougham) had presided, composed of represen-
tatives from all the great trading towns in England,
Scotland, and Ireland. The idea of that conference
had, he believed, arisen from the formation of different
societies for the amendment of the mercantile law,
particularly in some parts of Scotland. A very
learned person, Mr. J. Stewart, having been in Scot-
land, had had communications with those parties, and
he rather believed it was in consequence of the com-
munications between him and some of those bodies in
the west of Scotland that the conference was appointed.
It had given him (Lord Brougham), he must say,
great satisfaction to preside over the conference in
question, because a more moderate and more rational
assembly of persons could hardly be conceived upon
any matter so interesting to the feelings of the indi-
viduals themselves. They were all interested in the
trade, commerce, and manufactures of the different
towns from which they came, but there was no tone
of violence, no headlong steps taken towards a change
no desire of change from the mere love of change,
but, on the contrary, what was done was done in the
most rational and temperate manner he had ever
heard. Another gentleman, Mr. Leone Levi, who had
devoted a large degree of attention to the subject of the
continental mercantile law, had promulgated the idea of
an international commercial code, and a noble duke and
his Royal Highness Prince Albert were understood to
support the opinion he expressed, that the state of the
world was ripe for the formation of a general interna-
tional commercial code. Others, however, had had some
doubts about this, and had thought that, at all events,
we should begin more humbly, by considering whether
or not a commercial code could be established for the
United Kingdom, leaving other countries out of the
question,—at least for the present. The conference had
bound itself to that opinion, but without giving up the
hope that they might live to see a more general union
among the different nations of Europe on this subject,
and the formation of one general international commer-
cial law among all civilised nations. The differences at
present existing between the various codes were not very
great, but where those differences existed they were very
embarrassing. He ought to apologise for having so long
detained their lordships, but he had deemed it his duty
to the petitioners who had intrusted to him the presen-
tation of the petition to state the facts which he had
laid before the house. He did not intend to press for-
ward this session the bill to which ho had alluded, but
he considered it would be in its proper place if referred
to the Assimilation Commissioners. (Hear, hear.)
CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT
BILL.

On the motion that their lordships do go into com-
mittee upon this bill,

The Earl of HARROWBY said that as the second
reading had passed without observation, he wished to
state briefly the objects of the bill. These were two in
number ; the first being to give facilities for the aggre-
gation of small livings in populous cities and towns. In
the city of London, for example, there was an immense
accumulation of churches, forming no doubt a great ar-
chitectural attraction to the metropolis, but doing little
for its spiritual welfare. Even at the time of the great
fire, there were far more churches than were necessary
for the wants of the inhabitants. The first act which
passed for rebuilding the city restricted the number of
new churches to 37 ; but three years afterwards, the
number was extended to 51 ; but no fewer than 48 of
the old ones were suppressed, such parishes and endow-
ments being united to others in their neighbourhood.
The number of churches, however, was still very con-
siderable. In one instance there were no fewer than
five churches to serve an area and population not larger
than that of Grosvenor-square, and several other simiiar
cases might be named. Now the population of the City
had not only diminished, but the number of those who
remained within its precincts on Sunday had decreased
to an even larger extent, insomuch that there were now
many churches in a position similar to that in Ireland,
where Dean Swift used to commence the service with
" Dearly beloved Roger," there not being a congrega-
tion large enough to justify his use of the plural word
"brethren." (A laugh.) This did not arise from any
bad feeling towards the church, or from any indisposi-
tion on the part of the clergy to do their duty, for the
same thing had happened to dissenting meeting-houses,
eight or ten of which had lately been abandoned, and
pulled down, or converted to other purposes. The
truth was that the causes which had in ancient times
caused vast populations to be pent within walls, bad
long since ceased, and London was now fast becoming
a city of shops and warehouses. (Hear, hear.) The
question then, was, whether it was not better that the
churches and endowments should follow the people ?
bishop (Hear, hear.) The present law gave the the
power to order by a faculty, a church to be pulled down,
and also to unite contiguous benefices; but in the former
case the process was inconvenient, and in the latter the ne-

cessity for the benefices to be contiguous, would interfere
with the end in view. The first eight clauses then proposed
to deal with this part of the subject. The rest of the bill 14
treated of patronage. The noble and learned lord on,
the woolsack was greatly concerned in this mattisr,
he held the patronage of no fewer than 754 benefices
total annual value of which was 190,0001., bes' eietr&k, -'•'
alternate presentation of 23 benefices, the total; 0
which was 7,8771. A vast number of them, InctiVeiveii7,.'', •-•-
were of an insignificant and wholly insufficient
and the bill would, therefore, enable the noble,.orcl.
part with a portion of his patronage, with a
parishes being consolidated with other. Powers Wo4l.
also be given to various companies to part with theirAko'
patronage, not for any pecuniary advantage, but for the
purpose of improvits, other livings, and so creating new
parishes with efficient means for the cure of souls. He
was aware that some persons thought it was improper
that a layman should interfere with church matters at all
but such would not be the opinion of their lordships ;
for the laity were as much a portion of the church as the
clergy. In the present case lie had been a member of a
commission recently appointed to consider this question,
and the bill bad met with the unanimous sanction of the
commissioners, including the Archbishop of York, the
Bishop of London, and another right rev. prelate.
The Earl of POWIS said it was bard to criticise any
measure relating to the church that emanated from a
noble lord so well known for his judgment and zeal in
such matters as the noble earl ; but still he thought the
measure was open to grave objections. If this bill passed
in its present shape they might destroy an old church,
and convert it to secular purposes, and a bishop might
be scoffed at for one day consecrating a church for re-
ligious purposes fur ever, and the next day signing a
NN arrant for the destruction of a church and applying the
site to secular purposes.

The Bishop of LONDON said the bill was the result
of a commission issued by her Majesty to inquire into
the best means of subverting large parishes, and of
making more effectual provision for poorer benefices.
The noble earl needed no vindication for bringing in the
bill, but, if one were needed, it would be found in the
fact that he brought in the bill, not on his own respon-
sibility, but on the responsibility of the commission to
which lie had referred, It was a matter of notoriety
that the churches in the city of London were far more
numerous than the wants of the community required.
That had been a matter of remark as long as he could
remember. He thought therefore they were abundantly
justified in bringing in this bill. He hoped their lord-
ships would allow the bill to go into committee.
After a few words from the Marquis of BATH and the
Earl of MieemEseurtv, their lordships went into commit.
tee on the bill, and the first five clauses were agreed to.
On clause 6,
The Earl of POWIS moved the omission of the
clause. The clause gave power to sell the site and the
burial-ground attached to a church. He thought such
a power ought not to be given.
The Bishop of LONDON supported the clause.
The Bishop of SALISBURY agreed with the noble
earl (Malniesbury) in many of his observations ; but he
thought he was pushing his feelings to a degree that
was opposed to the public interest. It was not possible,
in a metropolis like this, that a church should remain as
a ruin, and a burial-ground as an unoccupied site. He
hoped the noble earl would not continue his opposition.
The Earl of DERBY said he did not think the
analogy which the right rev. prelate had drawn was cor-
rect with regard to the power given under the Sewers'
Act, In that case the bishop was only empowered to
consent to what the Commissioners of Sewers thought
desirable, He entirely sympathised with the views of
the noble lord behind him as to the opinion of the public
with regard to the pulling down churches and the re-
moval of burying-grounds. The case presented by the
right rev. prelate with respect to the City of London
specially was peculiar ; but the bill was not framed to
meet the exigencies of the City only, and such consider-
ations must give way, and the minor evil must be en-
dured, when the object was to confer a gain on the
public generally. He suggested to the noble lord that,
omitting the metropolis, in all other towns the consent
of the municipal corporations should be obtained before
the church was pulled down or the burial-ground
abolished. The right rev. prelate could have no wish to
exercise an inviduous power, and it was clear that his
object was to be effected in a legitimate way.
Some conversation took place on this suggestion, and
it was understood that the Bishop of London expressed
his readiness to adopt it, but the Earl of Harrowby
objected to accept an alteration which would alter the
principle of the bill.
The amendment was rejected without a division, and
the clause was agreed to.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the house
resumed.
EXCISE DUTIES ON SPIRITS BILL.
Earl GRANVILLE moved the third reading of this
bill, and stated its general principles.
Lord MONTEAGLE took the opportunity of stating
that he viewed this bill, in its principle and application,
with great alarm, He approved of this effort at equal-
ising the duties on spirits in the three countries, but
he feared they were playing tricks with the revenue, and
lie doubted the wisdom of reductions in England in
order to benefit Ireland and Scotland. As it stood, it
was a bill to lose and not to gain revenue. The spirit
duties of Ireland was one-fourth of the revenue of that
country • and there ought to be no risk of such a sum.
He would now proceed to call their lordships' attention
to the authorities upon which he based his opposition to
the bill. In 1822, the duty upon Irish spirits was 2s. 6d.
a gallon, but in that year the Government of Lord Liver-
pool appointed a commission to consider the whole sub-
ject, and in 1823 that commission reported that experi- -
ence in the remote parts of Scotland and Ireland proved
that it was impolitic to impose a high rate of duty upon
spirits. The duty was accordingly reduced, and the
effect of that reduction he would show in a very few
words. In 1823, when the high duty was in force, it
was paid upon 3,300,000 gallons of sprits ; but in the
year following the reduction, the duty was paid upon
6,690,000 gallons. In the year 1830, Mr. Goulburn re-
pealed the window duty in Ireland, but added ls. to the
spirit duties, and the effect of that measure was to in-
crease the amount of duty paid, and this circumstance
induced Lord Grey to appoint a second commission to
inquire into the subject, who reported their concurrence
in the opinion that illicit distillation uniformly kept pace
with the advance of duty. The duty was accordingly
reduced a second time, upon the recommendation of
Lord Althorp—no mean authority—and the result of
that alteration was a rise in the revenue, not to 10,000,000
of gallons, which the Government anticipated, but to
12,000,000 gallons. From that period the duty went on
increasing up to 1840, when his right hon. friend, Sir F.
Baring, felt it to be necessary to add 4d. to the duty,
and Mr. Goulbure, who had the experience of 1830 be-
fore his eyes, earned Sir F. Baring of what would be
allowed owße. dpteoepal, ss,and so
undismayedby
the consequence of making this addition to the duty.
Nevertheless, the 4d.wyegn
mat-
ters stood until 1842, when
the previous evidence, put a ift:lrther duty of ls. on, but
the result of this experiment Wh,g so disastrous, that in
1843 Mr. Goulburn in the one hoeise and the Duke of
Wellington in the other, came down with a proposal for
the repeal of the additional duty. So much then for
his authorities so far as the revenue was coneerned ; and
now he would endeavour to point out in eve° or three
words the effect which an increase in the duty invari-
ably had upon crime. In 1834, when the high duty
was in operation, the number of criminals in all the
prisons in Ireland, charged with offences against the
excise laws, was between 400 and 500, but in 1842,
when the duty was low, the number was only 268.
The noble lord having gone into other figures to show
that the tendency of increasing the duty was to add
to crime, went on to remark that the excuse in the first
instance, to which he had referred, for augmenting the
duty, was the repeal of the window duty, while in 1842
Sir Robert Peel imposed the increased duty as a justifi-
cation for not extending the property tax to Ireland ;
but on the present occasion it was just the reverse.
Here the Government did not propose to commute one
tax for another, but in addition to increasing the duty
on spirits they proposed to extend the income tax to
Ireland as well. Nor was that all, for it seemed they
were to have a succession tax too, and on the whole he
must say that, however beneficial the budget might be
to England, it certainly would press most unjustly upon
Ireland. Relatively the figures stand thus—the soap
and assessed taxes remitted in favour of England
amounted to 1,443,000/. • while the new taxes imposed
upon Great Britain, which would consist of an increase
in the Scotch spirit duties and the income tax, would
amount to 403,0001.—and, therefore, so far as Ireland
was concerned, the positive relief would be 1,040,0001.
Now compare this with the state of the account so far
as it related to Ireland. The only remission in favour
of Ireland was 245,0001. of Consolidated Annuities ;
while, on the other hand, it was proposed to extend the
property tax to Ireland and increase the spirit duties,
making in all 658,0001., so that while they repealed
taxes in favour of Great Britain amounting to 1,040,0001.
they proposed to impose new taxes upon Ireland amount-
ing to no less than 433,0001., which was a manifest in-
justice. However, he would not detain their lordships
longer upon this subject, but apologising for having
trespassed so long upon their patience, he would simply
content himself with again protesting against the passing
of this bill.
The Earl of DERBY could not agree with his noble
friend in thinking that his observations were out of
place even at that hour of the evening, or in the then
thin state of the house, for excepting, perhaps, the latter
portion of his noble riend's speech, which referred to
the relative amount of taxation to be unposed upon
England and Ireland by the budget, and which he
thought was not necessary at this time, he was bound to
say the remarks of his noble friend were justifiable.
These remarks went to show most clearly that the peee.
tical effect of an increase in the duty was a correspond.
ing diminution in the revenue, and he entirely concurred
with his noble friend that this impolitic addition to
the duty would not increase the revenue ; but in
the present state of the house, and considering that
this bill was one to which the Government attached
considerable importance, believing, indeed, that it
would increase the revenue by 400,0001., he was un-
willing to do more in oppposition to the measure than ex-
press his entire concurrence in the views and opinions of
his noble friend. (Hear, hear.) He should be sorry to
see a bill which had passed the House of Commons, and
to which the Government attached considerable import-
ance, rejected by so small a number of their lordships ;
but he must at the slime time be permitted to say that
it was that consideration alone—for he thought the
measure a most mischievous one— which prevented him,
while it no doubt precluded his noble friend from taking
the sense of the house with regard to the passing of this
bill. He was, however, for the reasons he had stated,
disposed to leave the matter in the hands of the Govern-
ment, believing that like former governments they
would eventually find it necessary to retrace their steps
when they found, as they certainly would do, the same
evil consequences flowing from their measure as had in-
variably attended all similar experiments in this direr,