The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-05 00:00:00

r;yam

-.)

ment ; for which reason the salary was fixed at a larger
amount than it otherwise would be. The duties, too, were ••••
of a highly responsible nature, and even in that point of
view he did not consider 2,0001. a year excessive.
Mr. HEYWOOD thought the amount was not at all too
]area_

The Clause was en agrees 0.. ,
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the house fres '''xi z''
sumpd.
„ ,: s'.:. .i.9y( if•_
• • • CUSTOMS ACTS. .4,,,'D erizt .011
. .
TherepOrt Of the committee on the Customs ck.ai was
brought up.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL (2).
The house went into committee on this bill, and progress
was resumed at clause 4.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR hoped the bill would not be
advanced further, for looking to its principle and the man-
ner in which it was drawn, it did not reflect any credit
on legislation.
(Hear, hear,) It was besides unnecessary,
as it professed to give a more summary process for recovery
of sums due on bills of .exchange when the process 'under
the existing law was sufficiently rapid.' Many of its details
were also objectionable. He ellipeted to thepreposed regis-
' try, and also to the provisiottairinch i66lssit, the
e dcoinduct
"thilill'anveernaly, tthenat-L Li
• tired" in processin notaries. etsh.e Ibtillalfsroomorttotz
whereas the provisions of the bill affec.ntestlooltrdidridoandi
rratotite7
land as well us England, a person i
' defending as
uitrnustcometoth thiscooro wereunttry 62
for rtheuis 'l',
pose of doing so. He found that
amend-
ments by learned friends of his, which alone was a
proof
1 of the imperfection of the bill, and wee an' .
additional
rea-
son why no attempt should be made to pass it this session.
There was another reason for delaying. this bill. It pro-
' posed to give a more summary process for execution on
1 bills than now existed and it was the opinion of severel
gentlemen whpse opirtiOn-aavere of :night that itystould
be accompanied by some measure whiSdeart ivith 'frau-
dulent transactions in bills of exChange. Such a bill he
had introduced in May lailt,-and'ifter Rai Eseals It had
received a third reading that evening; but, ,in orpsequenee
of the resolution passed by the other house, it had'ne
chance of becoming law this,seasion. ,He thought that the
two bills ought to go together, and if one of them was to
be cast into the limbo of next session' the other ought to'
accompany it. He moved that the chairman do leave the .
chair. . .
Mr. GEACH urged that there ought to be no legislation
On this subject without inquiry.He argued 'that -the'
facilities for recovering-money duo
On bills of exchange ''
were • sufficiently great at present ; while he showedlhat '''' •
this measure would, operate very injuriously with referenicti - '
to the forbearaticie,ofUngranted to peraCele- in trade who
had transactions, in bills. He opoiedthe,bill in the in.' , . ,
terest of the small shopkeepers, wh9 %Viet; 'be deeply /ter"' u-
jured by its operation. He had isseeivi;/1 letters fronr''''' ','
various quarters, begging he ,might continue his opposi;%`l:sL
tion, and therefore he implored the Government not t 07,17-
back it with that majority which a Government had gene-''''
rally at its command. He for one should offer to the bill
every opposition in his power, even although he should
incur the imputation of ibeing factious. He begged to
support the amendment. 1
Mr. MASSEY also supported the amendment, consider-
ing that the bill gave undue force to a particular speeders
of pecuniary-obligation.
c: Mr. MUNTZ said that the bill was one of the most nn-
just measures he had ever seen inticiducech - 'The faa•was
' that it was a job, and,the object was to appoint 'some One -
to the office of register. ' He repeated-that the bill was'
one Of the grossest jobs ever offered to Parliament.
Sir E. PERRY' 'said that the bill had emanated from
.etiveral public meetings-at the principal seats of commerce
in the country, held for the purpose of ascertaining
whether a more aural:nary process could be devised for
- recovering on bills of exchange.. The, result had been , ,
the I introduction of this bill,which had pasied the ~-,„.
' ordeal of ti select -comlnittee of the -.;House .of . - Lords.' Jes I.
At present a debtor, without any defend°, could inter-
pose weeks of delay in case of a billet exchange, kid the 1 .
object of the bill wag to prevent debtors so situateitlrOm
i
.. m osing any unfair delay between hiMself and his credi-
bor.! He asked the committee whethea :t was not a desir-
able object,. in cases where .an appeal law was necessary,
that that alepeiiiikould bes rendered at simple and summary
as possible. The plan now paoposed'hudebeen ix* orial) IP! .:
15(1 yeas i. 0,011.-rd _ Ily followed by the
principal monimercistinitattitsloG he ebatinent.Z 0 V 0
' r. MACGREGOR denied' -that•the case of Seetliind,
co ld be taken as a precedent. : In:sonee,
,exqmsnee 4 the RtAl-t,;
ril aritiox of the Scottieh banking !system" bills of 'change
i ,
di not circulate, but were absorbed by the banks, ands ,
re aced by the small note circulation. Had this bill been
la when the American diaculties existed the effe'Wwould
ha e been Universal ruin. , His recommendation '‘Nst,:3 that
th bill should be sautAk! a.comelittee. . .
',; r. GLYN said that the subject to which this hill le-
fe4red had occupied- the attention of the Citryot London
foil the last three years, and the 'general' opinioii was in
fatour of some change in the law. 'll4a-ever, he thought
the best course would ise.to postpone legiehiticin,Thr the . '
• _PrOsent, and leave the matter to he dealt with. by the Go-
yet nmeut next session.. ' - , • -
Mr. CAIRNS was also in favour of leaving the question
to!be dealt with next session by the Government.
Pit E. PERRY said after what had occurred he should
b sorry to take up the time of the committee by proceed-
ing further with the bill, and therefore with the permis-
ision of the committee he would assent to the chairman
reporting progress, with a view of withdrawing it for the
present.
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that the majority of the
mercantile community of the City of London were in fav-
our of this bill, but looking at the opposition which it was
likely to meet with it was hopeless to think of passing it
this session; he therefore thought his hon. and learned
friend had come to a wise conclusion in determining to
w thdraw it. At the same time he should be sorry to see
a principle which had been so highly approvied of altogether
negatived, and he would suggest that before they' reported
progress the chairman should be directed to ask, Jeavele, '
sit again this day three months. .
; !Mr. V. SCULLY expresseda hope that next session a
similar bill would be introduced, not only for England, but
for liiillud—ario. itillic of exchange should in their very
essence be made as negotiable and recoverable as possible.
Mr. MURROUGH said the delay and expense of reco-
vering bills of exchange under the existing system were
very much exaggerated, because a judgment on a bill of
exchange for 20,0001.c0u1d be obtained within sixteen days,
at an expense of Si. 165., in a town case, and Al. 25., in a
country case.
Mr. MALINS concurred in the opinion just expressed,
that there were abundant means under the existing law for
recovering on bills of exchange, and as he had never heard
any well-founded complaints of the existing remedies,
which were ample, he must protest against the revival of
this bill, which was objectionable, both in its details and in
its principle.
The house then resumed, and the chairman obtained
leave to sit again this day month.
BANKRUPTCY BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1,
Mr. WILLIAMS said he approved of the object of this
kill, but it did not go far enough. It proposed to abolish
tte_two_cenamisaieners of Bristol and one of those in Liver-
ool and Birmingham, whenever these should fill vacant ;
but he could not help thinking that it would be greatly for
the benefit of the country if all the Bankruptcy Commis-
sioners were abolished; and the business of those courts
transferred to the county courts, a transfer which would
produce a saving of no less than 59,000/. a-year. It was mons
Estrous to think of the enormous sums that were annually paid
to the Bankruptcy Commissioners. In the provinces there
were no less than 12 receiving 1,5001. a-year each, and 12
registrars in the receipt of 8001., while in the metropolis
there were no-lesathantive commissioners in the receipt of
,()00/. each, and fiveregistrars receiving 1,0001. a year each.
bMr. G. C. GLYN, as one of the commissioners who had
een appo;nted to inquire into the subject rof bankruptcy reform, stated that the suggestion which the hon. gentle-
)ran hadjust thrown out with regardto the Cloanty Ceuta
Was considered by the commission, but upon inquiry it was
found to be impracticable: He admitted that the etunrdaint
IA the hon. gentleman on the subject of the expense attend-
ing tho administration of the bankruptcy law was well
founded ; but this bill together with others which no doubt
would be brought in next session, founded upon the report
of the commission, would go'far to remove the cause of that
complaint. " •

e etJ hi

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said . it would be, he
thought, satisfactory to the committee to'know that this
bill was• only considered by the Government as a small
portion of the reforms which were required in bankruptcy
law. Indeed there was no doubt but that all the courts,
the jurisdiction of which related to matters of insolvency,
ought to be consolidated. ' - -
Mr. WILLIAMS remarked that the bill admitted that
ouly.one commissioner Was required for the country dis-
tricts, and he should therefore like to know why there
were to be five commissioners. for London. He could not
see why every County Court Judge should not be a com-
missioner in bankruptcy. They • had plenty of time on
their hands to attend 'to the additional duties.

LhelCcil.ule'sOon-
t'lß of remodelling the Bankruptcy Court
GENERAL reminded the hon. mem-
-I.leirlitheatst
in
occurred in that court, it would be quite competent to the
London was not now in question. When a vacancy
,
house to take into consideration the amount of business
before the commissioners, with a view to determine whe-
ther that vacancy should be filled up or not.
Mr. MURROUGEI said that it would be a very great
mistake to throw bankruptcy matters on the County Court
judges. The great body of creditors in all bankruptcies
resided in London, and if they had to go down to the
County Courts 0:1011110118 and totally unnecessary expenses
would be incurred.
The clauses of the bill Were then agreed to. Mr. MURROITGII moved at the end of clause 8 to add,
" and in order to facilitate the proof of debts the Lord
,
Chancellor may, by order, appoint one or more of the
ushers okthe Curt of Bankruptcy in London, or any usher
of any District Court of Bankruptcy, a commissioner or
commissioners for the
.piirposy of administering oaths or
taking affirmations for the proof of debts in such courts
respectively."
••
The SOLICITOU-GENERAL could not but feel that
it would be very:NU-Akio-us to allow-so inferior an officer
as the trsh'et • of, the ,Court to adminieter an oath. The
very effect of that ceremony
depended upon' its- beinrgene
through with befitting soleinuity. The hon—member. (M.
Murrough) should bear in mind that under a late actnearly
every respectable solicitor had been appointed a commis-
sioner fol.-administering oaths,
prove
and by that means every
reasohable facility was given to parties wishing to
debte.", ,--
Mr. MURROI.74II did, not thinkthe commissioners for
taking oaths really afforded any facility in bankruptcy
matters, foi it was the constant practice of crediforslo
go down in a body to the Court at Basinghall-street to be
Sworn. ,
Mr. GLYN said it was aertninly competent to Rart .
i"
to prove their debts before a commissioner if they chose
The, motion was negatived withouta division: i'a 1
the
Mr. MURBOUGEt then,moved the additank°ere'hthe
for discontinhing the practice of nominating ,
the 44.ttio
of
court to make inventories of bankrupt T te '
This clause; he stated, was in the
boiellainjbiad 'been obtained
.these officers to be discharged in futusr'eci,beycorthig,eininalesirseagterors..
duced, and he suspected thatit, re
on the recommendation
registrars, who hail been appointedtiufluence with that noble
by intrigue. He attributed this to fact that ono of the
of Lord and had
v nor the noble lord was
lieved that neither theregistrar_
lord, had a brother-in who was a broker ; and he be-
lieved had suc-
ceeded,'la'v'The same individual above such a job as that.nfluence with the noble lord, in
through hiss,
end to the jobbery with these
saaluaries raised, and a retiring pension
To Pproposed this clause, and should press it
brokers, he now ggievtetinngthtehme.registrsrut
to a division. .
Mr. GEACH thought it necessary to employ an lode-
p udent party as the broker, as a check on the messenger.
- eMr. A. I'ELLATT advocated the same view, and said
there was no additional expense incurred. If the men-
Beeeer alone had to make the valuation, being ignorant of
the valve of goods, he would have to call in a broker to
assist him.
Mr. GLYN doubted Whether such influence as that
referred to by Mr Mnrrough had led toilie.reinoyal of the
clause. The commissioners of inquiry were of opinion that

,ECoriq &if

.() JWiY

yzai ailov.sebtiu