The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-08 00:00:00

' sioners, and alleging that in most cases the proceeds of
the estates were swa'lowed up by the fees peid to those
functionaries. Every man saw the matter in this light
until he was raised to the office of Lord Chancellor. Lord
Lyndhurst, for example, had no doubt of the character,
the evil character of the Bankrupt Court, until the patro-
nage of it came into his hands, and then we grid him, in
March last, declaring that the more he considered the
subject, the more was he convinced that the authority of
the Bankrupt Court could not be placed in better hands
than those in which it was already vested.—(A laugh.)—
It was contended that the dutiee of these Commissioners
were well performed; and in evidence of that, they were
referred to the fact that so few petitions were presented
against their decisions. He would tell the meeting why.
Parties were little disposed to go before the Vice Chan-
cellor when they incurred the uncertainty of having to
pay the costs of their application. It was a general rule
not to grant costs where such an application was made ;
and in any case, where a party conceived that a Commis-
sion took a mistaken view of a case, his only remedy was
to go before the Lord Chancellor. There was another
alteration which he thought ought to be made in the
Bankrupt Law—namely, that all Commissions be
worked in London when the bankrupt lived within
eighty miles of the metropolis, instead of forty miles.
double'name— capacity ly, the
pr
He would advert more particularly to a topic which ht.,
had before o
eforfe
it3oaurerlirsetrelrsupaferntingboitn sltifichtl
of judge and advocate. Lord Brougham, when in the
House of Commons, made some most important observa-

tions upon that subject, in the course of a debate upon the
Welsh Judicature Bill, which were as follows :see" Often
times those persons have left the bar and retired to the
pursuits of a country gentleman. Ido not say that they
are for that reason unfit for the office of Judge, but still
they cannot be so competent as men in the daily admi-
nistration of the law, and forming part of our Supreme
Courts. In some cases they continue in Westminster
Hall, which is so much the worse, because a mm who is
a Judge one half the year and a Barrister the other is not
likely to be either a good Judge or a good Barrister." In
those sentiments he (Mr. Bousfield) fully agreed. He
would proceed with some historical notices of the Court
In 1719 they were first sworn. A ntecedentlyto that time,
the whole matter was taken upon theirhonours. In 1732
the Commissioners were first placed under the direct con-
troul of the Lord Chancellor. Between 1739 and 1711
the number of lists was increased to 10. In 1761 they
were raised to the number of 12 ; and in 1780 they were
augmented to 13, and now they were 14 in number.
It was unnecessary for him to proceed further with these
details—he hail only to add, that nothing could be more
clear than the inefficiency for any good purpose, and the
marked activity for evil purposes, of a syst ein fraught with
such absurdities and vices as those to which he had ad-
verted. All that a public meeting circumstanced as that
was had to do, was to state boldly and clearly the griev-
ances of which they complained. There was no obligation
on them to propose any specific remedy—indeed, it had
been thought advisable to leave all that to Parliament ;
they all agreed as to the necessity of a change, but if they
came to discuss a new plan they might differ as to
its details—it would, therefore, be the most expedient
course to leave the whole matter in the hands of the Legis-
lature ; not but that he was prepared to suggest a modifi-
cation of the system whenever the period should arrive
when it would become proper to do so, but until thin he
should reserve himself. In any plan which he should
hereafter submit, he begged to state, that he availed him-
self of the labours of Mr. Montague, who was known to
them all—(Applause)—as they appeared in his exeellent
pamphlet on the subject; as also of the able tract by Mr.
Cooper, upon the same subject. Ile should be equally in-
debted to these gentlemen as to his own researches, there-
fore he was quite ready to share the thanks of the public
with them, though he had, independently of any assistance
derivable from their works, taken a great deal of trouble.
Having submitted to the meeting these remarks, he should
proceed to call witnesses in support of his statement—he
should call upon the living and the dead to bear testimony
against the most heterogeneous mass that had ever been
collected together in one Court. There were Equity Law-
yers and Common Lawyers, and men who were no Law-
yers at all—there were Counsel front the ad Bailey—
there were beardless Barristers, and briefless Barristers
who were superannuated ; and as Mr. Archibald Cullen
said, " It is not only the number of different Commis-
sions on which we sit at one meeting, which occasions
all this irregularity, but the variety of matters also under
the several Commissions ; in one it is a contested
election of assignees ; in another, it is a dividend ; in
another, a last examination, and perhaps two or three -of
each of these at a time." Again he says—" But the
result of my experience upon the whole is, that instead
of so many different lists and independent jurisdictions,
there ought to be but one ; which, permanently sitting
in public and in private, at stated film's, or as occasion
should require, would discharge with ease all the business,
both of public or private meetings, that I have ever seen
done, or, as I should rather say, not done, under the pre-
sent system." Then we have Mr. Clayton, in his evidence
before a Committee of the House of Commons.---"Do you
think that if a smaller number of Commissioners were ap-
pointed (men of sufficient experience, and enabled to sit
more constantly), the confidence of creditors in their de-
cision would be greater ?—I have no doubt of it. Are
you of opinion that the result would probably be to lessen
the number of appeals to the Lord Chancellor in the shape •
of petitions?—No doubt ; if the public had greater con-
fidence in the Judges, the number of appeals would be
lessened. Delay, expence, and uncertainty may be ma-
terially obviated by limitation of number and selection of
individuals as Commissioners of Bankrupts, without
any other alteration in the law than what must by
consequence follow this measure. Were I to limit
my attention to the subject matter of our judicial
duties, I should say the remedy is easy. Put an
end to Commissioners at once; appoint a Judge or
Judges
a s if
difficult you
and The questions for decision are
of important a cast as almost any
which come before the Courts of Law or Equity." He
would next come to the testimony of Sir Samuel Hominy,
and it was pregnant with great truth that the evil was
even then of prodigious magnitude; and the present times
proved this, that what men feared to do then, might now
he safely and advantageously attempted. Sir Samuel
1809, said, in the House
of he allowed with another
nootnil'es :trnha‘en2ltl9; ',bee' better if, instead of the
present loose and extended system, a pet manent and li-
mited tribunal were established for the administretion
the Bankrupt Laws, he had not the presumption to offer
to make so considerable an alteration at the present mo-
ment." He had other authorities not less powerful. The
late Mr. T. C. Glynn, a Commissioner of Bankrupts, anti
nlr 114, " The expeece of the pre-
issionere, the want of uniformity
the Editor of Reports of Cases in Bankruptcy, said,
100,pp.
sents
1;0.
system
0
107, Co 112,
both of practice and decision, and the fluctuation of the
Members of the Court by which the law is administered,
necessarily arising feem the present system, appear to me
Ju among Judges he m
s con posing
prominent defects. There being seventy
g fourteen different Courts, and those for
the most part persons who are blending that duty with
their professional practice, of course only a proportion of
their time and attention can be expected to be ap-
plied to the business of bankruptcy." He freely ac-
knowledged that he thought the Commissioners of Bank-
rupt were not sufficiently paid, if the 4501. a year which
they received was for the whole of their time, as the
salary ought to be ; while at the same time he thought the
payment too touch for the slovenly manner in which the
business of bankruptcy was conducted now. He hoped,
if he as-as not rendering his detail of evi fence too tedious,
that they would allow him to produce some other autho-
rities. Mr. D. W. Harvey said, in his place in the House
of Commons, " If there ever was a sincere wish to purge
the Chancery system of its gross abuses, the reecemstruc-
tion of that part of it allotted to bankruptcy business
should have been first thought of. It was ridiculous that
young men, of comparatively no experience in the law, or
old men unfit for any business at all, should be Commis-
sioners of Bankrupts, with salaries of 5001. a year each.
Yet so it was ; and what with the inexperience of youth,
and the stultification of age, the House would judge what
efficient men those Commissioners of Bankrupts were."
lie (Mr. B.) then proceeded to contrast the Bankrupt
Commissioners with those of the Insolvent Debtors' Court;
there were four of these : the Chief Commissioner with
a salary of 1,5001. a year ; the others with 1,200/. each;
and no Court did its business better.—(A hiss.) He was
glad to perceive that these was but one solitary expression
of dissent. lie challenged any one to prove that the judi-
cial functions of any Court were better discharged. He
said nothing of the machinery of the Court ; be said
nothing of the legislative wisdom of the Insolvent Debtors'
Court; he confined his remark to the manner in
which the Judges discharged their duties. In addition
to the opinions already laid before them, he would read
an extract from a speech made by Mr. Abercrombie,
himself, be it remembered, a Commissioner of Bankrupt,
in the House of Commons, on the 2d of March, ISIS.
,6 The Bill went too far in imposing new duties on thee
Commissioners; but it did not go far enough, because it
was impossible to render the Bankrupt Law such as it
ought to be, unless there was a total and radical change in
those who have to administer it. He made this state-
tnent in the spirit of candour, and not with a view of
impugning the conduct of the Commissioners, of whom he