The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-24 00:00:00

THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK,

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.
LEE v. AITCRESON.
This morning Vice-Chancellor Kindersley gave
judgment in this important case, which was in effect to
decide the question in whom the right to distribute the
funds was vested amongst the creditors and depositors.
In his opening observations, his Honour alluded to the
circumstances that had led to the present proceedings,
and also to the different motions that had been made in
the cause. The present proceedings involved a new lega:
point, and on a late occasion he had noticed the fact,
but it was not the wish of either party that it should
be settled by an action at law, and he, therefore, had
undertaken to settle the point as far as it was possible for
him to do so. His Honour then at great length alluded to
the intention and effect of the Winding-up Act with respect
to proceedings like the present, and said the first question
he was called upon to decide was, in whom wise vested
the legal title to the effects and estates of the Royal
British Bank ? and in viewing the whole of the circum-
stancee connected with this case, he could come to no
other conclusion than that the legal right was vested in
the official assignee under the bankruptcy. The second
question he had to decide was, whether there was any
grounds upon which this Court was called upon to in-
terfere with the legal right of the official assignee in the '
distribution of the funds. He did not see that there was
any equitable right for such interference with respect to
the property of the bank. Such, therefore, would be
the decision of the Court. This being his judgment the
next thing that had to be considered was the books and
papers at present in the hands of the official manager.
Now having decided that the proceedings are to be gone
on with in bankruptcy, he thought the whole of tht
books, papers, &c., at present in the hands of Mr.
Harding ought to be
given up, and he should make an
order to that effect, because if he did not do so, be did
not see that any proceeding that might be instituted
for their recovery could be successfully resisted, and,
having arrived at the decision he had done, and which
he had already mentioned, he thought he was bound to
render every assistance in his power to effect a
speedy settlement of the affairs of the bank. In
making this order ho should direct the expenses
incurred by the official manager, Mr. Harding,
to be ascertained, and deducted from the funds already
in hand. The injunction that had been obtained by the
learned counsel for the keeping the proceedings of the
bank in slate quo until the decision of the Court was
given with respect to the authority of the official
assignee and the official manager was decided, and
would therefore now be dissolved. Then there remained
the question whether any contempt had been committed
by Mr. Lee and Mr. Johnstone. There could be no
doubt that whenever a receiver had been appointed by
this Court, and that receiver was interfered with by cer-
tain persons, those persons would be guilty of contempt,
and this Court would always punish that contempt and
vindicate its authority. Mr. Lee and Mr. John
stone had disturbed Mr. Harding in his possession,
after ho had been appointed by this Court,
and therefore they had committed a contempt.
The proper course for those persons to have pursued
would have been to have applied to this court to ascot'
tain whether their authority was sufficient, and had it
been so, they would have been justified in acting as they
had done. But they had acted otherwise, and there
could be no doubt but that both Mr. Lee and Mr.
Johnson had been guilty of contempt, but he thought
that contempt was committed more through not being suffi-
cieetly informed than any other circumstance ; and, tak-
ing into consideration that all steps against Mr. Harding
in the Bankruptcy Court had been withdrawn, that jus-
tice would be satisfied by the Court in this instance
passing over the proceedings. The payment of the costs
of the rule nisi would be paid out of the estate.
In reply to an observation of Mr. Rolt,
His Honour said he should not make an order for the
immediate handing over of the funds in hand by Mr.
Harding. The expenses properly incurred in the col-
lecting and realising the assets would have to be ascer-
tained, and after that bad been done then would be the
proper time to make the order.

A discussion here took place relative to the payment
of certain other expenses, in which his Honour observed
that the struggle in the present case was not so
much as to the speedy distribution of the funds,
but as to who should receive the percentage. He
should therefore make no immediate order for
handing over the money, as the legal expenses of Mr.
Harding must be ascertained and !mid before the money
passed from the authority •f this court.

Sir F. Kelly addressed a few remarks to the court
relative to an appeal before the Lords Justices, but no
permission being necessary it was not noticed by his
Honour.

The appeal is to be made to the Lords Justices imme.
diately, but his Honour refused to make any order bind-
ing the court not to part with the money of the bank
until that appeal was disposed of.
During the delivery of the judgment by the Vice.
Chancellor the court was densely crowded, and the
greatest excitement prevailed during the whole of the
proceedings.

What can we say on the passage of arms between
the Marquis Townshend and Sir Robert Peel re-
specting the latter's judgment in commenting on
Sir Charles Napier's doings ? Of course the charge
is, that the Baronet's observationss savoured of
" indiscretion." Be it so. Sir Robert Peel, as con-
nected with the admiralty, should lave been silent
on all matters connected with the high seas, and
neither in his capacity as borough member, nor of
returned Moscow lion, should he have uttered one
word concerning Cronstadt or the Baltic campaign.
Certainly, were we to measure our official people
by past standards, such reticence would be praise-
worthy, and, indeed, indispensable. According to
the old etiquette, we cannot doubt that for a subal-
tern to give in public any opinion on his depart-
ment or the officers employed by it would be the
greatest of offences. But, unhappily, these whole-
some traditions are no more. The Gracchi com-
plaining of sedition would be as much on false
mund as are our military and naval people when
they disclaim public discussion of official or pro-
fessional questions. What Crimean hero has not
made his speech in his county town or written his
two or three letters to the newspaper What
wronged or miscomprehended commander has ab-
stained from attacking rivals or superiors in the
public press ? Every officer is as much a servant of
her Majestyas Sir Robert Peel, and yet the spirited,
polemics, to which the world is now
accustomed are to pass blameless, while the com-
mentary of the Admiralty baronet, in his capacity
of country gentleman and popular member, is to be
judged with pristine severity. Such is the opinion
of the Marquis Townshend, or, at least, such it was
at the earlier period of the evening which was dedi-
cated to the honour of the late Mayor of Tamworth.
If harmony was restored at a later hour, it was
due to the common-sense view of the case, and the
general conviction that whatever Sir Robert Peel
bad said was fully justified by facts, however much
official decorum might have prescribed silence on
the matter.
Indeed for a man of good feeling, good sense,
aid full acquaintance with the subject to abstain
from remarking on Sir Charles Napier's proceedings
is more than is to be expected from human mode-
ration. Here is an officer who has for many years
taken credit for conspicuous boldness in the attack
of fortifications on land, who is appointed to con-
duct a campaign whet e such defences will be chiefly,
relied on by the enemy, and who goes to his com-
mand amid the general belief of his countrymen
that be is about to perform some brilliant exploit.
How far Sir C. Napier encouraged such a belief, or
now far this anticipated greatness was thrust upon
him, we shall not discuss. It is enough that he went
forth with the good wishes of every one, and, so
fax from there being any intention to thwart him on
the part of the Admiralty, it will be remembered
that his subsequent adversary, Sir James Graham,
went even beyond the limits of good taste in dilat-
ing upon his expected triumphs. Well, the thing
failed. The Admiralty was censured, the fleet
was censured, the commander was censured. The
criticism may have been hasty ; perhaps it was.
On the one side numerous instances of attacks on
land batteries were cited ; on the other we were
told of the long blockades of Toulon and Cadiz,
when the bravest of the brave would not trust oak
against stone walls. The end was that Sir C.
Napier was not reappointed to the fleet of 1855.
The Admiralty, his superiors, considered that the
national interests would be served by a change of
command. What was the duty of the Admiral in
such circumstances ? Evidently to do what Jervis
and Parker and many a great man had done before
him—to submit to the judgment of those who had
intrusted him with command, and had au equal
right to resume their trust. But already the spirit
of folly and insubordination had shown itself. The
Admiral could not be content with sharing the
blame of any shortcomings with the Admiralty,
with his officers, his men, and with the circum-
stances of the case—all of which the nation was
disposed to believe in some way responsible for the
failure. No, he must endeavour to clear himself
and preserve his popularity at the expense of every
one connected with the service. In so doing,
it is needless to say, he has only damaged
his own case. Two years ago there were
thousands still willing to believe him a hero
thwarted by circumstances, to whom it was
wrong not to give a second chance. Now he
stands self-convicted of almost every fault which
unfits an officer for command. He has spoken,
written, and electioneered against the Admiralty,
to the confidence of which he owed the highest
appointment to which a naval officer could aspire.
Sir Robert Peel, as the representative of the Ad-
miralty, was in some respects on the defensive. If
the Board had provided the Admiral with unwieldy
ships, manned by land-lubbers ; if it knew nothing
about the defences of Constradt, and had placed
false descriptions of their vincibility at his dis-
posal ; if it had restrained him through tenderness
for the enemy, or insufficiently supported him from
matters of parsimony, it was much to blame. Sir
C. Napier and his friends had asserted or insinu-
ated all these things.' Southwark had rung with
denunciations of the department to which Sir R.
Peel belongs. The Admiral, an officer bearing the
Queen's commission and a Grand Cross of the Bath,
had harangued mob after mob against the men
who superintended during the war the most im-
portant part of the national forces. Seeing, then,
what the provocation was, what the habits of the
times are, how far the old etiquette has been in-
fringed by those who are most bound to conform
to it, we certainly cannot find any great harm in
Sir Robert Peel stating a fact within his knowledge
which contradicted the arguments of the noisy Ad-
miral. When Sir Charles Napier makes a visit to St.
Petersburg, and has an interview with the Grand
Duke, who was opposed to him merely in order to
get matter for the enlivenment of the beer-shops of
the Borough, it may certainly be permitted to
those who in the due fulfilment of a public mission
have become acquainted with the truth to utter it
in their private and unofficial capacity.
We cannot therefore but rejoice that the Mar-
quis Townshend, in hissubsequent speech, acknow-
ledged the essential fairness of Sir R. Peel's re-
marks. In fact, it is evident that the two speakers
are pretty much of the same opinion in the main.
The Marquis Townshend is intimate with Sir C.
Napier, and " told him from the beginning what a
scrape he would get into." He owns that the
admiral bas disappointed the country, and thinks
that it would have been better for him to remain
quiet, and he deplores " that unfortunate cacoethes
scribendi, that eternal love of talking, that perpe-
tual hatred of leaving things quiet, which has been
Sir Charles's " worst enemy." Sir Charles may
well pray to be spared from his friends. If these
be the opinions of a man who is sufficiently his par-
tisan to disturb a festive meeting in his defence,
the admiral may form some notion of the verdict
of the impartial and uninterested public. Per-
fectly agreeing that " far too much has been said"
on this subject, we are willing to leave it in the
position in which the two speakers at Tamworth
have combined to place it.

(Prom the Morning Advertisot.)
A meeting of the Property and Income-tax As-
sociation is to be held to-day, at the London
Tavern, Alderman Sir James Duke in the chair, to
promote the objects of the association--to agitate
against against this unequal, oppressive, and immoral tax.
We know no subject of the'present day—whether
of horre or foreign politics—that either deserves or
is so likely to command the attention and sym-
pathy of the public in behalf of an association which
is doing what it can to put an end to an impost
that presses most severely on those very persons
who are least able to bear it, and places thousands
of Englishmen in the position of having to support
an often unequal struggle between poverty and
conscience. The association comes forward to fight
the battle of those thousands ; and the least the
thousands can do is to stand by the association.
The first object is to obtain an immediate reduction
of the tax from 16d. to 7d. in the pound, and then
to fight for an equitable adjustment of this much-
abused impost—much abused on both sides, and
on one side deservedly.
There is not a man in England worthy to live '
under the protection of its laws who would not
readily, and heartily, contribute his fair share to
the support of the public burdens. He who would
refuse to do so would be unworthy the name of
Englishman. But he would be equally unworthy
of it were he tamely to submit to be robbed, even
though the process is sanctioned by Act of Parlia-
ment. It is nothing less than legal robbery—im-
moral, if it were sanctioned by the whole statute-
book—to make A, who works ten hours a day, pay
the same tax on his income which B pays, whome
work is play, and whose income flows into his hand
whether he plays or works. It is a monstrous and
immoral law which compels the poor teacher of lan-
guages, the toiling student, the writer, the artist,
the clerk, to pay as much upon his income as the
landed potentate, who could, without being
poverished, give his twenty or thirty footmen and
lacqueys incomes as good as theirs for handing his
plate, answering his bell, running his messages. It
is a monstrous and an immoral thing to say that an
income, which will scarcely keep the pot boiling,
and preserve a decent boat on the owner's back,
shall be taxed in the same proportion as the thou-
sands and tens of thousands which form the modest
incomes of the men who have made the law which
enforces this iniquity. Englishmen have submitted
to this extortion long enough already. Now is
their time to be up and doing it Good earnest.
Down with the boom-Uzi" Let that be the

(Frost the Daily News.)
It is with much gratification wo find that Go-
vernment have lost no time in appointing a Royal
Commission to inquire into the present arrange-
ments for transacting the civil and criminal business
of the Superior Courts of Law at Westminster, and
into the manner and times of holding the circuits.
Among other points on which the commission is
more particularly directed to report, is the ques-
tion whether the number of the common law judges
can be reduced without detriment to the public
service. The commissioners appointed are Lord
Campbell, Lord Wensleydale, Mr. Baron Alderson,
' Mr. Justice Cresswell, the Right Hon. J. Stuart
Wortley (whose "appointment as Solicitor-General
is now finally confirmed), Sir Frederic Thesiger,
and Mr. Horatio Waddington, Under-Secretary of
State for the Home Dapartment.
Having taken an opportunity on several recent
occasions of pointing out the urgent necessity that
has arisen for a thorough and searching inquiry
into the whole subject of the judicial arrangements
of the Superior Courts, especially with reference to
the present manner of holding the circuits we are
of course well satisfied to find that the subject has
so promptly been put in a course of investigation.
The constitution of the commission is more open to
stricture. Without objecting to any one of the
lawyers nominated to serve on it, the remark in-
evitably arises that an inquiry of this kind ought
not to be entrusted entirely to professional men. As
the commission stands at present this is the case, Mr.
Waddington, the only apparent exception, having
been for years a practising barrister before his ap-
pointment to the under-secretaryship. There can
be no doubt that in this respect Government have
proceeded on an erroneous principle of selection.
Upon one of the most important points of inquiry
to be submitted to the Commission, viz., the work-
ing of the existing Circuit arrangements, there are
many lay members of the House of Commons who,
from frequent attendance at the assizes as sheriffs,
magistrates, and members of the grand jury, are
quite as competent to pronounce an opinion as
judges and practising barristers. Nor should it be
forgotten that, in investigations of this kind, the
unprofessional mind brings to bear a breadth of
view and a freedom from class prejudices, which in
those trained in the habits of professional life it
would be unreasonable to expect. Take, for in-
stance, another of the leading points on which the
' Commission are requested to report—the expe-
diency of reducing the existing number of Common
Law Judges—is it not clear to common sense that
a body of inquirers exclusively composed of those
who are, have been, or aspire to be Common Law
Judges is hardly so likely to come to a satisfactory
conclusion on this point as a Commission comprising
a due share of well-informed lay members ? The
! point indeed is so clear that we trust Government
will give a convincing proof of their being in
earnest in the inquiry by speedily adding to
the Commission the names of some of those
members of the House of Commons whose
breadth of view, general acquaintance with pub-
lic business, and administrative ability, would
qualify them to consider the question in all its
bearings, and not merely or mainly as affecting the
supposed interests of the legal profession. Amongst
many other names that might be mentioned, those
of Mr. Gladstone, Sir James Graham, Sir John
Pakington, or Mr. Henley, at once suggest them-
selves as those of men able, if willing, to do good
service to the public in a matter of this kind with
which politics have absolutely nothing to do.
On the importance of the inquiry, after the fre-
quent comments we have so recently made on the
matter, we need add very little. If further evi-
dence were wanting of the necessity for some speedy
re-distribution of judicial force and re-arrangement
of judicial business, it has been amply supplied by
the state of business in the Superior Courts of Com-
mon Law at Westminster during the term which is
just drawing to a close. In the Court of Common
Pleas it has more than once happened of late that,
after a formal interchange of bows between the
Bench and the Bar, the venerable tribunal has had
to rise from an absolute failure of any public de-
mand for its services. The sittings in the Court
of Exchequer have been less indecorously brief, but
they have been to a great- extent filled up with
discussions on mere points of practice which
might be decided quite as satisfactorily, and far
more economically, before a single Judge sitting,
as is the case with the Queen's Bench, in a se-
parate Court. In the Court of Queen's Bench,
where the amount of solid and serious business
transacted is generally greater than in either of the
co-ordinate Courts, it has this term sunk below
anything that has been usual of late years ; nor do
the most sanguine habitués of the Hall look for-
ward in this respect with much hope of amend-
ment. Of course " this effect defective comes by
cause"—and the cause is no mystery. The in-
creased and still increasing jurisdiction of the
County Courts is rapidly tending to decentralisethe practice of the Bar. There is no help for this
change, Professional
people are naturally enough
disposed to be elegiac about it, but 4as far as the
public are concerned, it is the most simple thing
getting
gin
the world. The laity in want,of law prefer
it at a low price instead of a high price, and close
at home instead of Westminster Hall. Voila tout.
Well, we have sanctioned the change, we have '
recognised it as a necessity, we see clearly enough
e
that the tendency, the irresistible tendency, of
public mind is to go still further in this same direc-
tion,e and yet with true British want of method w
have taken no pains to alter our judicial system
to meet the new needs of the new time. There
they are still, the three old co-ordinate Courts,
with their concurrent but separate jurisdiction ;
they still sit in Banco during the four legal terms,
with their full stall of four Judges a-piece ; these
Judges when they visit the provinces still do so
only twice a year, as in the days when they rode i
the circuits on horseback, and they still persist in
going to the same set of towns which were princi-
pal centres of business in the days of the Ed-
wards, but have dwindled into insignificance in
the days of Victoria. Verily, it is high time, on
all grounds, that these things were thoroughly in-
quired into. Government deserves the thanks, no
less of the legal profession than of the public, for
setting the investigation on foot ; it will do
still
more towards conciliating general confidence in the
results of the inquiry if it adds a few eminent lay-
menlom the to the eminent lawcyoerspoofsewdl
.
Commis-
sion is now exclusively m

ABOLITION OF THE INCOME-TAX.—On Friday night a
public meeting was hell at the Assembly Rooms, Dean-
street, Soho, to take into consideration the beat means
to be adopted for the repeal of the income-tax. Mr. J.
George, the chairman, opened the proceedings, and at
some length denounced the income-tax as unjust, un-
fair, and improperly levied. The proposition for fixing
the amount at sevenpence in the pound. as some were
agitating for, sounded ver much like a permanent
continuance of the tax, and be for one could not recog-
nise such a proposition fora moment. Mr. Jefftrys, the
churchwarden of the parish, moved—" That this meet-
ing is of opinion that the present income-tax is urjust
60
and inquisitorial, and ought to be abolished on the first
1 /. of every person's income." He did not object to a
fairly imposed income-tax, but he certainly was Mr.n
not
satisfied with the way the existing tax was levied.
Underwood seconded the resolution, which was ,
unani-
mously adopted; and a committee having been appointed
to carry out measures in oppaition to the tar, the pro-
Goading% terminated.