The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-02 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCY BILL.

The number of the law Magazine, published
yester, lay, has the following remarks on the sub-
ject of ' this measure :

" Us Ron the merits of this bill we have elsewhere
fully e :ntered ; but upon the imperfect and indeed
wholl: v erroneous statement of the Attorner-General
in int) roducing it we must here make an observa-
tion, I )ecause it tended to mislead the nublic very
mater ially. The profession could not be misled by
it, bee ause those branches of it which are interested
in the subject are fully aware of the facts.
"TI ie Attorney-General described his task in
amend Ling the law, as rendered difficult only by the
wrecks of former laws which covered the ground ;
and, i n order to make good this description, he
stated that the Act of 1831 (abolishing the Septua-
gint, , as the 70 commissioners were termed), had
substituted a new tribunal, and that this measure
had o nly lasted a few years when it was replaced
by an other system in 1842, which after seven years
was e .xchanged for the one of 1849. So far is this
from being the fact, or anything like the fact, that
the c ourt established in 1831 exists at the present
day, the change effected in 1842 (5 and 6 Vic., c.
122) being only the increase of its powers in sum-
mon ,ing trader-debtors, and in granting certificates,
fort aerly granted by creditors, and the extension
of t he system to the country by the appointment of
di'sl aiet commissioners—while the Act of 1849 was
y a consolidation of the former statutes, with the
ails fition of giving the commissioners original juris-
di•ction without a fiat, and the adoption of the clas-
si t ication of certificates proposed by the London
rue rcnntile body.
'Whoever instructed the Attorney-General re-
spec sting the history of the bankrupt law, and told
him how well the Scotch system worked by ad-
hering to the ancient jurisdiction of the Local Courts
(Sheriffs' Courts) in Bankruptcy, should have in-
form ed him that Lord Brougham's County Courts
Bill of 1833 vested this jurisdiction in the proposed
court ;e. That bill was only lost by a majority of
one on the third. reading ; and it had been
thoroughly examined in committee of the whole
house according to an agreement come to by Lord
Brou gime with Lord Lyndhurst, that it should be
made as perfect as possible in detail, and then the
vote • taken on the third reading ; but that, if passed,
it she iuld be in the shape which the committee had
given it. Therefore the Attorney-General would
have had the authority of the Lords substantively,
and of Lords Lyndhurst and Brougham, in his
favour upon the important branch of this bill, for
vesting- bankruptcy in the County Courts. The
reject ion of the bill of 1833 is deeply to be regretted.
It decided the necessity of Lord Lyndhurst's Act
for the appointment of district commissioners,
whereas the Act would have entirely sufficed, and
some handreds of thousands would have been saved
to the country, besides removing the only difficulty
which lies in the way of the Attorney-General's
billas aegards County Court jurisdiction.
"His informants have equally kept from his
knowledge the great expense of the old system
which, upon the accounts obtained in 1831, spew
the average of the incomes of the commissioners
was about £5OO, and must have amounted to above
£300,000 a•year out of the fund for distribution
among creditors in the London district. The ac-
cording of compensation from the consolidated fund
was the greatest blot in the new system; and that
grievance of creditors, so much and so justly com-
plained of, is now, we rejoice to find, on the point
of being removed.
',The Attorney-General's principal difficulty will
be how to deal with the existing commissioners—
who, having patent places, can surely not be treated
in the manner proposed by the bill; but on this and
the other parts of the proposed chsnge we do'not< nter
further, than to express a hope that care will be
taken to prevent the former abuses from again
springing up, by restricting the power of the official
assignee, and that no door may be left open for
fraudulent conduct in arrangements by amicable
composition."