The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-27 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 27, 1856.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YEsTERDAy).

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

The Earl of HARD WICKS presented a petition from
a place in Kent, against the abolition of Church rates ' •
and also two petitions on the subject of our commercial
relations with Russia.

companies being farmed with unlimited powers of pur-
chasing lands, not having first procured a licence from
-the Board of Trade. •
The clause was then agreed to'; as were also clauses
14. 15, 16, 17, and 18. • -
On clause 19.
Mr. SPOONER.contended thirt persons ought not to
be allowed to transfer shares who had not paid up their
calls".
Mr. LOWE said that-the hilt already contained pro-
visions authorising companies to refuse transter where
they might think proper to do sii.
The clause was then agreed to; as were also clauses
20 and 21.
On clause 22, which prOvided ter the keeping\ of a list
of shareholders,
Mr. HENLEY took 0 l V- • 4 t 13 the words being
C It*o
struck out from the end of the clpse which empowered
-persons to take copies or extracts of the list of share
holders. • ,
Mr. LOWE said the reason which induced him to
strike out those words was that a representation bad
been made to him that such a power might be made the
means of annoyance to the company.
Mr. HENLEY thought that that objection -might be
met by requiring a fee of ls., or some other small sum,
to he paid by all persons requiting such copy or extracts.
Mr. MALINS concurred with the right hon. gentle-
man upon the propriety of so amending the clause.
Mr. LOWE said he would consider the suggestion.
The clause:was then agreed to, as were also clauses
23 ep to 28.
..,
On Clause 29, .
Mr. GLYN provided, after.....the word "promissory
notes," to insert the word ".endorsements."
Sig F. KELLY thought the word wholly unnecessary.
Where the ocinipany wore partneri to any of those docu-
ments their corporate seal would be sufficient to mark
,
their lia,bilit :
1'
Mr. LOWE suggested the possibility of recasting those
clauses so as to meet the objeetioniaaised against them.
The subsequent clauses provide forsesse application of the
corporate seal. As to "letters" being included in the
clause be received several strong representations that the
retention of the word would laad to intolerable vexation
to the company.
Mr. HENLEY supposed that all that would be con-
tended for was that-the word "limited" should be at-
tached to the or litrlry title of the company.
Mr. W. BROWN hoped that the right hon, gentle-
man would not objet to include the word "letters " in
the clause, which he thought was most important.
Mr. LOWE was of opinion that if " letters " were re-
tained the company would be exposed to fraud from 'a
malicious sorvnt.
Mr. SPOONER said that she objection could he easily
met by requiring the usual head -of the company to all
their letters. He believe-I the endorsement would not
be required undfr this act. He ti,nu,rt-t the prepssition
of the hon. member for Ken -lal should be 'attended to.
The amendment was then agreed to.
Mr. KIRK suggested that the words "crder for
money or goods" should be inserted after the words

In Chancery months might elapse before a petition
for winding up co'uld be heard, whereas the Courts
of Bankruptcy could wind up in a very briefiperiod, sit-
ting as they did all through the year, by means of the
excellent machinery at their command. If the winding-
up of all commercial cases was confided to the Courts of
Bankruptcy, there would be no unnecessary delay and
no unnecessary expense ; while in the Court of Chancery
a great mass of written evidence swelled the costs and
delayed the proceedings. He could not believe that
the official liquidators created by the bill would ever ob-
tain the same degree of confidence as the assignees ap-
pointed by the Court of Bankruptcy. The chief clerks of
Chancery were now overstocked with business, whereas
the clerks in Bankruptcy were not in any way embar-
rassed in that respect. He believed the bill would be of
the greatest service to the mercantile community if those
clauses were remodelled.

Mr. MALINS said he disapproved of the transfer of
this business to the Courts of Blnkruptcy. .

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he thought the
Courts.of Bankruptcy would be very competent to dis-
charge the business in question. Without entering
into the rival merits of the Courts of Chancery and
Bankruptcy he must point out that if the latterwere to
have exclusive jurisdiction in all these matters they
would, in fact, be Courts of Chancery. Great part of
the opprobrium heaped on the Court of Chancery arose
from the contraction of its jurisdiction. So it would be
with the Court of Bankruptcy, which might be very
proper to have jurisdiction over the matters comprised
t;ithin the scope of this provision, but would not be com'-
peteutto deal with all the interests which might be in-
volved, unless it was made virtually a Courtof Chancery.
His right hon. friend (Mr. Lowe) agreed to the amend-
ment of the hor. and learned gentleman Sir F. Kelly.
The amendment was then agreed to, as were some
other verbal amendments to carry out the same object.
Clauses 59, 60, 61, and 62 were agreed to.
Oa clause 63,
Mr. MALINS moved the omission of a word, which
would prevent an ordinary debt from being made a
specialty debt—the omission was the word "specialty."
The amendment was agreed to.
Clauses 64 and 65, as amended, were agreed to.
On clause 67.
Mr. lIENLErY wished to know why limited liability
companies should not be made amenable to the bank-
ruptcy laws, by the same acts as would make individuals
bankrupts.

Mr. LO WE did not know there was the difference re-
ferred to.

Mr. HENLEY thought if companies shut up their
places of business that ought to be an act of bankruptcy,
the same as in cases of individuals.
Sir F. KELLY honed the hill, before it passed through
another stage, would have those clauses more particu-
larly considered whicti had special relation to acts which
constituted bankruptcy.
The clause was agreed to.
Clauses 68, 69,-70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,
80, and 81 very agreed to.
On elan-,e S 2,

Mr. HORSFALL moved to leave out the clause, and
to insert the following clause : "For the purpose
of conducting the preceedings in winding up an insol-
vent company, and assisting therein, two persons shall be
appointed to the office of official liquidators, one of such
persons being appo,nted by the Court, and the other by
the creditors at a meeting held by them for that purpose;
and the Court shall require duo security from every per-
son so appointed ; and the Court and the creditors, as
to the person appointed by them respectively, shall fill
up any vacancy occasioned by the death, resignation, or
removal of any other person ; and the Court may re-
move any person so appointed, either by the Court or
by the credit )rs, and such removal shall occasion a va-
cancy, to be supplied es before mentioned."
Mr. LOWE could not give way to the hon. gentle-
man, as he did not think that one appointment by the
Court, and the other by the creditors would be a good
plan to adopt, but, on the contrary, one that would bel
likely to create anarchy-and confusion.
After a few words from Mr. MUMS,
Mr. HORSFALL said there was a very strong feeling
on the part of the community on the subject of official
liquidators, and therefore he hoped the house would
support him in his amendment.

Mr. HENLEY did not think the objection of the
right hon. gentleman had any real force in it.
The committee then divided—
For the arnew_iment
Against
Majority against the amendment 81
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 85,

Mr. WALPOLE suggested that the appointment of
the solicitor to the winding-up should ha invested in the
official liquidator, instead of in the court.

Mr. LONE said that the suggestion should undergo
consideratinn,

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that great incon-
venience would arise from removing the appointment
out of the hands of the court.