The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-10 00:00:00

THE CENSUS BILL.
Sir J. TRELAWNY said that the answer of the noble
lord (Lord Palmerston) to the question of the hon. baronet
(Sir C. Douglas) was very unsatisfactory—(hear, hear)—
and that the noble lord in that answer had not shown re-
spect for his party. (Hear, hear.) He begged to give
notice that when the bill was brought on he would
move amendments even in committee of supply until this
question was satisfactorily settled. (Hear.)
After a few remarks from Mr. BARROW end Mr. MARTIN,
Sir G. LEWIS said that the two bills which stood before
the Census Bill for Wednesday were not likely to:occupy
much time, and there would be ample time for the considera-
tion of the measure. If not, however, he would fix an early
day for its discussion.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that the two bills alluded to
were the Charities Bi'l and the Education Bill, and
they were not likely to be Oisposed of so soon
as the honourable baronet (Sir G. C. Lewis) considered.
This bill had caused considerable excitement among the
Dissenters, who were the best supporters of the noble lord's
(Palmerston) Government. He did not think that the
reply of the noble lord or the statement of the right hon.
baronet (Sir G. C. Lewis) satisfactory, and he asked the
latter if he intended to retain the bill in its present obnoxi-
ous form? The house had a tight to be informed whether
the Government intended to proceed with the bill.
Mr. HATFIELD and Lord ENFIELD expressed dissent to
the clause relating to profession of religious belief.
Sir G. LEWIS said it was impossible, according to the
forms of the house, to fix an earlier day than that named
for the consideration of the bill. It was not usual to en-
deavour to anticipate the course Govelement intended to
take with respect to any particular bill ; and he repeated
that he did not believe that the two bills which
preceded the Census Bill for Wednesday would occupy
much time, and when the bill came on he would state the
intentions of Government.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (SALARIES,
&c.) BILL.
The adjourned debate on the report of the committee on
this bill was resumed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that as some days
had elapsed since the recent vote of the house in committee,
on an important clause of this bill, it might be convenient
for him to s; ate the position in which it stood. It had been
necessary to devise some means of repairing the mis-
chief done by that vote. The clause from which, ,
by that vote, certain words were struck out, was one
relating to certain compensations created in 1831, but it
created no compensations, and the bill proposed to do mol e
than had been recommended by the royal commission, as a
step dictated by justice and equity. The object of that clause
was *•o relieve the suitors in bankruptcy from an enormous
burthen which never ought to have been laid upon them.
The fees which he proposed to remit amounted to nearly
£90,000 a year, and the step he would have taken was to
throw those charges, which were penalties to be paid for the
bad state of things altered in IS3I, upon the consolidated
fund, instead of leaving them to be borne by the suitors of
the Court of Bankruptcy. In consequence, however, of that
vote it had become necessal y to alter the arrangement c
the bin altogether. He had found, however, that ho mould
be able to do this without much inconvenience, and if he
had suggested the probability of his net going on with the
bill, it was because he had received three blows, or three
adverse decisions upon it from his own side of the house.
Ho felt greatly indebted to hon. and learned gentlemen on
the opposite side, especially to Sir H. Callas, Mr. M
Sir F. Kelly, and Mr. Whiteside, for their generous and en-
lightened support. The blows he had suffered were rather
from the friends of the Government. (Cheers and a laugh.)
This was a bill which not twenty gentlemen in
the house had read, and certainly which they did
not understand; therefore it was of no use to
go on with it if every gentleman was to do what was right
in his own eyes, whether he understood the matter or not ;
there should be more disposition to put confidence in the
Government upon this question. The right hon. member
for Coventry and the hon.memberforNottingham, amongst
others, had voted against him on that clause of the bill,
although the whole body of the manufacturers and mer-
chants whom they represented were in favor,: of the bill.
He would yet go on with the bill, being sincerely anxious
to pass it. The arrangement ho now proposed was this. He
would leave the additional salaries of the county court
judges charged on the consolidated fund, but provide an
addition to the consolidated fund as would amply compen-
sate for that charge. The county court judges had been
treated unequally, end he thought unfairly. They were
divided into three classes, some having £1,500 a year, a few
£1,350, and the rest £1,200. The effect of this bill would be
to give them considerable additional labour, particularly
those who had only £1,200 a year. He therefore proposed
to make all the salaries £1,500 a year. But in return for
that, he thought the county court fees would bear some
augmentation. The proportion now paid on the amount of
the claims was 10d. in the pound, and it was proposed to
augment that to ls. At present nothing was paid for the
service of the summons, and consequently the summonses
were frequently taken out vexatiously ; it was therefore pro-
posed to place a very small fee on the service of the sum-
mons. But so numerous were the plaints and the summonses,
that this trifling additional amount, which had been recom-
mended by 50 out of the 57 county court judges, would
bring into consolidated fund £34,000 a year. The sum he I
proposed to devote to increasing the salaries of county
court judges was £11,500 a year, so that the consolidated
fund would be a considerable gainer. He would leave
the compensations and retiring annuities which were
given by the acts of 1831 charged as they now were.
He proposed that the bankruptcy accounts should be placed
before parliament every year, and that a vote for the defi-
ciency should be asked for from parliament, up to the Ist
of April in the next year. In that way he expected that
the amount of fees now paid upon bankrupt estates, but
which in reality were paid out of the pockets of the creditors
—he expected to diminish these fees to the amount of
£90,000 a year. There was a most serious per centage upon
estates in bankruptcy, which on an average of seven or
eight years amounted to about £38,000. He proposed to
take that away altogether. In addition to that there were
the large and oppressive per centages which had been re-
ceived by the official assignees, amounting, he observed,
during the last year to nearly £51,000. He proposed to
abolish them altogether. Of course in making these large
deductions he put faith in the great increase in the income
of the court, which he expected would be caused by bring-
ing all trustees for creditors and composition deeds within
the reach of the law of bankruptcy. The house would re-
member that the great feature of the present bill was to
make the law of bankruptcy part of the ordinary law of
debtor and creditor. As the matter at present stood, they
could not have the aid of the law of bankruptcy without
not only going into court but administering the whole of
the estate in the court. But it frequently happened that
they wanted some of the powers of the law of bankruptcy
for a particular purpose, and he proposed to give that bone-
fit to all trustees, all creditors, all parties to deeds of com-
position, upon their paying an inconsiderable stamp duty
and being registered in the Court of Bankruptcy. At
present a great part of the insolvency business was con-
ducted in a most irregular manner. All estates of im-
portance were carefully kept out of the Court of Bank-
ruptcy. All insolvencies of any magnitude were
made the subject of pr:vate arrangement. There was no
record of the state of insolvency, but under this improved
system he trusted there would be a perfect register. These
deeds of composition, according to the best returns,
amounted to about £90,000 per annum; he calculated that
under the new system they would not exceed £6,000 per
annum. He proposed that, on all these proceedings there
should be a small stamp, in return for which the parties
would get the benefit of the administration in bankruptcy ;
they would have the opportunity of resorting to the court
instead of being driven as they were now to the necessity of
making private arrangements. He hoped and trusted that
the alteration would be beneficial rather than the contrary,
There were many matters of detail upon which there might
well be a difference of opinion. He stated in bringing in the
bill that there were many points on which he wished to have
a deliberate discussion in the house. He trusted, therefore,
that they might nowgo on with the bill. He had brought
it in in the hope of rescuing this great mercantile nation,

sounder conclusion
BY said
rcWoncllLuLsiOonUGthHanitdid thine
andonupste evinngtenr mecparinecitpo a
le
that in amending the law the compensations to be granted
should not be granted out of the consolidated fund. (Hear,
hear.) That was the principle he desired to have affirmed,
and the house had affirmed it. He had no wish to interfere
in the slightest degree with the amendment of the law.
Mr. BOUVERIE said his hon. and learned friend had
complained of the opposition he had received from hon.
members who sat behind him, but he (Mr. Bouverie)
thought some good had been done by the amendment ; and
his hon. and learned friend must not expect that 510
clauses could bo agreed to without some of them being
subjected to discussion and opposition.
Mr. BARROW corapla ned that the Consolidated Fund
in this country had been loaded with sinecures of a very
disgracetul character, and therefore it was that he felt he
was right in supporting the amendment the other night.
Mr. HENLEY :also approved of the amendment, and
said he quite concurred in the opinion that, when a bill con-
tained so many as 540 clauses, a number of them must of
necessity be subjected to discussion.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS approved of the compensation
clause being struck out, as it cut off a large amount of
patronage.
The report, as amended, was then agreed to.
The house having gone into committee, clauses 25 and
26 were agreed to.
Clause 27 was agreed to.
On clause 28,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed the postpone-
ment of this clause.
Mr. MALINS had considerable doubt as to the propriety
of giving bankruptcy jurisdiction to the county courts, but
upon further inquiry he was quite satisfied in acceding to
this proposal., He concurred in the propriety of4giving one
uniform salary to county court judges. Some jticlges did
not sit so many days as others, but then- the amount of
travelling about the country, and other inconveniences to
which the county judges were exposed, more than counter-
balanced the additional number of sittings which the busi-
ness entailed upon their metropolitan brethren.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he knew that many of the county
court judges had not four days in the month to call their
own. They administered every kind of law, and that, too,
without the assistance of a bar.
Sir H. CAIRNS thought the plan proposed by the Attor-
ney-General was the best that could be done, and he would
certainly support the clause. He believed that £1,500
a-year now paid to county court judges commanded the
services of some of the best men, and was, therefore, in his
opinion, quite enough. He thought that in future a dis-
trict commissioner in tankruptcy ought to be put on the
same footing as regarded salary as county court judges.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL concurred with his hon.
and les-nedl-iend as to the propriety of placing in future
district commissioners on the same footing as county court
judges. He would consider the whole question, however,
and postpone the clause.
Clause 29 was agreed to.
On clause 30 being proposed,
Mr. BEECROFT moved an amendment to the effect
that the operations of the bill should be limited to those
places where district courts now existed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed it.,
After a short conversation the clause was agreed to.
On clause 31,
Mr. BOUV. ERIE opposed it. He objected to any power
being given to the Lord Chancellor to appoint in certain
cases the registrar of the court to hear all cases under
forty shillings, when the business of the judge shall be
thought too heave
Mr. M. SMITH also objected to it, and hoped the hon.
and learned gentleman would omit it altogether. He would
rather see an increase in the number of judges than that
the present clause should be adopted.
Sir F. GOLDSMID thought the clause was opposed to
the principle on which the county courts were founded.
Mr. ROEBUCK quite concurred in the opposition to
the clause, on the ground that the poorer classes objected
to an inferior judge.
Mr. COLLIER and Mr. MALINS expressed similar
views, and hoped the Attorney-General would either con-
sent to amend the clause, or that it would be negatived.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted the weight of
the arguments adduced by hon. and. learned gentlemen,
but on the other hand, it had been shown by past expe-
rience that nine-tenths of the time of the county court
judges were occupied in hearing routine cases. On the
1, whole, however, it being necessary to maintain confidence
among the poorer classes in the administration of the law,
he was willing to omit the clause. (Hear, hear.)
The clause was then put and negatived.
On clause 33, which defines the jurisdiction of the new
courts,
Mr, .MURRAY moved to omit the word " creditors" in
line 21.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the word had been
introduced to meet cases in which no assignees had been
appointed.
Sir H. CAIRNS was of opinion that the introduction of
the word was objectionable.
Sir H. KELLY, on the other hand, thought there was
great force in the views of the Attorney-General.
After some further conversation,
Th© ATTORNEY-GENERAL consented to the omis-
sion of the word, and the clause as amended was agreed to.
Clause 34 was passed with some verbal amendments,
after a short conversation.
Upon clause 35,
Mr. MURRAY moved the insertion of the words, "and
the amount of salaries to be from time to time paid to the
clerks of the official assignees and tke duties they are to

perform."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should offer no
objection to the amendment. Heretofore the Court of
Bankruptcy had been a great hotbed of patronage, and he
trusted that abuse would be rectified by the present bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS would like to know the number of
clerks intended to be employed, and the salaries they were
to be paid.
Mr. BRISCOE thought the introduction of the words
proposed would deprive the official assignees of all power
over their subordinates.
Mr. HENLEY and Mr. MITMELL opposed the amend-
ment. If the amendment were agreed to the clerks would
one day or other claim compensation because they had been
appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. ROEBUCK reminded the house that if the amend-
ment were agreed to the clerks would not be nominees of
the official assignees but of the Bankruptcy Court.
MALINS thought the principle of the amendment
very objectionable.
After some further conversation the amendment was
withdrawn, and the clause agreed to.
Clauses 36, 37, 38, and 39 were passed without observa-
tion.

On clause 40,
Mr. ROEBUCK said that if the commissioners with a
salary of £l,BOO a-year were to have vacation and a substi-
tute found for them during that period, he did not see why
the county court judges, whose labours were more onerous
and whose salary was only .t 1,500 a-y ear, should not enjoy
similar privileges.
Mr. HENLEY thought that if the commissioners did
not work throughout the year they ought to pay the ex,-
pense of those who represented them.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should be most
happy to emancipate the county court judges,but he had no
power to do so.
Mr. HENLEY repeated that if the commissioners were
to have vacation they ought to pay their deputies.
Sir FITZROY KELLY approved of the clause. He
thought it would be unjust to throw upon the Commis-
sioners of Bankruptcy the onus of paying their deputies. If
any proposition were made of a similar kind with respect to
the county court judges he would support it.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he had no objection to have the
salaries of Bankruptcy Commissioners preserved to them
intact without any diminution for remunerating deputies.
What he wished was to have the county court judges placed
on the same footing.
Mr. BARROW would not object to paying the deputy
out of the Consolidated Fund provided his appointment
were sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor.
After some conversation the amendment was agreed to.
On the motion that the clause as amended stand part of
the bill,
The committee divided, and there appeared—
For the clause
Against it 3B
Majority

The clause was therefore lost.
On clause 41,
Sir F. KELLY suggested that where the sum in litiga-
tion was small the matter should be referred to a superior

court.
Mr. ROE B (JCR_ said the amount of money at issue had
nothing to do with the matter. The principles of law in-
volved would be the same, irrespective of the aura of money

in dispute.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS would suggest that in all cases in
which the assets were under £3OO they should be brought
into the county courts.
Mr. VANCE said there was
a difficulty, till a case
reached a certain stage, in ascertaining what the
assets
would be.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he could not find
any rule to define what cases should be transferred to the
county courts better than the rule which was laid down in
the bill. The transfer was not to be made without the con-
sent of the principal commissiener, He hoped the committee