The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-18 00:00:00

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR BILL.

On the motion that this bill be read a thfiTiTiMe,
Lord C RANWORTH rose to move the omission of
clauses 95 to 98, which he said in effect restored the old
system of proceeding in bankruptcy. The effect of the
clauses he objected to was to place the affairs of
the bankrupt in the hands of a trade assignee, and
revive a system which some years ago was considered so
objectionable that it was thought advisable to appoint offi-
cial assignees in order to prevent the abuse. The smaller
creditors were the persons most affected by the proposed
change, and he thought that the house should see that their
interests were properly protected.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the objections raised
by noble and learned lords had been seriously con-
sidered before the clauses were introduced into the
bill. There were very conflicting opinions prevalent
with respect to the point raised by the noble and learned
lord, and a few evenings ago a petition was presented,
signed by 800 bankers and merchants of the City
of London, in favour of his view of the subject.
He (the Lord Chancellor) had, however, presented
a petition, signed by 4,000 persons, with directly
the opposite prayer, and from the facility with which sig-
natures were obtained to petitions, he had no doubt but
that on examination many of the same signatures would be
found on both petitions. The clauses were the result of
mature deliberation, and were approved by large masses of
the commercial community ; he, therefore, could not con•
sent to their being struck out of the bill..

—Lord OVERStONE gaTelaissiro;g and unqualified
support to his noble and learned friend below him (Lord
Cranworth.)
Tne Earl of DONOUQHMORE defended the retention
of the clauses. _ _

After a few words from Earl GRE:g their lordships di•
vided, when there apppeared—

For the retention of the clauses—. 3B
Against
Majority

The clauses were then agreed to, find ordered to stand I
part of the bill.
Lord CRANWORTH had next to r clove the omission of
clauses 113 to 116, with reference to ti ke disposal of the in-
solvent's reversionary interest. These clauses enacted that
with respect to non-troders 'who became insolvent, their
reversionary interest in settled estates should not be sold
till it fell into full possession. He did loot see why an invi-
dious distinction should be made in trhis matter between
traders and non-traders. No doubt it; was much for the
interest of the debtor that the sale of r( 3 versionary property
should be postponed till it fell into p:,ssession, and Lord
Derby had said that he deprecated the sale of reversionary
property at all ; but this measure wou Id only prevent its
sale in the case of those persons who rere tenants in tail,
for instance, of a son who was to succe. ed to a settled estate
after h.s father ; it was a provision for the benefit of the
eldest sons of landed proprietors, and o f no other class, since
if a person was entitled to a reversiona ry interest in funded
property, in case of his becoming instal rent it would be sold.
The object of these clauses was to giN re protection to one
particular class only.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said Chis statement of the
objects of the clauses was not quite mrrect. It was true
that these clauses only applied to the es Ise of tenants in tail
of settled estates, because in that case 0 tere could be no pos-
sible advantage to the creditors in for cing a sale ; yet the
creditors would have their full rights re served to them when
the estate fell into possession. The re i vas no power to deal
with the settled estates without the cot tsent ol.the protector
of the settlement, so that the revere donury interest was one
which might never come into ex istence at all, and was,
therefore, of very little value to 0 le creditor s, as the pro-
tector of the settlement had the 1 neans of -preventing the
sale to any advantage, by refut sing his -consent. The