The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YRsTERDAy.)
THE DEATH OF THE DUCHESS OF KENT.
Earl GRANVILLE said their lordships were all ac-
quainted with the affliction that had fallen on her Majesty
by the death of the Duchess of Kent, and he now
rose for the purpose of moving that their lordships
present an address of condolence to her Majesty on the
sorrowful event. The noble lord then passed a high eulogy
upon the late Duchess of Kent, and concluded by moving
the address.
The Earl of DERBY—My lords, it will be unnecessary,
speaking on behalf of noble lords who sit on this side of the
house, to do more than express my entire concurrence with
the motion which has just been made by the noble earl.
The address will be agreed to unanimously, and not merely
as a form by your lordships, but accompanied by the fullest
sympathy, the warmest and most heartfelt respect, not only
on the part of this house, but of every class of her Majesty's
subjects. (Hear, hear) Her Majesty has, during her
interests
of reign, so entirely identified herself with the
of the people, and has so completely interwoven feelings of
loyalty into the minds of all her subjects, has made their
wants and wishes so much her guidance, that it would be
impossible for any event which interests her Majesty in the
slightest degree to occur without calling forth the warm
and heartfelt sympathies of the whole people. We rejoice
in any circumstance that adds to her Majesty's domestic
happiness, and grieve if even a single cloud overshadows its
brightness. Neither can we withhold the expression of our
sympathy at a time when her Majesty is visited with an
affliction the worst that ever has befallen her—an affliction
which involves and wounds all her nearest and dearest
affections. (Hear, hear.) I am satisfied that your lordships
will give a cordial and ready assent to this address. If such
grief as her Majesty is now suffering were susceptible of
any consolation, such consolation must be found in the fact
that during:the whole period of the life of the illustrious de-
ceased, her Majesty discharged every duty of a daughter in
the most exemplary and affectionate manner. I cannot, my
lords, but entertain a hope that it will to some degree
assuage her Majesty's affliction to know that she enjoys not
only the respectful and loyal sympathy of this house, but
the commiseration and participation of a loyal and deeply
afflicted people.
The address was then put by the LORD CHANCELLOR,
* and agreed to nemine contradicente.
THE LUNACY REGULATION BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second
reading of this bill, said it was for the purpose of diminish-
ing the expense of proceedings in lunacy, and to provide
more effectually for the visiting of lunatics, and for some
other important purposes. By the third clause power was
proposed to be given to the Lord Chancellor, where the
lunatic did not oppose the application, and his property did
not exceed £5OO in value, to apply it for his benefit in a
summary manner, without inquisition.
After a few words from several learned lords the bill was
read a second time.
THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA.
In answer to Lord LYVEDEN,
Earl Da GREY and RIPON said that it had been arranged
that Lord Canning sheuld for the present remain Governor-
General of India; though no precise time for his continu-
ance in that office had been fixed.
The Charitable Uses Bill passed through committee.
The Red Sea and India Telegraph Bill was read a second
time, and the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOVLENCY BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, and resumed
at clause 197, which was agreed to after some discussion.
Clauses to 203 with some modifications were also agreed to.
Upon clause 204,
Mr. WALPOLE said that this clause required the after
registration of the deed within 28 days after execution.
He would suppose that the debtor had honestly given up
the whole of his estate ; in such a case ought there not to be
some protection to the person of the debtor during those 28
days, in the event of summary process being taken against
him under the Bills of Exchange Act ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was afraid to
give the relief the hon. and learned gentleman wished, lest
it should prove a shield to fraud.
The clause was finally agreed to without amendment.
Clause 205 was agreed to.
Upon clause 206,
Mr. MOFFATT said it was extremely difficult to say
where the creditors upon bills of exchange were living
when the estate came under sequestration or bankruptcy.
He therefore proposed after the word " creditors," to insert
the words " including those creditors whose debts repre-
sented by such bills of exchange were bona fide creditors."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the amendment in
question would completely nullify the clause. The inser-
tion of these words would render it incompetent for an un-
fortunate debtor to eat the consent of those persons who
were bona fide holders. They might possibly be in a foreign
country. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MOFFATT said he hoped the hon. and learned
gentleman would devise some scheme for remedying the
evil to which he referred.
The amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. BOVILL suggested that the court should be judge of
the circumstances under which a smaller number of credi-
tors than three-fourths should be sufficient.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the debtor would
be exposed to some difficulty if he had to apply to the court.
After some discussion,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL consented to introduce
words giving effect to Mr. Bovill's suggestion.
The clause as amended was then agreed to.
Mr. CRAUFURD moved in line 8, page 54, to leave out
" in any case in which a deceased debtor was a trader at the
time of his death." The object of the amendment was that
the clause should apply to non-traders as well as to traders.
Sir H. CAIRNS hoped his hon. and learned friend would
consent to strike out these dead men's clauses, from 207 to
218, altogether. They had no coherence with the rest of
the bill; they were not necessary, and further than that
they were mischievous. At present the assets of deceased
persons were administered in the Court of Chancery by the
chief clerk in chambers, in a very cheap manner. Suppose
an extensive trader died worth £lOO,OOO, represented by
bills of exchange ; it would be difficult, perhaps, on his
death to say how much they would actually realise. But
three months after his death, unless it could be shown that
there was enough to pay all debts it would be competent
for any creditor to throw the estate into bankruptcy. (Hear.)
Now, how irksome would it net be to the family to have it
said that the estate of so and so after his death was wound
up in the Court of Bankruptcy ? A man was a bankrupt
by some act or confession of his own, but neither of these
criteria could apply to the estate of a dead man. Again;
the principle of the Court of Bankruptcy was that the bank.
rupt's estate sho'ild be equally divided amongst the credi-
tors, but no sconer did they come to these clauses than that
principle was abandoned altogether. (Hear.) Besides, the
Court of Bankruptcy dealt with debts only, and not with
legacies, so that when a man died there might be two pro-
ceedings—one to determine who was to be paid the debts,
and the other to determine who was to be paid the legacies.
(Hear, hear.) He did not believe that the county courts,
however valuable for the purpose for which they were
created, would be competent to decide how the assets of
deceased persons were to be administered on the principles
which guided the Court of Chancery. These clauses pro-
posed to give the only example of administering estates
without either administrators or executors. Notice was
to be "given to the next of kin; but how was the Court of
Bankruptcy to determine who was the next of kin or the
heir? In 1849 the dead men's clauses were struck out of
the bill then proposed; and in 1854 the commissioners who
were appointed to inquire into the reforms that might be
made in the Court of Chancery reported against the propo-
sition contained in these clauses. At the proper time he
should move the omission of these clauses altogether ;
but as they really formed no part of a bankruptcy bill he
hoped his hon. and learned friend would consent to their
being struck out. (Hear.)
Mr. MALINS said he came to the same conclusion as his
hon. and learned friend with respect to the nature of these
clauses. They were not only useless but mischievous. He
did not see why people should not have an option left to
them between the local courts and the court in London, or
why the representatives and creditors of an estate should
be obliged to come up, it might be from the farther end of
Cornwall, to attend the administration of a property which
might be worth only £3OO or £4OO. The amendment which
he moved would give the advantage of a local administration
to the estates of non-traders as well as traders.
Sir F. GOLDBMID objected to these clauses altogether,
as they were quite opposed to the principles of our recent
legislation. Nothing could be more anomalous than to in-
troduce into a bill which destroyed the distinction between
trader and non-trader when living, a clause to affirm that
distinction after a man's death. The principles on which an
estate was administered in the Court of Chancery were en.
tirely different from those of the Court of Bankruptcy ; and
w)en an estate was thrown into Bankruptcy it could not
bedealt with according to Chancery rules. If it were trans-
In 9 county courts, the county court judge would
con:6lto
,xt —ek. e himself familiar with the principles of the
and the Zancery, as well as with the law of bankruptcy
on the mOn law ; and to impose all these acquirements
a very heavy court Judges would be to impose on them a
Mr. BRITIAN en.
saidcruel, and wouldln,aie he thought these clauses were very
upon a great many t much unnecessary pain and injury
who had never commi us It was too hard upon a man
that he should be stimatitted acteaa
aafbankrupt after being laid
expenses perhaps of his last
of bankruptcy in his life
sea
per
in his grave, for he might be
inneard of his funeral, which Perfectly solvent, but for the
anta
might exceed the amount of bis.
death to /.11;tne in that case it
would be cruel after his
ruptcy upon him. The amendment Facedeoufblbank-
amount of hardship inflicted by these clause/4,831d he
sheethide
therefore oppose it, but he hoped the clauses
wend notube
pressed.
Mr. HADFIELD said the object:of those who supportea
these clauses was not to inflict pain on any person, but to
ascertain the best mode of distributing a man's effects atitotig

his creditors. Those who belonged to his own branch of
the profession, and who had been practically engaged in
such matters; could appreciate, better perhaps than the
Chancery barristers, the difficulties that arose in winding-
up an insolvent's estate. The opinion of the:trading com-
munity had been expressed very decidedly in favour of the
provisions of this bill, and he could not agree to the with-
drawal of the clauses now wider discussion. Nothing had
ever been a greater blessing to this country than the county
courts, for it was quite horrible to remember the difficulties
there used to be in the way of recovering the smallest debt,
and the prodigious amount of machinery that had to be act
in motion for that purpose. The measure now before the
house would prove beneficial in the same say.
Mr. BAINES observed that the Chambers of Commerce
in Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Huddersfield, and other
mercantile bodies in Lancashire and Yorkshire, had de-
clared strongly in favour of these clauses, and wished them
to be extended to non-traders as well as to traders.
Sir H. CAIRNS thought it was a very fallacious argu-
ment to urge that as the county courts had proved to be
' convenient for the decision of re any claims,because they were
near the places where the parties lived, the jurisdiction of
the county courts ought therefore to be extended to include
that of Chancery. But if that was intended, let it be done
directly, and not by calling the estate of a dead man bank-
rupt in order to bring him within the jurisdiction of the
county court. He had an insuperable objection to extend-
ing these clauses to the non-trader, because the house had
already discussed the extent to which this bill should
apply to non-traders, and it was not proper to make this
law extend more to a non-trader after his death than dur-
ing his life.
Mr. MALINS said he should vote against the amend-
ment of the hon. member (Mr. Craufurd) for extending
these clauses to a non-trader, for as he thought the clauses
mischievous, he would rather restrict them as much as
possible. But he would ask, did the Attorney-General feel
pledged to adhere to them ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said undoubtedly he felt
pledged to defend them as part of his bill, and especially
since they had been introduced to him and strongly recom-
mended to him by a large body of gentlemen whose expe-
rience was such as to give weight to:their convictions on
the subject. The clauses were originally :framed by Lord
St. Leonards, and they therefore came recommended by
high lezal authority as well as on high commercial autho-
rity. The principle of the clauses was this, that if the
executor or administrator, or the person entitled to admi-
nistration, namely, the next of kin, found money sufficient
to discharge all debts, the court would not interfere, and it
would be only on the executor, administrator, or next of
kin declining to interfere, that the clauses would come
into operation. There were many cases in which the
jurisdiction would be useful and convenient. He en-
tirely concurred in the representations that had been
made as to the immense improvement, and economy, and
expedition, which had been made in the administration of
estates in the Court of Chancery. He would not be afraid to
make any reasonable wager that the Court of Chancery
would administer an estite quicker and cheaper than it
could be done by the executor out of court with the aid of
an attorney. He was not prepared for the strong opposi-
tion which had been manifested towards these clauses, and
he suggested that the consideration of them should be post-
poned, in order that they might be discussed when there
was a fuller attendance of members.
Sir H. CAIRNS said Lord St. Leonards' bill gave no
power to county courts, but it gave the power to district
commissioners, and then only where a man had committed
an act of bankruptcy before his death. He quite agreed in
the desirability of having the discussion in a fuller house,
and he should postpone his motion till the bringing up of
the report. There would be two important questions on
the report, and he hoped it would not be brought up till
after Easter.
Mr. BRIGHT said he had observed that the opposition
to these clauses came from those who had a great interest in
the Court of Chancery, who thought it better the business
should go there than elsewhere. He was one of the unfor-
tunate men who had been in that court a long while, and
he should not vote for any business remaining in that court
if it could be taken elsewhere, After a time, if this measure
passed, the disgrace hitherto attached to winding-up affairs
in the Court of Bankruptcy would wear off, and he hoped
the Attorney-General would not fritter away clauses which
he knew were regarded of much importance by the class of
persons for whose benefit the bill was mainly intended.
Mr. MALINS said it was a mistake to suppose that he
or any counsel practising in Chancery were interested in
keeping in that court administration suits, inasmuch as
those suits did not come into court, but went into chambers
where counsel were not employed.
Mr. HENLEY said one of the most valued clauses of
this bill was to prevent the going into bankruptcy at all.
He believed the feeling was strong that estates should be
wound up locally.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL concurred in that
opinion. The English people undoubtedly attached great
value to having justice administered by the highest tri-
bunals, but when they were dealing with a mere question of
the administration of an estate they wished to do it in the
most economical manner. The object of the bill was to in-
troduce in connexion with insolvent estates a thing which
had been demanded for 30 years, the transference to a local
jurisdiction of the 111,171R2VMPnt of thr,.. ao4nte,o. 110 ...L3
not agree to the postponement of the clauses in question. His
maxim must be, Carpe diem, for if he did not make the best
of every day the same thing might. happen again that had
occurred to his bill of last year. Besides, he was pledged to
other measures this session. (Hear.) He hoped, therefore,
that the house would conclude the committee to-night, and
would suffer the report to be brought up on Thursday.
Sir H. CAIRNS was extremely willing, for the sake of
facilitating business, to withdraw his objection to the clauses,
on the understanding that they should be discussed on the
report after Easter. But if it were only a question between
to-night and Thursday, he would rather the debate should
go on at once, and he should take the sense of the house
upon the points at issue. (Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK asked the hon. and learned gentleman to
state his opinion upon the question that was actually before
the house.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had personally no objec-
tion to the amendment.
The committee then divided—
For the amendment
Against it l6
Majority —so
Mr. HARDCASTLE then proposed to insert the words
" or county court" after " bankruptcy," in line 34.
Agreed to.
Mr. HENLEY wished the Attorney-General to consider
what would be the effect of the bill upon the affairs of per-
sons dying out of the country. He thought the estates of
such persons required some protection. Three months was
L certainly not a sufficient time.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think the clause
' would affect the estates of debtors dying abroad. It was
limited to persons dying within the districts of the bank-
ruptcy or county courts.
Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether the residence of
a person dying abroad would be held to have been abroad,
or in the country where his ordinary dwelling had been ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that if an English-
man going up the Rhine happened to die in itinere, his re-
sidence would be held to be in England, but if he were re-
siding permanently abroad, then it would not.
Mr. HENLEY observed that the hon. gentleman's
answer strengthened the feeling that be had in favour of
some protection being given to the estates of persons dying
under tile circumstances he had suggested.
Mr. ROLT was at a loss to understand the reason of the
change proposed by the (dense. It was admitted that the
existing court did the business proposed to be taken from it
as cheaply and as efficiently as possible. They were not
asked to make any change in the law of property ; all that
was intended to be done was merely to alter the jurisdiction.
What were the advantages proposed to be given ? The first
was the value of local administration. If, however, it was
necessary that the administration of estates should be car.
ried to the door of the parties, that desire ought to be pro-
vided for in some other way. He believed it was not for
the interest of the community that the present jurisdiction
should be disturbed.
Mr. BARROW also objected to the clause. Under it a
petition might be presented ix less than three months with
the consent of the personal representative. It appeared to
him this might inflict a great hardship on heirs at law
whose interests might be diametrically opposed to those of
the personal representatives.'
nt awderiveisagrione.ed
to.
TClhaeuesleaslisefromwas2oagrB toea2alBtoi::ltushoiye
On clause 219,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he h
proposeda taken
to
up another this
clause from the Insolvent Act. He,
t however,
omit it altogether now, and bring clause on the
report of a more satisfactory nature.

The clause was then withdrawn.
Clauses 220 to 225 were agreed to.
On clause 226,
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD said that as the clause stood it
limited the power of swearing afidav its before commissioners
in Chancery. He proposed, as an amendment, that the
power should be extended to commissioners of any of the
superior courts of common law at Westminster.
The amendment was agreed to, and the clause was added
to the bill.
Clauses to 242 inclusive were agreed to.

On clause 243,
Mr.VANCE suggested that the provision of this clause

should be applied to the colonies.
Clause agreed to.

Clauses 244, 245, were agreed t..

Clause 246,

Mr. HADFIELD objected to the clause as exposing per-
sons unjustly to criminal penalties.
- -

After a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
Mr MURRAY thought, if some words to denote what a
fraudulent preference was were not introduced there would
be great difficulty id practice among the judges.
The amendment having been withdrawn,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed the omission
of certain words, which conferred a preference on some ore-
ditors over others.

Mr• lIENLE Y opposed it, believing that injustice would
result.
The amendment was agreed to, and the clause was ordered
to stand part of the bill,