The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-19 00:00:00

vency.

It is amusing to find Mr. MALINS last night
coolly setting his own judgment up as superior
to the combined judgments of the learned and pro-
found Law Lords who declared themselves unani-
mously in favour of this amendment. Having long
studied the subject and being fully awake to the
evils of the existing system, he observed that he (Mr.
IVIALINs) considered " that it was not the unanimity
of five or six Law Lords, however able, but who had
withdrawn from practice for years and were alto-
gether unacquainted with the operation of the
system, which would persuade him out of the
opinion he had already expressed to the house, that
without a Chief Judge the bill would be utterly
worthless." That, it may be argued, settles the mat-
ter. Nothing further need be said in regard to it.
Lord BROUGHAM may entertain a decidedly different
opinion—so for that matter may Lord ST
LEONARDS—and Lord LYNDHURST—and Lord
CRANWORTH and Lord WENSLEYDALE. But—Mr.
MALINs has studied the subject for a long while,
and having done so has arrived at a diametrically
opposite conclusion. Avror €are, : let the venerable
Law Lords whose illustrious names have been enu-
merated, at once perform kotou before this "DANIEL
comp to judgment." Mr. MALINS regards the Bill,
without the clause insuring the Chief Judge to the
new Court of Bankruptcy, as " utterly worthless ;"
and 172 other members of the House of Commons
thinking with him, and only 129 supporting the
Lords' amendment, upon the occasion of last
night's division, the amendment is put aside, in
its turn, as " utterly worthless," and the House of
Commons insists upon creating this new Judge
and spending this additional sum of £5,000 per
annum accordingly.

The more we, reflect upon it the less are we
disposed to regard this pertinacity in main-
taining the necessity for the retention of this
particular clause in defiance of the Law Lords'
amendment—as perverse and precipitate. It
is perfectly true that, as Sir WILLIAM ATHERTON,
the new Attorney-General, insists, there is an
almost universal concurrence on the part of the
mercantile community in favour of the institution
of a Chief Judgeship. It is equally undeni-
able that the mercantile community of the metro-
polis, as Mr. CRAWFORD maintains, is in like
manner all but unanimously in favour of the
bill as originally drawn up by the new Lord
Chancellor, Nay, as the learned gentleman asserts,
although 48 firms in Manchester are known to
have declared themselves in favour of the Lords'
amendment, 800 .Lancashire firms, representing
£200,000,000 of capital, have, on the contrary,
petitioned against that amendment. All this cannot
be denied ; and yet—for all that—there may be
another side to the argument too ! For example,
it would be difficult to gainsay the accuracy of
Sir HUGH CAIRNS' statement, immediately
prior to the division, when objecting to the ap-
pointment of a chief judge, that his jurisdiction
would be simply co-ordinate with that of the five
in commissioners
reality
be of b
no
more
ekrtcy and h
thupana,
sixth
ht
commissioner
he
for the Metropolitan district. It is simply because
the Law Lords recognised that fast so very vividly
that they united in the determination to strike out
and
lufo,l'l's, bee
said Sir anustaesuupcerAfllnuoNtsis,
at the eextravagant.clauseas
p e
and there is obviously reason in this, "If next
year the promised measure for consolidating the
bankruptcy laws were brought forward, and it was
proposed to abolish the commissioners, the appoint-
(under the circumstances) '
pport." Otherwise
—sr uh etonhutil
sd
rgfe
cat
eh
ecvhea i
rehgfi
us jmuuendncigtue
i
with the notion of this costly decoration (with
aolfifitehdesuLaw Lords—away
scarlet and ermine) the new Court of Bankruptcy.
Delay the appointment of the proposed Chief
Judge for a year or so—this was a compromise
suggested by Mr. WALPOLE—making one of the
Lords Justices the superintending and controlling
nudge in the meantime—and then let the iegislao