The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-26 00:00:00

TUESDAY EVENING,

given the bishop a power to remove from his pest a clergy-
man who should become bankrupt, he shoull have been
much obliged to him. But he objected to a ram remaining
in his parish whilst the money contributed by the parish-
ioners to his support was being spent elsewhen.
Mr. MALINS said he thought his hon. and lamed friend
(Mr. Ayrtot) had Mistaken the object of the cause. This
clause was merely a transcript from the Insolvent Act,
which had been always found to act very well inthia respect.
Mr. E. JAMES said he thought his hon. and learned
friend had misconceived the effect of the clams 3. Clergy-
men were often subscribers to banks and other institutions,
which sometimes failed. In fact, clergymen plight become
bankrupt by misfortune, and it would plainly be if great
injustice to deprivethem altogether of their livings on that
account.
The clause was then agreed to, as were climes from 143
to 159 inclusive.
After clause 159,
Mr. E. JAMES moved to insert the following clause :
" If any bankrupt shall be liable under any covenant or
agreement to keep on foot any policy or policies of insurance
effected on his own or any other life, the amount or value of
such liability shall be ascertained by an actuary or other-
wise, as the court may direct, and the creator entitled to
the benefit of such covenant or agreement shell be admitted
to prove against the bankrupt's estate for the sum which
shall be so ascertained."
Agreed to.
On clause 163, fixing the rules as to grafting orders of
discharge,
Mr. MALINS suggested that power ought to be given
to the chief judge to grant certificates to lankrupts who
have been without them, and were imprisoned for twelve
months.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he considered
the bill went far enough in that direction already.
Mr. WALPOLE urged that in all cases vhere the bank-
rupt was to be placed on trial for misdemeanour he ought
to have the benefit of a jury. He moved the omission of
the words in the clause, " if the bankrupt should require it."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that in many cases
of misdemeanour they could not have a trial by jury with-
out considerable inconvenience and expense. Many bank-
rupts would prefer charges of this nature being disposed of
by the chief judge or commissioner without the interven-
tion of a jury. He hoped the amendment would not be
pressed.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought the clause as it stood might,
when the bankrupt demanded to be tried by a jury, create
a:feeling of antagonism in the mind of the judge.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL believed that no such
feeling would enter the mind of a right-thinking judge, but
that, on the contrary, he would be most anxious to avail
himself of the assistance of a jury.
Mr. WALPOLE said that he would not, after the ex-
planation of the Attorney-General, press his amendment.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD thought that where a bankrupt
omitted to keep proper books of account, such omission
ought to be taken as wilful intent to conceal ace true state
of his affairs.
Mr. GREGSON suggested as one of the offences for
which imprisonment not exceeding 12 month ought to be
inflicted be, where a bankrupt carried on trade not only by
means of fictititius capital but with the aid ofaccommoda-
tion bills for which no value was received.
Mr. ROEBUCK asked, was it possible that ending could
be carried on without accommodation bills
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that accommodation
bills to a certain extent might be right in manr,ases. The
difficulty connected with them was where the! were used
in excess, and substituted for actual capital. lie could not
agree in the suggestion of the hon. member for Lancaster.
Mr. MALINS was of opinion that when a bankrupt had
been punished for an offence against the bankruptcy law,
and when the terms of his punishment had in al respects
been satisfied, he ought then not to be excluded from all
further chance of redeeming himself again in circumstances
by any severe operation of the act, but ought to le restored
to society, and at liberty to pursue his industry end enter-
prise in trade again.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he saw no reason
for altering the provisions of the bill in the mower which
his hen. and learned friend had suggested. It wis a well-
known fact that a bankrupt, after he had gone there or four
times through the court, rose from each fall he hal in trade
with renewed vigour, and was again ready to emberk ire new
enterprises ; and it was in order to protect creators and
honest traders that those provisions in the bill yhich his
hon. and learned friend thought too stringent wire intro-
duced. He should therefore adhere to his resolution of
leaving the clause as it stood.
Mr. ROLT said that if his observation was rigit, a great
deal of what they called traders' dishonesty arose from the
fact that the trader knew that if he succeeded le would
keep the gains; but if he failed, his future property would
be safe. At present a non-trader was free from that; but
by putting them upon the same footing, the result would
be the same in both cases. He must, therefore protest
against lie tenor of this bill, as calculated to introduce, in
relation to non-traders, a distinction that might hereafter
Rajas an incentive to and result in dishonesty. H. thought
the power proposed to be vested by the bill lin the hands of
the chief judge with respect to any property which a non-
twat, UVILW 111t0 receipt of was
not sufficient.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL could not coney- in the
observations made by his hon. and learned friend, and he
considered that when the debtor delivered up all that he
was poss.essed of at the time of the bankruptcy to the cre-
ditors was all that, in such a state of circumstances, should
be required of him. He thought that when creditors gave
accommodation to young men with facility, it might lead
them into extravagance and profligate habits of life, and
that some check ought to be put to such proceedings, when
the credit was known to be given only because the creditors
knew that the young man was likely at some future time to
come in for property, and be in a position to discharge his
ActM
Ya
nNy saidapioanrnpt
odnpp
power
peculiar
ei reovutrneylthatsa:bmarhfysauci
that
the
se
pt provisions
tiparty
m theig might
t o
come
courto the eet Insol-
ventnto toaka take
obligations.rr.o.
cognisancesebE tDebtors
rws
of
might
rhtchtubemebseltenafnetficbet
by the
fttoht
hde
oepacrlroewvdiiisttihoorni
sts.,
asHufebi
thoughtteucrt future
o time,certain
that a n dt
that
of this bill in the hands of the chief judge.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that in Scotland they
had had for about five years a system similar to that pro-
posed to be introduced by his hon. and learned friend, and
they had found none of the disadvantages which had been
credit fos,and
spoken of. No extreme cases of persecuti en or hardship
had occurred. The true objects of a bankruptcy were to
equally
make the whole estates bankruptofa available th e ;ha t
was
a pay-
mentdebtsoffachtiswhieh had been lost sight of in the course of the
among all his creditors,
present discussion. Another object was the discharge of the
honest debtor from all future liabilities. lie could not con-
ceive any benefit to arise to society by allowing a roan who
had been unfortunate to have this chain around him, per-
haps all his life, simply for the chance that he might pea
sibly earn something for the benefit of his creditors. It
appeared to him, therefore, that there was no just objection
to the clause as it stood.
Mr. MALINS agreed with the general principle just laid
down, that the two great objects of a bankruptcy law
should be to produce a cessio bonormit and a general dis-
charge. In that respect he did not see that there should
be any distinction made between traders and non-traders,
because when persons gave credit to non-traders they had
the opportunity of knowing the means of the debtor, and
therefore to judge for themselves as to how far he should
have credit given him. There were reckless creditors as
well as reckless debtors, and they ought nut to bo encou-
raged by the law in giving eredi,, not upon the existing
means of the debtor, but upon the expectation of property to
which ho might afterwards become entitled. Nothing could
be more abominable than the system of credit in use among
money-lenders who gave credit to extravagant young men
entitled to succeed to property, and the greater iv." `" --
ragement given by the law to these speculators the better it
would be for society. But the fact was that the bill, as it now
stood, did give power to the court, in certain case, where the
transactions of the debtor had been tainted with fraud, to
make any future acquired property liable fir the payment of
his debts. As to the supposed or alleged hardship in the
case of non-traders, those who were conversant with the
actual practice in the courts, knew that notiing was so easy
as for son-traders to get up a colourable and fictitious
trading, and thus entitle themselves to all the benefits of
the bankruptcy. A few years ago a young lobleman, son of
an earl, and entitled to large property, inorder to get rid
of his debts, petitioned as abrickmaker—that was, he turned
over some clay, made a few bricks, sold them, an I then
came before the court as a trader, and received a discharge
in full. The law of debtor and creditor °ugh to be the same
for all.
Mr. MELLOR supported the clause as t stood.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 164,
Mr. WALPOLE said he had given notie of an amend-
ment to omit the clause which gave the lief judge the
power to send cases of misdemeanour to be lied in the cri-
minal courts. That appeared tolim to beeontrary to the
general principle of the bill, which was thathe new courts
should be competent to deal with all matter brought before
them ; and on that simple ground he holed his hon. and
learned friend would consent to the omissiol of the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said thtelause referred
not only to the chief judge, but also to thecommissioners,
and it was thought better to give the distrideommissioners
the discretionary power of sending cases o misdemeanour
to the assize courts, for this, among other fasons, that the
persons so dealt with might not in the coqtry be able to
obtain the services of counsel to defend thei. Ho thought,
therefore, this was a very proper clause, ad trusted his
right hon. friend would not press his objecton.
After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK and Mr. MELLOR,
Mr. WALPOLE said he must frankly dmit that the
reason given by the Attorney-General in fabur of this dis-
cretionary power had made a strong izression on his
mind, and he should therefore withdraw is'opposition to
the clause ; which was then agreed to, as lore the follow-
ing clauses up to and including 175-
On clause 176, which relates to the appal against the
order of things.
Mr. MALINS said he thought the clausenight to secure
a right of appeal to the bankrupt as well asthe creditors.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gala 401104 YerY carat