The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-23 00:00:00

allegations as they related to him. He denied that Mr.
IrWin was the originator of the AtlaniiCkail Steam Packet
Company, and he entered into various details to show that
the other statements were not sustained by facts. Ti He stated
also that Mr. Irwin had been convicted for forgery, and
sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, and fined £5O
at the assizes in Ireland in 1835. He said also that Mr.
Irwin had availed himself of the benefit of the Insolvent
Court to get rid of the costs of a suit against him insti-
tuted by him (Mr. Lever).
After some further discussion, the motion was negatived
without a division.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

The house then proceeded to consider the Lords' amend-
ments to this bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the house
disagree with the amendments of the Lords which related
to the proposed appointment of a chief judge of the court.
Sir H. CAIRNS seconded the motion, which was agreed
to without a division.

Some of the amendments up to clause 20 were agreed to,
except those in question, which were negatived seriatim.
On clause 21, which related to official assignees,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the house
disagree with the amendments of the Lords to this clause.
Mr. M. SMlTH•contended that they ought to postpone
their decision relative to this clause until they disposed of
some of the subsequent clauses when the whole subject in
connection with official assignees was raised.
Sir H. CAIRNS defended the bill as it originally stood,
and said it did away with many grounds of com-
plaint in respect to official assignees, , because it pro-
posed to remunerate them by salary instead
of by per tentage as at present. Under the arrangement
proposed by the bill, if creditors did not wish to have any
official assignees to deal with the bankrupt's estate they
were not compelled to do so. To some extent he agreed
with the objections that led to the alterations in the other
house in this clause. But at the same time at this period
of the session he could not take on himself the responsibi-
lity of endangering the passing of the bill by offering any
opposition to the clause.

Mr. MALINS concurred with the hon. and learned
member in the opinions which he had expressed, but de-
clined to divide the house on the question, and thought it
better for the house to acquiesce in the motion of the At-
torney-General, and endeavour to restore the bill to the shape
in which it originally left the House of Commons.
Mr. HADFIELD supported the motion of the Attorney-
General, but expressed his opinion that the duties of the
official assignee would be much less under this bill than
they were at present.

Mr. VANCE thought there would be considerable diffi-
culty in the working of this clause, and regretted that the
hon. and learned member for Belfast had not given the house
an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the views he
had expressed.
Mr. FORSTER approved of the clauses of the bill
which give a supervision over the conduct of the creditors'
assignees.

Mr. W. MURRAY considered that one official assignee
to each commissioner would be quite sufficient for the trans-
action of the business, and he thought that £BOO a-year in-
stead of £1,200, would be ample remuneration for their
duties. He thought that the time had arrived when credi-
tors should take the estates of the bankrupts and work them
themselves, without incurring the expense and incon-
veniences which would be incurred under the provisions of
this bill. The hen. member referred to the enormous charges
of the official assignees, and instanced a case in which one
of those gentlemen charged for his services, during 10
months, a sum of more than £4,000. A second assignee
claimed £2,600, but had overcharged the estate in the sum
of more than £l,OOO. His experience led him to the con-
clusion that the administration of the estates of bankrupts
was in no degree better than it was in 1831. He had seen
estates wound up by inspectorship of trustees very much
more efficiently and economically than under the Court of
Bankruptcy.
Mr. GLYN said that the main cause for commercial
classes looking with favour on this bill was the power
which it proposed to give to the creditors' assignees. The
feeling against letting estates falling into the hands of offi-
cial assignees was very strong indeed, and the objections
which had hitherto existed against creditors' assignees were
removed by the proposition of appointing the official as-
signees as auditors for supervising the work of the creditors'
assignee.

Mr. AYRTON suggested whether some words should
not be introduced into the clause which would have the
effect of preventirg any inconvenience resulting from two
sets of assignees collecting the debts, one taking those
under £lO, and the other all debts over that amount,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that official assig-
nees were established in 1831 for the purpose of co-operat-
ing with creditora' assignees, but it had been found that
although the offcial assignee collected, held, and had the
management of hrge funds, still no efficient system of audit
existed. The accounts were audited as a matter of form by j
the Commissioner, but he had no practical knowledge of the
subject, and the hon. member (Mr. Murray), had given
some instances if the abuses which occasionally took place
in respect to the accounts of the assignees. A return recently
presented to Parliament showed that in the casee of five offi-
cial assignees the defalcations had amounted to the sum of
£120,000. He was of opinion that the creditors' assignee
would being to the fulfilment of his task great commercial
knowledge, which would ensure the proper performance of
his duty; and care was taken by the provisions of the bill
th it the official assignee should have constant supervision
over the duties of the creditors' assignee. In fact the oppor-
tunities for abase would not exist under the bill. There was
a great and general desire on the part of the commercial
community that these clauses in the bill, as they originally
stood, should be retained. The towns of Belfast, Birming-
ham, Bristcl, Coventry, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, Wolver-
hampton, and other places, were all in favour of the reten-
tion of the clauses, and he was quite sure the house would
vote in their favour.
Mr. POVILL said there was a strong opinion in favour
of the clauses as they had originally passed the house.
At the same time local chambers of commerce looked at
the matter in a point of view affecting themselves. It
was difficult to lay down any given rule with respect to the
assignees. He should suggest that the collection of the
debts, under and above £lO, should be made elastic ; that
was to say, instead of saying all debts under £lO should be
collected by the official assignee, and all debts above that
aisount be collected by the creditors' assignee, the creditors
should be at liberty to determine the precise nature of the

luties which each assignee should discharge.
Mr. HENLEY thought the house should disagree with
the Lords' amendment in this particular clause, seeing that
the commercial public were opposed to it.
The Lords' amendment touching the creditors' assignee
was then disagreed to without a division.
The clauses of the bill were then gone through.
The AT TORNEY.GENERAL moved that the house
do agree to several of the amendments of the Lords, and
disagree with others, the nature of which he specified.
In every case the motion of the right hon. gentleman was
agreed to.
Sir F. KELLY moved to disagree to the Lords amendment
in clause B, following clause 97, by omitting the words in
line 6, " but no debtor," and thence to the end of the clause
in line 12. There was no power contained in the bill under
which a trader debtor could obtain relief under this clause
as amended.
Mr. MALINS seconded the motion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was ready to support

the motion. He thought there must have been some over-
sight on the part of those who had introduced this amend-
ment in the Lords.

After a few remarks from Mr. HADFIELD, the house
disagreed to the latter part of the Lords' amendment.

On the clause relating to non-traders,
Mr. MALINS objected to the amendment of the Lords,
which restricted the application of the Act to debts and
liabilities of non-traders, incurred before it came into opera-
tion. He would move that the Lords'Zamendment be dis-
agreed to, if he thought that he would obtain the support
of the house. (Move, move.) He certainly would take
the sense of the house on the question.

After some further conversation,
Mr. VANCE supported the amendment made by the
Lords, because he considered it unfair to make old debts
liable to procedure under this new bill.
Mr. HADFIELD opposed the amendment of the Lords,
but hoped the hon. and learned member for Wallingford
would take the sense of the house on his proposal.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the noble lord
at the head of the Government had stated that the Govern-
ment did not intend to make any proposal with regard to
the amendments new under discussion. Looking to the
state of the house at that moment, and considering that the
hon. and learned member for Wallingford had given no
notice of his proposal, and many members were absent,
relying on the statement of the noble lord, that, as far as the
Government was concerned, no action would be taken to
induce disagreement with the Lords' amendment on this
point, he felt that he could not, with propriety, concur in
the motion of the hou. and learned member for Walling-
foul. If that motion was agreed to, and the bill went back
in that shape to the Lords, there was every fear that the bill
would be lost.
Mr. M. SMITH thought they ought not to assume that
every debtor who resided abroad did so for the purpose of
defrauding his creditors. He was glad that the Govern-
ment meant to adhere to their original resolution.
Mr. Alderman SYDNEY regretted to hear the Attorney-
General state that he could not vote for the motion of the
hon. and learned member for Wallingford.
Mr. WALPOLE thought they ought not to disagree
with the amendment made by the Lords. The view he
took of the question was, that instead of there being a
measure assimilating the law between traders and non-
traders being a measure beneficial to non-traders, it would
confer great benefit upon them. The law allowed traders
to obtain a certificate if they gave up their property, but
with respect to non-traders it allowed their creditors to keep
them in prison until their debts were paid. It was idle to
contend on behalf of non-traders that this bill would have
a prejudicial effect. He did not wish to make the law re-
trospective, because when a great change was made in the
law
on the strength of a pledge given by the Government
with respect to its operation, it was questionable whether
they would be able to make future changes if they paid no
attention to such pledges. For that reason he wasinfavouor
of keeping up the law as it at present existed. The house