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

On these grounds he earnestly hoped that the house would
reject the amendments. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROLT said he agreed with the Lords' amendments,
because he thought it unwise to be making changes for
temporary purposes, and with a view to expediency. It
was not even alleged that the bill was to be a matter of
permanent legislation. (Hear, hear.) If they went on tam-
pering with the Court of Bankruptcy, going backwards and
forwards, no progress would be made, while public confi-
dence would be destroyed. ('Hear, hear.) He thought the
best course would be to give the present system a further
trial, and having given them an opportunity of showing
how the new duties imposed upon them were discharged,
then, if necessary, propose a change, but let that be a per-
manent change, and not a temporary expedient.

Mr. CRAWFORD said he could not understand the
policy of waiting a year or two to see whether the appoint-
ment of a chief judge was necessary. On the contrary, the
citizens of London were of opinion that it would be most
unwise to pass this bankruptcy bill without making the ap-
pointment of the new judge in question. The petition
which he had presented from the commercial community
of London urged this point strongly upon the house, and
this petition was signed by the representatives of twenty-
five banking firms and all the heads of chief commercial
houses in the City. Similar petitions were presented from
all the chief commercial cities and towns in England, Ire-
land, and Scotland. With respect to Liverpool, :he might
observe that the conduct of the people of that city was most
inconsistent in respect to this bill. Previous to the intro-
duction of this bill the people of Liverpool presented a peti-
tion praying for certain alterations in the bankruptcy law,
and these alterations were actually made by the bill before
the house. In conclusion, he had only to express a hope
that the house would agree to the amendment proposed by
his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General.
Mr. HORSFALL thought he knew as well as his bon.
friend (Mr. Crawford) what were the opinions of the people
of Liverpool. He must say that although the petition from
Liverpool prayed that the bill should be passed as it was
sent from that house to the House of Lords, there was yet
a strong opinion against the appointment of the new judge
referred to. Having heard the opinion of the honourable
member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), he was quite satisfied
that the appointment of this new judge would be a waste of
the public money.

Mr. HADFIELD contended that the commercial com-
munity of Liverpool were in favour of this bill, and indeed
such was the feeling displayed by all the commercial com-
munities of the country in respect to the measure, which of
all the plans submitted to the country for improving the
bankruptcy law, was the best.
Mr.l TURNER believed that the 48 Liverpool firms
who signed the petition to which so much allusion had been
made, were most eminent, and represented a large amount
of capital,
,but they could not be taken as representing all
the commercial opinion in Liverpool. He differed from
the views put forward by those 48 firms, and believed that
the appointment of a chief judge of ability and experience
would materially tend to an improvement of the bankruptcy
system, and he should support the restoration of the chief

judge clause.
Mr. HENLEY thought that the Lords Justices would be
a safer tribunal than a chief judge, who might be, perhaps,
a barrister of 12 years' standing. In a matter where such

diversity of opinion existed, it was no unreasonable thing
for members who did not oppose the clauses of the bill
which were struck out by the Lords, to avail themselves of
the present opportunity of expressing their concurrence in
the views taken by such eminent legal authority. If
there were to be five hundred appeals from the decision

of the county court judges, he doubted very much if
the appellate jurisdiction could be sufficiently exercised
by the chief judge. What they wanted was
appellate powers. Had they that power ? The
judicial power which was at command he considered
to be quite sufficient for that purpose. If it were sufficient
all parties agreed that it was a good and satisfactory tribu-
nal. The alterations made by the Lords in this bill he con-
sidered were great improvements, and he should give them
his support.
Mr. MOFFATT censured the present system of bank-
ruptcy, and alluded to the want of confidence which the
mercantile public felt in the judgment and surveillance of
the bankruptcy commissioners, Without the supervision of
a chief judge, he thought it better that the bill should be
withdrawn.
Mr. WALPOLE said they were now arguing the gene-
ral question on amendments of the other house, instead of
arguing it in a committee. They were now arguing the
matter on a first impression, and the question was whether
they should have a judge at £5,000 a year, also, whether
traders and non-traders were to be put on an equal footing
and imprisonment for debt abolished. Since this measure
was a tentative measure, and not one for a final settlement,
he would ask whether it was right to appoint a judge at a
salary of £5,000 a year without knowing whether his ser-
vices would be required. If they were in committee he would
propose, if they were to have a new judge at all, that that
judge should be one of the viee-chancellors. A superintend-
ing judge from that court would keep the law uniform in-
stead of having to deal with the discordant views of 50 or GO
commissioners in bankruptcy. If for the time being that
experiment were made he would approve of it; if not, he

thought it better to leave the matter as it stood. If it were
in the power of the house to restore the clause with that
amendment he would agree to it; if not, he preferred leav-
ing the matter in the hands of the lords justices for one year.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL agreed with the right
hon. gentleman who had just spoken, in the regret he had
expressed that this question was not discussed by those who
opposed the proposition made by the Government upon the
second reading; but he could not agree with the statement
which had also been made, that the mind of the house and
of the country had not been addressed to the question. The
objects and necessity for the bill were fully explained by the
present Lord Chancellor, and this proposition had not been
introduced stealthily, but had been contained in every mea-
sure of the same character which had appeared before the
house: it had been for years under discussion, and no voice
had been raised against it in any of the discussions which
had taken place. The mind of the house was as far ad-
dressed to the question as it was possible to be without op-
position, and the only reason why it was not discussed was
that no hon. gentleman raised any objection to the proposi
tion to lead to a discussion. Still less was the country sur-

prised by the introduction of the proposition. For years
the country had been knocking at the doors of that house,
and telling them of the failure of the old system under the
law of 1831, and the whole mercantile community were so
impatient in their demands that they complained of the un-
avoidable delay which occurred in giving to the measure
due consideration. And there had been this remarkable
fact, that for a series of years the business had been either
stationary or declining year after year, and by the side of
the system was growing up to enormous proportions a
system of private arrangement withdrawing the liquida-
tion of insolvents' estates altogether from the cognisance
of the law—a state of things which , spoke volumes in
favour of a most searching revision of the law. He ap-
pealed in confirmation to the most unfavourable quarter—
to the forty-eight firms of Liverpool whose voices of the
whole mercantile community were alone raised in favour of
the amendment of the House of Lords. But the petition
from Liverpool, stating the grievances of the merchants
arising from the present state of the law, told of the uncer-
tainty of decisions, and the great desiderata of uniformity,
of decision, and pointed clearly to the appointment of a pre-
siding judge. If the bill were framed with the view of re-
moving the evils and correcting the mischiefs of which the
petitioners complained, they should endeavour to prune off
every abuse they found, and to meet as far as could be the
reasonable wishes of the mercantile community. To effect
this it was necessary that there should be a head, a centre,
a presiding, ruling genius, to control the operation of the
system ; and if that provision were struck out, it would re-
duce the system to the same confusion and disorder which
it was the object of the bill to remedy. Last year a bill was
introduced which proposed to abolish the commissioners, to
put them upon pensions, and to have a judge. The objec-
tion to that was, the putting the commissioners upon pen-
sions, and this year, adhering to the same principle, the
Government proposed to suggest a transition of a more gra.
dual character in the place of the abrupt transition which
was last year proposed, and as it was not wished that retir-
ing pensions should be paid, it was proposed to retain the
services of the commissioners, and to make the best use of
them :they could. But they were no longer to be inde-
pendent units, each revolving in his own orbit, but were to
be subordinates under the control of one head, The bill
proposed a reduction in the number, as vacancies occurred,
to a maximum of three, but it went further, and provided
machinery to come into operation if it were thought expe-
dient at some future time to abolish the office altogether.
`Tho bill contained, in fact, the provisions of a self-
regulating system, and in course of time would bring them
to the same position to which they would have been brought
(
by the bill of last year. Nobody had contended that it was
desirable to retain the services of these commissioners. He
(the Solicitor-General) had not heard a single argument to
that effect. And here he must agree with his right hon.
friend the member for Cambridge University in regretting
that they did not know on what grounds the House of Lords
proceeded. (Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend who had
last addressed the house said that this was an experimental
measure. That he (the Solicitor-General) denied, This
was not an experimental measure, except in the sense that
every reform was experimental. Every reform might be
found to succeed more or less—to have its strong points and
its weak points—but this was not intended as an experi-
mental measure—it was the result of long, mature, and de-
liberate consideration. lie protested against this notion of
dealing with this cardinal point of the question, as if they
were throwing out into the world a mere experiment,seeing
how it worked, and then adopting or rejecting it. It was
not with Aids view that the Government introduced the
measure, it was not with this view that the mercantile com-
munity accepted it—(hear, hear)—or that the house passed
it. (Hear, hear.) He confessed he had been rather puzzled
by some things that had fallen from some of the speakers in
the debate. They did not say exactly they agreed with the
Lords. There was hardly one of them who had not put
himself in such a position as that, if he were to sit on one of
those (the Government) benches,he might say—" All along
I thought the judge the best thing, but I considered it desi-
rable to wait and see how the experiment succeed ed,and there-
fore lam perfectly consistent." That reminded him of the
advice given of old by a great master of politics and rhete ri;
always to hate AO if weAMA PAO day lAtiye ocOstOtt tO 19T •