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

PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented against the Parochial
Assessments Bill and the abolition of Church rates • in
favour of the introduction of a comprehensive measure of
reform, &c.
ECCLESIASTICAL AND CHURCH ESTATES
COMMISSIONERS.
4 Iderrnan COPELAND moved fora return of all monies
bY the Ecclesiastical CJinmissioners, during the years
1855,1850 , 1857, and 1858, out of the funds administered
lug Zuteatasesolicitors, surveyors, and other officers, specify-
CONvier particulars of each transaction—ordered.
On the DISTURBANCES (CHATHAM).
motieu of General BERKELEY an address for a
return of any orders issued by the Directors of Convict
Prisons respectiu
g the late outbreak among the convicts at
Chatham, was ordered.
G
On the motion. of 131/°M r. I,p RED‘' ASSIZES.
ber of prisoners !or trial at each 'a return of the num-
the last four assizes for
the county and the' .town oftierho
h:ed:ons, was ordered.
and a similar return
for each of the last ,sight quarterg
SALE AND TRANSFER sessions
°F LAND,
In reply to Mr. HOPWOOD,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he hoped. to be able
to bring on his bill on this .subject after Easter
FORTIFICATION,S. AT CHATIIA.M,
Sir F. SMITH gave notice that on going into Committee
of Supply on the army estimates,. he would ask the Under
Secretary for War a question on the subject.
THE BALLOT.
Mr. BERKELEY gave notice that to-morrow he would
task for copies of any correspondence which had recently
taken place between the Postmaster-Gmeral and the zecre-

tary of the Ballot Society, in reference to the non.-delivery
of certain letters to electors at Ripon.
THE DUCHESS OF KENT—EXPRESSION OF
CONDOLENCE TO HER MAJESTY.
Lord PALMERSTON said—Sir, the house is already
aware of the deep affliction which has befallen her Majesty 1
by the death of H.R.H. the Duchess of Kent—(hear)—and
I am sure I will not be considered premature if I ask the
house to perform an act of painful satisfaction in tendering
to her most gracious Majesty their grief at the melancholy
event which has occurred. lam persuaded that in making
this proposal I shall only moot the feeling of every member
of this house, when 1 say that we are most desirous, at the
earliest possible moment, to convey to her Majesty our
sincere regret at her affliction. In doing this we are only
the faithful expounders of the feelings of the nation in re-
spect to their ardent attachment to her Majesty's person
and loyalty to her throne. (Hear, hear.) The
event which we deplore is a part of the dispensa-
tions of nature, for parents must be expected not to
outlive their children, but whenever the separation between
parent and child happens, it must necessarily be most pain-
ful, however the circumstances of the parties may vary
the intensity of their feelings. It is the usual lot of
mothers and daughters of the royal family to be separated
by marriage, by which the latter are removed to other

countries, and though this circumstance may net affect the
natural feelings, it tends to mitigate the pain experienced
at an affliction like the present. But this was not the
case with respect to her Majesty, for, from her earliest
infancy, they were pet petually together. The result of this
intercourse which has subsisted between her Majesty and
the Duchess of Kent has been that the moat reciprocal
confidence has prevailed between them. It is to the care
of her late Royal Highness that the country is indebted for
the development of those great qualities for which our
Sovereign is distinguished. (Cheers.) On the other hand,
her Majesty, from the position in which she was placed,
was enabled to make a grateful return for the care bestowed
on her by her august parent. It was apparent, therefore,
from the intercourse between the Duchess of Kent and her
Majesty, that the blow which has fallen on her Majesty
must afflict her with the greatest grief and pain—(hear,
hear)—and I think the house will consider that in
moving an address of condolence to her Majesty, we are
only discharging our duty. This enables us to express our
attachment to the Crown, and our feeling at the domestic
occurrence which has taken place. The noble lord
moved the address, which was an embodiment of the feelings
of loyalty and attachment to her Majesty. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI, who spoke with considerable emotion

and in a very low tone, said that he begged to second the
motion. The relations between her Majesty and the Duchess
of Kent were not only of a very close but a very peculiar
character. (Hear, hear.) There never devolved on a mother
greater or more important duties than her late Royal High-
ness was called on to perform, and the manner in which
they were discharged accorded with the feelings enter-
tained by a grateful and loyal people. (Cheers.) Therefore
the name:of the Duchess of Kent, notwithstanding her serene
retirement, would live in the history of this country from
its intensity and benignant connection with an illustrious
reign. For the grief which had fallen on the Queen there
was only one source of consolation—the recollection of the
terms on which they lived until the last moment of their
intercourse. The Sovereign who ruled over this country had
endeared herself to her subjects bythose principles, for which
her domestic life was distinguished, and which all classes
appreciated. (Hear, hear) The right hon. gentleman
concluded by seconding the motion.
The address was then agreed to.
FRENCH OCCUPATION OF SYRIA.
In reply to an HON. MEMBER,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the occupation of Syria by
the French troops would continue until the 15th of June.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOYLENCY BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill, and resumed I
at clause 197, which was agreed to after some discussion. 1
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 Bilis 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 Me 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 get 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 fie 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 should be equally divided amongst the credi-
tors, but no sooner 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
112;1 struck out s hon. and.
(Hear.)
ndlettrned friend would consent to their
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
4 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.
e principles of our recent
Sir F. GOLDSMID objected to these clauses altogether,
legislation.
aetyi
own e. r s
Nothingquite o opposed b
d toe
t h
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 administer d in the Court of Chancery were en.
tirely different from those of the Court of Bankruptcy ; and
when an estate was thrown into Bankruptcy it could not
be dealt with according to Chancery rules. If it were trans-
ferred to the county courts, the county court judge would
have to make himself familiar with the principles of the
Court of Chancery, as well as with the law of bankruptcy
and the common law; and to impose all these acquirements
on the county court judges would be to impose on them a
a very heavy burthen.
Mr. HENLEY said he thought these clauses were very
cruel, and would inflict much unnecessary pain and injury
upon a gteat many persons. It was too hard upon a man
who had never committed an act of bankruptcy in his life
that he should be stigmatised as a bankrupt after being laid
in his grave, for he might be perfectly solvent, but for the
expenses perhaps of his last illness and of his funeral, which
might exceed the amount of his assets, and in that case it
would be cruel after his death to put the disgrace of bank-
ruptcy upon him. The amendment would double the
amount of hardship inflicted by these clauses, and he should
therefore oppose it, but he hoped the clauses would not be
pressed.

Mr. HADrIELD said the object:of those who supported
these clauses was not to inflict
pain on any person, but to
"certai4 the beat mode of distributing a maws effects among

lxis creditors. Those who belonged to his own branch of
the profession, and who had been practically engaged in
such matters, could appreciate, better perhays 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 under 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 set
in motion for that purpose. The measure now before the
' ouse 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-
olared strongly in favour of these clauses, and wishad them
to be extended to non-traders as well as to traders.

Sir H. CAIRNS thought it was a very fallacious argu-
"(sent to urge that as the county courts had proved to be
convenient for the decision of manyclaims,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 clone
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 (lur-
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 ho 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 legal 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 est ite 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
passei, 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 wet e 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 management of those estates. He could
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 a:ked 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
Majority
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
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 cones.
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 the circumstances he had suggested.
Mr. ROLT was at a loss to understand the reason of the
change proposed by the clause. 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•
tied 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 in 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.
The clause was agreed to without a divi,ion.
Clauses from 208 to 218 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 219,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had taken this
clause from the Insolvent Act. He, however, proposed to
omit it altogether now, and bring up another c lause on the
report of a more satisfactory nature.
The clause was then withdrawn.
Clauses 220 to 225 were agreed to.
On clause 226,

Mr. SCIIOLEFIELD said that as the clause stood it

limited the power of swearingaeidavits before commissioners
in Chancery. He proposed, as an amendment, that the
power should be extended to commissioners of any °I the
superior courts of common law at Westminster.

024E3
The amendment was agreed to, and the clause was added
to the bill.
Clauses to 242 inclusive were agreed to.
should be applied
Mr.n v clauseAw e Butgogtehsetecdoltohniitest.he provision of this clause
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 244,245, were agreed to.
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
fraudulentgieat
difficultypreferencein
practice wras w
amongr e not introduced h
t ejudges.
there would
be
The amendment having been withdrawn,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed the omission
of certain words, which conferred a preference on some ere_
ditors over others.
Mr. HENLEY opposed it, believing that injustice would
result.
The amendment was agreed to, and the clause was ordered
to stand part of the bill,