The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-12 00:00:00

WEDNESITIVET EVENING, JUN% 12,

1
Lion. It had been foreseen when 'bishops were created
for colonies that difficulties would arise on the
paint, and the bishops had power in their patents
to hear and determine causes in their courts us
in this country. But doubts having arisen on the
question, and the patents having been declared beyond
the law, they were consequently withdrawn. The posi-
tion of the Church of England in the colonies was,
therefore, such that she could not make rules for her
own regulations, or to bind her followers. It was to
remedy this that the clause was intended. lie had un-
derctood the Noble Earl to state that a reverend gen-
tleinun high in position in the colonies had admitted
that the remedy lay with the Colonial Legislature, and
not with the Imperial , but that reverend gentleman,
who was the chaplain of the Bishop of Tasmania, aJ-
vocated the removal of the doubts that at present ex-
isted among members of the Church of England on the
subject of the power in question. The writer went on
to state that the Church of England in the colony could
not make or enforce regulations such as the Church of
Rome and the Church of Scotland could make. Ano-
ther point related to the visitation of bishops. The
Bishop of Tasmania, it appeared, was of opinion that an
additional service was required at St. David'e, Hobart
Town, and took steps to establish it, but the chaplain
of the church thought his rights interfered with, and
refused admission to the Bishop to the church. The
Bishop came to the church, attended by a large congre-
getion in the street, and the churchwardens at last, from
fear of violence, unlocked the doors, but the dispute
had never been settled by any rules. The result was
that the members of the Church of England in the
colony felt they were subject,d to difficulties and re-
strictions which no other religious body was subjected to,
and that the clergy not standing on an equal f .oting
were deprived of much of their usefulness. They were
subjected to just enough of ecclesiastical law to restrain
them, but to too little to make their position intelligible
and their administration effective. The remedy which
ho proposed by this clause was merely to permit the
members of the Church, bishops and clergy, to assem-
ble together, and by consent to lay down rules for their
own internal government, and to make it impossible for
those wha consented to such rules to appeal to other
courts. If the experiment was found to succeed, then
would be the time to apply to the colonial legislature to
give the form of an enactment to these rules. He
wished to set the Church tree, not from local, but from
Imperial legislation in this matter. He wished by this
clause to remedy a doubt, or, as some thought, an ille-
gality. lie had no desire to see the Church of England
in the colony deriving her influence from being what was
called a dominant church, but from her spiritual power
and efficacy. He desired to free it from the embarrass-
ments of that anomalous connexion with the Church at
home which gave it neither rule nor freedom. It had
been said that there would be danger in that, because it
might lead the Church in the colony to adopt some new
faith, and to separate altogether from the Church at
home. He thought he would meet that objection
by the proviso which he intended to propose,
that no regulation adopted should authorise a
bishop to exercise any ecclesiastical function except
he had taken the oath of allegiance, and bad
subscribed the Articles of the United Church of England
and Ireland; that any matter touching the see of Can-
terbury might be disallowed by that see; and that no
such regulations should be binding except on the
bishops, clergy, and " declared" members of the Church
in that colony. It had also been objected that the clause
would give the Church an advantage over otbar denomi-
nations; but if the last words of the peeßiso were
adopted that objection would be obviated, for they were
to the effect that such regulations should not affect the
laws anti regulations of other religious communities in
the colony. He rejoiced to hear the Noble Earl declare
last night that the Government were anxious to aid the
Church in the colony in working herself free from the
restrictions on the exercise of her spiritual power, pro-
vided that could be done without injury to others.
Another objection was, that however good the clause
might be, it was not right to introduce it in a
special Act referring to a special colony, but
that it should make part of a general Bill. applying
generally to all the colonies. But as the Noble Earl
did not find it wise to propose one general measure, in
temporal and political matters f ,r all the colonies gene-
rally, but rather proposed special measures for special
colonies, suited to the peculiar circumstances of each,
so by the same analogy he considered that in spiritual
matters particular measures suited to the particular cir-
cumstances of each colony ought to be proposed, instead
of one general spiritual measure, applicable generally
to all the colonies. In fact, such an objection was only
an attempt to get rid of the motion by a side-wind. He
hoped, however, that their Lordships would give the
clause all that deliberate consideration which an attempt
to meet a great practical grievance, pressing upon the
colonies, deserved to obtain. He begged to move the
insertion of the clause of which he had given notice in the
Bill. _ _

Earl GREY hoped the Right Rev. Prelate would not
press the House to come to a decision upon the question.
The subject was one of great difficulty, with which
they could not safely deal by introducing a clause
of this kind. They could not agree to it
without carefully ' considering who were the
parties by whom and what was the manner in
which the powers it conferred should be exercised. By
agreeing to the clause they would create a legislative
authority in the Church of England in the colonies. By
its terms the colonial bishop was not to consecrate a
minister of religion unless the party subscribed the Ar-
tic!es of the Church of England, and gave his assent to
the Book of Common Prayer. But in case of any dif-
ference of opinion in the proposed council of clergy and
laity, what would the Right Rev. Prelate think of a de-
cision by a maj eity in the sense of a late decision of the
Judicial Committee of Privy Council ? Again, what
was the meaning of the words "the mutual consent
of clergy and laity respectively?" Ile (Earl Grey)
was positively unable to construe those words.
Again, in matters of this kind they must gu and
against clashing with the kcal legislature. If
they introduced a special clause of this kind in
this Bill, it would be considered that it was intended to
overrule their local legislation. It was far better, in-
stead of taking the course now proposed, to reserve
the subject for more general and more deliberate
consideration.
The Bishop of SALISBURY would vote for the
clause. If the Noble Earl would promise to give a fair
and candid consideration to the subject, he would sug-
gest to his Right Rev. Friend not to proceed to a divi-
sion. But the Noble Earl spoke of the difficulties in the
way of dealing with the subject, as if they presented in-
superable obstacles to their arrangement.
The Bishop of LIMERICK could nut give his consent
to the clause. Instead of being of advantage to the
boundCh,ruhree Church, and
peace tf the colony, it would only lead to dissensions
and differences, which would be aggravated by the delays
occasioned by a reference to their metropolitan in the
mother country. It was utterly impossible fur him to
support the clause of the Right Rev. Prelate; and if the
latter would allow him, as a junior member a that House
to make a suggestion, he would recommend the Right
Rev. Prelate not to press the matter, but to leave it in
the hands of the Government. He was anxious that
aaracintodwf Ut rite
op‘rveßs
greatesteyn: w circumstancescircumspection.—(Hear)
ma pv ee
e ytjoo.th indistinctlyeLi ewerear)
peace should prevail in all subjects connected with the
heard, was understood to say that the clause before them
was more a declaration of opinion than one upon which
to legislate. He hoped his Learned and night Rev.
Friend would not press his proposition on that occasion.
In legislating for the colonies on that subject it was
necessary to consider the different positions and circum-
stances under which each of the colonies respectively
was placed.
The Earl of CHICHESTER, who was almost totally
inaudible in the gallery, was understood to observe that
great inconvenience Was felt in the colonies in conse-
quence of the uncertainty of the law as it at present
stood. He hoped something would be done to remedy
that evil, and indeed it was most advisable to have a re.
vi,ion of the entire state of the law respecting the
Church in the colonies.
The Bishop of DOWN and CONNOR said the ques-
tion on the present occasion resolved itself into the in-
quiry whether the propositions of the Right Rev. Prelate
were sufficient or not to correct the evils which were
acknowledged on all sides of the House to exist. As he
did not think they were so (as the Right Rev. Prelate
was understood), he would oppose the clause.
Lord REDESDALE approved of the principle of the
clause, 'and would support it, but would not recommend
his Right Rev. iriend to press it to a division.
Lord LYTTELTON thought the Government was
leaving the present question in a very unsatisfactory
state. He wished to know whether there would be any-
thing like a promise given of an inquiry into the subject
on a future occasion.
Earl GREY was understood to say that he could give
no specific answer on that question to his Noble Friend.
The Bishop of OXFORD, in briefly replying, said if
he got any definite answer that an inquiry would take
place this session or next, he would be content to wait
any reasonable time, and to leave the matter in the
hands of the Government.—(Hear.)
ex-
istence'rhe Mcfartqheuis of
grievance; LANSDOWNE
scarcely fair to
call upon the bench of Right Rev. Prelates, whose atten-
buif it was admitted the
tion must have been turned to the subject, to produce a
plan to remedy it, how much less lair would it be to call
upon the Government to provide a remedy, especially
without having had an opportunity of communicating
with the members of the Church in the colonies? His
Noble Friend had gone as far as he could under the cir-
cumstances. The grievance must be examined into and
fully probed, and the nature of the remedy considered.
His Noble Friend was hardly called on to state whether
the inquiry should be conducted by a Commission or
otherwise. All that the Government could say was, that
the matter should be looked into at no very distant pe-
riod, he might almost say forthwith. No unnecessary
delay should intervene, but the most effectual inquiry
should be instituted, and the beat remedies that could be
devised should be adopted.
Earl PO WIS thought the Right Rev. Prelate was
fully justified in calling on the Government for an as-
surance that the subject should receive considerivion
at their hands. It was not a subject to be dealt with
by private Members without the assistance of the Go-
vernment.
The Bishop of OXFORD said if the Noble Earl would
introduce a declaratory statement that the disabling
Acts which hound the Church of England should not
bind the Church in the colony, he should be perfectly
content to let the matter rest where it was. tie was
willing to withdraw his motion, and propose it in an
amended form in the report.
Earl GREY objected to give the pledge required
by the Right Rev. t'relate, thit:king it itnpropr to make
distinctions between the Church in this country and the
colonies.
The Bishop of OXFORD, after the answer given by
the Government, would not press his motion.
The motion was then withdrawn; the House resumed,
aild the report was brought up.
• The lime sfAJourue4 at 6 Qualer to Q4e okiao4,

.~• .

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COUlt7' OF BANKRUPTCY, June 11.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FANE.)

JUDGMENT.-THE ITALIAN OPERA HOUSE, COVENT.
GARDEN. IN RE EDWARD THOMAS DELAFIELD.

His HONOUR. to-day gave judgment on the question of
the bankrupt's certificate. He said—This is a very re-
markable case, and very unlike those which usually ap-
pear in this court. The bankrupt, on coming of age in
1845. found himself entitled to a fortune, left him by
his uncle, who died about 1825, which, with its accumu-
lation, amounted to 100,0001. and upwards. He was
also entitled, under his father's will, to a reversionary
interest of 6,0001., payable on the death of an aunt.
His father and uncle had been partners in the brewery
of Combe, Delafield and Co., and he was admitted into
the partnership on coming of age. He thus became en-
titled to interest on his capital of 100.000!. at 5 per cent.
and to a share in the annual profit besides, which usually
amountsd to 2,5001. HM had, therefore, an income of
about 7,5001. a year. At the end of 1848 he was a
ruined man. On the 12th of July. 1849, the fiat issued
against him, his debts being 33,000/., his assets
about 1,000/. His affairs have been fully investi- '
gated ; his creditors are satisfied that the truth has
been told ; his last examination was passed
without opposition, and he now asked for his
certificate. The assignee objects, partly on pub-
lic, and partly on private grounds. The public
grounds resolve themselves into reckless personal expen-
diture and an unfair making away of his remaining
assets shortly before his bankruptcy. The private
grounds have reference to a loan by the assignee to the
oankrupt, in March, 1846. Before considering the Ob-
jections, I will trace shortly the progress of this young
man from affluence to utter destitution. Having received
the usual school education, he was sent to Oxford, where
he continued about three years, during which time he
exceeded his allowance by about 3,000/. and upwards.
He was anxious to pay the debts he bad incurred, but
was unable to do so, the very large sum left him by his
uncle not being immediately accessible, and in conse-
quence he borrowed of the gentleman who afterwards
became petitioning creditor and assignee under the
bankruptcy 4,6001., with which, and other advances,
he cleared off his debt. On coming of age, in Novem-
ber, 1845, he was admitted, as I have above said, a
partner in the brewery, and became master of
his fortune. Unfortunately for him he was under
the influence of a strong passion for music, and hence
for theatrical entertainments, which brought him
into contact with persons willing to avail themselves
of his want of experience, and carelessness about
money, to involve him in speculations the risk of Which
he was to run, and the benefit of which they were to en-
joy. In 1846 he was induced to assist in bringing over the
Brussels operatic company to this country. This specu-
lation turned out a total failure, and he lost by it 2,3001
and upwards. It would have been well if this trifling
loss had operated as a warning to hiss not to engage in
undertakings, the details of which he neither did nor
could understand. However, it did not, and in 1847, he
withdrew his capital from the brewery, and entered into
the speculation which soon completed his ruin. The
history of this transaction will best be given in his own
words. He says—" I know Thomas Frederick Beale,
of 201, Regent-street. I first became acquainted with
him in the spring of 1847. He was then engaged as
manager of the Royal Italian Opera House, Covent-
garden, for Signor Persiani, who was at that time
the lessee. Some time in July, 1847, Beale
came to me when I was in my box at
the theatre, and told me Persiani bad left, and that
money was required to pay the artistes, or else the
theatre must close, and said if I would lend him my
promissory note fur 3,0001., the Union Bank, or his
father, would discount it, he promising, with Mr. Chap-
pelle, his solicitor, who was then present, to provide for
it at maturity. I consented to this, and gave my pro-
missory note the following day, and this was afterwards
represented by bills, for which I was ultimately obliged
to pledge my reversion of 6,000/. ; no part of this 3.000/.
was repaid to me either by Beale, or his attorney. When
I gave this bill I had no connexion with the theatre be-
yond having my box there. I had no motive in giving
this bill, except to assist the concern. This was my first
introduction into the pecuniary affairs of the theatre,
and subsequently about the end of that season (about
August, 1847), Mr. Beale induced me to join him in
partnership, and some memorandum of agreement was
prepared by Mr. Chappelle, of which I have no copy,
but I believe the terms were, that I was not
to incur any liability, present or future, beyond
15,000/. There was a provision I believe in this agree-
ment, that Beale was to be at liberty to make any tar-
rangemeat he could with Persiani for obtaining the
theatre, and I believe Beale arranged with him to pay
all the debts upon the theatre, to continue the existing
arrangements, and to release Persiani from all liabilities,
upon condition of Persiani giving Beale two acceptances
of 2,000/. each; and Signor Salvi, who was a friend of
Persiani, also agreeing to give fur acceptances of 1,000/.
each, making together 8,0001. By the power thus given I
to Beale, he took upon himself to pay the whole of the
existing engagements of the theatre, the whole of which
ultimately fell upon me, as Beale paid no part of them.
Persiani's bills have all been dishonoured, and have
never been paid; Salvi paid three of his acceptances by
an engagement; but the balance of the fourth accept-
ance, I believe, about 640/., still remains due, and I be-
lieve that Beale has since given up the fourth acceptance
to Signor Salvi without any authority, and I consider
this In longs to my estate. By this arrangement of Mr.
Beale, throwing the liabilities of the former lessees upon
my shoulders, I had to pay about 20,000/. The opera
season having terminated in August, 1847, nothing was
done excepting making arrangements for the ensuing
season, until November, 1847, when a partnership I
deed was executed between me and B •ale. Beale did
cot bring anything into the concern. The partnership
was dissolved in December, 1847, I, by the terms of the
dissolution, taking upon m) sell' all the debts of the ,
theatre, and releasing Beale from all contributions to-
wards the debts and contributions of the theatre. Beale
ihen ceased to have any connexion with the theatre."
The object of entering intc such an undertaking without
any experience to guide him, is obvious; the result was
a balance of loss on the season of 1848 of 34 7561., and
on the season of 1849 of 25,455/. Esen this gigantic
undertaking did not satiate his passion with ventures
connected with music and theatrical engagements, for in
the early part of 1846 he also undertook, with Mr.
Charles Mathews, to carry on the Lyceum, on joint ac-
count. His project was soon f .und unprofitab!e to him,
and he withdrew atter having sustained a loss of 5,312/.
Pending these engagements he made a pr.-sent of 5.000/.
is a musical acquaintance of his, Mr. Arthur Webster,
with which Mr. Webster hal purchased a villa on the
banks of the Thames, called Willow Bank, and as it was
thought desirable that the villa should be improved, he
agreed to assist Mr. Webster in repairing, or rather
rebuilding and decorating it. For this he ultimately
paid about 8,3001. The result of all is told by him-
self in these words:—" I was, in fact, entirely ruined
Ott the end of the season of 1848. My balance
at my banker's was quite exhausted, and I began the
season of 1849 by a loan of 2,0004 from my banker's."
As the season advanced his distress for money increased,
and in April Beale was obliged to advance 1,0001. to pay
Mario and Grisi. On the 15th or 22d Beale and the
bankrupt met, and an account was produced, by which
it appeared that 4.0001. was then due for salaries ; and
in order to induce Bale to carry on the theatre, the
oankrupt, on the 22i of April, executed • deed, prepared
by Mr. Beak, whereby he assigned all hi, interest in the
theatre, theatrical properties, and debt due for contribu-
tions, to Beale, to cover such advances as he had made or
nygn t make to carry on the theatre, not exceeding 7,000/,
and he himself retired to Brussels to avoid arre3t. On
the 1.4 of May following he became party to another
deed, by which Mr. Webster conveyed Willo v Bank at .d
the property there to Mr. Beale, also to secure 7,0004,
and on the 12th of July following the fiat issued.
Such were the circumstances of this lamentable case,
and it is now contended that I ought either t refuse
the bankrupt's certificate altogether, or postpone the
allowance of it, and add the conditions that the
bankrupt should pay ten shillings in the pound to his
creditors, out of any property which may hereafter
come into his possession. I do not think, however,
that I ought to adopt any one of these courses.
The first charge made against the bankrupt is, that
his expenditure was reckless. But what evidence is
there to support this charge? I have certainly heard
out of court that a very extravagant style of living was
indulged in at Willow Bank, but Willow Bank belonged
to Mr. Webster, and for anything that appears to the
contrary, the bankrupt was rather a guest thug % than
anything else. But whatever the fact may be, I have
nothing to do with anything but what appears in evi-
dence before me, and all that is in evidence before me on
the subject of reckless expenditure, is a statement in the
balance-sheet, showing that the bankrupt's personal ex-
penditure, from November, 1845, to July, 1849—nearly
four years—was 22,0004; from which must be deducted
at least 3,000/. for college expenses prior to 1845, being
a personal expenditure of 19,000/. only—less than 5,000/.
a year. Now, this is rot reckless expenditure in a per-
son who had above 7,000/. a year. In reference to this
part of the case, allusion was made to the gift of 5,000/.
to Mr. Webster, and the subsequent expenditure of
8,300/. for his benefit. As to this, the bankrupt's ex-
cuse is, that Mr. Webster had lent him money to meet
his early difficulties, and he also anticipated a mar-
riage between Mr. Webster and a near relation of his.
But it is scarcely necessary to notice these ex-
planations. The 5,000/. was given on the 27th of
February, 1847, and on that day the bankrupt re-
ceived 20,0001. from Ilifessrs. Combe and Coe and
when he engaged to pay for the improvements
at Willow Bank, he had still 80,000!.
in his re-
serve, and of course every person is at liberty to give
away thousands of his own money, if he chooses so far
to depart from the ordinary usages of mankind. The
chargeavou o
was
a Beale, at loe u,
only other charge made against the bankrupt on public
grounds was, that he had made away with all his re-
mainingnjdu(sAt oo tin thehis
eeve e u
tion of the two deeds of the 22d of April and let of May
of
alc p tpo property
paenrdt y
thisinf
1849. Now it has always been considered by me as an
important part of my duty here, to impress on all
traders, that although they are at liberty to struggle for
a living as long as there is a fair chance of success re-
mainiue, and their creditors are willing, from abstain.
ing from pressure by suit, to allow them to do so, still
that they are bound, when all reasonable chance is gone,
and pressure by creditors begins, to look their affairs
steadily in the face, and if they see no fair ground of
hope, and some of their creditors will wait no
longer, then to place themselves entirely in the
hands of their creditors, and if necessary submit to
bankruptcy, showing no favour to one creditor
more than another. Prima facie the application of
that principle to the present case would require con
demnation of the bankrupt as far an unfair preference
of Belle, but upon full consideration I am of opinion
that this is an excepional case. First, some allowance
ought to be made for the extreme youth of the bankrupt;
-ome for thecircunistance that he could hardly be deemed
a trader; some for the deceptions of which he hiss been
rawe the vicijul; tad somo for the greataess of the.ruila

1850.

that has befallen him: which, of course, must operate in
itself as severe punishment. But I have another diffi-
culty in dealing with this part of the case on the strict
. principle, and that is. that the assignee has thought it
best to settle all questions with Mr. Beale. by accepting
F from him 1,0001. in satisfaction of all claims, and hence
. there has not been that full investigation of the facts
connected with the execution of the two deels which
would be requisite to enable me to firm a judicial opi-
nion on the merits of the transactions. An obvious ex-
cuse, however, offers itself for the execution of the deed
of the 22d of April, that April was the very commence-
ment of the Covent-garden Opera season, and the bank-
rupt might have thought that in inducing Beale to fur-
nish funds to go on with, he was doing the best he could
for the creditors, whose immediate subsistence and ulti-
mate payment depended on the theatre being kept open.
With regard to the deed of the Ist May, it seems, in
fact, that the bankrupt was not a conveying party; the
deed related to Mr. Webster's property, and it was
only executed by the bankrupt in order that any subse-
quent purchaser under Beale might be better satisfied.
Under these circumstances, and having a regard to all
these consideratioes, I do not feel myself in a position to
pronounce judicially that the certificate ought to be post-
poned with respect to the alleged unfair disposition of
property on the eve of bankruptcy. It remains to consider
the private complaint of the assignee. He was a college
friend, three or four years older tnan the bankrupt. In
March, 1846, being then, it must be presumed, acquainted
with his young friend's carelessness about money, and
his unfitness to be trusted with it, he thou ht fit to lend
him 4,6001,, to he repaid at the option of ei:hf r party on
twelve months' notice being given. lii February, 1848.
he or his friends commenced an action to r.cover the
money immediately, with interest. The bankrupt paid
the interest, but, as to the principal, he declined paying
it at that time, on the ground that he had not had twelve
months' notice. The assignee, knowing the defence was
right in point of law, submitted, gave immediate notice,
and renewed his action in February, 1849. Meanwhile
the bankrupt had involved himself in the opera specu-
lation, and was, in fact, utterly ruined. Now, is there
anything in these circumstances which should deprive
the baukrapt of his certificate? I think not. The defence
he made was justifiable at the time. Thelender had agreed
that repayment should not be made until after twelve
months' notice, and that notice had not been given.
But then it is contend, d that I ought, in granting the
certificate, to attach the condition that the bankrupt shall
pay ten shillings in the pound on his debts out of future
assets and a decision something like that in Lord Hun-
tingtower's case nas cited to me. I do not know the
exact particulars of that case, I only know it was very
peculiar. But I confess I have no inclination to attach
such a condition to a certificate in any case. I refused
to do so in Jullien's. The world of industry in which
we lire is one in which every man, not living on accumu-
lations, is struggling for a subsistence. In that struggle
it is difficult enough for any one to win his way, even
with character clear and something to begin with. What,
then, may be expected to be with the tate of one who not
only begins with nothing, but is weighed down with the
stain of bankruptcy, and by an unpaid debt of 10s. in
the pound on 33,0001.? I see nothing for a person so
burthened but to lie down in hopeless despair, and aban-
don all future exertion. Were the faults of this bank-
rupt far greater than they are, I would not condemn him
to such a fate. It may be said that this bankrupt had
rich relations. Perhaps he has; but if it were true, this
argument is one which will never weigh with me. I
will never be a party to the establishing of any such
doctrine, that rich relations are under any obligation to
pay the debts of extravagant connexions. A contrary
doctrine is a far more wholesome one. It is better to
lay it down that a creditor shall not have means of pres-
sure, direct or indirect, upon rich relations, and thus
check the giving credit to the young and foolish. It is
to the great prevalence of this credit which in the long
run, leads to the establishment of laws which, though
intended to check the unwholesome credit only, which
is given to the idle, such as that given in Lord Hunting-
tower's case and again in this, have a tendency to im
pede that wholesome credit which, by enabling strug-
gling industry to exercise its calling, is the source of
public wealth. And for whose benefit am I to impose
this berthen—for that of the assignee, or for that of
the general body of creditors? If for the assignee, I
anslaer that he knew at the time he lent the money that
he was lending to a spendthrift; that the money was to
meet past or future extravagance. Why should the law
go out of its way to aid such lenders? They are public
enemies, they foster extravagance, encourage idleness,
and disturb the happiness of families. Even those who
advance money to enable others to educate themselves
or go into business, must submit to the loss of what
they have lent if circumstances turn out unfavourable.
And if this be the fate of those who advance money for
praiseworthy purposes, why should it not be the
fate of those who advance money to supply extra-
vagance? Surely the loss of what has been so lent is
not inappropriate punishment fer persons who thus in-
terfere
between the young.. and their natural advisers '
end protectors. But it may be said that I ought to im- I
pose that condition for the benefit of the other creditors.
To that I answer, that I believe there is not one who
really wishes it. I have now been engaged twenty-five
years in administering the law of bankruptcy, and in
that time I have observed that the moat marked feature
in the conduct of the creditors, as a body, towards
debtors, is an unwillingness to press harshly on the
fallen, and I doubt not that this is the feeling which
pervades the body of creditors in this case. At all
events, not one has appeared to make the slightest per-
sonal complaint against the bankrupt. But it a contrary
feeling did prevail, I should not yield to it, for I look
upon the general body of creditors in this case as co-
sptculators with the bankrupt, and as the speculation has
been a total tailere, and he the grs west sufferer, all ought
to heir their share of the misfortuue without rtfusin4.
On the whole I think, upon full consideration of all the
circumstances. that I shall best discharge my public duty
by granting the bankrupt a common c,rtificate, with, ut
attaching any condition. I hope that the terrible lesson
he has received may be of use to him in after life.
Certificate granted accordingly.