§ House in Committee on the Joint-Stock Companies Bill.
§ On Clause 2,
§
MR. HUDSON (in the absence of Mr. Headlam) rose to move the following Amendments, of which that hon. and learned Gentleman had given notice. In Clause 2, to add the following words:—
The word 'commissioner' shall mean any country commissioner of the Court of Bankruptcy having jurisdiction in the town where the principal office of the company is situate.
In all subsequent parts of the Bill, wheresoever the word "master" occurs, to substitute the words "master or commissioners."
§ Mr. MILNER GIBSON had understood that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Headlam) did not intend to press his Motion, and he hoped that it should be allowed to drop.
§ MR. HUDSON said, he thought the agreement between the hon. Member for Newcastle and the Government was of a, totally different character. The object of the Government in bringing in this Bill should be to enable the affairs of partnership concerns to be wound up as speedily as possible; and the best way of doing that 831 was to enable the local officers to manage local affairs. He objected altogether to their present system of centralisation, and protested most strongly against the course they were pursuing in endeavouring to get rid of so useful an Amendment.
§ The SOLICITOR GENERAL defended the clause as it stood. It would be better to leave it to the discretion of the Judge to say whether the local powers should take cognisance of certain cases or not. He was not prepared to accede to the proposition placed on the Paper by his hon. and learned Friend, and it remained with the hon. Gentleman opposite to say whether he would press it to a division.
§ MR. JOHN STUART said, he had certainly understood the Solicitor General had stated to the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle that he would consider whether his Amendment should not be adopted. He was surprised he (the Solicitor General) had not made up his mind to adopt it by this time. The Government would, it appeared, oppose the Amendment. He should like to know on what grounds. Had the Solicitor General consulted any local practitioner on the subject, or had he inquired into the views of the bankruptcy commissioners of the remote towns, such as Newcastle and Sunderland, with respect to the practical working of the Bill? He was sure his hon. and learned Friend had not done so, or he would have found these gentlemen approved of the principle of the Amendment. Of course, the great body of London practitioners would be in favour of doing all the local law business in London; and he was far from saying they were not right in that view; but, at the same time, he was certain every country practitioner would give an opinion exactly opposite. The only question between him and those who opposed the Amendment was, whether or not cases might occur wherein convenience might be consulted and expense saved by reference to the local tribunals, such as the Commissioner of Bankruptcy. In his opinion, the Lord Chancellor should have a discretionary power to refer any case to the local commissioner; but the Bill, as it stood, would deprive him of that power. He would like to ask if the Society for the Amendment of the Law had come to the decision that the Commissioner of Bankruptcy should not be trusted in any case? He trusted every one interested in the practical administration of the law would support the Amendment.
832§ Mr. HAYTER thought it rather unfair to press on this discussion in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle. It certainly would have been more convenient to have waited till he was present, in compliance with the agreement which had been entered into between him and Government; but if the Government were to be driven to a division, he should oppose the Amendment. The Bill had nothing whatever to do with bankruptcy: the object of it was to enable joint-stock companies to wind up their affairs, and came quite after the question raised in the Amendment. The Bill was not framed to enable creditors to come except incidentally: after they were paid, the question of the distribution of property arose, and the necessity for the sprang solely from the latter question. At present, the property of partners can only be distributed under the Court of Chancery by means of a bill filed, and of lengthy and expensive proceedings; and the result was, that there did not exist on the records of that Court a case in which a large partnership had been wound up and the surplus property distributed. He did not mean to attack the local functionaries: they were a highly respectable body, but, as he believed, utterly incapable of discharging the arduous duties which would devolve on them if this Amendment should be carried.
§ The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, he would, before bringing up the report, consider whether it would be expedient to give a discretionary power to the Lord Chancellor. He believed that de cheapest mode of reference was to the Master in Chancery.
§ Mr. JOHN STUART said, if the right hon. Gentleman would pledge himself to bring in a clause to that effect, it was all he wanted.
§ MR. T. M. GIBSON assented.
§ Amendment withdrawn; Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ The remaining clauses agreed to.
§ The House resumed.
§ Bill to be reported.
§ House adjourned at Four o'clock.