COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 18 February 1861)

HC Deb 18 February 1861 vol 161 cc499-529 499

§ Bill considered in Committee:—

§ Clause 1 agreed to.

§ Clause 2 (Appointment of Chief Judge),

MR. HENLEY
said he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether a statement in the report of certain proceedings in the Court of Chancery was accurate, according to which the Master of the Rolls was represented to have said that, as far as he could see, no business had been cut out sufficient to occupy him during the present sittings and the following Term, and from that statement he understood that the Vice Chancellors were in the same happy position. It became im-

500

§ not to exceed the sum of Two thousand pounds, a Duty of Five pounds; if such estate and effects shall be certified to be above the value of Two thousand pounds, or if no statement shall be made touching the value thereof, then the Duty shall be Ten pounds."

§ 3. Resolved,— That it is expedient to authorize the collection of Fees in matters of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in England by means of Stamps.

§ 4. Resolved,— That the following Stamp Duties in lieu of Fees shall be charged in cases] of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in England:—

§ portant that the truth of that statement should be ascertained when they were about to appoint a new Chief Judge with a high salary.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that it was probable that the time of the Master of the Rolls was not at present fully occupied, but he had no reason to believe that that state of things would continue. The Committee was aware that, in consequence of changes which had been effected some time ago, part of the business of the Court of Chancery was transferred from Court to Chambers. The amount of business now gone through in chamber was very considerable, and, though a portion of the time of the Mas- 501 ter of the Rolls might not be occupied at present, he must repeat that he did not believe that to be anything like the ordinary state of things.

§ MR. ROLT
observed that his hon. and learned Friend had not satisfied him that the services of a Chief Judge and five London Commissioners wore required. In the Bill of last year his hon. and learned Friend proposed that the entire work of the London court should be performed by one or two Commissioners and a Chief Judge. To retain five Commissioners and appoint a Chief Judge would add to existing expense and create confusion; and the result would be that the business would be less efficiently discharged than at present. He did not intend, however, to go fully into the question on that clause; but he mentioned the matter now in order that his hon. and learned Friend might take it into his consideration with a view to the amendment of the clause providing for the number of the London Commissioners. If the latter were altered he should give his cordial support to the clause now under discussion.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIL
said, he would ask permission to remind the Committee of some facts connected, with the various modifications in the Court of Bankruptcy since its establishment in 1831. By the Bill of that year a Court of Review, consisting of four Judges, was created; but before long it was discovered that so large a number was not required, and the Chief Judge was turned into a Justice of the Common Pleas, and another Judge into a Master in Chancery. By the Act of 1842 it was provided that the duties of the Court of Review should be discharged by a single Judge; but the matter did not stop there, for it was further found that the time of even one Judge was more than was requisite. An extremely eminent Judge, Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce, undertook to discharge the duties of the Court of Review in Bankruptcy in addition to those which he performed in Chancery; and he believed that the former were satisfactorily performed by the learned Judge devoting one day in the week to those appeals. When the functions of the Court of Chancery were modified, the reviewing of cases from the Bankruptcy Court was transferred to the Lords Justices; and they also had transacted this business by giving to it one day in each week. He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) did not find any reason for supposing that 502 so much additional appeal business would arise under the new Act as to justify the appointment of a Chief Judge, whose whole time would be applicable to its performance. On the contrary, he thought that the observations of the Master of the Rolls referred to by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire afforded ground for presuming that some arrangement might be made with the existing Judges for the discharge by them of the business which the Bill proposed to entrust to the new Judge. If once this functionary was appointed the step, so far as expense was concerned, could not be retraced; and his £5,000 a year must continue to be paid, even if only one-third or one-fourth of his time were occupied. The Committee ought, therefore, to know whether the learned Judges of the Court of Chancery had been communicated with on the subject, and whether it had been found impossible for them to undertake any additional duties.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the clause for the appointment of the Chief Judge was repeated from the Bill of last Session. When under discussion, as a part of that measure, it was agreed to unanimously. He did not say that it might not now be objected to on grounds which had not then been supposed to exist; but he must observe that without it no part of the measure would work. The continuance of the five Commissioners was not his act, but that of the House. Hon. Members would recollect that in his Bill of last Session he proposed that Parliament should release the London Commissioners, and that the functions of the London Court should be discharged by one Commissioner and a Chief Judge. They would further recollect that that proposition involved the further one—namely, that the released Commissioners should receive their full salary for life. The House showed itself reluctant to adopt the latter proposal; and, therefore, in the present Bill he was forced to continue the London Commissioners; but his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roll) must be aware that it was not intended to keep up the number of five, or anything like it. He (the Attorney General) contemplated eventually two Commissioners, with a Chief Judge; but the Bill at present supposed three, because it was possible that there might be that number for some time—three of the present Commissioners, and, having regard to the age and length of service of those learned gentlemen, as much work could not reasonably be ex- 503 pected from them as might be looked for from younger men. Instead of three Bankruptcy and two Insolvent Commissioners, there would be two London Commissioners, with a salary of £2,000 a year each, which would make £4,000, and a Chief Judge with a salary of £5,000, bringing up the entire expense to £9,000. At present the Commissioners of the Insolvent and Bankruptcy Courts received salaries amounting to £13,500, so that the difference would be a saving of £4,500 a year. So much for the Commissioners. With regard to the necessity for a Chief Judge, hon. Gentlemen would do him the justice to observe that under the Bill a considerable portion of the bankruptcy business would, be discharged by the County Court Judges. The result would be, that the London Commissioners, the District Commissioners, and the County Court Judges would all be exercising original jurisdiction in bankruptcy. It was true that the present Court of Appeal had only so much business as to occupy a small modicum of its time; but the reason was not that there were no judgments for revision, but that the amount at stake was frequently so small that it was not thought advisable to incur the expense and delay consequent on an appeal. The result of the present state of things was that one-half of the administration of justice in bankruptcy was without effective superintendence. But in future all the important business was to be discharged by the Court of Bankruptcy under the provisions of the present Bill. The insolvent business alone would be sufficient to occupy the time of one Commissioner, so that there would only be the Chief Judge and one Commissioner to get through the business that was now discharged by five Commissioners and the Court of Appeal. It was also material to observe that the present Bill, for the first time, brought every trust deed within the control of the Court, and gave to all parties claiming under these trust deeds the most ready means of resorting to the Court, and of having an economical administration of their affairs. These trust deeds amounted annually to 8,000, and the ordinary number of petitions relating to them in the Courts of Bankruptcy and Insolvency were very considerable. By the enactments of the Bill there would be about four times the amount of business added to the court. Supposing a question on some important matter to arise in the case of every twenty trust deeds, they 504 would have, out of the total 8,000, no fewer than 400 subjects of adjudication brought up annually from that source alone. In addition to these, they would probably have the 2,000 cases of bankruptcy and insolvency now adjudicated upon considerably increased. In order to provide a tribunal that could adequately discharge all the business that would arise, and to whose decisions there would attach dignity as well as power and authority, the Judge must be in every respect equal to the Judges of the Court of Chancery and of Common Caw. It should be recollected, also, that the Chief Judge would have most important functions to perform in connexion with the discharge of bankrupts, on which difficult and intricate questions would often arise. He contended, therefore, that the time of the Chief Judge and the Commissioners who might be permanently employed, would be wholly occupied in the discharge of the important business with which they were intrusted.

§ MR. ROLT
said, that omitting to employ the London Commissioners would not add to the expense in any way whatever. If these Commissioners could be employed usefully he would be satisfied, but he could not understand how they were to be usefully employed under the provisions of this Bill. If the Bill passed in its present form the machinery framed by it would be permanent, and his hon. and learned Friend would not be able to accomplish what he desired—the establishment of a Chief Judge and one or two Commissioners only. The expense, therefore, would not be lessened by the course proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. As to the question whether it would he possible for the Chief Judge to discharge the duties without the assistance of any London Commissioners, he (Mr. Bolt) was satisfied that with a proper staff of registrars it might be done. At all events the assistance of one or two London Commissioners at most, as proposed last year would be sufficient; all the difference that his hon. and learned Friend could show between this Bill and the one of last year in that respect was, that it was now proposed to bring into the Court of Bankruptcy trust deeds, which, he said, were 8,000 in number. He calculated that out of this number there would be 400 cases annually brought into Court, but he (Mr. Rolt) submitted that this was a very loose estimate, and that, in fact, the change would add very slightly indeed to the 505 labours of the Court. Neither would the jurisdiction as to the discharge of bankrupts add materially to the business of the Court, and he contended that the result would be to leave the Chief Judge no primary jurisdiction whatever, while the appellate jurisdiction would occupy little more time than it did now—half a clay or so in the week. He believed that by the machinery provided in the Bill of last year the expense would be less than by the present, while the work would be efficiently done.

§ Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 3 and 4.

§ Clause 5 (Present and future Commissioners of the Court in London),

§ MR. ROLT
said, he was of opinion that the simpler course would have been to carry out the proposal of the Bill of last year, and to allow certain of the Commissioners to retire upon their full salaries. He thought such a proposition was very much calculated to simplify the working of the measure. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Attorney General that the present clause he omitted.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he held that the Bill of last year was of great value in doing away with the old system of bankruptcy, which had worked very ill. That Bill substituted for the present Commissioners a Chief Judge, who would have abundant time to despatch all the business of the court. But to keep the Commissioners to encumber the Judge, as was now proposed, and the Judge to encumber the Commissioners, was by no means an improvement. It was clear there would not be business for all; for three or four years ago he ascertained that the average occupation of the five or six Commissioners of that day did not exceed nine or ten hours a week. There was no great reason, moreover, under the present Bill, to expect any considerable increase of business. An objection was made to paying the Commissioners their full salaries, and relieving them of their duties; but, after thirty and forty years' service, it was not unreasonable that they should retire on their full salaries. He should be sorry to place any difficulties in the way of the Attorney General, but he would recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the subject, and not press the clause before the Committes.

§ MR. MURRAY
said, he would beg leave to suggest that a new arrangement should be made of the several districts, and that a provision should be made empowering the registrars to travel to the different 506 towns in their districts in them. They had five Commissioners, five registrars, five ushers, and five messengers, and nine official assignees in London; while all traders beyond Salisbury or Norwich had to come to London with their attorneys and witnesses to investigate each case of bankruptcy. He thought it would cause great saving of expense to such persons if a registrar and messenger were stationed in each of the cities he had mentioned.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he could not consent to the proposal to discharge three of the Commissioners, retaining only two, upon whom it would be very unfair to cast an amount of business at least five times as great as that which they now had to discharge. Undoubtedly, for himself, he should have preferred the arrangement of last year; but the House of Commons had ruled otherwise and he had bowed to their decision. It must happen, in the course of nature, that the number of Commissioners would be reduced before very long, and then there would only remain two London Commissioners and a Chief Judge. He repeated he should have been very glad if the House had assented to the proposal he had submitted last year, but hon. Members would remember how his opinion had been overruled. It must be borne in mind that the Chief Judge would possess, not merely an appellate jurisdiction, but he (the Attorney General) hoped that that Judge would exercise a general superintendence over the whole business of the Commissioners. With regard to the suggestion that registrars should go from place to place, with a view to saving trouble and expense to suitors, a provision to that effect was contained in the Bill; but, as to the distinct distribution of registrars and giving them a local habitation, that was a suggestion which required consideration. For the present he saw no better arrangement than to leave the London Commissioners as they were, on the understanding that the staff of the Court should ultimately consist of two Commissioners and one Chief Judge, subject to the provision that the Lord Chancellor should, if he saw fit, make an alteration.

§ MR. WALPOLE
suggested that the clause as it stood required alteration. The last words of the clause provided that the number of London Commissioners should always be three.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that a subsequent clause might be introduced, 507 giving the Lord Chancellor the power to reduce the staff of the Court. He had, however, no objection to strike out the words "so that the number of Commissioners of the Court of Bankruptcy in London may be always three," and would propose their omission.

§ MR. ROLT
said, he must remind the hon. and learned Attorney General that the clauses relative to the constitution of the Court, as proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman last year, were sanctioned by Parliament, and were agreed to in Committee. The lion, and learned Gentleman was, therefore, scarcely justified in saying that his proposal to abolish the five London Commissioners was not approved by Parliament.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 6 (Jurisdiction of County Courts under this Act),

§ MR. ROLT
said, he was at a loss to understand how the County Court Judges were expected efficiently to discharge the duties imposed upon them by the Act. There now existed a proper number of districts and Commissioners throughout England, who were not overworked, and it was not proposed to abolish them. There was, consequently, an abundance of officers to do the duties of the Bankruptcy Court, and the County Court Judges, if additional work were thrown on them, would require additional salaries. He trusted, therefore, that these clauses would be omitted.

MR. MALLNS
observed that the subject had been discussed last year, and he felt that the constitution of the County Courts was not adapted to the performance of business of this kind. Nevertheless, on the best consideration, he was obliged to come to the conclusion that the administration of justice in that, as well as in other matters, should be brought home to people's doors; and, not being able to suggest a better mode, he now felt the necessity of giving the proposed jurisdiction to the County Courts.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he would say a few words in explanation of the difference on that point between the present Bill and the Bill of last year. The Bill of last year proposed to enable the County Courts to receive petitions for adjudications in bankruptcy where the assets did not exceed £300. Upon consideration the Committee thought the arrangement inconvenient, and, therefore, the present Bill left the County Court Judges in possession 508 of the jurisdiction which they already held by law. At present insolvents in prison might petition the County Court Judges for their discharge; and by the Small Debts Act small traders, not owing above £300, might likewise petition the County Courts. He left those courts in possession of the jurisdiction they possessed under that power; and whatever they acquired beyond would be by the means of voluntary transfer on the part of creditors—for, undoubtedly, the Bill gave to a certain majority of creditors in any bankruptcy who believed that the estate would be better administered by a County Court power to transfer it to such County Court, and thus the clause before the Committee was rendered necessary.

LORD STANLEY
remarked, that if he understood the object of the clause aright, it was to throw an additional amount of duty upon the County Court Judges; and he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to propose any additional remuneration for them? He believed a proposition to that effect was made last year. What he wished to know, in fact, was whether it was intended to throw extra labour upon these officials without any extra remuneration, or whether power was to be given to remunerate them for extra work?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the Bill of last year contained a clause which directed that, when under the provisions of the Act, any County Court Judge was vested with bankruptcy jurisdiction, he should receive an augmentation to his salary of £300. The present Bill did not, however, contain a similar clause, inasmuch as it provided no fund on which that augmentation could be charged. He could not, of course, charge it on the Bankruptcy Fund. So far as the justice of the case was concerned it might be well if the House consented to the augmentation payable from the same sources as their salaries were at present paid; for he anticipated that a considerable addition to the County Court business would arise from the voluntary transfer of bankruptcy cases to them.

§ Clause 8 (Power to create additional County Courts),

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
thought the clause unnecessary, and at any rate he conceived that the power should not be given to the Government, but should rest with Parliament. He should oppose the clause.

509

§ MR. WALPOLE
remarked that he did not intend to oppose the clause, but he wished to express his very strong apprehensions that clauses of that description, giving County Court Judges jurisdiction in bankruptcy, -would destroy the value of those courts. There was an essential difference in the nature of the two tribunals; the one was as rapid in its operation as the other was slow. If the bankruptcy business were passed through too rapidly great injustice would be inflicted both on the Courts and on the public, and he could not help thinking that there was much danger that, in giving the two jurisdictions under one tribunal, the work would not be so efficiently performed as at present. But the Bill was so framed that if one clause were left out several others must be omitted. He should satisfy himself with saying that this was a very doubtful experiment; and, if it failed, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would have the courage to make such subsequent alterations as experience should prove to be necessary.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman opposite in thinking that the power given under the clause to Her Majesty in Council of establishing new County Courts was a very serious one. The consequence would necessarily be to impose upon the country increased burdens in the shape of salaries for the new Judges. It appeared to him (Sir Henry Willoughby) that, at any rate, a limit ought to be placed upon the power. At the present moment something like £600,000 a year was paid by the country in the shape of salaries to Judges, great and small. It was somewhat extraordinary how those sums crept up, and then the people wondered how the Estimates had increased.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he believed it was generally considered that two paramount duties ft ere incumbent upon the Government of a country—the one being the protection of those whose interests were committed to its keeping from external violence; the other their preservation as far as possible from internal injustice and wrong. The former duty the House of Commons always performed in a liberal spirit; the latter, he regretted to say, was by some hon. Gentlemen, dealt with after a somewhat niggardly fashion. In that circumstance lay the great difficulty of making provision for such cases as those to which the clause applied. With 510 reference to the observations of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, it should be recollected that it was the ordinary prerogative of the Crown to establish any court it pleased. If, however, a new County Court were established, the expense of it would, of course, be defrayed in the same manner as that of the other courts—namely, by the vote of Parliament. Although, then, the Crown might establish a court, by its prerogative, the expense of it could not be paid without the authority of Parliament. But the object of the clause was not so much in reference to the creation of new Courts as to other circumstances connected with the provincial administration of bankruptcy. As the law of bankruptcy was administered under the existing system, a single district extended probably sixty or seventy miles, and embraced a great number of towns and places. Now, that had been felt to be a great inconvenience at times, and a new distribution of tribunals had been thought desirable in order to facilitate and accelerate the administration of justice. Under such circumstances it might be necessary to establish one or two additional County Courts in large and populous places. Power was taken for that purpose in the Bill. He would also again remind the Committee that a great deal of the business of bankruptcy might be voluntarily transferred to the County Court Judges. If that were found to be the case, it would, of course, conduce to the interests of the mercantile and trading communities; but the fact might render it necessary to augment those tribunals as a substitute for the present Local Commissioners of Bankruptcy.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, he could not but regret the line of argument which had been taken by the hon. and learned Attorney General. It seemed to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman was disposed to place too great an amount of power in the hands of the Crown. The hon. and learned Attorney General was no doubt right in his axioms as to the two great duties of Government. But in reference to its duty of protecting the subjects of the Crown from wrong and injustice at home, it was very questionable whether the authority to turn loose upon the country any number of County Court Judges would strengthen their security from such a contingency. It was the prerogative of the Crown undoubtedly to appoint those Judges, but Parliament must be applied to for their salaries. It did not 511 appear to him that the Attorney General had properly answered the argument of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby). The objection of the hon. Baronet went to the increase of salary. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments there was no necessity for the clause at all. There were at present sixty County Court Judges. Now, the facilities afforded by the Bill to private arrangements would rather have the effect of decreasing the business of bankruptcy throughout the country, instead of augmenting it. If, however, it should be found that the sixty County Court Judges were unequal to the discharge of the duties to be thrown on them, it would be easy to come to Parliament for power to appoint eight or ten more. It appeared to him that the Bill, as it stood, gave great power to the Lord Chancellor to appoint County Court Judges, ad libitum, with salaries. [Mr. ROEBUCK: No, no.] Did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to appoint them without salaries? If he did, he doubted very much whether he would find a gentleman that would be willing to undertake the office.

§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID
said, it appeared to him that the distinction between appointing a Judge by the prerogative of the Crown, and appointing him by a regular provision of law, was this—if the Judge were appointed solely by the prerogative of the Crown Parliament would be under no legal nor moral obligation to provide for his salary; if, however, Parliament, by an Act, should specially recognize the prerogative of the Crown, and concur in the exercise of that prerogative, it would be under a moral obligation to provide a salary for such an officer. He, therefore, concurred in the propriety of placing a limit on the number of County Court Judges who might be appointed by the Crown under the clause.

MR. BABROW
said, it should be recollected that this very provision was the act of the House last year, and the Committee ought, therefore, to abide by it. It was quite clear, however, according to the Attorney General's argument, if they conferred by enactment the power upon the Crown, and any gentlemen were appointed under it, the hon. and learned Gentleman would come down to the House next year for the salaries of those Judges, and tell them they must abide by their own act.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
observed, that 512 if it were within the prerogative of the Crown to appoint as many Judges as it pleased, the clause under consideration was supererogatory.

MR. MONTAGUE SMITH
said, his objection was that his hon. and learned Friend was pressing the clause prematurely. It was proposed to give the Crown power to exercise, under an Act of Parliament, the prerogative of appointing additional Judges; but they were not giving Her Majesty at the same time any power of paying those Judges. It followed that another application must be made to Parliament for means to pay the Judges and to fix their salaries. They were placing themselves, then, in the ungracious position of, perhaps, being induced to quarrel with the Crown for having exercised its prerogative after they had sanctioned that exercise, as the House might be of opinion that the new Judges appointed by the Crown were too numerous and unnecessary. He was further of opinion that all the business of bankruptcy might be performed by district Commissioners better than by the County Court Judges. If the time of the latter were to be occupied in the administration of bankrupts' estates, they might be unable to render those ordinary services to the country which had been hitherto so useful. The only objection he had heard urged against the district Commissioners being appointed for those duties was that they were resident and stationary in one locality. But the remedy was a very simple one. Let them be required to make a circuit, like the other Judges, in order to administer the business of bankruptcy within the districts where it arose. He, therefore, thought that the clause was unnecessary.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, it was quite obvious that the course of procedure under this clause would be that, supposing Her Majesty in Council should be of opinion there was a necessity for a new district, then the scheme or order for such district would have to be laid upon the table of the House before any appointment was made under it. It would then be discussed, and if the House approved of it, and voted the necessary sums for the maintenance of the Court, the order would be promulgated. It would be impossible for the House to discuss the question until the scheme had been first arranged and matured, and the clause only provided the ordinary machinery for preparing that scheme. No apprehension need be entertained 513 by the Committee of being surprised into any Vote, or of incurring any moral obligation on that head.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
asked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would have any objection to introduce words to that effect into the clause at a future stage?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
replied, that the scheme for a new district must necessarily be submitted to Parliament before promulgation; but he had no objection to insert words to that effect.

§ Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 9, 10, and 11.

§ Clause 12 (Appointment of additional Registrars),

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he wished to put a question to the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had held out, he (Mr. Newdegate) understood, not long since, hope to the gentlemen acting as County Court Judges that with an increase of business they would receive an increase of salaries; but it appeared that this intention had been abandoned, and no reason had been assigned for this abandonment. On the other hand, to the registrars and other officers of County Courts, an increase of remuneration was proposed. Now it seemed to him that if the one class of functionaries were deemed deserving of an augmentation of their salaries on the ground of extra labour, the salaries of the principal officers of the courts ought to be increased on the same ground. He wished to ask whether it was proposed to increase the salaries of the minor officers of the County Courts in consideration of the augmentation of business under the new Bill; and whether it was proposed that there should be no increase to the salaries of the Judges, the principal officers of those courts?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the officers of the County Courts were remunerated by fees, and the additional business would, of course, give them additional remuneration. He did not propose to augment the salaries of the County Court Judges, though he should have been happy to do so had it been in his power.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
could not see why, if they could command the fees in the case of the registrars, they should not, by some transfer of part of these fees to the Consolidated Fund, if necessary, or otherwise, be able to give a just increase of salary to the Judges also with an increase of business.

§ Clause agreed to.

514

§ Clauses 13 and 14 postponed.

§ Clause 15 (County Court Registrars),

§ MR. MURRAY
said, that Clause 20 provided that all fees except those of solicitors and attorneys should be assessed by the registrars of the County Courts, and the clause now before the Committee, taken in connection with that clause, would give the registrars of County Courts, who would be the official assignees, power to settle their own fees, which was surely objectionable.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
admitted that it would be the most unreasonable thing in the world to allow the registrar of a County Court, acting as official assignee, to send in his bill of costs and charges. There was, however, another clause which said that all the fees of the officers of the Bankruptcy Courts should be settled by the Judges of those courts.

§ Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 16, 17, and 18.

§ Clause 19 (Registrar in Country Districts to he Taxing Officer),

§ MR. MURRAY
complained that in some local districts fees of the most exorbitant kind were charged. It would be a great advantage if arrangements were made by which one taxing-master were appointed, all business being transferred to London, so that a uniform system might be adopted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he thought the suggestion a valuable one; the only difficulty was as to the arrangement of machinery to give it effect with economy and despatch. If the hon. Member would embody his views in a clause it might be considered on bringing up the report.

§ MR. HADFIELD
remarked, that it would be very inconvenient to have but one taxing-master.

§ Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 20.

§ Clause 21 (Reduction in the number of Official Assignees),

MR. MONTAGUE SMITH
said, he would appeal to the Attorney General to postpone the clause until the clauses proposing to appoint creditors' assignees should have been considered. He thought it very doubtful that creditors would wish to take upon themselves so much labour and responsibility, with all the stringent regulations annexed. The complaint against the official assignees was that they cost too much. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) had stated, on bringing in the Bill, that the expenses 515 of collection of the bankrupts effects by the official assignees amounted to 33 per cent on the estate. Now, he (Mr. Smith) thought the mercantile community were expecting too much if they expected a very inexpensive collection of a bankrupt's estate. The bankrupt himself generally got in all the assets which were easy of collection, and left the rest to be got in by the assignees.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, he should oppose the postponement. There was no portion of the Bill which was so much demanded by the mercantile community as that which would give the creditors more power over the bankrupt's estate, and circumscribe the duties of the official assignee.

§ MR. MELLOR
said, he saw no object that was to be gained by delaying the clause, which was, perhaps, more strongly demanded by the commercial community than any other portion of the measure. Mercantile men professed their readiness to undertake the duties of creditors' assignees.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
observed, that the hon. and learned Attorney General, in introducing the Bill, had said that he contemplated a great increase in the business of Bankruptcy Courts, and yet he proposed to reduce the number of official assignees. Then, again, the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated the expense of the collection of bankrupts' estates by the official assignees was 33 per cent. The fact was it only amounted to 4½ per cent; and he (Mr. Roebuck) did not believe that by any other arrangement could the collection be made so cheaply. He knew there was a cry both in and out of the House among the mercantile public for divesting official assignees of their present functions. He had learnt that cries were often very senseless things, and he thought the present one would prove one of the most senseless. When official assignees had been got rid of he believed it would be found that inefficient and useless persons had taken their place, who would charge dearly for services that were ill-performed, and that then there would be a cry to have the official assignees restored.

§ MR. MALINS
said, the objections he had previously expressed to that portion of the Bill which related to the official assignees had in no wise been removed. He believed the machinery of the Bill would not work. There ought to be a class of public officers in whose hands the assets of bankrupt estates should be vested. The 516 law would never be able to exercise the same control over the trade assignee as over the official assignee. The present system in connection with the official assignees might show abuses, and the salaries of those officials might be too high, but if so let them be diminished. The clause ought to be postponed, and the question re-considered.

§ MR. MURRAY
said, he thought the time had arrived when official assignees should be reduced both in number and in fees; and he hoped that the clause would be at once proceeded with.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he could not consent to postpone the clause. No doubt it was the duty of that House to consider whether any particular "cry" had a foundation before they yielded to it. In this case the general demand certainly was, that creditors should have restored to them the administration of what was really their own affairs; and he could not say that that demand was unreasonable. He fully recognized the value of the services of the official assignees, especially in collecting small debts, because they had a large staff of clerks, and could easily resort to the Commissioner or the Judge. One of the provisions of the Bill, therefore, intrusted to them the getting in of debts not exceeding £10, which they could do more cheaply than a solicitor could. The number of those gentlemen was at present, however, far too many, and, indeed, he thought there would not be sufficient work for those whom the Bill proposed to retain.

MR. MONTAGUE SMITH
said, he did not mean to assert that under no circumstances would mercantile men consent to act as creditors' assignees. What he maintained was, that the provisions of the Bill were too stringent and burdensome, and would tend to deter such persons from undertaking these duties.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 22 (Messengers),

§ MR. BRISCOE
said, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether it was proposed that the Chief Judge should have the power of dismissing messengers, whether they performed their duties properly or not, for, a3 the clause termed it, "sufficient reason?" He would suggest that, as another clause relating to the dismissal of the official assignees contained words implying that "during good behaviour" dismissal could not be ordered, the same words should be substituted for 517 "sufficient reason" in this clause. There were but five messengers in London, one of whom had held office for forty-two years, and was now seventy-one years of age. It would, he thought, be a great hardship that such a man should be dismissed from office without compensation, as he might be under the Bill, and be told merely that the chief Judge considered he had sufficient reason. The office of messenger was, in his opinion, a highly important one; for upon their vigilance, perseverance, and integrity, especially in the cases of fraudulent bankrupts, depended very much the amount of assets realized.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the phrase "sufficient reason" was a phrase perfectly well understood; it must be a reason sufficient, not only in the mind of the Judge, but of those under whose notice the order of dismissal (in which it was provided the reason must be stated) might be brought. The messengers were employed to take possession of property, and although the present holders of those offices were very respectable gentlemen, yet their duties were such as might be performed by very subordinate officers.

MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to know whether it would be a sufficient ground for dismissal that their services were no longer required?

§ MR. BRISCOE
said, he would remind the Committee of the speech of the Attorney General when he introduced the Bill, and when he said that, if the measure became law, private arrangements would be the rule and bankruptcies the exception. That state of things would inevitably bring about the result referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and if so, it could not possibly be termed justice to dismiss a man who had held office with credit to himself, performing his duties satisfactorily for forty-two years, and tell him that he was entitled to no compensation, but that having nothing more to do in consequence of the passing of a new Act of Parliament should be considered a "sufficient reason" for his dismissal.

§ MR. ROLT
said, where it was meant the office should be retained "during good behaviour," those words were used. If it was not intended to get rid of the messengers by a side-wind, why not state at once either that they would be dismissed, or that they would be permitted to retain office" during good behaviour?"

§ Clause agreed to, as was Clause 23.

518

§ Clause 24 (Commissioners of Insolvent Debtors' Court released),

MR. MONTAGUE SMITH
said, this clause, while it left open the question of trader and non-trader, removed and modified many objections that were taken last year to the method by which it was then proposed to abolish the distinction between the two classes of debtors. The hon. and learned Attorney General deserved, in his opinion, great credit for the manner in which he had dealt with this question.

§ Clause agreed to, as was Clause 25.

§ Clause 26 (Provisional Assignee),

§ MR. MALINS
said, he wished to call attention to the position of the provisional assignee of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, who, by this clause, was to receive the same emolument as the other official assignees. As that officer had always performed his duties in a most satisfactory manner, it would be unfair to reduce him now from £1,500, the amount of his present income, to £1,200 per annum. He (Mr. Malins) would propose an Amendment to the effect that the provisional assignee should continue to receive the same amount as he now derived from his office.

§ MR. MELLOR
said, the Bill provided that the provisional assignee of the Insolvent Debtors' Court should perform, the same duties as the official assignees. It would therefore be unfair that he should receive a different salary from the official assignees.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he wished to know why the provisional assignee should be placed in a better position than the official assignees?

§ MR. MALINS
thought it very hard that, after having discharged the duties of the office for forty-two years, the gentleman in question should now have his salary cut clown, especially as he would still have to do the same amount of work.

MR. HENLEY
said, he believed that if they allowed the provisional assignee to retain his present emoluments, there would be a difficulty in dealing with the official assignees. He wished to know whether the officer in question was paid by salary or by fees, for from what had been stated an important question was opened up as regarded his remuneration?

§ MR. MALINS
could not specify the exact proportions, but the payment was by both salary and fees. He had no acquaintance with the gentleman whose interests he was advocating, had never seen him, never spoken to him in his life, but 519 as an officer of the court he was well known in the Court of Chancery, and the facts of the case had been made known to him (Mr. Malins) by a gentleman, upon whose truth he could thoroughly rely.

§ MR. COLLIER
said, the salary was originally £250 a year, but had become raised to the amount stated (£1,500) by fees—a sum which he thought was much larger than was necessary to a person performing such duties as the office required. By the present Bill the remuneration would be £1,200 a year, and he considered that an ample payment.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 27 (Officers of the Insolvent Debtors' Court),

§ MR. MALINS
proposed that the persons described as clerks should be called registrars.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, no doubt the clerks were desirous of being designated registrars, for they would be entitled to increased salaries; but he should object to the alteration.

§ Amendment withdrawn.

§ Clause agreed, to.

§ Clause 28 (Returns of pending Business),

§ MR. ROLT
suggested that some difficulty might arise from the clause as it was now worded.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
then moved, that the word "Commissioners" should be substituted for "Commissioner" in the seventh line.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, as were Clauses 29 and 30.

§ Clause 31 (Insolvency Fund),

§ MR. ROLT
moved the omission of the two last words, "now pending," as they might lead to difficulty at a future time.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, as was Clause 32.

§ Clause 33 postponed.

§ Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.

§ Clause 36 (Salaries of present officers of the Insolvent Debtors' Court),

§ MR. MALINS
said, he proposed to omit the words "as nearly as may be out of the same funds, and payable in the same manner in all respects as if this Act had not been passed," and to substitute for them, "and the same shall be paid out of the fund standing to the credit of the chief registrar's account."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not ex- 520 plained the reasons why he proposed the alteration with regard to the mode of payment of the messengers and brokers of the Insolvent Debtors' Court. He hoped the Committee would allow the clause to pass in its present shape, on the understanding that it should be open to alteration on the bringing up of the Report.

§ Amendment withdrawn.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 37 (Remuneration of Official Assignees),

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, he had given notice of an Amendment to the effect that the salaries of the official assignees in London should be £1,000 instead of 1,200, and in the country £800 instead of £1,000. It had been exceedingly difficult to ascertain the amount of remuneration the official assignees had received, for it depended upon the result of the ballot whether they got £3,000 or £4,000, or only £1,000 a year. Some assignees had been exceedingly fortunate in getting estates of great amount ballotted to them, whilst others received very little more than the cost of their establishments. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General, whether he could state what had been the average income of the official assignees, plus the cost of their establishments, and of the necessary assistance that they were obliged to have?

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, he wished to inquire whether the Attorney General had always been of opinion that £1,200 a year was sufficient remuneration for an official assignee; and whether he had acquired any further information upon the subject since last year?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that he had had the honour of receiving a deputation from the official assignees, and undoubtedly, from the representations which they made to him, he was led to think that their emoluments had been considerably more than he had been made aware of; and, therefore, he expressed his wish to fix the maximum at £1,500, and he introduced a clause into the Bill for that purpose. His own disposition was to give those gentlemen ample compensation, and he was only anxious to arrive at what was the proper amount. That clause, however, had led to a great deal of remonstrance, and was among the principal reasons why the Bill had been given up. Since then he had made a full examination into the matter, and though unfortunately, from accident, he had not brought 521 with him an account of incomes for several years antecedent to 1856, yet he could say, from statements made by themselves, the average emoluments for several years previous to 1856 of these gentlemen were less than £1,200 a year. That was, at all events, the impression which remained on his memory. Prom a Return which had been made to the House of the emoluments of official assignees from the 11th October, 1857, to the end of the year 1859, a period of two years and four months, it appeared that their incomes amounted to the sums which he was about to state. He ought to add also that these gentlemen had been placed in situations of considerable peril from being made defendants in suits, and having sometimes to pay considerable sums for costs. From this liability they would now be effectually relieved. The Return showed that the net amounts received, after deducting the cost of clerks and other expenses, for the time he had mentioned, were as follow:— Mr. Patrick Johnson, £2,067; Mr. Bell, £3,716; Mr. Whitmore, £6,896; Mr. Cannan, £5,214; Mr. Graham, £4,363; Mr. Stansfeld, £4,313; Mr. Edwards, £5,633; All these gentlemen admitted, however, that the remuneration for the last three years had been very much larger than for preceding years; and if he were to take an account for ten or twelve years, their incomes would, on the average, very little exceed £1,200 a year each. On referring to the measure by which their offices were created, he found that the original intention was that they should receive £800 a year; but, having reference to their length of service, to the altered nature of their position, and to their average receipts for the last ton or twelve years, he thought it would be found that £1,200 a year was, by no means, an exaggerated estimate.

MR. MONTAGUE SMITH
remarked that the clause only provided that the income should not exceed a certain sum; it did not provide for the other alternative, and state that it should not be less than a given amount.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, that with reference to what had fallen from other hon. Members, he was in a position to state, that the salaries of the official assignees, taken for fifteen years, averaged £1,616 per annum; taken for twelve years they averaged £1,800; and taken for seven years they averaged £2,000.

§ MR. MURRAY
said, he wished to point 522 out that although the several official assignees received pretty much the same number of fiats, their remuneration materially differed; for instance, the income of Mr. Bell, one of the assignees, had, during the last three or four years, nearly doubled that of his colleagues. He took the liberty of suggesting that the proper course would be to fix the salary of the official assignees at a minimum of say £800 a year, and then give them above that a percentage. The evidence which had been taken before a Committee of the House, he thought, would be found to support the expediency of the plan he had mentioned. He did not think they could get the work well done without giving some remuneration above the fixed salary.

§ MR. MALINS
observed that by the clause, as it at present stood, the salary could not exceed £1,200, but it might be only 12s. Something ought to be fixed certain. He could not see the force of the observation of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Murray) that the official assignees could not be got to do their duty without a salary in addition to fees. As every other officer of the court was to be paid by salary, why should an exception be made in the case of the official assignees?

§ MR. BRISCOE
suggested that the clause might be amended by substituting the words "shall amount to" for the words "shall not exceed." That would secure the officers a salary of £1,200 a year.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, that so much depended on the diligence used by the official assignees in the collection of the assets, it would be better to pay them partly by salary and partly by fees.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, if he acted on his individual opinions he would carry out the arrangement proposed in the clause as it stood with regard to present assignees, and that proposed by the hon. Member for Marylebone, with respect to those to be appointed in future. If the Committee agreed with him as to the propriety of that course, he would postpone the clause and introduce another for the purpose of adopting it.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, he thought the suggestion of the Attorney General an admirable one, and he, therefore, would withdraw his Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause postponed.

§ Clause 38 (Remuneration of Messengers),

523

§ MR. MALINS
said, he would ask the Attorney General to postpone this clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he had no objection to the postponement, if the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone, who had given notice of an Amendment respecting the remuneration of the messengers, did not object.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, he did not see what the messengers had to do, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford would inform them on a future occasion what was the proper definition of the term messenger, what duties the messengers to Bankruptcy Courts performed, what amount of money they had received, and how much they returned to the income tax.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he knew that the messengers had for very many years had most important duties to perform, and that they had always performed them well, and to the advantage of the public. He did not pledge himself to any particular course; but an hon. Member had mentioned that one gentleman had performed these duties for forty-two years; he had received considerable remuneration under the law—remuneration which he was clearly entitled to—and he believed the Committee would not do an act of injustice, and leave that gentleman, at 71 years of age, and after rendering forty-two years' valuable service to the country—stranded. That he believed to be a correct statement of one case; and that he might not make any statement which was not entirely supported by facts, he had asked the hon. and learned Attorney General to consent, with his usual good-nature, to the postponement of the clause.

§ MR. BRISCOE
stated that he had just received two petitions from messengers in Bankruptcy, but had not had time to peruse them. He had no doubt they contained important statements, and he should take care to make himself master of them.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, that notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone, he could assure the Committee that on the honesty, integrity, and activity of the messenger much depended; he was not a man holding a mere nominal position. The messenger had to find out what property the bankrupt had immediately before he became bankrupt, what had become of it, and how it was to be got at for the creditors, and to get it. The 524 realisation of the estate in a very large measure depended upon him, and in cases of fraudulent bankruptcy the discovery of the fraud depended mainly on the activity, the intelligence, and the discretion of the messenger. It was a very important office.

§ Clause postponed, as was Clause 39.

§ Clause 40 (Retiring Pensions to Officers),

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, he would move the addition of the words:—"and shall be above sixty-five years of age." Many of these offices might be filled by men aged twenty-five, and they would be entitled to retire, even though in good health, when they were forty-five. While they held office they ought to provide retiring pensions for themselves.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he saw no objection to the insertion of the words proposed; he knew no reason why gentlemen in good health should be entitled to retire before they were fifty-five years of age in the enjoyment of two-thirds of their salaries.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause as amended agreed to, as was Clause 41.

§ Clause 42 (Compensations),

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he had an objection to the last four lines of the clause, whereby it was provided that compensations should be paid into the Bank of England to the credit of the chief registrar'sa ccount, by the Commissioners of the Treasury, out of monies to be from year to year voted for that purpose by Parliament. He did not wish to prevent the parties mentioned in the clause from obtaining remuneration, but he objected to the remuneration of the patentee being paid out of the public purse. The salary was created by no Act of Parliament; it was created by letters patent, and he objected to this large sinecure being placed on the public taxes. The question he should submit to the Committee was, whether they were prepared to open a new item of account in the Miscellaneous Estimates? It was the practice of the House to regret the vast increase which had taken place in those Estimates, and it had been stated by members of the Government that the fault lay with the House of Commons; but, although they objected, they were constantly adding to those Estimates. If the clause were agreed to it would bring under the annual notice of Parliament an amount of £20,000, and 525 that sum would form the subject of a new and unpleasant discussion. The discussion would not be confined to the patentee of bankrupts, but it would be extended to the Commissioners and other officers. The House last year refused to place those items of compensation on the Consolidated Fund, and he now asked the Committee to leave them to be paid out of a fund from which they had been paid during the past forty years, and not to throw them on the public purse. The precise fund out of which the patentee and other officers were paid was called the "Secretary of Bankruptcy Compensation Fund," but there was a very considerable balance arising from the accumulation of many years, amounting to nearly a million and a half, the interest upon which was, or could be, applied in the same way as the fees. He objected to these compensations being thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, and he should move the omission of the last four lines of the clause, the effect of which would be to leave the patentee of bankruptcy and other officers to receive their payment of compensation out of the Bankruptcy Fund.

§ Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "Fund" to the end of the clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that he should feel it his duty to resist the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. The clause, as it at present stood, had been arranged by him within the last year, and he thought with the concurrence of the great body of the House. He must explain to the Committee that these particular compensations were thrown upon the Bankruptcy Fund by statute, when alterations were made in 1831, and they were compensations which were deemed right to he paid, and were paid, by the authority of Parliament. That fund arose from the contributions of creditors in their capacity as suitors, and he desired to know with what possible justice could money paid by way of indemnity for past errors, committed by a former generation, be charged upon future generations of creditors who should come to seek justice under this Bill? He begged the hon. Baronet to observe that when it was the duty of the State to provide for the administration of justice, it was the duty of the State to do that at the expense of the community. It was undoubtedly true that the Bankruptcy Court was partly judicial and partly administrative. He proposed that the 526 Court should pay for the administrative duties, and those who resort to the Court would have to pay to the Court sufficient to discharge those duties; but so far as the Court performed the public duty—namely, of administering justice in this wide and important range of the law of debtor and creditor, it was the duty of the State to find the funds. All he now asked the House of Commons to do was to rescue the unfortunate suitors in Bankruptcy Courts from the unjust burthens that were placed upon them by paying for a fault—not committed by them, and from which they had no benefit—but a fault committed by former generations of legislators in that very House. The Commissioners of 1854, who went very fully into the subject, had pointed out the great injustice of this burden, and recommended that the compensations hitherto paid out of the suitors' fund should be placed upon the Consolidated Fund of the country. In accordance with that recommendation the Bill of last year proposed to put the payments on the Consolidated Fund, but an objection was taken to this on the ground that it would establish the payments in perpetuity. In the present Bill he had made an alteration which would have the effect of making the compensations payable by monies annually voted by Parliament. He trusted this proposal would be adopted by the House. There was nothing more unwise or unjust than to tax suitors, in addition to the expense they necessarily incurred on going into court, for the justice which they sought to obtain.

§ MR. BARROW
said, the hon. and learned Attorney General told them that he was throwing these payments into a charge which was to be paid annually by a vote of Parliament, but the words of the clause were to a contrary effect, for they declared that the amount "should be paid into the Bank of England out of moneys to be from year to year voted for that purpose by Parliament." The sums were to be paid, and the Parliament was to provide the amount. He denied that there was any injustice in paying those compensations out of the fund contributed by the suitors. The hon. and learned Attorney General might, with equal reason, contend that the law expenses of all who went to law should be paid by the State. The patentee of bankrupts was a mere sinecurist, and if the fund out of which he was now paid should, at some future time, be 527 exhausted, and he should have a claim upon the charity of a future Parliament, he might bring it forward, but so long as there was a fund—as he understood was the case from the speech of the hon. Baronet—from which his compensation could be paid, there was not the slightest justification for charging it on the taxpayers.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he wished the hon. and learned Attorney General to state whether there was not a balance of the Bankrupts' Account amounting to £1,500,000, the interest of which, at £4 per cent, was £60,000. If that were the ease, it was surely fairer to go to that fund for these payments. The Committee could scarcely seriously intend to place an enormous charge of this kind on the tax-payers, as long as that fund was unexhausted. If they would do that they would do anything. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen, who, in words at least, professed to have strong objections to increasing the Miscellaneous Estimates, would take that opportunity of making a beginning of giving effect to their professions. They would thereby save themselves from many tiresome debates, for there could not fail to be a debate every year when this Vote was proposed.

MR. HENLEY
said, that he voted last year against paying those charges out of the Consolidated Fund, and he confessed the present mode of dealing with it was ten thousand times more objectionable. If it were right that the money should be paid out of the funds of the country, and if it were right that those parties who, on the faith of Parliament, had had for thirty years the compensation assured to them, should receive compensation, then he could not conceive either a greater deception upon the public on the one hand, or upon those gentlemen on the other, than the mode in which it was proposed that the compensation should be paid. For what was proposed to be done? In the first place they were to have been paid out of the Bankruptcy Fund. Was the fund sufficient or insufficient? They had not been informed; but for fear it should be sufficient, they were to cut off a large portion of what should go to maintain the fund. And then it was pretended that Parliament could deal with the compensations as it pleased. Why, then, tie the hands of Parliament neck and crop? The first time any hon. Gentleman got up in Committee of Supply to object to the Vote he would be met by 528 the reply, "You consented to take away the stream which fed this fund, and you have no choice now but to find the money." It was said they had made mistakes some thirty or forty years ago, and they had no right to make the public pay for them, or any part of them. Would the learned Attorney General get up in his place and inform the Committee whether the banker's balance, which had been alluded to, had or had not any existence when those sums were charged on it? The Committee had a right to be informed what the interest of that banker's balance was, and what those unnamed compensations would amount to, for then the Committee and the country would be able to judge what foundation there was for the assertion that they were taxing the persons coming into the Bankruptcy Court to pay those compensations. He confessed he considered this mode more objectionable ten times over than the plan of last year, because anybody could understand that, but this was pretending to give Parliament the power of dealing with the matter from year to year, while it did no such thing, but pledged Parliament irrevocably to it.

§ MR. MALINS
said, that if he understood the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, it was his intention to put the charge on the Consolidated Fund.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the money was to be voted annually. The Bill of last year went to put it on the Consolidated Fund; the House would not agree to that, and it was then arranged in the manner that they now found it, and when the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) complained of the manner in which it was thus placed, he (the Attorney General) had no other alternative, for—to borrow the elegant metaphor which the right hon. Gentleman had used—his hands were tied "neck and crop."

§ MR. MALINS
said, he would have voted for placing the compensations on the Consolidated Fund if the proposal had been made. He saw no reason why creditors who came into the Bankruptcy Court in 1862 should have their dividends dimininished to pay compensation granted in 1832. The Government proposal to rely from year to year upon the justice of Parliament was inconvenient, and it would be more satisfactory to throw the charge at once upon the Consolidated Fund; but he would support the arrangement contained in the clause, which was one founded upon justice, exonerating the Bankruptcy Fund, 529 as it did, from a charge to which that fund ought not to be subjected.

MR. HENLEY
denied that he had ever said that Parliament would refuse to pay the money. All that he said was that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made it optional, whereas the Bill had been so framed that Parliament was tied hand and foot, and must do it. He would remind the Committee that to the fund which was thus to be exonerated for the relief of future creditors, those creditors had not contributed one farthing; it had grown up in course of years, like the Suitors' Foe Fund in Chancery, in some mysterious manner. These great Courts seemed to get as much money into their hands as possible, and to keep it as long as they could. The offices in question were abolished for the special benefit of the suitor in bankruptcy, and the fund being one to which the future creditors had contributed nothing at all, and had no claim whatever on, he was at a loss to know why it could not be applied for the purpose of paying the compensation.

§ MR. VANCE
observed, that he should oppose the clause, on the ground that the Irish tax-payers would be unjustly treated; because in Ireland a number of offices had been abolished, and the compensations thrown on the Bankruptcy Fund. In addition to paying those compensations, they would, if the clause were adopted, have to pay for the suitors in the Court of Bankruptcy in England.

§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 28: Majority 50.

§ Clause agreed to, as was Clause 43.

§ Clause 44 (Court Fee abolished),

§ MR. MURRAY
said, that no Court Fee of this kind was paid.

§ Clause postponed; as were Clauses 45 to 49 inclusive.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he would not ask the Committee to proceed further with the Bill that night.

§ Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.