BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL—COMMITTEE—FOURTH DAY. (Hansard, 17 October 1831)

Mr. Warburton
objected to the Clause; he considered it placed too much authority in the hands of a single Commissioner.

The Attorney-General
said, that upon consideration, some means might be resorted to for the purpose of meeting the difficulty. He was perfectly ready to adopt any that might be suggested. He would, however, make this observation, that the Commissioner might entertain reasonable and well-founded doubts, and ought, therefore, to be at liberty to adjourn the case, for the consideration of his brother Commissioners.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, that this power of referring or refusing to decide, and so postponing indefinitely, was the great evil to be complained of in the old system, and the new Bill only perpetuated that abuse.

The Attorney-General
said, the power did not amount to compelling an appeal; it merely left him the power of postponing a case till he could have the benefit of the assistance of his brother Commissioners.

Mr. Warburton
said, that was the very matter he complained of. The Commissioners had the power of sending cases into a Court in which attornies could not plead, and counsel must be employed; thereby the expenses would be materially increased. Points of law might arise relating to small estates as well as large ones; and if one of these was brought before the Court of Review, one day's proceedings might swallow the whole assets. When a case was brought before a Commissioner, he should be qualified to decide it. A quick decision and individual responsibility, were the chief things required.

The Attorney-General
was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman make a remark which was, in effect, contending, that questions of law and equity ought to be decided in proportion to the value of the property in litigation. According to the present system, it was usual for a Commissioner to postpone a case until he could obtain the assistance of his fellows; but really this Bill did make a provision to meet the circumstance complained of, as there were 867 two jurisdictions to be established, either more or less expensive; and the Commissioner would, of course, refer the question at issue to that Court which was best adapted to settle the question according to the funds of the estate.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, this was a new and novel mode of limiting the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. He objected to it, on the ground that it would alter some of the most important principles of equity-practice. As the law at present stood, the Chancellor had the power to refuse an appeal in a matter of fact, on his own discretion, but he was not compelled to do so; but by this clause, the judges appointed by it, were finally to decide upon all matters of fact without appeal. This was giving them too great a power.

Mr. Warburton
differed wholly from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He approved of the plan, that the judges of the Court of Appeal should decide finally. There was one point, however, he wished to have altered, and that was, that when a case was remitted for a further trial, on the plea that evidence had been wrongfully rejected or received, it ought to be sent to another set of Commissioners, and not to those who had previously decided the case.

The Attorney-General
said, his hon. and learned friend the member for Borough-bridge was in error, when he said the decision of the Court of Review was to be final, for from their decision an appeal might be had to a Jury.

§ Mr. Freshfield
had been told by the hon. Gentleman who supported the Bill, that there was to be a two-fold appeal, but here there was only one, for there was to be no appeal from the inferences drawn upon matters of fact by the Commissioners, which was giving them a power superior to the Judges of any other Court, against; whose judgment a bill of exceptions could be tendered.

The Solicitor-General
said, an appeal could be made from the Commissioners' judgment on a point of law, but a Jury would find as to the facts. If a case was not referred to a Jury, that in itself would be a sufficient proof that the parties themselves agreed as to the facts, and were satisfied with the decision of the Commissioners.

Mr. Paget
said, that under the Bill, the official assignees might control the others in the matter of appeals. This, he thought, was giving them too much power.

The Attorney-General
would agree to diminish that power, if, upon consideration, it appeared expedient.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, there could be no doubt but that the Commissioners would have more power than any other Judges of the land, except the Lord Chancellor. He would say no more of that part of the clause which had been postponed, but he must again declare, that, in his opinion, these Commissioners ought not to have the power to direct issues to be decided by a Jury when they thought proper, as he believed it would operate as a premium for them to send all cases to a Jury, instead of taking the responsibility of deciding them themselves.

The Attorney-General
said, there were only two cases where the Commissioners had the power to send cases to an issue; these were by the assent of both parties, or by deciding when called upon by one of the parties for an opinion, to say whether the case was fit to go to an issue. If the Commissioner decided at once and was wrong, he would certainly hear of it from his brethren the next day, or if he was in the habit of remitting cases for the opinion of Juries which were of trifling consequence or easy of decision, the same measure would also be dealt out to him; so that they had pretty good security against the Commissioners falling into either extreme.

§ Mr. Hunt
heard quite enough to convince him that the Bill would not work well, and when the public found that out, they might also learn that it was discussed in a House of about thirty Members.

Mr. Warburton
said, the effect of these appeals, would be endless expense and delay. It was provided, that if one of the parties and the Commissioner agreed, there was ground for an issue. There must be one, unless the other parties appealed against it to the Court of Review, which must lead to expense and litigation.

§ Mr. John Campbell
said, a Court without an appeal from its decisions, was an anomaly in our system of law. Too many appeals on the other hand were bad. Looking at the clause as a whole, with these views, he thought it would answer the purpose for which it was intended, and would work well.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, he wished to have an appeal to the Lord Chancellor by this clause.

Mr. Warburton
disliked the whole system of these appeals; the suitor would have more than enough of these shuttlecock proceedings, in being sent from Jury to Judge, and back again, without the help of the Lord Chancellor to play out the game.

Mr. Paget
had no doubt appeals might be sport to the lawyers, but they were death to the suitors. He had been once concerned in a case of bankruptcy which got into Chancery, where it stuck fast twenty years; he therefore wished to keep his shuttlecock out of Chancery at any rate.

Mr. Paget
said, he understood that in every case the assignees were to have the power of managing the assets.

The Solicitor-General
said, the clause was introduced, because it was thought that in certain cases, the bankrupt might exercise this power under the authority of the assignees and with their consent, much to the advantage of the estate.

Mr. Warburton
wished to know whether in those cases in which official assignees were to be appointed, together with assignees acting under existing Commissions, they would be, entitled to a percentage? It had also been stated, that the parties interested, under existing Commissions, would not be entitled to partake of the benefit of the fees to be reduced. If they were not to have the benefit of the smaller charges, they certainly ought to be allowed to retain their own assignees.

The Solicitor-General
said, the official assignees would have nothing to do with the management of such bankrupts' estate, they were merely to get in the assets.

Mr. Warburton
begged to ask, how it was, that the assignees now conducting Commissions, were not to have the benefit of the reduced rate of charges? This was 870 an unfair proceeding, if assignees were to be called upon, to give up all the effects now in their possession to the official assignee, they certainly ought to have the benefit of the reduced charges.

Mr. Wilkes
said, it certainly appeared an absurd proceeding, to give these official assignees an ex post facto control over the existing Commissions.

§ Mr. Freshfield
said, the object of the clause could be obtained, by directing the existing assignees to pay the assets of the estate into the Bank.

The Attorney-General
said, the object of the appointment of official assignees was, to insure that responsible persons should have the control of the assets; if there were to be any exceptions to this authority, the powers of the Bill would be much cramped in its operations.

Mr. Paget
said, it should be left to the creditors under every estate to determine whether they would have an official assignee or not.

§ Mr. Daniel W. Harvey
said, that this appointment was proposed with a view to give the creditors security for the due payment of the funds received under the commission. As things now stood, Commissions were often made the means of jobbing among some of the leading parties concerned. To obviate these jobs was the object of this clause.

The Attorney-General
said he proposed to introduce some words to prevent this clause from affecting such suits as were now in existence; and with that view, he would beg to move, that these words be inserted at the end of the clause. "Without prejudice to any action or suit commenced, or contract entered into, prior to the passing of this Act.

Mr. Warburton
said, that one of the duties which this proposed tribunal should consider, as that for which it was principally appointed, was to mediate as far as possible, between the parties. It often happened, that the matter in dispute, was not with the expense to which persons in their exasperation against each other, were disposed to go. Hitherto no attempts had been made to prevent this; on the contrary, the principle had always been "We have nothing to do with mediation, litigation is our work." He wished it now therefore to be a part of the law, that an 871 amicable settlement was to be attempted in the first instance.

The Attorney-General
said, he had never before heard that the existing Commissioners were not at all times ready and desirous to mediate.

Mr. Warburton
said, the hearsay of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not to be put in comparison with his experience as a creditor. He had often been told by the Commissioners, "Dont talk to us of mediation, we can hear nothing of the kind here, we are to settle the business according to law.

The Attorney-General
said, that it was proposed to make some compensation to the holders of patent offices which were to be abolished by this Bill. That compensation was intended to be formed on the average of the profits of these patent offices for three years. With respect to the retiring pensions, there was no intention at present to press a compensation clause for them, for the Government had not received sufficient information on the subject to enable them to lay any well-founded calculation before the House. That brought him to the case of the Commissioners whose office would be abolished by this Bill. It was proposed that compensation should be given to those Commissioners who had been appointed before the time of Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, but not to those who had received their appointments since that period. The reason for making this distinction was, that from the time of Lord Lyndhurst entering upon the office, there had been an intention to change the system, and every Commissioner appointed by that noble Lord, and all those appointed by the present Lord Chancellor, had taken their appointments subject to their knowledge of that intention, and, of course, subject to the knowledge that if that change was made they would immediately cease to be Commissioners. The effect of this would be, to strike off twenty-two persons from the list of those to whom compensation was to be given, sixteen Commissioners having received their appointments from Lord Lyndhurst, and six from Lord Brougham. With respect to superannuation allowances, he begged to say, that they would not be granted as a matter of course, but that every particular case 872 would be referred to the Treasury, and a particular order made upon it.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, he must disclaim having any intention of saying any thing which could be construed to be personal to the noble and learned Lord who now held the highest legal office in the State, but he must wholly deny that that noble Lord had made any sacrifice by this Bill. He therefore was surprised that the retiring pensions and the allowances for compensation did not form part of the Bill. He saw no reason for the omission. He and other Members who had opposed this Bill had been taunted with entertaining a desire to impede it, and it was said, that they had not given due consideration to the large emoluments given up by the Lord Chancellor. But he denied, that the noble and learned Lord had sacrificed one farthing; nor did he think the noble Lord ought to make any sacrifices. But let it not be given out, as it had been, that the noble and learned Lord, in order to carry the Reform Bill, had given up 5,000l. a year, when he had not given up a farthing, for the truth of which he appealed to the noble Lord at the head of the Exchequer. He hoped this delusion would cease, and this taunt not be repeated.

§ Lord Althorp
said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that this Bill should rest on its own merits, not on the question whether the Lord Chancellor had given up emolument or not. The income of the Lord Chancellor ought not to be so reduced as to make the office not likely to be filled by the most eminent men at the Bar. It was intended that, in future, the Lord Chancellor should be paid by a fixed salary as Chancellor, and by a fixed salary as Speaker of the House of Lords; but the mode of paying those offices did not appear to belong so peculiarly to this Bill as to require to be introduced into it. When it was said, that his noble and learned friend was not to take credit for giving up emolument, he (Lord Althorp) begged to state, that what the noble and learned Lord did was this,—that whenever a sum of money was offered to any public officer as a commutation for fees, that public officer would not generally forego them until he had secured a proper compensation, but his noble and learned friend had given up the fees to which he was entitled, in order that the Bill might pass, leaving the public to decide hereafter what compensation he ought to have. 873 That course, he thought, did his noble and learned friend credit, because it showed that his motive was not pecuniary emolument; but every one who knew the character of his noble and learned friend, knew that pecuniary emolument never entered into his views. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman might be right in saying that the noble and learned Lord had no merit to claim in giving up so much emolument as had been stated (though he was not aware it had been so stated), still the hon. and learned Gentleman was not fair towards his noble and learned friend, in denying him any merit at all, when he gave up his fees at once, and left it to the decision of Parliament hereafter to say what the salary shall be.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
was glad to hear the calumnious misrepresentation to which he had referred contradicted. It appeared that the fees which were given up were to be repaid to the noble and learned Lord out of some other source.

The Attorney-General
stated, that, it was intended to reduce the income of the Secretary of Bankrupts to 1,200l. a year for himself, and 800l. a year for his two clerks. He was to have no retiring pension if he were an irremovable officer, but if the Committee were of opinion that he should be removable, then the amount of his retiring pension must be taken into consideration.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, that he could neither agree to making the Secretary of Bankrupts a permanent officer, nor to giving him a retiring pension if he were made a removable officer. All the other Secretaries, for instance the Secretary of Lunatics, &c., were changed with every Lord Chancellor. He believed that this clause would not create any saving of expense.

The Attorney General
contended, that a great saving of expense would be effected by this clause. All the salaries under this Act would not amount to more than 26,400l., and the present expense was considerably above that sum. Taking the average number of Commissions in town and country, the saving would be little short of 30,000l., independently of the saving to the parties from the promptitude of the decisions.

Mr. Warburton
admitted, that there would be some saving effected by this 874 Bill; but in Commissions, where the assets were small, and the litigation none, instead of their being any saving, there would be a small increase of expense. Cases of this kind were, he believed, more numerous than those in which there were large assets and much litigation.

Mr. Warburton
said, that the House was called upon to vote these salaries without having received the slightest information as to the duties which the officers who were to receive them had to perform. It was useless to divide the House on this clause, because he knew that if he did he should put an end to all public business

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, that this was the first time in which an unreformed House of Commons was called upon to vote 26,000l. a-year without inquiry That was a statement which he was quite certain would not go before the public. He was surprised at not seeing the hon. member for Middlesex present on this occasion. When there was a contest going on with the First Lord of the Admiralty about saving three half-pence in the pound for a contract of biscuits, they were certain to have the presence of the reforming and economical member for Middlesex; but when so large a sum as 26,000l. was to be voted away in salaries every year, the factious few, as they had been called, were left to battle the question with Ministers without his assistance. What, he would ask, had the three Puisne Judges, and the ten Registrars to do under this Bill? Nothing more than what the Lord Chancellor's Secretary did at present. This large and cumbrous machinery, this lumber-troop of Judges, this band of gentlemen-pensioners, expensive as they would be in themselves, would create still greater expense to the creditors than the present machinery of seventy Commissioners. He looked upon this clause as an unnecessary and offensive creation of patronage. The 875 average number of vacancies in the Commissionerships of Bankruptcy were four annually, and the value of patronage was about 800l. annually, Now by resigning this patronage, the Lord Chancellor gained at once patronage of the annual value of 26,000l. The statement of the Lord Chancellor having relinquished patronage by this Bill, was therefore so preposterous, that he trusted that it would never be repeated in that House again. He must distinctly say, that he considered that of late there had been too great a sympathy between the Woolsack and the Press; indeed, it might almost be assumed there was now an official writer to the Great Seal. Not a day passed over their heads in which they canvassed the demerits of this Bill, without a writer in the daily Press insulting and abusing every Member of Parliament who dared to give an independent opinion, and shew, that the Bill was by no means a perfect, much more a super-human measure. Notwithstanding this abuse the exertions of the opponents of the Bill had compelled Ministers to lessen this job by cutting away all the retiring pensions.

§ Mr. George Dawson
was incompetent to give any opinion on the legal merits of the alterations, but at the same time the present was an opportunity when any Member of Parliament might give his opinion on the conduct of Government. He had often before had occasion to admire the conduct of his hon. and learned friend the member for Borough bridge, but never had he deserved better of his country than in exposing this gross and profligate job. He (Mr. Dawson) did not presume to say, that he understood all the affairs of the Court of Chancery, but he would take it on himself to say, that this Bill was one of the grossest instances of profligacy ever attempted, more especially coming from a Government which lived upon popular clamour, and was to be the only Government ever carried on without patronage. The noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had declared this often—" that this Government was to be supported by public opinion, and not by patronage"—words forgotten as soon as uttered, and utterly falsified by everything the Ministers had done. The patronage in this case, his hon. and learned friend had proved, was, that the Bill would entail an additional expense on the people; and every one must see that the Court might be carried 876 on more economically. They had, as yet, received no account of the duties to be attached to the offices this clause was to create, and he was somewhat surprised, notwithstanding that to find all those hon. Gentlemen who usually devoted their time to clamour about economy, and the waste of public money, were now absent when a large sum was to be voted without any account being given of the manner in which it was to be expended, and which he had no scruple to characterize as a gross job. As to the Lord Chancellor, his great object had been to create patronage from the moment he took the seals. He (Mr. Dawson) had moved for a return of the Masters in Chancery, and it was odd that this Chancellor of a Government that was to eschew patronage had been most ingenious in discovering new modes of exercising that power. He had not been in office one year, and yet within that time had appointed four Masters in Chancery, although Lord Lyndhurst in the preceding four, and Lord Eldon in the five years preceding them, had not appointed one. Some of these new Masters had been appointed on the ground of the others being old; yet one of the young Masters was sixty-five and upwards, and the other sixty-seven years old; and if any one was asked the question, he must answer that the old Masters were stronger and more vigorous than their successors.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that some time had elapsed since they had had the pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman address them in his usual delicate and agreeable style. The right hon. Gentleman was certainly as powerful as usual; but he did not say whether this measure was good or bad, or whether it might or might not be an improvement in the administration of justice. Now some part of this question happened to depend upon this point; for, if the measure effected any good, it would at least, pro tanto, diminish the extent of the job which seemed to give the right hon. Gentleman so much uneasiness. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of jobs and profligate expenditure; but was he aware that this expense of 26,400l. a-year was merely intended as a substitute, and a more efficient substitute, for that which now cost 70,000l. per annum. It was, perhaps, possible that there might be a lesser scale of fees, and that the Court might be constituted at an expense somewhat smaller than was proposed; but, when so vast a reduction was 877 made, to talk of profligate expenditure was ridiculous, so that he could not but believe that the right hon. Gentleman must have been totally unacquainted with the subject. The right hon. Gentleman also urged that, he (Lord Althorp) had said that this Government would be carried on without patronage. What he had said was, that the period for governing the country by patronage was now at an end; but when it was necessary to carry any good measure into effect, it did not follow that they should abandon that measure for fear of such attacks as that of the right hon. Gentleman who had been pleased to say that the object of the Bill was patronage; but if the right hon. Gentleman had looked at all into the provisions of the Bill, he must have seen, they were so extensive and sweeping in their dealing with existing jobs, that no man could make such changes as a means of obtaining or creating patronage and appointments. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that the Lord Chancellor had great good luck with respect to the appointment of Masters in Chancery, and that for nine preceding years there had been no vacancy. Now, it was to be recollected, that an addition had been made to the number of Masters; and if none had been appointed for nine years, there must be, of course, the greater chance of some falling in. Moreover, those Masters appointed by the present Chancellor were to have no retiring allowances. Then the right hon. Gentleman's criterion for judging of Masters in Chancery was, the activity with which two gentlemen walked up to the table, because he said that if hon. Members looked, they would find that the old Masters were more vigorous than the new. Now he (Lord Althorp) differed from the right hon. Gentleman on this point, because the merits of a Master in Chancery lay more in his head than in his legs. In conclusion, he thought that neither these appointments nor the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were likely to have that effect on the public which he anticipated.

§ Sir Charles Forbes
said, that, from all the information he could gather, any system was better than the present, and therefore he would support the Bill. With respect to the Masters in Chancery, one of those appointed by the present Chancellor, and a near relation of his own, he had occasion to know; and his diligence, attention, and talent, were remarkable. No political 878 hostility should ever prevent him from doing that justice they deserved to the appointments made by his opponents for the benefit of the public service.

§ Mr. Burge
said, that it was a mistake to suppose, that the 26,400l. was for the discharge of all the bankruptcy business of the kingdom; as the London Commissions only performed one-third of that of the whole country; to carry the principle of the Bill completely into effect, would render an expense of 46,000l. more necessary?

The Solicitor General
said, that the debate had already been protracted beyond all the expectations of the House, and he, for one, should be glad to see it ended. The only question at present was, the mode in which the Judges of the new Court were to be paid, and the consistent opposers of the Bill had, at first, complained, that the Judges' salaries were not large enough to obtain efficient officers, whilst the outcry now was, that they were too great—that they were, in fact, so enormous, as to come within the hon. Member's notion of a job. Now let him state one fact to satisfy those, hon. opponents, that the money with which the Judges were to be remunerated, was not one shilling of it to be paid out of the public purse; to quiet the apprehensions entertained by those hon. Members, that a great waste of the public money was to be incurred, he would inform them, that the salaries of these Judges were to be provided for out of the Bankrupt Fund. The Bill did not, as some supposed it did, affect to despatch all the bankruptcy business of the country; on the contrary, its operation was confined to London and its vicinity; but though it was so restricted within the limits of the metropolis, yet no one who was fit all acquainted with business, would think, for one instant, that its operation would be isolated to that one spot, for there was scarcely a bankruptcy of any extent in the country, but what had ramifications and agents in London.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, that it seemed to be admitted on all hands, that the most defective part of the present system was that connected with the administration of the Bankrupt Laws in the country as compared with London; and yet this Bill left the country question altogether untouched, and only amended that portion of the law which was already admitted to be the best administered.

Mr. Warburton
thought, that the arrangements of this clause was so monstrous, that even if it was enacted, it could not stand unaltered for six months. According to this clause, the Commissioners had a right to award as much as five per cent to the official assignee on the collection of the bankrupt's debts; this he thought was much too large a profit; and it was also highly objectionable, that the Commissioner was to be supreme, and that the creditors were to have no voice in the matter.

§ Mr. Serjeant Wilde
thought, that the best security for the creditor was, to leave this percentage at the discretion of the Commissioner, who must necessarily be a man of character; and the hon. Gentleman ought to remember, that the percentage was allowed, not only for the debts collected by the official assignee, but for the general trouble that the bankrupt's affairs inflicted on him.

§ Mr. Freshfield
said, that the greatest trouble required at the hands of the official assignee was, to collect the debts of the bankrupt, and to pay them into the Bank of England; he did not see why the present assignees were not quite competent to discharge that duty. He objected to the great remuneration which the official assignees would, in some cases, receive for very trifling services. He had known one case relating to the bankruptcy of a sugar-refiner, in which the official assignee, at one percent, would have received 2,000l. for merely receiving the property and paying it into the Bank of England. He hoped, at least, that the Commission would be charged on the assets to be divided amongst the creditors, and not on the whole credit of the bankrupt. He objected to five per cent being inserted in the Bill, and thought two per cent on the dividends would be sufficient, and, that the remuneration on no Commission, should exceed 200l. The hon. Member concluded by proposing, as an amendment, that the official assignee should not receive above two per cent; that that sum should only be paid on the dividends, and that the remuneration of the official assignee should on no Commission exceed 200l.

Attorney-General
thought, that neither of these amendments was founded on good sense, It was not to be expected, 880 that the Commissioners were to give to every official assignee the whole amount they were entitled to give; but the limits placed to their authority was what had been found necessary in extreme cases. The principle of the clause was to give the assignee a remuneration on all the monies he collected, and he thought, that the Commissioners were not likely to give the assignee more than he ought to have.

Mr. Paget
admitted, that five per cent might not be enough in some cases, and two per cent might be too much in others. In his opinion, therefore, it was not proper for the Committee to decide this question. Probably the creditors might be more fit to apportion the reward of the assignees than the Commissioners; and he objected to the power of bestowing these rewards being left in the hands of the Court.

The Solicitor-General
hoped the Commissioners under the Bill would not be confounded with the present Commissioners. They were more like Judges.

Mr. Paget
had no intention of casting the slightest reflection upon the persons to be appointed, but they were not, in constructing an Act of Parliament, to presume on the virtue of those who were to carry it into effect.

§ Mr. Burge
said, that whoever might be appointed, they would not be persons of higher character than the present Commissioners, and he thought, it would be found to be an invidious office for the gentlemen who were to be appointed, to have to regulate the percentage to be given. As little discretion as possible should be allowed, but in general the remuneration was fixed too high. An official assignee having five per cent on the assets in the case of so large a bankruptcy as that of Messrs. Manning, would receive 1000l. a year as percentage only on the annual returns, exclusive of a percentage on 600,000l. out on mortgage. As it would be some time before these assets could be realized, he would receive besides, a Commission on the income of the estates mortgaged. During the time he was reaping these great advantages, he would not have any of the duties of insuring ships, sending out supplies to the estates, and performing the office of a consignee, to look to. Yet a case of this sort might be one in which the Commissioners thought the official assignee could make out a fair claim for five per cent on the assets; such 881 a remuneration would be wholly extravagant. He should, therefore, support the amendment.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, the official assignee would perform neither the duties of solicitor, manager, nor steward; his whole duties would be to receive the assets and pay them into the Bank. In general, where his duties would be least, there he would receive the largest remuneration. There might be difficulties in fixing the exact amount of the percentage, but certainly they were not insurmountable, and most assuredly, unlimited payment would cause so much disgust, that it must soon be put an end to.

§ Mr. John Campbell
said, all the hon. Gentleman's arguments proceeded upon the fallacy, that the official assignee was to have a poundage, but that was not the case. The remuneration he was to have, according to the Bill, was the exact amount the Commissioners thought adequate to his services, but in no case to exceed five per cent on the assets. It had been demonstrated by the hon. Member for Leicester, that the remuneration must in a great degree be left to the discretion of some person, and the hon. Member suggested the creditors as the proper parties, but that would be to make them Judges in their own cause—a case at all times to be avoided.

§ Mr. Burge
begged to observe to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that there were always two parties to a contract: he who performed a given service, and he who was to pay for it; and what they complained of was, that those who would have to pay had no voice in fixing the amount of remuneration.

§ Sir Charles Forbes
said, they certainly might limit the sum on which the maximum Commission of five per cent should be granted.

Mr. Warburton
said, he felt it quite impossible to establish a graduated scale of remuneration. The best course would be to strike out all mention of more or less percentage, and the clause would then leave the payment to the discretion of the Commissioners.

§ Mr. Freshfield
withdrew his amendment.

Mr. Warburton
was of opinion, that those Commissioners who had held the most private meetings, did not deserve, on 882 the whole, so large a retiring allowance as those who had performed the same quantity of business with greater despatch.

§ Mr. Sergeant Wilde
was much surprised at the remark made by the hon. Gentleman. The lists of Commissioners before which private meetings were held, were, in fact, the only lists competent to discharge the duties required of them. In short, solicitors who had business that required such meetings, knew it was useless to go before any of the other lists.

§ Mr. Robert Grant
said, as he was one of that list of Commissioners which had had the most private meetings, he felt bound to notice the remark of the hon. member for Bridport. The fourteenth list of which he was a member, had done by far the most work, and they were the least paid. His emoluments, on an average, for fifteen years, had been under 400l. per annum. He trusted the hon. Member meant no imputation upon him; or if he did, it would have been well to have given him notice, that he might have been prepared to defend himself if necessary.

Mr. Warburton
said, that his remark was not intended to apply to the right hon. Gentleman; he had not said, or implied, that the meetings were held from a corrupt motive, but merely, that they caused delay and expense, and he considered he was entitled to deliver an opinion, let who might be affected by it.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
begged to assure the hon. member for Bridport, it was perfectly notorious, that the Lists of Commissioners which had the most private business, were the most efficient.

§ Mr. Freshfield
begged to ask the noble Lord, whether he would permit some alteration to be made in the clause, so as to regulate the remuneration of the Commissioners generally. As the clause now stood, it appeared as if there was to be some distinction made.

§ Lord Althorp
said, certainly, it was intended that some distinction should be made. It was never meant, that each Commissioner who would be reduced, was to have a compensation for the loss of his office; because many had been appointed under the express understanding, that if any alteration were made which would abolish their offices, they were not to expect remuneration. This regulation would be adhered to, and it was the object of the present wording of the clause, to carry it into effect.

The Attorney-General
brought, up a clause, providing, that the Judges and other officers appointed under this Bill, should be incapable of sitting in Parliament.