§ Lord Althorp moved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. Warburtonbegged to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the three Commissioners of the Sub-division Court must be unanimous? hitherto, the practice had been, that a majority of opinions was regarded as decisive.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the practice would be continued, and the opinions of a majority of the Commissioners be considered decisive.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, he wished to make one or two further remarks. He understood a certain amount was to be paid when a dividend was declared; he, therefore, begged to suggest, whether a certain rate per cent would not be more adviseable? again, he wished to know, whether the official Assignees would be allowed to act as auctioneers?
The Attorney- Generalsaid, with regard to the first point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, a clause was prepared which he hoped would meet his views; and with respect to the second, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the official Assignees from acting as auctioneers.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that arrangement would be an excellent one. It would make the new Court an auction mart, and 902 the Judges and Registrars might be very beneficially employed as puffers.
Mr. Humewished to know whether the noble Lord opposite intended to introduce a clause into the bill to render the case of each of the existing Commissioners, with respect to compensation, subject to inquiry. He also stated his objections to giving the Judges appointed under the bill any superannuation allowance.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that the case of each individual Commissioner, with respect, to compensation, would be taken under the consideration of the Treasury, and decided on according to its own merits. That was the principle upon which compensation was now given. With respect to the retiring allowances to the Judges, he had already stated his own opinion—and he was inclined to maintain that opinion—that persons appointed to judicial situations ought to be allowed retiring pensions; or else they might keep their offices when they were too old properly to discharge the duties. But he had since communicated with the Lord Chancellor on the subject; and that noble and learned Lord considered, that the principle upon which the hon member for Middlesex had urged his objection to their retiring pensions, was unanswerable. The noble and learned Lord said, that it was the duty of every person to lay by part of his income for support in his old age, the more particularly when his income was not variable, but fixed. No clause with respect to compensation had been introduced into the Bill, because the general act, relating to compensation, did not apply to judicial offices.
§ Mr. Wranghamsaid, he regretted that so many personal remarks were mixed up with this question. Those who felt it their duty to oppose the Bill, were described as factious. Such language was as painful to those to whom it was addressed, as it was unbecoming to those who used it—he admitted the evils of the existing system, and was willing to remedy them; but he did not think that the Bill would effect any improvement. The principle defects of the present system were, the great number of tribunals, the number of Judges in them, and that they were not constantly open. These evils could be reached only by diminishing the number of Judges, and making them sit continually without any adjournment. The Bill, in fact proceeded partly upon that principle, but it did not diminish 903 the number of tribunals, for it established a Court of Review, which he held to be unnecessary. He thought that the Judges of the Division Courts might have occasional meetings in larger numbers, and perform the duties assigned to the Court of Review. Again, he looked with some fear at the new Bankruptcy Court being independent of the Court of Chancery, on account of the intricacy and importance of some of the questions which were occasionally to be decided; and he thought there was some danger in leaving the power of deciding these to a tribunal of inferior importance. Of course that could not be attended by the first advocates, and the suitors must experience disadvantages on that account. Even allowing a Court of Review to be necessary, he had heard no reason for appointing four Judges to preside in it. One he thought would be sufficient, and this had been so evident to the framers of the Bill, that they had provided other duties for these Judges, besides performing the duties of the Court of Review. It was arranged, therefore, that they should act separately as Commissioners, and preside over the trial of issues. With regard to these parts of their duties if they were to preside only as Commissioners, they ought to be paid as such, and not as Judges; and as to their presiding over trials, the three main sources of issues would by the very provisions of the Bill itself, be cut off.
§ Mr. Freshfieldsaid, upon this last occasion he must protest against that part of the measure which appointed official assignees. The consequence of it would be that no respectable creditor would act as assignee with them, and that frauds which were now discovered would remain undetected, as the official assignee could have no interest in bringing them to light. Another consequence of their appointment would be, that Commissions of Bankruptcy from Bristol, Manchester, and other places, would cease to be worked in London to avoid the additional expense that would accrue to the estate from their percentage being paid out of it in addition to other charges. The little the Judges of the Court of Review would have to do would be still further reduced by the diminution of bankrupt cases worked in London, and the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor be but little relieved; for they would still have to attend to all questions connected with country bankruptcies. He 904 believed, as the Bill now stood, it would be found impracticable in several points. At present he would only allude to one, and that was, that the Bank of England neither could nor would undertake some of the duties and charges which the Bill contemplated. He recommended this point at least to the serious attention of the noble Lord.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that since he had practised in Westminster-hall, he never remembered any Bill for the amendment of the law so pregnant with mischief and danger as the present measure. The Tory party had been accused of being hostile to all Reform, and had been described as "factious." "To that he would simply say, they had made many reforms in the jurisprudence of the country, and that they had proceeded upon sound principles, and after due inquiry. He could by no means give the same credit to the author of this measure. He hoped it would be the last attempt at the emendation of the law which would ever proceed from the same quarter from which this had originated. He took leave of the Bill with the prediction that the Bankruptcy Courts would not endure long.
§ Bill read a third time and passed.