HC Deb 03 May 1848 vol 98 cc599-601

House in Committee on the Joint Stock Companies Bill.

On Clause 2,

MR. HEADLAM proposed to add, that "the word 'commissioner' should mean any country commissioner of the Court of Bankruptcy, having jurisdiction in the town where the principal office of the company is situate." In all subsequent parts of the Bill, wheresoever the word "master" occurred, he proposed to substitute the words "Master or Commissioner."

The SOLICITOR GENERAL considered that the alteration would be a source of inconvenience to all parties. The first effect would be to establish a system of local Masters in Chancery all over the country in the resident Commissioners of Bankruptcy; and incessant appeals would be made, from the diversity of decisions which might be expected from so many different parties.

MR. HUDSON observed, that the compliment paid to the Masters in Chancery in the present instance was not a compliment in which people throughout the country would generally concur, for they had a horror of coming under their jurisdiction. With respect to the particular objects of the Bill, the feeling prevailed that a local administration would be greatly preferable to an administration centralised in London. Bringing home justice to the door of the people was one of the greatest boons that could be conferred upon them; and, therefore, if the operations under this Bill could be administered by the local courts of bankruptcy rather than by the Masters in Chancery, he should greatly prefer it. He earnestly hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) would not throw over a suggestion like the one then before the House; but that, if he was not inclined at once to consent to it, he would at least take time to consider it.

MR. GIBSON said, that was just asking them to give equity matters over to Commissioners of Bankruptcy. [Mr. STUART: The Commissioners are all equity lawyers.] That might be so; but their modes of proceeding were not analogous to the practice in Chancery. If ever there was a case more than another in which business would be carried on better in London than in the country, it was the case of winding up the affairs of joint-stock companies whose shareholders resided not in any one locality, but were to be found scattered all over the kingdom. In these circumstances, where could they find a more central place than London? It would introduce great confusion to depart from the original plan; and he hoped, if the hon. Member for Newcastle wished the Bill to pass, he would not press his Amendment.

MR. AGLIONBY said, that from the correspondence he had had on this subject, he was persuaded that, good as the Bill was, it would not be well received by the country generally, if the power of administration was left entirely in the hands of the Masters in Chancery. He hoped, therefore, especially after what had been stated by the hon. Members for Newcastle and Sunderland, the Government would take time to reconsider this matter. He did not doubt the Masters in Chancery were men of ability; but it was well known that their mode of doing business gave satisfaction to no one; and he was satisfied that the Commissioners of Bankruptcy would be found quite as competent. He felt disposed to move that the Chairman report progress, in order to give the Government time to reconsider the subject.

MR. J. STUART entertained so strong an opinion that there should be a discretionary power vested in the Lord Chancellor in any case he thought fit of sending the matter to a Commissioner of Bankruptcy in the country, that he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) would accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cockermouth, and take time to consider the point.

House resumed.

Committee to sit again.

House adjourned at Six o'clock.