COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 21 May 1860)

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, he had an important petition to present in favour of this Bill, signed by 1,000 of the principal merchants, bankers, and traders of the City of London. The petitioners stated that, 1565 having had time to consider the Bill of the Attorney General, they "anticipate such important advantages from the proposed changes in the law that they earnestly pray your hon. House not to allow any unnecessary delay to occur in the consideration of the measure, so that it may pass both branches of the Legislature during the present Session of Parliament." This petition was signed by nearly every mercantile house, banking firm, and largo trading house in the City.

§ MR. MURRAY
presented a petition, signed by a large number of solicitors and others, setting forth the claims of the messengers in bankruptcy, and submitting that they ought not to be dismissed without due compensation being awarded.

§ MR. FRANK CROSSLEY
would take that opportunity of stating that his constituents felt much indebted to the Attorney General for having introduced this measure.

§ MR. VANCE
said, there was no department of the law which had undergone more frequent changes of late years than that relating to bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Bills which had been successively proposed had each found considerable favour in its day, but had each proved a failure in its turn. None of them had acquired more popularity than the measure of the Attorney General, and he (Mr. Vance) believed the reason was that it extended the jurisdiction in bankruptcy and insolvency to the County Courts, which at present were very popular. He (Mr. Vance) however thought that this course would prove very unsafe, for lie did not think that the County Court Judges had sufficient experience in that branch of the law. Another reason why the Bill had been received with favour was that it threw a heavy burden upon the Consolidated Fund, and relieved the suitor in like proportion. A bankruptcy could not be administered but at considerable expense under the cheapest administration, not only on account of the strict legal investigation which must attend it, but also it forced realization of the assets which under any system that might be established would entail heavy loss on the estate. They would shortly have to deal with the case of Ireland and of Scotland in connection with the question. At present the suitors in Ireland were burdened with a large amount of fees and other expenses; but after the Bill passed for that country those 1566 expenses would be charged on the Consolidated Fund in the same way as was proposed with respect to England by the present measure. This Bill destroyed the distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency. He did not object to that as a general principle; but in doing so it also destroyed some of the safeguards which the status of bankruptcy and insolvency possessed. The power of punishing fraudulent insolvents and bankrupts was now to be transferred to a criminal court by the machinery of a prosecution and a jury. He considered that we derived a great advantage from the simple process of a Judge being enabled, without the ordinary forms of a Criminal Court, to remand a fraudulent debtor for a certain period. But under the proposed measure the creditors would be compelled to proceed by a trouble some and expensive machinery in a Criminal Court against the party guilty of any offence deemed punishable by the Judge. He thought that few creditors would he found to follow up such proceedings, and consequently there would so far he a failure of justice. There were some other clauses in the Bill to which he objected. At present the Judge had the power to suspend or deny the certificate of a bankrupt. By the proposed Bill, if a prosecution took place, and if a bankrupt be imprisoned for even six weeks, the Judge had no power to suspend his certificate beyond the period of his imprisonment, he must grant his certificate at the end of his punishment. Now a great many bankrupts would rather incur not only the odium, but also the unpleasantness of a long incarceration rather than be deprived of their certificate for perhaps a period of twelve or eighteen months. He further objected to the denial by the Bill of the right of appeal in certain cases. At present if a Commissioner of Bankruptcy in London refused a proof or a certificate, the party had a light to go before the Lords Justices, who constituted a Court of Appeal, and there claim a reversal of the decision of the Commissioner, not only as regarded a question of law but also one of fact. By the present measure the appeal could only be made upon a question of law or the reception of improper evidence. This Bill also restricted the right of solicitors to practise in the Court—a right hitherto possessed by them. He could not understand upon what principle the solicitors should now he denied that light, which was to be confined exclusively to 1567 barristers. The measure was also, in his opinion, objectionable in regard to the matter of arrangements under the control of the court. He had no objection to those arrangements, believing that they were most desirable in many cases where the expenses of bankruptcy might be avoided; but what he objected to was the privacy under which those arrangements were to be made. He thought it was desirable chat the public should receive full warning of a debtor's defalcations. By the present Bill a man might make ten successive private arrangements with ten different sets of creditors, without the public knowing anything about them beyond the circle of those same creditors. He proposed that there should be a certain publicity given to those arrangements at the time when they were effected. He further objected to the provision giving Friendly Societies an advantage over all other creditors in regard to obtaining their debts in full. He contended that the principle caveat emptor should be universally recognised in all commercial transactions. In objecting to the details of the measure of the Attorney General he did not wish to be considered an opponent of its principles, of which be approved; but if it were considered in Committee on those points to which he referred, he would rather allow the law to remain as it stood with all its acknowledged defects.

§ MR. BRISCOE
said, he should cordially support the application for compensation to that valuable and meritorious class of public officers—the messengers in bankruptcy, who he considered had a strong claim upon the Attorney General in connection with the present measure. The principle bad been fully recognized in the Bill introduced by the Lord Chancellor, as well as in the measure brought into the House by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. Clauses were inserted in each of those Bills giving compensation to the messengers in the event of their offices being abolished. He was of opinion that it would be an act of the greatest injustice towards the holders of those important offices—offices which were far more important than this measure seemed to imply— if the Attorney General did not introduce clauses into his Bill giving them full and adequate compensation.

§ MR. LESLIE
said, he thought that the measure in the main was one of a salutary and valuable character. Ho, however, suggested that the Chief Judge under the Bill should have conjoined with his judi- 1568 cial character that of Commissioner also. Such an arrangement was likely to work far more advantageously for the public. It appeared to him that the Bill would be much better, more simple, and less expensive, if that functionary, preserving his original jurisdiction, could look over the list of bankrupts in his department and demand explanations of the parties concerned as to whether dividends had or had not been given under certain circumstances.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he had received several letters respecting the position of certain officers in bankruptcy, and their right to adequate compensation under the Bill of the Attorney General. He wanted to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman upon what principle of justice or equity the messengers were to be excluded altogether from compensation. He confessed he could not understand why the principle of compensation should be admitted as regards other officials, and at the same time be considered inapplicable to the messengers, who were as useful and as faithful a body of public servants in a relative degree. He trusted that the Attorney General would see the propriety of amending his Bill in this respect.

§ MR. WALPOLE
called attention to this clause, as regarded the provision at the end of it, and in connection with other clauses of the Bill. It was a clause directing the jurisdiction of the Commissioners. It enacted that these officers should cease, and that they should be relieved, and their duties, "subject, however, to the obligation of performing certain duties as hereinafter described." He suggested that the latter words should be omitted. The Commissioners of Bankruptcy in London were judicial officers, receiving a salary of £2,000 a year, being a larger income than that given to the country Commissioners. Looking at the clause as it stood in conjunction with Clause 5, it would appear that the Commissioners in London, whose functions were to cease, were still liable to perform duties in the country upon a lower income than they at present possessed. The Commissioners held their office under patent from the Crown, and the House had always acted on the principle that an office held by patent could in no case be taken away without full compensation to the 1569 officer whose office was to cease. There were other clauses of the Bill bearing on this point, enabling the Commissioners to retire upon a pension of two-thirds of their income. He objected to that, upon the ground that such an office should not be taken away, unless upon the principle that the holder of it should have the full amount of salary which he had received. He moved the omission of the words to which he had called attention.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, it was incumbent on him to declare that officers of such long standing and possessing such acknowledged talent and ability, were entitled to the fullest consideration as regarded their salaries and their release from any further duties. The necessity for removing the Commissioners arose not from any complaint of the manner in which they had performed their duties, but from the defects of the system of which they formed a part. It was hardly possible to state the necessity for the change without employing language which would give some degree of pain to those eminent and able gentlemen. He could only express his regret that there should be anything in the Bill which could for a moment give rise to the idea that any reflection was intended to be cast upon them. He trusted, therefore, that this public acknowledgment of the respect to which he considered them to be unquestionably entitled for the long and valuable services they had rendered—for they had all held office he believed since 1832— would be accepted in the spirit in which it was offered. He believed them entitled to the highest consideration, and he begged at once to disclaim any intention to detract in the slightest degree from the merits of a class of men who were universally esteemed and respected. It was, therefore, with considerable pain that he wrote in the Bill the words which, if the Bill were passed, would invest the Lord Chancellor with the power of sending any one of those long-tried and eminent public servants from the scene of their official duties in London to the country; but he thought it right to submit to the House of Commons the full extent of all the judicial duties hereafter to be performed under the Bill, and to propose to make these learned Gentlemen liable contingently to the occasional discharge of those duties, leaving it to the good feeling and justice of the House to narrow the extent of those duties, if it were right that they should be narrowed. His own feeling was that not only would it be a great hardship, 1570 but that gentlemen would shrink from requiring any one of these judicial functionaries, who had been long employed in the administration of justice in Loudon, to go down to some remote part of the country for a month or two. He was glad that his right hon. Friend had adverted to the subject, and he should propose to alter the clause so that the London Commissioners might be liable only to discharge extra duties of the same character and quality as now in, and not out of, London, such duties being of precisely the same character as they had with so much credit to themselves and advantage to the public discharged for so long a period.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, he entirely concurred in the Amendment proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge. With respect to the learned Commissioners there was scarcely one of them with whom he could not claim a personal acquaintance. Some of them had been for a great number of years in the public service, and all of them had discharged their duties in the most efficient manner, and this, in some instances, under circumstances of great difficulty. The Commissioners had, in fact, discharged these duties in a manner which had secured for them the approbation, not only of the mercantile public, but of all who were competent judges of the proper mode of conducting an official administration such as that which had been confided to them. He had known Mr. Serjeant Goulbourn from an early period of his career. That learned gentleman at one time discharged the duties of a Welsh Judge to the satisfaction of the entire Principality; and all the tests—practice at the bar in London and the provinces, and success as a Judge—had proved that he was entitled to that public confidence which he so fully enjoyed. With regard to the clause itself he would suggest for the consideration of the Attorney General whether it was really necessary to throw on the Commissioners the new obligations proposed by this Bill. It appeared to him to be a departure from the implied contract between the public and these judicial officers to impose on them duties beyond those they had contracted to perform. He was sure that the Commissioners would perform any functions which Parliament might impose on them; but certainly they should not he asked to discharge duties of an inferior character.

§ MR. MELLOR
expressed his satisfac- 1571 tion that the Attorney General had spoken in the terms he had done of the Commissioners, and had struck out of the Bill words that threw on them duties they had not contemplated. He quite concurred in the Amendment he proposed.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said: after the statement of the Attorney General he did not think it necessary to press his Amendment.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
asked whether it was intended to release the Commissioners of the Insolvent Court, or to continue their services?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
was understood to reply, that as their duties would he performed in the Court of Bankruptcy, he did not propose to continue their services.

§ MR. BOWYER
said, he could not let a Bill pass through Committee, constituting a New Court to be presided over by a single Judge, without entering his protest against courts of justice having only one Judge. He thought the time was not far distant when the Courts for the administration of justice would have to be remodelled. Courts having only one Judge were formed on a vicious principle. It was vesting in one man too much power, and caused the production of too much arbitrary judge-made law. The fundamental principle of the common law was that it was within the breast of the Judge; therefore the common law was that which the Judge decided, and thus they had what was termed "a vicious circle." This made it the more important that the judicial power should not be vested in a single Judge; for when several Judges sat together, one restrained the other. Informer times it was a great object to secure the independence of the Judges, and that, so far as the Crown was concerned, had been accomplished. But he thought the Judges had been made too independent. Certainly it was said they were dependent upon public opinion and the bar. But the public knew not the law, and it was in such a state that lawyers knew little of it themselves. Then as to the bar, the influence of the Judges over gentlemen in practice was very great, and as their prospects in life depended upon being on good terms with the Judges, they did not venture to oppose the decisions 1572 which were come to. If an attack was made in that House upon the decision of a Judge, one barrister after another rose and said he was the most learned Judge who ever sat on the bench. If a Judge was popular with the bar he could do anything he pleased. He should have no difficulty in showing some decisions of Judges which were so monstrous that no man but a lawyer would believe them possible. He protested against the arbitrary power which was vested in single Judges, who were quite uncontrolled in court. He referred especially to the courts of equity. The system was extremely mischievous. ["Question."] It was the Question. He spoke upon a clause of a Bill which proposed to constitute a new court with one Judge. There was a greater chance of having sound decisions when three, or four, or five Judges sat together. He felt convinced the time would soon come when the whole system would have to be revised, and when the power of a Judge sitting alone and uncontrolled to decide important questions relating to the interests of fellow-creatures would be abolished. He would not propose any Amendment, because the subject he had propounded was not yet ripe for discussion; but he hoped the question would not be overlooked by the press of this country.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
proposed an addition, providing that the Judge, if a Privy Councillor, should be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That was following the rule adopted in the Testamentary Jurisdiction Act.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
thought the Amendment interfered with the Prerogative of the Crown. However, as it appeared that words to the effect now proposed were in an existing Act, he had no objection to the Amendment.

MR. HENLEY
said, that the Chief Judge would have £5,000 for working nine months in the year, whereas his Deputy would only have £400 for doing the Chief Judge's work during his vacation of three months. If that deputy was equal to do the work of the Chief Judge, why should the country pay £5,000 a year for 1573 a Chief Judge? The amount of the Chief Judge's work was not stated,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the duration of the long vacation would be, as in the Court of Chancery, from the 10th of August to the 26th of October; the duration of the Christmas vacation would not extend over more than fourteen days; and the vacation at Easter would extend over eight or nine days.

MR. HENLEY
said it appeared, then, that the aggregate number of holidays would amount to about three months, so that the Chief Judge was to have £5,000 for nine months' work; while another person, who was presumed to be equally well fitted for the work, was to have £400 for three months. There might be good reasons for the discrepancy, but he confessed he could not see them.

THE ATTTORNEY GENERAL
explained that during the vacation the sittings of the appellate Court would be wholly suspended, so that when the Deputy was presiding, the only business would be that which might properly be transacted by a subordinate judicial officer.

§ MR. MURRAY
asked why, in that case, the duties of the Deputy should not be discharged by a Commissioner of Bankruptcy?

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
had no doubt the Lord Chancellor would appoint one of the Commissioners of Bankruptcy to perform this duty. It was for the interest of the public to ensure the services of the most competent persons for the high office of Chief Judge; but the competition would be considerably diminished if the chief Judge were not to have the same vacation as the other Judges. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) must not suppose that this sum of £400 would represent an aliquot part of £5,000, because the Judge, who would sit during the vacation, would put aside all the business that was not pressing and urgent.

§ MR. MALINS
agreed that it was desirable in the interest of the public as well as of the Chief Judge that he should have the usual vacation. The present Commissioners could not, he thought, complain, if, once in four or five years, they performed in turn the work of the Chief Judge during the vacation.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
remarked that such an arrangement would be a species of tontine, which would press very hardly on those Commissioners who lived the longest.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
expressed a hope that some explanation would be given of the financial bearing of the Bill. They ought to know something of what it would cost the country in the shape of compensation. The charge upon the Consolidated Fund for Compensations arising from alterations in the law courts was something alarming, and the Courts of Bankruptcy and Chancery took by far the larger portion of the charge. The sums paid as compensation to officers of these courts exceeded the total amount for judicial expenditure in some of the countries of Europe. He wanted to know when they would have the opportunity of discussing this point, as he was determined to take the sense of the House upon it when the proper time arrived.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
hoped the Attorney General would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wallingford. The Commissioners ought to have something to do. He remembered that at the time the Commissioners were appointed at a salary of £1,800 a year each, it was said that not one of them earned £500 a year at the bar.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the proper time to object to these compensations was when the Resolutions upon the Bankruptcy Salaries, & c. Bill was under discussion. It was a great mistake to suppose that the Court of Chancery was indebted to the Consolidated Fund. If the balance were struck, and if the Suitors' Fund were emancipated from the burden thrown upon it, the Consolidated Fund would have £200,000 a year additional to bear. The accumulated fees of the Suitors' Fee Fund ought to be dedicated to the purpose of relieving the suitors from the fees of the Court of Chancery.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, that he distinguished between the charge on the Consolidated Fund, the Suitors' Fund, and the Fee Fund. What he objected to was this wholesale system of compensations.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
suggested to the hon. Member for Evesham that as none of the salaries clauses had passed the Committee this evening, the best plan would be to raise the question on the Report of the Resolutions from the preliminary Committee.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
wished to inform the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) that there was not a word about 1575 compensation in the Bill from beginning to end.

§ MR. BOWYER
condemned the fallacy which seemed to be generally entertained that a Judge with £4000 a year was a superior man to one with £400, whereas, although the more fortunate, he was probably the less efficient of the two. He thought that three Judges with £5000 a year divided among them would be a far better arrangement.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
urged that it was exceedingly necessary that the chief Judge should be appointed before the Act came into operation. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Attorney General to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts from £300 to £1,000 throughout the whole of England and Wales, with the exception of the London district; whether he proposed to give such jurisdiction up to £1000 to the Commissioner within the London district; and whether he was disposed to consider the propriety of constituting Norfolk and Suffolk, the outlying portion of the London district, a separate district with a Commissioner of its own.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he agreed that it would be better that the Chief Judge should be appointed before the Act came into operation, and would take power to make the appointment immediately after the Bill passed. The County Courts within the London district, but beyond the limits of the Metropolitan district, would have the power of dealing with any bankruptcy up to the extent of £1,000 assets, which the creditors, by a majority, might choose to delegate to them. He did not see the advantage of giving creditors the power of sending bankruptcies to the London District Court which exceeded £300, and were less than £1,000, because there would be no difference in the mode of administration, and very little in the amount of fees. His aim was to bring the County Courts into a state correspondent to the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland, and he did not see that any other more satisfactory mode of local administration could be provided. With regard to the suggestion to furnish certain districts with a local Commissioner, it was impossible to accede to the proposition, unless they were prepared to put the whole provincial administration in the hands of district Commissioners.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that the clause gave power to appoint to the office of London District Commissioner any Commissioner of Bankruptcy or Insolvency, or any barrister of twelve years' standing. He wished to have an assurance that no new Commissioner should be appointed to the Chief Judgeship of the London district while the services of the present Commissioners could be obtained.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
informed the right hon. Gentleman that he quite agreed with him that the present Commissioners were, of all others, the best men who could be appointed; but he could give no such pledge as the right hon. Gentleman required. He was not consulted upon their appointment, nor had he been consulted on the appointments either on the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill or the Divorce Bill. If his right hon. Friend addressed himself to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he would probably receive a satisfactory assurance.

§ MR. WALPOLE
thought, that of all others, the Attorney General should be consulted on those appointments. For instance, there was no one, as all the Commissioners agreed, more capable of fulfilling the office of Chief Judge than Commissioner Holroyd; and he thought they ought not to allow the Bill to pass without receiving from the noble Lord some assurance that such men would be appointed.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
hoped that his right hon. and learned Friend would give notice of a distinct clause on the bringing up of the Report, providing for the appointment of one of the existing Commissioners.

MR. HENLEY
concurred that it was most desirable to move the insertion of such a clause, unless a satisfactory assurance should be received from the noble Lord.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
thought the original salary of the District Commissioners, which was £1,500, sufficient. When they were made Commissioners in Insolvency as well as Bankruptcy, £300 a year was added. But the insolvency business had since been taken from them, and given to the County Court Judges; but the Commissioners retained the higher salary of £1,800. As it was doubtful whether these Commissioners would be kept alive, he should move, as an Amendment, that the salary of £1,800 be limited "to the per- 1577 sons now discharging the duties of such Commissioners."

§ MR. BRISTOW
thought the salary of the County Court Judges, £1,500, quite sufficient for the District Commissioners of Bankruptcy.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
considered the Amendment premature, if the business of insolvency were to be again transferred from the County Courts. The District Commissioners had performed their duties to the satisfaction of the public for twenty-eight years, especially in the larger towns. Many of them had made considerable sacrifices in accepting these appointments.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, County Court Judges obtained £1,500 a year in what he might term a surreptitious manner. It was understood when the £300 a year additional was given to the County Court Judges that on all future appointments the salaries should be reduced to £1,200.

§ MR. MELLOR
complained of the language employed by the hon. Member for Lambeth. He did not understand what the hon. Gentleman meant by the sum fixed as the County Court Judges' salaries having been increased surreptitiously. He complained also of an assertion made by the hon. Gentleman earlier in the evening that barristers had been appointed Commissioners who were not earning £500 a year by their profession before their appointment,

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
had merely stated what, at the time the appointments were made, was a notorious fact. He repeated his assertion that the higher salary was carried surreptitiously, when the question was under discussion.

§ MR. CLAY
said, if the salaries of the County Court Judges had been increased the labour of the office had been increased also.

MR. HENLEY
thought if the Committee did not agree to the Amendment the salaries of the County Court Judges would, hereafter, have to be brought up to the same level. It ought to be left open to consideration whether the successors of the present Commissioners should have £1,800 or £1,500 a year.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
believed the ordinary meaning of the word "surreptitious" would be, that a fraud had been 1578 practised on the House. On whom did the hon. Member for Lambeth fix that charge? As to the salaries of the County Court Judges, he thought they had been treated in a niggardly manner. Their duties had been augmented, and they had given great satisfaction. The hon. Member probably knew men who would undertake to do the work for £500 a year; but the salary in such a position should be suited to the talent, the respectability, and the independence required in it. By the Amendment the Committee was deliberately asked to reduce the scale of judicial remuneration; but he should object to putting the successors of the Commissioners on a lower scale of salary than those who now held the office. He earnestly entreated those of the Committee who were anxious to maintain the judicial institutions of the country not to assent to so insidious a proposal.

§ MR. MALINS
observed that it was most important that all judicial officers should have independence secured in their various positions, and he denied that it could be reasonably said that £1,800 was too large a salary for the services rendered by the Commissioners.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, the only fault he found with the Amendment was that £1,200 a year was not proposed by it, instead of £1,500 a year.

§ MR. BRISTOW
supported the Amendment, believing the Commissioners would be amply remunerated with £1,500 a year.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, lie hoped that the Attorney General after the division which had just taken place would reconsider this question. He should not have moved the Amendment if he did not think that the salary of £1,500 a year for all future Judges under this Bill amply sufficient.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, they would have other opportunities for the consideration of this question. He, however, objected upon principle to the reduction of the salary as proposed.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, that the lower salary was only intended to apply hereafter to those who were appointed to any future vacancies that might arise.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, that the proviso in this clause raised the question, whether the bankruptcy jurisdiction should be entrusted to the County Court Judges. This subject had been carefully considered six years ago by a Commission, at the head of which was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), and which had among its Members Sir George Rose, Mr. Swainston, Mr. M. D. Hill, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, and Mr. G. C. Glyn, M.P. The Commissioners, after due consideration, recommended that the transfer of bankruptcy jurisdiction to the County Court Judges should not be made. They pointed out that there were several substantial distinctions between the two courts,—for example, that the County Courts were essentially contentious and ambulatory, while the Court of Bankruptcy was not essentially a contentious court, and ought not to be ambulatory, because its records and documents ought to be accessible. Lastly, the Commissioners urged with great force that the County Courts had only a limited jurisdiction up to £50, whereas the Bankruptcy Court had no limit to its jurisdiction, and decided most important matters without any restrictions, both in law and equity. He should, therefore, move the omission of the proviso at the end of the clause giving jurisdiction in bankruptcy to the County Courts.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, as the right hon. Gentleman had made reference to him as one of the Commissioners whose names were appended to the Report in question, he wished to assure him and the Committee generally that he continued decidedly of the same opinion as was therein expressed. He was strongely of opinion that the jurist dictions of the two Courts were of a wholly different character—the one being contentious, the other administrative. He thought that such a transfer of jurisdiction as was now proposed would destroy all the efficiency of the County Courts, which would then be unable to discharge their duties with that efficiency and propriety as had given such satisfaction to the suitors and the public generally. Looking at the 22ud, the24th, and 25th clauses together, 1580 he would remind the Attorney General that the Committee was asked to establish different Judges with different salaries, and to mix up the duties of the one with the other in point of jurisdiction. By Clause 22 the hon. and learned Gentleman was appointing Judges to administer matters in bankruptcy at a salary of £1,800 each. By Clauses 24 and 25, he was going to transfer to the County Court Judges a new jurisdiction in bankruptcy, and to create, by Clause 25, new County Courts with bankruptcy jurisdiction added to them. To the County Court Judges who should receive this accession of jurisdiction, a salary of £1,500 a year was assigned: the other County Court Judges would receive a salary of £1,200 a year only. The greatest confusion would ensue by the mixing up of those jurisdictions which were perfectly distinct as to authority, functions, and salaries. He was convinced that such a system would not last for two years. In the first place, the efficiency of the County Courts would be impaired; secondly, their bankruptcy jurisdiction would not be well administered; and thirdly, Parliament would have to raise all the other salaries to the level of the Judges of the District Commissioners of Bankruptcy with salaries of £1,800. There was only one mode by which they could give satisfaction to the suitors and to the public with regard to the payment of these various Judges, and that was to keep the County Court jurisdiction entirely distinct from questions of mere administration. There could then be three classes of Judges; first, the superior Judges, then the Judges of the Metropolitan Districts, who, on the ground of greater expense, & c., might receive £2,000 a year; and, lastly, a third class of judicial officers, who should all have one rate of salary, whether Commissioners of Bankruptcy or County Court Judges, who should give their whole time to the public, and be put upon an equal footing. For these reasons, which would be found stated at length in the Report of the Commissioners, he supported the Amendment.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
remarked that the great difficulty in the bankruptcy law was the administration of the country jurisdiction. He could not see any objection to transferring the bankruptcy jurisdiction in the country districts to the County Court Judges. They already had jurisdiction in insolvency.

MR. M. T. SMITH
held that the County court Judges were at present fully employ- 1581 ed in discharging duties totally alien from administering the law of bankruptcy; and were, from their present occupations and previous practice at the bar, totally unqualified to administer the estates of Insolvent debtors, which in reality were the duties which under this Act would devolve upon them. As a matter of economy the proposition would he a failure, for if this function were superadded to their present onerous duties it would be necessary to increase the number of County Court Judges. The object of the Bill was to obtain a better administration of effects, and to carry that out it was necessary to appoint gentlemen acquainted with such matters, who were acquainted likewise with the principles of equity, and whose time was not taken up with other duties. If such officers were appointed it might be practical to make them ambulatory.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, it would not he obligatory on the Crown, under this Bill, to appoint the County Court Judges as administrators of the bankruptcy law. It would be lawful for the Crown to do so as vacancies occurred; but the exercise of the power would, no doubt, very much depend upon the circumstances of the district and the community. In such places, for instance, as Manchester and Liverpool a special Judge would be appointed, while in other parts of the country it would be found more convenient to commit the business to the County Court Judge. He, however, believed that if there was any one part of the Bill upon which more than another the country seemed to have set its mind, it was the scheme for transferring the administration of the bankrupt law from Commissioners to the County Court Judges. The County Court Judge was, it was true, itinerant; but he could be made as stationary, for the purposes of this law, as any other Judge—and indeed, there was a clause later in the Bill to meet that objection—while, on the other hand, if it was found conducive to the due and efficient administration of the law that the sittings should be held at different places, which would sometimes be the case, then the objection fell to the ground. It was urged as an objection to this transfer that the functions of the County Court Judges were now in contentious proceedings, while the proceedings in bankruptcy were non-contentious. This was true only to a certain extent. There were many contentious questions in bankruptcy. The County Court Judges were selected from gentle- 1582 men of ability and experience at the bar; and he felt confident that they would give as much satisfaction in administering the bankrupt law as they had given in discharge of their present functions. He should vote against the omission of the proviso, because he believed that they would by omitting it, disappoint the reasonable expectations of the public and impair the efficiency of the Bill.

§ MR. MALINS
said, that the County Court Judges went a circuit, and generally gave only one day to each place. How, then, were they to undertake bankruptcy cases which might take three or four days to hear? Could his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General get over that difficulty, and show that the County Court Judges had sufficient time to discharge the new duty which it was proposed to impose upon them? If he succeeded in doing so he (Mr. Malins) should vote for the clause, for as it was not imperative, but merely gave the Crown the power of transfer, he did not like to vote against it. On the ground of economy, he thought the existing arrangement the better one. Let the House suppose the case of the commissionership of Liverpool becoming vacant. Well, if the jurisdiction of the Liverpool Bankrupt Court was transferred to Comity Courts it would be divided amongst no less than eleven of them. This would involve an expenditure of £3,300, the additional salary which would have to be given to the Judge of each of these courts being £300. The salary of the Commissioner was £1,800, so that there was an expenditure of £1,800, as against £3,300, in favour of a Commissioner.

§ MR. BAINES
wished to say that the feeling of the mercantile community was not so generally in favour of the transfer of the business of the Bankruptcy Court to the County Court Judges, as the hon. and learned Solicitor General seemed to imagine. He (Mr. Baines) had presented a petition from the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, in which an objection was taken to it, on the ground that the Judges of the County Courts were at present fully employed, and that many of them were not adequately versed in mercantile law.

MR. HEADLAM
said, the rejection of the clause would inflict the greatest disappointment on the public. His opinion coincided with that of mercantile men, that there was not the slightest reason to suppose that the County Court Judges were incompetent to exercise bankruptcy 1583 jurisdiction; and, as it was the undoubted wish of the whole community that it should he intrusted to them, he should support the clause.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, that even if the feeling were universally in favour of the transfer of jurisdiction to the County Courts, it was not conclusive; because it was their duty to determine what was best for the country, and to set aside the inconsiderate views of people out of doors. But he took issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman ns to the universality of that feeling. The Committee of the Liverpool Law Society had drawn up a Report on this Bill, in which they said they considered that all matters of bankruptcy and insolvency should be brought under the jurisdiction of one Court; that they quite disapproved of any jurisdiction in those matters being given to the County Courts; that they had not the proper machinery to secure the due performance of the duties of official assignee; and that the examination of the accounts of insolvents by those Courts had not been satisfactory. The City of London Committee appointed to inquire into that subject, stated that they were not prepared to give any opinion as to the competency of the County Court Judges to administer the bankruptcy law. It could not, therefore, be said that the mercantile classes were unanimous in favour of transferring that jurisdiction to the County Court Judges. The comparison drawn between the Scotch Sheriffs Courts and the County Courts was defective; they did not at all resemble each other. He must persist in dividing the Committee.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
suggested that the clause should be postponed, till some of the following clauses, having reference to the same subject, should have been considered.

§ MR. MELLOR
also approved the postponement.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he had no objection to postpone the clause, if such was the wish of the Committee, till the bringing up of the Report.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that could not be done, as an Amendment had been made in the clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the same tiling could be effected in another way, namely, by negativing the clause now, on the understanding that he should bring it up in another form on the Report.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, he should take 1584 the sense of the Committee on that portion of the clause to which he had referred.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that in that case he should defend the clause, on the ground that it would greatly facilitate the attainment of justice. No one ventured to assert that the present state of the bankruptcy law was satisfactory. He did not charge this to the administration of the law, as far as the Court had powers; but the defects of the law amounted to an absolute denial of justice. To the bankrupt it was ruinous, to the creditor iniquitous. But what remedy could be applied? He approved the favourite modern principle—that of reverting to the old Saxon system of a provincial and local administration of justice. The County Courts were ambulatory. They could not have a better arrangement than that by which a Judge was kept itinerating in a small district, and compelled to act there according to the exigency of business. If they preserved the present system, they must continue nil the subjects of complaint now made against the existing bankruptcy law. It was not the Loudon administration so much as the provincial, of which complaint was made. What could there be better for the purpose than the County Courts? The Judges of those Courts appointed during the last two or three years, were, he could undertake to say, gentlemen equal to the discharge of any amount of judicial duty; and they had, besides, at their command an admirable local organization for administering the bankrupt law. He entirely deprecated this question being argued from a mere financial point of view. The average duties of the County Court Judges did not extend beyond fifteen days a month, and nearly half their time would be left vacant for the performance of the functions assigned to them by this Bill. The Committee must, he believed, accept the alternative of adopting the present proposal, or continuing the existing system, to which the greatest possible objection was felt by the mercantile community.

MR. HENLEY
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman himself proposed to continue the existing system until the present district Commissioners should die off. A provision was made in this Bill by means of which the Lord Chancellor would have power to order the district Commissioners to go about to such places as he might think proper, and that would cure a complaint now very general in the country; persons who have business to transact in 1585 those Courts would have a Court at their own doors instead of having to travel a considerable distance to go to those Courts. But as to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the County Court Judges had so much spare time on their hands at present, he feared that if they were to leave their own particular Courts to attend to the business of those district Courts, and their own Courts were handed over to some inferior officer, the County Courts would not long continue to give such satisfaction to the public as they now gave. He was disposed to support the Amendment.

§ MR. CLIVE
reminded the House that they had had a trial of migratory Commissioners in the case of the Insolvency Courts, and that the result was far from being satisfactory. It seemed to him unnecessary to appoint Commissioners to bring justice to every man's door when they had those who could do so ready at hand in the persons of the County Court Judges. He would advise the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) not to put too much faith in law societies; they did not always desire cheap law, and generally recommended centralization.

§ MR. VANCE
said, that so far from its being an advantage as was said, for the County Court Judges to go circuit, the creditors would very much prefer eases being settled in the county town.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, that four years ago the sheriffs in Scotland obtained jurisdiction in bankruptcy, and the success of the experiment had been complete. There seemed to be an idea abroad that there was some mystery in matters of bankruptcy which ordinary Judges could not understand; but this was a mistake. Any Judge who was cognizant with the ordinary business of a Court of Law was able to discharge the duties of a Court of Bankruptcy. He might state that in Scotland the cost of proceedings in bankruptcy amounted to 11 per cent, while in England it was 30 per cent.

§ MR. MALINS
said, that there was a general desire that further time should be given for the consideration of the matter, and he therefore moved that the Chairman should report progress.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, that no more contentious cases were ever brought before a tribunal than cases of bankruptcy. He trusted that the Attorney General would press the clause to a division.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
appeal- 1586 ed to the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his proposition.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he had no wish to impede the progress of the Bill, and therefore he would not persist in his Motion.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, he could not, as alleged by the Attorney General, be accused of having unreasonably opposed the progress of this Bill. But the fact was, the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed desirous of having so much power in that House that he would not brook any opposition to his proposition. He (Mr. Bouverie) would protest against any system of browbeating independent Members into holding the same opinions as the hon. and learned Attorney General.

§ MR. MALINS
then moved that the Chairman do report progress.