LORDS' AMENDMENTS.—REASONS CONSIDERED. (Hansard, 31 July 1861)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
moved the consideration of the Lords' Reasons for insisting on certain of their Amendments to this Bill, to which the Commons had disagreed.
The Clerk at the Table then read the Reasons as follows:— The Lords insist upon such Parts of their Amendments in the Preamble to Clause 1, and in Clauses 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 18, 22, 23, 33, 37, 39, 43, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 67, 68, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 99, 111, 112, 129, 142, 164, 169, 178, 202, 212, 213, 230, 243, and 246, and in the Schedule of repealed Parts of Statutes, as relate to the subject of a Chief Judge in Bankruptcy and Matters consequential thereon, and also to Clause (A.) added by their Lordships to the Bill, and which have been disagreed to by the Commons, for the following Reasons:— 1814 Because they consider the Appointment of a Chief Judge as the Head of the Court of Bankruptcy in London to be unnecessary; the original Jurisdiction which it is proposed to confer does not, in their Opinion, require a Judge of high Attainments and Authority, but would be equally well exercised by the London Commissioners, and the Creation of a new Judge to be the Judge of Appeals seems not to be called for by any Necessity, because the Appeals in Bankruptcy at present occupy the Time of the Lords Justices acting as the Court of Appeal for only a few Days in each Year, and there is no Reason to expect that the passing of the Bill will occasion such an increase in the Appeal Business as to prevent its being satisfactorily disposed of by the same Appellate Tribunal: Because the Proposal to confer original Jurisdiction on the Chief Judge is not at all calculated to secure Consistency in the Administration of the Bankrupt Law, in as much as this Jurisdiction would be confined to the Metropolitan District, and no Provision would be made by it for securing Uniformity of Decision amongst the Commissioners of the District Courts and the County Court Judges sitting in Bankruptcy, and if this Consistency in the Administration of the Bankrupt Law is to be obtained by means of 'a central and controlling Authority,' it is unnecessary to create a new Judge of Appeals for the Purpose, as the Object is already secured by the existing Court of Appeal: Because if it is a principal Object of the Bill gradually to supersede the Commissioners by means of the Establishment of the Chief Judge, so great a Change in the present System ought not to take place in this Manner, but should be made only by the express Authority of Parliament. With the preceding Exceptions, the Lords do not insist upon any of their Amendments to the said Bill to which the Commons disagree, and agree to the Amendments made by the Commons to their Lordships Amendments and also to the original Bill,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
moved that the House do not insist in their disagreement to the Amendments made by the Lords. They were well aware, and the reasons just read made it very apparent, that the Amendments to this Bill as it originally passed the House, and on which the other House of Parliament insisted, were those which related to the appointment, duties, and salary of the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy. If the House were to persist in the view they had taken when the Bill was last before them, the consequence would inevitably be that the Bill would be lost; and, under those circumstances, it had become the duty of the Government to consider what course they should advise the House to pursue; and, although Her Majesty's Government retained the opinion, expressed by its Members in the discussions on the various 1815 stages of the Bill, in favour of the appointment of the Chief Judge, and that for the Reasons adopted by that House and transmitted to the other House of Parliament, and although they still considered that the provisions of the Bill were greatly impaired, and its chances of working well at the outset were very much diminished by the omission of that portion relating to the Chief Judge, still they considered that even without that part of the Bill there was an amount of good in it which was capable of working, although defectively, and which ought to induce the Government to take the Bill mutilated and shorn, as he admitted it to be, rather than not carry the measure at all. Under these circumstances the Government had come to the conclusion to advise the House—f course it was for the House to consider whether they should adopt that advice—not to insist further in their disagreement to the Amendments made by the Lords; but practically to accept the Bill as amended by the other House. He should, however, have to propose certain verbal Amendments, to which he was sure no objection would be made, which were rendered necessary for the purpose of enabling those by whom the General Orders were to be made to make them in proper time, in the absence of the Lords Justices. He now begged to move that the House do not insist in their disagreement with the Amendments made by the Lords.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
, before taking leave for the present of a subject which he was sure would soon again occupy their attention, wished to state that, representing as he did a constituency which had taken a deep interest in the question, he was disposed to concur in the course which the Government recommended the House to pursue. He thought the people out of doors were as competent to form an opinion on this subject as noble Lords elsewhere, and when it was said in the Reasons which had been read that it was not necessary that a functionary of high legal attainments and authority should be appointed in bankruptcy, the public would view the reasons with very great suspicion. He believed the Lord Chancellor would find great practical difficulty in the working of this Bill without the Chief Judge; but the responsibility rested, not on the Lord Chancellor, but on those who had, as the Attorney General said, mutilated the Bill. If it were found that the Bill could not be fairly carried into effect with- 1816 out the Chief Judge, another application would, no doubt, be made to Parliament, and they would then know what course to take. He only hoped, when the matter came again to be discussed, neither senile obstinacy nor professional jealousy would be allowed to interfere.

§ MR. BOVILL
thought the hon. Gentlemen had not exactly appreciated what was stated in the Reasons of the Lords with reference to the functionary of high legal attainments. Already Commissioners, gentlemen of great learning and legal ability, and with thirteen years' experience in that department of law, exercised jurisdiction in bankruptcy, and so satisfactorily had they hitherto administered the law that only forty-two appeals had been made from their decisions during that time. And with respect to appeals the hon. Gentleman had apparently forgotten that now the Court of Appeal consisted of the Lords Justices sitting in bankruptcy, who were acknowledged on all hands to constitute one of the best legal tribunals in the country.