LORDS' AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 2 August 1869)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he wished to express his great satisfaction with the manner in which the Bill had been dealt with by the other House of Parliament. They had not interfered with its leading principles or main provisions. The Amendments which had been made were chiefly verbal, and he was free to admit that the greater part of those Amendments were improvements. There were some to which that expression did not, in his opinion, altogether apply; but remembering that they had been introduced by noble Lords of great ability, eminence, and experience, he did not feel inclined to set up his own view in opposition to their Lordships; and hon. Members, as a rule, would, doubtless, share that feeling. There were three Amendments, however, which he thought it would be advisable to invite their Lordships to re-consider. The first was on the 5th clause, and related to the definition of a partnership, association, or company. As the clause left this House, the definition was "a partnership, association, or company corporate, or registered under the Companies' Act of 1862." Their Lordships had substituted the words "or liable to be wound up;" which made a very serious difference. A partnership of seven members was liable to be wound up; and if they adopted this Amendment, men, by simply taking several clerks into partnership with them, so as to make up the required number, would be able to carry on business as fraudulently as they pleased, and still not be subjected to the bankruptcy law. He could not help thinking that this point had not been sufficiently considered, and he should therefore ask the House to disagree on this matter to the Lords' Amendment. The next was in sub-section 3 of Clause 6, line 20. The clause originally stood thus— 1094 That the debtor has, with intent to defeat or delay his creditors, done any of the following things—namely, departed out of England, or being out of England, remained out of England, or departed from his dwelling-house or otherwise absented himself; or begun to keep his house; or suffered himself to be outlawed. The Lords had inserted the words '' being a trader;" from which it would follow that such acts might be done by persons who were non-traders. That was a change in the law, as established in 1861, when it was expressly declared to be an act of bankruptcy for non-traders to depart the realm with intent to defeat or delay their creditors, and it seemed to him that the change was not for the better. He should, therefore, move to disagree to these words in line 20. He was prepared, however, to meet their Lordships half-way by inserting those (words after the word "or," in line 23, the effect of which would be that the mere leaving the house by a non-trader would not constitute an act of bankruptcy. That was a fair compromise. He trusted that their Lordships would see the force of the arguments that had occurred to him, and that they would not insist upon the Amendments to which he objected. He proposed to add words to Clause 8 to limit the power of the County Courts trying causes under the Act to the extent of their present jurisdiction. There were one or two other technical matters with which he did not propose to trouble the House, in making that statement, and he now proposed to proceed with the consideration of the Lords' Amendments.

§ MR. MORLEY
said, it would be better to restore the words of the clause as it stood when the Bill left that House. He could see no reason for the distinction between the trader and the non-trader.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
explained that by agreeing to the compromise he had suggested they would maintain the existing law; and the words of the clause had acquired a technical signification in the case of traders. He should have preferred to have seen the clause pass as it wont to the Upper 1095 House; but what he proposed would make very little practical difference, and it would facilitate the passing of the Bill.

§ MR. MORLEY
said, the point of the arrangement made in the Bill was, that having appointed a trustee the creditors should appoint a committee, consisting of fit persons, not exceeding five in number. The Lords had struck out the word "shall" in reference to the appointment of the committee, and inserted the word "may" in its place. It was important that the appointment of a committee should be imperative, and he thought the Lords' Amendment should be disagreed to, and the original word re-inserted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he would accept the suggestion; and the word "shall" was re-inserted in place of "may."

§ MR. MORLEY
said, he submitted to the Amendment, providing for rent due to the landlord, under protest, as he did not see why a landlord should have a preference over other creditors, to which he had before objected.