HC Deb 11 June 1869 vol 196 cc1592-608

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 53 (Status of undischarged bankrupt).

MR. PEEK

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper with reference to the third sub-section, which provided that if a bankrupt should not at the close of five years have obtained an order of discharge, any balance of his debts remaining unpaid should be deemed a debt for which he would be liable. He begged to move to leave out lines 9 to 20 inclusive, and insert— 3. At anytime within six years from the date of the adjudication of bankruptcy any creditor having reason to believe that the bankrupt has acquired any property may apply to the Court, and the Court may require the bankrupt to file such accounts as it may deem necessary, and may order that the whole or a portion of such after-acquired property may be divided amongst the creditors; but in making such order the Court shall also take into consideration any liabilities incurred by the bankrupt since the date of his bankruptcy.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, this matter had been already settled, and to adopt the Amendment would conflict with the provisions of the Bill already agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

MR. MORLEY moved that three years be the term mentioned in this subsection instead of five.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 54 (Audit by Comptroller in Bankruptcy).

MR. ANDERSON moved, in page 20. line 25, to leave out, "The accounts of the trustee shall be audited by," and insert— The trustee having had his accounts audited by the committee of inspection shall, within ten days thereafter, forward the certified statement to— His object was still further to assimilate the measure to the Scottish system.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the point had been well considered. If this plan of auditing were found advisable, the change could be made by the operation of the Court. There would be difficulty in the rural districts of obtaining an efficient audit. The advantages in favour of an independent audit were so great that he must press the provision of the Bill.

MR. BOURKE

said, he thought the commercial community would find the hurry of business so great in many cases, that creditors would not look after estates in the way they did in Scotland. Under these circumstances it would be desirable to have an officer to look after the auditing of the accounts, and the Lord Chancellor might have power to appoint one or two auditors for the country, in addition to the auditor resident in London.

MR. WEST

said, he was afraid that Clause 54, as it stood, could hardly be worked. In order to have an efficient audit, it would be necessary to send all the books to the auditor, and that would be utterly impracticable. It might be a proper suggestion that the Lord Chancellor should have power to appoint other auditors; but he hoped the Committee would be careful not to fall into the evils they were trying to get rid of.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, it was quite right there should be an independent audit, but that involved personal attendance as well as the bringing of books, and those things Mould be very trouble- some in large bankruptcies, and ex-pensive in small ones. He suggested that, in the present registrars and treasurers of the County Courts there was the machinery for auditing accounts ready to hand, and they were persons far removed from collusion with trustees or inspectors.

MR. WHITWELL

said, he would point out that the Amendment, in providing that accounts should be first audited by the committee of inspection and a statement then sent to the Comptroller, did not interfere with the independence of that officer, who would still have full powers to call the trustee to account. The introduction of the Amendment would make the Bill work conformably with the Scotch system, which had been found very satisfactory in its operation in this respect.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had been fully considered by the Bankruptcy Committee, who started with a strong feeling in favour of local audit, but after long and anxious inquiry came to the conclusion that this would be impracticable. A person could not be appointed to a responsible duty unless he was separated from personal relations with those about him. The County Court treasurers were not in very great favour with the Treasury, which was abolishing them as fast as it could, because they did not perform their work to its satisfaction. The registrars could not be charged with, the business of auditing, which would be entirely foreign to their duties. There must be some one who would systematically bring every trustee to account, and see that his statements were rendered at certain times. When assignees managed estates they seemed to think it their duty to keep as much in their hands as possible and pay as little to the creditors; and throughout the country it was found that these gentlemen retained an enormous sum in their possession. A recurrence of that evil must be prevented, and the only way to prevent it was to have times appointed when the trustees should deliver a balance-sheet to a responsible officer, who should see whether the trustee improperly retained any funds in his own hands. The advantage of having one person who would receive all the accounts, be able to examine and compare them, and report upon any impropriety was extremely great. Every account that he received would enable him to deal more efficiently with every other, so that he would be able by the knowledge he thus acquired to detect improprieties even without receiving any particular information, it was not to be supposed that every trustee should come to London with the bankrupt's books and accounts; all he would have to do would be to prepare a balance- sheet with such vouchers as the Lord Chancellor might from time to time direct, to show that he had collected and paid away all the moneys that fairly belonged to the bankrupt's estate, just as was already done in reference to the estates of deceased persons.

MR. G. GREGORY

said, he trusted the clause would be allowed to stand. He very much preferred to have one central authority, who should have the control of this department, with an undivided responsibility resting upon him. He saw no difficulty whatever in a central authority carrying on the audit of the accounts, either by having them transmitted to London, or, if necessary, by sending down one of his assistants to inspect the accounts whenever any difficulty might arise.

MR. NORWOOD

said, he could not understand the jealousy which seemed to be shown of the committee of inspection, winch was a committee of creditors. What objection could there be to their examining the accounts of their own servant, the trustee? The inspectors would understand the local bearings of the case, and should they differ from the trustee, the Comptroller in Bankruptcy would have to decide between them. The committee of inspection would positively be an assistance to the Comptroller in Bankruptcy. Were hon. Gentlemen aware that there had been more than 8,000 bankruptcies last year? There was no wish to do away with the proposed Comptroller, but let them assist him and save him from a great amount of unnecessary labour.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, if that was the object, the Amendment was unfortunately worded. The clause was that the accounts of the trustee should be audited by an officer to be called the Comptroller in Bankruptcy. But the hon. Member proposed, instead, that the trustee, having had his accounts audited by the committee of inspection, should within ten days thereafter forward a statement to an officer to be called the Comptroller in Bankruptcy. As he understood the Amendment it amounted to this—that the accounts should be audited by the committee of inspection and afterwards re audited by the Comptroller. What the clause proposed to secure was an independent audit, but the Amendment struck at an. independent audit altogether.

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, he could not help thinking the Amendment very useful. He understood it to mean that the auditor in London should act something like an Appellate Court, to decide in cases whore disputes might arise. It was not meant that there should be a double audit. As to the suggestion that there might be collusion between the committee of inspection and the trustee, it had been a prominent point in the measure that the committee of inspection were to be a controlling body, and it was too much to suppose that in auditing the accounts they would be guilty of any collusion.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he considered that the object of an efficient audit would be best secured by the clause as it stood. section 19 gave the committee of inspection full power over the trustee, who would be bound to submit his accounts for their inspection; but it was important that there should be undivided responsibility with regard to the audit, and therefore it was proposed to entrust that duty to the Comptroller in London.

MR. WEST

said, he thought it absolutely necessary that an auditor should have all the original documents before him. If they were to be sent to and from London at each declaration of dividend, much inconvenience would arise, and, indeed, he did not believe that, in this respect, the Bill would be workable.

MR. HIBBERT

said, it was undesirable to decide hastily on this clause, and he thought it would be better to postpone its consideration, unless the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson).

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he did not think the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow would work at all well; but. at the same time, it was a question whether the Attorney General might not put more in detail the particulars relating to the audit. The appointment of an officer in Scotland corresponding to the Comptroller to be appointed under this Bill had had the most beneficial results. He would suggest that it might be desirable to add to the clause words giving power to the Court to regulate, by general orders, the audit by the committee of inspection as well as by the Comptroller.

MR. COLLINS

said, he hoped the primary jurisdiction, would be given to Courts sitting in the country, as it would be most inconvenient to have all books and papers sent up to London.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he could not agree to the Amendment before them, but he was willing to postpone the present clause, and the subsequent clauses down to Clause 58, in order to bring up new clauses giving effect to the wish of the Committee.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he thought that Clauses 19 and 54. as amended by him, would meet all that the representatives of the commercial community could desire in that matter.

MR. MORLEY

said, he hoped the Attorney General would consider the expediency of having, in addition to the audit by the committee of inspection, some further supervision of the accounts by an independent local officer. There would be a difficulty in sending up all books aud papers to a Comptroller in London, who, moreover, would have an enormous number of cases to deal with.

MR. MUNTZ

said, that he was executor twelve years ago to a large mercantile estate, and the books and papers of that estate, which were afterwards sold for waste paper, weighed thirteen tons.

ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he thought the central authority must be placed some-where, and where better than in London, and he felt that the appointment of the Comptroller in Bankruptcy would be a most useful one.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that new clauses should be brought up carrying out what was desired.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he would assent to this arrangement.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 struck out.

Clauses 55 to 58 postponed.

Clause 59 (Court to consist of London Court and County Courts).

MR. NORWOOD

said, the clause provided that the County Courts throughout the kingdom should have jurisdiction in Bankruptcy matters, except in London. He thought that the County Courts in London should have concurrent jurisdiction in these matters. He proposed to omit the clause with the view of bringing up a new one.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he entertained a strong objection to the constitution of the Court as proposed by the Bill. In Mr. Commissioner Bacon they had, as one of the London Commissioners in Bankruptcy, a gentleman of very long experience and practice, whose knowledge on the subject was, perhaps, greater than that possessed by any other man living. Having been so fortunate as to secure the services of such a gentleman, it was now proposed by this Bill to pension him off, he presumed on his full salary, for the purpose of appointing a Common Law Judge as Chief judge in Bankruptcy. This arrangement was the more unintelligible because the business in Bankruptcy had hitherto been transacted much more in the Court of Chancery than in the Courts of Common Law. The Bill, too, proposed that the Judge appointed to this office should be relieved from the duties which he usually performed in his own Court, although the duties required from the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy might be very light. He should propose certain Amendments in the clause, which would have the effect of enabling the Government, without pensioning the best man they could find, to avail themselves of his services; and, on a vacancy arising, to assign to one of the existing Judges, either at Common Law or at Equity, the duties of this office without at the same time removing him from his own Court.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he would accept that portion of his hon. and learned Friend's (Sir Roundell Palmer's) Amendment which permitted the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy still to perform the duties attaching to his present office. The question of appointing Equity as well as Common Law Judges had received much consideration. It was now admitted that the evil of our judicial system was that separation of jurisdictions which had led to the hard line of demarcation between the Courts of Common Law and Chancery, and between those Courts again and the Ecclesiastical Courts. The object of all law reformers was therefore to fuse jurisdictions, and the Government had, in consequence, come to the conclusion that it would not be desirable to appoint any- one to this office who was not attached to one of the Courts either of Common Law or Equity. The Lord Chancellor had considered whether the Vice Chancellors could perform this work, but he came to the conclusion that they were too much occupied already to allow of their undertaking these duties, while there did not appear to him to be sufficient reason for the appointment of a new Vice Chancellor. In connection, however, with the Election Petitions three new Judges had been recently appointed, and their time, with the exception of those periods when Election Petitions required to be tried, was comparatively unoccupied. It was therefore thought advisable to make this appointment from among the Common Law Judges, a plan which would be attended by saving to the country. Power was taken to appoint another Judge if it was found necessary, but he hoped it would not be required. Again, it was proposed, for the first time, to introduce into the Court of Bankruptcy the principle of trial by jury. In order to prevent delay, if upon a trader debtor summons the debt was disputed, the Bankruptcy Judge might immediately summon a special or common jury and proceed to try the case. Somehow or another, though the system of trial by jury was not entirely unknown in Courts of Chancery, it had never flourished there. In fact, he was told that one of the Vice Chancellors had lately ordered the jury-box to be removed from his Court as a nuisance. It would not be fair to call upon Mr. Commissioner Bacon—though the Government did not fail to recognize his abilities and talents—at his advanced age, to inaugurate an entirely new system, of practice.

MR. HIBBERT

said, the Government appeared to be animated by extravagance on the one hand and severe economy on the other, for, while they rejected the services of existing Commissioners in London, they proposed to relegate the management of Bankruptcy business in the country to the County Court Judges, without making any addition to their salaries. He thought that the case of the County Court Judges required to be reviewed, as the position they now occupied was not what it should be, considering the important business they now had to perform, having Equity and Admiralty jurisdiction. He thought the Bankruptcy business of the metropolis might be given to the County Courts, and the appellate jurisdiction to the Common Law Courts.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he did not see the necessity for appointing a new Judge at all. There was little appellate business now, and he doubted whether it would be increased by the Bill. The Chief Judge would therefore be a mere Commissioner in Bankruptcy under another name, and the Judges of the Superior Courts would not thank the Government for putting one of their number in such a position. The present tribunal for purposes of appeal could not be improved, and as to the framing of new rules and orders, no one could do that better than the present appellate Judges—the Lords Justices. To appoint a Chief Judge in Bankruptcy was a waste of judicial power as well as of money, but if such an appointment were made—though himself a practitioner in the Common Law Courts—he thought if any preference was shown in the matter, the Judge in Bankruptcy should be taken from the Chancery Bar. He should not, however, oppose the clause, because he should be reluctant to do anything to impede the progress of the Bill.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he considered that Mr. Commissioner Bacon was the fittest person for the new office, and that learned Gentleman was certainly not unversed in trial by jury, as he had had at one time a large business at some of the most important sessions in the country. There was considerable danger of overworking the County Court Judges, and thus depriving their Courts of the character of being the poor man's Courts, where speedy justice could be had. He could not help thinking it far bettor to increase the number of County Court Judges than to increase the salaries of the present County Court Judges. Registrars and other officers would have to be pensioned, and their services and experience might be retained and a saving secured by making them Assistant Judges.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, he must protest against the restriction in the selection of the Chief Judge as an unfair exclusion of the Chancery Bar, which amounted to a stigma upon those who were by legal training and experience quite as qualified to administer Bankruptcy Law as the members of the Common Law Bar.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he must remind the Committee that they were really discussing the 61st clause on the 59th clause. The creation and constitution of these Courts was the point under discussion. But referring to what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), the question was whether one of the existing Common Law Judges or a Commissioner in Bankruptcy should be made the Chief Judge of the Bankruptcy Court. There was no intention to cast any slight on Mr. Bacon. He had no doubt the learned Commissioner would be able to discharge the duties with satisfaction to everyone, but the question was, how they could make the best use of the present judicial force of the country. The Government would have no objection to say the Lord Chancellor might appoint a Vice Chancellor as the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy; but the time of the Vice Chancellors was fully ococcupied, while there were three Common Law Judges who had practically nothing to do. The election petitions having been disposed of, they were enjoying leisure; and surely it was better to avail ourselves of their services than to appoint a new Judge. It was now deemed unadvisable to invest Judges with exclusive jurisdiction, as tending to narrowness, and it was generally held that the administration of the whole law ought to be committed to all the Judges equally. It was a question between the appointment of a new superior Judge and the utilization of the existing superior Judges.

MR. G. GREGORY

said, the issue raised was wider than that; it was a question whether an able man should be turned loose with a pension or his services should be utilized?

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, it was unnecessary for the Government to disclaim intending any slight upon the Court of Chancery or on Mr. Commissioner Bacon, who was not so superhuman that he would be indignant at having his full salary forced upon him with nothing to do. Indeed, Mr. Bacon would, no doubt, as far as he was personally concerned, feel his one year's services very highly appreciated by the handsome proposals made by the Government. It was in the public interest alone that he (Sir Roundell Palmer) objected to the proposed arrangement. With regard to the three unoccupied Judges in the Common Law Courts, it was a poor excuse for paying off the best man at the county's command, without getting the benefit of his services, to say that there were three Common Law Judges who had nothing to do now that the election petitions were over. It would be some comfort to the Solicitor General, however cold, that if the recommendations of the Judicature Commission were carried out these three Judges would have work to fill up their spare time.

MR. MORLEY

said, the London traders would prefer having the clause as it stood at present. They did not wish to be sent to the County Courts in the various metropolitan districts. He hoped the Government would not be induced to give up in any degree the principle of appointing a Chief Judge. With reference to the appeals to the Lords Justices, it was impossible to make one under a cost of about £60.

MR. JESSEL

said, he thought it right, from his long professional acquaintance with Mr. Commissioner Bacon, that he should bear his humble testimony to the great qualifications of that gentleman for the office of Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, qualifications greater than almost any man at the Bar could be expected to possess, owing to his long career in the practice of the Law of Bankruptcy, and to the fact that he was acquainted with jury cases as well as with equity. Now, to put such a man on the shelf after one year, and give him his full salary, was the very reverse of economy, while, on the other hand, by securing him at his present salary we might secure the services of the best man, without its costing the country a single farthing. It would be most desirable that he should act as a Judge of the First Instance. If we were to have a Court of Appeal it would be better not to part with the present Court. The members of the Court of Appeal in Chancery had not sufficient occupation to employ them during the ordinary sittings of the Court, and, not wishing to be idle, they filled up their time by attending the judicial proceedings of the Privy Council. The number of bankruptcies was about 9,000 a year, of which 6,000 were pauper bankruptcies, from which no dividend whatever was paid. Now, these pauper bankruptcies were caused by allowing men to make themselves bankrupt, and as that power would be taken away the bankruptcies would be reduced to 3,000, or even much less, because a vast number of' the latter class paid so small a dividend that no hostile creditor would ever present a petition of adjudication. The amount of business, therefore, thrown on the Chief Judge. instead of being too large for one man, would, he believed, be less than an ordinary Judge would be able to go through.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he wished to recall the attention of the Committee to what fell from the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Southampton (Mr. Russell Gurney). Was there not some danger, if we put this extra business on the County Courts—if they were, to have an equity jurisdiction, an Admiralty jurisdiction, and a Bankruptcy jurisdiction—that their functions as tribunals for dealing with small debts would be materially interfered with? It seemed to him also to be a matter of much importance whether the Government meant to take in hand the Report of the Judicature Commission, and, if so, whether such a change might not be made in the whole judicial arrangements of the country—which he believed were radically wrong—that this Court might have to be remodelled again? He would suggest that as another reason for not dispensing with the services of Mr. Commissioner Bacon.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that we must have this jurisdiction administered locally, and. if locally, in what other Courts than the County Courts? It was proposed originally to retain the district Bankruptcy Courts, but he had received several remonstrances against it, and, therefore, he adopted the County Courts. In regard to the salaries of County Court Judges, it was better to wait until it was seen whether they would have more work before raising them; for one of the advantages of this Bill was that iv would transfer a good deal of the Judge's present work to the creditor. He did not think that this question could wail for the Report of the Judicature Commission. There was, he believed, a general concurrence of opinion that it was desirable to have a superior Judge, and they were all agreed that they must get the best Judge they could. Her Majesty's Government, on economical grounds, had proposed one of the Common Law Judges for the office, and he had no doubt that any one of them that might be selected would discharge the duties with eminent ability. But he never meant to say that Commissioner Bacon was not a very eminent Judge, and he felt that the general impression of the Committee was more in favour of Mr. Bacon than of a Common Law Judge. He entirely concurred in the remarks made by his hon. and learned Friends the Members for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) and Dover (Mr. Jessel); and it appeared to him that they could not do better than make Mr. Bacon the first Judge. If his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond would permit him to postpone that clause to which he referred, he would consider what arrangements should be made. With regard to the proposal to make every County Court in London a Bankruptcy Court, there were several fatal objections to that; and among those objections was the fact that the London County Courts were too much occupied already. What was wanted in London was a large Court of Bankruptcy with a considerable area of jurisdiction, and also with, he hoped, a considerable degree of authority, in order to give the tone, if he might so express himself, to the Courts dealing with Bankruptcy business in the country. Uniformity of practice in regard to Bankruptcy law was required; and, to what tribunal were the Courts in the country to look for guidance and authority, unless it was to the chief Court in London? That appeared, to him, to be a very essential provision of the Bill, which he could not consent to part with, and he trusted that his lion. Friend (Mr. Norwood) would not press the omission of the clause.

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, he rejoiced to think that the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) was in a position to do what no one else in that House could so well have done—namely, to bring before the. Committee the name of a learned Friend of his, whom he had known long, and who was a man of distinguished ability and great experience in the branch of legal jurisdiction to which the Bill referred. With regard to the Amendment immediately before them, he hoped it would be withdrawn.

MR. NORWOOD

said, he had not received sufficient encouragement to induce him to press his Amendment, and he would leave the responsibility connected with that matter with the Government.

MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS

said, he could not assent to what had fallen from the Solicitor General, who seemed to assume that it was generally agreed that three of the eighteen superior Judges were not practically useful, and that therefore it would be a great saving if one of them were appointed temporarily or permanently—while continuing a member of the superior Court to which he belonged—to be the superior Judge in Bankruptcy. He denied altogether that any of those Judges were practically useless, and maintained that, if their judicial duties were re-arranged so that the eighteen Judges could devote their attention to the business which was required to be done in all the superior Courts, there would not be too many. Let them look at the Probate and Divorce Court, and why did not the Government propose, if they thought any of the Judges had not sufficient, employment, that some assistance should be rendered to the Judge of the Probate and Divorce Court—where there was a great arrear of cases—by the Judges of the superior Courts? His own clients had complained of it as most unsatisfactory that in what ought to have been the full Court—Common Law Courts, sitting in Banco—only two Judges were present; and the answer usually given to that was that they could not have the full Court constituted with four Judges, because the other Judges were otherwise engaged. He concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) in thinking that it would be desirable to have the highly competent gentleman who had been referred to at the head of the chief Court of Bankruptcy in London; and he believed that a slight addition to that gentleman's present salary would satisfy him.

MR. COLLINS

said, that the Judges who had been engaged in trying election petitions during the last six months would have little or no corresponding work to do until another General Election was held. We should consequently have a surplus staff, and it would be a question whether the staff of the superior Courts ought not to be reduced.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to.

Clauses 62, 72 postponed.

Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.

Clause 65 struck out.

Clauses 66 to 71, 73 to 87 agreed to.

Clause 88 (Sequestration of ecclesiastical benefice.)

MR. ANDERSON moved, in page 33, line 15, after "as the," to leave out to end of clause, and insert "Court may direct."

MR. MORLEY

said, it had been suggested that a clergyman becoming bankrupt should vacate his living.

MR. STEPHEN CAVE

thought that would be a great hardship, especially a clergyman who had become bankrupt through misfortune. It would be punishing both their families and their creditors. The Bishop was a better judge than the Court could be of the wants of a parish.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he would give his support to the Amendment.

MR. WEST

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, he thought that the law of sequestration should be revised; but until that was done the clause ought to remain as it stood.

MR. ANDERSON

said, that his Amendment merely empowered the Court, instead of the Bishop, to say what portion of a bankrupt clergyman's emoluments should go to his creditors.

MR. AYRTON

said, he believed that Bishops were anxious to be rid of the power they at present possessed in case of bankrupt clergymen; but, until the House could deal with the law of sequestration, it would be better to leave the clause as it stood.

MR. STEPHEN CAVE

reminded the Committee that bankruptcy, especially when not caused by extravagance, did not necessarily unfit a clergyman for the performance of his duty.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he was glad to sec that the Committee had some commiseration for a bankrupt clergyman, although the Bill was one of Pains and Penalties from the beginning to the end. On the Report he hoped some move com-passion would be shown towards those of the laity who had become bankrupt through misfortune.

MR. BARROW

said, he was of opinion that the Bishops would be the best judges of the amount which a bankrupt clergyman could spare; out of his living: to meet the demands of his creditors.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 89 and 90 agreed to.

Clause 91 (Avoidance of voluntary settlement).

MR. MORLEY moved, in line 38, after "settlement," to leave out "made before and in consideration of marriage, or." His object was to prevent a man making a settlement on his wife out of property not belonging to him.

MR. JESSEL

said he did not often differ from the hon. Member (Mr. Morley) but be really thought that this Amendment would be unjust. Marriage had always been hold to be a valuable consideration; and, in point of fact, a woman gave what far transcended in value any amount of goods delivered. It would therefore be most unfair to say that after she had made a bargain which could not possibly be undone she should be deprived of her settlement because her husband had become bankrupt within two years after the marriage. The wife was as much entitled to consideration as any creditor. But though he (Mr. Jessel) maintained that property actually settled ought to be held sacred, he agreed that the same respect ought not to be shown to mere covenants to pay money.

MR. RATHBONE

said, he entirely agreed in what had been said by his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment (Mr. Morley). There were cases where men made large fortunes out of the last crisis by this process of making settlements. He therefore intended to move a similar Amendment of which he had given notice.

MR. MORLEY

said he thought that a bankrupt's creditors ought, at any rate, to have the power of investigating his solvency at the time he made the settlement. He knew a man who was indebted £10,000. and had assets worth £8,000; he settled upwards of £2,000 on his wife, and to that extent injured and robbed his creditors.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he must oppose the Amendment. It would not be at all for the benefit of the community if unreasonable impediments were thrown in the way of bachelors engaged in trade contracting marriage. If a man made a marriage settlement in contemplation of bankruptcy, if he contracted marriage in order to make a settlement, it would be fraudulent under the statute of Elizabeth.

MR MORLEY

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RATHBONE moved an Amendment respecting post-nuptial settlements which, he said, was not open to the objections raised against the previous Amendment.

Moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress."—(Mr. Hermon.)

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

Forward to