Lords Sitting of 17 August 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Consolidated Fund Appropriation; Militia pay; Probates and Letters of Administration (Ireland); Mutiny (East India); Joint Stock Companies Act (1856) Amendment; Parochial Schoolmasters (Scotland) (No. 2).
3a Lunatics (Scotland); Burial Acts Amendment; Boundaries of Burghs Extension (Scotland); Married Women's Reversionary Interest.
COMMISSION.—The following Bills received the Royal Assent: County Court Judges (Falconer and Yates's Salaries); Superannuation Act Amendment; Boundaries of Land (Ireland); General Board of Health Continuance; Attornies and Solicitors (Colonial Courts); Illicit Distillation (Ireland); Loan Societies; Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act (1855) Amendment; Summary Proceedings before Justices of the Peace; Glebe Lands (Ireland); Banking; Crown, &c. Suits (Scotland); Land Tax Commissioners Names; Industrial Schools; Municipal Corporations; Fraudulent Trustees, &c.; New Zealand Loan Guarantee; New Zealand Company's Claims; New Zealand Government Act Amendment.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Commons' Amendments and Reasons for disagreeing to Lords' Amendments considered (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, although there were certain Amendments to which he could not advise their Lordships to agree, he proposed to assent to the main point in dispute, with respect to this Bill, between their Lordships' House and the House of Commons. The question had reference to the Tipperary Bank. The object of the Bill was to enable a certain portion of the creditors of joint-stock companies to effect compromises between the creditors and shareholders, so as to bind the whole. Unquestionably, such a Bill was, in one sense, not just, inasmuch as it interfered with the rights which parties had as the law now stood; for, at present, every creditor of such a company might bring an action against any or every shareholder in it. In the case of the Tip-
  1712
  perary Bank a dividend of 2s. in the pound had been paid, and it was provided by the Bill, as it passed their Lordships' House, that the judgment creditors should be left to enforce their judgments if they chose, but that if they did so, they should be bound to give up the 2s. in the pound they had received as dividends, and should not receive any future dividend until all creditors had been paid pari passu. In the House of Commons, however, it was proposed that those creditors who had received 2s. in the pound should keep that amount, and should still be enabled to enforce their judgments, but it was provided that they should not receive any further dividend, or issue any process except by leave of the Court. He thought it might be reasonable to allow the dividend of 2s. in the pound to be retained by those creditors who had received it, but he moved that their Lordships should insist upon their proposal that such creditors should not be entitled to receive any further dividend or to have recourse to any other remedy than could be obtained in respect of the judgments against the lands. The noble and learned Lord then moved to agree to the Commons' Amendments, with Amendments having the effect stated.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSquite disagreed with the course his noble and learned Friend proposed to adopt. He quite assented to the Amendments of the Commons, which were just what they ought to have made, and tallied completely with the views which he had endeavoured to impress upon their Lordships when this Bill was before them. The official manager of the estate had come here to support the shareholders at the expense of the creditors, whose interest they were bound to protect. The Commons wished to confine the judgment creditors to the dividend they had already received and the property over which they had made a claim, but not to have any further dividend till the other creditors were paid the same amount. Many of the shareholders had now mortgaged their estates for nominal sums, and had left the country. As the Bill had gone down to the House of Commons, the judgment creditors would receive no redress whatever. The Commons had precluded the judgment creditors from receiving further dividends, or issuing further writs, except by leave of the Court. There was, therefore, a perfect check upon them, and it was most unjust to take from them what they had already received. The difficulty had arisen

  1713
  from the belief that banking companies were not under the operation of the bankruptcy law. This, he thought, was a mistake, and he should introduce an Amendment into the Irish Joint-Stock Companies Act for the purpose of settling the question. He trusted his noble and learned Friend would not persevere in his objections to these Amendments. The noble and learned Lord then moved, "to disagree to the said Amendments."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that under the Winding-tip Order, a portion of the estate had been collected, which would have been divided amongst the creditors if there had been no reference claims. But certain creditors had obtained judgments, and became, by the law of Ireland, mortgages over the property of those shareholders against whom they had proceeded. If all the creditors had done the same thing, there would have been a frightful amount of expense, all the property would have gone to the lawyers, and it was to stop these proceedings that this Bill was introduced. It appeared to their Lordships that those creditors should enforce their judgment upon the lands on which they had mortgages, refunding the 2s. in the pound which they had already realized. Now, he agreed, from what he had heard since, that these creditors should retain what they had already recovered, since that did not amount to 2s. in the pound; but he could not agree to let them have a claim upon the other assets of the estate.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that, as he understood the judgment creditors had the option of enforcing their judgment or coming in with the other creditors. But the Amendment of the Commons would permit the judgment creditors to proceed against other properly than that upon which they had mortgages. The Amendment was introduced into the Commons at two o'clock in the morning, when there were but thirteen Members present, and some of those objected.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that the creditors were shut out from any claim on any further dividend, except by leave of the Court.
  On Question, whether to agree to Commons' Amendments to the said Bill with the said Amendments, their Lordships divided:—
  Contents 11; Not-Contents 9: Majority 2.
  Commons' Amendments agreed to, with Amendments; and Bill returned to the Commons.

  CONTENTS.

  Cambridge, D.

  Congleton, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Glenelg, L.

  Panmure, L.

  Granville, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

  Harrowby, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Campbell, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Denman, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Romney, E.

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Verulam, E. [Teller.]

  Wynford, L.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL.
  Commons Amendments and reasons for disagreeing to Lords Amendments considered (according to order):
  Moved, Not to insist on the Amendments to which the Commons disagree; on Question, Whether to insist?
  Resolved in the negative:
  Commons Amendments agreed to; and message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

  DULWICH COLLEGE BILL.
  Commons Amendments considered (according to order).
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY THE EARL OF HARROWBY moved, that their Lordships should disagree to the Commons' Amendments, respecting the constitution of the governing body of the college. This House had adopted the scheme proposed by the Charity Commissioners, by which the governing body was to consist of four persons, chosen by four London parishes, and eleven by the Court of Chancery. The House of Commons, however, altered this scheme, entrusting the management to eight persons chosen by the parishes, two by the magistrates, and three by the Archbishop of Canterbury, three others being the President and Vice President of the Council of Education, and the President of the Poor Law Board. The result of this constitution would, in all probability, be that the eight persons last mentioned would not attend with, any regularity, and that the eight persons named by the parishes would possess the sole management of the charity. So important a trust, he thought, ought not to be confided to a body thus constituted; and he therefore proposed that their Lordships should adhere to the composition of the governing body as suggested by the Charity Commissioners, and as adopted by this House, and should disagree with the

  1715
  Amendments in Clauses 3, 4, 5, and part of Clause 6. With this and another less important exception he should not object to the remaining Amendments.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, the main object in such a case should be to observe what it might be supposed would be the wishes of the founder. Now, the constitution of the governing body proposed by the Charity Commissioners was, he believed, just that which Alleyne himself, could he start from his grave, would approve; and he therefore quite concurred in the motion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Harrow by).
  Motion agreed to; some Amendments disagreed to, others agreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to some of the said Amendments: the Committee to meet immediately: Report from the Committee of Reasons, read, and agreed to; and a message: sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with the Amendments and Reasons.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Four o'clock.