Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

tual, and many parties would then be ducements to men of reputation to become anxious for inquiry, who now abstained Judges in it. Instead, then, of bankfrom demanding it, because they thought ruptcy proceedings being attended with that the case would not be properly ex- enormous expense, and lasting for years, amined into by the present jurisdiction. they would, in this Court, be despatched Under the proposed system they would at a cheap rate in the course of a few have men of intelligence and experience. weeks. He agreed with the hon. and If a Commissioner's decision were gain- learned member for St. Mawes, that the sayed, too, he would have notice that the fact of a man being ruined by a commisCourt would be moved, in order that he sion being taken out against him, even if might shew cause why he should not review that commission should turn out to be bad, his decision; on which he would make a was sufficient to call for an amendment of report to the Court of what had taken the law. The issues to try whether a man place. Under the present system, if the had been a bankrupt or not were frequent case were decided by the Chief Justice or and expensive from various causes. That any other judge, and a new trial was evil would be remedied by the fact being moved for, that motion was decided upon at once tried by affidavits and got rid affidavit and the arguments of counsel, of, and by the decision being made upon just as a motion would be decided in the the facts before the Court, instead of the Court of Chancery. Under the present parties being at liberty to make a new case. system, in case of an appeal, affidavits The case of Chambers shewed, in a most must be filed at an enormous cost; but, glaring manner, the evils of the system in under the proposed system, if a new trial this respect. In that case, the question were wished for, instead of a mass of was brought before the Court of Chancery, affidavits, there would be only the report and was argued four times. Three verof the Judge of what took place before dicts were given on one side and one dehim. How little expensive was this course cision on the other. The case then went compared with the old one! He re- before the Court of Exchequer, which nemembered that a mandamus was once gatived the bankruptcy: a new trial was moved for, and refused, in a case of bank- had, which again established the commisruptcy, on the ground that the Lord sion; and now another new trial was Chancellor had a summary jurisdiction; pending to overturn that decision. This but, in point of fact, the delays were often had been going on for four or five years. such as to ruin all parties concerned. If What, during this time, had been the situcopies of the proceedings were wanted, ation of the customers of that banker? parties could have them from a short-hand How many tradesmen might not have writer at a far less expense than the been ruined by the delay in paying the copies of the affidavits were now procured dividend? How many thousands had at. There was now a multiplication of not been consumed in costs? fees, and all, perhaps, for nothing, as the and learned friend opposite complained of facts might at length be sent to be tried the expedition of the Lord Chancellor before one of the Judges at Westminster complained that those who found fault, Hall. Thus the winner was sometimes when on that side of the House, with the ruined; the loser always. His hon. and jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in learned friend had reflected upon the bankruptcy, had not been three months Judges that were to be in this new Court, in office before they set themselves about and had said that they would be persons remedying its evils-evils which he himof no weight or consideration. What self had been considering these twenty authority had he for so saying, or how years. His hon. friend said, why not could he reconcile his statement, that this wait until a bill for the reform of the Court would have to decide on questions whole of the Chancery jurisdiction was of the greatest complexity and difficulty, brought on. But why should they wait involving property to an enormous amount, for all before taking a part? Here a Bill with his opinion that it would be con- was presented, proving the integrity of the sidered a trifling Court? The jurisdiction intentions of the Government, and its deof this Court would be found so import- termination to act upon the professions it ant as to carry great weight and conse-made upon that side of the House. quence with it in the eyes of the country, The hon. and learned member for Boand, consequently, to offer sufficient in- roughbridge had said, that it was essential

His hon.

that the Lord Chancellor should have the superintendence of all matters in bankruptcy. This Bill proposed to preserve the superintendence of the Lord Chancellor, without troubling him with matters he could not decide. The Lord Chancellor had always found himself incompetent to decide on matters of fact; and, when questions of fact had come before him, he had sent them to a Court of law. Under this Bill, all matters of fact would be decided previously to their coming before him. The mere question of law would go before him, either in the shape of a bill of exceptions, or of a special verdict, thus saving the parties a vast expense. It had been stated by several intelligent persons, and by none more strongly than Mr. Montagu, that the present system involved a maximum of expense with a minimum of justice. At present, 431. was the least expense at which a man could be at before the Commissioners; for there could not be less than three meetings. Under the new system, the creditor would, at an expense of 301., be able to have as many public meetings as he might require, and as many private meetings as he might think fit at the cost of 11. Gentlemen talked about the expense of this Court; but the plain fact was, that the country, instead of paying 70,000l. a-year, would only have to pay 30,000l. His hon. and learned friend spoke with an air of determination and positiveness that would almost persuade one he was always in the right; but he could not help suspecting, that he knew as little of the time that would be occupied in this new Court as of the proceedings of the Commissioners of Bankruptcy. Suppose there be 5000 public meetings and 2,000 private meetings, it would give the Commissioners work for six hours a day through nine or ten months in the year. But there was every reason to believe, that when the business could be done at a reasonable expense, and in a satisfactory manner, the increase of business would make the work greater. That such was likely to be the case might be judged from the fact of the Court of Exchequer having twenty times as much to do as it used to have. Another objection made to the Bill was on account of the retiring allowance given under it to the Lord Chancellor, but if it was compared with what was received by Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Eldon, and if the

one

fees abolished were considered, no ought to complain of it. The 12,000%. was less than was received in any one year during the Chancellorships of Lord Eldon and Lord Lyndhurst on account of their bankruptcy business, except one year of Lord Lyndhurst's, when it did not exceed 10,0007. With respect to the objection of part of the expense being defrayed out of the Dead Fund, as it was clear that all the suitors of the Court of Chancery would benefit by the arrangement, very little weight was to be attached to it. And it appeared, from an investigation ordered by the Lord Chancellor, that that fund would still be sufficiently large to answer all demands upon it. Another objection had been raised to this Bill on account of its giving the Lord Chancellor the appointment of the Judges who were to preside in this Court, but he could not see upon what foundation it rested, when, without dispute, he appointed all the Judges in Westminster Hall. Besides, he had already the appointment of these seventy Commissioners, vacancies among whom occurred every year and it was clear that the present system, costing the public 70,000l. a-year, instead of 30,000l., must give a greater annual patronage than could be exercised under the new Bill. It was objected, also, with regard to the period of the appointment of these Judges, that they might be in the receipt of their salaries several months before they commenced their duties. Now it must be considered that they did not at once go into a Court and begin their operations, but that they had to form a Court; and two months was not too much time for the purpose. In short this country had long been groaning and suffering under the most imperfect and inefficient system of law, with regard to bankruptcy matters, that it was possible to imagine, and had paid dearly for perjury, delay, and uncertainty. He had not troubled the House with a statement of the evidence of various witnesses upon these points, for they were notorious and undeniable. This Bill would substitute for all these evils an efficient Administration of justice, and therefore he should support it. He had refrained from entering into various topics introduced by his hon. and learned friend because he did not think it respectful to the House to occupy its time with any matter except the actual Bill.

Mr. John Smith rose to support the Bill,

the object of which was, to carry into effect alterations which he had urged upon the House many years ago, but without effect. It was in some measure by his humble means that the Committee which had been referred to was appointed by the House in 1818. The evidence given before that Committee convinced the House and the public, that the Bankrupt-laws as they stood were a source of villainy, fraud, and perjury, of the grossest and most odious kind. It was clearly made out in evidence that there were men plying, almost openly, a daily trade at the doors of the Court of Commissioners, and that they were ready, for small sums, to swear to any debts that might be required; that bills of exchange drawn for the purpose were put into the hands of these persons to support the proofs they made upon bankrupts' estates; and that thus the certificates of fraudulent bankrupts were obtained in spite of their real creditors. The opinions of some of the most eminent men in the city of Londou confirmed the opinion which he had formed, and convinced him that nothing was more injurious to the fair tradesman than the facility which the Bankrupt-laws afforded to fraud, while the delay and expense which accompanied them amounted in many cases to a total denial of justice. He knew many instances in which commercial men often were obliged to submit to great losses as a less evil than applying to the Equity Courts. He had known Lord Eldon reserve his opinion for sixteen years, to the ruin of suitors, though the point at issue was such as the new Court would settle in a few days. The evils now to be remedied, existed and were complained of thirty years ago. On one occasion a rich man refused to pay to the banking-house with which he was connected more than 4,000l. on his bond of 4,500l. The house had consulted its legal adviser, Mr. Kay, the solicitor of the Bank of England, who had told him, that the house could undoubtedly recover the money in a Chancery suit, "but," added Mr. Kay, "mind what I tell you, my bill will exceed the 5007." Under such circumstances the bankinghouse to which he belonged had no other alternative than submit to the loss. Such were the Courts of Equity. It often happened that a man who stopped payment would appear, on his books being inspected by his creditors, to be able to pay 18s. in the pound; but it was almost certain,

that if, instead of a composition by the creditors (which it was very difficult to effect with the consent of all the creditors) the man was driven into the Gazette his estate produced only a dividend of 2s. in the pound. The new Court, which had been denounced by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Sugden), whose ability and confident manner were calculated to make an impression on persons not as well acquainted as he was with this subject in all its bearings, was a feature in the Bill of which he very much approved. The official assignees, too, of which the same hon. and learned Gentleman disapproved, would, he (Mr. Smith) did not doubt, be the chief means of saving the estates of bankrupts, and making them productive. He had had so much experience of the evils occasioned by assignees, themselves in bad circumstances, getting the bankrupt's estates into their hands, and absconding or failing, that he was glad to see the security of a responsible officer interposed for the protection of the creditors. He hailed the measure as a proof of the earnestness and ability of the illustrious nobleman at the head of the law in this country in purifying the judicial institutions; and he thought a better beginning could not have been made than with the Bankrupt-laws, which were the worst in Europe, and a disgrace to the nation. He gave his most cordial support to the Bill.

Bill read a second time

SELECT VESTRIES BILL.] Sir John Hobhouse moved that the Bill be read a third time.

Mr. Trevor said, that he intended to speak on the principle of the Bill. At the then late hour of the night that would be extremely inconvenient. He suggested that the question for the passing of the Bill, which certainly was of a most important nature, should be postponed.

Sir John Hobhouse was surprised at any objection being made at this stage of the Bill, which he, and he believed every one else, thought had been already fully discussed.

Mr. Protheroe thought the Bill, instead of receiving any impediment, should be hastened as much as possible. The present system of vestries was one of great injustice. In numerous parishes, he was sure, taxes would not be paid if the present select vestries were continued.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Thursday, October 6, 1831. MINUTES.] Bills. Brought up from the House of Commons

Sir Robert Inglis said, he was somewhat surprised at the language of the hon. member for Bristol: he appeared to think the House would be deterred from its duty by threats. If there was no other reason to delay this important Bill, the remark of the hon. Member, that the parishes would legislate for themselves, was sufficient to induce the House to do so, and not to pass such a Bill at that late hour.

Mr. Spring Rice said, the Bill had been most fully discussed, besides having been under the attention of a Committee up stairs for several months, who had recommended it to the House: it had been examined at full length before a Committee of the whole House. He could not imagine what useful purpose the hon. Member could gain by now (opposing it, for there was no doubt it must ultimately pass into a law.

Mr. George Dawson said, he was favourable to the principle of the Bill, and had no intention of opposing it, but for the violent language of the hon. member for Bristol, who had attempted to overawe the House by threats. He objected accordingly to the third reading at that time.

Mr. Protheroe said, he had no intention to use the language of intimidation or to appeal to the fears of the House. He knew such an attempt would be wholly unsuccessful. His only motive for supporting the Bill was, to restore to the people the authority that of right belonged to them, but which had been lessened by select vestries at various places.

Sir John Hobhouse said, any discussion on this Bill at so late a state of its progress could only delay it from passing for a very short time; if the hon. Member, therefore, thought proper to again argue it he would endeavour to meet him. He would only add, that in urging the passing of this Bill he was not stimulated by any thing that was passing out of doors.

Mr. Trevor said, he had no desire to impose any unnecessary delay, but he wished the third reading to be postponed until the next day, and he should propose an amendment to that effect.

The House divided on the Original Question. Ayes 38; Noes 8-Majority 30. The Bill read a third time and passed.

and read a first time; the Vestries Bill; the Whiteboy Act Amendment Bill; the Public Hospitals (Ireland) Bill; the Customs' Fees Regulations Bill; the Payment of Wages in Money Bill; and the Payment of Wages in Goods Repeal Bill. Referred to a Select Committee; the Cotton Factories.

Petitions presented. In favour of Reform. By the Earl of CAMPERDOWN, from the Incorporation of Weavers, Cupar; and of the Inhabitants of Auchtermuchty :-By the Earl of RADNOR, from the Freeholders and Inhabitants of the County of Berks:-By Earl GowER, from the Inhabitants of Invergordon and Giggleswick, and from the Staffordshire Potteries:-By Lord ABERCROMBIE, from Inhabitants of Dundee :-By the Marquis of WESTMEATH, from the Inhabitants of Kildalkey :-By the Earl of FIFE, from Keith, in Banffshire:- By the Duke of ARGYLE, from Campbeltown, Argyleshire:-By Earl GREY, from Glendall Ward, Northumberland; Staines; Seven Oaks, in Kent; and from High Street, St. Giles's, signed by all the Inhabitants except five:-By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from Huddersfield, signed by 7,500 Persons; from the Ward of Bishops'gate:- Buglanton; Deddington; Dunkeld; Selby; St. Giles, Camberwell; the Protestant Freemen of Galway, St. Clement's Danes, Anstey and Chorley:---By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Rothsay, in the Isle of Bute:-By Lord DACRE, from Cheshunt and Amersham. Against Reform. By the Marquis of SALISBURY, from Hitchin, praying that the Reform Bill may not pass without due securities being taken that the Constitution shall remain unimpaired:By the Earl of FINGAL, from the Corporation, Clergy, and Justices of the Peace, Galway, praying that the Galway Franchise Bill may pass into a law:-By the Marquis of HEADFORT, from the Protestant Freemen of Galway Corporation:-By the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from the resident Protestant Free Burgesses of Galway :-By the Marquis of WESTMEATH, from the Town of Galway :By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the resident Freemen of Galway.

FEES IN COMMON LAW COURTS.] The Earl of Shaftesbury moved the third reading of the Fees in Courts of Law Bill.

The Lord Chancellor said, if any sound objection could be made to this Bill he should have no objection to have it reconsidered. According to a statement made last night by a noble Earl, this Bill would unjustly affect the interests of some of the Welsh Judges, whose case he should not object to have considered.

Earl Cawdor said, that the Law Commissioners were not authorized to grant compensation for fees which were not enforced by Act of Parliament, or by a prescription of fifty years. Now it was notorious that fees were received and considered legal which did not come within either of these heads. The emoluments of some of the Welsh Judges depended entirely on such fees, and by this Act they would not be entitled to any compensation, which was not, he supposed, intended by the Bill.

The Lord Chancellor thought there should be some limit of time fixed, and if

injustice were done, a Special Report | coast, and had important duties, pregnant might be made by the Commissioners. He with advantage to the country, to perform. thought the Welsh Judges did not come He did not know whether the abolition of within the meaning of the Bill. such duties would be one of the necessary changes expected from this Bill, but it was very likely that it might be one of the results of it.

Lord Tenterden said, in order to arrive at a proper understanding with respect to this Bill, it was necessary to consider the circumstances which rendered its adoption necessary. The Common-law Commission having determined that the abolition of certain fees was desirable, and that a compensation in lieu should be made to those entitled to receive them, a Commission was consequently appointed to determine those points, and that commission considered that under the Act 1 Will. 4, c. 58, which had been passed for the purpose of regulating the receipt and appropriation of fees and emoluments receiveable by the Officers of the superior Courts of Common Law, they were bound only to entertain the claims of such persons as could shew they were entitled to these fees by authority of Parliament or some other legal authority. This necessarily led to considerable difficulty, and it was, therefore, thought adviseable to bring in the present Act, in order that such fees should be established as legal fees when there had been an enjoyment for a given period; and that period, after much consideration had been fixed at fifty years. Bill read a third time and passed.

REFORM-PETITIONS.] Lord King presented Petitions in favour of the Reform Bill, from a parish in Halifax, Yorkshire, signed by 1,100 persons, from the Outdwellers in the port of Dover, who expressed themselves willing to resign their existing rights, in order to facilitate the passing of this Bill, and from several other places. The petitioners also prayed that the office of Warden of the Cinque Ports might be abolished, as the influence of that officer was opposed to Reform.

The Earl of Glengall presented a Petition from Tipperary in favour of the Reform Bill. He wished, in doing so, to take the opportunity to state his reasons for voting against the second reading of the Reform Bill. He was a decided friend to a Reform in the Representation of the people of England, but he conceived that a very wide difference existed between voting against Reform in general, and voting against this Bill. He for one was most desirous to see a moderate measure of Reform introduced, and he was sure that such a measure, if it were brought forward, would meet not only with the general approbation of that House, but with the approval of the great majority of intelligent persons in the three kingdoms.

Lord Belhaven presented a Petition from the corporation of Haddington, in favour of the Reform Bill. The petitioners were persons who were interested in the present state of things, but they were willing to sacrifice such interests for the public good.

The Earl of Haddington said, that he had been long aware that there was a desire in Scotland for a Reform of the Representation there, but the Bill now before the House had nothing to do with that part of the United Kingdom. He was anxious to state on this occasion, that which he had intended to state last night, but which he had omitted to mentionnamely, to express his conviction of the necessity of Reform in Scotland. had never had, at any time, a doubt that if the principle of Reform was to be adopted at all, its application to Scotland was essentially necessary. He had on former occasions resisted Reform for Scotland, because he was of opinion that it would be impossible to introduce it without its being followed by a Reform of the Repre

He

The Duke of Wellington, referring to a passage in the petition from the Dover voters, said, that he did not think that the office of Warden of the Cinque Ports had anything to do with the rights of the freeholders in Dover or elsewhere. An Act of Parliament was in existence which pre-sentation in England. If Scotland had vented the Warden from having any thing to do with the election of a Member of Parliament, and he could not see what the office of Warden had to do with this Bill. The Warden of the Cinque Ports had the command of all the fortresses on that

remained an independent kingdom, and had flourished as it had done, the present system of Representation would never have continued there. It was now absolutely and essentially necessary that some kind of Parliamentary Reform should be

« ÎnapoiContinuă »