last night, said of the Commissioners, be justified, except by the exigency of the case. The statute handed over the merchant to the order and direction of the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, the Treasurer, the Chief Justices of the King's Bench or Common Pleas, and another Minister. One of these parties was always to form part of the tribunal which was to take charge of him. No forms of pleading were prescribed, no rules of Court drawn up; no orders, no directions were given; in short, no limitation was placed to the power possessed by these parties over a bankrupt. The law continued in that Yet they were told by others, that this body, consisting of seventy persons, were sufficient satisfactorily to decide all the various complicated questions that arose upon this branch of jurisprudence. To do this Bill justice, hon. Gentlemen must understand the whole of that system upon which it was intended to operate. At that late hour of the night he would not trouble the House with what at no time was pleasurable, a technical legal argument; and indeed he was relieved from all difficulty upon that point; for the Bill did state for thirty years, and then came the not in the slightest degree touch the pre- 13th of Elizabeth, which, perhaps, might be sent system of law, except in one par- more truly said to have laid the foundation ticular, which all eulogized. In that of our present bankruptcy system. That particular, it would remedy an evil pointed statute introduced Commissioners as conout by the hon. member for Buckingham- venient persons to whom the Great Seal was shire. He alluded to that clause in the to delegate the order and administration of Bill which was to give validity to concerted the bankrupt's affairs. By a construction Commissions. The hon. member for of that statute, which would now be conBuckinghamshire stated the difficulties of sidered questionable, if not too late, this the mercantile world in winding up the ordering and direction, instead of being affairs of an insolvent trader by means of shared among the other officers of the a deed of trust. Now, concerted Commis- State named in the statute of Henry 8th sions would have the effect of deeds of was assumed by all Lord Chancellors, trust, and this Bill would rescue trustees from the reign of Elizabeth downwards. under such circumstances from the perilous Eighteen statutes were afterwards passed responsibility which now rested upon them. upon the subject of bankruptcy, most of His hon. and learned friend had told them, them of the kind he had described, till the among other reasons for not altering this great statute of George 2nd. They all system, that it was founded in enlightened treated the bankrupt as an offender; and times. He was happy to state, for the although they contained clauses for the satisfaction of the House, that it formed security of creditors, their provisions in no part of that ancient jurisprudence which other respects must make them be looked they were told ought not to be touched; upon as penal statutes; and, what was a that it was in truth modern, but as to great singularity, one of them contained whether it was founded in enlightened an express declaration, that, although times, he would presently give the House highly penal, they were to be construed reason to judge. The Bankrupt-law owed against the bankrupt in the most liberal its origin to the reign of Henry 8th. way. The last Act repealed them all, as Before then there was no such thing as a also fifteen general orders that had been Bankrupt-law, or any law approaching to incorporated with them. The Bankruptit in character, except those which related law was said not only to be very perfect to our dealings with the Lombard mer- on account of the number of statutes chants. He should say, therefore, that in that had been passed upon it, but from the statute of the 34th and 35th of Henry the great care and attention that had been 8th originated the present system. At bestowed upon it by different Lord Chanthat time our mercantile speculations were cellors, particularly by Lord Hardwicke beginning to enlarge, and there being, as and Lord Eldon. With respect to the the preamble of the Act stated, great latter, he had been under great obligations frauds committed by persons becoming to him in the early part of his life-obligabankrupt, the statute was passed. In tions which he should never forget, and he what manner did it treat bankrupts? It would join in every eulogy that could be treated them as offenders, and handed them passed upon him. As a Judge, he was as over to a jurisdiction which could not now great and eminent as it was possible to be. be justified; nor was it then attempted to | But the present Bill was not founded upon imputations cast upon Lords Eldon and Hardwicke. It was, indeed, the object of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to deal with this case personally. He would introduce no personal observations, except of a complimentary nature. But what was the conclusion he drew from these labours of Lord Eldon and Lord Hardwicke? It was, that so monstrously defective was the system, as far as the statutes were concerned, that to make out anything like equity it was necessary to resort to great and eminentJudges, who, under authorities questionable in point of law, had given a perfection to the system for which he should look in vain in the statutes which enacted it. The first question which any man would ask in looking at this law of statutes, of orders, and judgments of successive Chancellors, must be-how can such a system have been tolerated? The fact was, that it had been only the great exertions of eminent Judges, acting on doubtful judicial authority, which had given solidity to the system. But just in the same proportion that the Judges were complimented, the system itself was proved to be defective. Perhaps the House would allow him shortly to state the actual operation of the whole system. The Statute of 1 Elizabeth appointed individuals to exercise the important functions of Commissioners. These gentlemen, the present Commissioners, were comparatively young and inexperienced; but, whatever might be their errors on that account, they were as honest, as conscientious, and as enlightened a body as could be brought together under such a vicious system. Gentlemen of eminence, experience, and standing at the Bar, could not be induced to take upon themselves these comparatively humble functions. What would the House think when he told them, that in all the reports there was not one report of a case decided before the Commissioners-no report of any argument held before them? In short, they were never considered to form a Court for the purposes of law, all matters of law in bankruptcy going, directly or indirectly to the other Courts. The hon. member for Bridport last night admitted that the average number of petitions before the Lord Chancellor was 600, and he thought he made an important distinction when he stated, that fourteen of them only were appeal petitions, and that the others were original. But what would the people of England say of Third VOL. VIII. {Series} that system by which 600 petitions had been drawn from the Commissioners by the Court of Chancery, although no statute had delegated the power of hearing them to the Great Seal? All matters ought first to go before the Commissioners, and only to come before the Lord Chancellor by appeal. These petitions to the Chancellor were statements upon paper, confined by no rule of pleading, but containing pretty much what the petitioner chose to put in them. This statement had to be verified by affidavits, which were again answered by contrary affidavits. But as the history of these interminable affidavits had been given by some of his learned friends, he should not pursue it further. He had known many cases in his experience, in which the only limit set to this mischievous species of litigation (if considered with reference to expense) had been the utter exhaustion of all funds. Another matter, perhaps even more important, he must mention to the House: it was almost impossible to conceive the horrid perjuries to which this system led; but the House might form some notion of it, when he stated, that most of the cases which gave rise to these petitions, were cases in which fraud was charged on both sides, and in which there were attacks upon personal character. What was the situation of a Judge who had to decide on a case so brought before him? It was matter of daily complaint and lamentation, both by lawyers and Judges, that it was impossible in such a mass of contradictory evidence to get at the truth. This arose not only from the infirmity of all written testimony, and from the statement of the parties being voluntary, and from nobody cross-examining them, but because crimination and recrimination took place till there was a mass of affidavits containing contradictions which made the barrister throw them down in a species of moral disgust. The Judge dared not decide upon such evidence, and at last sent the case to an issue, to be tried in a Court unconnected with the Court of Chancery, where all the affidavits were good for nothing, and the case was tried as between plaintiff and defendant, with due forms of pleading, and all the advantages of oral evidence. A new trial after this might be wanted; instead of moving for it before the Court which tried the issue, the parties came again to the Lord Chancellor. If they were pleased with the manner in which their case had been conducted in the Court of common-law, they brought the same counsel, at a great expense, to argue the motion for a new trial, into the Court of Chancery. He had known casesboth where new trials were granted and refused-ultimately decided upon grounds, which, if taken originally, would have prevented all the expense of going to a Court of common-law. Considering this as an experimental Bill, the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge had, most likely, not thought himself bound to read it so attentively as if it were an established law, and had, therefore, fallen into a mistake with respect to the appeals to the Lord Chancellor. The appeals under the present system were such as he had stated them to be. But there was another evil to complain of. When a case had run the gauntlet of the Commissioners, of the Vice-chancellor's Court, and the Court of King's Bench, where the facts were decided upon, if some ingenious counsel could persuade the Great Seal that the matter in dispute was equity, and not to be dealt with in a Court of common-law-what, then, did the House think was the course pursued? Under the existing system it frequently happened, that before a party could receive a single shilling out of the estate to be divided, he must file a bill in Chancery, and thus commence de novo. The Lord Chancellor sitting in Bankruptcy, was not the Lord Chancellor sitting in Chancery. Therefore, when a bill in Chancery was filed, the party, in point of fact, commenced the whole of his proceedings de novo. The House would no doubt recollect the bankruptcy of Marsh, Stracy and Co., with whom the unfortunate man, Fauntleroy, had been connected. In that case every species of litigation was resorted to. In the Court of Chancery there was petition after petition. The best opinions, the soundest judgments, were given upon every disputed point, yet, from the defective state of the system upon which the bankrupt business was disposed of, the parties were still enabled to prevent a final settlement, and to multiply legal proceedings and legal expenses to an extent quite unprecedented either in his recollection, or in that of any other practitioner at the Bar. As the law at present stood, let the question in bankruptcy be ever so important, ever so proper for the considera- | tion of a Court of law, any of the parties, by filing a bill in Chancery, compelled the others to go through all the forms, and bear all the expenses of a long proceeding in equity. That being the case, could any man doubt the necessity of making an alteration in the existing law, and of establishing some such jurisdiction in bankruptcy as should prevent a repetition or a continuance of the evils of the present system? One of the great objects which any law upon matters of this kind should have in view, should be a speedy distribution of assets among the creditors. He had stated enough to shew that that was not and could not be the case under the existing mode of administering the Bankrupt-laws. Then, was it not the duty of Parliament to interfere, and to pass such measures as should place the creditor on a fairer footing? What was the object of this Bill? It was not to alter the law, but to improve its machinery, and the means of administering it. For he agreed with his hon. friends, that although he did not admire the means by which our Bankrupt-law was obtained, yet that, in point of fact-by what means it now mattered not-there was built up and consolidated as perfect a system of law upon the subject of bankruptcy as could well be imagined. That being the case, but abuses still existing-it was obvious, if the law was perfect, that the means of administering it must be imperfect. Then it became the duty of the Legislature to correct those means. That could only be done by establishing a new Court. To establish a new Court was the object of this Bill. To accept this Bill, then, was the duty of this House. They were asked, why establish a new Court? For this reason-that hereafter, as far as bankruptcy was concerned, law and equity might be administered in the same Court-that one single tribunal might be erected to determine that which hitherto had been subject to the various, the conflicting, the expensive and unsatisfactory decisions of different persons in different capacities, from the Commissioners to the Lord Chancellor-from a jury of the Court of common-law to the House of Lords. The hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge, among other objections to the Bill, said, that by the Subdivision Court it was proposed to vest in a single Commissioner powers which had hitherto only been intrusted to three. In his opinion, there was no reasonable ground of ob introduction of this Bill to the consideration of Parliament. His character as a public man stood too high to demand eulogy from any one; he, therefore, should leave that character where he found it. Any thing he could say would fall short of his merit; and there was not one of his labours which more entitled him to the gratitude of his country than this attempt to amend the administration of the Bankrupt-laws. And if the House passed the Bill into a law, among the many monuments to his fame this would be one of the most celebrated-one of the most lasting. Mr. Arthur Trevor moved, that the Debate be adjourned. jection upon that point. The one Com-pointment. Was there any foundation for missioner would have a power which he the hon. and learned Member's argument had not hitherto possessed. That, how- against this Bill upon the grounds of ever, only increased his responsibility, and patronage and expense? The Bill was to a if he had any difficulty upon a point, and certain extent an experimental Bill; but desired to have the opinion of other re-doubtless it would be found to answer. sponsible persons upon it, he would be There was one other point, and one only, able to obtain that opinion at once, and to which he would allude before resumwithout any delay; he would only have ing his seat. A sense of justice to the to walk into another room, meet his bro- noble and eminent person who now prether Commissioners, and thus at once de-sided in the Court of Chancery, deterred termine the doubtful point. Then there him from attempting to defend him from was the Court of Review, to which the the attacks which had been made upon first appeal might be made from the de-him in the House, in consequence of his cision of the Commissioners. The general advantage of this Court would be, to prevent appeals from being carried either to the Court of Chancery or the House of Lords. The Judges who would preside in it were to be eminent lawyers, and from their decisions it could not be expected that many appeals would be made. The Court of Review, too, would be not only a Court of Record, but a Court of law and equity. It would try issues of fact, as well as determine points of equity. If the suitor, however, was dissatisfied, he would not lose his right of appeal to the highest tribunal of the country, any more than under the existing law; but it was hoped that, by the establishment of the Court of Review, the evils of ruinous expense and vexatious delay would, in almost every case, be effectually guarded against. The hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge had brought forward a most formidable statement with respect to the expenses to which this Bill would give rise, as well as the patronage which it would create. The patronage to the Lord Chancellor must be-would be boundless, illimitable-the expense enormous-certainly not less than 26,4001. a-year. How the hon. and learned Gentleman could have arrived at those conclusions he knew not. He complained of not having had sufficient time to make himself acquainted with the provisions of the Bill. How could he find out then that the patronage would be so boundless-the expenses so enorinous? Petitions presented. In favour of Reform. By the Earl of The fact was, that the Bill would not cost the country 17. per annum, because the whole of its expenses would be more than paid out of the fees derived from the suitors in the new Court. As for patronage, the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to forget that the Lord Chancellor abolished by this Bill, the seventy Commissionerships, to which he had always had the ap Lord Althorp said, if there were any Gentlemen who wished to speak on the principle of the Bill, he, of course, could not expect them to go on at that late hour, but any main objections which hon. and learned Members might have to propose would be equally available to their purpose in the Committee. Mr. Pemberton stated, that it was his intention to offer certain arguments which applied to the principle of the Bill. The Debate adjourned. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, October 13, 1831. MINUTES.] Bills. Brought up from the House of Commons and read a first time; the Relief and Employment of the Poor; and the Barbadoes Importation Bill. Committed; Arms (Ireland); Consolidated Fund Appropriation. Read a third time; White Boy Offences (Ireland.) MULGRAVE, from the Inhabitants of Kinsale :-By Lord KING, from Inhabitants of Great Wigston, for the Elective Franchise in Galway to be extended to Catholics. By the same NOBLE LORD, from the Catholic Inhabitants of Merchants Quay, Galway. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the Inhabitants of Rosern. By LORD KING, from Inhabitant Householders of St. Giles's in the Fields, and St. George's Bloomsbury, in favour of the Vestries Bill. By the Earl of MULGRAVE, from the Inhabitants of Lismore for the Abolition of Slavery. IRISH YEOMANRY.] Lord King pre know so little of the country, was misinformed by interested persons, and he had also to be told, that he was not correct in his observations, with respect to what he said of the system pursued during the government of the Marquis Cornwallis. sented a Petition from the Landed Pro- | to the efficiency of the Yeomanry of Ireprietors, Householders, and Inhabitants of land. The noble Baron, who professed to the county of Carlow, praying that the Yeomanry force of Ireland should be disbanded, and another force substituted to preserve the peace. The petitioners stated, that the Yeomanry of the county of Carlow were men of the lowest ranks, and the employing such men to preserve The Marquis of Westmeath was himself the peace was itself a cause of much vio- an Officer of the Yeomanry, and could lence and disturbance, and therefore on speak to their general good conduct. that account they were anxious that their Some unhappy occurrences had lately Lordships should adopt some measure to taken place, to which the attention of dispense with the Yeomanry force. It Government had been directed; Ministers might, perhaps, be difficult to dispense had done everything to repress and restrain with that force at present, but he agreed such occurrences, with the petitioners, that another force would answer the purpose better. During the Administration of Lord Cornwallis, the Yeomanry were kept in the back ground, and it was improper to employ them at all, except in times of great difficulty and danger. They could not be employed in ordinary times, without perpetuating the evils of animosity and dissension, which were too prevalent in Ireland. He took this occasion to present the petition, as he saw several noble Lords connected with Ireland on the opposite bench. The Earl of Roden thanked the noble Lord for presenting the petition when they were in attendance, and could give an answer as to the charges against the Yeomanry. The noble Lord was totally mistaken when he stated that the Irish Yeo- | manry were men of the lowest rank. They were a body of substantial men, and remarkably well adapted for effectually putting down disturbances, and they were men attached to the best interests of Ireland. As to their being men of the lowest order, he could answer that by a direct negative. He was himself a Captain of one of these corps, and could answer for their general good conduct. Petition to lie on the Table. GALWAY FRANCHISE BILL.] On the Motion of the Marquis of Clanricarde, the House went into a Committee on the Galway Franchise Bill. The Duke of Wellington said, that he was surprised the noble Marquis had not moved the repeal of the Act of the 4th of George 1st, instead of bringing in a Bill partially to repeal it, and admit Catholics to the rights of freemen of that Corporation. When he had taken up the subject he had sought to do away with the Bill altogether, as it was inconsistent with the spirit of the law now adopted towards the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom; and it was only by inadvertence, when he brought in the Catholic Relief Bill, that he omitted to propose to repeal this among the multitude of other obnoxious Statutes which that measure got rid of. He wished to draw their Lordships' attention to the preamble of the 4th of George 1st, with a view to show the true meaning of that Act, and how inconsistent it was to allow any part of it to remain in force: the preamble stated the great importance of the loyalty and fidelity of the garrison of the town of Lord King said, that he himself knew Galway to the Protestant interest; it also little of Ireland, and had, therefore, only set forth the disposition of the majority of expressed the opinion of the petitioners, the Corporation to favour Popery, and when he stated, that the Yeomanry of the to create freemen favourable to that recounty of Carlow were of the lowest de-ligion. Among the various enactments scription. He did not dispute the devotion of the Yeomanry to their country, but he was of opinion, that they ought to be employed only in times of difficulty and danger, and at present they might well be dispensed with. Viscount Lorton begged to confirm in the strongest manner what had been so well said by the noble Earl, with respect there was the very important one, that four Magistrates of the county of Galway, being Protestants, should have jurisdiction as Justices of the Peace within the county of the town, and that from the 40s. freeholders, being Protestants, should be selected the Juries to try offences committed within the town. And further, that any Protestant artizan or tradesman residentwithin the town |