whether the party was a trader and came within its provisions, and questions in general of that sort. The arbitrator would investigate the accounts, and they would be decided upon oath-according to the rules of plain common sense. The Commissioner would, in the first instance, examine them; if they were complicated he would call in assistance, but all issues to be tried by a Jury would only relate to questions of fact. Mr. Warburton would take the case as the hon. and learned Gentleman put it, for there could be no doubt, if the Commissioners were authorized to call in assistance, they would do so in almost every case. Indeed, in times of mercantile distress it was impossible they could have time to investigate accounts without further assistance. In the year 1826 there were 10,291 public and private meetings; this would average five meetings a day to each of the six Commissioners, and he thought this duty alone would fully employ them. Clause to stand part of the Bill. On the question that the clause relating to Subdivision Courts stand part of the Bill, Sir Charles Wetherell said, the effect of this clause would be, that a party would have to run the gauntlet through all the Commissioners; he might appeal from one to another until he had run through the whole list. Mr. John Campbell thought nothing could be more simple than this provision. One Commissioner would decide upon ordinary questions, but if there was any difficulty he had the power to call in assistance. He was surprised, that the hon. and learned Gentleman should disapprove of this clause, when he knew that the great disadvantage of the present system was that three Commissioners must decide, by which much labour and money was thrown away. Besides, the practice was common in the superior Courts to have only one Judge. He frequently made motions before one, when if any question of importance arose, it was postponed by the Judge who presided until his brethren were present. This was the practice in the Court of King's Bench, and it would be followed by the Commissioners appointed under this Bill. Mr. Warburton was most ready to allow, that ordinary questions being decided by one Commissioner was an improvement but why should he appeal to two others if VOL. VIII. {s} Third the question was important? He could take time for deliberation instead of sheltering his ignorance under a plea of appealing to his fellows. He was afraid the practical effect of this arrangement would be to bring people into the Commission who were unfit for the office. Sir Charles Wetherell said, the case his hon. friend had put, relating to the practice in the Court of King's Bench, had not the slightest analogy to what would happen under this Bill. Upon such a motion as that made by his learned friend, there was no examination of witnesses, and no inquiry whatever. That case simply was, his hon. friend moved, perhaps, "That judgment be entered for the defendant," to which the Judge answered, "You had better move it when the Court is more full." How could such a case, with any propriety, be said to resemble the case of the Commissioner for Bankrupts, who must go through the whole of the case before him, whether he decided it or not, and who must put in motion the whole functions of a Judge before he could determine whether he would decide the question himself or refer it to others to decide. This part of the Bill was applicable, however, to something else, he meant a certain Cabinet measure, for which the hon. Gentlemen opposite said "We are all responsible alike." The Commissioners, who would form a sort of demi-Cabinet among themselves, would also follow this example, and say, "We will make this a Cabinet measure, and then we shall be all of us equally responsible." By these means this double hearing would be productive of no other results than as a sort of loop-hole through which guilty parties might escape, and would relieve the Judge from individual responsibility. He would not move an Amendment to the clause, for he despaired of carrying it, but he could not let it pass without shewing he had great objections to it. Mr. Serjeant Wilde said, the operation of the clause would be advantageous in this way that the parties in all cases of difficulty would have three well qualified persons to decide their case instead of one. Clause to stand part of the Bill. On the question relating to the appointment of Registrars and Deputy Registrars, Sir Charles Wetherell said, this clause was to appoint two Registrars at 8007. each, and eight Deputy Registrars with 2 D salaries of 6001. a-year each. These were | The most important orders were daily pretty handsome allowances certainly, but made under the simple signature of the he hoped to be told what were the duties Lord Chancellor. they would have to perform; for besides these, there was to be a Secretary for Bankrupts with a full establishment of clerks. The Attorney General said, his hon. and learned friend would of course recollect, that it was impossible to have a Bankruptcy Court without Registrars, and while the chief of them attended the Court they must have Deputies to look after the duties of their offices; and as to the expense, this establishment would cost 1,6007. a-year less than the present one. Mr. Warburton said, if these Registrars could be made the means of taking down the evidence and proceedings of the Court in short-hand it would save much time; every body knew that whole days were taken up occasionally with putting a few questions. Sir Charles Wetherell said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that short-hand writers would be much more useful than such an establishment of Registrars, whose appointment in such numbers he thought a farce if it was not for the purpose of obtaining patronage. He should, therefore, move as an Amendment, that the word "two" as applying to the Registrars be left out, and the word "one" substituted, and, that the word "eight" should be left out as applying to the Deputy Registrars in the clause, and that the word "four" be substituted. Amendment negatived, and the clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. On the clause authorizing the Lord Chancellor to issue a fiat in lieu of a Commission, Mr. Lefroy said, it appeared that the fiat might be issued both for London and Country Commissions. How was this fiat to be authenticated? The Seal authenticated itself, but that was not the case where only the signature of the individual was attached in London. The hand-writing might be well known, but how could the country Commissioners be sure that it was authentic? and upon the validity of the instrument depended the legality of their whole proceedings. A Commission might be issued at not more expense than a fiat, and was much more easily ascertained to be genuine. Clause agreed to. On the clause providing for the appointment of Country Commissioners and the directing fiats to them. Mr. Paget said, if the appointment of these Commissioners was left entirely to the Chancellor, who ought to be responsible for them, there would be more security for their being proper and respectable persons than if appointed by the Judges of Assize, who must be guided only by hearsay as to the merit and qualities of the persons to be appointed. The Attorney General said, he thought the case would be quite the contrary. The Judges went the circuit, and had the best opportunity of knowing, from actual observation, the merit and capabilities of the persons whom they appointed. That was an advantage that the Chancellor would be wholly destitute of, from his constant residence in town. Mr. John Campbell supported the clause. Nothing could be worse than the present appointments. The Commissioners were mostly country attornies who played into each other's hands. To show how the present system worked, he would state a fact, the truth of which was perfectly well known to him :-A friend of his, a practitioner at a provincial Bar, was made a Commissioner; a case of bankruptcy occurred, and considerable sums of money were collected from the estate. "Now," said my friend to the attorney, "I think we may have a dividend." "A dividend!" echoed the attorney with great surprise, "let me advise you never to mention the word dividend,' or you will not suit us." Mr. Burge objected to the clause that there would be two kinds of jurisdiction established by it. The country Commissioners were not to have the same powers as the London Commissioners. He wished to know if these country Commissioners were to have the power to direct issues? The Attorney General said, if it was desirable issues should be tried in the country, he saw no reason why an amendment to that effect should not be introduced. The object of the clause was only to improve the general practice of such Commissions. Sir Charles Wetherell said, the plain The Solicitor General observed, in reply matter of fact was, that out of 1,500 to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that Commissions of bankruptcy annually ishis objection was of no weight whatever. | sued, 500 was the outside of those which took place in London-so that two-thirds of the bankruptcy cases would never be brought before the new Issue Court as established by this Bill, and he would never consent to an extension of what appeared to him likely to be an absurd and troublesome system. was not at all likely that the machinery would be found to suit the new codes. He had hitherto made no remarks on these laws, but had confined himself to the new Court. When they came to the laws themselves, he feared they would find it a very difficult task to prevent complaints as to their working in particular cases. Clause agreed to. On the clause providing that a discretionary power of superseding Commissions should be vested in the Great Seal, The Attorney General was perfectly ready to admit, that the materials could not be readily found in a country town for the constitution of such a Court as was proposed to be formed in London; neither was it expedient or necessary, for a large proportion of the country bankruptcies were brought to London to be worked, and surely, if every case could not be em-ference with the rules of his Court, as braced, that was a very bad reason why already long since clearly laid down and the management of other cases should not established by long usage. be improved. Sir Charles Wetherell said, the Bill constituted a new Court, and many of the questions which would be brought before it were matters of right; others were matters of discretion. A larger discretionary power ought to be allowed, or they would find the machinery of this much-lauded Court not competent to deal with the laws that were left. The Solicitor General observed, that the present measure had nothing whatever to do with the Bankrupt-laws themselves, but only related to the administration of them. The whole of the present laws were consolidated about six years ago, by a bill brought in by Mr. Eden. The new machinery, he was free to admit, was not applicable to some of their provisions. Sir Charles Wetherell objected, that such a power should be delegated Chancellor. It would be a direct inter The Solicitor General replied, that there were sufficient constitutional controls for the prevention of that judicial functionary's improperly enforcing this privilege in any Commission that should come under his cognizance, and the Bill expressly provided, that he should exercise it in no case, except where manifest and valid grounds should be shown for his interference. Mr. John Campbell said, the Chancellor might be impeached in this as well as in other cases if he abused the power given him: all that was done by granting the supersedeas was simply saying, he should have the same authority over the fiat that he had over the Commission. Sir Charles Wetherell said, that by the rules of the Court, and by the usual practice, the Chancellor could only decree A's property to B in certain known cases; but the clause enabled him to supersede a Commission at his good pleasure. Mr. Freshfield observed, that instead of putting the order or fiat upon the same footing as the Commission now stood, this clause was so prodigal in its power, as to allow the Chancellor to do what he pleased with the fiat, regardless of existing rules. Mr. Warburton said, the age of the. statute was of very little consequence; the great object of inquiry was, whether the law were good, and, if not, how it could be improved. Many gross errors and faults had been pointed out in the Bankrupt-laws. He would just mention one the law now was, that if a man became a bankrupt thrice, and his estate, in the second Commission, did not pay 15s. Mr. Bonham Carter said, these) existin the pound on the third bankrupt-ing rules were cases in which former Chancy, the assignees for the second bankruptcy could pounce upon the effects of the third. This operated frequently as an inducement to fraud. He himself had been concerned in a case where this effect took place. Sir Charles Wetherell said, it was a whimsical course to make a new Court before the anomalies and absurdities of the whole of the present system of the Bankrupt-laws were revised and corrected. It cellors had, in the exercise of their discretion, come to certain decisions. There were no statute rules. Sir Charles Wetherell said, certainly there were no statute rules, but there was the usage of two centuries; and they now proposed that the Chancellor should wholly dispense with that usage, and decide wholly at his unlimited discretion. He would not, however, press his objection to a division. Clause carried. On the clause relating to the appointment of official assignees being read, Mr. Warburton suggested, that as this and other subsequent clauses might give rise to some discussion, it was advisable that at that advanced hour (half-past two o'clock) the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Lord Althorp assented to the proposal. The House resumed-the Committee to sit again the next day. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS CONTEMPT BILL.] The Attorney General moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill, and said, he hoped to be allowed to read this Bill a second time. He moved that it be then read a second time. Mr. Ruthven considered the Bill most objectionable, as he understood it was intended to have a retrospective operation. He was so decidedly opposed to it, that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman persisted in his motion, he would divide the House upon it. The Attorney General said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not give the House the trouble of dividing, as he would have ample opportunity of discussing the Bill in the Committee, but he must persist in his motion of carrying through the second reading that night. The House divided:-Ayes 35; Noes 5--Majority 30. The Bill read a second time. HOUSE OF LORDS, MINUTES.] Bills received the Royal Assent. Church Build ings; Charity Commissioners; Money Payment of Wages; Barbadoes Importation; Common Law Fees; Employment for Labourers; Customs Fees; Scotch Turnpikes; Plurali ties; Special Constables; Galway Franchise; Poor Relief; Public Works (Ireland); Public Hospitals (Ireland); White Boy Act Amendment, and the Arms (Ireland.) Read a second time; Distillation (Ireland.) Read a third time; Valuation of Land (Ireland), and Military Accounts (Ireland.) Petitions presented. By the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, from the Freeholders of the County of Peebles, not to be united to Selkirkshire, and from the Borough of Selkirk, for an alteration of that district. SELECT VESTRIES BILL.] The Earl of Abingdon presented the Report of the Committee on the Select Vestries Bill. Viscount Melbourne understood, that the Committee had made the adoption of this Bill in a parish to depend on the votes of two-thirds of the rate-payers. He begged to propose as an Amendment, that two-thirds of those who actually voted should be inserted, instead of a similar majority of the whole of the rate-payers. Lord Skelmersdale said, the Committee had considered that two-thirds of the actual voters was not enough to decide such a question. Viscount Melbourne said, it was the duty of all persons who paid rates to attend the parochial meetings. If they did not attend, then the affairs of the parish ought not to be delayed because of their neglect. The Earl of Harrowby said, there could be no question but that the Committee thought that two-thirds of the whole number of rate-payers, was the smallest number which could be allowed to decide. Viscount Melbourne must persist in his Amendment, and he would, therefore, at once move, that the words "all the ratepayers" be left out, and the words "a majority of the votes so given" be inserted in their stead. The Earl of Harrowby said, he was of opinion there was no meaning in the proposed Amendment. It was quite clear that means would be found to obtain a majority of two-thirds of the voters, and if parishes, upon a majority being procured by any underhand contrivances, once adopted the Bill, the evils which might result would be irremediable, because the harm would be already done. He did not think the noble Viscount had brought forward any grounds to justify such a material alteration. Viscount Melbourne thought the regulation very absurd as it stood, and as to any fraud or contrivance being practised, the same objection would apply to all meetings of the same nature. He continued of opinion, that the question of adoption or not ought to depend upon a majority of two-thirds of those who attended, and those who did not think proper to come forward and vote ought to be considered as having no interest in the question. The Earl of Harrowby said, there was this distinction between an adoption of the vestry system, and the generality of matters brought before parish meetings, that the latter were open to future reconsideration, while this could not be; therefore, it was necessary that the manner of deciding on it should be without shadow of suspicion. On these grounds he felt himself called upon to oppose the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount. The Lord Chancellor said, he had had to the noble Duke, that he had not pledged himself to adopt the principle of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, or to any particular view of the question. His only object was, to make the measure efficient, and he thought the noble Earl's Amendment was likely to impair that efficiency, and, therefore, he should oppose it. some communications with parties interested in this Bill, and their opinions were so strong against the alteration made in the Committee with regard to substituting two-thirds of the whole rate-payers for two-thirds of those who were actually present, that such persons had even gone so far as to say, that they would rather be without the Bill than accept it clogged with such a condition. He wished, therefore, for further time for consideration, that he might fully ascertain what was the general feeling, and what was likely to be the effects of the measure. He should propose, accordingly, that the matter should stand over until Monday. The Earl of Delawarr had an Amendment which he wished to have introduced, and which he would then mention. It would have for its object the placing the right of voting on the same principle as was adopted in Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act. He thought a regulation of that sort indispensable. His proposal was, that all those who paid under 501. rent should have but one vote, and all those who paid above that sum should have an extra vote for every additional 251. of rent; but to make such further provision, that no person could have more than six votes. The Lord Chancellor said, the multitude of his avocations had hitherto prevented him from reading this Bill, and he requested, therefore, time to make himself acquainted with it. As the Bill was not yet printed, he thought he could do so if the discussion were postponed for a day or two, and in the mean time the Bill could be printed with the Amendments proposed. The Earl of Haddington agreed with the noble and learned Lord. It was most desirable their Lordships should know all the Amendments to be proposed without delay. The Earl of Falmouth thought, that property should have its due weight in every parish, and, therefore, he was in favour of the principle of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act. He had had practical experience that it worked well where it had been adopted. With respect to the observations of the noble and learned Lord, that he required time to consider the effects of the proposed Amendment, he thought that could be hardly necessary, because the clause itself was copied from a bill which was introduced by the present Ministers themselves in the last Session of Parliament. Bill to be re-committed on Monday, and printed with Amendments. BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL RETURNS.] The Lord Chancellor, in consequence of certain misrepresentations which had been circulated respecting himself and the Bill which he had introduced into that House for the reform of the administration of the Bankrupt-laws, was induced to move for several returns connected with the subject, the production of which would be the means of disabusing the public mind. He was both astonished and mortified, to find that an attack of a most singular and extraordinary character had been made upon him in a publication, by a learned friend-the venerable father of the Bar, and the father of Law Reform-for whose virtues, talents, and professional acquirements, he had always entertained the reThe Duke of Wellington said, there spect which they were so justly calculated appeared a misunderstanding on all sides to excite. As the attack did not ostensibly with regard to the Bill. He had under- bear the name of his respected and venerstood the noble Viscount (Viscount Mel-able friend, he would abstain from naming bourne), who had the management of it, proposed to adopt the principles of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, and make them applicable to the metropolitan parishes, as the operation of that Bill was at present confined to the provinces, where it had given general satisfaction. If the Bill was passed, it ought to become the general law instead of leaving it to parishes to adopt it or not. Viscount Melbourne observed, in reply him in that House, although the author was sufficiently indicated by the character, circumstances, and style of the attack, which he could account for only by attributing it to certain prejudices and theories upon the subject which his learned friend entertained. The charge was of a most extraordinary nature, for it was nothing less than that he had brought forward the Bill, and had pressed it through the House, because the effect of it would be, to put an |