Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

amicable settlement was to be attempted in the first instance.

The Attorney-General said, he had never before heard that the existing Commissioners were not at all times ready and desirous to mediate.

Mr. Warburton said, the hearsay of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not to be put in comparison with his experience as a creditor. He had often been told by the Commissioners, "Dont talk to us of mediation, we can hear nothing of the kind here, we are to settle the business according to law.

Clause agreed to.

The clause relating to the Abolition of Fees was then read,

The Attorney-General said, that it was proposed to make some compensation to the holders of patent offices which were to be abolished by this Bill. That compensation was intended to be formed on the average of the profits of these patent offices for three years. With respect to the retiring pensions, there was no intention at present to press a compensation clause for them, for the Government had not received sufficient information on the subject to enable them to lay any wellfounded calculation before the House. That brought him to the case of the Commissioners whose office would be abolished by this Bill. It was proposed that compensation should be given to those Commissioners who had been appointed before the time of Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, but not to those who had received their appointments since that period. The reason for making this distinction was, that from the time of Lord Lyndhurst entering upon the office, there had been an intention to change the system, and every Commissioner appointed by that noble Lord, and all those appointed by the present Lord Chancellor, had taken their appointments subject to their knowledge of that intention, and, of course, subject to the knowledge that if that change was made they would immediately cease to be Commissioners. The effect of this would be, to strike off twenty-two persons from the list of those to whom compensation was to be given, sixteen Commissioners having received their appointments from Lord Lyndhurst, and six from Lord Brougham. With respect to superannuation allowances, he begged to say, that they would not be granted as a matter of course, but that every particular case

would be referred to the Treasury, and a particular order made upon it.

Sir Charles Wetherell said, he must disclaim having any intention of saying any thing which could be construed to be personal to the noble and learned Lord who now held the highest legal office in the State, but he must wholly deny that that noble Lord had made any sacrifice by this Bill. He therefore was surprised that the retiring pensions and the allowances for compensation did not form part of the Bill. He saw no reason for the omission. He and other Members who had opposed this Bill had been taunted with entertaining a desire to impede it, and it was said, that they had not given due consideration to the large emoluments given up by the Lord Chancellor. But he denied, that the noble and learned Lord had sacrificed one farthing; nor did he think the noble Lord ought to make any sacrifices. But let it not be given out, as it had been, that the noble and learned Lord, in order to carry the Reform Bill, had given up 5,0007. a year, when he had not given up a farthing, for the truth of which he appealed to the noble Lord at the head of the Exchequer. He hoped this delusion would cease, and this taunt not be repeated.

Lord Althorp said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that this Bill should rest on its own merits, not on the question whether the Lord Chancellor had given up emolument or not. The income of the Lord Chancellor ought not to be so reduced as to make the office not likely to be filled by the most eminent men at the Bar. It was intended that, in future, the Lord Chancellor should be paid by a fixed salary as Chancellor, and by a fixed salary as Speaker of the House of Lords; but the mode of paying those offices did not appear to belong so peculiarly to this Bill as to require to be introduced into it. When it was said, that his noble and learned friend was not to take credit for giving up emolument, he (Lord Althorp) begged to state, that what the noble and learned Lord did was this,— that whenever a sum of money was offered to any public officer as a commutation for fees, that public officer would not generally forego them until he had secured a proper compensation, but his noble and learned friend had given up the fees to which he was entitled, in order that the Bill might pass, leaving the public to decide hereafter what compensation he ought to have.

Clause B agreed to, as were also Clauses C, D, E and F.

That course, he thought, did his noble and | Bill; but in Commissions, where the assets learned friend credit, because it showed were small, and the litigation none, inthat his motive was not pecuniary emolu- stead of their being any saving, there ment; but every one who knew the cha- would be a small increase of expense. racter of his noble and learned friend, Cases of this kind were, he believed, more knew that pecuniary emolument never numerous than those in which there were entered into his views. Although the hon. large assets and much litigation. and learned Gentleman might be right in saying that the noble and learned Lord had no merit to claim in giving up so much emolument as had been stated (though he was not aware it had been so stated), still the hon. and learned Gentleman was not fair towards his noble and learned friend, in denying him any merit at all, when he gave up his fees at once, and left it to the decision of Parliament hereafter to say what the salary shall be.

Sir Charles Wetherell was glad to hear the calumnious misrepresentation to which he had referred contradicted. It appeared that the fees which were given up were to be repaid to the noble and learned Lord out of some other source.

Clause agreed to.

On clause B being proposed,

The Attorney-General stated, that it was intended to reduce the income of the Secretary of Bankrupts to 1,2001. a year for himself, and 8007. a year for his two clerks. He was to have no retiring pension if he were an irremovable officer, but if the Committee were of opinion that he should be removable, then the amount of his retiring pension must be taken into consideration.

Sir Charles Wetherell said, that he could neither agree to making the Secretary of Bankrupts a permanent officer, nor to giving him a retiring pension if he were made a removable officer. All the other Secretaries, for instance the Secretary of Lunatics, &c., were changed with every Lord Chancellor. He believed that this clause would not create any saving of expense.

The Attorney General contended, that a great saving of expense would be effected by this clause. All the salaries under this Act would not amount to more than 26,4007., and the present expense was considerably above that sum. Taking the average number of Commissions in town and country, the saving would be little short of 30,000l., independently of the saving to the parties from the promptitude of the decisions.

Mr. Warburton admitted, that there would be some saving effected by this

On the question that clause G, which fixes the salary of the Chief Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy at 3,000l. a-year; of the three Puisne Judges at 2,000l. a year each; of the Commissioners of the Court at 1,500l. a-year; of the Lord Chancellor's Secretary of Bankrupts at 1,2007. a-year; of the two Chief Registrars at 8001. a-year; and of eight Deputy Registrars at 6007. a-year, besides some minor salaries, do pass,

Mr. Warburton said, that the House was called upon to vote these salaries without having received the slightest information as to the duties which the officers who were to receive them had to perform. was useless to divide the House on this clause, because he knew that if he did he should put an end to all public business

It

Sir Charles Wetherell said, that this was the first time in which an unreformed House of Commons was called upon to vote 26,000l. a-year without inquiry That was a statement which he was quite certain would not go before the public. He was surprised at not seeing the hon. member for Middlesex present on this occasion. When there was a contest going on with the First Lord of the Admiralty about saving three half-pence in the pound for a contract of biscuits, they were certain to have the presence of the reformingand economical member for Middlesex; but when so large a sum as 26,000l. was to be voted away in salaries every year, the factious few, as they had been called, were left to battle the question with Ministers without his assistance. What, he would ask, had the three Puisne Judges, and the ten Registrars to do under this Bill? thing more than what the Lord Chancellor's Secretary did at present. This large and cumbrous machinery, this lumbertroop of Judges, this band of gentlemenpensioners, expensive as they would be in themselves, would create still greater expense to the creditors than the present machinery of seventy Commissioners. He looked upon this clause as an unnecessary and offensive creation of patronage. The

No

average number of vacancies in the Com- fon more economically. They had, as yet, missionerships of Bankruptcy were four received no account of the duties to be annually, and the value of patronage was attached to the offices this clause was to about 8001. annually, Now by resigning create, and he was somewhat surprised, this patronage, the Lord Chancellor gained notwithstanding that to find all those at once patronage of the annual value of hon. Gentlemen who usually devoted their 26,0001. The statement of the Lord Chan- time to clamour about economy, and the cellor having relinquished patronage by waste of public money, were now absent this Bill, was therefore so preposterous, when a large sum was to be voted that he trusted that it would never be re- without any account being given of the peated in that House again. He must manner in which it was to be expended, distinctly say, that he considered that of and which he had no scruple to characterize late there had been too great a sympathy as a gross job. As to the Lord Chancellor, between the Woolsack and the Press; his great object had been to create patronindeed, it might almost be assumed there age from the moment he took the seals. was now an official writer to the Great He (Mr. Dawson) had moved for a return Seal. Not a day passed over their heads of the Masters in Chancery, and it was in which they canvassed the demerits of odd that this Chancellor of a Government this Bill, without a writer in the daily that was to eschew patronage had been Press insulting and abusing every Member most ingenious in discovering new modes of Parliament who dared to give an inde- of exercising that power. He had not pendent opinion, and shew, that the Bill been in office one year, and yet within was by no means a perfect, much more a that time had appointed four Masters in super-human measure. Notwithstanding Chancery, although Lord Lyndhurst in the this abuse the exertions of the opponents preceding four, and Lord Eldon in the five of the Bill had compelled Ministers to years preceding them, had not appointed lessen this job by cutting away all the one. Some of these new Masters had retiring pensions. been appointed on the ground of the others being old; yet one of the young Masters was sixty-five and upwards, and the other sixty-seven years old; and if any one was asked the question, he must answer that the old Masters were stronger and more vigorous than their successors.

Mr. George Dawson was incompetent to give any opinion on the legal merits of the alterations, but at the same time the present was an opportunity when any Member of Parliament might give his opinion on the conduct of Government. He had often before had occasion to admire the conduct of his hon. and learned friend the member for Boroughbridge, but never had he deserved better of his country than in exposing this gross and profligate job. He (Mr. Dawson) did not presume to say, that he understood all the affairs of the Court of Chancery, but he would take it on himself to say, that this Bill was one of the grossest instances of profligacy ever attempted, more especially coming from a Government which lived upon popular clamour, and was to be the only Government ever carried on without patronage. The noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had declared this often-"that this Government was to be supported by public opinion, and not by patronage"--words forgotten as soon as uttered, and utterly falsified by everything the Ministers had done. The patronage in this case, his hon. and learned friend had proved, was, that the Bill would entail an additional expense on the people; and every one must see that the Court might be carried

Lord Althorp said, that some time had elapsed since they had had the pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman address them in his usual delicate and agreeable style. The right hon. Gentleman was certainly as powerful as usual; but he did not say whether this measure was good or bad, or whether it might or might not be an improvement in the administration of justice. Now some part of this question happened to depend upon this point; for, if the measure effected any good, it would at least, pro tanto, diminish the extent of the job which seemed to give the right hon. Gentleman so much uneasiness. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of jobs and profligate expenditure; but was he aware that this expense of 26,4007. a-year was merely intended as a substitute, and a more efficient substitute, for that which now cost 70,000l. per annum. It was,perhaps, possible that there might be a lesser scale of fees, and that the Court might be constituted at an expense somewhat smaller than was proposed; but, when so vast a reduction was

hostility should ever prevent him from doing that justice they deserved to the appointments made by his opponents for the benefit of the public service.

Mr. Burge said, that it was a mistake

discharge of all the bankruptcy business of the kingdom; as the London Commissions only performed one-third of that of the whole country; to carry the principle of the Bill completely into effect, would render an expense of 46,000l. more necessary?

The Solicitor General said, that the debate had already been protracted beyond all the expectations of the House, and he, for one, should be glad to see it ended. The only question at present was, the mode in which the Judges of the new Court were to be paid, and the consistent opposers of the Bill had, at first, com

made, to talk of profligate expenditure was ridiculous, so that he could not but believe that the right hon. Gentleman must have been totally unacquainted with the subject. The right hon. Gentleman also urged that he (Lord Althorp) had said that this Go-to suppose, that the 26,4007. was for the vernment would be carried on without patronage. What he had said was, that the period for governing the country by patronage was now at an end; but when it was necessary to carry any good measure into effect, it did not follow that they should abandon that measure for fear of such attacks as that of the right hon. Gentleman who had been pleased to say that the object of the Bill was patronage; but if the right hon. Gentleman had looked at all into the provisions of the Bill, he must have seen, they were so extensive and sweeping in their dealing with existing jobs, that no man could make such changes as a means of obtaining or creating patron-plained, that the Judges' salaries were not age and appointments. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that the Lord Chancellor had great good luck with respect to the appointment of Masters in Chancery, and that for nine preceding years there had been no vacancy. Now, it was to be recollected, that an addition had been made to the number of Masters; and if none had been appointed for nine years, there must be, of course, the greater chance of some falling in. Moreover, those Masters appointed by the present Chancellor were to have no retiring allow ances. Then the right hon. Gentleman's criterion for judging of Masters in Chancery was, the activity with which two gentlemen walked up to the table, because he said that if hon. Members looked, they would find that the old Masters were more vigorous than the new. Now he (Lord Althorp) differed from the right hon. Gentleman on this point, because the merits of a Master in Chancery lay more in his head than in his legs. In conclusion, he thought that neither these appointments nor the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were likely to have that effect on the public which he anticipated.

Sir Charles Forbes said, that, from all the information he could gather, any system was better than the present, and therefore he would support the Bill. With respect to the Masters in Chancery, one of those appointed by the present Chancellor, and a near relation of his own, he had occasion to know; and his diligence, attention, and talent, were remarkable. No political

|

large enough to obtain efficient officers, whilst the outery now was, that they were too great-that they were, in fact, so enormous, as to come within the hon. Member's notion of a job. Now let him state one fact to satisfy those hon. opponents, that the money with which the Judges were to be remunerated, was not one shilling of it to be paid out of the public purse; to quiet the apprehensions entertained by those hon. Members, that a great waste of the public money was to be incurred, he would inform them, that the salaries of these Judges were to be provided for out of the Bankrupt Fund. The Bill did not, as some supposed it did, affect to despatch all the bankruptcy business of the country; on the contrary, its operation was confined to London and its vicinity; but though it was so restricted within the limits of the metropolis, yet no one who was at all acquainted with business, would think, for one instant, that its operation would be isolated to that one spot, for there was scarcely a bankruptcy of any extent in the country, but what had ramifications and agents in London,

Sir Charles Wetherell said, that it seemed to be admitted on all hands, that the most defective part of the present system was that connected with the administration of the Bankrupt Laws in the country as compared with London; and yet this Bill left the country question altogether untouched, and only amended that portion of the law which was already admitted to be the best administered.

Clause carried.
On Clause Q,

Mr. Warburton thought, that the arrangements of this clause was so monstrous, that even if it was enacted, it could not stand unaltered for six months. According to this clause, the Commissioners had a right to award as much as five per cent to the official assignee on the collection of the bankrupt's debts; this he thought was much too large a profit; and it was also highly objectionable, that the Commissioner was to be supreme, and that the creditors were to have no voice in the

matter.

Mr. Serjeant Wilde thought, that the best security for the creditor was, to leave this per centage at the discretion of the Commissioner, who must necessarily be a man of character; and the hon. Gentleman ought to remember, that the per centage was allowed, not only for the debts collected by the official assignee, but for the general trouble that the bankrupt's affairs inflicted on him.

that the Commissioners were to give to every official assignee the whole amount they were entitled to give; but the limits placed to their authority was what had been found necessary in extreme cases. The principle of the clause was to give the assignee a remuneration on all the monies he collected, and he thought, that the Commissioners were not likely to give the assignee more than he ought to have.

Mr. Paget admitted, that five per cent might not be enough in some cases, and two per cent might be too much in others. In his opinion, therefore, it was not proper for the Committee to decide this question. Probably the creditors might be more fit to apportion the reward of the assignees than the Commissioners; and he objected to the power of bestowing these rewards being left in the hands of the Court.

The Solicitor-General hoped the Commissioners under the Bill would not be confounded with the present Commissioners. They were more like Judges.

Mr. Paget had no intention of casting the slightest reflection upon the persons to be appointed, but they were not, in constructing an Act of Parliament, to presume on the virtue of those who were to carry it into effect.

Mr. Burge said, that whoever might be appointed, they would not be persons of higher character than the present Commis

Mr. Freshfield said, that the greatest trouble required at the hands of the official assignee was, to collect the debts of the bankrupt, and to pay them into the Bank of England; he did not see why the present assignees were not quite competent to discharge that duty. He objected to the great remuneration which the official assignees would, in some cases, receive for very trifling services. He had known one|sioners, and he thought, it would be case relating to the bankruptcy of a sugar-refiner, in which the official assignee, at one per cent, would have received 2,000l. for merely receiving the property and paying it into the Bank of England. He hoped, at least, that the Commission would be charged on the assets to be divided amongst the creditors, and not on the whole credit of the bankrupt. He objected to five per cent being inserted in the Bill, and thought two per cent on the dividends would be sufficient, and, that the remuneration on no Commission, should exceed 2001. The hon. Member concluded by proposing, as an amendment, that the official assignee should not receive above two per cent; that that sum should only be paid on the dividends, and that the remuneration of the official assignee should on no Commission exceed 2001.

found to be an invidious office for the gentlemen who were to be appointed, to have to regulate the per centage to be given. As little discretion as possible should be allowed, but in general the remuneration was fixed too high. An official assignee having five per cent on the assets in the case of so large a bankruptcy as that of Messrs. Manning, would receive 1000l. a year as per centage only on the annual returns, exclusive of a per centage on 600,000l. out on mortgage. As it would be some time before these assets could be realized, he would receive besides, a Commission on the income of the estates mortgaged. During the time he was reaping these great advantages, he would not have any of the duties of insuring ships, sending out supplies to the estates, and performing the office of a consignee, to look to. Yet a case of this sort might The Attorney-General thought, that be one in which the Commissioners thought neither of these amendments was founded the official assignee could make out a fair on good sense. It was not to be expected, | claim for five per cent on the assets; such

« ÎnapoiContinuă »