be perfectly unintelligible, and, therefore, the Second Reading of this Bill, its object he should be obliged if the hon. Member being, he stated, to give validity to certa n for Northampton would give an explanation marriages solemnized in a church, which of it. He moved the Chairman do report was supposed to be legalized for the purprogress. pose, but which was afterwards discovered not to be so. MR. GILPIN expressed his surprise that the hon. Gentleman, acquainted as he was with so many leading members of the Society of Friends, should be so ignorant of the principles which led them to object to the terms employed as to defending Her Majesty as he appeared to be. He ought to know as well as any person that the principles of that sect were opposed to what was usually called the principles of defence; and there were many other ways in which they conceived that they might defend her Majesty than by the actual taking up of arms. As had been stated, the object of the present measure was nothing more than to put them in the position they had occupied for a very long period of time. His right hon. Friend beside him was acting on behalf of the whole Society of Friends who preferred the form of declaration previously in use, and he certainly thought that after the character that had been given of them by the hon. Member for Norfolk, no one would object to replace them in the position they had been in for 130 years. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, it was perfectly plain that the objection the Society of Friends entertained was merely the ordinary conscientious objection by which the Quakers were distinguished; that they were loyal people could not be doubted, and there were many modes of defence in which they could see they were better able to defend the Queen than by force. He therefore hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion. Bill read 2°. MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL. CONSIDERATION. Order for Consideration, as amended, read. Motion made, and Question proposed"That the Bill, as amended, be now considered." MR. AYRTON moved the recommitment of the Bill, in order that the provision by which the nomination of candidates was not to take place in open assembly, but through papers sent to the officers of the boroughs, might be reconsidered. It was only when more than the requisite number of councillors were proposed that an election was to take place. This appeared to him an unsatisfactory mode of conducting the elections, and it would be better to adopt that practice which was consistent with the usages of the people of this country-nomination in public meeting. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "Bill" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "be recommitted," instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words. proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." MR. CROSS explained the present position of the law and the object which the Bill had in view. As the law at present stood, no notice was given as to who were the candidates for the office of councillor, and the burgesses were therefore unable to know for whom to give their votes. Any man, whatever his character might be, could get a number of his friends together and obtain his election by surprise. Moreover, the corporation was obliged to keep open the poll all day, whether there was any opposition or not, and this put the corporation to great trouble and expense. In a large corporation like Manchester it would be necessary, if the plan of the hon. Gentleman were agreed to, to have as many as sixteen polling-places, with their atSAINT JAMES BALDERSBY MARRIAGES tendant confusion and excitement. MR. HENLEY coincided in the course which had just been recommended. It was evident that so far as the Quakers were concerned they did not entertain any conscientious objection to making the affirmation further than the conscientious objection they entertained against the use of force. MR. SPOONER withdrew his Motion. Clauses agreed to. House resumed. Bill reported, without Amendment. VALIDITY BILL. SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT moved should oppose the Motion. Пе MR. TURNER also supported the Bill as it stood. He was quite sure that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) could not have had any experience | used at municipal elections, and would of municipal elections, or he would not op- assimilate the proceedings in respect of pose the provisions of this Bill. It would voting to those of Parliamentary elections. be a great boon to Manchester. He wished to know on what grounds this change had been introduced, as he believed the system of voting papers was generally approved. He could state, at all events, that the municipal electors of the borough which he represented (Northampton) were perfectly satisfied with that system. MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN asked the Government to express their opinion upon the question. It appeared to him that a system which worked well in the election of Poor Law Guardians, and of Members of Local Boards of Health should be carried out in municipal elections generally. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT thought the greatest publicity should be given in conducting municipal elections. Complaints were numerous that after an elector had voted other candidates appeared, and the remedy proposed was, that all candidates should be declared and their names published one whole day before the polling commenced. He was as much in favour of maintaining the principle of open voting as any man, and would much regret seeing it laid by. He thought the Bill provided a beneficial scheme. MR. W. WILLIAMS thought it highly important that the ballot should be introduced in municipal elections. It had been in use in the metropolis twenty-five years under Hobhouse's Act, and it had worked extremely well. MR. RIDLEY did not think the Bill provided a remedy for all the existing evils attending municipal elections; but it was good as far as it went, and he should support it. MR. AYRTON said, he would withdraw his Amendment. Amendment by leave withdrawn. MR. TURNER moved the omission of Clause 6, which substituted a revision by a barrister for the present revision before the mayor and assessors. He understood that this would not be opposed. MR. VERNON SMITH thought it would be more satisfactory if the lists were revised by revising barristers rather than by local authorities. MR. CROSS observed, that there would at present be considerable difficulty in transferring this duty to the revising barristers, and he was therefore willing to assent to the Motion. Motion agreed to. Clause struck out. Clause 18. MR. VERNON SMITH said, that the 18th clause would abolish the system of voting papers which had hitherto been MR. CROSS replied, that the class of persons entitled to vote at municipal elections were, generally speaking, much below the Parliamentary electors in point of education, and it was found that, under the system of voting papers, electors who were unable to write were often fraudulently induced to vote for the wrong candidates. This practice had been going on for a long time, and, in consequence of the re presentations made to him on the subject, he proposed by this clause that voting papers should no longer be used. The only advantage of these papers, which were delivered by the electors themselves, was that electors wrote down the names of the candidates for whom they voted, instead of repeating them to the poll clerks. SIR JOHN SHELLEY thought the system of voting by ballot adopted under the Metropolitan Local Management Act might be applied with great advantage to the case of municipal elections. Bill, as amended, to be printed [Bill 75]. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, March 17, 1859. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1a Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; County Courts; Recreation Grounds. 2a Convict Prisons Abroad. 3a Debtor and Creditor. DEBTOR AND CREDITOR BILL. Bill read 3 (according to Order). LORD CRANWORTH would remind their Lordships that when the Bill was in Committee he moved the omission of certain clauses which had relation to the appointment of trustees or official assignees; and that on their Lordships disagreeing | These assignees paid the assets of the from his proposition, he gave notice that estates into their private bankers; and in in a future stage of the Bill he intended this way sums varying from £100 to £500, to renew his Motion. Accordingly he now and even more, had been lying for years in rose to move that clauses 95 to 98 be those bankers' hands. He remembered that omitted from the Bill; and if their Lord- Lord Brougham stated that the bankingships should agree that those clauses house of Smith, Payne and Smith had been should be omitted, the effect would be to called upon to pay over sums amounting restore the old or rather the present ex- to nearly half a million which had been so isting system of bankruptcy so far as re- left in their hands. No part of this large lated to assignees. Although this might sum would probably ever have come into the be a very dull subject to their Lordships, hands of the creditors but for the appointhe could assure them that to the mercan- ment of these official assignees in 1831. tile community it was one of very great By that Act the persons to be appointed interest and of very great importance. official assignees were to be persons who Before the alterations which took place in had been engaged in trade, but who were 1831, when Lord Brougham held the Great thereby rendered incapable of continuing Seal, there was no public officer who had in trade, or having any other duties to discontrol over the funds of bankrupt estates. charge other than administering estates in Such estates were then vested in assignees bankruptcy. Since this system came into who were chosen by the creditors; that operation in 1831, the official assignees was, they were nominally chosen by the had collected between £2,000,000 and creditors; but the evidence given before £3,000,000 of outstanding assets, and had the Commission of 1854, and he believed distributed it among the creditors, who, also before a former Commission, clearly but for them, would have lost the whole of showed that, in fact, the assignees were it. Was it expected that, under the new appointed by the solicitors of the chief system, a larger sum would be realized creditors, and the fight as to who should from bankrupt estates than was possible be the assignees generally was between under the old? At this moment there was the solicitors of the chief creditors, be- invested in the Three per Cents, in the name cause, in this way, the solicitors obtained of the Accountant in Bankruptcy, sums bethe management of the funds and a very longing to bankrupt estates amounting to profitable branch of business. The result about £1,500,000, and producing an anwas exactly what might have been ex-nual income of about £40,000. It was pected by a priori reasoning. As the funds now proposed by this Bill that the crediof the bankrupt estate were generally very tors should have the option of dispensing inadequate to meet the claims of the credi- with the official assignee altogether, and of tors, the general creditors were very luke-appointing trade assignees only, as under warm as to the administration of an estate the old system. The name, it was true, under such circumstances especially was changed to trustee, but the office when the estate was small, as was most was precisely the same. But if that profrequently the case-and the assignees be- position was to be acted upon-and if it ing much more profitably engaged in their were not the mere option was of no conseown business, declined to lose their time in quence-if the old system was to be reattempting to realize a shilling or two more verted to, was it possible but that the old or less in the pound for other parties; and results would follow? It was impossible thus the bankrupt's estate was neglected not to anticipate otherwise than that the and fell a prey to the legal gentlemen, was evils of the old system would be renewed. absorbed in costs and expenses, and thus a❘ Indeed, his noble and learned Friend himvery small portion of the funds ultimately self appeared to expect it, because in a found its way into the pockets of the credi-subsequent clause he had provided that tors. By the indifference of these assignees the creditors might appoint a committee when the new system was introduced in 1831, and official assignees were appointed, who-not alone, but in conjunction with the former assignees-were charged with the duty of getting in the assets of bygone bankruptcies, they actually realized upwards of £2,000,000 of money which the assignees had neglected to distribute. VOL. CLIII. [THIRD SERIES.] 66 to superintend the trustee; in fact, to operate as a check upon him. No doubt there was a great cry in some quarters against the official assignee. But why was that? The truth was, it was because the substitution of creditors' assignees for offi cial assignees meant the substitution of solicitors for the official assignce—the m‹ I ment it was said that the estate should with other systems. Now, part of that be managed by the trade assignee it meant cost consisted of compensations paid to that it should be managed by the solici- officers who were put out in 1831, when tors of the assignees. Naturally enough the new system was introduced. Those there was a strong wish for the alteration compensations were, he thought, most imamong a certain class of gentlemen who properly charged on the estates of future had a great deal of influence in "another bankruptcies. That was a charge that place," though not quite so much in their ought to have been borne by the ConsoLordships' House. Under the old system lidated Fund, and he thought his noble the interests of the smaller creditors were and learned Friend deserved the highest completely overborne by the large creditors. credit for the alteration which he proposed The assignees were appointed by the ma- to make in the law in that respect, by jority in value of the creditors; two or enacting that those compensations should three large creditors joined together and in future be paid out of the national funds. chose the assignees, the assignees placed Subject to that payment, the expenses of the estate in the hands of his solicitor- the Court were properly borne by the Court or, more generally, of the solicitor who itself. The Court was a court mainly-to had, in fact, appointed him-and the in- the extent of nine-tenths of it- of mere terests of the smaller creditors were en- administration. If they removed the offitirely unprotected. This state of things cial assignees the trade assignees would would be exactly revived if the old system not be bound to pay in the funds as they were returned to. It was therefore, he received them to the account of the Acsubmitted, their Lordships' bounden duty countant-they would place the funds in to interfere for the protection of the smaller the hands of their own private bankers. creditors against evils which the experience In consequence of this change the interest of the old system had fully proved. It was on the funds in the hands of the Accounta mere fiction to say that the expense of ant, amounting to £40,000 a year, would the official assignees was worthy of con- be lost to the Court, and the consequence sideration; they formed a very small item would be that much higher fees would be indeed, in the expenses of bankruptcy. A imposed. The present amount of assets statement had been forwarded to him by absorbed by solicitors' bills was very large, a gentleman of very great experience in and he could easily imagine that when the bankruptcy (Mr. Freeman), and who had supervision of the official assignees was been examined before the Committee of withdrawn it would be still larger. The 1852, of the result of ten bankruptcies. noble and learned Lord then moved to The gross assets of the estates were omit Clauses 95 to 98 inclusive. £5,600; and the charges for rent, taxes, &c., being deducted, the net assets were £4,672. It was shameful to have to remark, that from that sum £2,684-considerably more than 50 per cent-went in expenses. But what proportion went to the official assignee? Less than the charges of the messengers. The messengers received £329, and the official assignee less than £300-only £294-or scarcely be found open to strong, perhaps unanmore than 5 per cent on the assets realized. Creditors might say, "Why should we be paying 5 per cent to an official assignee?" But he asked would not the services of an official whose undivided duty was to realize the largest possible amount of assets in the shortest time, and at the least expense, amply compensate for the 5 per cent? It was the duty of their Lordships to protect the smaller creditors, and not to leave them at the mercy of the old system. He would allude to one other point. The great objection to the English bankruptcy system had no doubt been its costliness in comparison THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he hoped their Lordships would not suppose that the various objections which had been so strongly urged by his noble and learned Friend who had just addressed the House had not been taken into consideration, carefully and anxiously, before those clauses were inserted in the Bill. There was no plan that could be devised that would not swerable, objections; and the only way to deal with any scheme was to look at the objections on either side. The Government had had the greatest possible difficulty to contend with in judging what provision it would be the best to adopt for the administration of an insolvent estate in the Bankruptcy Court. As he had mentioned on a former occasion there were two distinct classes of opinion which divided the commercial world. One of them was that which his noble and learned Friend represented when urging his objections to this Bill-namely, that the creditors should have no power whatever should not be allowed to interfere with the administration of the affairs of the insolvent. Many persons of the highest authority in the commercial world took that view; their opinion was entitled to the greatest respect, and would no doubt influence any one framing a Bill on this subject, and determine him to adopt the views which persons of such weight in the City of London represented. But if the Government had framed the Bill on their suggestions they would have encountered a powerful opposition from another class of persons, who since 1831, when the official assignees were first created, and the creditors debarred from interference, had insisted on the right of creditors to have more control over the administration of their affairs. They had complained from time to time that the creditors should have been thrust out of all interference when the Bankruptcy Court got hold of the affairs of an insolvent debtor. Evidence was given to a considerable extent on the subject of such administrations before the Commission of 1852, and the Commissioners appeared to have favoured the views of that latter class. He did not, however, mean to say the question was so clear that any decided opinion had been formed by them on the subject. It was necessary to examine carefully what were the different circumstances that required attention; and in choosing between conflicting opinions it was the duty of the Government to adopt that course which they thought best calculated to do justice to the different classes concerned. To show their Lordships the inherent difficulty of this matter he might observe that a few evenings before his noble and learned Friend presented a petition from 800 merchants and bankers of the City of London in favour of the view which he represented. He (the Lord Chancellor) had been told there was much facility in obtaining petitions of this kind, and that much reliance was not to be placed upon the circumstance that they were presented; but if such petitions were to be supposed to express the deliberate opinion of those who signed them they must be held to have great weight. But he had himself presented a petition from 4,000 of the principal merchants and bankers of London of quite an opposite character to that presented by his noble and learned Friend. Again, a noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had introduced a Bill on this subject in the other House, which Bill was supposed to represent those most important bodies, the Chambers of Commerce in many of the large towns. The Chambers of Commerce, if he might judge from the framing of the noble Lord's Bill, took exactly the same view of the case as that which he (the Lord Chancellor) might say he represented on that occasion in respect of giving to creditors a control over the affairs of debtors when their affairs were to be wound up in the Courts of Bankruptcy and Insolvency. What, then, were the Government to do on this subject? It was quite clear that, whatever course they might adopt, they would meet with determined opposition. They were, therefore, obliged to consider what, in their judgment, was the best course to be adopted to reconcile conflicting interests and do justice to all classes. His noble and learned Friend had argued as if the Bill made it compulsory on the creditors to put aside the official assignees and to thrust the Court out of its office by appointing a trustee of their own. Now, what the clauses which the noble and learned Lord proposed to omit from the Bill proposed was this-that the creditors might have, if they desired it, an opportunity of choosing a trustee, in place of the official assignee, to conduct the administration of affairs in the Court. They might, if they pleased, appoint the official assignee for that office, or they might leave the matter with the Court and the official assignee, according as might appear to their judgment to be best for their interests. Their Lordships would see that there was nothing compulsory there. Would their Lordships reject a scheme which had been been framed after great consideration, and which had almost been forced upon the Government by the demands of the commercial world, and which was designed to remove the complaint of the creditors, that they had now no power in the administration of their affairs in the Court of Bankruptcy? His noble and learned Friend said that if creditors were left to themselves they would not pay proper attention to the matter; that they were lukewarm. Now it was contrary to human nature that they should be so. His noble and learned Friend also argued that, under the provisions of this Bill, everything would be left to the solicitors, and, in his anxiety to guard against that source of expense and waste, he gave some instances in which, under the careful guardianship of the official assignee, the costs of the solicitors had been enormous. Surely that argument, if a good one, recoiled on his noble and learned Friend him |