Page images
PDF
EPUB

vent hope that their lordships would not pass the Bill in its present state, but would, if a motion to the effect were made, refer it to a Select Committee.

Lord Cranworth thought the Bill contained many excellent provisions, and considered the mode in which it was proposed to abolish the distinction between traders and nontraders most satisfactory; and in regard to the retrospective elauses, he thought they were to a certain extent reasonable. As to the extension of the jurisdiction of the county court judges to bankruptcy cases, judging from the report of a Commission which had been appointed to investigate the subject, he thought that it was impossible; on this subject, and also on the transfer of the duties of the official assignees, he should reserve his opinions. He also thought that the duties of the judge who was to preside over the new court required explanation.

Lord Kingsdown examined the effects of the abolition of the distinction between traders and nontraders, and thought that while it was perfectly fair to give creditors summary powers in the case of the former, in the latter case it would lead to many hardships, especially in the case of inexperienced young men. He objected to the appointment of a judge, as he thought ten commissioners were quite capable of dealing with the matters brought before them. As the measure was at present framed, he did not expect that it would conduce to lessen the expenses of bankruptcy. The Bill, he hoped, would be considerably modified in committee.

Lord Wensleydale, in a short speech, supported the Bill.

The Lord Chancellor replied to the objections which had been raised, and expressed his opinion that it would have been better if noble and learned lords had reserved their objections for the Committee.

The Bill was then referred to a Select Committee, principally composed of the Law Lords, at whose hands it underwent considerable changes in some of the leading provisions, in opposition, however, to the wishes of its authors. In particular, the clauses which provided for the appointment of a Chief Judge in Bankruptcy were expunged.

When the Bill was subsequently discussed in a Committee of the whole House, Lord Chelmsford moved the insertion of a clause limiting the operation of the new law to debts contracted and liabilities incurred after the date of the passing of the Act. It would be unjust, he thought, to attach consequences never contemplated to existing liabilities by means of retrospective legislation.

The Lord Chancellor denied that the Bill was retrospective, and opposed the introduction of the clause, which had already, after considerable discussion in the Select Committee, been rejected by a large majority there. The Bill merely provided that, if a debtor chose to go abroad and live luxuriously upon the property of his creditors, he might be declared a bankrupt. He regretted the course taken by the Committee in reference to the Chief Judge, and hoped that the clause in reference to that functionary would be restored.

Lord Derby explained the circumstances under which the clause relating to the Chief Judge was rejected, and supported the amendment of Lord Chelmsford. In spite of the Lord Chancellor's opinion that the Bill was not retrospective, he thought it was so, and that it would be injurious to the interests of non-traders.

Lord Cranworth opposed the clause as unnecessary. The Bill, he said, was not retrospective, but it provided a cheaper mode of enforcing existing rights.

Lord Brougham said that the Bill, as it stood, was not only retrospective, but penally retrospective, for it imposed the punishment of imprisonment on the debtor for liabilities contracted prior to the passing of the Act.

After a few words from Lord Wensleydale, a division took place upon the clause, when the numbers were—

[blocks in formation]

The clause was therefore added to the Bill.

Some of the alterations made in the House of Lords were considered by the promoters of the measure to be so material, especially the excision of the provisions relating to the appointment of a Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, and to the retention of the existing official assignees, that it was considered a matter of some doubt whether the Governinent would not abandon the Bill rather than accept it in its altered shape. Much apprehension was felt in the mercantile community at the prospect of another postponement of legis

lation on this subject. As it was evident that the Lords would not recede from the amendments which they had made in the Bill, the Government finally resolved to offer a compromise-the appointment of the Chief Judge, and the retention of the original clauses relating to the creditors' assignees, being insisted on, but some other important points, on which the Lords had differed, being conceded. The AttorneyGeneral induced the House of Commons to adopt this course in order to save the loss of the Bill, though not without a protest on the part of some members, and a division by which the House decided on thus proceeding by a majority of 44.

The amendments of the Commons to the Lords' amendments, with the reasons of the former for disagreeing therefrom, came on for consideration in the House of Lords on the 27th of July. The Lord Chancellor then warmly supported the decision of the House of Commons by which the appointment of a Chief Judge was adhered to. The noble and learned lord contrasted the public discussion which the Bill had received in the House of Commons with the private consideration given it by the Select Committee of the House of Lords, and having adverted to the inconsistent conduct of the Conservatives in the Lower House, who supported the measure, with that of the Conservative party in the House of Lords, who had pursued an opposite course of action, begged that the decision to be pronounced on that Bill might be founded, not on party motives, but on the intrinsic merits or demerits of the measure. Deny

ing that the appointment of a Chief Judge could be termed "a job," he declared himself solely responsible for such a job, if job it were, and then briefly showed the defects of the present system, explained what changes were necessary, and defended the means by which such changes were proposed to be made. The appointment of a Chief Judge would remedy the present confusion of administrative and judicial duties, by introducing an officer to superintend the administrative part of the business, and at the same time to exercise a jurisdiction partly appellate and partly original. By such an appointment, also, justice would be rendered more speedy and more cheap, and the bandying of

suitors from one Court to another would be avoided. To render, however, these reforms complete and the Court of Bankruptcy self-sufficient, he contended that the Court should be one of appeal, pointing out the fallaciousness of the arguments that the number of appeals in bankruptcy being comparatively few, therefore no Judge of Appeal was necessary. Certificates, as tests of character, would be made of some value if a Judge were appointed, as they would be distinguished by an uniformity of decision. In conclusion, he objected to the appeals in bankruptcy being referred to the Lords Justices of Appeal, as those functionaries had quite as much as they could do without being saddled with additional burdens, and he begged their Lordships to agree with the House of Commons in their rejection of their Lordships' amendments.

Lord Cranworth did not object to the series of abstract propositions just stated by the Lord Chancellor, but would have preferred to have heard it proved that the officer proposed to be appointed was necessary. Having explained the mode of proceeding in Bankruptcy, he contended that the present commissioners were in every way qualified to act as judges, and protested against the appointment of an unnecessary judge for the purpose of hearing appeals. The Bill was almost silent as to the jurisdiction of the Chief Judge, and dwelt far too much in generals and not enough in particulars. He believed the appointment of a Chief Judge was not necessary, and was therefore objectionable.

Lord Chelmsford, having replied to the insinuations of the Lord Chancellor against the "Select Committee," and vindicated the decisions of that Committee as entirely removed from party motives, stated his opinion that the appointment of a Chief Judge was unnecessary, as the duties which he would have to do were efficiently performed by those to whom they were now entrusted. He refuted the assertion that the Lords Justices of Appeal were overburdened with work, by quoting the number of appeal cases heard by the Lords Justices, and denied that the proposed changes would be less expensive than the system now in use, for he believed that they would tend to increase cost by augmenting the number of appeals. Lord Chelmsford then showed that the original jurisdiction which the Bill pretended to confer on the Chief

Judge was nothing but a pretence for making an appointment, and therefore hoped the House would adhere to its amendments, and spare the public the expense of a most unnecessary appointment.

Lord Wensleydale agreed with the opinions expressed by Lords. Cranworth and Chelmsford. The Lord Chancellor having replied, a division took place, when the House resolved to adhere to its amendments, striking the Chief Judge out of the Bill, by a majority of 80 to 46.

Upon the question of creditors' assignees, however, their Lord ships agreed to accept the Commons' amendments, and upon some other points in difference they made a similar concession.

In consequence of the course adopted by the majority of the House of Lords, respect ing the office of Judge in Bankruptcy, the Bill again appeared to be placed in great jeopardy. If the Commons declined to abandon their position, it was irrecoverably lost; and one of the few valuable measures which this protracted session appeared likely to produce would have suffered another postponement. The days of the Session were now numbered, and nothing but a surrender of their own opinion on the part of the legal advisers of the Crown, could avert the result. On the 31st of July, the Attorney-General took the step which prudence suggested, and moved that the House of Commons should accept the Lords' Amendment. He said that, although Her Majesty's Government retained the opinion expressed by its members in the discussions on the various stages

of the Bill in favour of the appointment of the Chief Judge, for the reasons adopted by that House and transmitted to the other House of Parliament; and although they still considered that the provisions of the Bill were greatly impaired, and its chances of working well at the outset were very much diminished by the omission of that portion of it; they considered that, even without that part of the Bill, there was an amount of good in it which was capable of working, although defectively, which ought to induce the Government to take the Bill mutilated and shorn, as he admitted it to be, rather than not have the measure at all. Under these circumstances, the Government had come to the conclusion to advise the House-of course it was for the House to consider whether they should adopt that advice-not to insist further on their disagreement to the amendments made by the Lords, but practically to accept the Bill as amended by the other House.

Mr. Crawford, before taking leave for the present of a subject which he was sure would soon again occupy their attention, wished to state that, representing as he did, a constituency which had taken a deep interest in the question, he was disposed to concur in the course which the Government recommended the House to pursue. He believed the Lord Chancellor would find great practical difficulty in the working of this Bill without the Chief Judge; but the responsibility rested, not on the Lord Chancellor, but on those who had, as the Attorney-General

said, mutilated the Bill. If it were found that the Bill could not be fairly carried into effect without the Chief Judge, another application would, no doubt, be made to Parliament, and they would then know what course to take.

The motion of the AttorneyGeneral being agreed to, the Bill was passed and received the Royal Assent.

An important step was taken this year towards the improvement of the Statute Law by the measures brought in by the law officers of the Crown for the Consolidation of the Criminal Law. For this purpose seven Bills, framed upon the recommendations of the Criminal Law Commissioners, had been introduced in the session of 1860, and had passed the House of Lords, but, in consequence of want of tinie for their full consideration, were postponed. They were again brought in at an early period of the present session, and their objects having been explained by the Solicitor-General, they were referred to a Select Committee. In stating the nature of these Bills to the House, Solicitor-General stated that they were designed to consolidate and amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to offences against the person, to malicious injuries to property, to larceny and other similar of fences, to indictable offences of the nature of forgery, to accessories to and abettors of indictable offences, and to offences relating to the coin, and were also intended to repeal certain enactments contained in

seve

ral Acts relating to indictable offences and other matters.

interfere

The Bills did not with the common, or unwritten law, but, as the great bulk of our criminal law depended upon statutes, these Bills would deal with a very large portion of that law, which it would consolidate and assimilate. Consolidation and expurgation were the first step to a reformation of the Statute Book, and the laws relating to crime were most easily consolidated. Although such was the limit of the attempt, the advantage would not be inconsiderable, and it would be an auspicious beginning of the important process of general consolidation. He gave a history of the progress of criminal law reform, and of the Bills which had been prepared at different periods to effect the object, forming the foundation of the present Bills, which had not, he assured the House, been framed without great consideration.

These Bills, being to some extent taken on credit by the House, by reason of the confidence placed in their framers, and in the law officers of the Crown, on whose responsibility they were proposed, underwent but little discussion, and received the Royal Assent before the end of the session. Another measure, for the purgation of the Statute Book, by the repeal of a very large number of obsolete and expired Acts, between the 11th of Geo. III., and the 16th and 17th years of Her present Majesty, was brought in by the AttorneyGeneral, and carried through Parliament.

A new attempt was made this session to alter the law of marriage by legalizing unions with a deceased wife's sister. The Bill

« PreviousContinue »