charter of King John been repealed by any act of the British parliament? The order in council, confirming an act of the states in 1835, is similar to the order in council of 1671, both originally framed to remedy an unauthorised innovation on a positive law, which had existed for centuries, and giving a semblance of authority for the act in question.

That an order in council cannot alter or amend an act of parliament, I will plainly show, both by ancient as well as modern decisions. The following is a minute of the lords of the council, dated 28th April, 1806

"The committee think it proper to state to Your Majesty, that the question, whether the registration of an act of parliament wherein the islands are expressly named, be necessary or not, appears to have arisen in 1698, upon a representation made at that time from Jersey, praying a suspension of the Act of Navigation, passed in the 12th year of the reign of King Charles II.; and the question having been referred to Sir John Trevor, attorney-general, he reported his opinion to be that the registering an act of parliament wherein the islands are expressly named, is not necessary in point of law to make it obligatory, as such registry is only for the convenience of the islanders, that they may have notice of what acts were made in England to bind them."

[This also strictly applies to the order in council, erroneously made to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in the islands-but there is no power to prevent that act being carried into effect, as it cannot alter a positive law or act unrepealed.]

"The lords of the committee at that time, having concurred in the opinion of Sir John Trevor, it was ordered by the lords justices, that the same should be transmitted to the bailiff and jurats, that they might govern themselves accordingly. Upon the whole, their lordships are of opinion, that the act in question is binding by its own force, and that there exists no power to suspend its execution, either in the whole or in part."

"Their lordships are however persuaded, that none of the members of the court can have any wish to produce inconvenience, but that they have acted under an erroneous supposition, that it was com petent to your Majesty to suspend the execution of an act, either in the whole or in part."

The last decision on this point is dated 24th November, 1821, and is contained in a letter from Mr. Under-Secretary Hobhouse, to Sir John Colborne, lieutenant-governor of Guernsey; from which the following is an extract:—

"By a minute of the lords of the committee, dated 26th April,

1806, it appears to have been the opinion of the law officers of the crown, and to have been ruled by the court of exchequer, that His Majesty's subjects in the islands of Guernsey and Jersey are bound to take notice of every act of the British parliament, although no registration thereof shall have taken place. The act therefore transmitted on the 19th September (the act alluding to the Corn Bill), must be considered as binding as if it had actually been registered; and there exists in this country no power to suspend the operation of the act."

The Jersey code, we all know, may be altered by the states, sanctioned by Her Majesty in council; but there is this palpable distinction between an order in council and an act or charter. The former the court may suspend the registration of, or remonstrate against it; whereas the latter must be executed and put in force: to suspend its registry and remonstrate against it to council, would be ridiculous (says Duncan, in his history of Guernsey), since the council could afford no redress, save a complaint to them against its provi sions and enactments, and obtaining their assistance in getting it repealed.

The charter or act of King John has not to this day been repealed as to the election of jurats, per optimates patriæ, or the states of Guernsey would not act in accordance with it. Until this be done, the election of Mr. Ph. Le Gallais, and others elected since 1811, is null and void, and their decisions may be appealed against with success. It never can be seriously maintained, that an order in council can alter a positive charter or law. The sanction given to the states in 1835, must therefore vanish before the opinions I have above quoted.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

45, Essex-street, Dec. 13, 1842.

J. BOWDITCH.

THE FOLLOWING NOTES, BY THE ABOVE EDITOR OF THE JERSEY PRESS, FULLY ILLUSTRATE THE PREVIOUS LETTERS.

The Debtor and Creditor Law in the Channel Islands.

We are sadly in want of some better law than that which we have for the adjustment of insolvents' estates.

One of the great advantages of a bankrupt or insolvent law, is, that it avoids the enormous expenses incident to all other legal processes for arresting and distributing a bankrupt's property among his creditors.

When a bankrupt's property is seized and appropriated to his debts by writs of attachment, as in Jersey and Guernsey, each creditor has a writ-each writ draws its own bill of costs, sheriff's fees, &c., &c., and all these are added to the amount of debt to be paid out of the property.

The property is then sold on execution. These sales are urged on by the first attaching creditors, who seek to get their money as speedily as possible, and being themselves secure, are reckless of every thing else. These execution sales are always forced sales, and in times of commercial distress, when bankruptcies are most rife, they are forced sales on a dead market. The sacrifice of property on such sales is proverbial, and if the legal costs and expenses be added to the sacrifices, fifty per cent. will not be an over estimate of loss. On execution, it will require two pounds' worth of property to pay one pound of debt; and this enormous loss is the cost the creditors pay for the process distributing the insolvent's property.

A proper bankrupt law avoids this loss by delivering all the property to assignees, who are enabled to sell at advantage, as purchasers occur-to compromise and collect debts-and with all the advantages of time and management, to realise the utmost from the property; besides, it divides the proceeds rateably among all the creditors, whether absent or present.

Now, the local laws insure these legal costs and sacrifices, in every case of bankruptcy, because it does not dissolve our attachments on writs; the only thing it does is, it allows a subsequent claimant or the debtor himself to declare his estate en désastre, so as to prevent his attaching creditors from obtaining a preference; but the legal expenses remain the same.

The friends and neighbours of a debtor, who know his situation, are enabled and induced to attach the debtor's visible property, to the prejudice of those who are absent, or not represented by letter of attorney-the writs are returned in court, and thus all legal costs and expenses are incurred-the property attached is sold on execution, and thus the sacrifices of execution sales are made certain the proceeds are paid to the attaching creditors-the other creditors get nothing, unless some one dissatisfied with the proceedings had declared a désastre, and the debtor gets his discharge, if he is in custody, by applying to the court for leave to make cession, before his absent creditors get any knowledge of the proceedings.

As it will be the friends and neighbours of an insolvent who will attach and be paid in full, the debtor will not feel bound to make his application till their writs are served, and their debts secured, so

that the direct effect of the bankrupt law (as it now stands) is, in Jersey at least, to bring on every insolvent estate the costs and sacrifices incident to execution sales; and moreover to prevent the equal distribution of the property among all the creditors, by securing it to a few.

Law of Debt.

Really the states of Jersey must lose no time in reforming their law of debtor and creditor, or they will risk having it reformed for them by the paramount authority of the English parliament. It is impossible that in a community composed of nearly as many English as native residents, such practices can be much longer tolerated as are frequent under the barbarous code still in force.

An English gentleman named Atkins lately died, leaving no property except perhaps his personal wardrobe. In the midst of her grief for his loss, his widow has just been arrested for a debt alleged to be owing by her late husband! She is not executrix,-for the husband made no will; she inherits nothing from him, for he had nothing to beqeath. Without such a fact as this, could it be believed that, in the nineteenth century, in any country pretending to be civilised, a woman could be held responsible for the debts of a husband from whom she derived no property?

Mrs. Atkins was on Wednesday conveyed to prison, not being able to procure bail to the amount of £55.

If the reform of the law of debt be not immediately proposed in the states, we trust the English residents will join in a petition, both to the Queen in council and to the parliament, setting forth the iniquity and oppression practised in Jersey, under the sanction of an antiquated code, and praying that British authority may be exerted to protect the subjects of the British crown in this island from such flagrant wrongs.

We cannot, however, suppose that the Jersey community, generally, desire to uphold a state of law so much at variance with the principles of civil right, and so shocking to every humane sentiment; a state of law which is a standing reproach to the people who tolerate it, and which must operate seriously to prevent the settlement here of English people.

Who profits by such outrages as the one we have signalized ?—The creditor? Certainly not; for the lady in question, deriving her slender means of support from a trust-fund, has not the power to divert any portion of her income to the payment of debts, even if

just.—The public? Not in the least; for how can such cruelty operate even to deter persons from incurring debts beyond their means of satisfying them? How could Mrs. Atkins even know of debts contracted by her husband before their marriage? For the claim against her in the present instance originated, it seems, before that event, more than six years.

To whom then does the Jersey law of debt produce any benefit? To the sheriff, his deputies and retainers; to the lawyers, and all the tribe of hangers-on to the court, who get fees out of suits for debt; finally, to gaolers, turnkeys, and that amiable genus.

Perhaps the chief sufferers, after all, by the barbarous state of the law, are the creditors themselves; and a little reflection will establish that truth.

1. Dangerous and pernicious credits are encouraged. Tradesmen, more greedy than just or prudent, tempt customers to buy goods, which they cannot afford, by giving credit; relying on the terrors of the law to obtain payment.

2. Insolvent persons, instead of meeting their creditors openly, and making the best terms they can, quit the island clandestinely, and find some excuse, in the shameful laws which they fly from, for leaving their debts unpaid.

3. For one tricky and unfeeling creditor who, by first resorting to arrest, gets his money, there are a dozen who, by great liberality and forbearance, lose theirs. If any would take the trouble to examine the statistics of actions for debt, we are sure he would find that nineteen-twentieths of them arise from credits improperly given, which have done no good even to the debtor. The only sound creditthat in large mercantile and commercial affairs,-derives no support whatever from laws of debt. In fact, every one knows that debts of honour, and debts to which the law expressly refuses protectionsuch as gambling or "sporting" debts-are of all kinds of pecuniary obligation the best and most punctually paid.

In whatever way we regard the subject, therefore, we see nothing but wrong and loss to all parties, from a law which allows every person to deprive another of liberty upon a mere allegation of debt. In France and England creditors have long ago been satisfied that such a law, in offering a delusive protection, caused them a real injury; and public opinion in those countries at length forced the legislatures to abolish arrest on mesne process.