the said Accountant-General, and of such particular estate, and shall take a receipt for the same from the cashier of the Bank, and carry it to the office of the Accountant-General, who will give a proper voucher for such receipt, such voucher to be produced when called for by the Commissioners. That it is recommended to the Commissioners to allow the official assignees 1 per cent. on the moneys they respectively receive, and 1 per cent. more on the monies actually to be divided, oject nevertheless to be increased or diminished in any case under special circumstances to be referred to the Court of Review. That the messengers shall, upon taking possession, forthwith take an inventory of the bankrupt's effects, but that no appraisement shall be made, or other expences incurred, without the special direction of the commissioner, until after the appointment of the creditors' assignees. That a Table of Fees to be allowed to Messengers having, in the year 1828, been approved of by the then Lord Chancellor, and the duties of messengers having been since diminished, it is recommended to the commissioners that all fees contained in that table, except the following, be for the future disallowed in the taxation of the messengers' bills: S. d. Attending the commissioners until the adjudication for warrant of seizure 10 0 13 4 Summons to bankrupt to surrender, and duplicate.. 5 0 6 8 Preparing advertisement for the Gazette, and copy, and attending with, and fee for the same ...... Summons for assignees to attend audit meeting...... .... 3663 4 8 6 8 4 ...... Possession from the day of execution of the arrant of seizure to the choice .... Preparing summonses, and serving same upon the assignees.. 21 0 If, in execution of any of the business above-mentioned, the messenger and his man, or either of them, shall be compelled to travel any considerable distance from London, we submit that besides the above fees, and in addition to travelling and other necessary expenses, an allowance should be made for the time employed at the following rate per day :- For the messenger, 6s. 8d.-For his man, 5s. Od. That all petitions presented to the Court of Review shall be entered at the Registrar's Office, and that the fiat directing the attendance thereon shall be under the seal of the Court of Bankruptcy, and that the original petition shall, when served, be returned to the registrar on or before the hearing, and be filed of record, and that it shall not be necessary to recite such petitions at length in any order pronounced by the Court thereon. That all the processes of the Court of Review shall be under the seal of the Court of Bankruptcy. That all agreements of reference, to be made rules of the Court of Bankruptcy, shall be so made by order of the Court of Review, and all matters arising thereon shall be heard and determined by the Court fo Review. That all questions respecting the conduct of the officers and practitioners of the Court of Bankruptcy shall be brought before the Court of Review. That all recognizances to be taken and acknowledged in the Court of Bankruptcy shall be taken and acknowledged before the Court of Review. That the practice of the Court of Review shall, until otherwise ordered, be conformed, as nearly as may be, to the present practice in matters before the Lord Chancellor. That the First Subdivision Court shall consist of Charles Frederick Williams, Joshua Evans, Robert George Cecil Fane, Esqrs.; and the Second Subdivision Court shall consist of John Herman Merivale, Samuel Marten Fonblanque, and Edward Holroyd, Esqrs. T. ERSKINE, C. J. Jan. 12, 1832. Approved, Brougham, C. LORD PLUNKETT'S CHANCERY BILL. OUR attention has been called to a Bill introduced by Lord Plunkett in the House of Lords in the last session of parliament, affecting the jurisdiction and practice of the Courts of Chancery and Exchequer in England and Ireland. This bill passed the House of Lords without discussion or enquiry, with a precipitancy little suited to the subject, and justifying, in some degree, the charge brought against his lordship by the Sister Country of having attempted to take her by surprise. Both countries are interested in this measure, though in a very different degree. Were we to consider its enactments in a selfish point of view, we should have no reason to complain; but as it is apprehended that in Ireland its consequences would prove injurious to all her interests-landed, commercial and professional we deem it our duty to lay self aside, and consider the bill chiefly in reference to the latter country. Were the measure even now abandoned, we should not dwell upon it; but as we have the high authority of Lord Plunkett himself for saying that "he had not heard of any opposition which would be raised against the bill in the commons' house of parliament;" and in his answer to the Irish Law Society, he states "that he does not feel the full force of the arguments which they allege against its principles, or apprehend the mischiefs which they anticipate from its adoption;" it is but justice to Ireland to lay before our readers the principal provisions of the bill, together with the leading objections urged against it by the unanimous voice of all classes in that country. The respectable solicitors of Ireland, embodied as the "Irish Law Society," have been particularly active in their opposition, and to their ably drawn "Representation" to the Chancellor, we are chiefly indebted for the information we have been enabled to collect. The act is entitled "An Act for the better Execution of Decrees and Orders made in the Courts of Chancery and Exchequer in England and Ireland respectively;" and reciting the acts of 41 Geo. 3. c. 90. and 5 Geo. 4. c. 111., and that it is expedient to extend their provisions so as to enable the Courts of Chancery and Exchequer in England and Ireland respectively, to issue process, not only against the person, but also against the lands, of parties against whom decrees or orders shall be made; and then enacts "That it shall and may be lawful for the said Courts of Chancery and Exchequer in England and Ireland respectively, in all cases where any suit or suits shall be depending in the same respectively, to make orders and decrees affecting the lands of the parties to such suits or matters in Ireland and England respectively, and to appoint receivers over the same as fully and effectually as if the lands of such party were situate in that part of the United Kingdom where such suits or matters shall be depending; and that upon the exemplification and transmission of such order or decree from the said courts respectively in the manner provided by the said herein before recited acts with respect to orders or decrees for the payment of or accounting for money, it shall be lawful for the said courts, to which such order or decree shall be so transmitted, to issue process against the lands of the party against whom such order or decree shall have been pronounced, and to appoint receivers over the same in like manner as they are now, under the provisions of the said recited acts, enabled to issue process against the person of such party, and to make orders for the levying of the rents and profits of such lands, and for accounting for and paying over the same to the party entitled thereto as fully and effectually as if the said suit, or suits, or matters, had been originally instituted or pending in the courts to which such order or decree shall have been so transmitted." The remaining sections relate chiefly to the enforcing of appearance and answers in the respective courts, and makes service of process on parties out of the jurisdiction of the respective courts, but residing in any part of the United Kingdom, good. Under the restrictions therein mentioned, and to these provisions (their want having been frequently felt), no objection has been made. It is against the enactments of the first section that the opposition of all parties in Ireland has been ably and resolutely directed. The Irish Law Society, in particular, have presented to the Chancellor a representation on the subject, having previously obtained the legal sanction of five of the most eminent Irish barristers (not holding official appointments) in the following terms: "We have read the bill referred to, and are of opinion that if passed into a law, its operation and effects must be productive of very serious injury and inconvenience to the people of Ireland in general, but more especially to the landed proprietors, and to persons having judgments (so common in Ireland), and other charges and incumbrances affecting lands in this country, and although some disadvantage may be occasionally felt in the present state of the equity jurisdiction, we are persuaded that inconvenience and mischief incomparably greater would be the result of any attempt to repair the evil by a remedy of this sort. It is a fact well known to some of us, that Lord Redesdale had bestowed great attention on this subject, and was at one time very anxious to introduce a measure into parliament to effectuate part of the objects now contemplated; but that he felt himself obliged to relinquish the attempt from the difficulty of framing a bill which would not be liable to greater objections, and productive of more inconvenience than attends the present state of the law. "We therefore advise that a respectful representation should be made to the Lord Chancellor, of the practical evils likely to result from this measure This we think at once the most becoming and likely mode of preventing the bill being again brought forward. EDWARD PENNEFATHER. ROBT. HOLMES. DAN. O'CONnell. THOS. WALLACE." His Lordship's reply to this representation is not altogether satisfactory. He states that he is not convinced by the reasons urged against the bill, but will not again bring it forward without consulting the profession. The principal objections made to the bill seem to be these: That the recited acts relate chiefly to the recovery of debts due to the crown, in which case they give a remedy affecting lands in Ireland; a remedy against the person only being allowed in suits between subject and subject; whereas the proposed bill gives a power of affecting lands in Ireland in every instance by operation of a decree or order of an English court of equity. It is but too well known, that from the depressed state of the landed interest in Ireland, there are comparatively few estates free from incumbrances and that advances of money to Irish land-owners are usually secured by mortgages and judgments affecting their lands, while it is unfortunately equally notorious, that the pecuniary capital of Ireland is inadequate to the direct purposes of trade and internal improvement, and still more so for the purpose of enabling her capitalists to invest money on securities, not always unattended with risk. The necessities of Irish landlords are in fact for the most part supplied by English speculators, and a very large proportion of the lands of Ireland are affected by real liens in such hands. The inevitable result of this bill would be, that English creditors would, for their own convenience, if not for the purpose of oppression, uniformly prosecute their claims upon lands in Ireland, in an English court of equity. The Irish debtor must then employ an English solicitor, in whom he cannot place confidence, because he knows nothing of him, and this perhaps in addition to his Irish solicitor, whose services may be also required. He must not only attend the proceedings in England personally, at a ruinous expense, but be exposed to the costs and inconvenience of bringing over his witnesses (if willing to attend, for he has no power to compel them,) or of obtaining a commission to examine them at home. Irish encumbrancers must prove their claims before an English officer, and as costs are not allowed to the party proving, the expence would in many instances amount to more than the value of the charge, and in effect operate as a bar to its recovery. The measure would inflict serious injury on the landed interest in Ireland, by excluding English capital, as it is not to be supposed that Irish landlords would borrow money in England, subject to the inconvenience and hardships to which we have alluded. The English lender has no reason to complain of a want of facility in prosecuting his claims in the Irish courts, and his security would be in no way increased by the bill. Much inconvenience would also arise from contemporaneous proceedings in both countries. A loan upon, or a sale of, lands might be effected in Ireland on the very day on which a decree for the sale of those lands was pronounced in this country, and by this decree (according to the doctrine of notice) the lender or purchaser would be bound. The bill professes to give reciprocal advantages, while it in effect secures a monopoly to the profession in England. Nine-tenths of the money invested in landed securities in Ireland is English capital, and it is therefore reasonable to presume, that nine-tenths of the equity business connected with such investment would be transferred to the English courts. These are the public grounds on which the opposition to this bill rests,— injury to the landed interests of Ireland, inconvenience and oppression to her creditors and debtors, without any additional security being conferred on the English lender, and a want of reciprocity in its effects; to which may fairly be added, its tendency to annihilate the prospects of both branches of the legal profession practising in courts of equity in Ireland, and deprive of the means of cxistence the numerous individuals who look up to them for support. The professional society of Dublin now forms almost |