nd other agents were taxed by officers of the court. But the
system was found to be cumbrous, to lead to delay and too often to the
absorption of a large part of the estate in costs, over the incurring of
which there was a very ineffective control. Hence arose a demand for larger
powers on the part of creditors, and the introduction into the bankruptcy
procedure of the system of "arrangements" between the debtor and his
creditors, either for the payment of a composition, or for the liquidation
of the estate _free from the control of the court_. [Sidenote: Acts of
1825, 1831, 1842, 1849.] At first these arrangements were carefully
guarded. Under the act of 1825 a proposal for payment of a composition
might be adopted only after the debtor had passed his examination in court,
and with the consent of nine-tenths in number and value of his creditors
assembled at a meeting. Upon such adoption the bankruptcy proceedings were
superseded. Dissenting creditors, however, were not bound by the
resolution, but could still take action against the debtor's
subsequently-acquired property. These powers were not found to be
sufficiently elastic and the act failed to give public satisfaction.
Attempts were made by the acts of 1831 and 1842 to remedy the defects
complained of by a reconstitution of the bankruptcy court and its official
system. But these measures also failed because they were based on the
assumption that judicial bodies could exercise effective control over
administrative [v.03 p.0322] action, a control for which they are naturally
unsuited, and which they could only carry out by cumbrous and expensive
methods of procedure. Under the act of 1849 a totally new principle was
introduced by the provision that a deed of arrangement executed by
six-sevenths in number and value of the creditors for L10 and upwards
should be binding upon _all_ the creditors without any proceedings in or
supervision by the court. But the determination of the question who were or
were not creditors was practically left to the debtor himself, without any
opportunity for testing by independent investigation the claims of those
who signed the deed to control the administration of the estate. It is not
difficult to see, in the light of subsequent experience, how likely this
provision was to encourage fraudulent arrangements, and to introduce laxity
in the administration of debtors' estates. A modification of the too
stringent conditions of the act of 1825,