The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1835.

hand, there was great delay in proceedings when the creditor may
need immediate execution. Why after a bond was executed should
the creditor be put to the expense of a trial ? He would pl ()-
pose, that after a certain number of days the creditor should
have the power of having an execution against his debtor.
An objection might be made as to those accounts which were
running as unliquidated demands and not secured by any in-
strument; he should propose that the creditor bring his ac-
tion, and then after verdict have instant execution, in like
manner as in a bond. He next proposed that the creditor
should be enabled to compel the debtor to surrender his pro-
perty. By the present law the debtor may be taken and im-
prisoned, but he has the privilege of taking lodgings in the
Rules without the prison, where he may live despite of his cre-
ditors, and waste his substance which ought to be applicable to
the payment of his debts. And with respect to this there
was this strange law, that if the debtor was possessed of
property under 3001., he might be compelled to surrender it,
but if above that sum, then he could not be made to
surrender it ; when, indeed, the very circumstance of the
large sum renders it more proper that the larger property
should be made applicable to the payment of his debts.
He would propose to give a power to the creditor to sum-
mon the debtor before a judge, and on cause shown, the
debtor to be compelled to assign over a sufficient propor-
tion of his property for the payment of his debts. If a
man were indebted to the amount of one hundred thousand
pounds and became bankrupt, he could not be imprisoned un-
less fraud were proved against him ; but when a man owed
only 40s. he could be immured in a gaol and there kept, when
the larger debtor escaped with impunity—and he did not see
why this should be. His next measure was, that all the pro-
perty of a debtor, property of every description, should be
made subject to the payment of his debts. If a debtor was
possessed of ever so much money, it could not be taken by any
proceeding. If a debtor possessed 10,0001. in Consols, or in
bonds or bills, they being chosen in action, could not be taken
under an execution. If he possessed land, the creditor could
only take one-half, and afterwards another half of the remain-
ing half, and so on ; but he never could at once take the
whole. Copyhold land was entirely protected from judgments,
and he could see no earthly reason for the distinction. Thus,
therefore, though a debtor may be possessed of large copyhold
property, he could, if he thought preper, keep the whole from
his creditors—( Hear.) He proposed that all funded property
should be made subject to debts—( Hear, hear, hear.) If a
man posssessed 10,000/. in the three per cents., he may go
abroad, there receive hid dividends, and leave his creditors un-
paid ; and there was now no law to prevent him. A court of
equity would, indeed, prevent a transfer; but neither a court
of equity nor any court of law could prevent him receiving
his dividends—( Hear, hear.) He therefore proposed to
make copyhold and funded property, and money, bonds,
and bias, all liable to execution—( Hear, hear.) He would
make no distinction—he would make them all liable to the
payment of debts. While thus looking to the interests
of the creditor, he would not overlook those of the debtor.
He would propose to allow him to make a cessio bonorum,
without being driven within the walls of a prison. Suppose
an unfortunate debtor is obliged to take the benefit of the
Insolvent Act, though he is freed from arrest and imprison-
ment, yet all the property that he sUbsequently acquires is,
by the present law, liable to the payment of his debts. He
would propose that if the property of the debtor were not
sufficient to pay the whole of his creditors, he may, by a de-
claration of his insolvency, a surrender of his property, and
an equal distribution, be enabled to procure a certificate of
entire discharge, and be enabled to commence the world again
unshackled by continuing claims. Need he say the conse-
quences of imprisonment were of the worst possible descrip-
tion ?It is always pernicious to morals—a man never goes
into prison without being contaminated by the society he finds
there. The practice was productive also of this bad conse-
quence, that the debtor, in the face of great expenses, was in-
duced to collect monies and property of which he defrauded his
creditors, for the purpose of maintaining himself in prison, and
paying the expenses of his discharge. The returns made of
the average amount of dividend paid upon the estates of all
persons passing through the Insolvent Court showed that those
estates did not pay more than one farthing in the pound.--
( Hear, hear.) And he felt quite sure that if the debtor
were, instead, declared insolvent, and his property promptly
and equally distributed, the same debtor who paid under the
present insolvent system one farthing in the pound, would pay
a respectable dividend ; and it might be allowed, that if the
creditors were satisfied with the conduct of the debtor, they
might give him a memorial or certificate of that satisfaction to
enable him again to conduct himself in the world with credi-
bility and success. So much for the debtor when honest in his
transactions; but if a debtor should conduct himself fraudu-
lently then he would act contrariwise, and he thought that it
ought to be provided that several things should, as against
debtors, be declared misdemeanours, and punished. He would
have it declared a misdemeanour when a man absconded from
his creditors ; he would have it made a misdemeanour when a
man refused to disclose his property after judgment ; he would
have it a misdemeanour for a man fraudulently to convey his
property, or to dispose of it among his friends ; he would also
have it declared a misdemeanour for a man to contract debts
without a reasonable prospect of paying them. When two or
three persons acted together in accomplishing some fraud,
they could be punished for a conspiracy ; but when there was
only one person, who, though he might pretend to be in afflu-
ent circumstances, and obtain on that ground a large quan-
tity of goods, and dispose of them, yet however absurd it
was in principle, there was no punishment for this injustice.
He would propose to make such persons liable to punishment.
Although a great change was thus proposed, he was of opinion
that a considerable majority of the public was against the con-
tinuance of the present system. When this subject was dis-
cussed in that House, so far back as the year 1780, in which
Mr. Burke had taken a part, that distinguished individual did
afterwards express his regret that he did not advocate a more
extensive change. The Learned Commissioners who had sat
upon the inquiry on this subject, agreed that a change must
be made. What he then proposed was, that the subject
should be referred to a Committee up-stairs, who would be
more competent to go into the important details than he could
at present, and he trusted that his Hon. and Learned Friend
the Attorney-General would allow his name to be added to
those of other gentlemen ; for his part he would willingly give
the Committee his best attention on the various details which
would be there better discussed. He knew the public took a
deep interest in the matter—(Hear)--he had received hun-
dreds of letters from all parts—he had received memorials
without number, and deputations from all parties, which clearly
showed that the public fully felt the importance of the subject
He would not then detain the House at greater length, but he
hoped that it would allow the Bill to be read a second time,
when the amendment could be fay discussed, and he hoped it
would be then such a measure as would receive the support of
that House.—( Hear, hear.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL took the earliest oppor-
tunity of declaring his approbation of the principle of the
measure of his Hon. and Learned Friend, to whose labours
and talents he would bear a willing testimony.—( Hear, hear.)
During the last session of that House, he had the honour of
introdueinc, a Bill which involved the first proposition of his
Hon. and Learned Friend. He regretted that his Hon. and
Learned Friend did not (as we understood the Learned At-
torney-General to say) render his assistance in forwarding
that Bill, as it would have allowed the public to judge of the
operation of the principle then proposed to be carried into
effect. He was satisfied that the best mode in these matters
was to proceed gradually and carefully, and the commercial
world would rest satisfied that they were proceeding safely.
It was not fitting, neither was it the general spirit of our laws,
that misfortune should be dealt with as a crime. We should
not confound misfortune with crime ; nor, on the other hand,
should we allow crime to escape. There was one thing, how-
ever, advanced by his Honourable and Learned Frien from
which he dissented. He objected to the increase of our cri-
minal code, which was sufficiently extensive.---( Helir.) He
was averse to multiplying crimes and offences, but with that
exception he was generally in favour of the principle of the
measure then before the House.

Mr. O'CONNELL asked if it was intended to extend the
Bill to Ireland ?

Sir J. CAMPBELL answered in the negative.

Mr. O'CONNEL L regretted that such was the case ; for
he thought that it was founded on the clearest principles of
justice. Alluding to the monstrous absurdities which existed
in the present state of the law, he observed that the time was
come to destroy them—not bit by bit, but in a wholesale way.
There •could not be a clearer principle than that misfortune
ought not to be punished as a crime ; and it was evident, there-
fore, that they ought to go the full length of abolishing impri-
sonment for debts—always giving a remedy against fraud in
the contracting of them. That remedy might be obtained by
making the fraudulent debtor liable as for a misdemeanour, in
which case he would be tried by a jury. He did not wholly
concur with the Hon. and Learned Member for Edinburgh
( Sir J. Campbell) in the propriety of releasing the debtor,
who had given up the whole of his property, from any subse-
quent claims on the part of his creditors ; indeed, he might say
that he doubted much whether any good effects had resulted
from the system of granting certificates to bankrupts. The
man to whom a debt was due ought to be under the protection
of the Legislature equally with him from whom it was owing ;
he should not lose his right of requiring payment from his
debtor because that debtor happened to fall into misfortune,
but ought to have a claim upon the fruits of his debtor's in-
dustry until the debt was paid in full. He, therefore, begged
to differ from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman as to the mode
of what was technically called " whitewashing." In conclu-
sion, he repeated his regret that the measure was not to extend
to Ireland.

Mr. RICHARDS felt that it was an odious task to oppose
any measure of apparent benevolence, but felt it his duty, as a
commercial man, to state some objections to which the pro-
posed bill was open. It would not facilitate the recovery of
book debts ; and it would have the effect of reducing the
amount of paper in circulation, inasmuch as to lessen the
number of bills of exchange to one half of their present
amount. It would also have the effect of lowering prices.
The intention of the Hon. and Learned Member was, he be-
lieved, to abolish imprisonment for debt in all cases except
where the debtor was about to abscond ; but then the onus
probandi—the task of showing such an intention en the part
of the detor—was to be thrown on the creditor. It was a
false philanthropy to call the proposed measure one for the
relief of the debtor, for he would not, under its operation, be
able to get credit to the extent to which he now obtained it.
Mr. F. SHAW expressed his approbation of the principles
laid down both by the Hon. and Learned Member for Edin-
burgh and his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-Gene-
ral ; and also of the course proposed to be pursued with the
intended bill, and trusted that means would be taken to extend
its operation to Ireland.
Mr. WARBURTON did not apprehend that the Bill
would have the injurious effects anticipated by the Hon.
Member for Kna,resborough (Mr. Richards). So far as re-
garded its operation on the circulating medium, if it had the
effect of driving bad bills out, and leaving none but good, its

results would be highly beneficial. It was not from the circu-
lation of bills drawn on men unable to pay them that the
community derived any benefit. The only effect of multi-
plying bad bills must be artificially to raise prices for the mo-
ment; but when those bills came to be dishonoured a panic
would ensue, and prices would again be lowered in a corres-
ponding degree. The system which had of late years in-
creased in prevalence of substituting bills of exchange and
negotiable securities for book debts, might, under this Bill, be
rendered more general ; but that would, in his opinion, be a
beneficial result. On these grounds he supported the measure.
Mr. H AWE S confirmed what had fallen from the Hon.
Member for Bridport ( Mr. Warburton) as to the advantages
arising from the alteration in the mode of transacting business
by the substitution of bills of exchange for book debts.
_ _

Mr. PEA SE supported the principle of the Bill, but
thought that some hardship might wise both to the tradesmen
and farmers of England.
Mr. ROLFE supported the Bill.
An Hos. MEMBER would venture to express a hope that so
beneficial a measure would be extended to Ireland.—(Cheers.)
Sir J. CAMPBELL having replied,
Leave was given to bring in the Bill, which was read a
first time.