Commons Sitting of 18 February 1807

MINUTES.
A new writ was ordered for the county of Armagh, in the room of viscount Acheson, now earl of Gosford.— Sir Charles Price presented a petition from the governor and company of merchants trading to the South Seas and other parts of America and for encouraging the Fishery, 'taking notice of the bill for repealing so much of an act, made in the ninth year of queen Anne, as vests in the South Sea Company, or Corporation, by the said act erected, the sole and exclusive privilege of carrying on trade and traffick to and from any part whatsoever of South America, or in the South Seas, which now are, or may at any time hereafter be, in the possession of his majesty, his heirs, or successors; and setting forth, that, if the same should pass into a law, it will totally deprive the petitioners of their chartered rights and privileges, which they obtained
842
for a valuable consideration; and therefore praying, that they may be heard, by their counsel, against the said bill passing into a law'. Ordered, that the said petition do lie upon the table until the said bill be read a second time; and that the petitioners be then heard, by their counsel, against the said bill, upon their petition, if they think fit.—Mr. Patteson seeing the right hon. secretary to the treasury in his place, wished to ask, whether it was the intention of government to continue, or make any alteration in, the duties imposed on Malt last session, which would expire on the 25th of next Month? Mr. Vansittart informed the hon. member, that the subject had occupied the earnest attention of the Treasury, and that it would shortly be his duty to bring the question under the consideration of the house.—Mr Vansittart presented to the house, pursuant to their orders, 1. "A return of the number 'of men wanting to complete the establishment of the regular army on the 1st Januaary 1805, 1806, and 1807, distinguishing the British from the foreign troops, and the cavalry from the infantry. 2. A return of the number of persons employed on the 1st January 1807, to levy men for the army under the orders of the 27th October 1806, distinguishing whether on half pay, retired from the army, or not having at any time held a commission therein; specifying the number of men raised in each month by such persons: 3. A return of the number of casualties by deaths, discharges, and desertions, which have taken place in the regular army, from the 1st January 1805 to the 1st January 1807, distinguishing each year; also specifying the dates to which the casualties have been reported from the several foreign stations; 4. A return of the number of desertions which have taken place in the army at home during the years 1805 and 1806, distinguishing each month, and specifying the number of men in each month out of which such desertions have taken place; 5. A return of the number of out pensioners on the establishment of Chelsea Hospitals, distinguished into their respective classes as to amount of pension, as estimated at Christmas 1806: 6. A return of the number of men for whom bounty has been charged, as enlisted at the head quarters of the several regiments serving in Great Britain, from the 25th of September to the 24th of Decem-

843
ber 1806 inclusive, so far as the Accounts have been received'.

BARRACK ABUSES.
Mr. Robson,pursuant to notice, rose to move for certain papers relative to abuses in the barrack department. As the papers he had to move for were precisely the same as those which had been ordered last session, but which, in consequence of the dissolution of parliament, could not be regularly returned to the present parliament, he did not apprehend any objection to his motion. But as it had appeared to some of his friends that he was too anxious in prosecuting the inquiry into this subject, he should make one or two observations in answer to such opinions. Four years had elapsed since he had first recommended and pressed an inquiry into the expenditure department, and since that period six millions had been granted for that service in Great Britain, and two millions for Ireland. If his suggestions had been acted upon, there would have been a saving of two millions effected for the public, out of the sums paid for the hire of buildings, the repairs of buildings, and the rent of temporary barracks. In the Second Report of Military Inquiry there appeared a case which he should refer to in support of this assertion. It was there stated, that a Mr. Page, who became barrack-master at Winchester, in 1801, leaguing with a Mr. Green, a lawyer, bought a house which had been before rented as a barrack, for 63 l. per annum, but which was not worth more than 30 l. after which the government had been charged 163 l. The whole sum that had been paid for this barrack, since the year 1794, amounted to 1700 l. though according to the usual allowance of officers, only 33 l. 10 s. ought to have been paid for it, as it did not appear that the barrack had been occupied by officers for more than one year of the whole term. This certainly called for inquiry. He begged also to call the attention of the house to the case of a barrack called the Queen's Barracks, near Weymouth, which he had visited in the middle of Sept. This barrack contained 700 and sometimes 800 men, and though so great expence was incurred, the accommodations for the officers and men were extremely bad. The building was in a low situation, in a narrow street, near a public brewhouse, without any convenience of water, but from a pump, which was at a distance, and often dry, without any place for exercising the troops, so that sixty
844
guineas a year were paid for a piece of land, at a considerable distance for that purpose. The stories of the building were but five feet high, and extremely inconvenient, and there were no drains to carry off the water. He was sure, when he stated these circumstances, that the house would not think him too anxious in pressing the inquiry. In bringing the question forward, he did not mean to impute blame to any man; the evil originated in a bad system, from which it had grown up to its present extent, and his majesty's ministers might not yet have had time to take the necessary measures for preventing the state of the barracks from being a reproach to the country. He knew not whether the barrack he had adverted to was rented or had been purchased, but his motion would reach that fact. It was unnecessary for him to state to the house the utility of economy. He understood that the barrack department in Ireland was n as bad a state as in Great Britain, and he was the more alarmed at this, because he looked at the expenditure of that country in the gross, which was now nearly equal to the charge for Great Britain, and could not but reflect, that fifteen-seventeenths of whatever sums should be expended for barracks in Ireland, would be to be defrayed by this country. The honourable gentleman concluded by moving, "That there be laid before this house a return of all the buildings of every description, rented or hired by government, and used as barracks or places for lodging, or containing officers or soldiers of the army, or of persons or horses attached to the army; that the said return do embrace every building which has so been rented, or hired, and so used, in the whole of Great Britain and Ireland, between the 1st day of January, 1793, and the 1st day of January, 1807: that the said return be exhibited in fifteen columns, placed in the order and containing the several heads here following, viz. 1st. the date of the year and of the month and day when each building respectively was taken; 2d, the county and parish in which the building is situate; 3d, the name or phrase describing the building; 4th, the number of officers that are, or have been generally quartered or lodged in the building; 5th, the number of non-commissioned officers and men, and of horses, that are or have been generally quartered or lodged in the building; 6th,

845
the name of the proprietor of the building; 7th, the name and rank of the officer or person by whom the building was taken on the part of government; 8th, the weekly rent or hire of the building; 9th, the yearly rent or hire of the building; 10th, the name and rank of the officer or person, or officers or persons, through whose hands the rent, or hire, has been paid to the proprietor of the building; 11th, the time when any alteration (if any) in the rent or hire of the building was made; 12th, the weekly rent or hire of the building, subsequent to such alteration; 13th, the yearly rent or hire of the building, subsequent to such alteration; 14th, the time when the building was given up, if not now occupied by government; 15th, the account of the whole of the sums which have been expended in repairs upon the building; and the said returns do exhibit all the names and descriptions of the said buildings, following one another in due chronological order, the building first taken by government standing first, and the building last taken, standing last."
Lord Howicksaid, he felt no inclination to withhold any information that could be conveniently produced on this subject; but from the extent and wording of the hon. gentleman's motion, he had some doubts of the practicability of obtaining the returns to it in any reasonable time. It was well worth the attention of the house not to lose sight of this subject. The hon. gentleman had stated, that his motion was precisely the same as one that had been agreed to last session; but on reference to the barrack department, he found that the returns to that motion could not have been prepared without the aid of twenty additional clerks, and for a long period. The house would consider, whether it would be expedient to order the accounts now called for to be produced at the expence of so much time and labour, when the attention of two commissions, the military commission and the other commission appointed at the suggestion of the military commission, for examining persons upon oath, were both employed in investigating this subject. If it should appear that these commissioners were negligent or inattentive, it would be for the house to determine how far it would be right to comply with the motion.
Colonel Barrysaid, he could contradict the assertion of the honourable gentleman with respect to the barrack department in
846
Ireland, from an experience of ten years. But he agreed with the hon. gentleman that it would be desirable to avoid, as much as possible, the use of temporary barracks. But when it was found necessary to march a body of troops to a particular point, where there were no accommodations, it was necessary to hire buildings at any rent that should be demanded. The barrack-master-general in Ireland felt the propriety of putting the barracks of that country on the same footing as in this, and attended particularly to the economy of expenditure in his department.
Mr. Robson,in reply, said, that he was persuaded if the noble lord would take the trouble to read the motion at length, he would then see whether or not such an account already existed in any public office, and if it could not be produced in a day or two, he should still insist that the house ought not to separate till his motion was consented to. Such a document ought to be ready by this time, considering the length of the notice given upon the subject. There were no less than 591 established clerks in the Barrack Department, and therefore it could not be alleged that there was not sufficient help to enable the Barrack Master to comply with the request of a member of parliament. Last year he confined his inquiry to one parish or district in the Isle of Wight, and in that place, he had since found that the rents of Temporary Barracks were reduced one half. Barns hired for that purpose, and rated at 2,200 l. were now lowered to 1,100 l. by means of the motion he had formerly made upon this subject. All this he could prove to have taken place, although he was now to be refused the production of that which would enable him not only to bring several Barrack-masters to the bar, but also to save the sum of two millions to the public. As he believed, however, that some reform was in agitation by ministers themselves, he could assure them, that he was not, disposed to satisfy any revenge upon this occasion, but merely to press upon them the necessity of a speedy reformation in these abuses. All he wished to know was, where the new account in that department began, and where the old one ended? But since he felt an opposition to this inquiry, merely on account of the mode he proposed, in order to attain this object, he should have no objection to give up his motion without dividing the house.
Lord Howickbegged the hon. gentleman and the house distinctly to understand, that he had not refused him any papers, which could, with propriety, be produced. If his motion could possibly have been complied with, without interfering with the commissioners already appointed, nobody could be more ready than he was, to support such inquiries.—The motion was then put from the chair, and negatived without a division.
Mr. Robsonfurther stated, that he should, upon a future day, submit a motion to the house, that would reach the Barrack Departments upon foreign stations. He hoped the charges abroad, (for instance, in the Island of Sicily) would not be found such as were formerly existing in the Island of Corsica.

South Sea Trade Bill.
Lord Temple moved the order of the day for the second reading of the South Sea Trade bill. On the motion that the bill be now read a second time,
Sir Charles Priceobserved, that as he had but that day presented a petition from the governor and directors of the South Sea Company against the bill, the petitioners were not prepared with counsel. If, therefore, he should suffer that stage of the bill to pass, he hoped the house would allow them to be heard by counsel, touching their rights, which would be invaded by the bill, in the committee.
Mr. Rosestated, that though the South Sea Company had not for forty years carried on any trade to the South Sea, it was yet not legal for any ships to trade in that sea, without a license from the company. It had been mentioned to him, that the ships which had sailed for Buenos Ayres on the first accounts of its capture, had sailed without such licenses, in which case the voyage was illegal from the outset; and in this view, the question was an important one, because this circumstance would have a very serious effect upon the policies of insurance on these vessels. Not having seen a line of the bill, he wished to be informed, whether it was proposed to give it a retrospective operation.
Lord Templesaid, he had intended to explain the object of the measure, if even he had not been called upon by the right hon. gentleman. By the charter of the South Sea Company, no vessels could legally be embarked in a trade to the South Sea without a licence from that Company.
848
The vessels had sailed to Buenos Ayres without such licence, and, consequently, their voyages were illegal. They were consequently liable to seizure, not alone by the agents of the South Sea Company, but by any privateer or letters of marque, which might fall in with them. He had not been himself in town when this event took place, but as soon as the illegality of the transaction was adverted to, his majesty's ministers had determined, on the meeting of parliament, to propose a measure for legalizing these voyages. They had conferred with the directors of the South Sea Company, and discussed the question. On the 14th of January a draft of the bill then before the house was communicated to the directors, which was returned on the 15th, with such alterations as they thought necessary to be made in it. Government had acceded to and adopted these amendments with a single exception, and therefore, he did not think that any case had been made out for deferring any stage of the bill.
Mr. Jacobcontended that the South Sea Company had not carried on any commerce for sixty-five years past, since the commencement of the war that began in the year 1740. Antecedently to that period, they had carried on a little trade to South America, by which they lost more than they gained; the expences of their factories at Carthagena, Porto Bello, Panama, and Lima, having exceeded the profits of their commerce; so that there had remained to them but a small part of the assiento contract. The South Sea Company, therefore, could not benefit by this trade. It was besides impossible that they should, as they had no capital; and before they could again embark in that trade, it would be necessary for them to come to parliament to be enabled to raise a fresh capital. Though they could not benefit by the trade to South America, a trade which was extremely beneficial to the country had risen upon the ruins of this trade, namely, the Southern whale fishery trade, which afforded a considerable nursery for British seamen. The company came, therefore, with a very bad grace to parliament, to press a right which they could derive no benefit from, to the exclusion of a trade from which the public would derive advantage. But by the act of 1802, all persons had a right to trade to the Western coast of South America, without any license, either from the South Sea

849
Company, or from the East India Company, both of whom claimed a monopoly in these seas. Though the country had been put to much expence by the Spanish armament in 1791, to establish the right to carry on the fur trade at Nootka Sound, that trade had since fallen into the hands of Americans. As to the question respecting the policies of insurance, he had the best legal authority for saying, that the defect in law existed, and therefore he thought that the matter demanded the pressing attention of the house.
Mr. Tierneystated, on the part of the East India Company, that they had only been apprehensive that the trade, when permitted, might be extended to other parts; for instance, to China; these were in the contemplation of the government, and, when they had received satisfactory assurances that the trade should not be extended beyond its precise limits, they had ceased to have any objection to the bill.
Sir Charles Pricestated, that the object of the petitioners was to have their right ascertained, and for that purpose they had presented themselves to the house, without meaning any opposition to the whole principle of the bill.—The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be printed. On the motion that it be committed on Monday,
Mr. Rosenow that he understood that the bill was to have a retrospective operation, approved of it so far as related to the covering the vessels from capture; but with regard to its retrospective operation as to the policies of insurance, he had some doubts. The underwriters had a legal right to decline the obligation of the policies, and though it would not be very honourable in them to take advantage of that circumstance, he did not think it clear that parliament should take such right from them, if they should think proper to act upon it.—The bill was ordered to be committed on Monday.

SUGAR DRAW BACKS
.Mr. Hobhousereported from the committee of the whole house, to whom it was referred to consider of the several acts relating to the Drawbacks and Bounties on Sugar exported; and also, of an act made in the 43d of his present majesty, for granting to his majesty, until 12 months after the ratification of the definitive treaty of peace, certain additional duties of excise in Great Britain, the Resolutions which the committee had directed
850
him to report to the house, which are as follows, viz. 1. "That it is the opinion of this committeee, that a Bounty of 10 s. be allowed for every hundred weight of all double refined Sugar exported from Great Britain, over and above the bounty allowable on the exportation of refined Sugar in loaf complete and whole, and lump duly refined. 2. That whenever it shall appear by notice in the London Gazette, that the average prices of Brown or Muscovado Sugar for the preceding quarter of the year, taken in manner directed by an act of the 32d of his present Majesty, shall not have exceeded 40s. for an hundred weight, exclusive of the duties of customs paid or payable thereon, on the importation into Great Britain, then, and in every such case, there shall be paid and allowed a Bounty of 2s. for every hundred weight of Sugar the produce of the British Plantations exported from Great Britain; and if, by such notice as aforesaid, it shall appear that the said average prices of Brown or Muscovado Sugar shall have been at or above the price of 40 s. and shall be under 45 s. for an hundred weight, then, and in every such case, there shall be paid and allowed a bounty of one shilling for every hundred weight of such Sugar exported as aforesaid. 3. That the bounties now payable on the exportation of sugar and sugar candy be allowed on depositing the same in warehouse for exportation. 4. That it is the opinion of this committee, that an additional duty of 2s. 6d. be charged upon every gallon of foreign brandy, spirits, aqua vitæ, or strong waters (other than rum, spirits, or aqua vitæ of the produce of the British colonies or plantations in America), imported into Great Britain, or taken out of any warehouse in which the same may have been secured for home consumption. 5. That an additional duty of 1s. be charged upon every gallon of foreign brandy, spirits, aqua vitæ, or strong waters (other than rum, spirits, or aqua vitæ, of the produce of the British colonies or plantations in America), imported into Great Britain and exported therefrom, or taken out of any warehouse in which the same may have been secured for exportation to parts beyond the seas (except to Ireland)." The three first Resolutions being read a second time, were agreed to by the house. The subsequent Resolutions were postponed.

ADDITIONAL DUTY ON FOREIGN BRANDY.
The house having resolved it-

851
self into a committee of Ways and Means,
Lord Henry Pettyconformably with his notice of yesterday, moved the following Resolutions, 1. "That towards raising the supply granted to his majesty, an additional duty of 2s. 6d. be charged upon every gallon of foreign brandy, spirits, aqua vitæ, or strong waters (other than rum, spirits, or aqua vitæ, of the produce of the British colonies or plantations in America), imported into Great Britain, or taken out of any warehouse in. which the same may have been secured for home consumption. 2. That an additional duty of 1s. be charged upon every gallon of foreign brandy, spirits, aqua vitæ, or strong waters (other than rum, spirits, or aqua vitæ, of the produce of the British colonies or plantations in America), imported into Great Britain, and exported therefrom, or taken out of any warehouse in which the same may have been secured for exportation to parts beyond the seas, (except to Ireland). 3. That the said duties shall be charged on all foreign brandy, spirits, aqua vitæ, or strong waters, for which all the duties charged or chargeable thereon shall not have been paid on or before the 19th day of February, 1807."
Mr. Roseobserved, that, the duly on brandy was at present 13 s. 6d. per gallon, and would by this additional duty be raised to 16 s.; that the original cost was but 2s. 6d. per gallon, and that such a high duty, compared with the prime cost of the article, would become an extreme temptation to smuggling, and would not operate as any material relief to the West India trade. Besides, he did not think the regulations for the prevention of smuggling would be as effectual as was expected.
Lord H. Pettystated, that the system of rewards to vigilant and active revenue officers, would have a very beneficial effect, and that the West India merchants were of opinion, that the addition to the duty on foreign spirits would afford them relief.
General Gascoynewas of opinion, that this additional duty on brandy continued, with the preference to be given by the public boards to the consumption of rum, would be of material assistance to the West India trade.—The resolutions were then agreed to.

FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL.
The Solicitor-Generalmoved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill for making the Freehold Estates of persons
852
who die in debt, assets for the payment of their simple contract debts. On the question for the second reading being put,
Mr. W. Herbertrose with regret to oppose any Measure brought forward by the hon. and learned gent. who was the author of the bill. He lamented that he had not heard the statement of that hon. and learned member, when he obtained leave to bring in this measure; but he had read the bill since it had been printed, and objected to it because it went to alter the whole of the law of landed property in this country. If he understood it right, its object was to make all cases of simple contract debts of men who should die in debt, without making any will providing for such debts, a charge upon their real estates. This would change the whole law of landed property, which was coeval with the constitution. There were various ways of charging landed property by mortgages and other legal instruments, and there were sufficient processes for recovering of simple contract debts. Whenever any change bad been made in the common law, it had been generally for the worse. He did not see any urgent occasion for the alteration now proposed, much less on so loose and vague a ground as to provide for simple contract debts. It would have the effect of lowering the value of freehold property. Another objection he felt to the measure was, that it would interfere with the elective franchise, which depended altogether on freehold property: and if it was to be made liable for simple contract debts, in cases of small freeholds, the heir might be thereby deprived of one of the most valuable of his rights. He should have no objection to the measure, if it was to be confined to the cases of persons who die suddenly or violently; for he was sure no honest man who had time to make a will would neglect to provide for his debts. On these grounds, he felt himself inclined to oppose the bill.
Mr. Fellowesthought that the bill should extend to copyhold as well as to freehold property, because in many cases the freehold and copyhold property were so blended, that it might be difficult to sell the one, without, at the same time time, selling the other.
The Master of the Rollsthought the hon. gent. who began the debate, was right in considering this bill as making a very material change in the law of freehold property. The law as it at present stood, es-

853
tablished the limits of real and personal property. There were but two ways of charging real property, either by deed sealed, or by will. He had doubts of the policy of increasing the modes of affecting freehold property. At present it was impossible to charge it by a single scrap of paper, or by any parole agreement. The effect of this measure would be, to do away that solemnity which the policy of British law required in transactions that affected freehold property. The fact was, that the parties, by their own act, decided the terms of the contract. The creditor who trusted to the simple contract, knew, that he was not in the same situation as if he had a bond, and he who had a bond knew he was not in the situation of one who had a mortgage. He could see no reason why the law should put the creditor in a situation which he did not bargain for. He might have demanded a higher security if he was not satisfied with the lower, and the debtor might have refused it. Why, then, should the law say that a man might have the advantage of the best contract which he could have made? If the principle were to be recognized it would go much further. A tenant in tail might, by suffering a common recovery,cut off the intail, and make the estate his own, and liable to his debts. If he should die, omitting to suffer such recovery, as the specialty creditor to be let in, who, as the law now stood, was barred? Was the law, because the debtor might have rendered the estates liable to his specialty debts, to supply his act, and let in such creditor? Was the creditor to have every advantage by the operation of law, which his debtor by his act could have given him? Was the principle to be maintained, of legislating for the purpose of putting the creditor in a situation which his own act did not place him in? This principle was not necessary for the future, and would be unjust as to the present. After the passing of this bill, the freehold property of every man, who bad contracted any obligation for which that property was known not to be liable, would if he died, be charged therewith in the hands of his heir. This would be an instance of positive injustice, because it would place the parties in so different a relative situation from that in which they were at the time of making the contract. When he threw these observations out, he did it only by way of stating the difficulties he felt; not of giving a conclusive opinion,
854
as he had not yet heard the grounds upon which the measure had been founded. There did not appear to him to be either necessity for the measure or any utility in it. One of the objects of the measure, he understood to be, to prevent frauds, by persons who might involve themselves in debt, and, with the money borrowed, purchase freehold property, which would descend to their heirs without becoming responsible for these debts. This was a case that had sometimes occurred, and which ought to be prevented. But the measure went, in one respect, beyond its object, and in another fell short of it. Such cases of. frauds were confined to properties purchased by the debtor, and the bill, by extending to all freehold property, went beyond its object. But, by being limited to freehold, and not including copyhold property, it fell short of its object. It would tell the fraudulent debtor to purchase copyhold and, not freehold property; and copyhold property would more effectually enable him to defraud his creditors, because copyhold property was not liable even, for specialty debts. In the bill which had been brought in for the same purpose in, 1772, copyholds and customary freeholds had been included with freehold property. Having said thus much, it was not his intention to object to the second reading of the bill, or even its going into a committee; for in the committee his hon. and learned friend would feel the necessity,for the attainment of his own object, to make some alterations in the measure.
The Solicitor Generalwould have been extremely glad if the opposition then made had been made before, because he would in that case have had the advantage of knowing the objections that were felt to a measure, which he conceived to be of the highest importance. He must say that it would have been more fortunate if he had heard the objections stated by the right hon. and learned gent. who had spoken last, sooner, because, though he was convinced, that every hon. member was actuated in making objections to any measure by the purest motives, it would have been particularly desirable for him to have heard the objections just stated earlier, both because he had endeavoured to collect the opinion of his right hon. and learned friend on the bill, and had submitted a copy of it to him, and because he could then have given an answer that might have been more satisfac-

855
tory to the house, than the answer he could now give might prove. He admitted that it was incumbent upon any member who proposed any alteration in the existing law, to state the grounds upon which he founded such alteration. If his right hon. and learned friend had not been present when he stated the grounds of this measure, the fault did not lie with him. He had on that occasion stated, that the law of landed property had been framed with a view to a feudal state of society, which no longer existed. It was to pay too great veneration to the wisdom of our ancestors, as it was called, to continue that law unaltered, when the state of society had undergone a change that rendered it inapplicable to the existing state of society. This country had become a great commercial country, and therefore it was necessary to adapt the law of property to such a situation of things. The ordinary obligations in the course of business were not specialty but negociable securities, drawn at a short date. If specialty contracts were to be rendered necessary, that would put an end to commercial business. The case stated by his right hon. friend, had not been urged by him as the ground of his measure. But it was sufficient reason for the adoption of some such measure. Breaches of trust were, as the law now stood, but simple contract debts. Personal property bequeathed in trust for the use of infant children, might be sold by the trustee, and the money laid out in the purchase of freehold property, which, when devised over to his own children, would not be liable to these claims. In like manner, the proceeds of an estate devised in trust to be sold for the use of children, might be vested in the purchase of lands, which either when devised over to the trustee's own children, or in case of his death, would not be liable to the claims of the persons for whose use the estate was devised. The children in both cases would be simple contract creditors, and if there should not be assets sufficient, would be driven to the support of casual benevolence, or parochial relief. This state of the law was a reproach to the country. There were cases that frequently occurred in courts of equity, and yet the gentlemen of his profession, who alone perhaps were capable of framing the remedy, had viewed them with patient acquiescence. The state of the law was peculiar to this country and Ireland. In Scotland, and in the rest of
856
Europe, no property could descend to the heir, without being chargeable with all the debts of the ancestor. An heir could be deprived of his whole property by a single stroke of a pen, in the presence of three witnesses, and was it fit that the only case in which the property should be inalienable from his heir,.was when it was to be made liable for his father's debts. The honourable member who had spoken first in the debate, had said that no honest man would omit to make a provision by will for his debts, but this bill was to place every man in the situation of an honest man. He appealed to any gentleman who heard him, whether he would wish his estate to descend to his heir without being liable for his simple contract debts; and he asked, why require for another what they would be ashamed of for themselves? It had been said, that credit had already been carried to too great an extent in this country. If that were the case, they had an effectual mode of checking it, that would be attended with considerable mutual advantages, by abolishing imprisonment for debt. When a man was ready to give up all he possessed, he ought not to be imprisoned for not doing what it was impossible for him to do. Real estates were affected as well by judgments obtained on actions proved by parole testimony, as by sealed instruments or wills. In the former case, the charge amounted to a lien on the property. This Measure would neither create a lien nor lower the value of freehold property. The same provision in Scotland was not attended with any diminution of the value of freehold property. The objection that the measure ought to extend to copyhold property, he could not answer as satisfactorily as the others. The bill that had been alluded to, had been brought in by a very learned member of his profession (Mr. Ambler), and had failed, perhaps, from having included in it copyhold and customary freehold property. It would be better to proceed gradually. This as a first step of a system would be an important measure; as a single measure it would be highly beneficial. It would be extremely desirable that copyholds should also be made liable; but if the house adopted his measure, he trusted they would not stop there. As to the objection, that this principle would take in estates in tail, he should only say, that he knew not why they ought not to be liable. It was a maxim of the court in which his

857
right honourable friend presided with so much benefit to the country, that a man should always be taken to do that which he ought to do; and certainly as the tenant in tail might, by his own act, have made the estate liable to his specialty debts, there was no good reason why the principle ought not to be extended to such estates.
Mr. Canningobserved, that though feelings of veneration for every institution of our ancestors ought not to be carried to excess and bigotry, they ought to operate so far as to prevent any rash alterations. Innovations of this nature ought to be regarded with the utmost jealousy, and to be examined with the utmost scrupulousness. Without meaning any disrespect to the hon. and learned gent. who proposed this bill, (for as to his abilities there could be but one opinion) he must say, that it was in his own opinion, and that of many others, that a measure of this nature ought rather to have originated in the other house, where it might have, in the first stages, undergone the revision of the great law magistrates. This ought to have been the case, though the hon. and learned gent. had heard of no difference of opinion on the subject; but if there was a difference of opinion existing there that point well deserved the hon. and learned gent's consideration. The particular object of this bill was to meet the cases of fraud with regard to freehold estates, but he admitted that with regard to copyhold and entailed estates the, room for frauds would still be left open. But he insinuated that this was only meant as a preliminary step to similar alterations with regard to copyhold and entailed estates. In this view he had strong objections to the bill. The hon. and learned gent. admitted that one door would be left open for fraud in the purchase of copyhold estates; he would ask him whether previous debts were intended to supersede subsequent settlements of freehold estates, and to be good against purchasers? If they were not, the object of the bill would be evaded; if they were, then you would only be doing away one opportunity for fraud, in order to create a stronger. The hon. and learned gent. had stated, that this was becoming in a great degree a commercial country, and that in that respect its situation was become different from what it was when this law with regard to property had been established. This was certainly true, but though he felt well disposed towards the comer-
858
cial interests of the country, yet he did not think that they ought to be promoted at the sacrifice pro tanto of the permanent landed interest. He did not think that this was wanted. But why did not the hon. and learned gent. make his bill exactly commensurate with his object? Why did he not apply it merely to the landholder engaged in commerce, and adopt the suggestion of the right hon. and learned gent. (the Master of the Rolls) for confining it to the first purchasers of freehold estates. You might secure the object by extending the bankrupt laws to these cases. But as to the general doctrine of the adaptation of laws to the supposed state of the country, it would open a door for all reformation. In the reign of the philosophers of France, there was nothing great or venerable in antiquity that was not attacked, before the great revolution which rendered these changes odious to all the world. If we were to look generally at the fitness of things, he would undertake with half the ingenuity of the hon. and learned gent., to prove to the conviction of speculative men and many others, that there was nothing that had been hitherto held venerable in our law, that, did not require reformation. He could prove, that the right of primogeniture ought to be abolished, and that it was improper to leave almost the whole to lazy drones of elder brothers, and leave the rest to make their way in the world as they could. If you began with these notions, there was no end to them. He had therefore, his doubts as to the propriety of passing this law, and these doubts were not removed. He would not, however, oppose the second reading, because he wished to observe what amendments might be made in it, but he rather thought that he must be under the necessity of opposing its ultimate success.
The Solicitor General,in explanation, denied his having said that it was his intention to proceed further. He had merely stated, that it might possibly appear proper to parliament to make other alterations in the course of time. He had no personal object whatever in this measure. His sole motive for bringing it forward, was a conviction of the benefits which the public would derive from it.
Mr. Canningdisclaimed having imputed any personal motive to the hon. and learned gentleman.
The Attorney Generalsupported the bill

859
on the grounds of justice and morality, and his only wonder was, that a measure of this nature had not been brought forward sooner. The object was to compel the heir to do that justice which his ancestor might be prevented from doing by various causes. Our veneration for the institutions of our ancestors must be limited by a regard to justice. He denied that the evil which this bill went to remedy was merely a specific and partial one. The tendency of our law was to facilitate the alienation of landed property, and to get rid of feudalties, and that was certainly not a partial remedy which went to render the real estates of persons dying in debt, and perhaps wishing to discharge them, liable for these debts. It would be a great satisfaction to many persons, who without any fraudulent intentions found themselves, at the moment of dissolution, unable to make arrangements for paying their debts as the law now stood. It would be a great satisfaction to them to have the conviction that their debts would be paid from their real estates. He denied that a bill of this kind ought with any peculiar property to originate in the other house. The great law magistrates would have the measure before them in due time, if it passed this house. He thought that the house and the country were under great obligations to his hon. and learned friend for his bill. He was glad that the subject had been brought forward and laid open to public discussion.
Mr. Percevalwas, upon the whole, rather disposed to favour the bill, for the object of his hon. and learned friend was one which ought certainly to be promoted, if that could be done without injury to the proprietors of land, and he was glad that there seemed a disposition on all sides to canvass this business more maturely. The very reason that rendered it proper to pause upon it was that which the hon. and learned gent. (the Attorney General) had urged in its favour. He had expressed his surprize that such a measure had not been proposed before. This might be owing to some difficulties attending it which were not at present observed, and therefore it was proper to proceed with caution. The cases of copyhold estates and of estates sold subsequent to debts contracted, mentioned by his right hon. friend near him (Mr. Canning) would be very material difficulties. However, the bill had so much merit, with regard to persons dying and leaving their debts
860
unsettled through inadvertence, and not from any dishonest intention, that it had his most hearty approbation at present.
Mr. Morrisobserved; that the case of subsequent settlements mentioned by the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) over the way, had been already provided for by the statute of Elizabeth. The case of primogeniture was not at all like the present. No remarkable grievance arose from that. He was glad to find that the right hon. and learned gent. below (the Master of the Rolls) had not given this measure a decided and deliberate opposition.—The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow se'nnight.

NEW PLAN OF FINANCE.
Mr. Hobhousebrought up the report of the committee on the Finances of the country. On the motion that the resolutions be read,
Mr. Sturges Bourne,suggested the propriety of delaying the further consideration of this important question, which went to subvert the principles on which the whole financial system of the country; and that, too, without the house being in possession of several necessary documents. There was no estimate on the table of the produce of the war taxes, and on this subject the house had only the assertion of the noble lord, which, however respectable, was not of itself a sufficient authority. At that period of the night, too, he could hardly think that the noble lord would press the discussion. What necessity was there for haste? If the measure was to be followed by taxes, it. might be expedient to lose no time in passing the bills through the house; but this was not the case; and with respect to the loan, the loan of last year was contracted for at a much later period, and he was satisfied that no inconvenience could arise from delaying it for at least two months. He had no party views in what he stated, but he was convinced, that the house had not had time to render themselves competent to decide on this momentous question. If, however, they were to be compelled to come to a decision, he for one felt it impossible to vote for the first and second resolutions, because they went to mortgage the war taxes, many of which would not be available in time of peace, and many others, which policy ought to induce us at that period to repeal or modify. Of this latter class, were the duties on spirits and tea. Justice also demanded that the ton-

861
nage duties should cease with the War; and there was another duty which bore with peculiar severity on the lower classes of the people, and which ought to be got rid of as soon as possible; he meant the last duty on Malt, to which he should even prefer retaining the Property tax. For these and other reasons he could not agree to the first and second resolutions. As to the general principle, he confessed he was not prepared to enter into it any further than by stating, that it appeared to counteract that which had been hitherto our object, namely, the restraining of the Funding system. To that object we had closely adhered until the year 1802, when a partial departure was made from it; but we were now called upon to do away what was the justification of that departure. He warmly agreed to giving the country repose from taxation for several years; but he wished that the noble lord would not look so far into futurity, but content himself with proposing a plan for 4 or 5 years, at the expiration of which period, the house and the country would become better judges of the system which it would be eligible to adopt.
Mr. H. Thorntonrequested to know, whether it was intended that the debate should proceed at that hour?
Lord H. Pettyobserved, that the debate was last week fixed for that evening. If at a late hour, it should appear that there were some gentlemen yet desirous of giving their opinions, it would be in the judgment of the house to adjourn the further discussion of the question.
Mr. Rosecould see no possible objection to a postponement of the debate. On a measure of such immense consequence he could not think that the noble lord would press the commencement of a discussion at between 8 and 9 o'clock. Many gentlemen, he for one, were anxious to deliver their opinions, and there would be no chance of ending the debate that night. All he wished for, was a postponement until to-morrow; and he had no doubt that the hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread), who had a motion which stood for to-morrow, would readily agree to put it off.
Lord H. Pettyobserving that his hon friend was not present, declared that he could not answer for him on that subject, but that he had strong reason to believe, that as he had three times postponed his motion, he would not consent to any further delay. If, however, the hon. gent. oppo-
862
ties would take the chance of the debate on the present question commencing to-morrow, after that motion should be disposed of, he had no objection to its standing over.
Lord Howickexpressed the same opinion as his noble friend, as the motion of his hon. friend was one of considerable importance (the Poor laws), and would not conveniently admit of further procrastination.
Lord H. Pettyat length left it to the discretion of the gentlemen on the other side, whether the report should be discussed now or to-morrow, and the consideration of the report was accordingly postponed.