INSOLVENT DEBTORS BILL. (Hansard, 9 May 1815)

§ Mr. Serjeant Best
moved the second reading of the Bill for the amendment of the laws relating to insolvent debtors.

General Thornton
hoped the hon. and learned gentleman would not then press the second reading, as many members who were decidedly hostile to the principles of the Bill, and who intended to oppose it, had left the House.

§ Mr. Serjeant Best
agreed that it would be useless to discuss the Bill in so thin a House. He should be happy to have the 228 opinions of every one upon it, and had not the least objection to defer the consideration of it to any day that the hon. general might name.

§ Sir Samuel Romilly
said, he had no desire to press the second reading at present, nor to provoke a debate upon the Bill itself; but, as it was probable he should not have any future opportunity of delivering his sentiments, he would venture to trouble the House with a few observation. The Bill, in its present form, certainly appeared to him very objectionable. It embraced two objects; the one, to compel the application of a debtor's property to the payment of his debts; and the other, to inflict a certain proportion of punishment upon debtors who had no property, or only a small portion. With regard to the former, nothing certainly could be more desirable; but he did not think the mode provided by the present Bill was the best. It was hostile to all the soundest principles of legislation, to compel a man to make a declaration upon oath, and then, if that declaration was not true in every respect, to punish him as a felon. He was aware that in the bankrupt laws such a practice prevailed; but it did not, therefore, follow that it was wise to adopt the same practice with regard to all debtors. It was torturing a man's conscience against himself, in a manner which the House ought to pause upon before they sanctioned it. Another objection which he felt to that provision of the Bill was, that its very severity would render it ineffectual, as was the case with the Lords' Act, from which he believed it was exactly copied, and. which was already obsolete, there being but few instances in the memory of the oldest professional men where it had been enforced. It would be much better, therefore, to dispense with an enactment, which would soon become a mere dead letter, and substitute in its stead something which might accomplish the desired end. It was fair that debtors should be obliged to give up their property; but the mode of compulsion proposed by his hon. and learned friend, appeared to him to be too severe. He strongly objected to the graduated scale, connected with the Bill, by which a debtor, having given up all his property, was to be imprisoned for a greater or a less time, in proportion to the quantity of debt he was enabled to liquidate. Thus, if a man's property was only equal to the payment of 5s. in the 229 pound, the individual was to be confined for a greater length of time than he who paid 10s.; and soon, in a certain gradation. This he considered very unjust. When a person had given up all his property, why should he be subjected to farther punishment? Looking to the professional experience of his hon. and learned friend, he had expected a great deal more than he saw in the present measure. He thought it would be better, for instance, to compel the debtor, by legal process, to give up his property, than to produce this effect in the way now proposed. A clause might have been proposed to take the lands of the debtor in execution, which could not at present be done. He also conceived that his hon. and learned friend might have introduced some provision to do away sham pleas and writs of error, by which money was put into the pockets of the officers of the court, and an unfair delay was procured by the debtor, detrimental to the interests of the creditor. These points he expected to have seen remedied; and no person was better able to have introduced provisions for that purpose, than his hon. and learned friend was. He observed a clause in the Bill, by which a debtor, even though he paid a small dividend, could procure his enlargement, provided a majority of his creditors were willing to give their consent to his liberation: but there was not a word in the Bill, as to the manner in which that consent was to be expressed. Sir Samuel concluded by observing, that if such a Bill as this could only interest so small a number of members of parliament as were then present, that circumstance, of itself, formed a strong objection to the progress of the measure. A Bill of this kind ought not to pass, without having the decided approbation of a large portion of the representatives of the people.

§ Mr. Serjeant Best
said, he was not so much attached to the provisions of the measure he had introduced, as to reject any clauses which his hon. and learned friend, or any other gentleman, might propose for the purpose of carrying his object into effect, and, at the same time, removing the objections to the present Bill. He abhorred and detested perpetual imprisonment, as much as any gentleman could; but still he looked upon the term of confinement, under the Act which he was desirous of amending, as too short to effect any useful purpose. His hon. and learned friend 230 admitted, on a former evening, that there was, probably, a species of credit, that would be affected by the Act, as it now stood—but he denied that there was any foundation for supposing that its provisions tended to relax the moral feelings of the country. He entirely differed from this sentiment; and he thought it impossible for any gentleman to look at the papers laid on the table of the House, and notice the number of persons who had come from all parts of the country to the metropolis, to get relief from debts, which they had contracted under circumstances that totally precluded the capability of their liquidating them—it was impossible, he said, for any man to contemplate this, without perceiving, that the facilities afforded by the new Act, must have had a powerful operation in impairing the moral character of the people—unless it was intended to be argued, that there was no criminality in contracting a debt, and, instead of paying it, living for a certain time in a state of extravagance and profligacy, and then coming forth, completely freed from any further trouble or molestation on the subject. His hon. and learned friend had adverted to the necessity of making various alterations in the Bill, in a committee. He had no objections to that. He wished his hon. and learned friend might hear examined at their bar the keepers of the principal prisons in the metropolis where debtors were confined, and who were the most competent persons to speak to the effects of the late Act. They would inform him, that such was the system of dissipation carried on by debtors who had thronged into their respective gaols, to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act, that they (the keepers) were obliged to apply to the courts at Westminster for stronger powers than they before possessed, to check the growing evil. He was glad his hon. and learned friend concurred with him in the propriety of compelling persons, who would rather continue in prison than give a just account of their property, to make a satisfactory return—although he objected to the severity of the punishment, in case of a refusal to make the necessary disclosure. His hon. and learned friend thought, instead of being transported, the offending parties ought to be subjected to certain penalties: but surely it must suggest itself to the excellent understanding of his hon. and learned friend, that a Bill providing penalties would be completely nugatory. If 231 the coercion of imprisonment would not induce a debtor to make a discovery of his property, how could any penalty produce such an effect? This compulsory clause, however severe, was not new in legislation. Under the Lords' Act the compulsory clause was confined to debts not amounting to 100l. The reason that it was rarely acted on was therefore evident. It must occur to every one, that the cases to which the clause applied, would seldom be connected with circumstances, that would make it worth the while of any individual to prosecute under that provision. One instance, had, however, taken place in the term just closed, where a person who had refused to give up his property, was indicted under the Lords' Act. The compulsory clause ought, as it did in the Bill before the House, to refer to cases where individuals, possessed of extensive means, having contracted immense debts, chose to live extravagantly in prison, instead of satisfying their just creditors: and, he believed, many individuals, who now lived most luxuriously in gaol, would pay their debts the moment they found they were threatened with a severe punishment, if they persisted in withholding their property from those who had claims on it. Though he was by no means friendly to the seventy. of the old law, by which a man might be confined for an indefinite period, still he conceived, that considerable severity was called for, in order to compel the payment of debts. In this point of view, the graduated scale which this Bill embraced, struck him as being well calculated to obtain his object. By that scale, the greater the dividend which the debtor paid, the less would be the period of his confinement. Encouragement was thus given for a prompt and early settlement of every demand. His hon. and learned friend expressed some surprise that he had not endeavoured to provide against sham pleas, and other modes of procuring delay, hurtful to the creditor. Now, it did appear to him, that the graduated scale of payment and imprisonment would prevent the evil complained of; because, if a debtor had recourse to the forms alluded to by his hon. and learned friend, the proceeding would necessarily tend to increase the original debt, and to consume his means of paying it. The debtor would, therefore, every step of this kind he took, be subjecting himself to an increased term of imprisonment. If, how- 232 ever, this were not deemed sufficient to remedy the inconvenience, be was ready to bring in a clause himself, for that purpose, or to adopt any provision which his hon. and learned friend might consider necessary. With respect to a legal process, to compel the discovery of property, he had no objection to such a measure; and he thought it ought to extend both to landed and funded property. This, however, did not appear to him proper to be comprised within the provisions of the Bill: a separate enactment would probably be better. If, however, his hon. and learned friend was of a different opinion, and introduced a clause on this point, be would give it his support.

§ Mr. Horner
was proceeding to make some observations, when

General Thornton
rose to order. He said he had been unwilling to prevent the learned Serjeant from replying to the hon. and learned gentleman, but he must now desire that the House might be counted.