§ The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill respecting Insolvent Debtors,
§ Earl Stanhoperose to express his dissatisfaction with the provisions of the Bill, the principle of which he was, notwithstanding, anxious to support. To many of the different clauses of the Bill, he had strong objections. To the first clause in the Bill, that which went to the appointment of only one person to preside in the proposed court, he must particularly object. He should prefer the suggestion offered on a former occasion by a noble and learned lord, that three or four persons should be appointed instead of one; simply for this reason, that where three or four presided, justice was more impartially and properly administered than where only one presided. Besides, it was well known that the time and attention of the Lord Chancellor were otherwise so much engrossed, that he could not; indeed, it was impossible for him to give the time and attention it required, to the transaction of the bankrupt business. He should therefore imagine, that if three or more fit persons were appointed to the court proposed by this Bill, the business of bankrupts might be safely transferred to that court, and thus relieve the Lord Chancellor from that weight of multiplied business by which it was evident that the noble, and learned lord must be encumbered. He had also to object to the clause which proposed an oath, in the first instance, to be taken by the debtor, instead of allowing him to give in a statement of his effects, which he might afterwards be called upon to confirm by oath. To take the oath in the first instance, when recollection might not serve him to state minutely and accurately the exact number of his creditors, the sums which were respectively due to them, &c. together with a detailed and correct account of his own estate and effects, would have the effect of making him liable to perjury, or at least to the suspicion of perjury. The form of the oath was, besides, too long, and might be wholly unintelligible to that class of persons, Poor Debtors, by whom it was to be taken. Here, moreover, was an unnecessary addition to the many oaths. Excise oaths. Custom-house oaths, &c. which but too much familiarised people with that sacred and awful declaration, on which 363 was known to depend the life, the property, and the character of individuals. A schedule delivered in by the debtor of his effects, appeared to him to be the more simple and effectual mode, the correctness of which schedule he might be afterwards called upon to confirm on oath. The noble earl also objected to the clause which obliged the debtor to remain in gaol three months before he could avail himself of the provisions of the Bill. He thought it better to allow him immediately to give notice of the state of his affairs, as, in that case, the creditor would have the full advantage of a three months' notice, while the debtor would not be unnecessarily detained beyond that period. These suggestions he look the liberty of throwing out as expressive of his own opinion, though he would not take the sense of the House on the amendments which he intended to propose. The noble earl concluded with moving his first amendment, that "three, instead of one fit person," be appointed to preside in the proposed court.
§ Lord Redesdalewas not very tenacious of the provisions of the Bill, as they now stood, so as the suggested Amendments did not trench on the principle, or depart from the precedent, on which the Bill was framed and founded. He could see no necessity, at least no immediate necessity, for the appointment of three, instead of one fit person to preside in the court. If one person should be found competent to the task it imposed, why appoint three or four, especially at a time when economy was so necessary, and so frequently inculcated; for it could not be expected that a person, qualified for the discharge of such important functions, should bestow his time and labour on the discharge of such functions, without an adequate remuneration? That remuneration must be extended to three instead of one, if three instead of one were to be employed; and thus the burden on the public would be unnecessarily trebled. As to the objection of proposing an oath in the first instance, he could see no foundation for it. In framing the present Bill, he had constantly in his eye the provisions of former Insolvent Acts, in all of which a similar oath was prescribed. Indeed, without some guard and sanction of that nature, he was at a loss to see how too wide a door might not be opened to the fraudulent instead of the unfortunate debtor, or how the justice that was due to the honest creditor could 364 be fairly and uniformly maintained. The oath, besides, could not make any man liable to perjury, unless where the oath was deliberately and corruptly taken with evident intention to defraud. For these reasons, he thought the clauses of the Bill justified by the motives and the precedents on which they rested; as far, however, as he could alter them consistently with the views he had taken of their propriety, he would willingly alter them on the better suggestions of any noble lord. He had himself many Amendments to propose in the Bill, and would therefore be the more prepared to listen to the Amendments proposed by other noble lords.
§ Earl Stanhopecomplained that he had been misrepresented by the noble and learned lord, and that to many of his objections no answer whatsoever had been given. He would still insist that it was absurd in the first instance to propose an oath, for though it might not have the effect of making the debtor perjure himself, it would lead him to forswear himself, which, in his opinion, was making light of the most serious and solemn obligation by which it was possible for man to bind himself.
Lord Hollandagreed that there was much weight in many of his noble friend's observations, but they could not induce him to endanger the passing of the Bill. He was so wedded to the principle of it, that he would overlook many imperfections in it, rather than not have something of what it aimed at. If absolute perfection could not be immediately attained in such matters, what was less objectionable should in the mean time be adopted, until they might gradually arrive at that perfection which every noble lord must feel to be so desirable.—He should not therefore oppose the Bill, hoping however that the noble and learned lord who brought it in, would exert his abilities to render it as unobjectionable as possible.
The Lord Chancellorsupported the arguments of lord Redesdale. He thought the proposing of an oath in the first instance the only practical mode of proceeding under all the circumstances of the case. How else could any thing like correct statements be expected to be given in by debtors, who, in the different and distant prisons of the country, could not be examined as to fair or unfair statements of the amount of their effects in the chief towns of their respective counties? Ought it not moreover to be a national consideration 365 with their lordships that no facilities should be afforded to the prejudice of the honest creditor?
Lord Hollandcomplained of the expression "the honest creditor," as if it insinuated that those who felt for the unfortunate debtor had lost sight of the claims of the honest creditor.
The Lord Chancellordisclaimed any intention of imputing such motives to any noble lord; and observed, that as the noble and learned lord who brought in the Bill had many amendments to propose, whether it might not be better to allow that noble and learned lord now to propose his amendments, than to have the Bill, as amended by him, printed, and afterwards to re-commit it as thus amended, for the further consideration of their lordships.
After some further observations, the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor was adopted. The House resumed. The Bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed, and to be re-committed on a future day—. The House next resolved itself into a Committee on the Arrest Bill, when a similar mode of proceeding in it was adopted.