Sitting of 22 May 1817

BANKRUPT LAWS.
Mr. J. Smith 820
rose to present a petition, praying for a revision of the Bankrupt Laws, from the principal members of the mercantile body of the city of London. To this petition the names of the bank directors, with those of the most respectable West-India and East-India merchants, were annexed. It was indeed so subscribed, that it might well be denominated a petition from the first merchants, bankers, and traders in the country, and it referred to a subject highly deserving the attention of that House. The petitioners complained, that under a commission of bankruptcy, bona fide creditors were too often defrauded, while fictitious claimants were allowed to partake of the assets of the bankrupt that the place in which the commissioners at present transacted business in London, was so inadequate for the purpose, that they were quite incompetent to discharge the duty assigned them, to the satisfaction of the creditors—that indeed, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to examine the conduct of bankrupts in such a way as to answer the object of the law. From the objectionable character and defective administration of such a system, it must be the wish of every considerate man to relieve the mercantile body, and with a view to the attainment of that relief, it was his intention on a future day to move for the appointment of a special committee to inquire into the subject.
Sir S. Romillywas glad that this subject had been brought before the House from such a respectable quarter, and trusted it would experience the degree of attention which it loudly called for. The system of the bankrupt law was radically defective; and he was persuaded that nothing would serve to correct the abuses complained of but a very material alteration in that law. It was notorious that the grossest frauds were practised under the law, as it at present stood—that fictitious debts very often superseded bona fide claims—that indeed many persons entirely subsisted in this town by the fraudulent management of bankrupt concerns—by the superintendence of perjury and subornation of perjury. The system, then, which gave birth to such crimes, surely called for the consideration of the legislature; and he was firmly convinced, that those crimes arose principally out of the excessive severity of the law; for this was one of the many cases in which the excessive severity of the punishment defeated the object of the law. By the 5th of Geo. 2d. any bankrupt

821
who did not appear to his commission, or who withheld any property to the value of 20 l. was pronounced guilty of a capital crime. Yet how few were the convictions under this act, and yet how many might be supposed guilty of the latter offence. But the fact was, that men were unwilling to prosecute while the punishment was so excessive at least for withholding the property. But he was satisfied that if the punishment were less severe, a fraud, no doubt of frequent recurrence, would be considerably reduced. There were, however, other alterations which this system required. It ought to be made a substantive crime for any fictitious creditor to sign a bankrupt's certificate. Adverting to the bill before the House, he expressed his disapprobation of that measure, which he did not think likely to do any good, while it was calculated to produce much oppression. For the idea of authorizing a minute examination of the whole life of a bankrupt, and of proposing that if any exceptionable act on his part were detected, he should be therefore refused his certificate, was quite inconsistent with justice and humanity. But the main object of this bill was quite impracticable, and he hoped the hon. mover would not press its adoption. He had himself brought in a bill upon the subject in a former session, in which there was a clause to invest the lord chancellor with a power to sign a bankrupt's certificate in certain cases. But for this clause another was substituted in the Lords, of which he by no means approved, namely, that of authorizing three-fifths of the creditors to sign a certificate, and this was deemed an important concession, because four-fifths were previously required. That arrangement, however, did not at all answer the end which he had in view, namely, to protect the honest debtor from the oppression of callous or inconsiderate creditors.
Mr. Lockhartsaid, that the object of the bill which he had introduced, was solely to distinguish between honest and fraudulent bankrupts, and to guard against fictitious claimants. As to the latter, he was sorry to understand, and he stated it without prejudice, that in London, at least, they consisted principally of the Hebrew nation, who, as he was assured, dealt largely in false oaths. For example a case had lately come to his knowledge, in which a Jew had sworn himself the creditor of a bankrupt to the amount of 5,000 l., but, upon examination before the commis-
822
sioners, it appeared that not one shilling was due to him. But as he (Mr. L.) was informed, those Jews, however they might be influenced by the penalty which the law annexed to perjury, had really no religious reverence for any oath not taken before one of their own rabbies, while such was their impression with regard to the latter, that a Jew happening to die some time ago, shortly after he had violated an oath taken before a rabbi, his fate was among his nation universally attributed to that violation. The rabbies should therefore be called upon to enlighten and instruct those Jews upon the subject of oaths taken in the administration of our law, and no doubt the call would be attended to.
Mr. Abercrombiesupported the views of sir S. Romilly, adding, that the commissioners of bankruptcy should be authorized to adjourn the final examination of any bankruptcy until he should be prepared to make a satisfactory disclosure of his effects, as such a provision, he was induced to think would operate materially to check fraudulent bankrupts.
Ordered to lie on the table.

ABUSES AT THE CONVICT DEPARTMENT AT CORK.
Mr. Bennet, adverting to a commission of inquiry which had lately taken place at Cork, in consequence of frauds committed upon the Convicts, stated the circumstances of the case as they had been communicated to him. Representation having been made to admiral Hallowell, who commanded at Cork, that about one half of the sum allowed by government for the maintenance of each convict while at Cork, had been for years appropriated to the private profit of the sheriffs and gaolers, that gallant officer transmitted his information to the government, by whom a commission of inquiry was appointed. Now, he wished to know whether there was any objection to lay before the House the report of the commission, with regard to the double fraud upon tin-government and the unfortunate convicts?
Mr. Peelhaving stated that he had no objection, Mr. Bennet moved for the "Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Crown to investigate certain alleged abuses in the Convict Department in Cork, together with the evidence taken before them."—Ordered.

EDUCATION OF THE POOR.
Mr. Broughamrose to move the revival of the

823
committee which sat last session to inquire into the education of the lower orders in the metropolis. A great deal of evidence was taken before the former committee, and a great deal of that evidence was necessarily ex parte. It appeared to him that a considerable portion of it, therefore, was susceptible of correction and revision, and it was in order to afford an opportunity for obtaining that correction, on the part of the witnesses, by another investigation, that he now moved the revival of the committee.—Agreed to.

WINDOW AND CARRIAGE TAX IN IRELAND.
Mr. Shaw, of Dublin, rose to bring under the consideration of the House, the extreme hardship which was felt in many parts of Ireland from the oppressive duty upon Windows and Carriages. The hon. member went into a variety of statements, to prove the severity of those taxes, especially that upon windows, and mentioned one case, where a person paying only 28 l. a year for rent, paid 24 l. to the window and hearth tax. The duty on windows was originally imposed as a war tax, and the war having ceased, he thought it was but common justice to relieve the people of that country from the further continuance of the tax. At least, if it could not be wholly repealed, he apprehended it would be very practicable to mitigate its operation, and he should therefore move, "That a committee be appointed to take into consideration the petitions from the city of Dublin, and other parts of Ireland, against the window tax and carriage tax."
Mr. Grattanexpressed his entire concurrence in the motion, and his conviction of the necessity that some consideration should be bestowed upon the subject. The persons who had petitioned against the tax, especially from Dublin, were all of them respectable householders, and a most rational, intelligent, and modest set of men. His idea was, that some regulation might be adopted, which would relieve the subject, without diminishing the resources of the country. In any opinion he entertained or might have expressed upon the subject of those taxes, he did not mean to cast the slightest imputation upon the motives or the integrity of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. V. Fitzgerald), at whose recommendation they were imposed. He had proved himself an honest servant of the Crown, mediating between it and the people, and doing justice to the one,
824
without agitating or oppressing the other. It was impossible, however, in so large a system of taxation, that some parts of it should not need correction, and any person might manifest a wish to obtain that correction, without throwing a blemish upon the individual by whom the system was proposed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that though he differed in some respects from the views entertained by the hon. mover, yet he was most ready to do justice to the candid manner in which he had argued it. While, however, that House would feel disposed to attend to any particular inconveniences felt from the operation of a tax, they were equally bound to attend to the general burthen which must be borne by the whole empire. He thought the object of the hon. member would be best attained by referring the petitions to the committee of finance, rather than to any separate committee. The whole taxation of the country must come under the consideration of that committee; and he would, therefore, move as an amendment, that the said petitions be referred to the committee of finance.
Sir J. Newportsaid, if the House wished to have a fair examination of the matter, they would not consent to send the petitions to the finance committee One reason why he should object to doing so, was, because there was not, at most, more than one of two Irish members upon it, and though he had no doubt the members of that committee would do their duty, in what related to Ireland, as well as to England, yet, in a question affecting Ireland alone, he could not help thinking that Irishmen were most likely to be influenced by the necessary zeal and anxiety. There was another consideration. The business already before the committee was quite enough to occupy all its attention With respect to the taxes complained of, in condemning their operation, he disclaimed any intention of reproaching the right hon. gentleman who proposed them. He was called upon, by his situation, to make great exertions during the war; he did do so, and Ireland corresponded to them, by drawing upon her capital to meet his demands. But the war being over, she had a right to expect from the justice of England a remission of those claims.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald, in explaining the views which induced him to lay those taxes upon Ireland, admitted, that he believed there was no body of men more

825
entitled to relief than the petitioners, if that relief were consistent with the welfare of the empire at large; and he hoped the reference of the petitions to the finance committee would not operate in the way which the right hon. baronet apprehended.
Mr. Plunkettsaid, he thought it would be much better to understand at once whether it was likely any relief would be granted, rather than send the petitions to a committee, merely as a way of getting rid of them. No new light could be thrown upon the subject of them by any investigation before the finance committee. With respect to the window tax, it was certainly a war tax originally; but he did not therefore mean to say it should be struck off, though it certainly constituted some ground for complaint, and come claim for a mitigation of its assessments on the part of the petitioners. It was felt most severely in Dublin, where hundreds of persons were compelled to stop up their lights, thus excluding the fresh air, and causing the most deplorable consequences from contagious disorders. If no relief could be granted, in God's name let it be so declared, and they must submit to it, which would be infinitely better than deluding them with hopes that were never meant to be realized.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreminded the House, that the assessed taxes of Ireland stood pledged for the payment of the interest upon its permanent debt. They had to consider, therefore, whether she could supply the means of defraying that charge, by the operation of a reasonable system of taxation. He was as desirous as any one to afford relief, if it could be done without diminishing the income of the country. The mode of effecting that would demand some inquiry, and he much doubted whether any inquiry could be made that would enable them to legislate upon the subject this session. That was the reason why he proposed to refer the petitions to the finance committee.
Mr. Maurice Fitzgeraldsaid, that he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state that this tax stood pledged as a part of the permanent revenue of Ireland. That was impossible, as the act of parliament gave it an express duration of three years, or during the war. England, on the arrival of peace, had received as a boon a diminution of 17 millions of taxes, while to Ireland, whose means of meeting taxation were so reduced by the abrupt-
826
ness of that measure, nothing was granted but about 20,000 l. in the repeal of certain duties. He would vote for a special committee; any other reference was but to smother disapprobation.
Sirs N. Colthurst and H. Parnell pressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer to send the subject to the examination of a special committee.
Mr. Broughamcontended it was the only practicable course, as by sending it to the finance committee either its other comparatively more important duties must be suspended, or no regard would be paid to the present subject.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald, to gratify all parties, would press on his right hon. friend, to accede to the motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that he was not so wedded to his own opinion as to the manner of disposing of the present subject, as to decline taking the course most likely to gratify those gentlemen so intimately connected with Ireland. But he wished to say, that a plan had lately been before him for remodelling the whole system of the collection of the assessed taxes in Ireland, on which he had suspended his decision until he should avail himself of a local investigation on the spot.
Sir J. Newportsuggested the propriety in consequence of the information the House had just received, of withdrawing the motion. The presence of the chancellor of the exchequer, he sincerely trusted, would have the beneficial effect of establishing that long wanted desideratum in Ireland, an efficient check on the collectors of the public money.
The motion and amendment were then withdrawn.

LINEN TRANSIT DUTIES.
Mr. Finlay, in rising to draw the attention of the House to the state of the Linen trade, lamented that his intentions had given rise to any agitation in Ireland. He trusted, however, he should be able to show on what slight grounds those apprehensions were founded. Foreign linens, he observed, on being taken out of warehouses for home consumption, were subjected to a duty of 7½, and if intended for exportation, were loaded with an additional duty of 15 per cent., making altogether 22½. This duty had been wisely imposed by parliament, when this country enjoyed the monopoly of the trade of the world; and if affairs had so continued to the present time, he

827
would not now propose its removal. The Irish manufacturer complained, that the removal of those duties would be highly disadvantageous to them. This he denied to be the fact; for their repeal would not induce people to purchase foreign linens, at an additional expense, which they must do, if they preferred them to those manufactured in Ireland. The general commerce of the country was injured by this system, and the manufacturers of linen in England and Ireland, were particularly affected by it. He could show, that the removal of this tax would assist the manufactures and commerce of the country, generally, and that it would be especially serviceable to the linen manufacturers. There was a prejudice in the colonial market against Irish linens, which could only be done away by removing those duties. By this means Irish linens, which were now scarcely to be seen in the colonial markets, would find their way to it, and a competition would take place between that and foreign linens, which would probably remove the existing prejudice. The hon. gentleman then moved that a "copy of a memorial of the merchants engaged in the import and export trade of the city of London, to the lords commissioners of his majesty's treasury, respecting the transit duties on foreign linens, presented on the 7th of May, 1817, be laid before the House," also, for a "copy of a memorial of the governor and court of the Russia company, respecting the transit duties on foreign linens be laid before the House."
Mr. Knoxdid not mean to oppose the motion, as it tended only to produce inquiry. The question lay within a very narrow compass. It was known that there was a great prejudice in the minds of the South Americans against Irish linens; not, he believed, because they were inferior to the foreign linens, but because a fair comparison was not made between them. In consequence of this the Irish linen merchants imitated certain marks that were affixed to the German linens, and sent them into the market thus disguised. He was averse to the removal of those duties. If the burthen on the import of foreign linens were taken off, not a yard of Irish linen would be bought; nothing but that of foreign manufacture would be purchased. It might be said, that the prejudice of the South Americans would soon be removed, when the Irish article came in fair competition with the foreign. But what, in the mean time, was to become
828
of the Irish manufacturer? They knew very well that this trade had been increasing in Ireland, during the last few years, under the operation of these transit duties which certainly afforded a presumption that they were useful. This increase some persons attributed to the war, but they had no right to do so. The trade had increased since the conclusion of hostilities, and the opening of the continental ports to us, in a great degree. In 1812, 35,000,000 of yards were exported; in 1813, 37,000,000; and in 1815, 40,000,000. It was clear that such an increase could not have taken place if the transit duties were ruinous in their nature.
Mr. Robinsonwas decidedly of opinion, that it would be beneficial to the general interests of the country, and, in no ways injurious to the manufacturer, if those duties were repealed. He was always friendly to the measure, and so little did he contemplate the objections which had been urged against it, that he had laid a memorial before the linen board of Ireland, thinking the proposition of a repeal of the transit duties would be immediately acceded to; but he found their feelings on that subject were very different from his; they treated the measure as one calculated to do the greatest possible injury, and as rather intended to serve the interests of private individuals, than those of the country in general. The whole of their argument was founded on the supposition, that those duties prevented the foreign linens from coming into our markets. This was the fact, in 1810, when we had all the trade of the world; but now, when the ocean was covered with the Hags of all nations, what was there to prevent foreign vessels proceeding directly to those markets, which we formerly supplied? It was said, the foreign merchant could not do this, because it was out of his power to command an assorted cargo. But every practical merchant in that House knew that that this was an erroneous supposition. The foreign merchant could half fill his vessel at Hamburgh with linens; he might then proceed to an English port, take in whatever other articles he pleased, and sail at once for South America. In the last year, the duties on foreign linens exported amounted to 4,000 l.—in the preceding year they were 22,000 l.; which showed that the foreign linens, in spite of our efforts, had found their way, direct, to the colonial market. The duty was inoperative; it produced

829
no good for the Irish manufacturer; but, on the contrary, a great deal of mischief. Though there might be a prejudice abroad against Irish linens, yet it was well known that many other articles, the manufacture of these countries, were highly estimated in South America. These articles would certainly be introduced to a much greater extent, if, inconsequence of the transit duties being taken off, they were shipped from this country along with foreign linens. With, respect to the "innocent deception," the "pious fraud," that was spoken of; namely, the assimilating, by an imitation of certain marks, Irish to German linens, he was sure it would be carried on much better if the assimilated pieces were mixed with a quantity of linens, really foreign. But it would be a great misfortune, if any fraud were necessary. He believed the Irish linen was as good, for many purposes, as the foreign; and he conceived it was much better to have the bad or good qualities of the manufacture, fairly put to the test, through the medium of competition, than to have recourse to deception or artifice of any kind.
Mr. Peeldesired, in this stage of the debate, to intimate his intention of moving for another production from the board of linen trade of Ireland. He laid claim, on the part of that country, to all that favour which could belong to, or be deserved by local interests. If ever local interests were binding upon a legislature, the engagements under which the English parliament had come to the Irish were obligatory and imperative. Manufactures might safely be left to the calculation of their own profits; but it was an object of national policy to decide between their contending claims. That this was a fair subject for political consideration was manifest, from the total and separate amount of the different exports from Ireland during the last year. The total amount of these exports was 6,400,000 l., of which the one half was of linen manufactures; whilst that of her raw commodities diet not exceed 1,500,000 l. The House also was bound to recollect the origin of the linen trade in Ireland in the year 1696, and by what means that country was induced to sacrifice to it her woollen manufactures. This was done in conformity with the earnest wishes and solemn engagements of the English government at that period. Here the right hon. gentleman read the addresses of the two Houses, and the answers from the throne relative to this sub-
830
ject. That the success of this manufacture was still progressive would appear from a statement of the accounts for the last five years, which amounted successively to 2,310,000 l., 2,519,000 l., 2,861,000 l., 2,882,000 l., and, notwithstanding the last year of extraordinary difficulty and embarrasment, to upwards of 3,000,000 l. He had good reason to believe that the manufacture was still extending itself; and was the more convinced from the present circumstances of the flax trade, that the present was a most unfortunate period for commencing any experiments upon it.
Mr. Marryatsupported the motion, on considerations derived from an intimate knowledge of the transit trade in this article, and on the general ground that much of what was called Irish linen was in fact of foreign manufacture. He had no doubt that it was for the interest both of Great Britain and Ireland that these distinctions should be done away.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldreferred to the policy of foreign powers, and particularly of the Prussian government, in defence of the prevailing system.
Mr. Curwen, after briefly adverting to the state of the flax trade, declared it to be his sincere opinion, that a greater injustice had never been practised by one country towards another, than by England towards Ireland, by the extinction of her woollen trade.
Sir J. Newporthoped that the subject would be brought forward early in the next session, that thus the people of Ireland, interested in the linen trade, might see the House were disposed to do them justice, and to defend their interests.
The motion was agreed to.

EXTENTS IN AID.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that of late years the great increase in the revenue, and the great concerns in which the government had been engaged, had led to proceedings with respect to Extents in Aid, that it had never been in the contemplation of the legislature or of the courts of law to sanction. The power of extending the operation of extents in aid t6 those indebted to debtors of the Crown, had enabled individuals to put forward their claims in a way peculiarly advantageous to themselves, and this power had certainly of late years been much abused. To remedy this he would now propose to bring in a bill, the principle of which would go to

831
remove the abuse by taking away the temptations which had till now existed. Hitherto the debtor of the Crown had been enabled to take advantage of those who might be debtors to him, and to recover sums by means of extents in aid greatly exceeding those in which he stood indebted to the Crown. He proposed that in future the sums thus recovered should not be applicable to the Crown debtor, but should be exclusively applied to satisfy the demands of the Crown. This practical remedy to the particular abuse it was thought would accomplish the object in view better than a more general revision of the law. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the issues of Extents in Aid.
Mr. Abercrombiesaid, that the public were much obliged to the right hon. gentleman for bringing the subject under the consideration of parliament; he was, how-ever, rather inclined to think that this matter might have been more satisfactorily adjusted, by reverting to the ancient law. Until the last twenty years there was no instance of any extent, except in cases of bond debts to the Crown. The only other alteration necessary, might, in his opinion, have been produced by additional regulations on the part of the barons of the exchequer, in order to enforce a more strict definition of the nature of the application, before any extent were allowed to be issued. This he thought might be effected without any interference on the part of the legislature.
The Attorney-Generalwas persuaded, that if his learned friend were to consider the subject a little more, he would be of opinion that it would not be practicable for the court of exchequer, by any rule of court, to remedy the existing grievances. One of the great evils which the bill was intended to remedy was, that a debt to the Crown, through the medium of an extent in aid, frequently, and sometimes necessarily, procured to the debtor to the Crown, at the expense of the other creditors of his debtor a considerable benefit, of which the Crown did not partake. For instance, if a debtor owed the Crown 500 l. and had a debt owing to him on bond of 5,000 l. he obtained an extent in aid, by which he seized the whole of that latter sum from his creditor, to the injury of any other creditors which that individual might have. Now, one object of the bill was to prevent the debtor to the Crown from doing this, and to confine the ope-
832
ration of the extent in aid to the precise sum in which he was indebted to the Crown. It was also to be proposed, that the money obtained by extents should not pass into the pocket of the debtor to the Crown, but should be paid at once to the Crown itself. These regulations would materially diminish the inducement to sue out extents in aid. With respect to the supposition of his learned friend, that until late years extents in aid did not issue, except on bond debts, it was unfounded. From the earliest times they had issued on simple contract debts.
Mr. Lockhartobserved, that the outline of the measure, as described by the chancellor of the exchequer, was by no means sufficient to remove the evil complained of. The practice of suing out extents in aid, was grounded on a fiction; but according to the proposed measure, that which was a fiction would be made a reality. He thought it a question which deserved serious consideration, whether the kind of extents proposed to be maintained, should be allowed to exist. He hoped that the accumulation of excessive costs would be prevented. He knew an instance of an extent having been issued for 80 l., the costs on which amounted to 100 l. Besides the costs, the great trouble and embarrassment to which the parties were exposed was a most grievous evil.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowwas aware that the circumstances of the country had rendered great vigilance in the recovery of debts due to the Crown necessary; but still the abuses which existed with respect to I extents in aid ought to be done away. The proposed bill, he hoped, would tend to accomplish that object. As to the question of costs, that was certainly one which deserved to be promptly examined. He could not sit down without expressing that tribute which he thought due to the conduct of the attorney-general, who, as the House well knew, had abandoned an extensive and profitable practice in his profession, in order that he might give the public service the full benefit of his attention. Such instances of zeal in; the public service were rare.
Mr. Thompsonhoped, that extents in aid would be confined to debtors in chief. If every surety was allowed to receive extents, that would be a great evil. Something ought to be done to prevent the enormous amount of costs. He knew a county in which the sheriffs had in one year received 10,000 l. as costs.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.