wished to know whether he had rightly understood the answer of the chancellor of the exchequer to a question put last night by the hon. member for Nottingham? He had understood the chancellor of the exchequer to say, that in consequence of the great amount of exchequer bills already funded, there would be no funding, or raising money by Way of loan, either this year or the next. The present amount of exchequer bills in circulation was 44 millions—the sum which would be required for the next year would probably be 14 millions, making in all 58 millions; which, if there was no funding next year, would be kept afloat in the country.

said, that there would be forty-one millions of exchequer bills in circulation at the end of the year, besides three millions lying in the Bank, making together the sum mentioned by the hon. gentleman, 44,000,000l., and being considerably less than the amount of those now in circulation. In reply to the other part of the hon. gentleman's question, he had certainly said that he saw no probability of being obliged to fund or to raise money by a loan next year, having funded so large a sum this year. This statement was founded on the great improvement which had taken place, and on the present flourishing state of the consolidated fund. He added, that the revenue was increasing at the rate of 100,000l. per week. The money market was redundant, and the general state of the country highly satisfactory. He had given no pledge, for that, in his official situation, would always be improper, as he could not foresee what circumstances might arise; but he had Stated truly, that he saw no probability of being obliged to raise money next year by funding; or by way of loan.

rose, in pursuance of his notice, to call the attention of the House to the subject of the bankrupt laws. In the last session, a petition had been presented from a large body of mercantile men, complaining of the grievances suffered by the commercial world from the imperfections of these laws. In the committee, which the House had appointed on that subject, those grievances and many others had been proved; and the inefficacy of the present bankrupt system, and the necessity of revising it, had been incontrovertibly demonstrated. The committee had had the benefit of the opinions of some gentlemen high in their profession, and of the most respectable private characters. Their names would be known to every member of the House; he meant Mr. Basil Montagu, Mr. Cooke, and Mr. Cullen. Mr. Montagu had been twenty years commissioner of bankrupts; Mr. Cooke nearly as long; and Mr. Cullen had also been a considerable time in the commission. Mr. Montagu stated, that, in the city of London, there were persons who made a trade of proving false debts on the estates of bankrupts, receiving sums of money for the practice of this fraud. Mr. Cooke spoke not so strongly; but Mr. Cullen made use of this strong language—that the majority of commissioners of bankruptcy might be considered conspiracies between the bankrupt and the petitioning creditor to defraud all the rest. They had another still higher authority—that of the lord chancellor, who had said, after animadverting on a case in 1801, "Unless the court holds a strong hand over a bankruptcy, particularly as administered in the country, it is itself accessary to as great a nuisance as any known in the land, and known to pass under the forms of its laws."^* He should now state the leading points in which amendments of the bankrupt laws were proposed by the committee. The first question was, as to the description of persons who should be subject to the bankrupt laws. This was now not regulated by any general rule. An innkeeper was not subject to the bankrupt laws; but if he sold a pot of porter out of his house, he became subject to them. There was a case lately, in which a gentleman who kept a pack of hounds, and was in the habit of buying dead horses to feed them, and who happened to sell the skins of these carcases, was declared subject to the bankrupt laws. A person engaged in mines, and on that account requiring cre- dit, by bills of exchange, to the amount of hundreds of thousands of pounds, was not subject to the bankrupt laws; but if he bought or sold a bushel of ore, he became liable to them. The committee, therefore, recommended that the bankrupt laws should be extended to all whose dealings require that credit should be obtained by bills of exchange or otherwise; and that persons who are not generally so engaged; should not be subject to the bankrupt laws, in respect of occasional or casual acts of buying and selling. The next regulation of importance was, as to acts of bankruptcy. The act of bankruptcy, on which commissions were at present generally issued was, the debtor denying himself to the creditor to avoid a demand for debt. It was evident that this must be done in concert with the debtor, and if he did not wish to become a bankrupt, there was no way but by arresting him, and keeping him in prison two months; but as it was no difficult matter to obtain bail, he might avoid being imprisoned so long, that in the mean time he might pay the debts of his own family or friends, and only go into the Gazette when all his property was disposed of or dissipated. The committee had thought it desirable that traders believing themselves to be insolvent, or not having the present means of paying their debts, should be permitted to subscribe and lodge with the secretary of bankrupts a declaration thereof, which should be advertised in the Gazette, and thenceforth be deemed an act of bankruptcy. The committee had also thought that it would be beneficial, if the following additions were made to the acts of bankruptcy now established by law, viz.—

^* Vesey's Reports, I.

"General stoppage of payment for seven successive days.—Being absent from home thirty days, without making provision for bills of exchange, promissory notes, or ordinary payments, becoming due.

"That after notification in writing left at the house of a trader twice repeated, allowing a period of seven days between each, informing him of a writ having been issued, his not entering an appearance, or putting in bail within nine days after the third notice; and in case the bail shall be excepted to, then not justifying bail in due time after such exception, such trader should be deemed not to have put in bail within the meaning of this regulation; provided such trader shall be within the united Kingdom at the time the first notice shall have been so left.

"A trader staying abroad to defeat or delay his creditors, although he may not have gone abroad with that intention.

"A trader remaining in prison upon civil process for fourteen days."

Other regulations were proposed respecting warrants of attorney and deeds of trust, with which he would not then trouble the House. The next point he should mention was, an improvement in the regulation for securing the effects, books, and papers of the bankrupt. The messenger was now appointed by the solicitor of the bankruptcy, and thus if that solicitor had a leaning towards the bankrupt, the taking possession of the property was merely nominal. The messenger himself, in fact, did not take possession at all, but a poor fellow was put in the house at 3s. a day, who did nothing, and who merely lived with the servants of the bankrupt, if he was in easy circumstances. He should propose that the messengers should be made independent of the solicitors. Another great grievance in the present system was, the facility of proving debts on a bankrupt's estate. One of the commissioners had stated, that the whole proof of a debt was, the walking down to Guildhall and taking an oath. He did not attribute blame to the commissioners; considering the manner in which they were encumbered, it was surprising that they did so well. Guildhall, on a busy day, could be compared to nothing but a cock-fight; it was difficult to conceive a scene of greater confusion. This facility of proving debts led to perpetual fraud and perjury. As to the conduct of the business of the commissioners, the committee was of opinion, that though regulations would be advantageous, the power of making them should be in the hands of the commissioners themselves, especially if additional room could be obtained for their accommodation. It was also proposed, that the particulars of any debt proposed to be proved should be delivered in to the commissioners four days prior to the proving. It was also proposed, that a registry should be established, to contain all information respecting bankruptcies, to which the public might apply. He should also propose to give the commissioners the power of striking off debts which had been improperly proved; for, at present, if a debt was admitted, though it was discovered that it was a bad one two minutes after, the commissioners had no power to expunge it, except on petition to the chancellor—a remedy often worse than the disease. He proposed to arm the commissioners with this power. The next provision he should mention was respecting the nomination of assignees. In Scotland, the provisions of the law respecting the sequestration of bankrupt's effects, were perfection itself, compared with the law in this country. A bill on that subject had been brought in by the late Mr. Horner and some other members, which had been imitated in the provisions he proposed. Two or three assignees were now appointed by the majority of the creditors, who were placed in a most unpleasant situation. As many bankruptcies were concerted, the bankrupt might at any time turn round on the assignees and prove the invalidity of the commission. The assignees were then liable to be called on to refund all the sums which they had received and expended, and also open to actions for interfering with the bankrupt's property. A man in this situation, not ten days ago, had been cast in an action in 500l. damages, and an execution had been put in his house on the judgment. He proposed that a new officer should be appointed, called an agent (similar to the trustee in Scotland), to be appointed by the creditors, subject to the approbation of the commissioners, and who should give security for good conduct, and be remunerated for his trouble. The next point, and that of the greatest importance, was the facility with which dishonest bankrupts obtained their certificates, and the absence of discrimination between the culpable and the unfortunate. Persons had been known to prove debts to a great amount, to be able to join in granting a certificate, and it was rather more easy for a fraudulent than an honest bankrupt to obtain it. To elucidate what the law was, he should state a case in which a bankrupt had been known to have had 17,000l. a short time before; and being asked to explain how he spent it, answered very truly that be had spent it in different sorts of profligacy and debauchery, which he detailed. Yet be had his certificate, and by law was entitled to it.—He proposed to enact, that every certificate should be signed by four fifths of the creditors, in number, and value, and it should be made a part of the duty of the commissioners to inquire into the previous conduct of the bankrupt in contracting his debts.—Another point which it was important to consider, was, the capital punishment denounced against bankrupts in certain cases. Much had been said, and, in his opinion, very justly, against the general efficacy of severe punishments in the prevention of crime; but in this case there was proof, ample proof, of that inefficacy; for the penal law had produced no good effect, but rather the contrary. A better system should therefore be devised. He also thought that a liberal allowance should be made to bankrupts, in order to encourage them to assist their assignees in the recovery of debts. This allowance should, in his opinion, be equal to 5 per cent upon the total amount of the dividends, or such farther percentage as the commissioners of bankruptcy should, upon a consideration of all the circumstances of the case, think it proper to award; but that in no case the allowance to any bankrupt should exceed 2000l. This allowance might appear to some persons rather too much, but to those who were acquainted with the number and the nature of bankruptcies, and how much depended upon the activity and zeal of bankrupts in the recovery of debts, that sum would be deemed comparatively immaterial. It was, in fact, in many instances, quite immaterial, considering the extent of the debts due to a bankrupt, and what aid he could afford in their recovery.—Here the hon. gentleman again referred to the evidence of Mr. Cullen, from which it was evident that the system of managing the business of the commissioners of bankruptcy required considerable improvement; the business was, in fact, very ill managed at present. This he said with regard to London; but in the country the system was grossly defective for while the commissioners of bankruptcy were in the former appointed by a judge competent to decide upon their qualifications, in the latter they were selected by the solicitor of the commission, this solicitor being probably influenced in his selection by a calculation upon those who might have an opportunity afterwards of appointing himself to a commission of the same nature. The latter system was liable to such objection, that lord Rosslyn some years ago issued a list of those legal gentlemen from among whom eligible persons might be selected for commissioners of bankruptcy in the several large districts throughout the country. But when it was proposed to the present chancellor to appoint commissioners of bankruptcy in those districts, he rejected the proposition, from an impression of its impropriety; nay, his lordship declined even to fill up the vacancies occasioned by death in the list promulgated by the order of lord Rosslyn. The hon. member proposed that the trial of commissions of bankruptcy in the country should be put an end to altogether, and that such trials should take place exclusively in London. Such an arrangement might be deemed inconvenient, but he was fully assured that it would be productive, on the whole, of much less expense and more justice—These were the views of the committee of which he had the honour to be a member, and which had been sitting about two years, during which they had investigated the subject with all the diligence in their power. If it were said, that he ought to have brought forward the subject at an earlier period of the session, he should state in his justification and that of the committee, that the proposition was not delayed longer than appeared necessary to enable the committee to complete its labours. The subject was found by the committee to be attended with great difficulties; to be involved, indeed, in such legal subtleties, that the employment of a solicitor was felt to be indispensable. They had accordingly employed Mr. Freshfield, from whom they had received the most important assistance. The committee had, in the course of its inquiries, directed its attention to Ireland, and upon consulting several Irish gentlemen, they found that the sister island was not merely as ill off as this part of the United Kingdom, but really rather worse. He understood, however, that it was the intention of that part of the administration which was connected with Ireland, to propose, for the benefit of that country, any law which might be adopted upon the subject, and found advantageous in England. The hon. member concluded with moving,

"That leave be given to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws relating to Bankrupts."

observed, that the bankrupt law, which was rather a novel system in Ireland, was found so injurious in that country, that the wish of the reflecting and honest part of the people was rather to have the law abolished altogether, than submit to it in its present state. It was, in fact, impossible that any system of commerce or fair credit could go on or that fraud could be guarded against, under such a system as the bankrupt law in Ireland was at present.

complimented the hon. mover, on the great industry and ability which he had exerted in the inquiry. He was of opinion that half the evils complained of would be done away if the commissioners of bankrupts were better accommodated. The city of London he knew were of opinion that they ought to sit in Guildhall, but he was of opinion, if a situation were chosen half way between Guildhall and Lincoln's Inn, that it would be found equally convenient. The gentleman who had built the Custom-house, Mr. Peto, had bought Furnival's Inn, from the Society of Lincoln's Inn, and had made an offer to build proper accommodation for all the commissioners, and the money to be paid by instalments. Such an offer was worthy of consideration.

expressed the satisfaction he felt at the appearance of this report on a subject to which he had long looked with the most serious apprehensions. The present state of the bankrupt laws led to practices which were dangerous, both to the morals and property of the country. He was happy to find the House disposed to establish a discriminating power between the honest and the fraudulent trader, by making it the interest of the bankrupt to disclose the state of his affairs. He approved of making the certificate depend on the good conduct of the party, and of vesting a considerable discretion in the commissioners as to the amount of the allowance.

assured the House, that whatever might be the merits of the report, they were chiefly attributable to the talents and unwearied industry of the hon. mover. He believed nothing could be better than the law for distributing bankrupts effects in Scotland, and nothing worse than the system as it existed in Ireland.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

rose to call the attention of the House to what must be, regarded as a most flagrant attempt to interfere with the right of election. Here the hon. and learned gentleman read a notice lately circulated in Westmorland, from the clerk of the commissioners for assessing the Land Tax, of which the following is a copy:—"To the Assessors of the Land Tax for the township of—Take notice that you are not to make out any assessment of the land tax till farther notice. John Thompson, Clerk. Kendal, 9th May, 1818."—Gentlemen were aware, that if the freeholders were deprived of an opportunity of having themselves assessed to the land tax, they must be virtually disfranchised. There were two ways in which a notice of this nature might operate: first, if freeholders were not assessed six months before the election, they were not entitled to vote. If it were said that the dissolution would take place so soon, that this was a trick without an object, he would answer, that he did not know that the dissolution would take place so soon, and that it might be postponed to such a period as would give a mischievous operation to this trick. But there was another mode in which this notice might have a bad effect. It was notorious, that if the land tax was redeemed, there would afterwards be no occasion for assessment but then that redemption could not take place without previous assessment, and this circular was therefore calculated to prevent such redemption. It was clear, then, that this circular had a direct tendency to operate against bonâ fide voters, by precluding them from putting their names upon the register of assessment. This notice formed, in fact, one of the grossest attempts to defraud men of their right of voting, that ever, perhaps, was brought under the consideration of that House. But the attempt was still more to be reprobated, in consequence of the quarter from whence it came. According to the established law of the country, any person concerned in collecting the taxes was forbidden, by severe penalties, from interfering in elections. Any such officer, indeed, interposing in any degree with elections, asking an elector to vote or not to vote, was subject to a pecuniary penalty, as well as to be dismissed from his office, and incapacitated from holding any office under the Crown for ever afterwards. But how much worse was the Tax office who took such steps as must render it impossible for electors to vote at all? and such was the tendency, if not the intention, of the notice which he had just read. This notice involved, indeed, not only a breach of the elective franchise, but a violation of the privileges of that House, inasmuch as its privileges were bound up with the rights of its constituents. For he apprehended that it was the duty of this officer to collect the taxes in the most expeditious manner. So then, if he did not collect the tax from A or B as soon as was practicable, such an officer must be guilty of a breach of duty. But here was a case in which a collector of the taxes spontaneously and wantonly created an obstacle to the performance of his own official duty. The case was so peculiarly flagrant, that he felt himself bound, to bring it under the consideration of the House. Before any other proceeding was instituted, it was necessary to move for "Copies of all Letters or Notices issued by John Thompson, Clerk to the Commissioners of the Land Tax in the town of Kendal, relative to the Assessment of that Tax, during the last two months, together with the Names of the Commissioners or other persons by whose authority he issued the same." The latter part of the motion he proposed because he could not suppose that a notice of this nature emanated solely from John Thompson, and he could not apprehend that any part of the motion would be opposed, because it was impossible to conceive that any minister of the Crown, or any member of that House, could have any concern in such a transaction, or the slightest wish to shelter it from exposure and reprehension.

rose, not with any view to oppose the motion, but to state the result of the inquiries which he felt it his duty to make respecting this transaction. He found that no such order as that alluded to had been signed or sanctioned by the Treasury, nor had the subject ever been brought under the consideration of that board. The Tax office, he ascertained, had been applied to in the month of April, upon the subject of some cottages of the value of 40s. each, which had never before been assessed to the land tax, and the answer was this, as he was informed by Mr. Lowndes, that the question did not so much refer to the value of the property sought to be assessed, as to the title of the proprietors. From the time this answer was returned the Tax office had heard nothing farther upon the subject.

expressed his astonishment that Mr. Lowndes, or any officer of the government should direct any inquiry to be made into the title of a freeholder to his property before his freehold was assessed to the and tax, For no such inquiry was ever contemplated by the law, and its enforcement would obviously tend to produce great embarrassment, if not to deprive many freeholders of their right of voting. He always understood that it was the duty of collectors of the revenue to collect as much as they could, but it would seem from what the House had just heard, that those collectors should be very scrupulous about receiving taxes.

said, that the learned gentleman had misunderstood him; for the note which he had received from Mr. Lowndes merely stated, that the commissioners for assessing the land tax, were empowered to assess freeholds, even under the value of 40s, but that the mere assessment to this tax did not constitute the right of voting.

acquitted Mr. Lowndes, upon the hon. member's explanation, of any intention to direct that the land tax commissioners should inquire into the title of freeholders who sought to be assessed, but condemned the delivery of any opinion at all upon the right of voting by this, or any other tax officer, upon a question relating alone to taxes.

thought it proper, after what had passed on this subject, to state that he knew nothing at all relative to the letter which had been mentioned, except what he gathered from a London newspaper. He understood that it had been copied into that paper from a county paper, and upon reference to it, he found it to be of such a nature as to throw discredit upon the truth of it altogether; for this, which purported to be a copy of the letter, was followed by a paragraph, intituled, "Election Squib," containing a despicable and insidious falsehood, the whole object of which was to depreciate a certain class of voters.

did not, in the least degree, intend to impute to the noble lord any knowledge of the letter. He believed the noble lord knew no more about it than he himself did.

observed, that the Tax office had nothing at all to do with the matter in question, except so far as it related to the revenue; and that least of all ought it to have interfered for any electioneering purpose. Such interference was unconstitutional, and improper to a degree that required the utmost reprehension.

said, he was convinced, if there was any such letter at all, that that which had been given in the newspaper, could not be the whole of the letter. He did not believe that any such letter as that signed "John Thompson" had ever been written. The main fact was, that many persons had been pressing forward in the county of Westmorland, claiming to be assessed who had never before been assessed for the land tax, and whose ancestors even had never been assessed. Under such circumstances, it was very natural that the commissioners for the tax, should have directed inquiries to be made into such cases. But he should be glad to see the whole correspondence which had passed on the subject. Of this he was certain, that those with whom he was connected had nothing at all to do with the transaction.

The motion was then agreed to.

rose, pursuant to notice, to submit to the House a motion relative to the Commission appointed two years ago to inquire into abuses in the Courts of Justice in England. The motion which he meant to propose was founded oh a passage in the tenth Report of the committee of Finance, which alluded to the proceedings of these commissioners. At the time when the House agreed to his motion for the appointment of these commissioners, he had expressed his decided opinion, that no master in chancery, or person engaged in the business of that court, ought to be nominated as commissioners. Contrary to his opinion, however, the commission, as now constituted, included Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Alexander, two masters in chancery, besides other gentlemen in the profession of the law, and they had all salaries of 1,200l. a year. Why they should be so largely paid, when the commissioners appointed for the same purpose in Scotland had only 800l., he did not know. But although more largely paid, it appeared, that instead of doing their duty with more activity than the Irish or Scotch commissioners, they had been much less active. The Irish commissioners had presented several reports, and the Scotch commissioners had presented four: whereas these English commissioners had presented only one report. And even in this one report, they had committed so signal a mistake, that they had been obliged afterwards to make up a separate appendix or supplement to correct it. The mistake was, that by their report they had sanctioned the payment of a fee of from one guinea to twenty-seven shillings, which it had been usual to pay on the admission of solicitors to practise in the court of chancery, although there was in existence an act of parliament which expressed directly that such fee should not, in any case, exceed one shilling. Some kind friend having pointed out the blunder, the commissioners published the supplement to their report, stating that they had overlooked this act. This single instance would enable the House to judge of the mode in which these commissioners executed their duties, and of the superior fitness of masters in chancery to form a part of such a commission, when they overlooked an act relating to the business of their own offices. Yet this commission had already cost the country 21,000l., although the Irish commission, which had done its duty so much more effectually, cost only 16,000l.; and the Scotch commission only 10,000l. He therefore moved,

"That the Committee of Finance having, in their tenth Report, brought under the view of the House the appointment of two masters in chancery as commissioners to examine into the English courts of justice; and having adverted to the considerable expense incurred, and the tendency to prolong their duration, in commissions of this nature;

"The House does entirely agree with their committee in the opinions there expressed, that no unnecessary delay should be allowed to take place, that frequent returns of the progress of those commissions should be submitted to the House, and that an expeditious and diligent execution of such important examinations can hardly be supposed where any of the commissioners have other official duties to perform."

opposed the motion, and defended the conduct of the English commissioners. With respect to the neglect, on which the right hon. baronet dwelt, he read the act in which the abolition of the fee in question had been rendered perpetual, and in which the subject was mixed up with various others of a heterogeneous nature, and asked whether it was so very culpable on the part of the commissioners not to have adverted to an act under such circumstances, which had not been enforced for so many years with respect to masters in chancery, he conceived them highly proper persons to be on such a commission; for although they were unable to devote their time exclusively to the object of the commission, yet their experience atoned for that inconvenience Comparing the number of days occupied by the English, the Irish, and the Scotch commissions, and the number of pages in the reports which they had submitted to the House, he showed, that, in both respects, the English commissioners had the preponderance: and he described particularly the elaborate manner in which they had proceeded in their inquiries; so that, in his opinion, there was not the slightest ground for the censure cast on them by the right hon. baronet. Under these circumstances, he objected to a resolution which was founded on mere truisms; and should therefore move the previous question.

corrected the right hon. baronet with respect to the nature of the particular fee in question, which fee, it had been the practice for thirty or forty years to pay, and which the commissioners, on investigation, found to be but a reasonable remuneration for the labour performed. To have omitted to discover the abolition of this fee, in an act which embraced a variety of unconnected subjects was the single blot which the right hon. baronet had been enabled to discover in the proceedings of the commissioners. If the right hon. baronet could adduce any more serious charge against those gentlemen, they would be most anxious that he should bring it forward, that it might undergo a thorough investigation; in which case he was persuaded it would appear that their duties had been most anxiously and faithfully performed.

, adverting to the comparison made by the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, between the labours of the English, Irish, and Scotch commissions, defended the Irish commissioners from the imputation which that comparison implied, and contended that they had performed their arduous duties in the most exemplary manner.

disclaimed the intention of making any invidious comparison between the commissioners.

observed, that the object of his right hon. friend, in the comparison which he had made, was merely to show that, the Irish and Scotch commissions having done well, the English commission had done at least as much; and thereby to rescue them from the censure of the right hon. baronet. The hon. and learned gentleman then defended the conduct of the commission, and observed, that as there was no ground for complaint, and as the motion simply involved an abstract proposition, he must support, the previous question.

eulogized the conduct of the Irish commission, particularly in respect to the minuteness with which they had entered into the investigation of the Subjects before them.

maintained that no imputation was intended to be cast by his right hon. friend on the Irish commissioners who had performed their duty as ably as possible. The English commissioners deserved the same praise. Every body knew the high character of the learned individuals who formed the English commission. If to have overlooked the obscure statute in question was a sufficient disqualification for a commissioner, there was not a lawyer in Westminster Hall fit to be one. The members of the commission had been selected with great judgment, and were well associated, for the purposes they had in view.

thought that such a passage as that in the statute in question, might have escaped the vigilance of any man. So far from being liable to censure, he conceived that the commissioners were entitled to great praise for their exertions.

made a short reply, in which he insisted that it was not fitting to appoint persons to examine into the legality or expediency of fees in their own offices, and observed, that when the masters in chancery were first appointed, be had made the same remark.

The previous question was then put and agreed to.