STATE PAPERS. 



S7S 



then seized ; his books, papers, 

 and accounts by which he might 

 be enabled to dispute his creditoi's' 

 demands, or to enforce his own, 

 are carried off and withheld from 

 him. Nor is this all ; his person 

 too* (which a common execution, 

 after haAing taken the property, 

 would leave untouched) may be 

 thrown into gaol, and kept there 

 at the discretion of that very cre- 

 ditor by whose oppressive conduct 

 such a waste of his property may 

 be occasioned, as alone to produce 

 that veiy insolvency, on the alle- 

 gation of which, as previously ex- 

 isted, the whole process was 

 founded ; and neither can a com- 

 mission of bankruptcy or an in- 

 solvent act release him. Nor is 

 this mere imagination : it appears 

 to your committee, that, as far as 

 respects the debtor, the whole is 

 realized in at least one case de- 

 tailed in the Appendix. 



Your committee apprehend that 

 enough has been stated to point 

 out the extreme oppression often 

 woiked by tliis mode of procedure 

 on the unfortunate debtor who is 

 the object of it, and the injustice 

 committed towards his other cre- 

 ditors. It remains to inquire into 

 the validity of the reasons urged 

 for the maintenance of any por- 

 tion of the practice, which are all 

 contained in the one sweeping 

 phrase, the security of the reve- 

 nue. One indeed of the witnesses 

 has .spoken of "the right of the 

 subject to claim the benefit of this 

 prerogative, that the solvency of 

 the croAvn debtor may be sup- 



• It secins, by rule 3, 15 Charles I. that 

 the ptrsuii could not be taken unless by 

 special order made hi open coiirl, nor any 

 debts witliout s|)rciallv ; it so, the late prac- 

 tice is un en'Toachmcnt, 



portedj" butas it has been allov, edj 

 and even maintained by the most 

 respectable authority, that in these 

 cases the prerogative is only ano- 

 ther name for the public interest, 

 a certain and unexceptionable 

 standard to wliich to refer is there- 

 by furnished. Is the revenue hereby 

 secured ? Is the public interest 

 advanced ? Of the numerous cases 

 which have of late been brought 

 within public observation (and a 

 small poilion only of which coultl 

 be inserted in the .Appendix) this 

 does not appear to have been the 

 object in one single instance ; in 

 very few can it be shown to have 

 been even incidentally or probably 

 set N ed ; and in several, the interest 

 of the individual prosecutor of the , 

 extent has been pursued to the 

 absolute injmy of that very reve- 

 nue, for the safety of which, ex- 

 clusively, the process was originally 

 mstituted. To the former part of 

 this statement the solicitors of the 

 Revenue Boards bear the most 

 unequivoc'.'.l testimony ; and the 

 cases mentioned, besides others 

 which might have been produced, 

 aftbrd decisive proof of greater loss 

 than the whole list can supply of 

 probable advantage. Indeed it 

 seems scarcely doubtful whether the 

 whole process for private debts 

 might not be abolished, without 

 aiiy disadvantage to the public in- 

 terest ; while it will be worth con- 

 sideration how far any supposed 

 benefit may be outweighed by tl>.« 

 evils attenflant on continuing the 

 practice. The ruin of unfortunate 

 debtors, the injury of innocent 

 and unsuspecting creditors, and the 

 extensive injui-y wrought among 

 the community at large, by the 

 breach of good faith, and tlie con- 

 sequent destruction of that ho^ 



uour.* 



