86] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1816. 



this fiction for his own private 

 ends. Tlie first of these cases we 

 shall quote, as a specimen of the 

 nature of these transactions. A 

 corn-dealer had given a larg-e bill 

 of exchange to a country corre- 

 spondent, sirnst>(juent to wliicli, 

 and before the bill became due, a 

 docket was struck against him. 

 The holder of the l)ill rejjaired to 

 an acquaintance of his, a farmer 

 of the post-iiorse duty, saying, 

 " such a man is in Iiad credit, 

 therefore discount me tliis Iji'l, 

 and you have the ])ower of issu- 

 ing an extent against him." Tliis 

 was done ; and the farmer of 

 the duty having made alhdavit, 

 tliat this was an oiiginal del)t, 

 the extent issued ; and though 

 the whole transaction was a tissue 

 of fraud, it was with diihculty set 

 aside by the assignees at the ex- 

 pense of 5001. After reciting a 

 number of instances of atmse 

 equally flagrant, jMr. S. moved, 

 " That a-counnittee be a))pointed 

 to take into consider.ation tiie 

 practice of gi'anting, oist of the 

 Court of Exchequer, extents in 

 aid of the debtors of tlie crown, 

 with the abuses which have taken 

 jilace therein, and to report there- 

 upon to the House." 



The Solicitor General saiil, that 

 the hon. gentleman miglit rely 

 upon his exertions, and those of 

 the Attorney -general, to cori'ect 

 those abuses as they arose in tlie 

 courts of law. There was a 

 power in the Court of Exchequer 

 to set aside extents which had 

 been, abrisi\ely employed, though 

 it could not pre^•ent the improper 

 use of the j)rocess, if a man would 

 venture to make a faise aftidavit. 

 The. judges could not be expected 

 to have every alUdavit read before 



them, but they would ultimately 

 do justice to tl>e parties. It did 

 not therefore appear to him, that 

 a case had been made out, which 

 called for the interference of the 

 legislature. Tliere might be abuses 

 in issuing the process, but he did 

 not believe there was any in the 

 law itself; for which re;ison he 

 sliould move the previous ques- 

 tion. 



The Chancellor of tlie Exchequer 

 said, that he had been informed, 

 that extents in aid had been very 

 improperly issued, in consequence 

 of the disti'css which had pre- 

 vailed during th.e last smnmer, 

 and that he had made fiuther in- 

 quiiy into the subject. The Lords 

 of the 'I'reasury had since directed 

 tlie judges to consider what I'e- 

 gulatious ought to be adopted, 

 and to make their report. He 

 also mentioned, that the Treasury 

 had given diiections, that no 

 persons, cither directly or indi- 

 rectly concerned in country banks, 

 should be allowed to act in the 

 collection of the revenue. 



After several members had 

 spoken on the sul)ject, in wliich 

 debate it appeared, that the speak- 

 eis in general were in favour of 

 a committee of inquiry, but that 

 the lawyers were against it, a 

 division took place on Mr. .Smith's 

 motion, which u as lost by a ma- 

 jority of 65 to 56. 



Mr. Pov.sonbij then nujved, 

 " That there I^e laid bef^ore this . 

 House, copies of all rules in the 

 Court of Exchequer, touching the 

 issuing of extents in aiii." This 

 was opposed by the Attoi'ney- 

 general, and on a division was 

 negatived by 70 to 55. 



Though the issue of these at- 

 tempts to exterminate a gross 



abuse. 



J 



