who die in debt, assets for the payment of their simple contract debts. On the question for the second reading being put,

self into a committee of Ways and Means, Lord Henry Petty, conformably with his notice of yesterday, moved the following Resolutions, 1. "That towards raising Mr. W. Herbert rose with regret to opthe supply granted to his majesty, an addi- pose any measure brought forward by the tional duty of 2s. 6d. be charged upon hou, and learned gent. who was the author every gallon of foreign brandy, spirits, of the bill. He lamented that he had not aqua vitæ, or strong waters (other than heard the statement of that hon. and learnrum, spits, or aqua vile, of the produce ed member, when he obtained leave to of the British colonies or plantations in bring in this measure; but he had read the bill America), imported into Great Britain, or since it had been printed, and objected to taken out of any warehouse in which the it because it went to alter the whole of the same may have been secured for home law of landed property in this country. If consumption. 2. That an additional duty he understood it right, its object was to of is. be charged upon every gallon of make all cases of simple contract debts of foreign brandy, spirits, aqua vitæ, or strong men who should die in debt, without waters (other than run, spirits, or aq making any will providing for such debts, vitæ, of the produce of the Eritish colonies a charge upon their real estates. This or plantations in America), imported into would change the whole law of landed proGreat Britain, and exported therefrom, or perty, which was coeval with the constitutaken out of any warehouse in which the tion. There were various ways of charging sure may have been secured for exporta-landed property by mortgages and other tion to parts beyond the seas (except to Ireland). 3. That the said duties shall be charged on all foreign brandy, spirits, aqua vitæ, or strong waters, for which all the duties charged or chargeable thereon shall not have been paid on or before the 19th day of February, 1807.”

Mr. Rose observed, that the duty on brandy was at present 138. 6d. per gallon, and would by this additional duty be raised 10 168.; that the original cost was but 28. 6d. per gallon, and that such a high duty, compared with the prime cost of the article, would become an extreme temptation to smuggling, and would not operate as any material relief to the West India trade. Besides, he did not think the regulations for the prevention of smuggling would be as effectual as was expected.

Lord II. Petty stated, that the system of rewards to vigilant and active revenue officers, would have a very beneficial effect, and that the West India merchants were of opinion, that the addition to the duty on foreign spirits would afford them relief.

legal instruments, and there were sufficient processes for recovering of simple contract debts. Whenever any change had been made in the common law, it had been ge nerally for the worse. He did not see any urgent occasion for the alteration now proposed, much less on so loose and vague a ground as to provide for simple contract debts. It would have the effect of lowering the value of freehold property. Another objection he felt to the measure was, that it would interfere with the elective franchise, which depended altogether on freehold property and if it was to be made liable for simple contract debts, in cases of small freeholds, the heir might be thereby deprived of one of the most valuable of his rights. He should have no objection to the measure, if it was to be confined to the cases of persons who die suddenly or violently; for he was sure no honest man who had time to make a will would neglect to provide for his debts. On these grounds, he felt himself inclined to oppose the bill.

Mr. Fellowes thought that the bill should General Gascoyne was of opinion, that extend to copyhold as well as to freehold this additional duty on brandy continued, property, because in many cases the freewith the preference to be given by the pub-hold and copyhold property were so blendlic boards to the consumption of rum, ed, that it might be difficult to sell the one, would be of material assistance to the West without, at the same time time, selling the India trade. The resolutions were then other. agreed to.

[FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL.] The Solicitor-General moved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill for making the Freehold Estates of persons

The Master of the Rolls thought the hon. gent, who began the debate, was right in considering this bill as making a very material change in the law of freehold property. The law as it at present stood, es

tablished the limits of real and personal as he had not yet heard the grounds upon property. There were but two ways of which the measure had been founded. charging real property, either by deed seal-There did not appear to him to be either ed, or by will. He had doubts of the po- necessity for the measure or any utility in licy of increasing the modes of affecting it. One of the objects of the measure, he freehold property. At present it was im- understood to be, to prevent frauds by possible to charge it by a single scrap of persons who might involve themselves in paper, or by any parole agreement. The debt, and, with the money borrowed, pureffect of this measure would be, to do away chase freehold property, which would dethat solemnity which the policy of British scend to their heirs without becoming relaw required in transactions that affected sponsible for these debts. This was a case freehold property. The fact was, that the that had sometimes occurred, and which parties, by their own act, decided the terms ought to be prevented. But the measure of the contract. The creditor who trusted went, in one respect, beyond its object, and to the simple contract, knew, that he was in another fell short of it. Such cases of not in the same situation as if he had a frauds were confined to properties purchabond, and he who had a bond knew he was sed by the deltor, and the bill, by extendnot in the situation of one who had a mort- ing to all freehold property, went beyond gage. He could see no reason why the law its object. But, by being limited to free-. should put the creditor in a situation which hold, and not including copyhold prohe did not bargain for. He might have de-perty, it fell short of its object. It would manded a higher security if he was not sa-tell the fraudulent debtor to purchase copytisfied with the lower, and the debtor might have refused it. Why, then, should the law say that a man might have the advantage of the best contract which he could have made? If the principle were to be recognized it would go much further. A tenant in tail might, by suffering a common recovery, cut off the intail, and make the estate his own, and liable to his debts. If he should die, omitting to suffer such recovery, as the specialty creditor to be let in, who, as the law now stood, was barred? Was the law, because the debtor might have rendered the estates liable to his specialty debts, to supply his act, and let in such creditor? Was the creditor to have every advantage by the operation of law, which his debtor by his act could have given him? Was the priuciple to be maintained, of legislating for the purpose of putting the creditor in a situation which his own act did not place him in? This principle was not necessary for the future, and would be unjust as to the present. After the passing of this bill, the freehold property of every man, who had contracted any obligation for which that property was known not to be liable, would if he died, be charged therewith in the hands of his heir. This would be an instance of positive injustice, because it would place the parties in so different a relative situation from that in which they were at the time of making the contract. When he threw these observations out, he did it only by way of stating the difficulties he felt; not of giving a conclusive opinion,

hold and not freehold property; and copyhold property would more effectually enable him to defraud his creditors, because copyhold property was not liable even for specially debts. In the bill which had been brought in for the same purpose in, 1772, copyholds and customary freeholds had been included with freehold property. Having said thus much, it was not his in-. tention to object to the second reading of the bill, or even its going into a committee; for in the committee his hon. and learned friend would feel the necessity, for the at-. tainment of his own object, to make some alterations in the measure.

The Solicitor General would have been, extremely glad if the opposition then made had been made before, because he would: in that case have had the advantage of knowing the objections that were felt to a measure, which he conceived to be of the. highest importance. He must say that it. would have been more fortunate if he had. heard the objections stated by the right hon. and learned gent. who had spoken last, sooner, because, though he was convinced, that every hon. member was actuated in making objections to any measure by the purest motives, it would have been particularly desirable for him to have heard the objections just stated earlier, both because. he had endeavoured to collect the opinion of his right hon. and learned friend on the bill, and had submitted a copy of it to him, and because he could then have given an answer that might have been more satisfaç

ness.

tory to the house, than the answer he could | Europe, no property could descend to the now give might prove. He admitted that heir, without being chargeable with all the it was incumbent upon any member who debts of the ancestor. An heir could be proposed any alteration in the existing law, deprived of his whole property by a single to state the grounds upon which he found-stroke of a pen, in the presence of three ed such alteration. If his right hon. andwitnesses, and was it fit that the only case learned friend had not been present when in which the property should be inalienable he stated the grounds of this measure, the from his heir, was when it was to be made fault did not lie with him. He had on liable for his father's debts. The honourthat occasion stated, that the law of landed able member who had spoken first in the property had been framed with a view to a debate, had said that no honest mau would feudal state of society, which no longer omit to make a provision by will for his existed. It was to pay too great veneration debts, but this bill was to place every man to the wisdom of our ancestors, as it was in the situation of an honest man. He ap called, to continue that law unaltered, when pealed to any gentleman who heard him, the state of society had undergone a change whether he would wish his estate to descend that rendered it inapplicable to the existing to his heir without being liable for his simstate of society. This country had become ple contract debts; and he asked, why rea great commercial country, and therefore quire for another what they would be it was necessary to adapt the law of pro- ashamed of for themselves? It had been perty to such a situation of things. The said, that credit had already been carried ordinary obligations in the course of busi- to too great an extent in this country. If ness were not specialty but negociable se- that were the case, they had an effectual curities, drawn at a short date. If specialty mode of checking it, that would be attendcontracts were to be rendered necessary, ed with considerable mutual advantages, that would put an end to commercial busi- by abolishing imprisonment for debt. When The case stated by his right hon. a man was ready to give up all he possessed, friend, had not been urged by him as the he ought not to be imprisoned for not doground of his measure. But it was suffici-ing what it was impossible for him to do. ent reason for the adoption of some such measure. Breaches of trust were, as the law now stood, but simple contract debts. Personal property bequeathed in trust for the use of infant children, might be sold by the trustee, and the money laid out in the purchase of freehold property, which, when devised over to his own children, would not be liable to these claims. In like manner, the proceeds of an estate devised in trust to be sold for the use of children, might be vested in the purchase of lands, which either when devised over to the trustee's own children, or in case of his death, would not be liable to the claims of the persons for whose use the estate was devised. The children in both cases would be simple contract creditors, and if there should not be assets sufficient, would be driven to the support of casual benevolence, or parochial relief. This state of the law was a reproach to the country. There were cases that frequently occurred in courts of equity, and yet the gentlemen of his profession, who alone perhaps were capable of framing the remedy, had viewed them with patient acquiescence. The state of the law was peculiar to this country and Ireland. In Scotland, and in the rest of

Real estates were affected as well by judg ments obtained, on actions proved by parole testimony, as by sealed instruments or wills. In the former case, the charge amounted to a lien on the property. This measure would neither create a lien nor lower the value of freehold property. The same provision in Scotland was not attended with any diminution of the value of freehold property. The objection that the measure ought to extend to copyhold property, he could not answer as satisfactorily as the others. The bill that had been alluded to, had been brought in by a very learned member of his profession (Mr. Ambler), and had failed, perhaps, from having includ ed in it copyhold and customary freehold property. It would be better to proceed gradually. This as a first step of a system would be an important measure; as a single measure it would be highly beneficial. It would be extremely desirable that copyholds should also be made liable; but if the house adopted his measure, he trusted they would not stop there. As to the objection, that this principle would take in es tates in tail, he should only say, that he knew not why they ought not to be liable. It was a maxim of the court in which his

of the right hon. and learned gent. (the Master of the Rolls) for confining it to the first purchasers of freehold estates. You might secure the object by extending the bankrupt laws to these cases. But as to the general doctrine of the adaptation of laws to the supposed state of the country, it would open a door for all reformation. In the reign of the philosophers of France, there was nothing great or venerable in antiquity that was not attacked, before the great revolution which rendered these changes odious to all the world. If we were to look generally at the fitness of things, he would undertake with half the ingenuity of the hon. and learned gent., to prove to the conviction of speculative men and many others, that there was nothing that had been hitherto held venerable in our law, that did not require reformation. He could prove, that the right of primogeniture ought to be abolished, and that it was improper to leave almost the whole to lazy drones of elder brothers, and leave the rest to make their way in the world as they could. If you began with these notions, there was no end to them. He had therefore, his doubts as to the propriety of passing this law, and these doubts were not remov ed. He would not, however, oppose the second reading, because he wished to observe what amendments might be made in it, but he rather thought that he must be under the necessity of opposing its ultimate success.

right honourable friend presided with social interests of the country, yet he did not much benefit to the country, that a man think that they ought to be promoted at the should always be taken to do that which he sacrifice pro tanto of the permanent landought to do; and certainly as the tenant ined interest. He did not think that this was tail might, by his own act, have made the wanted. But why did not the hon. and estate liable to his specialty debts, there learned gent, make his bill exactly comwas no good reason why the principle mensurate with his object? Why did he ought not to be extended to such estates. not apply it merely to the landholder engag Mr. Canning observed, that though feel-ed in commerce, and adopt the suggestion ings of veneration for every institution of our ancestors ought not to be carried to excess and bigotry, they ought to operate so far as to prevent any rash alterations. Innovations of this nature ought to be regarded with the utmost jealousy, and to be examined with the utmost scrupulousness. Without meaning any disrespect to the hon. and learned gent. who proposed this bill, (for as to his abilities there could be but one opinion) he must say, that it was in his own opinion, and that of many others, that a measure of this nature ought rather to have originated in the other house, where it might have, in the first stages, undergone the revision of the great law magistrates. This ought to have been the case, though the hon. and learned gent. had heard of no difference of opinion on the subject; but if there was a difference of opinion existing there that point well deserved the hon. and learned gent.'s consideration. The particular, object of this bill was to meet the cases of fraud with regard to freehold estates, but he admitted that with regard to copyhold and entailed estates the room for frauds would still be left open. But he insinuated that this was only meant as a preliminary step to similar alterations with regard to copyhold and entailed estates. In this view he had strong objections to the bill. The hon. and learned gent. admitted that one door would be left open for fraud in the purchase of copyhold estates; he would ask him whether previous debts were intended to supersede subsequent settlements of freehold estates, and to be good against purchasers? If they were not, the object of the bill would be evaded; if they were, then you would only be doing away one opportunity for fraud, in order to create a stronger. The hon. and learned gent. had stated, that this was becoming in a great degree a commercial country, and that in that respect its situation was become different from what it was when this law with regard to property had been established. This was certainly true, but though he felt well disposed towards the commer

The Solicitor General, in explanation, denied his having said that it was his intention to proceed further. He had merely stated, that it might possibly appear proper. to parliament to make other alterations in the course of time. He had no personal, object whatever in this measure. His sole motive for bringing it forward, was a conviction of the benefits which the public would derive from it.

Mr. Canning disclaimed having imputed any personal motive to the hon. and learned gentleman.

The Attorney General supported the bill

on the grounds of justice and morality, and his only wonder was, that a measure of this nature had not been brought forward sooner. The object was to compel the heir to do that justice which his ancestor might be prevented from doing by various causes. Our veneration for the institutions of our ancestors must be limited by a regard to justice. He denied that the evil which this bill went to reinedy was merely a specific and partial one. The tendency of our law was to facilitate the alienation of landed property, and to get rid of feudalties, and that was certainly not a partial remedy which went to render the real estates of persons dying in debt, and perhaps wishing to discharge them, liable for these debts. It would be a great satisfaction to many persons, who without any fraudulent intentions found themselves, at the moment of dissolution, unable to make arrangements for paying their debts as the law now stood. It would be a great satisfaction to them to have the conviction that their debts would be paid from their real estates. He denied that a bill of this kind ought with any peculiar properly to originate in the other house. The great law magistrates would have the measure before them in due time, if it passed this house. He thought that the house and the country were under great obligations to his hon. and learned friend for his bill. He was glad that the subject had been brought forward and laid open to public discussion.

unsettled through inadvertence, and not from any dishonest intention, that it had his most hearty approbation at present.

Mr. Morris observed, that the case of subsequent settlements mentioned by the right hon. gent. (Mr. Cauning) over the way, had been already provided for by the statute of Elizabeth. The case of primogeniture was not at all like the present. No remarkable grievance arose from that. He was glad to find that the right hon. and learned gent. below (the Master of the Rolls) had not given this measure a decided and deliberate opposition.-The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow se'nnight.

Mr.

[NEW PLAN OF FINANCE.] Hobhouse brought up the report of the committee on the Finances of the country. On the motion that the resolutions be read,

Mr. Sturges Bourne, suggested the propriety of delaying the further consideration of this important question, which went to subvert the principles on which the whole financial system of the country; and that, too, without the house being in possession of several necessary documents. There was no estimate on the table of the produce of the war taxes, and on this subject the house had only the assertion of the noble lord, which, however respectable, was not of itself a sufficient authority. At that period of the night, too, he could hardly think that the noble lord would press the discussion. What necessity was there for haste? If the measure was to be followed by taxes, it might be expedient to lose no time in passing the bills through the house; but this was not the case; and with respect to the loan, the loan of last year was contracted for at a much later period, and he was satisfied that no inconvenience could arise from delaying it for at least two months.

Mr. Perceval was, upon the whole, rather disposed to favour the bill, for the object of his hon. and learned friend was one which ought certainly to be promoted, if that could be done without injury to the proprietors of land, and he was glad that there seemed a disposition on all sides to canvass this business more maturely. The very reason that rendered it proper to pause upon it was that which the hon. and learn-He had no party views in what he stated, ed gent. (the Attorney General) had urged but he was convinced, that the house had in its favour. He had expressed his surprize not had time to render themselves compethat such a measure had not been propos- tent to decide on this momentous question, ed before. This might be owing to some If, however, they were to be compelled to difficulties attending it which were not at come to a decision, he for one felt it im present observed, and therefore it was pro- possible to vote for the first and second per to proceed with caution. The cases of resolutions, because they went to mortgage copyhold estates and of estates sold subse- the war taxes, many of which would not quent to debts contracted, mentioned by be available in time of peace, and many his right hon. friend near him (Mr. Canning) others, which policy ought to induce us would be very material difficulties. How-at that period to repeal or modify. Of this ever, the bill had so much merit, with regard latter class, were the duties on spirits and to persons dying and leaving their debts tea. Justice also demanded that the ton