neglected and robbed; yes, the miserable insane robbed of the provision which humanity had made for their support. I refer to the minutes of evidence to bear me out, and especially to the case of Norris, in page 175, and to pages 11, 46, 90, &c. Indignation at the unfeeling cruelty and avarice of the guardians and keepers of these institutions, is swallowed up in horror at the scenes disclosed.

It has already been stated, that besides ignorance and poverty, there is another great source of evil, (itself both cause and effect) perhaps more productive than either or both, and embracing quite a different sort of people, those who are neither poor nor ignorant, who have not the temptation nor the excuse for vice or crime, and who cannot be said to be guilty of crime-they are not pick pockets nor highway robbers. It is the universality of corruption. I am not to be charged with the want of justice or even with the want of charity. I will state nothing but upon the highest evidence. I will not imitate the example of Earl Grey, who has publicly given his sanction to atrocious calumnies respecting our country, on no better authority than that of Fearon. England is unquestionably a great nation-great in arts, in arms, in letters and in science; great in industry and wealth, great almost beyond example in martial renown, great in moral and intellectual courage. Some of her best heads, and her best hearts, are now actively engaged with steady resolution in the endeavour to reform her institutions, and repair the injury which time and circumstances have done to the social edifice, and it is to be hoped they will succeed. I would not, needlessly exhibit, even what the truth will fully justify, for there is no pleasure in stating disagreeable truths. That nation has much to rejoice in, and she has much to mourn over— but when the inquiry about her bankrupt law, is thus held up to warn us, we should forget what we owe to ourselves, and what we owe to the question before us, if we did not fairly meet the argument, and show how much it is really worth.

Nothing shall be stated without the highest authority, and as I have heretofore appealed to evidence taken by order of the house of commons, let me at present appeal to the assertion of a very distinguished member of that body, now no more—a man warmly attached to his country, a scholar and a gentleman-a model, it was said, of the best of his nation-one whose reasonings were sometimes paradoxical, but always ingenious and elegant-one, who above all men was accustomed to speak the truth fairly and manfully and fearlessly, but never in the spirit of cant or faction—I mean the late William Wyndham. He plainly avowed in parliament, that corruption was a part of the system of government in England, and he boldly vindicated it as a necessary part of that system, affecting and regulating all the rest, insisting at the same time that it began with the people, and not with the government. It would be tedious to go into particulars. What is the result? Universal indulgence, a delicate forbearance to expose or to correct abuses, destructive of every good purpose, and ruinous to all but those who profit by the abuses themselves. They remain uncorrected until they force themselves into notice by their own enormity, or are dragged into view by intrepid men like those who have instituted each of these inquiries. Is it not evident that this tenderness for each others frailties is felt in the administration of the bankrupt law, and is it not rebuked in the report of the committee?

I might bring into the view of the house, a late election of a mayor of Liverpool, where for the first three days, the candidates at the close of the polls had each the same number of votes. The regular price of a vote on the first day (as the newspapers state) was seven shillings. As the contest became more animated, it rose to-I do not recollect how much-perhaps as many guineas. Or I might remind them of the memorable account given by Lord Cochrane in the house of commons of the expenses of his first election, when voters were publicly invited to come and receive ten pounds ten shillings.

What is the just inference from all this? Because elections in England are the scenes of shameful and notorious traffic, where votes are bought and sold; because electors are bribed, and the elected (according to Lord Cochrane's statement) must repair the losses of a costly election by selling himself that therefore you will have no elections? You will have no establishments of charity or letters or science, because in England they have run to waste or worse! You will not even have a receptacle for the unfortunate maniac!

And yet, each of these conclusions would be just as well warranted, as that you will have no bankrupt law; for it is plain as evidence can make it, that the evils complained of, are not evils necessarily or even naturally belonging to the system, but to an imperfect and bad administration of it, operating upon a vicious state of society. "Principles, and not men," was once a favorite maxim. A sagacious and highly gifted man, whose life was one continued political struggle, in an unfinished work, which was the fruit of calm meditation, aided by his great experience and knowledge, has laboured successfully to prove that the maxim is false, and that good men are at least as important as good principles. He has clearly established that the best laws are of no avail if bad men are to administer them, and has cited one instance of a law of infinite value coming into existence in the very worst times. I allude to Mr. Fox's historical fragment. "Principles and men" is much nearer the truth.

We have all the institutions which have been now adverted to. We have elections without bribery-we have establishments of education and charity, without robbery of the poor-we have lunatic asylums where the unhappy are treated with tender and kind attention—yes, one I know of, and if it were allowable on such a subject to indulge a feeling of pride, I would say that I am proud of living among a people who have established and maintain such an

institution as the Pennsylvania hospital. I believe we can have a bankrupt law (as we have had) without any of the frauds and abuses that occur in England.

Time will not permit me to enter, at large into an examination of the defects in the bankrupt law of England, and its administration, which have given occasion to the general censure to be found in the minutes of evidence. Some of them have been already pointed out; and they are themselves sufficient to justify the witness, who says "the bankrupt law, as now administered, is a disgrace to the country." In London, the business is transacted in tumult, noise and confusion which forbid all deliberate examination

In the country, the solicitor who sues out the commission, is permitted to name the commissioners. Is it wonderful, that the commission should become "stock in trade?" A case occurred, where one partner of a firm was petitioning creditor; another was solicitor; a third, commissioner, and a fourth, assignee. The Lord Chancellor expressed "strong indignation," and said, "unless the court holds a strong hand over bankruptcy, particularly as administered in the country, it is itself accessary to as great a nuisance as any known in the land." This, and the accompanying remarks, are quoted with great emphasis against us in the present debate. Now it never appears to have occurred to the Lord Chancellor, that he had no one to blame but himself, and that all this gross abuse which so excited his indignation, arose from his own neglect or from his own excessive delicacy, to call it by no harsher name. How did it happen, that commissions became stock in trade, to the great scandal of the law? The answer is plain, because he suffered solicitors to name the commissioners and direct the execution of commissions, instead of doing it himself; he let the authority fall from his own hands, to be caught up and exercised as chance or interest might direct, and it fell into base and unworthy hands. And why did he suffer this? Mark well the reason, it speaks a language which

it is impossible to mistake or misunderstand, and, being characteristic of the administration of the law, throws a broad light upon the whole subject. The nomination of commissioners by himself, "he considered as an exercise of favour, which was unfair towards those whom it excluded." (Min. p. 57.) This is the same Lord Chancellor who is quoted for his strong indignation at the abuses in country commissions, and who tells us it is necessary to hold a "strong hand" over them! The committee rebuke him in their report for his extreme delicacy. Is it wonderful, that where the first step is towards any thing but the fair execution of the commission, the whole should end in something which has no regard to "the interests of the estate or the creditors ?" This cannot happen under the present bill.

I forbear to remark upon the delays that must arise from the circumstance of all questions of bankruptcy coming before a single judicial officer already overloaded by his various avocations; upon the great expense of all judicial proceedings in England; upon the excessive severity of the penal provisions in the English bankrupt law, which has entirely defeated their execution, because it is repugnant to every feeling of justice. Whoever will be at the trouble carefully to examine the evidence, will see these things for himself; he will find most of them stated in the report of the committee; and if he will then turn his eye to our own country and to the bill on the table, he will be satisfied that there is no ground for apprehension of the frauds and abuses which prevail in England.

Our opponents place much reliance also upon the operation of the act of 1800, or rather the hasty repeal of it. This is evidently their favourite ground, upon which they appeal with great confidence to the public sentiment of the country. That law, says one of them, was not suffered to live out its short day-it sunk under the weight of its own iniquity. Apart from general denunciation, which amounts