He Mr. DEVLIN desired to record his protest against this act of legislation. He believed that the wholesale merchants, who were very ably represented in this House, were seeking legislation which, ultimately might become ruinous to small traders throughout the Dominion. asked hon. members who had some regard and respect for honest industry and for traders who through misfortune might go into insolvency, to read the clause of the Bill preceding the 58th clause, and consider whether the merchants were not, by those provisions, amply protected. He affirmed that they would be sufficiently protected, and he was amazed that enlightened men should be asking further legislation with the view of crushing the last spark of liberty from those insolvents. He recorded his protest against the Bill as a most unjust act of legislation. Mr. PATERSON said the experience of retail dealers in regard to the present Insolvency Law was that its provisions were so lax that they were constantly defrauded by their debtors. It was the duty of every man to pay his debts in full, and by reducing a trader's liabilities by two-thirds, Parliament performed an act of grace. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said that if the hon. member for Stanstead had taken a vote upon his first amendment, he would have voted in its favor, because it affirmed a sound principle, namely, that the question of discharge should be a purely judicial question, not at all dependent on the creditor or the amount of dividend paid, as Parliament was now doing away with voluntary insolvency. But he could not go with the hon. member in the amendment, because he recognized, admitted and adopted the principle of the clause as it stood and proposed to reduce the amount from 33 cents on the dollar, as provided The choice, in the clause, to 10 cents. therefore, presented was simply between the limitation of 33 cents as provided by the Bill, and was reported from the select committee, by whom it was carefully considered, and 10 cents. He could see no good reason whatever, for the proposition to fix the dividend at 10 cents, indeed, the proposition appeared absurd. The House having affirmed the principle embodied in the Bill, as reported by the committee, he would stand by the dividend fixed by the committee in preference to Mr. Devlin. the dividend proposed by the amendment of the hon. member for Stanstead. Hon. Mr. BLAKE said that the principle of the 58th clause of the Bill was mischievous, but the House was committed to it, and he would vote for the amendment, because he believed it would render the operation of the Bill less mischievous. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL agreed with the hon. member for South Bruce, and 58th clause. was also opposed to the principle of the He would, therefore, vote for the amendment of the member for Stanstead, because it would be less mischevous than the clause as it stood in the Bill. Mr. COLBY wished it to be distinctly understood that it was not the intention of himself or the hon. member for Montreal would not have been lost if a division had Centre that the proposed amendment been taken. The amendment was then put and. negatived on the following division: Mr. PALMER said he did not think it worth while taking up the time of the House in proposing amendments to the Bill; but he thought as the House was now pretty full it would be the proper time to test the question as to whether the country wanted the Bill at all. He would move, seconded by Mr. RYMAL, that the Bill be not now read a third time, but that the further consideration thereof be postponed to this day three months. He desired to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the old statute had been in force since 1869, and this law had not been in force at all—but was it not the experience of every member of the House that the law had been detrimental? Had not the working of the law been a fraud upon the country? Did it Mr. Palmer. often not enable persons to take the benefit of it particularly after a Bankruptcy Law was passed. He thought the farming community would feel an injustice was done them if they were debarred from the benefits of this Act. Another and stronger objection to the Act was that it put upon the over-taxed people of Canada a lot of officials—accountants they were called at $4,000 each, and he did not know how much more would be spent in working the machinery of the law. He had heard of a case where an estate of $13,000 was eaten up by the cost of winding it up. Mr. RYMAL said he had always opposed Bankruptcy Laws. He considered it his duty to oppose this measure at every stage. He was convinced that Insolvency Laws were an unmitigated nuisance, a school of immorality and rascality, and he believed it was well that people should understand that when they contracted debt they should be strictly held to the payment thereof. Under this system of insolvency the shrewd, designing, calculating man can being his affairs into such a shape as to defraud his creditors and—as he (Mr. RYMAL) had seen such men on many occasious doon many occasious doappear on the streets in a much better position than before they got whitewashed. It was તૈ very common remark that when you saw a man dressed in extra fine clothes, driving in an extra fine carriage, whose family was clothed in scarlet and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day-that that man had passed through the Bankruptcy Court, and that all this luxury followed the operation. He believed the country would be better without a Bankruptcy Law, and he had great pleasure in seconding the amendment of the hon. member for St. John. He trusted that every man who had any regard for pure and simple justice, and was not willing to give his adherence to an Act of confiscation, whereby one man's property was sacrificed for the benefit of another, would stop before supporting this Bill. His sentiments on this matter were well expressed by General MARION shortly after the American Revolution, when the question whether the property of loyalists should be confiscated was under consideration. At a convivial meeting where a number of politicians were at the table, this question had been pretty well discussed, and General MARION, Mr. Palmer. who had a great love for justice, tempered RYMAL'S): Damnation take all confiscation Mr. THOMSON (Welland) said he was Insolvency Law although he considered it | When the Government came down and an abomination. He would support any said : "We will give you a Bill which abomination—and the more abominations does away with that objectionable feature the better that would drive this people of voluntary assignment," he was willing to an appreciation of the evils of the pres- to give that law a trial. He was not ent system, and result in its being abol- very sanguine as to the successful operaished. tion of this law. It was not sufficiently dissimilar to the existing law to lead him to anticipate the best results, but inasmuch as the most objectionable feature of the old law had been removed, he would not oppose it. If the merchants of the country disapproved of it, they should approach this House and express the senti| ments they entertained. Mr. BUNSTER had yet failed to hear any advantage that this law would confer upon the country. It proposed to give employment to a large number of officials. He believed it was the duty of Parliament to keep down taxation as much as possible and to devote our revenues to the development of our resources. He would therefore vote for the amendment. The House then divided on the amendment which was rejected on the following vote: : Mr. COLBY said he had for many years held the opinion that the Insolvency Act had worked more harm than good in this country. Although he had felt it his duty on more than one occasion to introduce Bills tending to the repeal of the Insolvency Act, he did not feel at liberty at this stage of the debate—having agreed to the principle of the Bill at the second reading, and having succeeded in committee in making it as perfect as possible, or 1ather as little imperfect as may be-having come to this stage he did not feel himself justified in supporting the amendment. On former occasions when he had introduced the Bill for the abrogation of this law he was, or believed he was, supported by a very strong sentiment on the part of the mercantile interests of this community. In 1872 when the Bill was before the House asking to repeal this law, peti·tions came in in favor of it largely signed by the merchants of Montreal and other parts of the Dominion. To such an extent were these petitions signed that it was difficult to say on which side of the question the feeling of the mercantile classes preponderated. The various Boards of Trade had since then pronounced themselves in favor of an Insolvency Act. On the other hand, there had been no remonstrance on the part of any portion of the mercantile community. There was no petition before the House asking that this Act be not passed. He was driven to the conclusion that whatever might be the private conrictions and sentiments of hon. gentle- | Harwood, men with regard to the operation of this Act, it was the desire of the mercantile Little, portion of the community that it should be passed, and it affected no other class. If both the wholesale and retail merchants desired it, he did not feel himself justified at this stage of the Bill in attempting to defeat the passage of this law. induced to give this law a trial for one year for this reason. His own indi- Béchard, vidual belief was that the chief evils of Betram, which the country complained in the past had resulted from the principle of voluntary assignment in the existing law. Ur. Thompson. He was YEAS: Messieurs McQuade, Mitchell, Monteith, Montplaisir, Bourassa, Mousseau, Oliver, Baby, Gill, McCallum, Appleby, Archibald, Blackburn, Lanthier, Laurier, Blake, Macdonald (Cornwall), Macdonald (Kingston), Borron, Bowman, Burpee (St. John), Burpee (Sanbury), McDonald (Cape Breton) | He therefore moved that the 57th clause Norris, Campbell, Cartwright, Casey, McCraney, Casgrain, McGregor, Colby, Mills, Cook, Moffat, Costigan, Moss, Cunningham, Davis, DeCosmos, Delorine, De St. Georges, Perry, De Veber, Pettes, words: "That when it is proved that the insolvent has lived more extravagantly than his station and condition in life justifies, he shall be liable to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not exceeding five years." The amendment was declared lost on a division. Mr. BARTHE moved that the Bill be referred back to Committee of the Whole for the purpose of adding the following resolutions: First-That it is desirable that the power of appointing Assignees should not be vested in the creditors, but that the Assignees appointed by Government should alone be charged and entrusted with the winding up of estates, that they should not have any charges on the estates either by way of fees or expenses, but receive a salary from the Government out of the consolidated funds of the Dominion, and that out of the assets of each estate a percentage of five per cent. be levied and paid into the said consolidated funds of the Dominion, apart from necessary disbursements. Second-That all the moneys levied by Assignees shall be deposited by them in a chartered bank of the Dominion to the credit of the Government, and be not paid out only on a Gov. ernment cheque according to the principle adopted in the Province of Quebec for the payment of moneys levied by Sheriffs." He said the object of having Official Assignees appointed by the Government was to avoid the expenses attending the appointment of inspectors. By the law Mr. METCALFE said he believed that as it stood, the expenses for inspectors, a great many, if not a majority, of the Official Assignees and Interim Assignees failures in business were caused not by amounted to about fifteen or seventeen per losses in trade, but by high living and ex cent. upon the assets of every estate. By travagant expenses. A man might have the Government assuming the payment of a splendid equipage, a magnificent house, the Assignees, there would be only five and his annual expenditure might exceed per cent. The reason why the old law that of a realm.. He fails, and when his gave so much dissatisfaction was that it books are examined it is found that the was so expensive. Some Assignees were profits of his business would not pay for not conversant with the law, and had to his expenses. Yet, according to the 57th incur the expense of consulting lawyers. clause of this Bill his certificate of dis- Under this system competent men, versed charge would only be withheld for a in the law, would be appointed, and the short time. Now, he believed that the Government having control of them, no certificate in such a case ought to be re- two or three creditors could get an estate fused, and that a term of imprisonment into their hands to the detriment of a would have a salutary effect in deterring minority. There were many other argumen from plunging into a career of extra- ments which he would urge, if time pervagance at the expense of their creditors. | mitted, in support of his amendment. Mr. Metcalfe. Killam, Tupper, Wallace (Norfolk), |