entangled in insolvency – jussi sallila 293 the 1718 proposal, the burden of proof rested with the debtor as the plaintiff seeking discharge according to the general rules of civil procedure.850 The literal meaning of the provisions would support the interpretation that economic fluctuations were not deemed as “accidents” that made the partial discharge possible. After all, the more open-ended formulation of the 1718 proposal drafted was changed to a text specifically mentioning actual examples of accidents. However, this was not the last word in legal development in eighteenth-century Sweden. There is evidence of expansive interpretation in court practice where economic fluctuations could be seen as accidents.851 In a memorandum read at the Estate of Burghers at the Diet of 1772, the Uppsala representative Peter Becklin complained of such expansive interpretation and the misuse of cessio bonorum.852 In contemporary legal scholarship, it was argued that changes in the monetary policy of the government might be regarded as accidents beyond the control of the debtor.853 The lack of clear rules on how to proceed when an insolvent debtor offered acomposition to his creditors also gave rise to problems in legal practice. There is information about these problems in a report written by a royal commission that was nominated by the Hat government854 in 1750 to rationalize administration. In 1755, the commission published a report about possible improvements in the administration of justice and the execution of judgments. The authors of the anonymous report were Jonas Robeck (1700 – 1777), an assessor of the Svea Court of appeal who later became the judicial burgomaster of Stockholm, and Lars Holmer (nob. 850 See the arguments concerningonus probandi in a report on bankruptcy reform tabled in the Diet in 1772, Ödmjukt utlåtande 1772 p. 12. 851 Aunola, Toini 1967 pp. 389-390. 852 Becklin, P. 1772 (no pagination): “Allmänna Lagen uti Handels-Balkens 16 Cap. 2 §. utsätter wäl de enkannerliga olyckor, hwilka måge werka tilstånd at Cedera Bonis; men uti samma §. tillagde orden: eller annan olycko, har förfarenheten intygat, blifwit tagne uti så widsträckt bemärkelse, at oftast de ringaste olycks-händelser, ja även oförsiktighet eller tiltagsenhet, blifwit anförde såsom bewekande skäl til Cessions Beneficii åtnjutande.” 853 Christiernin, Pehr Niclas 1771 p. 28, acknowledging the uncertainty of such an interpretation. 854 The Hats were one of the two parties that emerged during the period of parliamentary governance in eighteenth-century Sweden. The division between the Hat and Cap parties was based on foreign policy; the Hats advocated aggressive foreign policy against Russia and alliance with France, while the Caps favoured good relations with Russia and Britain. In domestic affairs, the Hat party emphasized mercantilist reforms promoting the trade and industry of Sweden, and the leading commercial houses of Stockholm were among its key supporters. See generally Roberts, Michael 1986 pp. 126-142.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=