despite the fact that the first three statutes were all enacted prior to the settlement 
of Virginia. Although the classification of the plantations with foreign 
countries is strange, it appears from notes taken by Charles Yorke at the hearing 
that the basis of Mansfield's declaration as to the plantations was his opinion 
that the bankruptcy acts were criminal or penal in nature. 101 It is further 
to be observed that in 1723, long before this case arose, Charles Talbot had 
rendered an opinion that the bankruptcy acts did not extend to the plantations, 
because they were enacted since settlement and did not expressly name the 
plantations, disregarding entirely the earlier statutes. 102 There is no sign that 
Mansfield was aware of this earlier view; nor do the notes on his opinion 
indicate that he was at all affected by a very recent Board of Trade report on 
a Massachusetts "bankruptcy" act recommending disallowance for reasons 
which point to a pronounced opinion that creditors resident in England should 
be protected and that a colonial bankruptcy procedure would be prejudicial. 103 
The intention, of course, of Mansfield's thesis that although the bankruptcy 
acts did not "bind" the plantations, the assignment in bankruptcy comprehended 
personalty wherever situate was to protect the English assignees. This 
notion became current as a result of this case and resting on oral tradition was 
soon garbled and thus brought confusion into the law. In the argument in 
Hunter v. Potts (1791) in King's Bench, it was represented that by the decision 
in Richards v. Hudson "the operation of the bankrupt laws on property 
situated in another country was fully established, at least as against those who 
were subject to the dominion of our own laws." 104 This contention made 
arguendo was implicitly accepted as law by at least one English text writer. 105 
Shortly afterwards the Committee entertained another appeal, Cleeve v. 
Mills, which again concerned extension of the bankruptcy acts to Virginia. 
Upon hearing this appeal, Lord Mansfield reiterated categorically that the 
bankruptcy acts did not extend to the plantations, Scotland, and Ireland. In 
this cause a "race of diligence" had taken place, but the Virginian creditors 
were the swifter. Affirmance of the decree appealed from therefore confirmed 
that a colonial creditor could enjoy, priority by obtaining judgment against 
a bankrupt's assets in the colony before such assets came into possession of the 
assignees under the commission. 106 
101 See Add. MS, 36,218/2010. Compare the 
views of Blackstone (2 Commentaries, 472) 
that "at present the laws of bankruptcy are 
considered as laws calculated for the benefit of 
trade, and founded on the principles of humanity 
as well as justice." 
102 Beawes, Lex Mercatoria Rediviva (6th ed., 
1795). 5i6. 
103 4 AVC, Col., #359 (1758). 
104 4 Term. Rep. 182, 188. 
105 gee 3 Burge, Commentaries on Colonial and 
Foreign Laws, 910. 
106 p c 2/109/506; PC 2/110/570, 598. For 
the "cases" of the parties see Add. MS, 
36,219/85-94. At the hearing of this appeal 
Lord Mansfield expressed himself as follows: 
"The Statutes of Bankrupts do not extend to 
the Plantations, Scotland and Ireland.