The Sun. — London, England, 1837-12-06 00:00:00

TILE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1837 were as stated by the Hon. and Gallant Colonel , ip b r e appeared to be little real blame attached to him for it l a s r ! ...resl that an old man being present at a dinner given to s a e,leads, w h o b a d f oug h t i n th e Battle of the Diamond, he ad °?en led away b y t h e c i rcums tance of his presence, and sfiigiven the to a st. He believed that since the proceed i s t ne toast h a d become very common in the north of Ire of d, it had been made the subject of a song, the burd en kto leg, in reference to it, was, " Still it shall be in Ireland th e allt for evermore." He would not refer any furthe r to let s ubject, but he would mention one circumstance whic h had to his kn ow l e d ge o f a note having been addressed from the !I Is ea ' c l . T reasury to many Honourable Members, requesting their a nce at the House this evening. An Honourable Fe u d+ tho who had seen one of the notes, had informed him of th e ci rcumstance, and there could therefore be n o doubt on T rject. % at t e CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thou g ht a ss , t ue Honourable and Gallant Colonel had suffe red enou g h 11," the castigation he received on a former occasion. s h most confess that the Honourable and Gal lant Officer, fitt er from his personal and military chrecter, _ought to be is bable th an his Learned Friends to enter the l ists, was on °ceasion little indebted to his'friends. Not o ne of them t w d attemps e d to justify him ; not one had justified the 0,,` 1 e of the Diamond, or the course which the H on. and b :tant Memb e r had taken on the occasion of the toast be in g r 4 wPosed. They all had recourse to the memorable to quoque se l , ttraent ; they did not defend the on. and Gallat Colo- I s te .htit they said that others had been equally guilty, n without l lhig equal punishment. Now, assuming the fact to be of e ( f or he would not attempt to controvert them at that hour t he night), but assuming the facts alleged to be perfectly Mr. A. here or Mr. B. there, or some person at h sci Yheg, had been guilty of an offeece—an offence which he II !lever heard of—( Mr. Shaw used so me expression across ht e tabl e ) — h a d t h ere b een any re p o rt of it?—( Cheers.) He 4 s s then heard of it for the first time ; but assuming that this ° °Yenous person at Ballybeg had committed an offence, ts kt that to justify the Hon. and Gallant Colonel ? Of !e friends of the Hon. and Gallant Colonel they (the Mi titters), had no cause to complain ; on the contrary, he ta lt ilted tbe Honourable and Gallant Officers from , the hot el of his heart for the discussion s the y had done him he favour to introduce before Parli a m ent on Irish af tsrB---(Loud cheers.) They were by far the most C gene- Opponents he had ever met with. They had exhi- C s " a degree of chivalry which modern t imes had af ed no example ef.—( Cheers and laughter.) And why ? ;atise in their consideration for their opponents they had t4 : 11 willing and ready to sacrifice themselves.—( Great laugh s ) This he must admit was to be expected from their coun rsit was left to the chivalry, or perhaps to another characte sere Which belonged to the country to which they in common coged that there should be found Gentlemen willing to fakea, a sacrifice of themselves for the sake of their political e° l lents. Therefore, as far as he was concerned, he most o'P,eetfully and most sincerely to both the Honourable and G allant Officers returned his most profound and reverential t h owledgments.—(Cheers and laughter.) But he thought h itt in other respects, they had cause of complaint. The *°llourable Gentlemen opposite introduced debates, but they ts 'old come to no division.—( Loud cheers.) Why not bring e '''lcard a motion to justify the toast of the " Battle of the Die sel:Jo —( Cheers.) Why not endeavour by a division, to jus (l the course taken with respect to the conduct of M r. Blake. th• c od cheers.) He would say one word with respect to 44 „ unfortunate toast. He believed with the H onourable vos '! Learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) that t h e discussions s i reh it had produced were calculated to rai se the toast (H ear, an importance which it ought never to ha ve met with. _ aiear, hear.) He should think that he had but ill dis charged his duty if he sat down without say in g a word cn th c Charact er o f the tranquillity of Ireland. No ties that con tected him with a British constituency, much as he valued an ti greatly as he respected them, could ever a bsorb the e l tr l S ier ties of the country of his birth. He h ad latel y si jed that country. He bad there performed the duties ts Magistrate at times when the impart i a l exercise of be en duties required strong interference. But h e bad never r to remiss in the discharge of those duties. — ( L oud cheers.) that capacity he would take upon himself to say, after it residence in Ireland which enabled him to judge of the c ondition of the country, in the capacity of a w itness, that he , L!lt bou n d to g i ve th e most perfect and complet e testimon y th at could be rendered to the tranquillity of that country (Cheers)—and to the peace, order, growing good feeling, I 'd respect for the law which exhibited itself there. — (Cheers.) The columns of local and pi.rty newspapers had , oeo rak e d t o f ur nish a catalogue of disgraceful crimes ; but ' he re l ,, b was there a great and thickly popul at e d countr y in teh crimes of great magnitude and of the worst character rre not to be found ? But crime was diminishing in Ireland, Co alight be seen on reference to the returns made under the st ernment of Lord Talbot, and various others. As an in of the way in which the long catalogue of crime was 4 t up he could state that during the course of the last year 'll was passed to impose a severe penalty upon drunken ss in Ireland ; and in one county 400 persons had been con• e c ted of drunkenness. But the convictions were made a I narge against the Government ; they went to swell the cata ,que of convictions, and to prove that Ireland was f a r from nog in a state of tranquillity ; and the increase of the corn witrneuts for this crime had actually been brought es a charge against the present Government in Ireland.—( Question, question.) He was not surprised that the Hon. Members ° Plaosite were not enamoured of the present discussion.— _.Cheers.) He was exceedingly sorry that this sorry discus sion was n o t t o b e f o ll owe d by as sorry a division—( Cheers and that the House would not be able more emphatic all y to mark its opinion of the resuscitated Battle of the Diamond.— (Cheers. ) f er C t o i tiel PE RCEVAL would not have risen had it not been o f e t sneech of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor tio Exchequer, filled as it was with ungenerous declama tion._( n ' — ( ll ear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman could see cost clearly the small specks in the character of the gentle o who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, but Vhe was blind to all the defects in the gentlemen from whom he derived support, how dearly soever he might purchase that support.—( • Cheers.) He seemed to forget the Treasury note Which filled the Ministerial Benches—( Hear, hear, from Col. Sibthorp, and laughter)—and forgot also the circumstances in Which he (Colonel Perceval) brought forward his motion the Other„. evening, which accounted for the non-attendance of th e "'embers on that side of the House. It was made a severe char ge against him that he had not on that occasion read the l 'ecommendation to mercy contained in the report of the court tpartial on Lieutenant Blake.—( Hear, from the Minist erial Benches.) He regretted exceedingly that he did not do so— ( Cheers)—but Ministers had the documents in their own hands, 4 od if they had read the wording of the recommendation they t° l lld know best whether he merited blame on this account. Ella non-reading of the recommendation had given him an ap pearance of acting unjustly, to which lie felt that he was not fairly subject.—( Hear, hear.) The Government Press in Lon t°ll and the country Press, had stated that Lieute n a nt Blake t ad been dismissed from the office of a stipendiary magistrate cause of the sentence of the court-moeial, and it was added toat h e (Colonel Perceval) had withdrawn from the inquiry Which e he had sought. It was to disa buse the p ublic mind en t his subject that he had come forward the ot her evenin g , and c was exceedingly glad to hear f, ern the Noble Lord the Se cretary for Ireland a declaration that the original appointment !.f Lieutenant Blake was a wrong one, and that he was sorry for it. With respect to the Battle of the Diamond, he thought that to the letter of Mr. Under-Secretary Drummond was to mainly attributed all the ill effects which would flow from ' t • He had never heard of the toast of the" Battle of the Dia rood " previously to that letter—( Hear , hear) —and he now card it wherever he went ; and he thought that it would tend i r °, Perpetuate that ill feeling which , whatever opin ion the Hon. G entlemen opposite might form of his character, he was most anxiou s to see alleyed. Mr. JOHN ELLIS said the main points for consideration 14 his (Mr. Ellis's) opinion were , what was t he character of t he entertainment, and what was the nature of t he toast g iven. 3 ri his way from the Newry election lie first became acquainted W ith the Honourable and Gallant Me mber for Newr y , and that ss tmourable Member did him the honour to request his attend ance at that dinner. The invitation was given by word of 'flouth from the host himself, and it was the same to all the guests ; there was no Committee named, and no list of toasts c tOt round, as he believed was usual at public dinners, and this W as therefore truly private. When a person took a room for dinner and invited his guests, it was his own entertainment, 41-4 he might do as he liked — ( Lau g hter) —and it did not c hange its character by being held at an hotel. He was "bully i g norant that the toast of " The Battle of the Dia. ! 11 ° 11 d" would have been given in that p rivate p arty, and „ Would never have been devulged but for the espionage v ' h ieli had been instiuted, and on which was founded the dismissal of his Honcurable and Gallant Friend the Member f i ( i l r Armagh. He had asked whether the toast was on the . t ,t which it was intended to be proposed that evening, and i ' s c Chai rman re plied that he introduced it on the sp ur of the ''otrient._( Hear, hear, from the Opposition. ) Mr. BROTHERTON thought the time had arrived when t he debate should terminate, and if it did not, he should pro "se that it be adjourned. —(No no.) Colon e l VERNER then replied. The Chancellor of the Ztehequer had also used language towards h im of the most atraordinary nature, and which he thought was most uncalled ta r • There was no word in the English lan g ua g e stron g sh "°tigh by which he could express his indignation at the lan %age uttered by the Right Hon. Gentleman.—( Hear, hear.) M ember would not make use of any expressio ns unbecomin g a o f Parliament to utter in that House, but he would s ec ve it to the imagination of the Right Hon. Gentleman to u I PIY any term he pleased.—( Hear , and cr ies of •'Order.") a t 'he SPEAKER said that the Hon . and Gallant Member siiot feel that he was bound to confine him self to that lan g ua g e 'eh was fit and proper to be addressed to the House itself, kl b e tl, therefore, when the Hon. and Gallant Member said that is would use language that was fit for a M ember to use to ef4rds the H ouse , but that lie would leave it to the imagination W„ a ny Hon. Member to supply other terms than those that k ` u o , fit and proper to be used, the Hon. and Gallant Member t s - ,'S feel that he was exceeding the limit which was permitted_ tylembers in the use of language in that House.—( tlear.) C o t • VERNER expressed a hope that he had not made ta w " a f any language which was unbec omin g in him to use , i ,rds th e H ou s e (Oh, oh ) ehe SPEAKER bored the . t the Honourable a nd Gallant k i e l to e bcr wou ld at once sa y that he intended by what had cri l i c Z from him to limit himself to the use of those expressions n were pr o p e r to be addressed to the Hou se itself. C 4 l ol . VERNER was very ready and willin g to make any e es si p in his power to the House, but he m ust sa y that he cred the language used by the Right Hon. Gentleman su it t it insult to him, and he also conceived that it was an in ° the House.—( Opposition cheers.) fall s :* ROBERT STEUART said that after what had that be from the Hon. end Gallant Member, he scarcely elt h A aw any right to interfere in this matter ; yet l as t no tad i3 t, Ii 4 alk . 1, A ttn' 0 1° fed Ob . the as - A fitte d r d a' wit' aOO.- i t ion w ; : c a 00 0 3 and f t he toas", other Hon. Member had risen, he thought he should not be acting improperly by declaring it to be his opinion that his Right Hon. Friend beside him might as well at once state that in the expression he used he did not mean to say anything personally offensive to the Honourable and Gallant Member; again, that Honourable and Gallant Member stating that he also in the language he had used did not mean to say anything personally offensive to his (Mr. Steuart's) Right Honourable Friend. Lord Viscount MO RPETII was quite sure that his Right lion. Friend did not use any language which he was not jus tified in using. He conceived that his Right Hon. Friend had been misunderstood by the Hon. and Gallant Officer. Sir R. BATE SON said that it not only struck him, but many friends near him, that the language used by the Right Hon. Gentleman was most personally offensive. It was cer tainly harsh language,• and he must also say offensive ; he hoped, therefore, the Right Hon. Gentleman would at least tell his ( Sir Robert Bateson's) Gallant Friend that he did not wean it in that sense in which it had been understood by him and his friends around him. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER should be happy to repeat that which he actually did say, and then sub mit himself to the judgment of the House, and the deliberate judgment of the Hon. and Gallant Officer, having nothing to explain, and still less any thing to retract.—(Hear, hear, hear.) In the course of his speech, he (the Chan cellor of the Exchequer) observed, by way of a general proposition, that those who quoted history, not for the pur pose of extracting useful lessons from its pages, but for the purpose of exasperating the feelings and exciting the ani mosities of party by making their guilty deeds subjects of commendation and praise, were like those who poisoned wells or scattered firebrands among inflammable materials. That was what he had stated, and what he would repeat. —( Hear, hear,) He felt upon his honour that he had given no just cause of offence, and, therefore, he had no explana tion to give, no retraction to make.—(Cheers, and loud cries for Colonel Verner.) After a considerable pause, during which Colonel Verncr kept his seat, The SPEAKER rose, and expressed a hope that the Hon. and G Anent Member must now be ;entirely satisfied that the Right Hon. Gentleman had no intention of saying anything that could be offensive. Another pause ensued, but Colonel Verner still retaining his seat. Mr. JACK SON trusted that his Gallant Friend would feel quite satisfied after what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman. No Gentleman could expect more from another than saying he did not mean any personal offence.—( Hear.) Colonel VERNER should be sorry not to express himself perfectly sati , fied with the explanation of the Right Hon. Gentleman, after the observation of his Hon. and Learned Friend ; but he could not avoid saying that the language used by the Right Hon. Gentleman was language to which he had not been accustomed ; and, appearing to come directly from the Right Hon. Gentleman to himself, was such as he ought not to suffer under.—( Hear.) The motion was then agreed to. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at half-past one o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS.—DEC. 5. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'Clock. The Marquis of BUTE presented a petition from the nobility, gentry, and others of Renfrew, praying for an enlargement of the Standing Orders of the House in reference to Railway and private Bills, and for the appointment of competent authorities before whom evidence might be taken upon local matters. The Noble Marquis presented another petition agreed to at a meeting of the county of Renfrew, praying for an alteration in the system of postage. Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the Jailor of Horsemonger-lane Prison, praying for compensa tion in the case the Abolition for Debt Bill should pass into a law. The Noble Lord presented a petition from the Distillers carrying on business in London, against the passing of the Bill. Also a petition from the S ociet y of Mutua Communication for Trade to the same effect. Likewise a petition from the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Bristol, praying that in the event of the Bill pass ing into a law, a sufficient security might be provided for the case of giving credit. Lord W YNFORD (as we u nderstood) said that he should support the prayers of the petitions. Lord BROUGHAM said the Noble Lord would be pleased to recollect that this Bill was originally framed upon the report of the Committee of the Common-law Commissioners, who had been engaged for upwards of a year in investigating into all its de tails, and who had examined between 300 and 400 indi viduals—threehundred of whom were mercantile men. Lord WYNFORD said that he also recollected that one of those Commissioners had differed very considerably from the others. Lord BROUGHAM only wished to have it under stood that every fact must have been before the Commis sioners. Lord DEVON presented a petition from Henry Jones, a settler in Canada, complaining of the great inconvenience that he had suffered from the tardy progress of law pro ceedings in the Court of Session of Scotland, and praying that some measure might be adopted, whereby suitors in that Court might be enabled to obtain more speedy decisions. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL. The Order of the Day for the second reading of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill having been read, The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was sure it was unnecessary for him to call their Lordships' serious attention to this subject, because they were fully aware of its very great importance, and it was a Bill that undoubtedly professed to make very great alterations in the law, and in a branch of the law which perhaps, more than any other, affected all parts of the community. There was scarcely, perhaps, an inhabitant of this country who was not either a debtor or a creditor ; and in the majority of cases, there were very few who were not both. Any proposition, therefore, which af fected so large a portion of the community must necessarily he one which demanded the most serious attention. This measure undoubtedly, if carried into effect, must very much alter the relative situation of persons engaged in commerce or persons engaged in manufactures, on whose dealings, with respect to each other, the prosperity of the community might be considered in a great measure to depend. It was a subject which had been for a long time under the consideration of Parlia ment ; it was a subject which had been the ground of several Bills introduced into the other House of Parlia ment ; and their Lordships had had no le s than two Bills similar to the present one sent up front that House. It was true the Bills which came up from the other House differed in many respects from the present, but their Lordships would find they differed more in the ex tent to which the other Bills proposed to carry the measure than in those provisions which formed the sub ject of the present Bill. In the Bill he had the ho nour of introducing to their Lordships' House in the year 1836, there was a part which had been thought fit to omit in the present Bill. It provided, not only for altering, the situation of creditor and debtor, as relating to the re medies the one had against the other, or to the relief which the debtor was considered as entitled to against his creditor, but it also contained provisions, perhaps of a very salutary nature, but which it was thought so far en cumbered the Bill, that those who prepared this Bill had thought it far better to leave that part of the subject entirely out of it.--(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He meant that part of former Bills which arranged a machinery for the purpose of enabling parties to make what was called ccssio bonorum, to divide their property equally among their creditors; in short, to extend the provision of the bankrupt laws at the option of the debtor for the benefit of persons who as creditors might have claims. In omitting part of the measure of 1834 and 1835, he by no means meant to express any opinion against the provisions of that Bill.— (Hear, hear.) The object of this Bill was strictly confined to improving the remedies the creditor had against his debtor, and for relieving the debtor from some of those hardships, which, as the law now stood, be often was sub jected to at the suit of his creditor. If the measure pro posed would not in his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion leave the creditor in as good a situation as he now stood, and if he was not of opinion that it would very much im prove that situation, he should have hesitated very much before he undertook to advocate it. But he was satisfied the remedy which the creditor now had was wholly inadequate to that which he was entitled to, and that in a state of society in which of necessity credit to a large extent must be given, that the law did not afford to the creditor the proper and adequate means of obtain ing payment of his just debt. At the same time it was perfectly true that although the creditor had not the means of obtaining payment of his just debts, yet that he had the means of oppressing a debtor, and of keeping a debtor in prison when there was no plausible grounds for his exercising that power—in short, the creditor bad that power against the debtor which he ought not to have. If their Lordships would only do him the honour of at-i l tending to him while he gave a very short outline of the course of proceeding which the law now allowed to a cre ditor for the purpose of compelling payment of a debt due to him, he thought they could not fail to see the law was greatly defective. In the first place, any man, as the law now stood, was liable to be arrested and deprived of his liberty, if any person would make an affidavit that he owed him above 20/. The laws of this country were ex tremely careful of personal liberty, and in other cases threw every possible guard around the Queen's subjects. He was sure their Lordships would not think that a law which put it in the power of one individual to deprive ano ther, whom he chose to call his debtor, at least for a time, of his liberty, was a just law. It was true he had the power of obtaining his liberation on putting in bail—a proceeding which, if a party had friends ready to come forward and subject themselves to that responsibility:, might not be an affair of much difficulty. The debtor must go into the market and hire bail, for no persons would on the score of friendship subject themselves men to the inconvenience and risk of becoming bail. Great in convenience was experienced by the debtors so arrested. So far, it appeared at least, that the power of the creditor was larger than their Lordships might be disposed to allow it to continue. The action proceeded, end the creditor obtained his judgment. He was previously armed with the power to arrest upon affi davit of debt, and he had, when judgment was ob tained, two remedies.—(Hear, bear.) If he proceeded against the debtor's property, he had a very inadequate one ; if the debtor were possessed of land, he had the power of obtaining one moiety of his income. If he was pos sessed of that species of property called goods and chattels, he might, through the instrumentality of the sheriff, ob tain them to pay his debt. But if either from the debtor's suspicions being excited, or from his being in that state of insolvency, he should make it expedient to arrange his property and means of living, so as to defeat the object of his creditor. He might have horses, carriages, and all the other means of living in luxury, and yet the creditor have no power to take it. H e mi g ht have large funded property, but the creditor had no means of touching it. Large sums might be due to him, but the creditor had no means of getting at them. In short the creditor might find his debtor a rich man, but unwilling to pay, and he had no means of obtaining re dress. Then the creditor might take another course—he might take the person of the debtor ; but by that step he discharged the property—he took his chance of obtaining payment of his debt by pressure on the person. If the debtor preferred being imprisoned to paying his debts, the law afforded no remedy.—( Hear.) There were in the pri sons of the metropolis debtors living many many years— be knew one man who had been 23 years in prison, although he was quite able to pay his debts.—(Hear, hear.) That person was living in luxury, and preferred spending his property in prison to paying his debts. In that case the creditor had reason to complain.—(Hear, hear.) He had taken his debtor's person, but the experiment had failed. He was only calling their Lordships' attention to old and acknow ledged grievances. The state of the law was such that it had induced Parliament to pass Acts from time to time, and ultimately a permanent law, which defeated the remedy against the person—the Insolvent Debtor's Act. After the creditor had gone through an expensive pro cess of law, the debtor took the benefit of the Insolvent Act, and if he had any estate, instead of that creditor reaping the aivantage of his exertions, it was divided among all the creditors without distinction, and the result of investi gation showed that the dividends there were not very large—that in short they were a mere mockery. The creditor actually got nothing, and the debtor laughed at those whom he had deceived. B?fore they began to apply the remedy it was necessary in the first place to see what the disease was, and he felt con fident that none of their Lordships would say they were prepared to continue the law as it at present was. The grievance on the part of the creditor was the inefficient remedy which the law give to the creditor to obtain payment out of the property of the debtor ; and the grievance on the part of the debtor was the harsh, cruel, and vindictive conduct which the law gave the creditor a right to exercise towards the debtor. The remedy was execution against he debtor's property, or arrest of his person upon 'esne process. In reference to execntion after judg 'bough the Insolvent Debtors' Act was passed from motives of commiseration, and though it was necessary, in that way, to give unfortunate individuals relief who were lying in gaol without the means of paying their creditors, and who otherwise might have had to lie in prison during the remainder of their lives, it was clear that then the law became essentially altered, and from the cruelty that might have arisen it appeared to Parliament to be absolutely necessary that that altera tion should be 'lade. Execution in that respect then ceased in a great measure to be operative at all. The debtor, however, could not take the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors Act without going to prison, and lying there upon an average for eight weeks.—(Hear.) He could not, therefore, get relief from his debts without leaving his trade, giving up his business or situation,- and sustaining all the loss of character which belonged to a person who was to be found in prison for the non-payment of his debts. There, again, although the law provided a re msdy for the creditor, yet it gave that remedy only on terms, which were extremely hard, and in many cases absolutely useless.—( Hear.) What benefit could result provided a debtor gave up his property from his being thrown into prison ? If he was in any business at all he was obliged to abandon that business, and by being kept in prison he was deprived of all means of supporting either himself or his family. Even the_ very means he might have procured of paying his creditors were in this way taken from him. Undoubtedly at the end of two months lying in prison, he would be infinitely worse able to pay his creditors than when he was first taken to gaol. In what situation would a party stand against whom a writ of execution was obtained, in regard to his debts ? He might not have the means of paying all his debts, but he might have the means of paying particular debts. Now if that partyhad property,and their Lordships could devise means whereby, without the intervention of the Insolvent Debtor's Court, a direct remedy against the property could he obtained, for what possible reason would they give to the creditor the right of taking in execution the person of the debtor, the object only being by pressure to compel the debtor to give up the property he possessed ? On the other hand, if the debtor was possessed of no property, and had no means of paying, what could be more harshonore cruel, or more unnecessary than to allow the creditor to take such an individual to prison ? A middle case might arise—a debtor might have no property, but he might have some friends, who, in order to prevent him from imprisonment, would afford him the means of payment — wou ld their Lordships think that was a course of law that they ought to encourage ? What reason could there be for allowing a creditor by pressure upon a debtor to induce the friends of the debtor to come forward to pay a sum of money into the pocket of the cre ditor, of which they did not owe a single farthing? Supposing a man had property enough to pay 10s. in the pound, and a creditor obtained execution against him, threw him into prison, and kept him there either till the Insolvent Debtors' Court discharged him, or until he paid that particular debt, why that creditor would be paid by a sum which ought to have been divided among all the debtor's creditors.---s(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that the only three cases that could exist of a debtor being taken into execution were productive of unmixed evil. Then again, if their Lordships should be of opinion that there ought to be no imprisonment for debt, then it was to be ap prehended that they had made up their minds there ought to be no arrest for debt. It had been said there ought to be arrest for debt, but no execution for debt —and he (the Lord Chancellor) had heard persons say that it was extremely expedient in many cases to arrest for debt, because, upon arresting, they very often got paid. He did not believe this was an uncommon opinion among tradesmen who did not look to the legal effect of the proceeding, but only to their own gain. But if their Lordships should think there ought to be no execution on the arrest, was it possible they could be prepared to sanction this arrest? For what purpose was the arrest? It was only that the individual might thereby be made subject to the law by having exe cution go against him upon the arrest. Their Lordships could not possibly maintain this law of arrest if immediately upon a man being arrested he was to be again discharged. Such a system as this would be to abandon the legitimate purpose of arrest al together. It was a mere torture by a creditor for the purpose of getting paid by the pressure attending it ; and if in this way a man obtained payment of what was due, might be not also obtain payment in the same way of that which was not due. By the re port of the Commissioners, it appeared that about half of the arrests which took place were for debts under thirty pounds, and that the great majority of arrests were for debt under forty pounds. They stated also that the ordinary expense of procuring bail in cases of bail was thirty pounds; so that a man arrested for 301. or 401. had to incur a nearly equal amount of expence in procuring bail. Practising as he (the Lord Chancellor) had done for the whole of hiss fe in Courts of Equity , he had been led to consider why system of arrest for small sums should be persevered in, whilst such a system was totally unknown, and found to be totally unnecessary in Courts of Equity,. where there was more property adjudicated upon in one month than there was in years by Courts of Law.— ( Hear.) There was only known in the Court of Equity the arrest of the person by a writ of ne and that was entirely at the discretion of the Judge, which discretion he never exercised in favour of issuing the writ, except upon affidavits brought before him ascertaining the debt, and making out that the party indebtedwas about toleave the county, and well might it be said, as it was by Lord Eldon, there was no part of his duty which ho performed with inore fear and trembling than that of grant ing a writ of ne eseat regno, because it m i g ht be applied for at a moment when it might operate in the greatest p oss ibl e manner inconveniently and prejudi cially to the individual against whom it was issued. He admitted that there ought to be a means of prevent ing persons from leaving the country in order to av oid the payment of his debts ; but he could not adopt the rigour of the old law, w hi c h gave the creditor a power upon his own affidavit to t a k e th e body of his debtor and put him into prison.—(Hear.) It was true if a rrests were permitted in Courts of Equity, a plaintiff who had a debt due to him would have the power, on his own affi davit, to call upon the Sheriff to take his debtor, and the payment of his debt might be hastened thereby ; but that pressure, for it could be called nothing else. might be exercised towards a bad as well as a good purpose. So stood the law at present with respect to the inlpriEormient of the person on mesne process. Ile be lieved that the Insolvent Debtors' Act had passed for the best of purposes, because by it the excessive rigour of the law was taken away. That systems however, did not secure the creditor the payment of his debt, while it exposed the debtor to the greatest of hardships. If their Lordships could find out the means by which a debtor's property might be made subservient to his debt s, they would place the creditor in a better situation than he was at present, and no injury would be done to the debtor. Now what was it that the present Bill proposed to carry into effect ? In the first place, after judgment, the question was in what way the creditor should obtain payment of his debt. You found that the debtor had possession of real estate, and in such a case the law said you may take a moiety of it. He (the Lord Chan cellor) could not see what reason there was why the whole of that estate should not be taken. Again, if the debtor had large funded property, the debtor might go on and enjoy it, for the creditor could do no th ng. He saw no reasonwhy that distinction should be made, or why the debtor should go on foryears receiving an annual income from shares in Companies, or other property of the same sort, while the creditor could not touch it. He could not conceive any argument by which that system could be supported. If the creditor bad a right to the debtor's property, why confine it to any particular description ? It was well known that means were adopted to evade the law, and their Lordships would find it difficult to discover why goods and chattels should be the only property available. In the Bill when it first came up to their Lordships' House, it was proposed that with regerd to land there should be what was called a Sheriff's sale. , When he came to consider the clause, he conceived that it would be very injudicious to have such a sale without knowing what the debtor's title was ; and he had also the clause as it now stood, namely, that after judgment the creditor should have an equitable lien on the land in the same way as if he obtained it by the act of the owner.—(Loud cries of " Hear hear, hear.") There was one other measure of some importance in the Bill to which the attention of the House should be particularly drawn. It took away those portions of the old law by which an act of bankruptcy was proved to have been com mitted; but in doing this some test must be provided in order to show the same fact which was proved by the Act of Bankruptcy, namely, the inability of the debtor to pay, and the Bill therefore directed that the non-payment of money for a certain length of time after judgment obtained should be deemed equivalent to an act of bankruptcy. This was, in fact, an equivalent, for the only evidence pro duced by such an Act was the inability of the debtor to pay. These provisions would subject, with very few ex ceptions, all the property of debtors to execution cre ditors; and could it be denied that the creditors would be better off than they were before, notwithstanding the re moval of all the pressure of the old system, or that they were not in as good a position, and at the same time the debtors would be relieved from the inconvenience of arrest ? Not only so, but the Act fi rnished more ample and better means of recovering debts from persons who might have fraudulent intentions than now existed. If the debtor should be about to leave the country, or to abscond, it was necessary that the creditor should arrest the property. At present he had so far a remedy, that he could detain the person of the debtor in the event of judgment, but if he was at a dis tance from London when he :ascertained his intention to quit the country, he had to send to London for a writ, and then he was subjected to the dolly of waiting un til process should be sued out ; and if these steps were not taken at the commencement of the suit, they could not be so afterwards. The debtor then might remain in the country and oppose the creditor's claim so long as it was safe, and then he might remove from the country. To remedy this evil, a provision was suggested by which a power was given to the creditor to go before a jus tice of the peace, or some other person competent to take oaths—he mentioned a justice of the peace, as being the most accessible person—and to make an affidavit of the circumstance of the debt, and of the intention of the debtor to quit the country, and thelproperty would be attached. If the Bill gave a better security to creditors, and did not affect the posi tion of debtors by:renderingltheir situation less favourable, he was sure the House would agree to its being passed into a law. An important part of the Act, to which he had not already referred, was an extension of the power which already existed in certain cases under the Lords' Act.—(Hear, hear.) Under that statute debts not exceeding 3001. in amount were contemplated; but under the new Bill it was pro posed that the same power should extend to all debts, and that thu, remedy should:%extend therefore to all classes. The Lords' Act had been in existence for some time, and he SAW no reason why it should not be extended. It was pro posed that a debtor, on a judgment, should be liable to he called on to deliver a schedule of his property, and that he should be examined on it before certain officers who should he appointed to act in cases in London and before Commis sinners in the country as to its amount, and the necessary powers were given to compel answers, as the Commissioners ' of Bankrupts were already empowered to do, for the debtor had no right to say diet, having been relieved from impri sonment, he should refuse to answer questions with regard to his property. There were other points to which he might draw the attention of the House, but he thought it would be unnecessary to go more into detail on the subject of the bill ; but there was one subject on which, no doubt, much interest would be felt by Members of this and the other House, and to uhich, therefore, he felt bound to refer. He alluded to pri vilege of Parliament. No alteration in the law in this respect was proposed, because the principle on which the exemption was grounded had been long established, and he saw no reason, therefore, why any change should take place, due care being taken that creditors should have the means of enforcing their just claims; and this being duly provided for, there was no miming in the privilege which was inconsistent with the provi sions of the Bill. (The Noble L ord durin g the whole of his speech spoke in a tone of voice so low that it was with much difficulty he was heard in the gallery.) Lord LYNDHURST said, before he proceeded to ani madvert upon the Bill now l e fore the House, he felt it neces sary to defend their LordshiiSs from certain reproaches for the delay which they were supposed to have interposed to the progress of legis'ation on this question. The first Bill having for its object the abolition of imprisonment for dobt, was in troduced in 1835, and founded on the Report of the common lass Commission. By the unanimous consent of all parties that measure was not proceeded with. In the next Session Lord John Russell was asked in the House of Commons when the Government meant to re-introduce the Bill ; to which his Lordship replied that the . Lord Chancellor had directed his attention to the subject from the moment of his entering office, and that be would bring in the Bill in the House of Lords. The Bill was introduced by the Lord Chan cellor, but not so as that the second reading could be appointed to take place before the 11th of July, almost the close of the session. That Bill differed in many essential particulars from the previous measure, and the alterations were improvements —a proof of the advantoge of consideration upon such an im- Portant question. On the 11th of July his Noble and Learned Friend opposite was absent from indisposition, and the Lord Chief Baron and the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench had either left town for the circuit or were on the point of do ing so. Upon these grounds the Noble Duke ( Wellington) suggested the propriety of postponing the measure. .Every body must feel that no imputat i on res ted on their Lordships as far as he had hitherto gone. In the last session of Parliament the Attorney- General brought in another Bill, in which he abandoned 150 of the clauses of the former Bill. This new new Bill was introduced on the 6th of February. Mark its progress. The Bill was postponed from day to . day until the 6th of April. The measure , which was so important to the trading interests of time country, on which so much elo quence had been expended by the officers of the Govern ment, was then suffered to slumber from the 6th of April to the close of June ; and then, just upon the eve of the pro rogation—when it was known that the House would not sit above a fortnight longer—it was hurried through Committee, read a third time, and sent up to the House of Lords, as if in mockery of the subject and of their Lordships. Under such circumstances, it was, of course, impossible to take the Bill into consideration. The Lord Chancellor had now brought in a Bill corresponding with the measure of last Session, and t t h h e e i i r r L Lordships h were d o p n r o e p n a p r o e n d t h t e o a n e h o j n e s o i t d , e they o i tln all y . h ad not onth layt not in the slightest degree deviated from their duty, but the most beneficial results had ensued from the course they had taken. The Lord Chancellor had alluded to the popularity of the Bill. That was a point which would not influence him. If a measure was good he would support it whether it was po pular or not ; and if a measure were good it would ultimately be popular. At the same time lie was willing to admit that uln dealing with this great question, affecting as it did the interests of large classes of her Majesty's subjects, the feel ings of the people ought to have some weight with their Lordships. He had no means of knowing whe thee the measure was popular or not, except by look ing at the petitions which were presented on the subject. He had referred to the petitions presented to the other House of Parliament, and what was the result of his inquiry 1 Tho number of petitions against the Bill greatly exceeded the number in its favour. That, however, was not a fair mode of looking at the question. The number of petitioners against the Bill exceeded that in support of it in the proportion of ten to one, although many of the petitions against it were signed by single individuals, acting as Chairmen of meetings at whi ch they were agreed to. If their Lordships were to estimate the popularity of the plan by the number of petitions presented for or against it, the present Bill must be an exceedingly un popular measure. This, however, should not influence his de termination with respect to a question of this nature. Some thing like mystification had been employed upon the subject. He had heard it said (and by the Lord Chancellor) that this was not a Bill for abolishing imprisonment for debt, but a Bill to give additional security to the creditor, so as to render arrest for debt immaterial, and that, therefore, it might be abolished as a necessary consequence. The Bill was framed in that spirit ; all the provisions for giving additional secu rity to the creditor were placed first, and then came the clauses which related to imprisonment for debt. The abolition of imprisonment for debt was thus made dependant on the affording of additional security to the creditor. Did the Bill afford that additional security ? Tradesmen were generally very astute persons, and good judges of what affected their own interests. He had seen large bodies of these persons, who told him that ail the bedsted securities were nothing but rubbish, and that, so far from affording them any advantage, they would leave them in a worse situation than dist in which they stood at present. By the first clause of the Bill, the cre ditor might take the land of the debtor. He had no objec tion to that; but would it be an advantage to the creditor? None whatever. The Lord Chancellor had answered himself upon that point, when he said that the great proportion of arrests were for sums under 301. Were those arrests directed against the owners of freehold estates, or copshold and cus- -----_ _ ternary tenur e s? There was scarcely a single inst ance of such a g ainst the sums received by him in eaeg i hitti those a proceeding. It was unnecessary to resor t to such a p ro- processes bad produced any fruits, ~_ _:o . : o s ie ceding against these persons. The Common La w Commis- p aid ens actually equal to the whol tea 4 C *c s O st sinners had stated that arrests were issued against persons pos- ( Lord Brougham) could not concei I.fliceOnaniGo* ee .eS sessing large property, but only against poor persons for sums Letter calculated than this at once -'a. .r 'a 0 "ae ,of 201., 301., or 401. Then how was a debtor's land affected by the light upon this subject, and to de t istika , 1 -111. 4 '-•- - • Bill? Only from the date of the judgment. The consequence, he something wrong in a system ifs, •r 4- - t 1..- - - - was, that the owner of the land would, while the suit was in pro- such a result. Another most EPOeiti`j_e**e:._ gress, favour some other debtor, or alienate the land alto- in this question was that which had bee gi- 40•40o'rlo " tether. It might be said that this could be done at present; in the very able report of Mr. S e rgeantlEek~ill i ka t li irt hut mark the check that now existed. If a creditor sued an the equall able experienced of the Learned Sergeant's four learned pers ons they owner of land, and he had reason to expect that his debtor and more colleagues in the profession. In the meditated the transfer of his property, he could seize upon more convincing statement of those four learned his person. The present Bill would remove that control had come to the clearest and most unhesitating opinion Of the over the debtor. The Bill , gave the creditor the right of inefficacy of the law of arrest for its purposes of its peso& seizing all money, bills, and promissory notes in the posses- cious effects upon various parties, and of its detrimental true sion of the debtor; but who ever heard of a Sheriff's officer dency to all interests concerned, both to the interest of the seizing money? And as to bills and notes, he would e ndorse creditor and to that of the debtor. is had been said by hiss them to another person, and laugh at his creditor. Then Noble and Learned Friend (and he tated it at the close of' it might be said that the creditor could seize the debtor's his argument when he came t the general question), ought stock in the funds. What would be the consequence ? the law to be changed or not? That there was a very great The debtor would transfer his money t. The to the foreig &later n f might of being unds, tendency in arr p ested er sonsfor not debt, and thhs to expose t t temheselves law tohad the at least hazard and then the creditor could not touch i live in a furnished house, in Grosvenor-square, keep a job car- this effect, that it drrede punable ersons fro to m pay. contraßutctieg would' debt% riage and horses, and draw his dividends from France or rashly, and which they wer Holland, without it being possible for his creditor to interfere his Noble and Learned Friend look to the opposite side of with him. The Bill provided , as a securit y for the cre- the question.—( Hear, hear, hear.) What was the tendency ditor, that the order of the Judge should attach all the per- of the law of arrest upon the creditor If it had a certain sonal property of the debtor. Merchants and lawyers of the tendency to keep a man from running into debt, it had as first e minence had told him that the consequences of such an great a tendency to induce persons to give credit, and ay that enactment would be, that no man would venture to purchase tendency it, therefore, had a tendency to enable persons to get a bale of goods without first going to the chamber of every into debt. It might diminish the inducement to get into debt, judge to see whether there was an order affecting it. This but it increased the facility. One tendency might be set off s was a sample of the absurdities contained in the Bill. He against the other ; but the consequence upon the whole was, had not patience to go through the whole of them. Yet that the system increased the number of debtors. Every body this was a measure which their Lordships were called knew that this was practically the effect. What was the upon to pass, post haste ; and the Noble Viscount course that a tradesman now pursued, knowing that he could opposite was surprised that they would ask fur 15 days to con- obtain a preference by arrest ? He lends his gcods possibly ider it. The person who drew up the Bill seemed not to ima- to a fellow-trader in another line, nay, he lends his credit to gine that it was impossible for a defendant ever to obtain judg- that other trader, and enables the latter by the goods or credit mcnt in his favour; th us it was p r ovided that a plaintiff might thus obtained, to get other men's goods into his possession. imprison a defendant for his costs, but no such remedy was The instant the first trader sees the net full, the prey ledged offered to the debtor.—( Hear, hear. ). This , too , in a Bill fram- in the place where by first lending his own goods, he ed by the Queen's Attorney-general, and introduced by the Lord had enabled the debtor to put it, he sues out a writ , Chancellor of England.—( Hear, hear.) Whether this omis- and serves it upon the debtor, who is instantly obliged sion was a slip, or whether it proceeded on the assumption that to give up the goods, or go to prisonthus the man a plaintiff was always right and a defendant always wrong, he who first gave him credit operates the payment of what could not state. One observation was called for by that part is owing to himself by means of those other men's goods of the Bill, which gave the plaintiff possession of the Bills which the debtor had been enabled to peecure by displaying the of Exchange and Promissory Notes belonging to the defen- goods of the creditor in his shop. Instances of this came be dant. If the plaintiff, bein g . a poor man—no unlikely thing— fore the Commissioners, and upon *let they founded their should obtain possession of a too/. bill, and after deducting opinion, amongst other things, and upon that opinion they his own claim for 201. or 301., should apply the remainder to grounded their Report. He entirely agreed with thos , Corn the payment of his own debts, the unfortunate defendant missioners in the conclusion at which they had arrived ; and would actually be left without remedy —( Hear, hear.) This that conchnion was fortified by another consideraeion, not ad was a point which must have escaped the observation of the verted to by uch dweltuponFwhich was, the judgment woo obtained, the solicitor for the plaintilY might amount of the whole expense to which the community, and call upon the defendant to disclose every particular relating to chiefly the trading part of the communine, were yearly exposed his property, however large, and if the disclosure should not under the law as it now was. They pu tamed this question in be deemed satisfactory, he could throw him into prison. It all its branches, and they. came to this conclusion—waich, might afterwards turn out that the verdict was erroneous, whether it was under the mark or not he would not presume and a new trial would be granted. Many persons were at to say, except that they themselves, upon full consideration present confined under the direction of the Insolvent Court of the circumstances, had pronounced an opinion that it was for fraud. As the Bill now stood, all these persons much under the mark—that the law of arrest as at pre would be liberated when it was passed. This could hardly sent framed and now administered cost: the trading com be intended. The Bill authorised the arrest of a mutiny upwards of 300,000/. dead loss in. the course of the debtor upon a creditor swearing that he believed he year. Nothing could be more accurate than the statement of intended to leave the kingdom. A similar power was ex- his Noble and Learned Friend, that the tneditors grettly pre ercised by Lord Eldon, but only upon previous inquiry; furred the power of arrest on mesne pros-se s than the power of in the present case, however, no inquiry was to take place. taking the person in execution.—(Hear , hear, from Lord He thought that he had shown that if imprisonment for debt Lyndhurst.) At the first, one would be ae tto suppose, if ono was to be abolished on the ground that • the present Bill af- a-ked the trading community whether the: would pref r that forded a dditional security for the creditor, the whole case fell the arrest on mesne process or the caption in execution to the g round. He, however, did not think that this was a fair should be abolished, that they would at ()rose say " We would way of cons id e ring the subject. The question was, ought ar- rather you should abolish the arrest be:ore judgment, for rests for d e bt to continue or not ?—( Hear, hear.) The Noble that we are not anxious, but for tGod's sake leave and Learned Lord proceeded to recapitulate for and against U 3 the power to take the debtor's persor in execution," the proposition. He thought that the arrest for debt was According to my Noble and Learned Friend's own argument, useful to the tradesman by affording him a summary mode of he must admit that if there was any reason for giving cre hastening the payment of the debt due to him. It appeared ditors power to arrest before judgment, there was ten thou from the Report of the Common Law Commissioners that sand times greater reason to give the power to arrest after the arrest for debt was made an instrument of great op- judgment. In the one instance they enabled the party, pr: salon and injustice. The right of arresting before without any inquiry, and upon his own oath -sere y, to judgment did not exist i n an y other commercial country make out his own c ase, whereas in the other the power was Europe. The business of this countr y had long been riot exercised until after inq uir y had taken place, and it had, carried on under the p r e sent s y stem, and it should be b ee n shown that there was reaso n for the cioim. Was it not well considered before it was abolished. The impression a very remarkable circumstance, that that which was so upon his mind was, that it was very desirable to find much prized by the trading community—thet which they some substitute for it. The right of arrest, after judg- made the greatest struggle for—that which alooe they re went had been obtained, was a different matter. This right garded at all or set any value upon,_ giv:ng the other, namely, existed in all commercial countries. If that right was taken the arrest in execution, to their Lordships, to be dlait with away, and the c reditor did not succeed in discovering his as their Lordships pleased—was that for which not one debtor's p ro p e rty, the l a tter might live at his ease, without dis- hundredth part so much could be urged in favour of as in charging his just debts. He, therefore, thought that the favour of that for which they did not care at all. That was power of arrest after judgment ought to be retained ; but he a circumstance in itself sufficient to excite suspicion as to was open to conviction, end therefore he would propose that the value of such an authority, and the weight of the argu the Bill should be referred to a Committee up stairs, where ment grounded thereon. But when their Lordships came to all its details as well as its principle might he fully considered. look a little near( r into the matter, they would find a reason It was right their Lordships should be aware that the Commis- for all this. Wh en a man had run the g auntlet of ail the :inners themselves were divided on the p rinci p le of the melt- Courts, first by the arres t, then the holdin g to bail, then the sure. He wished their Lordships to cons ider the arguments trial, by m eans of all the costly machinery of judges , and jusv, on both sides, and particularly the able observations of Ser- and witnesses, and Counsel, and a verdict found perhaps for pant Stephen. The Noble and Learned Lord concluded by some 401. or 501.--after all this bad been put in motion, and stating that he would not oppose the second reading of the had thus pressed upon the estate of the debtor, as well as Bill, but that after it was read a second time he would move upon the patience and comfort of all parties concerned, and that be referred to a Select Committee.—( Hear, hear.) in the end, a judgment having been obtained and entered up, Lord BROUGHAM then rose and said that the matter execution was sued out upon it, and the body taken and corn had been before the country for discussion for the last five or mined to prison—at this period of time the creditors knew six years, and he saw no necessity, therefore, for referring it very well from practice, what indeed it only required their to the slow and tedious process of a consideration by a Com- Lordships to run over in their minds a few of the steps in a mittee up stairs. If he were disposed to make any observe- suit at law clearly to understand, that it was a poser not worth on the remarks which had fallen fr o m his N o ble. and having, that the esta te of the debtor hail all been dissii.a . ed, Lions Friend, he should say that in so me of those re marks the money squan dered, the g oods sold, and the proceeds Learned he entirely agreed, while from others lie as entirely dissented. absorbed, and that nothing remained but literally the car- He bad no means of knowing what were the feelings of the case of the cause of their failure—the body of the defen community generally upon this Bill. He did not know what dent. The trading community knew this, and therefore ar might be the measure of its unpopularity out of doors. His rest in execution was of no profit to them. Nay, they knew neat deal more ; they k Noble and Learned Friend had said that the decided opinions a g new that it ceased to be profitable of the trading part of the communit y who were most inte- from the moment they found that the cause was to be de rested on this point were that t h e p owers g iven to creditors fended and that they were to be dragged procee into court : that was to say, from that p oint in the were of no avail, and were not suited to the p ur p oses intended. di •gs from which the line was drawn which separated the arrest before judg- Now he (Lord Brougham) thought that although persons in in trade, like other parties , k new p erfectl y well their own merit from the ulteiior p roceedin g s leadin g to the arrest grievances, and the oper a t ion of what had p assed, yet they i n execution. When that line was o v e r p assed the y knew were not the st adapted to judge of the te ndenc y of pro- that all the power which the present state of the law gave be posed alterations. He would s tate a recent instance of this them was no remedy at all, and they therefore cared not at all if it were taken away. But otherw.se, far otherwise is in the case of the proprietors of newspapers on the late it (said the Noble and Learned Lord) with t hat first p art, with reduction of the duties. H e was not in town at the the power of arresting on pzesne process, that is to say , as has time, but he believed that the p ro p rietors of the London been powerfully described by both my Noble and Learned newspapers, with one or two exce p tions, had cried out and used every means in their power to prevent the Friends--that power, that frightful power — l re g ard it with against, reduction of the stamp duty from 3d. to Id. Among the a bh o rrence—which any man, with any motive, however mali g , groun ds stated by the proprietors of th ese lar g e mercantile nant, for any purposes h ow e ver hostile, for an y design however establishments for their objectio n, was the statement of a fear atrocious, for the further ance o f an y cons p irac y , however detes that they would receive gre at detriment and no benefit, an nei d table, fien dukeagainst his neighbour, may put in force a g ainst that that persons were not aware o f the risk incurred. A compro- hbou m ise wasehe believed, effected ; and he was comp elled to sa y that he feared that this po werful, and in most cases, useful that he had no right to enjoy , or to gr atif y an y feeling which he had no right to entertain—that power of calling down u p on the c lass of persons was listened to m ore than the wants of the unfortunate all the force of the law, and of mak i ng the law in his public.—( Hear. ) And what w as the result? Why, that the proprietors received a great benefit—that they put, in many own hands an instrument of working cruelty, injustice and op pression. That, my Lords, is the nature of arrest on mane pro cases, 2,0001. a year into their pockets—that their Lord ships and the wealthy had a reduction of 2/. or 3/. a year cess. It has no other nature than that. Ile has only to screw from the charge for their papers. The poor man, who himself up to make oath that his neighbour owes him 201., could ill afford the money, had lost by the measure, because and then, without the possibility of inquiry, that neighbour he had been deprived of that undue but cheap supply which may be consigned to prison. That neighOour may he bailed, lie bad been in the habit of receiving from the unstamped if he can find it, by paying the expense of it. lie may pay the money into Court.—[But, suppose he d o ss not owe it ? press. The Legislature was , in his ( Lord Brou g ham's) not But suppose he owes it, and has it not ?I t does b opinion, fully justified in putt i ng down the unstam p ed news- y the Marquis of Lansdowne.—To that I shall come pre papers ; but at the same time the p oor man had suffered a follow sentl because he owes it that he did not at the time of . direct loss, whilst the proprietors in these mercantile estab- contracting the debt think he should be able to pay it ; t h at lishmonts, although they ran n o risk, ex p erienced a direct he did not believe, nay, that be had not a right to belie v e , and certain gain. And this pro v e d that, however acute per- that he should be solvent, and be able to pay it. But he is sons might be in the immediate matters of trade, yet that consigned to prison, and though he may afterwards giv e their view of the manner in which p ro p osed legislative bail, and though upon trial he may be found not to owe one enactments would affect their interestsO was not to be im farthing, he is stamped, stigmatised , and b randed all the plicitly relied upon. His N oble and Learned Friend bad rest of his life as a man who has once been in g aol for debt. gone through the provisions of the Bill in detail. He —( Hear, hear.) My Lords, that is one power, but not the ( Lord Brougham) ar reed reed with him in his opinion as to the remedy by digit, and as to the impolicy of the power of ar- only one. My Noble and Learned Friend says, why does he not pay the money into Court? . My Noble Friend behind me rest before judgment ; but he could not go along with his Noble has well observed that he may not owe it. But it is asked, Friend in the opinion that stock in the funds might, if pro why not pay the money into Court? That is all well enough p er ly guarded, and if trust estates were p ro p erl y fenced in if 20/. be the sum ; but the same man of conscience who 'has w ith restrictions, be rendered liable to seizure. He could screwed himself up to conceive nothing more mortifying to a tradesman than thatmake oath of a debt of 20/., will, upon a person having incurred debts to a large amount should occasion and fora purpose, screw himself up to make retire within the walls of a prison, and squander at his ease oath to a debt of 20,000/. ; and though a man may ob tain bail for 201., I should like to know the man who, if his fortune—(Hear, hear)—that he should withdraw his horses from the reach of his cred itor b y means of his job- arrested for a debt of 40,0001. or 50 , 000 /., could easily find two housekeepers who would be willing, ay, I might say man ; that his furniture should be hired, and that he should able, to make oath that they were worth 100,000/. above all Eve upon the rents and profits of his estates, the incomings debts and reprisals, in order to be bail ? What is the con - gaol that man oes. Ha may, by special of his mortgages, and the inte rest from his funded property ; whilst the creditor should run a gre at risk of failure from sequence? To application, by g possibility obtain his Narration, but not the want of the very funds w hich the debtor was squandering always ; it would not be a certainty, and sometimes it may be Nothing could be, he conceived, more vexatious or more im proper than that that income should not be made available impossible. lam speaking of what I know to have hap for the payment of his just debts. pened. lam telling not a tale of imagination, by putting a Lord L YNDHUR ST did not mean that these funds should case to help an argument or to illustrate a statement, but I be unavailable. am repeating the feet of a person arrested in a case for Lord BROUG HA M —The p rinci p al g round which the that amount, and which is quite as well known a s that Noble and Learned Lord had taken for objection to the mea- the Common Pleas are sitting at Westminster, where, by sure was that no new securities could be given to creditors ; Magna Charta, the Court must be. It was the case of no ob. scor e individual, and he had declared that he wo u l d n o t ta ke awa y the p ower he was a man of large resources , of hi gh of arrest, because nothing more valuable had been p r ovided as c h a racter, of great name, not in th i s countr y alone, but in a substitute. What had been the result of the use of bailable Eu Lor rop d LYNDHURST.—Mendiz a ba l. e. p ro cess as compared with that of serviceable proc ess ? Why the greater portion of the writs issued were o n serviceable Lord BROUGHAM. — A m an who rose to be Prime Ma p Mater of a foreign state was arre sted u p on oath that he owed process, and on these more than one half of the actions were the next step was taken in the c ause. They 120,000l. — (8 2 , 000 L , /o by Lo rd L y ndhurst.) At all events it settled before did not lead even to an appearance. This process, there- was a sum which made giving bail qu i t e out of the question ; fore, operated favourably for the paym ent of the debts, and and which made it, of course , p erf e ctl y im p ossible that he this was the true test, the proper criterion, by which to judge should quit the country. Nov, my Lords. only see What was the proportion what mi g ht have ha pp ened. A rival trader bein g minded of the value of the kind of suit. with respect to the other proces s, for this comparison was to engage in a voyage from Liverpool upon a mcr - candle speculation, knows that a certain capta i n is be the test ? Why, in the other kind of process, only one forehand with him, and ready to sail to a port of sixth of the actions were settled. He had shown that half the debts were settled in one case, and one-sixth only in utting an imaginary case, but stating what has actually trade on the Spanish Main. Here, again, I am not happened, and more than once. I have mentioned Liverpool, the other.—( Hear, hear.) But there was other evidence P. on this point. A very great number of traders had formed an opinion unfavourable to the abolition of arrest for debt. but it might have been any other to . .vn. Well, dd.; rival Some entertaining that opinion , had given evidence of an trader knows that the Captain is about to sail to the Spanish important nature as to its real working in their own cases, Main, and that he himself will Lot be ready with his carp an d b e re membered a very remarkable case which, from the for a few days afterwards ; a n d as he i s go ing to the same extent of the transactions of the individual, might be said to Place, and wishes to obtain a preferen •e over his risel in g ive an important fact with regard to the whole question, he that market, he swears t o a d e bt bejend the amount for meant the evidence given by a great retail grocer, with vast which his competitor can find bail, has him ar transactions, amounting t o no l e ss than 200,000/. in the rzstee, claps him into prison the evening before he is about year. This person had formed an opinion favourable to to sail, during the time that his own cargo is prepar arrest for debt, and was against abolishing it; nevertheless, ing for that foreign market, and thea m placesike sail, has the from his regard to troth, he declared that in his own case, preference over Tire, and gets to the befoe the li the result of that system _was this, that if you put all the beratien of Lis ra al. For this he esrtdely risks an action sums of money together which he had paid in the course o f for malicious arrest, to which I can ly sv that in or o n any given year for the expenses of executing Processes of to support such an action you must on to nly prove malice, arrest upon his different debtors, and placed that amount but you must prove that the party has no probable cause