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,
ipbre appeared to be little real blame attached to him for it
la
sr!...resl that an old man being present at a dinner given to
sae,leads, who bad fought in the Battle of the Diamond, he
ad °?en led away by the circumstance of his presence, and
sfiigiven the toast. He believed that since the proceed-
i stne toast had become very common in the north of Ire-
of d, it had been made the subject of a song, the burden
kto leg, in reference to it, was, " Still it shall be in Ireland
the alltfor evermore." He would not refer any further to
let subject, but he would mention one circumstance which had
to his knowledge of a note having been addressed from
the !I
Isea'cl . Treasury to many Honourable Members, requesting their
ance at the House this evening. An Honourable
Feu
d+
tho who had seen one of the notes, had informed him of
the circumstance, and there could therefore be no doubt on
Trject.
%at te CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
ass,tue Honourable and Gallant Colonel had suffered enough
11," the castigation he received on a former occasion.
sh most confess that the Honourable and Gallant Officer,
fitter
from his personal and military chrecter, _ought to be
is bable than his Learned Friends to enter the lists, was on
°ceasion little indebted to his'friends. Not one of them
twdattempsed to justify him ; not one had justified the
0,,`1e of the Diamond, or the course which the Hon. and
b:tant Member had taken on the occasion of the toast being
r4wPosed. They all had recourse to the memorable to quoque
sel,ttraent; they did not defend the on. and Gallat Colo-
Is te.htit they said that others had been equally guilty,n without
llhig equal punishment. Now, assuming the fact to be
of e(for he would not attempt to controvert them at that hour
the night), but assuming the facts alleged to be perfectly
Mr. A. here or Mr. B. there, or some person at
hsciYheg, had been guilty of an offeece—an offence which he
II !lever heard of—( Mr. Shaw used some expression across
hte table)—had there been any report of it?—( Cheers.) He
4
ss then heard of it for the first time ; but assuming that this
°°Yenous person at Ballybeg had committed an offence,
tskt 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
taltilted tbe Honourable and Gallant Officers from, the hot-
el of his heart for the discussions they had done him
he favour to introduce before Parliament on Irish af-
tsrB---(Loud cheers.) They were by far the most
Cgene-
Opponents he had ever met with. They had exhi-
Cs" a degree of chivalry which modern times 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°llents. Therefore, as far as he was concerned, he most
o'P,eetfully and most sincerely to both the Honourable and
Gallant Officers returned his most profound and reverential
th owledgments.—(Cheers and laughter.) But he thought
hitt 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 Mr. Blake.
th•cod cheers.) He would say one word with respect to
44„ unfortunate toast. He believed with the Honourable
vos'! Learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) that the discussions
sireh it had produced were calculated to raise the toast
(Hear,
an importance which it ought never to have met with._
aiear, hear.) He should think that he had but ill dis-
charged his duty if he sat down without saying a word cn
th c Character of the tranquillity of Ireland. No ties that con-
tected him with a British constituency, much as he valued
anti greatly as he respected them, could ever absorb the
e ltrl Sier ties of the country of his birth. He had lately si-
jed that country. He bad there performed the duties
ts Magistrate at times when the impartial exercise of
been
duties required strong interference. But he bad never
r to remiss in the discharge of those duties.—( Loud cheers.)
that capacity he would take upon himself to say, after
it residence in Ireland which enabled him to judge of the
condition of the country, in the capacity of a witness, that he
, L!lt bound to give the most perfect and complete testimony
that 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 raked to furnish a catalogue of disgraceful crimes ; but
'herel,,b was there a great and thickly populated country 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
sternment 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•
ected of drunkenness. But the convictions were made a
Inarge against the Government ; they went to swell the cata-
,que of convictions, and to prove that Ireland was far 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 not to be followed by as sorry a division—( Cheers
and that the House would not be able more emphatically to
mark its opinion of the resuscitated Battle of the Diamond.—
(Cheers. )
ferCtoitiel PE RCEVAL would not have risen had it not been
of et sneech of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor
tio Exchequer, filled as it was with ungenerous declama-
tion._( n'—(llear, 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 the
"'embers on that side of the House. It was made a severe
charge 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 Ministerial
Benches.) He regretted exceedingly that he did not do so—
( Cheers)—but Ministers had the documents in their own hands,
4od if they had read the wording of the recommendation they
t°llld 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 Lieutenant Blake
tad been dismissed from the office of a stipendiary magistrate
cause of the sentence of the court-moeial, and it was added
toat he (Colonel Perceval) had withdrawn from the inquiry
Whiche he had sought. It was to disabuse the public mind en
this subject that he had come forward the other evening, 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
ir°, Perpetuate that ill feeling which, whatever opinion the Hon.
Gentlemen opposite might form of his character, he was most
anxious to see alleyed.
Mr. JOHN ELLIS said the main points for consideration
14 his (Mr. Ellis's) opinion were, what was the character of
the
entertainment, and what was the nature of the toast given.
3
ri his way from the Newry election lie first became acquainted
With the Honourable and Gallant Member for Newry, 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
ctOt round, as he believed was usual at public dinners, and this
Was 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—(Laughter)—and it did not
change its character by being held at an hotel. He was
"bully ignorant that the toast of " The Battle of the Dia.
!11°11d" would have been given in that private party, and
„
Would never have been devulged but for the espionage
v'hieli had been instiuted, and on which was founded the
dismissal of his Honcurable and Gallant Friend the Member
fi(ilr Armagh. He had asked whether the toast was on the.
t,t which it was intended to be proposed that evening, and
i'sc Chairman replied that he introduced it on the spur of the
''otrient._( Hear, hear, from the Opposition. )
Mr. BROTHERTON thought the time had arrived when
the
debate should terminate, and if it did not, he should pro-
"se that it be adjourned. —(No no.)
Colonel VERNER then replied. The Chancellor of the
Ztehequer had also used language towards him of the most
atraordinary nature, and which he thought was most uncalled
ta r• There was no word in the English language strong
sh
"°tigh by which he could express his indignation at the lan-
%age uttered by the Right Hon. Gentleman.—( Hear, hear.)
Member
would not make use of any expressions unbecoming a
of Parliament to utter in that House, but he would
secve it to the imagination of the Right Hon. Gentleman to
u
IPIY any term he pleased.—( Hear, and cries of •'Order.")
at 'he SPEAKER said that the Hon. and Gallant Member
siiot feel that he was bound to confine himself to that language
'eh was fit and proper to be addressed to the House itself,
klbetl, therefore, when the Hon. and Gallant Member said that
is would use language that was fit for a Member to use to-
ef4rds the House, but that lie would leave it to the imagination
W„any Hon. Member to supply other terms than those that
k`uo, fit and proper to be used, the Hon. and Gallant Member
ts-,'S feel that he was exceeding the limit which was permitted_
tylembers in the use of language in that House.—( tlear.)
Cot
• VERNER expressed a hope that he had not made
taw"af any language which was unbecoming in him to use
,i,rds the House (Oh, oh )
ehe SPEAKER bored the. t the Honourable and Gallant
kieltoe bcr would at once say that he intended by what had
crilicZ from him to limit himself to the use of those expressions
n were proper to be addressed to the House itself.
C4lol. VERNER was very ready and willing to make any
ees sip in his power to the House, but he must say that he
cred the language used by
the Right Hon. Gentleman
suit
tit insult to him, and he also conceived that it was an in-
° the House.—( Opposition cheers.)
falls:* 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 last no

tad
i3t,
Ii 4

alk.
1, A
ttn'
01°
fed
Ob.
the

as -A
fitted
rd a'
wit'
aOO.-

ition

w; :ca
000
3 and
f the
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 Society 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 understood) 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-il
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. He might
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—would 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 might be
applied for at a moment when it might operate in the
greatest possible 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 avoid the
payment of his debts ; but he could not adopt the rigour of
the old law, which gave the creditor a power upon
his own affidavit to take the body of his debtor and
put him into prison.—(Hear.) It was true if arrests
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 Lord during 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 lefore 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 imputation rested 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
tt
hh
ee
ii
rr
LLordships
hwere d
opnroe pnaproend t
hteo a
nehojnesoitd, e
they
oi 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 which
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-