The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-08 00:00:00

%~~~ ~ y

- %

INSOLVENT LAW.

The Earl of MALMESBURY, in presenting a
petition from certain bankers of Devonshire, praying
relief under a certain construction of the Bankrupt
Laws put upon them by the Court of Common
Pleas, observed upon the new Insolvent Bill which
had been sent up from the Commons,-that measure
contained a most extraordinary provision—first, it
declared that minors might be imprisoned—next,
that he might declare himself bankrupt and execute
conveyances, assignments, and warrants of attorney ;
and, thirdly, that if, after remaining in prison six
months he did not file his petition for the purpose,
any creditor might proceed to make him bankrupt
as if lie had filed it. Such a Bill he had never seen
before sent up from the Commons.
The Earl of ELDON agreed- in all that had
fallen from the Noble Earl regarding the new In-
solvent Debtors' Bill. On the subject of the peti-
tion, he thought that the petitioners were entitled
to relief, and for that purpose he should propose
that the Order of the Day for the Committee on
the Bankrupt Laws' Bill (this day) should be dis-
charged, in order that it might be fixed for Monday;
and in the mean time the case of the petitioners,
and others like it, might be taken into consideration.
The Order of the Day was then discharged, and
the Committee on the Bankrupt Bill was appointed
for-Monday.
The Earl.of ELDON presented a petition from
the Clergy of Rochester, praying that. Protestants
in our possessions abroad might not be conipelled to
join in Roman Catholic ceremonies. •
FEES ON THE DEMISE OF THE CROWN.
Earl BATHURST requested the Noble Earl
(Darnley) to postpone the second reading of the
Bill for abolishing the Fees of certain Offices on the
Demise of the Crown, in consequence of the un-
avoidable absence of his Noble Friend (the Duke
of Wellington).
Earl DARNLEY did not think he could resist
the postponement till to-morrow for the reason
stated, although the measure pressed at this moment.
The Earl of MALMESDURY complained of
the period at which this Bill had been brought for-
ward. There was, unhappily, every probability at
present of a speedy demise of the Crown, and as a
matter of delicacy and feeling he thought that the
Bill ought not to be pressed, especially with such
peculiar haste. He did not mean at all to be un-
derstood as contending that the fees ought to be
preserved.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE remarked, that
if it were the intention of Ministers to oppose the
principle of the Bill, of course it ought to be post-

poned.
Earl DARNLEY hoped that no want of delicacy
would be imputed to him : the Bill had been brought
from the Commons, and, approving its principle, he
had undertaken to pass it through its stages in this
House.

After a few words from the Earl of MALMRSBURY
and Earl BATIIURST,
rosTv,heorde
and
it was
the Day w
vosof
ordered that
as ptohsetponLoed
rdatialhloto-motildhr-
e
summoned.
Earl GREY presented a petition from Mr. Tighe,
a prisoner in the King's Bench, complaining of
certain abuses. Also a petition from the inhabitants
of Galway, in favour of the Galway Franchise Bill.
Lord BEXLEY presented a petition from certain
graduates, &c. of Oxford, against• the continuance of
slavery.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions
from Grantham and Stamford, complaining of
distress.

The Bishop of CHESTER presented petitions
from Stockport and Blackburn, against the employ-
ment of children for many hours together in cotton
factories.

The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented a
petition with the same prayer from Oldham.
The Earl of CAERNARVON presented a peti-
tion from the chemists and druggists of Manchester,
against the Stamp Duties on medicines.
The Earl of GLENGALL presented a petition
from the inhabitants of Tipperary, against the in-
crease of taxes in Ireland.