The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-02 00:00:00

FEUDAL TENURES.

Mr. AGLIONBY wished to ask the—Honourable and
Learned Gentleman whether it was his intention to proceed
with the Bills which he introduced last session—one was to
assimilate the tenures of the country and relieve them from
heriots, and the other related to feudal tenures.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that one of the
Bills, 'that for conveying property by will, was already in
progress. The Bill relating to heriots he should feel it his
duty to bring forward.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.

Sir W. FOLLETT had received a petition from the
keeper of the debtor's gaol et Exeter, stating that the
Imprisonment for Debt Bill, if passed, would deprive
him of his present emoluments, and praying for compensa-
tion. He begged to ask the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman whether it was his intention to introduce any clause
into the Bill to give compensation to those who might be
entitled to it ? He believed there was no such clause in
the Bill at present.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had been of opinion
that with reference to particular cases there ought to be a
compensation clause, but he found great difficulty in draw-
ing the line so as to exclude improper claims. He was.
disposed to give compensation to those who had a fair
claim to it, and he should be glad to have the assistance of
his Learned Friend in drawing the proper line.
Sir W. FOLLETT thought the petitioner stood exactly
in the situation of the Marshal of the King's Bench and
the Warden of the Fleet.

Mr. M. PHILIPS requested the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman to delay this Bill till after Easter, in
order that the trading portion of the community might have
the opportunity of considering it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the Bill had now
been for three years before the House. It had been al-
ready fully diseusSed, and he could assure his Hon. Friend
that it was the same Bill which both he and his Hon.
Friend had considered week after week in Committee two
years ago. He was certain that if the Chamber of Com-
merce ot. Manchester had any very strong objections to
this Bill, his Hon. Friend would have heard of them be-
fore that time. It was to be observed by his Hon. Friend
and the House, that not a single petition had been pre-
sented against the Bill.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL stated that at one time,
when it was thought that the Bill would pass, he knew of
many persons who put an additional five per cent. upon the
articles they had to dispose of; and this for the purpose of
meeting the losses which they were sure of incurring in
consequence of such a Bill becoming the law of the land.
Mr. RICHARDS was decidedly opposed to the prin-
ciples of the Bill. One of the evils which this Bill would
do away with was arrests for fictitious debt. That he
admitted was an evil, and most willingly would lie join in
any Bill that could prevent such an evil ; but he denied
that such would be the operation of this Bill. The real
question for the House to consider was, whether the aboli-
tion of imprisonment for debt would not lead to great
evils. In his opinion it must do so ; and this he felt
bound to contend for, that creditors now were gene-
rally found to be exceedingly lenient.—(Hear, hear.)
The Insolvent Debtors' Court, which purported to
give relief to poor debtors not guilty of fraud, had gene-
rated a gigantic and frightful mass of evils. In that Court
the dividends did not, on an, average, amount to three-
farthings in the pound. Was that, be asked, to be thought
a boon to the creditors? It was such a boon as the pre-
sent Bill gave to them, and for which he humbly thanked
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. In his opinion there
was no need for any further relaxation of the law of debtor
and creditor, as by the present law the debtor might get
out of prison after two months' imprisonment, unless fraud
could be proved against him. He could not understand
why the Attorney-General should come forward unasked,
as it appeared to him, to give this boon to debtors. Were
there any petitions from merchants, from bankers, from_
traders, calling for it ? If there were any he could not find
them. The Hon. Member concluded by moving that the
Speaker leave the Chair this day six months.—(Laughter.)
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when the
numbers were—

For going into Committee 95
For the amendment
Majority 95
The House then resolved itself into a Committee.
The various clauses of the Bill underwent considerable
discussion.

On the 24th clause being read, which empowers the
plaintiff, on recovering judgment in certain cases, to issue a
writ of capias ad satisfirciendunt,
, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved an amendment,
in order to restrain the operation.of the clause to those per-
sons who were now subject to be arrested on the writ of
capias ad satisfaciendant, thereby exempting persons who
now enjoyed the privilege of Parliament from the operation -
of this clause.

Mr. JERVIS objected to the amendment. The exemp-
tion from arrest which members of Parliament at present
enjoyed was bad in principle, and had long been matter of
complaint. He knew that Mr. Baring, now Lord Ash-
burton, when a Member of the House of Commons, had
contemplated introducing a measure to abolish this objec-
tionable privilege. If he stood alone, he would divide the
Committee on the present amendment.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG thought the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, while complaining that this amendment was an
indirect mode of asserting a principle that was objection-
able, had overlooked the fact that by negativing the propo-
sition of the Attorney-General, he was taking an indirect
mode of abolishing what had long been the practice of the
House with respect to the privileges of its own Members.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL admitted that this
was an important question ; but if privilege of Parliament
was to remain as to all other matters, he thought it would
be most absurd to introduce in this obiter way a clause
which would abolish one of the privileges of Parliament,
for that would he the effect, if the amendment of his Hon.
and Learned Friend the Attorney-General were not
agreed to.
Mr. LYNCH thought that in a Bill of this kind the law
of privilege of Parliament ought not to be interfered with.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, in a Bill of this
sert he thought it would be most improper to invade the
established principles with regard to the privileges of Par-
liament. his object in proposing the amendment was to,
make this law conformable, as far as he could, to the exist-
ing privileges of Parliament.

Mr. RICHARDS was of opinion, that so far from ex-
empting Members of Parliament from arrest, they ought
to be in a particular degree amenable to that law ; and he
hoped the Hon, and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Jervis) would
press the Committee to a division.
'Strangers were then ordered- to withdraw. After ten
minutes had elapsed the galleries were again opened, and
we found the debate still going on, and
Mr. Sergeant WILDE addressing the Committee. He
was understocd to object to the introduction of the words
proposed by the Attorney-General as wholly unnecessary.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, assuming that
the privilege of PaAiament should continue, the question
was, whether these words were necessary ornot. It was
quite clear to him that if the words were not. introduced,
any Member of that House might be arrested under cir-
cumstances where his privilege ought to exempt him.
Viscount S A NDON said it seeuked, from what had been
said by the Hon. and Learned 'Sergeant, that the object of
the amendment was to protect Members from arrest in
cases where crime had been committed. He always thought
the law to be, that where a Member of Parliament had been
guilty of any criminal act, he was liable, like other persons,
to be arrested, or taken into custody. ••
Mr. TOOKE thought that it was unworthy of the House
to avail themselves of such a privilege as was held out 'to
them in the proviso proposed by the Attorney-General. He
should be ashamed that the privilege of Parliament should
be extended to persons, although Members of that House,
who wished to cheat their creditors.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL should vote for the
proviso of his Hon. and Learned Friend. He objected to
getting rid of this part of the law of Parliament by a side
wind. No person who had come into the House that
evening expected that this discussion would arise.
Mr. MARK PHILIPS should vote against. the Attor-
ney-General, but not on the ground that he proposed to
extend the privilege of Parliament.
Mr. PRY ME remarked that Hon. Members argued the
question as if the privileges of Parliament were merely for
the purpose of the Members themselves, instead of being
for the advantage of their constituents and the public at
large.
Mr. FRESHFIELD should have thought that there
could hardly have been a doubt on this subject. Surely it

was not.to be argued that Members of Parliament were to
be exempted from the operation of the law. At preSent
• the property of Members of Parliament was liable to
seizure for their debts, but not their persons. - This Bill
gave greater power to follow property, and he protested
against not extending the same power to the property of
Members of Parliament as to other persons.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his only object
was to make the law on the subject clear and uniform, and
not in an indirect way to make an alteration in the privileges
of Parliament.
The Committee then divided—
For the Attorney-General's Amendment 44
Against it
Majority against it —7
The announcement of the numbers was received with
cheers.

On re-entering the Gallery, we found
Mr. G. F. YOUNG addressing the House upon the
next clause, but the Hon. Gentleman was interrupted by
The CHAIRMAN, who intimated to the Committee
that he was informed the tellers had male a mistake in
giving in the numbers on the division which had just taken
place.—(Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. JERVIS understood the ayes were 54 instead of 44.
Mr. ROLFE and Mr. C. FERGUSSON said that such was
the case.

The tellers then withdrew to compare the division lists,
and upon their return stated that the—
Ayes were 54
Noes 5l
Majority for the amendment —3
The amendment was then agreed to.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG strongly objected to the compul-
sion upon the debtor to declare every fact of his circum-
stances upon judgment beinr, entered against him.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the provi-
sion highly essential.
Mr. FRESHFIELD thought the Insolvent Debtors'
Court would be a much better one for carrying this measure
into effect than the Court of Review. The Court of Bank-
ruptcy ought to be considered rather as an exclusive one,
having relation only to traders ; whereas the Insolvent
Debtors' Court was generally applicable to all persons who
could not pay their debts.
Mr. AGLIONBY considered that the Commissioners
should be empowered to inflict some penalty or punishment
on persons giving in a wilfully false schedule.
Clauses up to 24 were agreed to.

A conversation took place upon clause 25, when Mr.
HUTT objected to the power of imprisonment placed in
the hands of Commissioners of Requests.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—

For the clause
Against it
Majority in favour of the clause —42
The other clauses were agreed to without amendment.
The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be
received on Monday.
HACKNEY CARRIAGES (METROPOLIS)BILL.
Alderman W OOD moved the second reading of this Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP objected to the motion.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved the adjournment of the
debate. •

Mr. H. HINDE hoped the House would allow the
second reading of the Bill to take place. He hoped the
Hon. Member for Salford would not persist in his motion
for adjournment:
Mr. WARBURTON hoped the motion for adjourn-
ment would be persisted in.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division ; but there
not being forty members present, the House immediately ad-
journed at a quarter to one o'clock.