The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-09 00:00:00

which this bill aimed a blow, and the house should be
cautious how they gave countenance to its supporters.
It might ha a fair subject of discussion whether a differ-
ence ought to be made between personal and real pro-
perty, hut for his part he thought such a difference
should continue to exist. The law recognised the differ-
ence, and upon the recognition of that difference our social
sy,stera w 2,3 built. One branch of the legislature rested
upon it, and the house should be slow to disturb it. But
beyond that consideration, it should not he forgotten
that the possession of real property involved the
performance of important public duties, which did not
necessarily attend the possession of personalities, while
it was to the maintenance of large properties that public
liberty had been preserved in this country. Public libeity
could not be long sustained in an ancient European
country like this without the assistance of large proper-
ties to rally round it, and he should therefore be sorry to
see any steps taken which in the remotest degree tended to
disturb the existing state of things. The only effect of
this bill thee would be to remove that well-defined and
useful difference between persons and real property
which the law and custom of the country had so long
acknowledged, and inasmuch as such a change in the
existing system would be dangerous to the community,
as well as lower the character of the country, he should
give it his unhesitating opposition.
Mr. L. KING pronounced the fears which had been
expressed with regard to this bill to be quite groundless,
because its operation would not in the least affect the
larger estates of the country, or disturb th.. duties and
functions that devolved upon those who enjoyed the pos-
session of real property. On the one hand, .the bill
would confer great benefits upon the middle classes, who
were not prepared to continue a system which enriched
the elder son, while it beggared the rest of the family—
a system which was upheld by prejudice now that it
could be no longer supported by argument.
The house then divided, when there appeared—

For the second reading
Against it

. 82
. 20'4

. 121

Majority
The bill was accordingly thrown out.
PROPERTY QUALIFICATION BILL.

The order of the day for the second reading of this
bill was postponed until the sth of April.
ABSCONDING DEBTORS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. BRADY moved that the bill be read a second
time this day six months.
Mr. LUCAS urged that there was no necessity for the
bill, the law was sufficiently stringent as it already ex-
isted, and in proof of this, he mentioned that a junior
Lord of the Treasury :had been enabled to arrest a
debtor to prevent his voting at an Irish election.
Mr. NAPIER said the only object of the bill was to
assimulate the law of arrest in Ireland with that of Eng-
land.

Mr. FITZGERALD thought there was no objection
to the principle of the bill, though there was room for
improvement in its details.
Mr. M. CHA.MBERS objected to give any inferior
tribunal the power of arresting absconding debtors.
Such a power ought only to rest upon one of the judges
of the superior court in Ireland, as was the case in
England.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said this bill was an
exact transcript of the English act, but if possible the
power was more restricted, as it was only conferred
upon the Superior Courts, or the mayors of corporate
towns. It would be matter for the consideration of the
committee on the bill whether it was proper to vest such
a power in the mayors of corporate towns.
After some further discussion the bill was read a
second time and ordered to be committed.
HIGHWAYS (SOUTH WALES) BILL.
This bill was passed through committee.