The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-02 00:00:00

Rill by the other House of Parliament ; with the excep•
tion of the silly and foolish amendment in the fourth
clause—an amendment directed against the clergy. The
measure had undergone great changes in the House of
Commons ; so much so. that it Lad been well said by one
of the opponents of his Majesty's Government in that
House—that, like the month of March, it had core
in like a lion and gone out like a lamb. He allowed
that great confidence had been given to jurors in
Ireland by the mooting of this Bill in Parliament.
But he bad also heard, that since this Bill had
been frittered away in another place, this salutary
impression had been greatly weakened. He freely con-
fessed that the measure was an unconstitutional one, and
that he was surprised at its introduction by a Whig Go-
vernment. It was evident that if the severe measure was
necessary in February it was necessary at present. But
at any rate, nothing could be more c ilculated to blacken
the aristocrat.), in the minds of the pecp'e, than to intro-
duce a severe measure in that House, and afterwards to
mitigate it in the other House of Parliament. He espe-
cially called the attention of his Majesty's Government to
the expediency of counteracting the efforts which were
making to bring about a repeal of the Union. Nothing
could prevent that repeal from taking place but a con-
tinuance of the separation of the two great parties in Ire-
land. If, unfortunately, in his opinion, those two parties
should coalesce, neither the Noble Earl, nor any one else,
could prevent the accomplishment of the measure, which
would certainly be fraught with the greatest evils to the
whole empire.
Lord Viscount TEYNEIAM remarked, that half a
million of people in England had petitioned against the
passing of the Bill at all. It was a measure which cer-
tainly established a tremendous gulf between England
and Ireland. He certainly did not mean to say that the
Bill was not necessary, but he deeply deplored that neces-
sity, feeling, as he did, that Ireland ought to be governed
by other means than by the sword.
Earl GREY ahotild have done very wrong if be had
proposed any measure stronger than what the necessity of
the case seemed to him at the time to require. But
after much consideration, the Bill which he had had the
honour to introduce to their Lordships was framed in con-
formity with what that necessity appeared to justify, and
had been adopted by their Lordships in consequence of his
statement to that effect. It then went to the other House
of Parliament, who had an undoubted right to make what
alterations in the Bill they thought proper. For those
alterations he was not responsible. Some of them he
wished had not been made. But when the Bill came
back with these alterations, it was for their Lordships to
consider whether it was nut still sufficient for its purpose.
That was the true ground on which the question stood-
A Noble Earl bad alleged that the course which had been
adopted was calculated to blacken the aristocracy in the
minds of the people. If that reproach was applicable to
the House for adopting the measure, how much more ap-
plicable must it be to him who proposed the measure?
But he must deny that either the House or the individual
who was then addressing them was justly sub-
ject to the reproach. When the Bill came from
the other House of Parliament with alterations, it
was their Lo; ships' duty to examine those altera-
tions, and if they considered them beneficial, to
adopt them. And even if they considered those altera-
tions objectionable, yet not so objectionable as to
warrant risking the loss or the delay of the Bill, they
would then pay a prop-r deference to the other branch of
the Legislature, as well as to their duty to the public, by
agreeing to the alterations. He did not think that this
alteration with respect to courtemartial materially affected
the Bill. These were the only alterations made in the
first part of the Bill, and he did not think that they mi-
litated against its efficiency. He now approached the
second part, and though there were numerous alterations
made in it, yet they were not of any particular impor-
tance, with the exception of that which limited the power
of the Lord Lieutenant, so that he could not apply the
provisions of the Act to districts merely because tithes
had not been paid. That clause had certainly made a
great change in the operation of the Bill, but he hoped
that the difference was not so great as to prevent their
Lordships from p issing it. With respect to the pre
amble, he (Lord Grey) thought that it had been fully
made out. It steed that the laws now in force had
been found inadequate to the prompt and sffectual
sappressien of the disturbances, and that the interpo-
sition of Parliament was necessary, for the purpose
of checking their futeher progress and to maintain the
peace. He conceived that that had been fully made
out.—(Hear.) And he agreed with the opinion of the
Petitioners from Kilkenny, who stated in their last reso'u-
tion that the least possible delay should be allowed to inter-
vene in passing the measure into a law. He thought
that the Bill, as amended, would have the effect of teen-
quillizing Ireland ; and he was sure that the Noble Duke
opposite (than whom there could not be a higher authority
on military matter) would declare that, with the Bill as
it then stood in his hand, he would answer for the peace
of that country. He would conclude with s tying, that it
was for their Lordships to say whether they would receive
the Bill as amended, or whether they would reject any, or
which of the amendments made in the House below.

Several verbal amendments were then put and agreed
to. On the question being put, that the omission of the
word.: in the 4th clause "shall be cognizable by any Court
appointed as hereinafter mentioned, and if not committed
within any such district,"

Lord ELLENBOROUGH did not conceive that the
clause, as amended, was more favourable to liberty than
formeily, but quite the reverse. Though it was generally
proper to confi..e observations to the clause under discus-
sion, he thought it worthy of observation at that time,
how unequally the Bill acted. By the 22d clause it was
enacted, that every person wbo should injure the property
or person of any one who had appeared as a juror, wit-
ness, or prosecutor, or for the purpose of any prosecution,
or civil proceeding, or who by menaces or otherwise,
should deter any one from appearing as a juror, witness,
cr otherwise, should be triable for such offence, if
committed within any proclaimed district, by a court-
martial, and on conviction be liable to transportation for
seven or fourteen years. This brought the poorer cl irises
under the jurisdiction of courtsmartial, while the great
-agitators who were the cause of the disturbances, were
specially excepted by the clause then under consideration.
—(Hear, hear.) If the alterations in the Bill had been
made in the other House, contrary to the wi.hes of Go-
vernment, and by an overwhelming majority of that
House, then they (their Lordship.) would all he placed in
the same situation. But that was not the ease. Ministers
not only agreed to many material changes, but they even
suggested some amendments themselves. They must,
therefore, have offered a measure for their Lordships' adop-
tion, which was either inadequate to the case in point,
or which they were not justified in passing.—(Hear.)
Ile did not like that provision of the Bill which enacted
that the poor should be tried by courtsmartial, while the
great agitators were tried by common law.

Earl GREY said, that the Noble Baron had endea-
voured to create the impression that the Government were
d: sling leniently towards the great agitators, who caused
the disturbances, while they oppressed the poor who only
acted as their followers. He (Earl Grey) was convinced
that the sense of the country would reject the imputation
cast upon them. The Noble Baron would allow that
there was a difference between the culprit who practised
midnight outrages, and plotted in secret, and him who
went boldly in the fare of the law, and that different
modes of punishment were applicable to the two species
of crime. Ttiat was the reason why the difference was
drawn between him who maliciously injured property, or
deterred a juror trona attending on any trial, or any of-
fence of that sort—and the agitator. And as a proof
that these agitators themselves (-IA not consider that they
were favoured by the measure, be might m. ration that
persons addicted to such practices were those most op-
posed to its enactments. He thought, therefore, that
whether their Lordships adhered to the clause as
a:rendtd or not, they would acquit his Majesty's Govern-
ment of any intention to truckle to the great agitators.—
(Hear, hear.) He now came to the part of the Noble
Lord's statement which regarded the taking the power
of summary punishment from the justices of the peace.
The question was, whether the increased punishment
would not be sufficient to answer the ends of justice. In
his opinion it would ; especirtly as any magistrate, peace
officer, or other person, authorized by the Lord Lieute-
nant, could commit to prison any one found out of his
house at certain hours, or who contravened the provisions
of the Act. It the punishment by common law were found
effectual, he (Lord Grey) could not but consider it de-
sirable that it should be ailliered to, as there was always
a prejudice entertained against a conviction by a magis
trate without the intervention of a jury. He, there!ore,
thought that-their Lordships would consider the amend-
ment might he agreed to, without destroying the efficacy
of the Bill.

Lord ELLENBOROUGIJ said that he did not disap-
prove of the alteration in that particular clause. Indeed,
he considered it an improvement.
The clause was then agreed to. Several other clauses
Inving been agreed to—Upon the amendment to the 4th
clause being read, which provides that it shall not be in
the power of the Lord Lieutenant to apply the provisions
of the Bill merely because tithes had not been paid,
E irl GREY could not but acknowledge that he ap-
proached that amendment with great regret. He hoped,
however, that the difference which it made in the opera-

Lion of the BM was not such as would induce their Lord-
ships to rejsct the whole Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON objected to the amend-
ment because it was inconsistent with the previous part
of the clause. He objected to it more particularly be-
cause it gave the sanction of Parliament to a most im-
proper distinction between tithes and other property—
(Hear, hear)—and deprived the clergy of that protection
which was extended to every other class of his Majesty's
subjects. He objected to it too, as the clause, if it meant
anything, went to put down tithes; and if it did not
mean that, it meant nothing, and he thought it desirable
that no clause should be admitted into an Act of Parlia-
ment which had not a meaning. These were, however,
not his only objections to the clause iniuestion. He found
that in one clause, it was founded partly upon the 27th
George HI. cap. 15, and that every one contraven-
ing that Act should be held guilty of contravening the
present. And then, in the 22d clause of the present
Bill, he found that there was a clause which provided
that any one who should, by menaces or otherwise,
intimidate or endeavour to deter any person from, or
acting on, any prosecution or civil action, as juror, witness,
or prosecutor, or otherwise, or of doing his or her duty
in that respect, would on conviction be deemed guilty of
misdemeanor, and be triable for misdemeanor, yet, in
the 27th George 111. he found a clause directed agains,
those who were guilty of combination or conspiracy to
defraud clergymen of their tithes, or by obstruction, or
unlawful menaces, or otherwise to interrupt them in the
collection thereof. He could not see how those clauses
were to be reconciled, for one was a clause which de-
prived the clergy of the very protection which was ac-
corded to them by an Act, said to be embodied in the
present Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Duke then re-
ferred to a speech delivered by the Lord Chancellor on a
former occasion, in which the Noble Lord expressed him
self to the effect, that the protection of the body and secu-
rity of life and property were the first law of the State,
and that where this was not preserved, no allegiance was
due. Now, if ever there was a case where protection was
more requisite than another, it was this ; yet it was re-
fused simply because the property to be preserved was
tithes. This was giving the sanction of Parliament to
church spoliation. The Noble Lord expressed the strongest
objection to this clause (the 4th).
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that many Noble
Lords had seemed to think that the changes which had
heel' made in the Bill were such as to prevent its operative
efficacy, and that it would now be totally ineffective for
the protection of the loyal and peaceable subjects whose
security it had principally in view. If lie (the Lord
Chancellor) thought this, he should certainly not only join
with the Noble Duke in objecting to those amendments,
but should at once offer his opposition to the Bill altogether,
for his conviction of its absolute necessity for these pur-
poses was the only thing which had mitigated—he would
not say conquered—his extreme reluctance and repugnance
to the principles of the measure. However reluctant he
might himself have been to originate the am-ndment ob-
jected to, yet he was far from thinking that the Bill was
thereby rendered inefficacious. He must say, however,
with respect to the provision introduced in the fourth
clause, that, with all dee respect for the other House, he
could not discover any just or satisfactory reason for this
amendment. He certainly could say nothing in its
praise. It would be absolutely and utterly innperetive.
It could nut, by any possibility, produce the result he
supposed it aimed at, of crippling the powers of the clause
or save any wrong doers from a particular mode of
punishment. Besides, the provision in the clause was ut-
terly inconsistent with the clause itself. The clause did
not give any power of proclaiming a district, unless it
were really in a state of disturbance; yet the provision
set forth, that if any act of insubordination did prevail in
a district, it shall not he lawful to declare the district
merely on account of a peaceable opposition to pay tithes.
A peaceable oisposition to tithes ! Why, they might as
well say that no proceedings should he taken upon a
peaceable resistance to pay the King's taxes; or if any
persons attempted in a peaceable wey,to withhold the pay-
ment of their tradesmen's bids, or anything else. Our
statute-book already unfortunately was too full of similar
instances of over-cautiousness in legislation, of doubts
where there was no danger, of shadowy apprehensions,
and vain panic fears. Still the amendment on this sec-
tion was not such as to make him despair of the efficacy
of the Bill, or oppose the amendments of the other House.
With reference to exempting certain offences from the
jurisdiction of the courtsmartial, he could not but think
those offences were welt and wisely excepted. The ques-
tions of cetnbination and conspiracy were among the
most difficult for jurors and even judges which
come before our courts. It would be unwise to combine
the enforcement of tithes and questions concerning it with
the jurisdiction of a courtmartial. With respect to what
had teen said by a Noble Lord as to Ministers adopting the
recommendations of their adversaries, lie would call to their
Lordships' recollection the adoption in a similar manner
by a former Ministry of amendments to the Six Acts. He
for one would not obj et to take the benefit of good sug-
gestions merely because they emanated from captious or
factious parties. It had been said that they were taking a
leaf out of another man's hook; he for one should not
object to do so, provided that other man's book were better
than his own. The Bill, it had been said, was rendered
a mere welling by these amendments, but this assertion
was a fallacy. The Bill was still a very effective one.
That alteration in the Bill which enabled the police at any
period to ascertain in a short time the inmates of a house
by having a list of them had increased its severity and
efficacy. As much had been said against the House of
Commons for depriving the Bill of its efficacy, he must
do them the justice to say that in this point they had in-
creased the efficacy of the Bill.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM said that this was the
st of April, and the Noble and Learned L•rrd was making
April fools of them all by drawing their attention away as
widely as possible from the subject before them. The
Noble and Learned Lord was prolific of his abuse, although
the persons whom he abused were his own colleagues, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Right Hon. Gentle.
man now the Secretary for the Colonies.—(" No," from
Lord Broughdin.) He considered this an useless, and
therefore mischievous proviso. It was said that it was
harmless and inoperative. Was it nothing that it should
gn forth to the people of Ireland that tithes were the only
species of property that was to be exempt from the protec-
tion of Lhis Bill ? It gave a trroarl hint to the members of
the church in Ireland that the object was the prostration
of that church. If they destroyed the church of Ireland
a separation of the countries would become inevitable.
The Bishop of LONDON said the Nub'e end Learned
Lord had demonstrated so clearly the absurdity of this
proviso, that he had hoped he would have been ready to
reject it altogether. The absolute disconnection of it
from the subject matter of the Bill would convince the
people of Ireland that it must have been introduced for
some purpose ; and although he entirely acquitted the pro-
posers of it of any such intention, the effect of it would be
to encour age the people of Ireland to resist the payment of
tithes. He, as a minister of the united church, could not
consent to any measure which would have such a tendency.
Lord PLUNKET said that the whole course pursued
by his Majesty's Ministers must defend them from any
supposition of a wish to encourage resistance to the pay-
ment of tithes. When Noble Lords complained of the
want of protection to the clergy, it should be recollected
that full power was given to the Lord Lieutenant to pre-
vent any meetings to resist tittles.
Lord WYNFORD objected that tile clause thus int! o-
duced was calculated to bold out encouragement to the
man who offended against the laws, and more particularly
to those who were conspiring togett cr. To meet such a
conspiracy, nothing could be effective except trial by
cons tsmartial.

The Ahrquis of 'WESTMEATH supported the amend-
ment.

The Earl of ROUEN had a strong objection to this
clause, which he thought stultified their Lordships' (litter-
inination, with respect to the real causes of disturbances in
Ireland. Upon the propriety of the clause, exempting
from the operation of this Bill, disturbances originating in
consequence of opposition to tithe being paid or enforced,
he totally disagreed with his Majesty's Government.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE thought it would be a derelic-
tion of their duty, if, through dread of a delay of twenty-
four hours, they should permit this clause to form part oh
the Bill.

Earl GREY observed their Lordships had not only to
appreh••nd a delay of twenty-four hours, but that, if the
amendment of the Commons were rejected, a con-
ftrence must take place, which would prevent this
Bill passing before the recess began. Believing the
clause to he totally inoperative, he certainly regretted
its introduction at all, yet from the urgency of the case,
which required the immediate passing of this Act for the
'reservation of the pe.ice of Ireland, he would acquiesce
1-• •
in the clause, and take the sense of their Lordships'
House on it if it should be necessary. After hating heard
so much from different quarters of the charges of luke-
tearmuess on the part of the King's Ministers in support-
ing the interests of the Irish clergy, he should now say,
once for all, that it was not true that the Government of
Ireland had not sincere), and zealously supported the in-
terests of the clergy of the church of Ireland. if those
who were loudest in their complaints against Ministers
had, instead of inveighing against his Majesty's Ministers,
lent their aid in suppressing the disposition to illegal re-
sist:lice and violence, the disorders they all now regretted
never would have risen to such a height as to detnand

an interference on the part of the Legislature of such a
character as the Bill before their Lordships.
The Earl of HARROWBY should propose ,as an
amendment the insertion of the words " rent or taxes"
af!er the word " tithes ;" so that the passage in the clime
,hould embrace all three kinds of payment—tithe, rent,
or taxes. This he hoped would have the effect of taking
away from the clause its exclusive allusion to the property
of the clergy.
The Earl of MELBOURNE feared it was vain to hope
they would, by any ingenious device in the mode of fram-
ing an amendment in a few words, obviate the danger
which they would incur of having the Bill arrested by a
conference with the other House.

The LORD CHANCELLOR believed the introdue-
*ion of those two words would be most fruitful of delay,
because most fruitful of. debate and opposition in another
place.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH agreed with the Noble Esrl
(Harrowby) that it was extremely desirable the Bill should
,iot embody this clause ; it was both impolitic, and, as its•
defenders admitted, not likely to be operative or effectual.
The House then divided upon the Noble Earl's amend-
ment
Noncontents...

j" Present. 441/ 85
/Proxies 39 J
Contents r Present 4O/ 45
/Proxies 5
Majority in favour of the clause as it stood
amended 4O

On our return to the House, we found the House dis-
cussing the ninth clause.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH made several objections to
this, as well as to subsequently annexed clauses, but no
division was come to, nor indeed was anything important
elicited during the subsequent discussion.
The clauses, therefore, being agreed to, the Bill, as
amended, was passed, and the other orders of the day be-
ing disposed of,
The House adjourned at a quarter to twelve.
It was understood that a Commission under the Great
Seal attends this day to give the Royal assent to the Irish
Disturbances Bill.

LIST
ON THE EARL
PRESENT.
DUKES.
Cumberland
Wellington
Newcastle
Buckingham

011 THE 2111*
OF HARROWBY%

VISCOUNT.

IRITY
AMENDMENT.

Beresford

ARCHBISHOP
Canterbury

LORDS,

Clanwilliam (Earl of
Clanwill,am)
Ellenborough
Kenyon
Wvnford
Colchester
Colville
Wallace
Cowley
Arden
Sidmouthl
Bexley
Carbery
Stangford
Wharncliffe
Saltoun
Calthorpe

BISHOPS.
London
Bangor
Lincoln
Bristol
Lichfield
Carlisle

MARQUISES,
Cholmondeley
Salisbury
Thomonll

EARLS,
Aberdeen
Roden
Eldon
Harrowby
Wicklow
Courton
Shaftesbury
Rosslyn
Beverley

PROXIES.
EARLS.
IClancarty
Orford

LORDS.
Sheffield (Earl of)
Rolle
BISHOP
Worcester

A BILL FOR ESTABLISHING COURTS
OF LOCAL JURISDICTION.

Tile object of the Bill cannot be better stated than in the
words of the preamble, which assert the undeniable truth that
it is expedient the means should be afforded to the people of this
realm of having their suits tried as speedily and as near to their
own houses as may be, whereby expense, vexation, and delay
may be avoided, and the administration of justice may be
placed on a sure foundation.
The provisions of the Bill correspond clotely with the ge-
neral terms of the preamble. They extend to nearly a hun-
dred sections, which is somewhat more than our limits will
allow us to bring before the public. It is better, however, to
present them in a compressed, and necessarily imperfect, form,
than not at all; and we have, accordingly, prepared the follow.
ing digest, in which, for distinctness, we reduce them under
eight heads :-
1. Enabling all common and ordinary causes to be tried im-
mediately and cheaply.

2. Facilitating arbitration, without the expense and delay
now incident to it.

3. Giving universal jurisdiction by consent in all causes.
4. Introducing the process of cessio honorunt, and preparing
for the abolition of imprisonment for debt.
5. Establishing courts of reconcilement.
6. Extending the new system of bankruptcy to the country.
7. Improving equity process by taking vied voce evidence on
the spot.
8. Giving the general superintendence of the local courts to
the superior courts, for the purpose of preventing misdecision,
and for keeping the law uniform.

I. The Bill empowers his Majesty to appoint a sergeant-at-
law, or barrister of ten years' standing, for any county or coun-
ties, to be called the judge in ordinary of the same, and who
shall enjoy all the privileges of a judge of a court of record.
The Court shall have a registrar, clerks, and messengers (the
judge to be ex-officio a justice of the peace), and neither the
judge nor the registrar shall be removeable, except on address
of Parliament. All of these officers shall be paid by salary,
and not by fees, all fees payable upon the proceedings of the
Court being paid into a fee fund, which is ultimately to go
into the consolidated fund. No fees to be payable by the
suitors to the attorneys of the court beyond the fees set forth in
the shedule of the Act.

The jurisdiction of the judges in ordinary comprises all ac-
tions of covenant and debt, whether the same be specially or
on simple contract, and all actions of trespass or trover for
taking goods and chattels, provided the sum sought to be re.
covered shall not exceed 201. All actions of personal tort, and
all actions in the nature thereof, whether the same be for
assault and battery, or false imprisonment, or slander, or cri.
minal conversation, or false representation of character, sol-
vency, or property, or for malicious prosecution, or for mali-
ciously arresting to hold to bail, or for maliciously issuing out
a commission or fiat in bankruptcy, or for any other tort
whatever, to the person or to personal property, provided the
damages sought to be recovered shall not exceed 501., all ac-
ti ons for the breach or non-performance of any agreement,
whether by parole or writing, under seal or not under seal, or
whether by specialty or not, provided the damages sought
do not exceed 201., and no cause of action to be split or di-
vlded, so as to bring it within the amount covered by the
jurisdiction, unless the plaintiff shall agree to reduce the whole
of his claim to the amount in question, subject, however, to
the restriction, that no action shall be tried by any such judge
in ordinary wherein the title to land, whether freehold, copy-
hold, leasehold, or other tenure whatsoever, or to any tithe,
toll, market, fair, or other franchise shall be in question,
unless both parties to the action shall sign a memorandum,
stating that they believe such title to be in question, and are
willing to have it tried by the judge in ordinary.

The jurisdiction of the Court shall attach where a defendant
resides within the district, and in every such case any party
choosing to sue in the superior courts for any matter that came
under the jurisdiction of the judge in ordinary, and recovering
no more than '2Ol. , shall recover the same without any costs
whatsoever ; and no action shall be brought in the Court of
Conscience, or any other inferior court of any district, that
could have been brought before the judge in ordinary of the
same. An appeal is allowed from the decision of the judge in
ordinary, either upon the admission or rejection of evidence,
or in point of law, and the same shall be tried by two of the
puisne judges of any of the courts of common law at West-
minster, who shall sit out of term for that purpose ; but the
notice of the appeal must be given within )5 days after the de.
cision of the judge in ordinary, and on security for costs.
The forms of pleading and practice prescribed by the Act
are partly original, and partly taken from those used in the
superior Courts, with alterations to adapt them to a system in
which cheapness and expedition are two leading characteristics.
Those of the former description we have not room to enume-
rate; of the latter it may be sufficient to notice the following,
—that in all actions of debt, whether on specialty or simple
contract, and in all actions of trespass or trover for taking goods
and chattels, and in all other actions for the recovery of debt
brought before these Courts, the parties may examine each
other by themselves, their counsel, or attorneys, in the pre.
sence of the Judge before trial, tinder a penalty in case of non-
attendance. All actions shall be tried by a Judge and a Jury
of six persons, the Jury to be taken from the Sheriff's book,
and to be summoned and empannelled in the form prescribed
by the Act.
11. The trial may be without a Jury if the parties desire it,
or they may take the judgment of the Judge upon a special
case, without coming to trial at all. Or the trial may, with
the like consent, if the cause involve any matter of account, be
heard by the Judge in private, at such place and time as he
shall appoint.
111. The jurisdiction of the Court, with the consent of both
parties, shall extend to all the actions above enumerated, what-
ever may be the amount sought to be recovered; but where
the title to land is in question in any such action, the action
shall be tried in that jurisdiction only in which the land is
situate.

IV. Where a judgment has been recovered against a de.
fendant, there may be immediate execution, by leave of the
Judge; or, if the defendant fails to discharge such judgment
within ten days after it has been entered, he is liable to be
examined upon oath by the Judge as to his property, and if
he shall refuse to answer the questions put to him, he shall be
committed to gaol until he shall answer to the satisfaction of
the Judge. All the defendant's property, of every description,
may be applied by the Judge for the payment of the debt, so
that the creditor may have the full benefit of every right of
ownership that could have been exercised by the debtor. The
Judge also may, upon hearing both parties, direct the judg.
meet debt to be paid by instalments, staying execution until
defendant failed of paying any instalment, and he may direr.
security to be found for the payment of such instalments.
V. Any person may cite another upon whom he has a demand
in the nature of a debt either at law or in equity before the
judge of the district where the adverse party resides, in order to
have the matter in dispute between them heard by such judge,
and the hearing shall be called "proceeding for reconcilement."
The form of citation does not materially differ from the form
of commencing any ether action in the same court. The party
cited shall, within one week of the citation, serve the party
citing him with a notice, stating whether he wishes to appear
or not, which notice shall be evidence in any suit at law or in
equity that the party cited had refused to appear before
such Court of Reconcilement. When the parties shall
appear before the judge they shall state their respective
claims and receive his opinion thereon, which they shall fah"