The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-13 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.--(YESTERDAY.)
The Loan CHANCELLOR took bis seat on the woolsack
at 5 o'clock.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a
petition from the suburbs of the metropolis, praying for
the equalisation of the prmr-i-ate.
Lord SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from
Lancaster, in favour of the first Special Services Bill ;
also a similar petition from Durham, and another pray-
ing for the furtherance of Christianity in India.
THE DEFENCE OF ARRAH.
Lord DERBY said before the business of the day
commenced he would take that opportunity of repairing
an injustice, which be had been told he had committed
during the late debate, to the gallantry and perse-
verance of a gentleman to whose heroic exertions
the country was greatly indebted. In supplying
a few omissions of the noble lord the Secretary of State
for War, he mentioned certain circumstances connected
with the defence of Arrah. Ho had attributed that
gallant operation chiefly to Major Boyle, to whose science
and engineering skill that garrison was mainly indebted
for ultimate success. The omission complained of was
that of a gentleman, Mr. Wade, the resident magistrate
of the district, who took up the defence of the place after
it bad been abandoned by the superior officer. The
ornispion, he bad been informed, had caused some pain
to the friends of that gentleman in this country, and also
to a relative, a member of their lordships' house. Had
that noble lord been present he should have assured him
that he had not the slightest intention of casting a slight
or slur on any person connected with so gallant an
action. (Hear, hear.) In mentioning the names of
gentlemen connected with the repression of the mutiny
it was impossible to bear in recollection the gallant deeds
performed by all, and to this circumstance, and this
alone, was the omission to be attributed.
Earl GRANVILLE said the number of civilians who
had distinguished themselves during the mutiny had
been so great that the Government felt the g-eatest
difficulty in mentioning names without involuntarily
inflicting personal disappointment and annoyance.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

Lord BROUGHAM said be rose pursuant to notice, to
call their lordship' attention to a very important subject,
he meant the state of the law respecting imprisonment
for debt, including the tankruptcy and insolvency sta-
tutes. He did not mean to enter into the great question
of bankruptcy law generally, because ho hoped and
trusted that his noble and learned friend on the woolsack,
having had his attention drawn to the subject, would not
long delay in producing the legislative results of his in-
quiry. It was pretty nearly 30 years since he (Lord
Brougham) had called theatteution of the other house of
Parliament to this important subject ; more especially as
regarded mesne process, and out of the statement be
then made sprang two commissions, one respecting the
law of real property, baying at its head the present Lord
Chief Justice of England, the other on common law
procedure. From these two commissions had proceeded
reports of the deepest moment, which gave rise to various
important improvements in the law. But the report to
which he wished most particularly to direct their lord-
ships' attention was the report concerning imprisonment
for debt. The cemmission from which that report eman-
ated consisted of the present Chief Baron, Mr. Justice
Wightman, Mr. Evans, the most distinguished commis-
sioner in bankruptcy, and Mr. Starkie, whose loss they
had so recently to deplore. These commissioners reported
their decided opinion in favour of the abolition of impri-
sonment for debt not only under mesne prosess, but even
in case of imprisonment under executions on final judg•
went: Indeed they gave the preference to the latter,
being more clear as to the impolicy of imprisonment
after final judgment, than in the other case. It would
only be necessary to exhibit the working of imprison-
ment for debt to prove the impolicy of the law. It
was a popular error to suppose that imprisonment for
debt was part of the ancient common law of the
land. Nothing could be more contrary to the fact,
and it was not until the reigns of Henrys YII. and
VIII. that a law was passed giving the creditor a right
to arrest his debtor. In the time of the Stuarts
was passed the first insolvent act, when the debtor
obtained his liberty when his debt was under 1001., and
on condition that he enlisted for a soldier ; and then
came the Lords' Act, passed about a century ago, in
which was the first compulsory provision respecting the
giving up of property. That act contained a stringent
provision to the effect that a debtor refusing to give up
his property should be transported for seven years. He
now came to the time when a regular insolvent court
had been established. Ile found that at the time when
two months' imprisonment was incurred previous to
examination, out of 3,945 persons, 2,753 were subse-
quently discharged on their oaths without any petition,
so that all these persons suffered months of incaroera•
' tion when there was not a tittle of rieitt for keeping
them in one hour. What was wanted was a shifting
exansination of the debtor, and an abolition of the absurd
distinction between trader and non-trader. The only
thing that could be done by the Court of Bankruptcy,
even in cases of the gros eat fraud, was to suspend the
certificate, or to grant an inferior certificate. That was
not a punishment, it was merely the affixing of a stigma.
Now, in the case of the Insolvent Court, a power estisted
to imprison debtors. There was no jury in that court,
the power to imprison was vested, without aey such
intermediate power, is the Commissioner. Why should
not a similar power be extended to the commissioners
in bankruptcy ? He confessed that he was unable to see
any reason. He also thought that it was very desirable
that some person should be appointed whose office would
be something in the nature of that of a public prosecu-
tor. The duty of this person would be to attend at the
examination of the bankrupt, and watch the case on
behalf of the public. He apologised to their lordships
for going into so much detail on the subject, but it vial
one ofilconsiderable importance, and he Ousted that it
would have the consideration from the Government
which it deserved. He concluded by moving for returns,
showing the number of insolvents during the last five
years, specifying those among them who were remanded
and those who were discharged.
The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted that this was
one of the most difficult public questions with which the
house had to deal. The difficulty, however, ought not
to prevent the house from endeavouring to deal with the
subject. His noble and learned friend had pointed to
the anomaly of the two courts, but he (the Lord Chan-
cellor) could not see that non-traders and traders stood
precisely in the same position. A tradermnstnecessariiy
incur debts ; they arose in the course of his business,
and hence an unfortunate crisis might at any time ruin
him. But in the case of a non-trader ruin generally arose
from the insolvent incurring debts thoughtlessly, and in
many cases even fraudulently. He did not dispute that
the procedure might be simplified by bringing the
administration in all cases of insolvency before oueconrt;
but still that would not obviate the question of prin-
ciple underlying the different positions between traders
and non-traders. And again there was this difficulty
in removing the system of imprisonment for debt, that
if it were abolished it would be impossible to
make people who were unwilling to pay meet their
engegements. Every one knew that at the present
day persons went across the Channel to save themselves
from imprisonment, and thus defrauded their creditors.
It eve❑ frequently happened that persons would rather
remain in prison than give up their property and take
the benefit of the act. Now if this were the case, even
notwithstanding the liability to imprisonment, what
would happen if that liability no longer existed ? It was
not necessary for him to say that he would take this
matter into his serious consideration, and if he could
find any method of safely getting rid of imprisonment to
a greater extent than it was already got rid of, he should
not hesitate to fall in with the views of his noble and
learned friend.
Lord CAMPBELL was very much concerned to
find that the Lord Chancellor gave the sanction of his
authority to the continuance of a distinction between
traders and non-traders. That distinction would divide
those classes into honest and dishonest debtors. At pre-
sent it often happened that those who were declared
bankrupts had merely been traders with a view to
obtain the advantages of the bankrupt law. He
thought it desirable that the difference between trader
and non•trader should be abolished.

The LORD CITANCELLOR explained that in his
view the only difference between a trader and a non-trader
was this, that in the one case the bankrupt must almost
necessarily, in the course of his business, incur debt-,, and
therefore in the majority of cases might be an honest
roan, and in the other case the insolvent was not, gene-
rally speaking, obliged to incur debt at all, and hence in
many cases turned out to be person guilty at least of
moral fraud.
The returns were then ordered.
THE PETITION FROM CALCUTTA.
Lord WENSLEYDALE believed that a copy of the
petition of certain inhabitants of Calcutta upon the sub-
ject of the government in India had been laid upon the
table of the other house. He therefore asked whether
there would be any objection to place that petition,
together with any correspondence relating to it, on their
lordships' table,
Earl GRANVILLE said that there was no objection
to the course suggested by bin noble friend. As their
lordships were aware, the petition in question had been
returned to India, in order that it might come horns
through the Governor-General in the ordinary way. In
the meanwhile the Governor-General had obtained a copy
of the petition, and sent it home with certain remarks
upon it. This was the petition a copy of which had been
placed on the table elsewhere. It was not strictly an
official communication, and hence the Government had
not placed it of their own accord upon the table.
The house then adjourned at a quarter past G.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(Y EsTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.

PETITIONS.
Petitions were presented, praying for Parliamentary
reform ; for and against a change in the government of
India; the spread of Christianity in India ; the aboli-
tion of the paper duty ; and against the London Corpo-
ration Reform Bill.

METROPOLITAN WORKHOUSES.
Mr. GILPIN gave notice, for Lord Raynham, that
en the 19th the noble lord would move fur a select coin
mittee to inquire into the condition of the administration
of the law in the metropolitan workhouses, and other
matters in connection with the poor.