The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-22 00:00:00

The SPEAKEE thought the discussion Nvaf.3 relevant.

Mr. ROEBUCK said the Attorney-General was rather
sharp in his practice. The bill was a tery large one. It had
been suddenly brought in and had been carried through the
house with a haste that was almost unprecedented. (Cries
of " Oh, oh.") Oh, oh I Well, how many hon. members
were there that understood it ? (Hear, hear.) He believed
the list would be found a very small one. They must expect
the bill to be treated in a very different manner in another
place ; and if objections were raised and thoroughly dis-
cussed now, it would save much debate hEreafter. (Hear.)
The motion was then agreed to.

On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the words
"if a trader" were inserted after "debtors," in clause 83,
line 2, page 22 ; and the words " in the case of a non-trader"
were omitted from the heading of clause 98.

Mr. MALINS then moved to expunge clause 101, which
he said was inconsistent with the general scope of the bill.
The object of the measure was to meet an admitted public
grievance. There were a certain number of persons who
had property and debts, but who went abroad in order that
they might enjoy the one and evade payment of the other.
He could not see on what possible principle of justice they
could prevent the application of the bill to debtors whose
liabilities were contracted before the passing of the act.
There were persons living just across the Channel whom
the clause would enable to laugh at their creditors, but who
ought to be made to pay their debts.

Mr. HENLEY objected to the alteration propospd by his
hon. and learned friend, as he thought it would give the
bill an unfair retrospective operation.
Mr. VANCE saw no hardship in allowing the clause to
be omitted, whereby parties who were nen-traders would be
amenable for their debts like parties who were traders.
_ _

Sir M. PETO trusted the Attorney-General would yield
to the suggestion of tine hon. and learned member for Wal-
lingford. There were a thousand persons now living out
of the country in order to evade the payment of their just
debts, and they could only be reached by the proposal of his
hon. and learned friend.-

After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK,
Mr. WALPOLE thought the clause was most properly
introduced into a bill R hich made a material alteration in
the law for the first time, and which assimilated the law
applied to traders to non-traders. The clause simply stated
that no debt anterior to the passing of the bill should be
sufficient to support a petition for adjudication of bank-
ruptcy, but it did not provide that, after the passing of the
act, any creditor who brought an action on a debt incurred
anterior to the bankruptcy, and obtained a judgment, should
not then enforce the judgment against the property, and
also enable the court to adjudge the person in that particu-
lar case a bankrupt.
Mr. CRAWFORD thought that if the bill were made
iall.
retrospectivea in one case it ought to be made retrospective
m

Mr. HALIBURTON trusted the clause would be ex-
pung.d. The class of persons who would be affected by the
amendment were people who, after contracting debts, left
the country for the purpose of evading their creditors.
They were no credit to this country, and he should be glad
to see a measure passed which reached their hiquitous
Case.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that if this clause
remained in the bill, the benefit of the measure might ac-
crue to the next generation, but it would be comparatively
lost to the present. (Hear, hear.) This fact had been
forcibly brought to his mind by the number of letters he
had received remonstrating against the clause. It had
been argued that in striking the clause out the bill
would be made retrospective, but if that principle were
not to be applied in some cases, a proposed improvement
in our procedure might have no practical effect. There
could be no earthly reason why the general principles of
lelrislat ion should stop short of bankruptcy. (Hear, hear.)
Now that the house had fortunately arrived at a state of
unanimity with regard to the principle of putting non-
traders on the same footing as traders, he (the Attorney-
General) felt himself released from any pledge which he had
given under another state of circumstances. He should
submit the question to the house, to be dealt with as the
house should think fit, unfettered by any action on the part
of the Government. He wished to make the benefits of the
bill felt at once, and not to have them deferred until an
indefinite period. (Hear, hear.)

The clause was then negatived without a division.
Mr. AYRTON moved to leave out clauses 116 and 117.
lie wished to put the small debtor on the same footing as
the large one, and that what should constitute ground for
the conditional discharge of one should be ground also for
the discharge of the other. By repealing these clauses he
did' not intend to give any undue immunity to the small
debtor, because he also proposed at the beginning of clauses
141 and 142 the words " when the discharge of a bankrupt
shall be conditional as hereinafter provided."
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL said the difficulty of this
case consisted in this, that the house had introduced into
the County Court Acts the principle of ienal imprisonment.
No doubt the poorer man and the wealthier were placed by
the bill under circumstances which were materially different.
The repeal of these clauses would have the effect of releas-
ing from prison every single person who had been com-
mitted by an order of the county court judges. A county
court judge was in a peculiar position. He could not iesue
execution under what was called a capias at common law.
His power of inflicting imprisonment was obtained under
two statutes of the Queen. It became necessary for him
to exclude from the operations, of the act all unfortunate
persons who had been imprisoned under the County
Court Acts. What would be the use of making a poor man
in gaol a bankrupt, when probably he had not 53. in the
world. He (the Attorney-General) hoped the house would
not consent by a side wind to annul the effect of the whole
'of these County Court Acts.

Mr. ROEBUCK suggested to the Attorney-General that
ho should make it a criminal offence for any man to contract
a debt when ho was in the position of being unable to dis-
charge his obligations.
Mr. HENLEY said the objection to this clause was
founded on an alleged inequality of treatment of rich and
poor. The county court judge was enabled, as he (Mr. Hen-
ley) understood, to imprison a man if he (the judge)
thought he could pay and would not, and most of the pri-