The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-26 00:00:00

fact was, that in Antigua, and other of the small color
nies, the production of sugar lied been ;really increased
since the emancipation ; and the free negro worked
more industriously, and more to the profit of his
employer, than inat•state of slavery, and lived in luxury.
If the lar,gar islands were placed in a simi ar position as
regards the employment of labour, these colonies would
be raised from their present languishing condition, and
their prosperity would be the strongest wea.psn that
could be used for the suppression of the slave-trade. No
treaty would avail in that suppression until it was proved
that free labour was more profitable than slave labour.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the thanks of the Par-
liament and country were-due to the four gentlemen who
had framed these instructions. He believed that any-
thing which could encourage the immigration of free
labour into the 'colonies would put an end to slavery ;
but he was not for waiting for the extinction of slavery
before he would suppress the slave trade.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM moved that the report - of the
Committee on this Bill be taken into consideration. He
thimeht that the standing orders ought not to hamper
the House in the discharge of important duties. Ile
should, therefore, move that;—also, that the Bill be read
a third time this clay. •
Lord COTTENHAM did not think it necessary to
suspend the standing orders, as, if the Bill passed
through one stage this day, there would be another day
in the week for the third reading. With respect to the
present operation of the laws of insolvency and bank-
ruptcy, it was to be observed that three-fourths of those
who took advantage of those laWs were traders, and two-
thirds of those who took advantage of the Insolvency
Acts were traders. Now, it would have been supposed
that the bankruptcy laws were intended for the relief
of traders, and the Insolvency Court for the relief of
persons who could not pay their debts. in the Batik-
ruptcy Court there was no arrest of the person neces-
sary as a preliminary. All that was required was the
surrender of the property. In the Insolvent Court the
very contrary was the principle. Imprisonment was
a necessary condition. Again, under the bank-
ruptcy laws, the future property of the bankrupt
was protected. Here, also, the contrary principle ruled
in the Insolvency Cosr-. The object of the Bill which
he had brought in was,- to abolish imprisonment for debt
altogether, and to place all insolvent debtors in the same
condition as the bankrupt-trader. He did not believe:that
such a measure would check credit. It had been said, when
the abortion of mesne process 'was passed, that small
tradesmen would not be able to get credit. But the fact
had proved otherwise ; and credit had not been checked,
except in cases where it ought never to have existed.
The Bill which he had laid on the table provided these
amendments in the bankruptcy laws which had been re
commended by the Commissioners themselves. It pro;
vided- that the property of an insolvent should- be given
up to be distributed amongst his' Creditors either upon
their application or that of the debtor himself ; and that
his .future property should be protected. That was the
Bill which he proposed in 1842. His - Noble and.
Learned• Friend am the Woolsack brought -in at the
same time another Bill embodying one half . of the
provisions of his Bill, and his Noble and' Learned-
Friend's Bill was passed —(Hear and laughter.) He did
not complain of his Noble and Learned Friend's taking
one-half of his Bill. He complained that he did not
take the whole. In this session he brought in a Bill
containing so much of the former Bill as had not been
embodied in the Lord Chancellor's Bill in 1842. He
brought in the Bill before Easter, and, on the 16th of
April, which was fixed for the second reading, he was
was requested by his Noble and Learned Friend to post-
pone the second reading until a Noble and Learned Lord
.(Lord Brougham), who took a great interest in this
subject, should be in the House, he being at the time on
the Continent. On the 30th of April the Bill was read
a second time. The Lord Chancellor on that occasion
made a most important speech, the whole of which he
(Lord Cottenham) would not read, but he would read
one or two passages.—(The Noble and Learned Lord
then read extracts from the Lord Chancellor's speech ap-
proving of the Bill, and especially that part of it which
removed the anomaly of different and conflicting laws re-
lating to debt, the bankruptcy and insolvency laws,and also
-the protection of a debtor's future property.) With that
speech he (Lord Cottenham) was highly gratified, for
he thought that the time was come when the recommen-
dations of all who understood the subject would be car
tied into effect. That speech -led many of those who
were lingering in prison• to expect that they would be
released from prison without the expense of the Insel-
vent Debtors' Act. In that expectation - they had re-
mained until this time, and now they must remain in
prison until Michaelmas next. In the meantime, his
Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had a plan
of his own: Ilis Noble and Learned Friend stated that
his plan had the sanction of the Government, and, ac-
cordingly, it was arranged that the two measures should
be sent -to a Committee together. In that Committee
there were - twenty-one members, of whom seventeen
were in the habit of taking their legal opinions- from the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack. Of 'the
other four, there was only one (Lord Campbell) who
had any chance of attending, as the others had to at-
tend to judicial duties.- A Bill was brought in in
the meantime, founded on a report of Sergeant
Main warin ,r, which would repeal all the laws
and abolish all the institutions connected with the rela-
tions between debtor and creditor, that had been estab-
lished since the days of Queen Elizabeth. That was
abandoned; and so was a second Bill, also intended as a
rival to his Bill. A third Bill was hreught in to amend
the Act Which was passed in 1842. to enable persons to
declare themselves insolvent, and to be protected with-
out going to prison. The proposed amendment was
abandoned, and the Act of 1842, was still the law of the
land. There was one defect in that law. It took the
property from the insolvent; but there was no provision
for distributing the property amongst the creditors.
Many thousand persons had taken the benefit of that
Act, and in all cases the creditors were baffled, and ob-
tained nothing. The Bid—the applauded Bill—had not
been rejected on consideration of its merits. His Noble
Friend had adopted that portion of his Bill which pre-
vented persons from being arrested who were sued in the
inferior courts, and, as he (Lord Cottenham) considered,
most - humanely • adopted it. Those traders, however,
who held more than 3001. property, were not subject to
the provisions of this Bill. The Committee reported
that the Bill which he (Lord Cottenham) brought in
should not be proceeded with, but that the Bill of his
Noble and Learned Friend should be adopted. The
next provision of the Bill, should it be passed
-into a law was, that persons who %ere indebted tinder
201. should not be arrested ; and that those who
were in prison for such debt should be discharged. He
did not undervalue that provision. There could be no-
thing more cruel than the imprisonment of that class of
debtors; they were, for the most part, persons who had
only their labour to subsist on, and in some prisons they
were not allowed to use their tools for the support of
their families, who, consequently, were left to starve. But
he -objected to this, that the release of those who were
actually in prison was left to the discretion of the indi-
vidual judge or commissioner who had examined the
case. He admitted that it was dishonest to incur a debt
without the means of paying; but imprisonment for
life was rather too severe a punishment. He objected
also to the omission of his clauses for enabling the credi-
tors of landed gentry, and of Members of both Houses of
Parliament, should have execution against the property,
of every kind, possessed by the debtors; such property to
be vested in an officer of the court, to be distributed
amongSt the creditors. Would Parliament claim for its
Members as a privilege the right of living upon the pro •
perty of others ? In the present Bill, there was an enact-
ment, which, whilst it inflicted a great hardship
upon a large portion of the community, pro-
tected the Members of both Houses. If they were
to be protected let it be by a distinct enactment. But
do not let imprisonment for debt be continued to pre-
serve that protection: It was useless to suppose that the
public would not see that such was the object. And
why not avow it ? The Bill which their Lordships were
about to give their assent to, would perpetuate those
evils which his Noble and Learned Friend on the wool-
. sack so eloquently and powerfully exposed on the intro-
daction of his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill at the beginning
of the session. The concurrent opinion of all the lead-
ing authorities in the House were in favour of his Bill,
which he was confident, if not in this session in the next,
would, at no distant time, become the law of the land.
Lord BROUGHAM did not complain of his Noble and
Learned Friend for the various topics which he had intro-
duced into his speech of two hours' duration. His No-
ble and Learned Friend had promised that he would
make a long speech,: and be had kept his word.—(Laugh -
ter.) His Noble Friend called in to his aid, to fill up
the time, the speech of his Noble and 'Learned Friend
on the Woolsack.
Lord COTTENHAM—Not for the last time. '
Lord BROUGHAM said it might not be so inte-
resting to the House as to his Noble and Learned Friend.
He agreed with him in wishing to abolish imprisonment
for debt. But they differed in this—that his Noble and
Learned Friend would throw open the prison door, and
throw it upon the creditor to prove that the debtor was
in the wrong ; Whereas he (Lord Brougham) would
throw it upon the debtor to prove that he was not in the
wrong. Prima Ade, the creditor was the person en
titled to the consideration of the law. The object of
this Bill was to assimilate the two systems of bankruptey
and insolvency. And as to the charges of partiality in
the Committee, he must say that he never saw a more
impartial Committee. He said this only to console
his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Cottenham). lie
wished to poUr oil into his wounds, and he assured him
it should not be bitter oil.—(A laugh.) If a debtor
would not give up his property to his creditors he would
be imprisoned as much by his Noble and Learned
Friend's Bill as by his own (Lord Brougham's). If a
debtor concealed his property— if he committed any
fraud on his creditors—if he came with the pretension
of wealth and rank to the shop of a jeweller or other
industrious tradesman, and obtained a couple of thou-
sands of pounds worth of goods without any intention
to pay—then he should be imprisoned. His Noble and
Learned Friend would allow the remedy to be in such
cases a prosecution for fraud. But what would that do
for the creditor ? Why in the only case of prosecuting
for fraud, under the Act of 1842, it cost the unfortunate
creditor 2501. But the occurrence of cases of indict-
able fraud was rare. The most common cases were those
Of gross, reckless- extravagance—of running up scores
without the' prospect of paying.—(Hear, hear.) His
Bill would give a remedy in these cases, which the
other Bill did not. His Bill would ' prevent
dishonesty, and not misfortune. But the Bill of his
Noble Friend would extend the bankruptcy laws to the
peers of the realm, the judges of the land, the princes
and princesses of the blood royal. That was the enact-
ment, for the loss of which his Noble and Learned
Friend complained' so piteously, as to move the heart of
a stone.—(A laugh.) He never saw any measure of
legislation so utterly hopeless, because it was against all
the notions and usages of the present state of society.
(The Noble and Learned Lord drew a laughable
picture
of a process. wryer waiting oa the Prince of ales
iunder . Lord Cottenham's Bill. The Prince would say
that the law was retrospective, and that when he bought