The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-08 00:00:00

to change, the system of credit so suddenly as it was
proposed to change it by this Bill, and he besought the
House to pause before they acceded to the Bill. He
concluded by moving that in the 54th clause the words
"from and after the passing of this Act" be omitted, and
the words " from and after the 25th of March next" be
substituted for them.
Mr. KEMBLE seconded the motion. This was an
ex post ficto law against the creditor, by depriving him
of the security of imprisonment, on which security he
had given his debtor credit. He had returns from a
Court of Requests for the year 1839. In that year, 5,682
causes had come on for hearing ; 2,543 executions had
been issued against the person, and only 25 against the
goods: 1,741 of those executions had not been carried
into effect ; 990 of the persons taken had been discharged
before the terms of their imprisonment had expired, and
478 only had suffered the full period of the imprison-
ment. It was well to consider the case of debtors, but
creditors ought to be considered also.
Mr. H. BERKELEY had presented a petition against
the Bill which had been agreed to at a most respectable
meeting of tradesmen in Bristol ; but after the statement
of the Solicitor-General and the Right Hon. Baronet, he
was convinced that legislation was necessary, and that
he could not hope for delay. He had stated as much at
the time, although he had stated his objections to certain
clauses. He thought it would be advisable that some
little delay should be interposed before the Bill came into
operation ; but if the Government were determined that
the Bill should come into immediate operation, he would
advise the lion. Member for Birmingham to withdraw his
motion. If he persevered in the motion, he (Mr. H. B.),
although he wished for delay, would be compelled to
vote against him, for he believed it would be be a greater
evil to lose the Bill than to have it come into immediate
operation.
Sir J. GRAHAM had never heard a fairer speech
than that of the Hon. Member for Bristol. He be-
lieved that if the measure ought to come into ope-
ration at all, it ought to come into operation imme-
diately. With regard to the working classes, it
was said that the Bill would entirely deprive them
of credit. If that were the case, it could make no dif-
ference to them when the Bill came into operation. He
could not think that legitimate credit would be at all
narrowed. Many were annually imprisoned, without
he believed much benefit to the creditor and to the
system of credit. With respect to the shopkeepers, he
could think of nothing more unwise than the measure
proposed by the Hon. Gentleman. Every creditor
during that six months would pursue his unhappy
debtor to the utmost, as the gaols would be crowded,
and the amount of misery which would be inflicted
would be appalling. The Bill gave the creditor a remedy
against the property, and if the debtor gave up all his
property, what more could the creditor require?—(Hear,
.hear.) No doubt it was a shorter and more summary
pr„7iss to sieze the person than the goods of the
debtor ;
but it was most unjust in cases where
a debtor hat?
no property to apply the torture of im-
prisonment, in otter to extort from his relations and
friends the means o: paying debts which they were
not morally or legallycx...`dupon to liquidate. The
Bill was supported by the Members for the
Tower Hamlets, Finsbury and Lambe:.!,.. and the consti-
tuencies of those places were shopkeepers anJ not debtors.
The measure had been well considered, and had received
the highest legal support. It was approved of by the
Lord Chancellor and the ex-Chancellors, by Mr. Justice
Wightman, by the Chief Baron, by the law officers of
the Crown—all the authorities were in favour of it. The
case of Scotland, too, was a case in point. There
the power. of imprisonment for small debts had
been aboliShed, and although that measure had
been opposed by the same arguments as this
measure was opposed, yet it was now admitted that the
system had worked well in Scotland, so that they had
authority and experience in favour of this measure. He
was persuaded that in exercising greater caution in re-
spect of credit, the retail shopkeepers would be conduct.
ing their business on a safer and better system, and the
poorer classes would be benefited by being freed from the
system of extortion practised on their relatives and
friends by the system of imprisonment. He therefore
pressed upon the House the necessity of rejecting the
motion.
Mr. NE WDEGATE thought it would not operate
favourably on the morals of the poorer classes that they
should be permitted to evade the guarantee of their
liberty which they bad given to enable them to procure
the means of subsistence. He should vote with the Hun.
Member for Birmingham.
Mr. BROTHERTON could not bring his mind to the
conclusion that it would be wise to adopt the motion of
the Hon. Member for Birmingham. The arguments of
the Honourable Member were against the principle of
the measure, and not in favour of delay, and the House
was almost unanimous in its approval of the principle.

Mr. HAWES said the Hon. Member for Surrey had
given some accounts respecting the Court of Requests in
Surrey, and the number of cases brought under the
consideration of that Court. The lion. Member, how-
ever, said nothing about the costs which were incurred
in that court, and which were, he understood, enormous.
lie (Mr. Hawes) contended that the present system of
imprisonment was not beneficial to the creditor ; on the
contrary, it was greatly to his disadvantage. That
system was only calculated to feed revenge in relentless
creditors without producing any beneficial result. Under
these circumstances he could not support the motion of
the Hon. Member for Birmingham.
Mr. 'LARDY could not see why imprisonment for
debts under 20/. should be abolished any snore than for
debts amounting to 401. or 501. He should support the
motion of the Hon. Member for Birmingham, believing
that delay was necessary, in order that small shop-
keepers might make themselves acquainted with the
provisions of this measure. When a poor man asked
for credit, he . said, "I have no goods, but, if I do not
pay, you can imprison me." It was, therefore, unjust to
abolish the present system.
Mr. WAKLEY would put it to the Hon. Gentleman
whether such a system of credit was founded on a good
basis. No, it was not—it was most injurious and de-
moralising. The only sound basis for credit for the poor
man was good conduct and good character. The
Honourable Member for Southwark (Mr. Humphery)
had just told him that a great number of persons were
confined for debt in the Compter prison, and the highest
debt was 9s. Was not that a disgrace to a country like
' this ? The present system was only calculated to feed
visyengeful feelings ; and if they were to continue it, that
instead of being called the House of Com-
mons, ought to be called the House of Shylocks.
For the'
sake'of the working classes he was quite con-
tent. to i'ective this Bill. He believed it would be bene-
ficial to shopkeepers themselves. The Hon. Mem-
ber would s
erre his constituents much better by allowing
.
his motion to t negatived without a division, instead of
maijorities that the principle of the Bill
being left in a minority. As the House had deter-
mined by large
should be adopted, he hoped the Bill would come into
operation the moment it had received the royal assent.
Mr. SPOONER sat,_
he should be content to let his
motion be negatived without a division.
Mr. T. BUNCOMBE co.acurred in what had fallen
from his Hon. Colleague, and .‘"e minded the Hon. Member
for Birmingham that it was that' town which had taken
the lead in the opposition to the system it was sought
to abolish.
The motion was then negatived without a division,
and the Bill read a third time and pas'red.
ART-UNIONS.
Mr. WYSE moved the further consid,fration of the
Lords' reasons for rejecting the amendments
Com-
mons on the Art-Unions Bill.
Mr. T. BUNCOMBE said the object of fais Hon.
of the
Friend was to insist on these amendments being r•.i.a.ined.
The Lords were not satisfied that the parties ,ifigi-
nating these Fine Arts distributions had acted
like the Art-Unions in ignoraeco of the lavre
But they had followed in the footsteps of
the Art-Unions, and when among the share-
holders and patrons were such men as the Duke of
Cambridge and Lord Denman, how could they imagine
that they were breaking the law ? The House, he un- '
derstood, was to meet to-morrow, and, if necessary, he
should have no objection to a postponement of the
question.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER,
Mr. WAKLEY said, till the Art-Unions were stopped
by the Government, no one was aware that they were
illegal ; and it was on the faith of their being legal
that the parties alluded to by his lion. Colleague had
commenced their proceedings. He was perfectly wil-
ling to leave the matter in the hands of the Govern-
ment, confident that full protection would be given to
all parties.
Mr. B. ESCOTT was not sure there was not a dis-
tinction between the two cases. Art-Unions were es-
tablished for the encouragement of art without a view
to the profit of individuals, whereas the other was that
of individuals. engaging in lotteries with a view to profit.
Mr. ACLAND said the parties had been driven into
the course they had taken, in consequence of the loss
the art.unions caused them, in self-defence.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, as this was a question of in-
demnity for the past, he thought both parties ought to
have an equal benefit from it, as they had both acted in
ignorance of the law ; at the same time, it would be for
the Government to consider whether the use of
lotteries, either by companies or individuals,
should be tolerated in future. As far as he could
promise it, the Members of the Government in the other
House would support the suggestions of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Waterford.
The amendments were then ordered to be sent back
to the Lords for consideration.
A message from the Lords brought up several Bills.
On the motion of Mr. T. BUNCOMBE, the follow-
ing return was ordered, namely, A return of the name of
every person employed in the General Post-office, with
the date of each appointment, the nature of the duties
performed by each individual, the amount of salary at-
tached to such duties, the fund from which such salary
is paid, distinguishing what portion, if any, is derived
from fees ; also, a similar return from the General
Post-office, Dublin.
SAVINGS' BANKS.
The Lords amendments to the Savings' Banks Bill
was agreed to, after a few observations from Mr. 11U3IE
and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
MEDICAL PRACTICE.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved for leave to bring in a Bill
for the better regulation of Medical Practice throughout
the United Kingdom. The Right Hon. Baronet warmly
complimented the medical profession in this country for
thenn highstated the various professional
legal position
operations they
tthhand
duties of the profession were now carried on. The
hel
d underin science,
i the
object of the present Bill, however, was to amend
many of the provisions of the present imperfect law.
To put down quackery was hopeless ;but he thought en-
couragement ought to be given to the clever man. H.,
proposed no restriction to private practice.—(Hear.)
His principle was this, that none should be
eligible to fill medical or surgical offices except
those who were declared to be so by compe-
tent authority. He proposed by this Bill to repeal
all acts and charters which imposed restrictions on the