Star.
London, England, 1814-04-01 00:00:00

FREEHOLDPROPERTY ATTACHMENT BIU.

Sir S. ROMILLY said, that agreeably to the no-
tice he had given, he now rose to move for leave to
bring in a bill, to enact, that the freehold property
of persons who die intestate be subjected to the ply.
ment of their teal debts. He did not anticipate any
opposition at present to his motion; and he should
therefore cOnfiner himself to shortly stating the
grounds of the measure. By the law, as it now
stands, any person to whom a debt is owing has the
power to an est his debtor, and keep him in prison
till the debt be paid. To be sure, some little relAxa-
tiOn of this severity had been produced by the Act
of last Sissign ; 'but still, whether The debtor got
into his ditecorna from profligacy 9 misfortune, the
creditor could keep hint for a time in durance; and
if he did'not wakes' full' disclosure of his property, in
Certain cases, rihe offence miglit be considered capital.
A bankrupt, for instance, might suffer death for keep-
ing back any of his property from his creditors; but
there were otters %ho miglit withhold *their property
• .

with impunity. While the law W2l thus severe to
one class of society, and favourable to another—
while it sends one man out of the world for secreting
perhaps a small portion of property, and alloWs. ano-
ther who has ample means to pay his just debts to
escape any sort of punishment, it must be admitted
that some alteration is just and necessary. What he
intended was, that the Bill should apply only to men
who, having freehold property at the time of their
death, and being then in other respects insolvslit,
leave it to descend to their heirs, and suffer their
debts to remain unpaid. The law now permits the
heir to live in all the comfort and splendour of life,
while the honest tradesmen who may have contribu-
ted to that splendour are at last ruined, and sent to
take refuge in a workhouse, because the principal
property of•the heir cannot be made responsible. The
principal part of his Bill would therefore be to ren-
der the freehold property of any man who dies in
debt responsible to his creditors. He alluded to the
Act of King 'William, called the Statute against
Fraudulent Devices, and regretted that it did not gc
far enough. In farther illus►ration of the necessity
of his Bill, Sir Samuel observed, that it often hap-
pened, that a person had purchased an estate just be-
fore his death, with the money that ought to have
gone to his creditors; and there had been instances
of others, who, in desperation at their circumstances,
rather than let their property go to their creditors, to
the ruin of their near relatives, had committed sui-
cide. Sir Samuel then reminded the House, that he
had introduced a similar Bill seven years ago, wheit
he was Solicitor-General, which had the approbation
of the Government of that day. There were many
objections then made to it, which he did not expect
would be revived. It was stated, in particular, that
the measure would lead to incessant litigation. The
same, and many other objections, were raised against
the Insolvent Act of last year ; but now it was in
full execution, not the smallest difficulty was found
, in it ; and cases have occurred where £lOO,OOO have
been paid over to the creditors without the least dif
ficulty. Sir Samuel then alluded to the case of Sir
Roger Kerrison, of Norwich, who left estates worth
8500,000, and but for the operation of that Act,
every one of the creditors might have been kept from
every farthing. He knew it had been said that his
Bill would tend much to weaken the aristocracy of the
kingdom, and do away the distinctions of rank t but
the diminution of rank was already seen amongst
those who were enabled to commit injustice by living
in splendour on the property of other people. The
principal consequence of his Bill would be, that if the
real estates of men of property were made subject to
the payment of their debts, the credit of heirs would
be facilitated on coming into life, and the tradesman
would have a greater security ftir the obtainment of
his rights. Sir Samuel concluded with saying, that
he flattered himself the Bill would be allowed to pass
through all its stages without opposition.
The question fur leave to bring in the Bill was then
put and carried.