Star.
London, England, 1802-03-03 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS.

The Houfe refolved itfelf into a Committee on
the Bill for extending the provitions of the Lords'
A& On the claufes being read a (Eft time,
Mr. C. Wv tan, referring to the °Nation
urged on a former day, that this Bill would ex-
pofe Debtors tJ have their landed property fold,
at a time that an adequate value could not be
obtained—laid, that though he was of opinion the
creditors themfelves would be fufficicntly interefted
to prevent filch an event, yet, in order to provide
againft the pail:1114 of fuch an objeetion as that
he alluded to, he would propofe a claufe that the
debtor fhould be at liberty to petition the Chancel-
lor in a fummary way ; and that his Lordfhip
fhould be authorifed to make fuch order, under
fuch circumftances, as to his judgment might fcem
meet.

The claufe being read,
Mr. NICHOLL Paid, that this claufs, though he
approved of it, could not reconcile him to the
principle of the Bill. If it was intended to make
landed property fubjea to the bankrupt laws, it
ought to be openly avowed, and the meafute
ought to be extended to the property of Members
of both Houfes of Parliament, for furely the
dif-
tinßiun contained in this Bill mud appear odious
and unjuilifiable to the country.
Colonel ELFOILD requefled to know, whether it
was intended to have the Bill printed after it
thould come out of the Committee?

Mr. C. Wynat replied to the arguments of Mr.
Nicholl. He contended, that the Bill was not
an innovation, but the extenfion of an old prin-
ciple, feveral times recognized by the Legi flature.
With refpeCt to the apprehenfion that a debtor's
eflate would be liable to he fold by a creditor
to whom he owed not one-fourth of its value, he
mull remark that the man who would remain
twelve months in prifon fooner than pay a debt
amounting only to one-fourth of his property, was
not an object entitled to the mercy of that Houfe.
In his view, he faw no reafon why the property
of a debtor fhould not be made anfwerable for
his debts, whether that property was in each, goods,
the funds, or land. As to the property ofltlem-
bers of both Houfes of Parliament, that he thought
to have no connexion with the objzlt of the pretent
Bill, which only related to perfons in cuttody.—
He had no objeaion to the principle of the mea-
fure propofed by the Hon. Gentleman, but from
its importance he conceived it to deferve a feparate
dircuffion.

Colonel ELTOLD profeffed himfelf fatisfied with
the Bill, in confequence of the claufe jdf piopofed
by the Hon. Gentleman who introduced it.
Mr.Ata wont did not think this Bill provided
fufficient precautions to guard the property of the
debtor againft the affignces, as in the cafe of bank-
ruptcy.
Mr. NEWZOLT rofe to give notice, that if the
firft claufe in the Bill thould not be related irefome
future Rage, he would move to have it recommit-
ted, in order to propofe the relation of that claufe,
becaufe he was of opinion that it was incontinent
with the laR claufe.

Mr. Bvitrom thought, that if this Bill way to
take effeft, the principle of it fbould be extended
to the property of the Members of both Hodes of
Parliament ; for it would be unwire and unjuft to
exempt them. It had been the policy of the laft
century to put their property on a footlng with
the property of other perfons, and as this was a
new principle, it ought to reach them if it was
jnft and neceffary. Under thefe confiderations he
moved a claufe :-14 That if any Member of either
Houk of Parliament, or other privileged perfon,
Mould have an execution awarded against him, and
executed upon him, which, after a certain time
elapfing he (hall neglel to difeharge, the Creditor
(ball be authorifed to demand from such privileged
perfon an account of his effefts, in order to expofe
them to tale, to fatisfy the raid execution."
The Avvozmiv GENsam. conceived the terms
of this claufe, thus unexpededly introduced, or
vaftly too large a fcope to be ingrafted in the Bill
before the Committee. It ought, in his opinion,
to be the fubjed of a Specific Aft. He had his
doubts, however, that in any fhape it would be
admiflible, for it propofed a remedy which gi eatly
I outrun the grievance complained of. It would.
render a Member of either Honfe of Parliament
liable to the dilemma, that if he should fuller an
execution for 4 or poi. or perhaps a fmaller rum,
to remaiir unfatisfied for a certain time, he might
be called on to fubmit the (late of his property to
the examination and mercy of his creditors. As to
the idea of novelty—in the reign of Edward the
Firft, it was a novelty to fubmtt landed property
to the Statute of illegit ; and then it might have
been urged, as he underflood it was now, that
the creditor would obtain better terms than he had
when he made his loan. Such an objedion would
in fait always apply with full as much juftice
againft any law to fccure the creditor until all
debts fhonld be extinguilbed. No evils, as it ap-
peared to him, could arife from this Bill to either
the creditor or tithwir, as it contained a elaufe
which gave to all parties interefted a right of ap-
ply ing to a Court of Equity. Ile concluded with
cap, .thing his itrongcft difiippiobation of the 1

clank jua propofed, as of too'wuch migititticle to
be adopted without very fee ions deliberation.
The Marras or THE ROLLS fully concurred in
the fentiments of his Right Honourable Friend,
who had jull fat cicwn. As to the claufe now un-
der consideration, he entertained Ilrong doubts as
to its necefiity, and to entertain doubts was to
queilion thelropricty of adopting it. However,
it had no natural ccnneaion with the °bled of the
Bill before the Committee—which was, when the
debtor fhould appear to prefer imprifonment to
the (ale of his properry and the paynient of his
debts, to enable the creditor to do that which in
juilice the debtor ought to do hisifelf. This Bill,
therefore, which view out of a procefs already
exiaing, could net ue allied with a claufe which
was perfeCtly new ; and as none of its advocates
were friendly to the ;'rinciple of the Bill, it was
open to the fufpicion of being introduced, not fo
much with a view of enlarging its operation, as
of overthrowing italtoi,ether. It was but fair to
let it Rand on its merits, and not to clog it with
this dilute.

Mr. BUKTON was indifferent what time his Claufe
flould be adopted, or in what fhape ; but he
thought it laerreftly confillent with the principle of
the Bill before the Comnittce, which he contend-
ed ought not to pafs without is; for the principal
objethon to it within and without doors, was the
exception in favour of Members of Parliament,
which. the Claufe he propofed was defigncd to re-
move.

Mr. NICHOLL cnnGdcred this Claufe elTentislly
neeeffary to the honour of the Ilottfe ; otherwife a
new privilege %you'd be crated for Members of
Parliament, whith it was Lot prudent in thefe
times to attempt.
Here the queflion being called for, the Gallery
was elc-red, and there not being forty Members
prtfent, the Houfe adjourned till to•mortow.