Star.
London, England, 1811-03-14 00:00:00

PP"'-

PARLI/IM.EArI'ARr PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH is.
The Cor....nittee to whom it was refavred to devise some better
!flotilla expediting the business 4441,44 continued sitting for
some time; after which the Lord 'Chancellor appeared on the
Woo Hack about half past four.
Colonel Ds fir 'stye TM" presenteedibe 14th Report of the Corn.
missioners of Military Inquiry.
Mr. Maui, from the India Board, presented Papers relative
to the affairs of India, pursuant to an order of the. House of the
14th dune last.
These documents were ordered to lie on the table.
A message from the Commons brought up the Mutiny Bill,
Shish wp read a first time.
r ' c ' itisoLvENT DEBTORS.
The reuse having resolved itself into a Committee
on'tbapermanent Bill respecting Insolvent Debtors,.
The Earl of -STANHOPE rose to express his dis-
satitratten with the provisions of the Bill, the prin-
ciple of which he was, notwithstanding, anxious to
supperteqo many of the different clauses of the Bill
he had streng objections. To the first clause in the
Bill, that which went to the appointment of only one
person to preside in the proposed Court, he must par-
ticularly object. He should prefer the suggestion
offered on a former occasion by a Noble and Learned
Lord, that three or four persons should be appoint-
ed'instead of one ; simply for this reason, that where
three or four presided, justice was more impartially
and properly administered than where only one pre-
sided, Besides, it was well known that the time and
attention of the Lord Chancellor were otherwise so
much engrossed that he could not, indeed it was
impossible for him to give the time and attention 1
it required to the transaction of the bankrupt bu-
siness. He shoal.' therefore imagine that if three
or more fit persons were appointed. to the Court,
proposed by this Bill, the business of the bankrupts'
raght be safely transferred to that Ccurt, and thus
' relieve the Lord Chancellor from that weight of mul-
tiplied business by which it was evident that the No-
ble and Learned Lord must be incumbered. He
had also to object to the clause which proposed an
oath,. in the first instance, to be taken by the Deb-
tor, instead of allowing him to give in a statement
of his effects, which he might afterwards be called
upon to confirm by oath. To take the oath in the
first instance, when recollection might not serve him
to state minutely and accurately the exact number of
his'Creditors, the sums which were respectively due
to them, &c. together with a detailed and correct
account of his own estate and effects, would have the
effect of making himeliable to perjury, or at least to
the suspicion of perjury.- The form of the oath was
besides, too long, and might be wholly unintelligible
to that class of persons, poor Debtors, by whom it
was to be taken. Here, moreover, was an unneces-
' sary addition to the many oaths, Excise oaths, Cus-
tomhouse oedee &c. which but too much fernilia-
rised people with that sacred and awful declaration,
on which was Icemen to depend the fife, the pro-
perty, aiid ale chAracter of individuals. A schedule
delivered in hy the Debtor of his effects appeared to
him to be the mere simple and effectual mode, the
correctness of which schedule he might be afterwards
called upon to coutlrm on oath. The Noble Earl also
objected to the clause which obliged the Debtor to
himself
in goal three months before he could avail
!limsell of the provisions of the Bill. He thought
it better to allow him immediately to give notice
of the state of his affairs, as, in that case, the Cre-
ditor would have the full advantage of a three
months' notice, while the Debtor would not be un-
necessarily detained beyond that period, These sug-
gestions he took the liberty of throwing out as ex-
pressive of his own opinion, though he would not
take the sense of the Haute on the amendmentswhich
he intended to propose. The Noble Earl concluded
with moving his first amendment, that 46 three, in-
stead of one fit person," be appointed to preside in
the proposed Court.
Lord REDISDALE was not very- tenacious of
the provisions of the Bill, as they now .stood, so as
the suggested Amendments did not trench en the
principle, or depart from the precedent on which the
Bill was framed and founded. He could see no
necessity, at least no immediate necessity, for the
appointment of three, instead of one fit person to
' 'preside in the Court. If one person should be found
competent to the task it imposed, why appoint three
br four, especially at a time when economy was so
necessary, and so frequently inculcated ; for it could
not be expected that a person, qualified for the dis-
charge of such important functions, should bestow his
time and labour on the discharge of such functions,
• without an adequate remuneration ? That remune-
tation must be extended to three instead of one. if
three instead of one were to be employed; and thus
the berthen on the public would be unnecessarily
'doubled. As to the objection of proposing an oath
In the first instance, he could see 'no foundation for
it; In framing-the present Bill, he had constantly in
his eye the provisions of former insolvent Acts, in ell
of which a similar oath was prescribed. ' Indeed,
Without some guard and sanction of that nature,
lie was at a loss to see how too wide a door might
not be opened to the fraudulent instead of the un-
fortunate debtor, or how the justice that was due 1
to the honest creditor could be fairly and uniformly
maintained. The.oatb, besides, could not male any ;
tuan --li.kble.to perjury; unless where the oath was
. delarrately and corruptly taken with evident inten-
-1 ' tiun to defraud. For these reasons he thought the
clauses of the Bilk justified by the motives. and the
precedents on which they rested ; as far, however,
as he could alter them, consistently with the views
he had taken of their propriety, he would willingly
alter them On the better suggestions of any Noble
Lord. He had himself many Amendments to pro-
pose'. in the Bill, and would therefore be the. more
prepared to listen to the Amendments proposed by
other Noble Lords.
1 ,
Lord STANHOPE complained that he had been
Misrepresented by the Noble and-Learned Lord, and
that to many of his objeetions no answer whatever
had been given. He would still insist that it was ab-
surd in the first instance to propose an oath, for tho'
( it might not have the effect of making the debtor per-
jure himself, it would lead him to forswear himself,
which in his opinion was making light of the Most
serious and solemn obligation by which it was possi-
ble for man to bind himself. In support of his opinion,
he quoted the saying of Sir James Johnstone) on the
Bill tb prevent the introduction of French Gloves,
some' ime ago introduced in the House of Commons.
By that Bill it was intended to swear the sellers of