The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-04-02 00:00:00

TIIF, LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

jected, two nights ago, to proceeding with the army estimates
at the same hour, his objections were overruled and he was
surprised to hear those honourable gentlemen who considered
that hour early enough for the discussion of the Army Estimates
now declare it to be too late for the consideration of the Staf-
ford Bribery Bill.

After some further conversation, the house agreed to go to
the third reading then.
Mr. C. W. WYNN objected to the principle of the bill, on
the ground that it was essentially different from that for which
leave had been given.
Mr. ELLICE defended the bill as necessary to get evidence of
the transactions at the last election. It could be proved that
524 out of 526 voters had been bribed; but their evidence
could not be got at unless they were indemnified beforehand.
Mr. SHAW contended that this bill would tend to defeat its
own object, for if it were to pass it would enable the bribing
candidate to secure himself by giving evidence of bribery, and
then being indemnified to get the whole borough disfranchised.
He might well say, if you are disposed to give evidence against
me, I will turn and give evidence against you, and get your
borough disfranchised. How could this be prevented by this
bill ?

Mr. HUME supported the bill.
Mr. CHETWYND, on behalf of his constituents, challenged
the fullest investigation into the proceedings of the election for
Stafford, confident that the result would show that a report
which had gone abroad to the effect that a majority of those
electors were obnoxious to the cbarge of bribery was the very
opposite of the fact.
The bill was then read a third time.

On the question that it do pass.
Mr. WYNN moved, as an amendment, that it be inserted in
the preamble that the bill was founded solely on the allegations
of the Right Honourable Edward Ellice. He had in vain
sought for proofs of the allegations of the bill, and therefore.
thought it but just that the fact should be recorded in the pre-
amble.

Mr. HUME said proofs would be superfluous of facts so not°,
rious as bribery and corruption at Stafford.
Lord SANDON said that the result of the Liverpool election
committee would show how little reliance was to be placed on
" notorious" newspaper fact.
Mr. ELLICE was sure that his right honourable friend (Mr.
Wynn) was not serious in his amendment. It would he
evidently but a discourteous mode of throwing ridicule, which
might easily be retorted upon any measure that his right hon.
friend might hereafter bring forward himself.
Mr. WYNN would never bring forward a bill of which the al-
legations did not bear out the preamble. If this bill passed as
it stood, it would be a disgrace to the house.
After a protracted discussion, Mr. Wynn withdrew his
amendment, and the bill passed.
The house adjourned at 2 o'clock.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

EXTRACT FROM THE FOURTH REPORT OF THE COMMON LAW

COMMISSIONERS, DATED MARCH 1, 1832.
By the common law of England, the right to arrest in the first
instance was confined to injuries committed with force.
The process of execution against the goods was, and still re-
mains, very imperfect; nothing can be taken under it but goods
or chattels, properly so called, which do not include hank-notes,
bills, book-debts, money in the funds, annuities, pensions, or
sums secured by contract or agreement.
From the unrestrained power of arrest, facility of credit,
crowded gaols, and a court of discharge, are successive and
necessary consequences.
The public are injured by the burden of maintaining debtors
and their families, by the loss of productive labourers, and by
the contamination of morals, which arises from confining great
numbers of debtors in common gaols.
When a debtor is so destitute of means as to be unable to find
bail, and is sent to gaol, the creditor usually concerns himself
no further in the matter. He considers the object of arrest to
be frustrated, and leaves the defendant to lie in prison to take
the benefit of the Insolvent Act, without opposition. The im-
prisonment of the debtor, therefore, under such circumstances,
is of no advantige to the creditor, and is a great evil to the
defendant, who is necessarily deprived of his liberty, and left
often without means sufficient to enable him to recover it,
whilst to the public mishief is occasioned by filling the 'gaols
with prisoners, to many of whom misfortune only, and not
guilt, is imputable.
Another evil to the public is the burden of maintaining
debtors, and the families not only of such debtors as are con-
fined in gaol, but of those who are induced to abscond from
the fear of arrest.

To presume fraud is contrary to one of the most just as well
as humane principles known to the laws, and to imprison a
debtor where-no fraud or dishonesty is imputable is to inflict
punishment which is neither warranted by any precedent offence,
nor useful by way of future example.
It appears to us, that the law is defective (among other
things) in making the imprisonment a condition precedent to
the personal discharge of a debtor who surrenders his property
without fraud, and in not compelling. the debtor to discover and
surrender his property when he is in custody, and in not pro-
viding means for making all his property available when he
absconds.

The alteration, therefore, (in one respect,) which we pro-
pose, consists principally in this—that the debtor who is willing
to surrender the whole of his property for the benefit of his cre-
ditors shall, in the absence of traud, obtain the benefit of a,
concession of his property, without suffering previous impri-
sonment. _ _

A power should be bestowed on the Commissioners of the In
solvent Debtors' Court of adding, in case of remand for mis-
conduct, the punishment of hard labour to that of simple impri-
sonment.

The average amount of the expense of an insolvent debtor
applying to be discharged under the Insolvent Debtors' Act is
£lO. The bulk of this is incurred in sending the necessary
notice to each of the creditors; and although the insolvent,
upon his commitment to prison, generally takes care to retain
in his power money sufficient for the purpose, yet in some few
instances it happens that he is unprovided with it, and unable
to raise it by friendly or charitable assistance, and that he re-
mains in custody from inability to defray the expense of his
discharge.

Number of Persons in Prison under Writs of Execution from
the Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exche-
slue!, for Debt, Damages, and Costs, in England and Wales,
in 1831, extracted from the fourth Report of the Common
Law Commissioners:—
Not exceeding £2O • • • • .. .. 369
Exceeding 20 and not exceeding £3O .. .. 268
30 • • .. 40 .. .. 181
--2-- 40 .. .. 60 .. .. 209
60 .. .. 80 .. .. 94
80 .. .. 100 .. .. 61
100 .. .. 150 .. .. 69
150 ..
200 • • .. 3(X) • . .. 14
300 .. .. 400 .. •• 9
400 • • .. 500 .. .. 10
500 • • . • 1,000
.. .. 6
1,000 • • •• •• •• .• 9

Total number .. 1,341

More than 25 per cent. under £2O 369
More than 45 per cent. under £3O

Total .. .. • • . • 637
Report dated the Ist of March, 1832, and nothing yet done.

HOUSE OF LORDS—TuunsDAY.