Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1838-02-08

tieh taken on tile tHgruSsnrn, ltUId Tie uppJtu"y
oil debating the subject
Mr. RIYEs said he regarded the provision Of The aw
now proposed 10 be repealed, mol much as provision
IN favor OF the debtor. but intended Tor The benefit OF
ms family II was law Of humanity, which ought 10
he fulfilled that whatev"r may be the merits OF the
debtor ms pnn wife and helpless children no" he left
desolate, and be stripped Of their all atone for his er
rors.
MIR. CHAPMAN Of NJ. was of opinion, that the law
ought 10 be reprard 1t was G law which operated in.
Jnrluusly To The poor IL cnt them oil from credit and
under lis provisions They caunot get credit for even the
most trIfng npcess1rics Again on account Of this law
tney cannot even get house rented TO them; Tor their
properly by this law, is security to the landlord Tor
MS rent II may, perhaps operate hvurably for sc"un-
oics out It's ELECTS are most baneu 10 the honest poor
MT. " concluded by expressing Il hope, that law
which produced such baneful effects would longer lay
Us blot on the Statute Book
hlr WATKINS offered an amendment, having iur its
OBJECT 10 substitute for the bill 10 repeal bill repeating
only that part Of the law which renders the property u
debtor not liable FOR the payment Of tent.
MIR. SMITH Of J. of W. expressed himself as in favor
oil so nucl of the law went the benefit Of the poor
widow, or infant children. He opposed, however,
10 the general principle of this law. 1t not only pre-.
vents The pnor from getting credit hut il prevents him
from giving security for the performance OF any
tract into which he may enter Though the amendment
was good rs lar as it went he could not vote for It, Us II
was his wish tina, the bill should be altogether repealed
MIR kinney hoped the amendment would prevail, as II
the matter of rent, by the operation Of the law the
poor were prevented from renting The amendment
no@ offered fully removed this objection In other res
poets he hoped the law would be fairly tried ns he re.
gardcd it after the removal of this Objectionable item
very valuable law 1t was a law which afforded esps-
cia protection 10 the wife and children of The worthless
drunkard
Mr. CRurcufiELp hoped the amendment would not
prevail The law ought 10 be repealed hnse in whose
favor it appeared 10 be INJURED by it, II is
tur The 81
desirable for other necessaes' The which went
for repeating the part Of the law relating to rent,
equally strong Tor The repeal the law as 10 all lis other
provisions.
Of drunkards by making the bad conduct Of the latter
penipnliary offence he would 60 for that, but he could
moi consent 10 a law which operated unlnvorably to
mcri,urons class Of citizens by excluding them from the
confidence and credit Of their fellow. citizens.
Mr.. IARnIsoS said, the law provides that the act will
affect existing debts that the creditor would in
future know how lie Stood II appeared TO MIR. H., that
if any thing could make death comfortable TO man, il
was the knowledge that the law had provided for his wife
and children. lie could not for the repeal but in
the hope oil making the law acceptable and Of sus
tanning il, he would vote for the amendment proposed
Mr. TUHsTAtL rose 10 enquire il II would hr III order
to commit the bill to receive amendments. II: wished
the bill 10 he committed and rendered perfect The law
struck him as being Of very doubtful policy. 1t ap.
pcared 10 him lanlamount 10 law declaring that all
persons whose property only amounted to Sl1O should
not b. trusted By The aw the poor man Is deprived ri
credit, and thereby deprived of having and obtaining
neccssares Tie very law which il 10 provide nccrssa-
for him, operates deprive him Of n"Gcssarrs by
cutting him lor'se from credit. Mr.. T. concluded by
moving that the bill be committed.
Mr.. CnApMaS suggested different committee.
Mr.. iAGEIs"S suggested that it would be best To take
the sense Of the luusc Tie amendment vi Mr.
Watkins.
The question Mr. TuxsrALLs motion 10 commit
then ncgalivcd.
The question recursing the amendment Of Mr.
Watkins
Mr. SurGRARD said, he should vote for the repeal OF
the law. 1t was lie general opinion in his section OF
The country, that Ibis las, instead Of being blessing
had been u curse.
alr RlYrs supported the law the ground that hu
mainly itself would naturally follow this law, without
any legislative enactment. What man Of good aud re
ncrous feelings would take advantage of the bed and
other little property Of the pnor? Whereas the nnrc
ing man would seize upon his all The law ONLY re-
strains The rapacy of the vicious; tic only persons who
would:avai themselves Of their power under The old law
AS the credit given 10 the poor man on the strength
Of this amount OF property, Mr. R. denied the position
the character conduct aud behaviour OF the poor, the
ground Of credit for him man gives another credit
on consideration Of his having bed other little pro
pery which his wife may have al home but he gets
Glt where it is known that he is industrious and honest
that he will both work TO provide rncans and will pay
wien he has provided them.
MIR CnArmaS Of NJ. replied 10 the argument of Mr.
Rves. urging that the persons who gave credit looked
naturally the property and possessions Of the debtor
Mr. G. commended that b. this law the poor man can
20 md bay bread and meat for his family unless he
goes with the hard cash in his pocket, and in this way
he is placed out Of the reach ot that credit which the
rich man enjoys
MIR WAr:lys was certain the law would never pre-
vent the honest from getting credit, whereas II
would prevent The wife and children Of the vicious and
nlcmperate from having all their property seized to sup
uly drink for the drunkurd. Mr. ". hoped the amend
ment would be carried.
Mr. SMITH of H. called the attention Of the House Ia
remarkable fact, it this, that there not sin
ulc petition the table against The Law. Mr.. Smith
had lived in State where similar law was in force
and he had never Witnessed the effects he heard at
rbuted 10 il.
Mr. VAUGHAN moved the indefinite posiponement Of
the bill.
Mr. EAYLY Of A. locked upon the principle of this aw
as most nischpvous. In proportion as The collection OIL
debts is Instructed in such proportion the facilities
credit are diminished and The debtor is injured, instead
Of being benefited. Mr. B. opposed the principle, as
an entering wedge, obslructng The collection Of debts
Mr. TuxsrALL opposed 10 the indefinite post.
pouensnt as thereby the law would be left in force.
Mr. Bo1rs wished Tie law to be amended and i'm.
proved lie should, therefore, vote against the indie
finite peSpoarmrnt
Hr. FISHER followed, as was believed, IN favor ct The
law.
MIR KisyEY repeated his views in support Of the law.
Nj; CoorEs said lie should vote agains the indefinite
pos,poncment Mr.. c. had imagined that the law would
be beneficial and he had therefore voted for last SEES
yiun but when he got hume, he found that the people
were universally opposed TO the law as an injury 10 the
moor themselves. and benefit to no one.
Mr. SEGAn replied 10 the argument Of there being no
pe,tons The poor did not petition agains! The law pr
many reasons and it could be drawn from this circuIn.
stance MIR. s. would vote against the indefinite post
poncmeut because he opposed 10 the law. and was
satisfied that generally unacceptable to the PEG.
pe in his county, and in its operation most unavOrabe
TO those whom it was intended 10 benefit.
The question then taken mn the indefinite post.
ponrmcnt and decided in the affirmative by ayes and
noes as !o!ows:
yqrs-alessrs. Rircs, Randolph, Holloway, Jrter,
Stuart, Kinney, Byrd, Fryat, Sn"d grass shanks rey
Casllsni1n ll Wilson, Vaughan, Servant, Strange,
Paisley, Keen, Chapman Of G., Smith Of c. Watkins
PinmtIl, Spencer, Taylor Of Halifax. White, Mullen
Harrison Lucas, Smith Of X Lucket Beard, Taylor
of l., Goodwin, Newman, IIndgins Fisher, Morgan,