§ The Attorney-Generalpresented a Petition from Galway in favour of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill. He would not, though he might, take that opportunity to enter into the merits of that measure, and he would refrain for the present from replying to the very unfair attacks that had been made upon that Bill elsewhere. There were 1377 reasons which induced him for the present to exercise what was on his part a very great forbearance on that point. He must, however, in vindication of his own character, and indeed of the character of the House, notice one objection that had been raised in the place he alluded to to the measure in question. It had been said that the Bill had not undergone proper discussion in its progress through that House. Now, he would venture to say, that no measure had ever undergone more complete discussion in the House of Commons. It was discussed last Session on his moving for leave to bring in the Bill, and it was afterwards fully discussed on the second reading, It was then submitted to a Select Committee that had it under discussion for some months. That Committee consisted of 100 members, and generally thirty or forty attended each day. It was afterwards discussed on the Motion for going into a Committee of the House on the Bill this Session. The discussion continued for nine hours; one Gentleman on one occasion made a speech of three hours and on another occasion a speech of two hours, against the Bill. The Bill had been most fully, most fairly discussed. To say, then, that such a measure had been smuggled through that House was a most unfair representation. It was a mistake, too, to charge him with having moved for a Select Committee to search the Lords' Journals respecting the progress of this Bill. He had made no such motion, and it would not have been a proper one for him to make, as their Lordships had not had a proper opportunity for considering the merits of that measure. His motion related solely to two Bills—one regarding executors and administrators, and the other regarding the execution of wills, which had passed that House on the 3rd of June last, and regarding which he had some right, therefore, to inquire, in order to ascertain what had become of them elsewhere. Again, he said he would abstain from answering what had been stated elsewhere; but if the distinguished individual from whom those statements came would meet him in conference, he would undertake to show him that he was perfectly mistaken in the objections he made to the measure.