HL Deb 17 March 1831 vol 3 c495
The Earl of Fife

presented a Petition from Banff, for Parliamentary Reform. He would take advantage of that occasion, to correct a misstatement which had appeared in some of the public prints, of what had fallen from him on a former occasion. He was represented as having disapproved of the measures of legal Reform brought forward by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. This was an error. So far from disapproving of the bills brought under their Lordships' consideration by that noble and learned Lord, he cordially approved of them, regarding the noble and learned Lord as one pre-eminently competent to effect those improvements in our laws, which the growing intelligence, and the growing-liberty of the people required. His censures were intended to apply to two bills, which had passed that House under the auspices of the noble and learned Baron opposite, (Wynford) as he conceived them to involve principles seriously affecting the liberty of the subject. One of those bills, —the Suits in Common Law bill, —went in degree, to interfere, —indeed dispense, with that safeguard of liberty, Trial by Jury; and the other, the Frauds on Creditors' bill, would place the most dangerous power in the hands of creditors. By the law as it stood, the creditor had, under certain circumstances, the option of redress between the person and the property of his debtor; but the noble and learned Lord's bill would give him a power over both, which no wise and liberal-minded man could, as it struck him, regard without horror. He regretted that bills so constitutionally objectionable should have passed that House sub silentio, and that, too, in the presence of those competent from their professional habits, to hold them up to the House in their true colours. The laws of arrest for debt, as they now stood, were an anomaly which called loudly for amendment; and either their Lordships should forego their own privileges of personal exemption, or they must equalize more than at present the relations in which they and their less wealthy and less privileged fellow-subjects stood with respect to creditors.