Col. Eyre warmlyopposed the principle of the bill. He thought that it shewed much of the modern spirit of innovation; and that it would decrease the credit of the landed proprietor, to a very mischievous extent. The commercial man carried on speculations which tended to his own advantage, and the advantage of the public, and was not so likely, therefore, to be injured by this bill, while it would tend to the ruin of the man of landed property. It had been said, that the honest and considerate man would make all his debts burdens upon his estates; but in his opinion, the honest and considerate man Would act in such a manner as to render this bill totally unnecessary.
§ Mr.Roscoestrenuously defended the principle of the bill; and thought the house was much indebted to the learned gent who had introduced it. As to its being an innovation, he begged to observe, that the effects of the measure proposed had been experienced every day, as it would do nothing more than make every real estate subject to a debt which every honest man would wish to see paid; and whether it was done by the act of 82 the testator, or by the act of the law, would make no great difference in regard to the alledged innovation. It was a crime of the highest magnitude to bequeath an estate to an heir, when a testator knew it to be greatly burdened. This, he thought, ought undoubtedly to be prevented by law from occurring. It might happen that a person of integrity and honesty, intending to make his estate liable for his debt, might, through negligence or other circumstances, be prevented from doing so. This bill would, therefore, tend to remedy these evils. Entailed estates were not to be affected, nor were copy hold estates. He hoped, however, to see this bill followed by another, to make landed property liable for specialty debts. As to this bill making an inroad upon the customs of our ancestors, that was no argument at all; as it was the very purpose for which the house met, to rectify the laws in every particular, however long they may have existed.
§ Mr. Simeondeclared himself in favour of the bill, and did not apprehend those evil consequences would result from this measure, which the hon. gent. was of opinion would be the case.
§ Mr. N. Calvertdeclared, he saw no sufficient ground for this innovation in the law; nor did he know, nor had he ever heard of any instances of landed proprietors availing themselves of the law as it now stood, in order to cheat their creditors. He was unwilling, without a clear case of necessity being made out, to remove the old legal land marks of the constitution.
§ Mr. H. Martinassured the hon. gent. that instances had occurred, which pointed out the necessity of remedying the law, as it now stood. He particularly instanced the case of a person, a considerable land-owner, who had a number of natural children, for whom he wished to provide, who had made over his real estates to trustees, and to divide the produce amongst the children. The surviving trustee had sold the whole of the landed estate, and purchased others, without charging them with any provision for these children; in this state he died; and the family in question were left in a state of abject poverty. There were other instances of as crying a nature. The present measure was not an attempt to get rid of any legal institution, but rather to afford a remedy for an existing defect.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, he did not wish to provoke a debate, in the present stage of the bill; at the same time, he could not but feel surprised at the consequences 83 imputed to this measure, the object of which was to compel justice to be done, by obliging the rich debtor to pay the poor creditor. He denied that this bill would have any injurious effect upon the aristocracy; for no representative of an ancient family could be supposed to die without leaving assets sufficient to pay his debts. No innovation was hereby intended. Did the friends of the aristocracy mean to insinuate; that the landed proprietors alone should not pay their debts? And was there not as powerful an aristocracy in Scotland, although the English law, on this subject, had no place? He declared he knew various instances of landed proprietors availing themselves of the law, as it now stood, to cheat their creditors. He knew the owner of an estate worth £4000 a year, whose predecessor's funeral expences and apothecary's bill remained unpaid. Another, who left debts to the amount of £40,000, and not above 2s. 6d. in the pound had been paid, although the successor to the estate came into possession of £4000 a year. There were many small traders, who had been unable to pay their own debts, and some had been thrown into prison on that account, because they could not compel payment of debts, due to them by landed proprietors.—The report of the bill was then received without a division.