§ Sir S. Romillyrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to make the freehold estates of persons dying indebted, liable for the payment of simple contract debts. He believed there would be no opposition to the leave for bringing in the Bill; but as the subject was new to the present parliament, he would state shortly the substance of his measure. By our law, the non-payment of debt was visited with great severity. Unlimited imprisonment was the punishment which the law inflicted on persons unable to pay their debts, whether the individuals were in fault or not. Some relaxation had lately been introduced by a most beneficial Act; but still, under certain circumstances, a person might be imprisoned for life; and thus a man in a state of bankruptcy, was punished as severely as if he had committed a capital offence. But while the law was thus severe against the persons of debtors unable to discharge their debts, what seemed very inconsistent, the property of a debtor might, without any difficulty, be subtracted from his creditors. A man might owe debts to any amount, and leave a considerable property behind him at his death to his heir, with his debts unpaid; and the law would suffer the heir to enjoy the property and to revel in all the luxuries of life; while those very persons whose credulity, perhaps, contributed to the acquisition of that property, might be sent to prison for want of power to recover their debts, and see their wives and children doomed to a workhouse.—It was this anomaly in the law which he now proposed to remedy. Till the Statute of Frauds parsed in the time of king William, even special debts could not be made good against devises; and it was to be regretted, that the alterations introduced at that time were not carried somewhat farther. It sometimes happened, that men who had contracted debts, and who had purchased freehold estates, from an unjustifiable kindness to their relations, and for the very purpose of preventing a commission of bankruptcy being taken out against them, had put an end to their existence—These 398 were cases of such injustice, and calling so loudly for remedy, that he wondered any objection could be made to the Bill, though he knew that objections would be made to the measure in a future stage. The objections which had formerly been made were now, in a great many instances, completely removed. It was now seven years since he had proposed to the House a measure exactly similar to the present.—It was brought forward under some advantages which the present would want; for he was then his Majesty's solicitor-general, and the Bill had the countenance of the government; though, before it was disposed of, the countenance of the government was of no great importance. It had been formerly said, that the Bill, if passed into a law, would be attended with great difficulty in the execution, and would lead to endless litigation and expence. But this objection had been since proved by experience to be unfounded. For though the House did not then adopt the measure when it was suggested, they adopted another with little or no opposition, for subjecting the freehold estates of persons engaged in trade to the payment of their debts. Now it so happened, that almost all the objections applied as much to traders as to those who were not traders. With respect to litigation, to expence, and to innovation on the ancient doctrine of the law, the objections were as applicable in the case of traders as in the case of others; and he would undertake to say, that this law had not been attended with the smallest difficulty in the execution. The smallest difficulty of construction had not been experienced. Instances had occurred where estates of 200,000l. of freehold property, belonging to one house, had been attached, and where the debts would not have been paid if it had not been for that Act. There was one remarkable case, where the Act had not directly, but indirectly been the means of subjecting a large estate to the payment of debts. Sir Roger Kerrison, a banker, in Norwich, was engaged in business under the firm of himself and son; and he had issued notes to the extent of 600,000l. At his death, he left little or no personal property but real property to the extent of 500,000l.; and had not that been made liable, not one of his debts would have been paid. The Act in question, however, did not operate directly; as it happened that the son's name, though he had not interfered in the business, was in the firm; 399 and sir Roger dying intestate, the property devolved to this son. Several gentleman in the House knew very well the case to which he alluded. It had also been said, that the measure would weaken the aristocracy of the country. It appeared astonishing to him that such an objection should ever have been made. He was utterly at a loss to see how the rank of any body of men could be supported, by allowing them a liberty of committing injustice, and the power of injuring the lower orders of society with impunity. Another objection seemed to him equally groundless:—It was said, that such a law would facilitate the means of contracting debts in the case of young men recently come to their estates. It seemed to him quite improbable, to suppose that tradesmen, in furnishing goods to persons of this description, looked forward to the demise of the debtors. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with moving for leave to bring in a Bill for subjecting the freehold estates of persons dying indebted, to the payment of their simple contract debts. Leave was given accordingly.