§ Mr. Humesaid, that he had, last, session, submitted to the House several motions on the subject of the Law of Arrest. In consequence of the magnitude of the evil which arose to individuals by their being deprived of their liberty for debt, he had then submitted two bills, for the purpose of doing away with arrest altogether, and giving to the creditor a claim on the property of the debtor. He had not founded those bills on any vague or theoretical idea, as had been insinuated, but on the custom and practice that had existed for centuries in Scotland and in other countries; where, so far from any danger or inconvenience having arisen from such a course, it had been found to produce a most beneficial effect. The result had proved, that there was much more of debt recovered in Scotland than in England, from those who were insolvent: he believed 126 he might say, that the proportion was as great as ten to one. The creditor there had no power to arrest his debtor, until a verdict had been obtained before a judge, and until the debt had been proved to be due. In England, on the contrary, a person of the worst character was allowed to depose to a debt on oath, against any individual whom he might think proper to select, with the exception of members of parliament and peers. Every man, he thought, must be anxious to put down a species of oppression, which placed a power in hands where it had been so much abused. The practice in England, in many respects, was very contradictory. Men were roused in an instant if a justice of peace, by mistake, or for trespass, imprisoned a man, if it were only for a few hours. The daily press, as it ought to do, instantly raised an outcry against the offender, holding him up to public notice; yet, all this time, thousands were deprived of their liberty, and thrown into prison, without any inquiry. He therefore said, that the whole system of mesne process, as it was called, was most harassing, and that it was a blot on the country. The subject ought to be protected against such a grievous hardship; and as payment could not be obtained by confining the body within the bare walls of a prison, recourse should be had to the effects of the debtor. Acts of the greatest cruelty and injustice were constantly committed in consequence of this law. Thousands of individuals were yearly arrested; some out of spite; others from having had a quarrel with their creditor; and all without the least inquiry, as to the character of the individual upon whose simple oath they were committed, first into the hands of a sheriff's officer, and then to the cells of a prison. In Scotland, such could not take place; and even in some of the English colonies abroad, no such proceeding was recognised. In Canada, a man could not be arrested, unless a magistrate was satisfied on oath that he was about to leave the country, and then he was only called on to give security that he would not leave the country. In France, Spain, Holland, and most of the continental states, the laws were more favourable for the debtor, and generally counteracted the malice or revenge of the creditor. Last session he had proposed a remedy, which was objected to by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, now absent from the 127 House. His object was to lay before the country the evils produced by the present system. The hon. member then proceeded to read, from the returns upon the table of the House, the number of persons then confined in the different prisons, and contended, that it was clear from those returns, that arrests effected any thing but the proposed end; namely, the payment of debts. It was absurd to suppose that confining a man within the walls of a prison was the way to make him pay his debts. On the contrary, it prevented all possibility of his doing so, because it precluded all possibility of his exercising the calling by which he had been accustomed to gain a livelihood. A glaring instance of the folly of this proceeding was the case of Mr. Haydon, the artist, who was prevented by imprisonment from exercising his profession, for whom a subscription was entered into, and who, at a public meeting, had showed how short-sighted were the persons who had placed him in such a situation. He thought the subject, in every point of view, so important, that, should it not be included in the motion which his learned friend, the member for Winchelsea, was to bring forward to-morrow, he would move for a select committee to inquire into it. He would now move, "That there be laid before the House, a Return of the number of Prisoners committed to the King's Bench, Fleet, Whitecross-street, Marshalsea, and Horsemonger-lane Prisons, in 1827; distinguishing those in custody under Mesne Process, or under Judgments Recovered, or for Costs of Suits; stating how many for sums above 100l., between 50l. and 100l., between 50l. and 20l., and sums under 20l. (excluding Crown Debtors); stating also the number in custody in each of those Prisons on 1st January, 1828." Also, "A Return of the number of Warrants granted to arrest for Debt by the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, and by the Sheriff of Surrey, and the number of Bailable Processes executed by them in the year 1827."—Ordered.