Lords Sitting of 15 August 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time. On the Motion of Mr. Sergeant O'LOUGHLIN:—Insolvent Court (Ireland).—Read a third time. On the Motion of Mr. ROBERT STEWART:—Reform of Parliament (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Captain GORDON, from the Presbytery of Dornoch, against the Aberdeen Universities' Bill.

ORANGE LODGES IN THE ARMY.
Lord John Russell appeared at the Bar with his Majesty's most gracious answer to the Address of August 11th, with respect to Orange Lodges. It was as follows:—
"I have received your dutiful Address, submitting to me certain resolutions on the subject of Orange Lodges in the Army.
"My attention has been, and shall continue to be, directed to practices contrary to the regulations and injurious to the discipline of my troops.
"I owe it no less to the dignity of my Crown than to the safety of the country and the welfare of my brave and loyal army, to discourage and prevent any attempts to introduce secret societies into its ranks; and you may rely on my determination to adopt the most effectual means for that purpose."
Lord John Russell moved that this answer from his Majesty be entered on the journals of the House.
Agreed to nem. con.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
The Attorney-General moved the third reading of the abolition of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.
Mr. Freshfieldcomplained that the House had been taken by surprise on the present occasion, as the general opinion seemed to be that the Bill would not be pressed during the present Session. He felt himself now compelled to make a stand at this last stage of the measure. The Report of the Common Law Commissioners, upon which it was alleged the Bill was founded, by no means recommended so sweeping a measure, nor did the evidence taken before that Committee warrant it. He had already stated his decided objection to the details of the Bill, which was an attempt to limit improper credit, by doing away with the power of arrestment. This appeared to him likely to be very injurious
560
to the interests of the smaller debtors, who comprised by far the larger class, inasmuch as they were frequently compelled, from their narrow circumstances, to take credit. This view of the subject had been taken by their neighbours the Scotch operatives, who had presented various petitions, complaining that the effect of the measure would be to deprive them of that credit which was essential to their comfort and independence. He regretted that an opportunity had not been afforded of discussing in a full House the details of the Bill; but he should now take the liberty of pointing out what it was they were about to inflict upon the country. The early part of the Bill provides that judgment may be obtained by a creditor within eleven days, without any form of law; and ten days afterwards the debtor is to disclose any property he may be possessed of, which the creditor may take possession of. He implored the legal Gentlemen on the other side of the House not to do discredit to themselves and to the Legislature by passing an Act fraught with such injustice. Its principle was most tyrannical and most mischievous, and the worst of it was that the Court had the power of handing over all the property the debtor possessed, unless security for the debt and costs was given. This was a mode of dispensing with Trial by Jury, which he hoped the House would not sanction. The party had merely to swear to the debt, and not a scintilla of evidence was necessary to corroborate it. He would suggest, as an Amendment, that the plaintiff should be required to bring competent persons to prove that the debt was really due. Could it be believed that this affidavit of the petitioner was made to apply to all cases without any limit? It was made to apply equally to an ascertained well-founded debt upon a bond, or any debt, however doubtful or difficult to prove. He would make no observations upon the second clause of the Bill further than commending it to the attention of the House, feeling fully persuaded that if the House looked at it they would see it was an additional objection to the Bill. He would pass to that part of the Bill which, after giving effect to the judgment, stated the way in which it was to be enforced. Without any trial at law—without any intervention of a Jury—judgment is pronounced against the defendant; he is summoned to appear, not before the Court in which the judgment is pronounced, but before the Commissioners of the district; he must

561
go there at his own expense, and if he stays away he does so at the peril of being taken up by a warrant from the Commissioners, and to remain in custody till he has given a full account of all his property. There was another officer called into action—the trustee, who was not even declared to be an officer of the Court, and over whom no person had any control except the Commissioner, with whom he might be in collusion, and the debtor set at nought. He pointed out these Amendments, in order that he might record on the Journals of that House, and show to those who were interested in this question, that there were some persons in that House who saw the defects of this measure, and were anxious to remedy them. And, although he could not but expect that the majority which had passed this Bill would also throw out his Amendments, still he was resolved to press them, as he was determined this Bill should not go up to the other House without an attempt being made to amend it. One clause was made to apply to all property, present and future, yet the three following clauses purported to be provisions for the protection of property, after taking from the man all he possessed. Then the man was not to be discharged until he paid fifteen shillings in the pound, while he was deprived of the power of paying anything. He referred the Attorney-General to the 102nd Clause, which enacts all money under trust to be transferred to the assignees. [Mr. Hawes:—That clause is omitted.] He was glad of it; but it would be his duty to move amendments to prevent the transfer of property in trust. At present there were nearly 127,000 cases of insolvency, and a great deal of money had been recovered from persons who, subsequent to taking the benefit of the Act, had acquired property, by the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtor's Court, which very salutary power this Act would destroy. Further, there was no assurance that the Commissioners of that Court would not be turned adrift after having served the public many years. He thought that some compensation ought to be given to the Commissioners. It was true there was a compensation clause, but if it was of any value it would be the reverse of value to the Commissioners, as they were excluded. His learned Friend the Solicitor-General held up a paper which he trusted was a Bill upon the subject; but as the Attorney-General was silent on it he was afraid his hopes were ill founded.
The Attorney-Generalhad said before and he repeated it now, that he thought the Commissioners had an irresistible claim, if their services were not further required, to compensation.
Mr. Freshfieldtrusted the Attorney-General would not insist upon the clause which threw the onus upon the creditor of proving that he had reasonable cause to believe that his debtor was about to leave the country or lose his action. With these observations he would leave the Bill in the hands of the House. He believed there never was a more severe, arbitrary, and unjust measure introduced to that House. It gave a preference to one creditor over the others, and prevented a fair distribution of the property of the debtor. He should move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Mr. Hawessupported the third reading of the Bill. The time was come for altering, with a view to its improvement, the law of debtor and creditor, and he trusted that the House would now pass this measure. As the Bill gave creditors the fullest power over all the property of debtors, he should not be surprised to see it meet with opposition from gentlemen opposite, and more especially from individuals in another place.
Colonel Perceval-said, that neither Members on that side of the House, nor the Members on another House to which the hon. Member alluded, would oppose the giving any fair facility to creditors to recover their debts. They would, however, oppose the giving a power to creditors—a power fraught with injustice, fraud, and oppression. This Bill was fraught with cruelty and oppression, and was in his opinion levelled at the destruction of landed property. He would be sorry to compare the hon. and learned Gentleman to Fieschi, but he must say that this Bill, in some of its provisions, was a perfectly infernal machine. For instance, on a summons being issued by one of the Commissioners appointed under it, that Bill made it a good service if served at the residence of the person to whom it was directed, though he might be many hundred miles off, though he might be in Paris or many other places on the Continent; and if he did not answer that summons, the Bill empowered the Commissioners, in the short space of ten days, to send down a bailiff after him, to take him prisoner, if he did not give bail, and drag him up to town, to answer whatever insulting interrogatories the said Com-

563
missioners might choose to put to him with regard to his property. Then it was provided, that if in ten days more this debtor did not satisfy the debt, his property should go to the hammer. Could anything be more unjust or oppressive? Now, it was well known that it would often require twice twenty days and more to make good the title of a property really worth 50,000 l. or 60,000 l. in order to enable its proprietor to borrow 5,000 l. or 10.000 l. upon it. Was it not most unjust, that property under such circumstances should be capriciously exposed to public sale? The hon. Member complained of such an important measure being brought forward on a Saturday, when so many hon. Members, especially the learned Member for Exeter (Sir W. Follett), were unavoidably absent. Backed by a majority of that House, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would notwithstanding, press forward this measure, which he had often postponed in the course of the last Session, to allow Members of his party to bring forward factious measures. He would enter his protest against this Bill, as being grossly cruel and oppressive; and also upon the ground that it was brought forward at a time when it could not be properly discussed.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, that as the gallant Gentleman had discharged his infernal machine against the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he begged to say that he had no such blunderbuss to fire at him. He must say, however, that having had communications with practical men, with men extensively engaged in commerce, who had directed their attention to the provisions of this Bill, with an earnest desire to come to a conclusion in its favour, they still entertained, and he (Mr. Philips) concurred with them in entertaining, a decided objection to certain clauses of the Bill. He concurred with them in thinking that the credit of the country, that credit which was essential to business, would, if this Bill passed, be essentially affected. He would have been satisfied if the hon. and learned Attorney-General should have consented to send a Commission of two practical men into the manufacturing districts, to inquire into the effects which this measure would have upon the credit to which he had alluded, and which existed there so extensively. In such a case he would have had no hesitation in being governed by their decision. He would repeat, that the credit of the country might, be affected by this measure to a far
564
greater extent than was generally imagined. He trusted that the Bill, instead of coming into operation on the 1st of January next, would be postponed to June, 1836.
Mr. Peasesaid, that it was morally impossible to make the existing law of debtor and creditor worse than it stood, and that was one main reason for his approving of this measure. This Bill conferred one of the greatest boons that it was possible to give to the commercial community, by obviating legal obstructions which stood in the way of amicable arrangements between the parties. There were hundreds of cases where 9–10ths of the creditors were anxious to come to a fair compromise, when a similar disposition prevailed on the part of the debtor, and when the thing was prevented by one creditor, with the assistance of his legal adviser, in a manner ruinous to all parties.
Mr. Potterhad been requested by his constituents to express their desire that the Bill should be postponed till the next Session, in order to have the evidence of practical and commercial men taken upon it. He must object to the 131st Clause, which went to alter the law as it at present stood with regard to persons convicted of crim. con. and seduction, and who at present, the House was aware, could not relieve themselves from the damages awarded against them by going through the Insolvent Court.
The Attorney-Generalhoped that it would not be deemed disrespectful on his part towards those hon. Members who opposed the measure if, seeing that the Bill had been so frequently discussed, he should not now enter into any answer to the arguments which they had employed. No measure that ever had been introduced into that House had undergone more deliberation or a severer scrutiny; and many of the objections that had been raised against it were of a piece with that just stated by the hon. Member for Wigan, and derived their origin from an ignorance of the real provisions of the Bill. He begged to inform the hon. Member that the Bill did not at all alter the law as it stood with regard to persons imprisoned for damages in the cases he had mentioned. By that Bill he believed there would be afforded a speedy mode of obtaining judgment, and when obtained, a speedy mode of obtaining satisfaction. It was a Bill that he believed would afford justice both to creditor and debtor, and would be found beneficial to all classes of society.
Bill read a third time.

PRESERVATION OF THE PEACE (IRELAND).
Viscount Morpeth Viscount Morpeth moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Bill for the preservation of the Peace (Ireland).
Mr. Poulett Scropepursuant to the notice he had given, moved a Resolution to the effect, "that this House would not be justified in passing a measure to increase the severity of the law for the punishment of criminal outrages in Ireland, if it did not propose to take into consideration, at the earliest opportunity, measures for the removal of the leading causes of such crimes, by affording some protection to evicted tenants, some other resource than mendicancy or vagrancy to those who can find no market for their labour, and by securing to every Irishman the means of existence by honest and peaceful industry."
Viscount Morpethsaid, that at this advanced period of the Session it would be impossible to carry out the views of his hon. Friend; he hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend would consent to withdraw his Resolution, as he could assure him that it was the anxious wish of his Majesty's Government early nest Session to bring forward such remedial measures as they thought would meet the evils at present existing in that unfortunate country.
Mr. Poulett Scropewould be satisfied at this advanced period of the Session with entering his protest against this measure, unaccompanied as it was by the remedial measures pointed out by a Select Committee of the House five years ago. After what had fallen from his noble Friend, and having by proposing his Resolution entered his protest against the measure, his purpose was for the present answered, and he should not hesitate to withdraw it.
Bill read a third time and passed.