Lords Sitting of 22 March 1836

MINUTES
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, from the Debtors Confined in Whitecross-street Prison, for an Alteration in the Laws of Imprisonment for Debt.—By Lord SKELMERSDALE, from Dover, for the Repeal of the Additional Duty on Spirit Licences; from Ormskirk, for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.
ENTAILS (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of Roseberywished to call the attention of their Lordships for a few minutes to the present state of the law of Entails in Scotland, and he wished to ask whether any noble Lord intended to introduce a measure on the subject? When he intimated his intention formerly of not proceeding with a bill relative to this branch of the law, he expressed a hope that means might be found to remedy the defect, and that bills might be introduced more in accordance with the views and sentiments of those who did not approve of his measure. He was, however, sorry to state to their Lordships, that with reference to such a hope he had been altogether disappointed. He had not abandoned the question altogether; but whether he might he induced to bring in a bill to extend the powers now granted by the law of entail in Scotland, and to remove to a certain degree the restrictions which at present existed, would depend very much on the wishes of those who were immediately interested in the subject.

BANKRUPTCY, IRELAND.
Lord Plunket Lord Plunket laid on the table a bill to amend the law relating to bankruptcy in Ireland. The object of the measure was to assimilate the law of the two countries on this subject. He was anxious to extend to Ireland the principle of the improvements in the bankrupt law, which had been effected by the 6th of the late King, and by the 1st and 2d of his present Majesty. It was proposed to abolish the present Commissioners of bankruptcy in Ireland, of whom there were twenty-five, and to substitute one Commissioner only for the administration of this branch of the law. In making this alteration, there was not the most remote idea of casting any imputation on those gentlemen, who, he believed, had performed their duties faithfully. The proposition was made, because it would facilitate the objects which suitors had in view.
Bill read a first time.

ECCLESIASTICAL LEASES.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellspresented a petition from certain holders of ecclesiastical leases in the county of Somerset, against the Ecclesiastical Leases' Regulation Bill. They complained that their interests would be materially injured by the measure, and they prayed their Lordships not to pass it into a law. The petition was well worthy of their Lordships' serious consideration.
The Bishop of Gloucestersaid, this bill had emanated from the labours of the Church Commission, and was a measure of very great importance. When they were looking forward to measures of reform and improvement in the church, it was impossible that they could proceed without introducing some measure of this nature. The petitioners, it appeared, were holders of leases of ecclesiastical property granted for lives, and were apprehensive that their interest would be injured by this measure; but he did not know how such property would be destroyed or deteriorated by the remedy for certain abuses which was provided by this bill. The petitioners prayed, because they objected to one particular part of the bill, that the bill itself should not pass. Now, this appeared to him not to be very fair or reasonable. A multitude of petitions had been laid on their table, objecting to one part of the Ecclesiastical Courts Consolidation Bill, but the petitioners never thought of praying that their Lordships should reject the measure altogether. It would, therefore, appear that the petitioners had some particular

447
object in view when they called on their Lordships not to pass the bill. No wish existed, on the part of the Church Commission, that any improper restriction should be placed on the rights of lessors; and he would say, that those rights could not be affected in any manner whatever by this measure. If anything really objectionable could be pointed out in the bill, he was convinced that those who drew it would not be slow to remedy the defect.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellshad taken this opportunity to present the petition, because, if he did not present it now, he would be too late when the bill had gone through a Committee. He had also presented it, because he knew those from whom it came, and he was certain that they entertained no other object or motive save that which was set forth in the petition. The right rev. Prelate declared, that, in his opinion, the petitioners were justified in stating that the measure would be prejudicial to their interests.
Petition laid on the table.