Lords Sitting of 16 April 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Army Service; Prisons (Ireland); Exchequer Bills; Troops during Elections.
2a Mutiny: Marine Mutiny; Indemnity.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Dissenters of Marlock, and several other places, against the proposed Government Plan of Education.—By the Earl of Auckland, from the Parish of All Saints, Poplar, against the Abolition of the Navigation Laws.—By Lord Brougham, from Glasgow, complaining of the Immigration of Irish Paupers.—From Liverpool and other places, complaining of the present State of the Law of Debtor and Creditor.—From Coventry and several other places, in favour of the proposed Government Plan of Education.—From Chepstow and Frome, for the Repeal of the Poor Removal Act.

ABOLITION OF IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
LORD BROUGHAMpresented petitions from the Guardian Society for the protection of trade in Dull, signed by the president and vice-presidents; and from similar societies in Liverpool and Preston, stating some grievances attendant upon the present condition of the laws relating to creditor and debtor, and praying for the application of a remedy. His Lordship proceeded to state that the Act passed in 1838, and the two Bills for which he had had the good fortune to obtain the sanction of their Lordships, and of the other House of Parliament in 1844 and 1845, for the abolition of arrest for debt, were all defective in one particular. They gave a power to arrest a debtor who was about to leave the country; but the only mode by which the warrant could be obtained was by application to one of the Judges at Westminster-hall, who might issue a fiat upon the affidavit of the applicant. Now, it was quite certain that the power ought to be lodged in the hands of some authority more generally accessible; and the petitioners prayed that it should be lodged locally in the hands of local judges, for, as the law stood, the applicants would have to come to London to apply to one of the Judges in chambers unless a Judge might happen to be on circuit in the neighbourhood. By the construction of the Act as it stood, after the party had been arrested and held to bail, he might make his affidavit totally, completely denying the whole circumstances on which the creditor's affidavit had been founded, and on which the ne exeat had been issued; and then, as in a case which had occurred, where a debtor in a spunging-house in Chancery-lane had made an affidavit, the Judge allowed another in reply to be put in, and after that again another in rejoinder, and so it might, go on.
LORD CAMPBELLwas understood to say, that heretofore there would have been great difficulty in finding suitable local hands in which such power could be placed; but now the judges of the new Small

869
Debts Courts, who were persons of great learning and ability, might be entrusted with it.

THE ARMY SERVICE BILL.
EARL GREYmoved the first reading of this Bill, which was agreed to. His Lordship then moved that it should be read a second time on Tuesday next.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the Bill was one which, although very much approved of by many, was likewise disapproved of by many officers of high standing in the Army. There was great doubt as to the utility and practicability of the measure, and such opinions had been expressed by high military authorities. He, therefore, thought that it would not be well to press the second reading of the Bill, when it ought to be discussed on its principle, within three days after its introduction into the House.
EARL GREYsaid, that it would be desirable that the discussion should take place as soon as possible. At the same time, he would not wish to press it on a particular day against the convenience of the noble Lord. But it would cause very serious inconvenience if not passed by that day week.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONthought that, as an alteration was proposed to be made in the Mutiny Act connected with the very objects of this Bill, it would be convenient that the discussion on both should take place simultaneously. If the second reading of this Bill was to be taken on Friday, the discussion on the main points of the Mutiny Bill ought to be taken on that day also.
LORD STANLEYobserved, that the Secretary at War, in bringing forward this measure, had given reasons why he had not proposed the change merely by the introduction of a clause in the Mutiny Act. This led to the belief that no alteration in that Act was intended; and now for the first time he (Lord Stanley) learned that provisions were introduced into the Mutiny Bill which required the decision of that House.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONbegged to state that the alteration referred to the schedule in the Mutiny Bill. He wished it to be observed, however, that the Mutiny Bill was, of course, only for this year, while the other Bill was proposed to be a permanent measure.
EARL GREYstated, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War had taken
870
credit to the Government, that the great change proposed was not effected, as it might have been, by merely introducing a clause into the annual Mutiny Bill; for if that had been done it would have thrown impediments in the way of the fair discussion of the principle of limited enlistment. His right hon. Friend had therefore introduced a distinct and permanent measure, which it was proposed to read a second time in that House on Monday week. It was a matter of importance, however, to make the schedule of the Mutiny Bill correspond with the measure now before the House. Therefore, as the Mutiny Bill stood for the present year, and for the present year only, it was as had been described. If, then, that House refused to pass the Army Service Bill, the Mutiny Bill could, on a future occasion, be returned to its former state. He could not conceive any objection to pass the Mutiny Bill as it stood, and the greatest inconvenience would occur if it were not passed without delay.
LORD STANLEYhoped that there would be no objection to print the present Mutiny Bill, so that they might see to what extent it differed from former Bills.
EARL GREYhad no objection.
House adjourned.