moved the re-commitment of the Insolvent Debtors' Bill.

rose to call the attention of the House to the Bill now before the House, and which had already reached nearly its last stage without producing one single animadversion. He deemed it his duty to state, that he thought it the most material invasion of the civil law of this country that had been brought forward in parliament for a long period. It was not an occasional act, but a permanent and general law, not only altering all the provisions which had before prevailed with respect to creditor and debtor, but investing a single judge with powers never before exercised in any court of English judicature. Among the penalties enacted was to be found the penalty of death; and the creation alone of another capital felony was a sufficient ground, in his judgment, for calling the attention of the House to the measure before them. He trusted, therefore, that his hon. and learned friend would have no objection to delay his motion for a few days, that an opportunity might be given to members to make themselves acquainted with the Bill.

answered, that he had frequently called the attention of the House to that Bill: he had repeatedly stated that it was entitled to their most serious consideration. It went to effect a most important alteration in the law of the land, and ought to be well weighed before it was adopted; this he had frequently repeated, and he was the more surprised at hearing the hon. and learned gentleman now ask for further time to consider the Bill. As to the amendment making the concealment of effects by the debtor a capital felony, it had been transcribed almost verbatim from the Bankrupt Act; he had, however, no objection to postpone the recommitment of the Bill.

objected to the Bill, as rendering that relief to debtors permanent which ought only to be temporary, and conferred at the discretion of the legislature.

said, he should be sorry if the further consideration of the Bill should be postponed to any period that might endanger the final success of the measure. It was most important, he thought, that this Bill should pass; and the unhappy persons for whose more immediate relief it was intended had had, in his opinion, their feelings cruelly trifled with, in finding that this Bill had already lingered two months in that House, and that at that moment no attention appeared to have been drawn towards it. Those members must have had their minds little occupied with the subject to which the Bill related, if they indeed imagined that the object of the Bill was temporary. The Bill in question had been for many years under consideration, had at length received the sanction of the highest law authorities, of the present Lord Chancellor, the present Chief Judge of the court of King's Bench, of the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and of the Master of the Rolls. It had passed the other House, and had lain on the table for the last two months. To him the objection of the hon. baronet appeared the strongest recommendation that could be urged in its favour. The Bill was certainly not temporary: it did not interfere to violate the contract between creditor and debtor: it did not, in defiance of the first principles of all law and justice, do that which nothing but the last necessity could justify, and which parliament was only compelled to do oc- casionally, because the prisons of the country could not receive the accumulating number of persons confined for debt. This was not an ex post facto law of any such description. The Bill was founded upon a principle familiar to the legislation of other countries, that of the cessio bonorum, by which a debtor on surrendering the whole of his property was permitted to retain and enjoy his personal liberty. A wise principle in his opinion it was; one that entitled a person who had been unfortunate, perhaps imprudent or criminal, to retrace his steps, to new model his conduct and become an useful member of society, instead of shutting him up from the exercise of industry, and exposing him to the moral contagion of a prison. He did not approve of all the provisions, but he congratulated the House upon the general principle of the measure, sanctioned as it had been by those eminent and distinguished law authorities by whom it had been prepared. The Bill was undoubtedly a very considerable innovation, and perfection was not to be expected in the first instance. The clause inflicting the capital punishment of death ought not to have been introduced precipitately in a Committee of that House, thus evading some of the forms to which the main body of the Bill was subjected. If it were consistent with the practice of the House he should move, on the re-commitment of the Bill, for the omission of that clause. Here was a practical proof of the facility with which a law for depriving a subject of his life might pass unobserved, whilst any effort at repealing a capital punishment was sure to meet with strenuous opposition. By the law as it stood at present the offence made capital by this clause might be prosecuted as perjury, and the offender suffer transportation. As to what had been said by the hon. and learned gentleman of this provision being copied from certain clauses in the Bankrupt Laws, he wished to observe that this was precisely the law which from its excessive severity was never carried into execution. Since the first enactment of the capital part of the Bankrupt Law in the reign of George 2, not more than five individuals had suffered the penalty which he was quite satisfied more than five thousand had incurred. However gross the frauds of the bankrupt, few creditors would choose to extend the punishment of them to death. The Bill before the House had been called an innovation. It was undoubtedly so, but it proceeded from those who were pretty generally the decided enemies of innovation, and came therefore with a double claim upon the attention and deference of that House.

said, that the effect of recommitting the Bill, was to undo all that had been done in the Committee, and to leave the measure open to any alteration or addition which might be proposed.

supported the Bill.

explained that he had only described the Bill to be a most material alteration of the law, without saying that it was either for the better or the worse.

The Bill was then ordered to be recommitted on this day se'nnight.

moved the order of the day for taking into further consideration the Report of the Bill for regulating the office of Registrar of the Admiralty.

though he had hitherto supported this measure as one of general regulation, and though he admitted that looking forward to the persons who might hereafter fill the office of Registrar of the Admiralty, the balance in hand would be better deposited in the Bank than in the care of any individual; yet in the present instance, considering the property and personal character of lord Arden, he thought it could not be denied, that every security was afforded which the suitors themselves could desire, and therefore in his opinion it would be a monstrous exercise of the power of parliament to push the present enactment against that individual. He then moved a clause, providing that the regulations contained in the Bill should not take effect till after the expiration of the interest at present vested in the office.

said, if this clause were to be accepted, he thought it would be better not to proceed farther with the Bill. He thought the public very much indebted to his hon. and learned friend, for having introduced the Bill, which was unquestionably much wanted. He would put an extreme case, which, however, might happen. Suppose the Registrar should become a bankrupt, the suitors would certainly lose all the money in his hands. He must, therefore, object to the clause, as it would render the Bill wholly nugatory.

said, that in his opinion the Registrar made use of the suitors' money for his own benefit, contrary to law. He would oppose the clause, because if it was adopted by the House, it would not only defeat the intention of the Bill during the lifetime of lord Arden, but introduce a precedent for the continuance of this abuse in future possessors of the office. He would, therefore, vote against the Bill itself, rather than sanction such an illegal use of the suitors' money. He was as anxious as the noble lord could be for protecting vested interests, but would never sanction a Bill which went to perpetuate vested abuses, which the present clause would do, by giving a sanction to this unwarrantable use of the suitors' money, by the person holding the office of Registrar.

explained, that by his patent, lord Arden was banker to the court of Admiralty, and, of course, had a right to make use of the money.

expressed his surprise, that on a question of such immense importance none of the crown lawyers had given their opinion, whether these sums of money belonging to the suiturs of the court had or had not been legally used. He did not believe any lawyer, who had a regard for his character as a professional man, would declare that such use of the suitors' money by the Registrar was legal. The House was therefore left in a shameful state of doubt, to determine so weighty a question merely on their own private and individual judgment. For his own part, he had no hesitation to declare, that in his opinion this use of the suitors' money was altogether illegal; and if this clause should be allowed to pass, he would consider it a point of duty to vote against the Bill, and would positively divide the House upon it: because this Bill, with this clause, would directly sanction the very abuse which its end and aim was to do away. In the case of lord Melville, the use of the public money for his own private use was deemed illegal by the universal opinion of the House, and the only question of doubt was, whether a civil information could be filed against him by the Attorney General. One of the articles of impeachment against lord Macclesfield, also, was making use of the public money for his own private advantage: it was a distinct article of impeachment against him, that he had countenanced Masters in Chancery in using the suitors' money for their own private inte- rest. After that transaction, a law passed, to appoint the office of Accountant General, to take this money out of the hands of the Masters in Chancery. He saw no reason why the House should be less attentive to the interests of the public now, than it was at that period. When this matter was first mentioned in the House, his right hon. and lamented friend, now no more (Mr. Perceval), declared with great warmth that lord Arden had never used the suitors' money, which very warmth was a strong proof that he deemed it to be illegal: but he was afterwards, from, his inherent candour and justice, obliged to allow that he had been mistaken in the fact, and that the money of the suitors of the court had been so used. Many suitors did not choose to take their money out of the court, because, from the fluctuation of the funds, they were fearful of trusting to their own judgment, and in the court they believed it to be safe. Should it then be said, that if they did not choose to adventure their money, on account of the fluctuation of the funds, that the Registrar of the Admiralty should, therefore, venture it for them, and make interest of that which they supposed was safely lodged in the court. He thought the using this money by the Registrar wholly illegal, and as such would vote against the clause.

was surprised that any charge of illegality should have been made against the receipt of the profits attached to the office of Registrar of the Admiralty. His noble friend (lord Castlereagh) had introduced a clause, to protect the existing rights of a person having an interest in the office of Registrar; the emoluments of which office he is stated to have always enjoyed. This was a sufficient answer to the question of legality, put by his learned friend who spoke last, and at once shewed that those emoluments were legal. What was the fact of the case? It was merely this, the Registrar was the banker of the court, at his own personal risk—and that, too, in consequence of the conduct of the persons interested; because there were many acts of parliament by which a party might, if he pleased, demand his own money, and have it vested in the public funds. From various causes, however, it was left in his possession, and it could not surely be considered a principle of law, that the officer having placed it at interest for his own benefit, being responsible for the capital, was guilty of an illegal act. The crime al- leged against lord Melville was entirely different from this act of the Registrar. He was impeached for the violation of an express act of parliament, which was supported, if not originally introduced, by him. Under that impeachment he was, however acquitted, (contrary to the feeling of that House); because it was considered that the case did not come within the provisions of the statute. And it was not a little remarkable, that it was alleged against his lordship at the time, as a circumstance aggravatory of his offence, that an increased salary had been given to him, on condition that he should pay over to the Bank certain sums of money, which, prior to the regulation, had been placed out to interest for his own benefit. This proved that such a proceeding had been recognised, and he therefore hoped his hon. and learned friend would not speak in so high a tone on the subject of legality. The very reason of the thing was in favour of the practice in the present instance; for, if an individual were compelled, by the suitors themselves, to take charge of their money, under all risks, was it unjust that he should, by making use of the interest of it, indemnify himself from hazard? In the impeachment of lord Macclesfield, the charge of conniving at the conduct of the Masters in Chancery, in making use of the suitors' money, was only thrown in as a make-weight. But the hon. and learned gentleman must be aware, that the real accusation against him, and for which he was justly punished, was the selling the office of Master. In that case, too, it appeared, that many persons were ruined by the conduct of those Masters, by whom their property was dilapidated. But was there any point like this in the case now under consideration? Was there a single breath of censure directed against the conduct of the nobleman who filled the office? No complaint whatever existed, except that he laid the money out in government securities, instead of letting it lie dead in the Bank. Not an instance could be adduced where the money was not forthcoming the moment a suitor demanded it. In conclusion the hon. and learned gentleman observed, that, if the Bill were passed without the clause which had been proposed, it would be breaking in on a vested office, a species of property which he considered no less sacred than a freehold estate, and thereby be the means of invading one of the most sacred rights of the subject. He consi- dered that any interference with the Registrar's investing the suitors' money, under existing circumstances, would abridge his rights. It was illegal, unconstitutional, contrary to sound and honest principles, and, therefore, an act they had no right to do.

explained, contending that the hon. and learned gentleman had mistaken his allusion to the case of lord Melville.

agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman that the question simply was, whether the money should be dead in the Bank, or fructify for the benefit of the Registrar of the Admiralty? What was the nature of the office? It was one, by virtue of which the person executing its functions was entrusted with the money of the suitors—not only the property of persons in this country, but of foreigners. Now, was it right that those sums should be appropriated to the benefit of the individual holding the office? He contended that it was not; and, therefore, he opposed the clause, which could lead to no good; but, by giving the sanction of parliament to such a principle, might produce much injury. He deprecated any allusion to the person who now filled the office, which might tend to bias the judgment of the House. The question was not who lord Arden was, or whether he was more or less trust-worthy: no, the point for discussion was, whether the money of the suitors should be placed beyond all hazard, until the law decided to whom it belonged, and when it should be paid. It was not a question of person, but of principle. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that they had no right to interfere with this office: but, he would ask, how many were the public offices with which they had interfered? He denied the inference drawn by the hon. and learned gentleman from the circumstance of an increase of salary having been granted to lord Melville. His salary, it was true, was augmented—and why? Because the increased duties of the office called for an increased compensation. He was decidedly hostile to the clause; and he considered it better that the public should forego any benefit which might be derived from the regulation of the office, as originally intended by the Bill, rather than parliament should sanction such a principle as that involved in the noble lord's proposition.

observed, that there was nothing in the case of lord Macclesfield which applied to the present question. In the former, facts of great atrocity were substantiated; but, in the present, the question related to a person, whose name, character, and fortune, were long before the public. The Registrar, as the office at present stood, not only ran the risk, consequent on his custody of the money, but also secured the suitors from risk. A suitor, for instance, would say, "I have a certain sum of money pending a cause in the court of Admiralty, and I do not wish to run the risk of placing it in the funds, where it may be endangered by the fluctuation of the government securities." It was, therefore, left in the custody of the Registrar, who became accountable for it. And unless the House contemplated the insolvency of the noble lord, who now filled the situation, it must be admitted that he freed the suitors from the risk attendant on any fluctuation in the funds. In supporting the clause introduced by the noble lord, he gave no opinion as to the legality or illegality of putting out the suitors' money at interest; but he contended, they had no right to take from an individual a profit which he had always enjoyed. They should, in his opinion, grant every indulgence to the individual now holding the situation as long as he continued it.

denied that the present Registrar of the Admiralty had always received those emoluments, and he denied it on the evidence of lord Arden himself. By referring to the twenty-seventh Report of the Finance Committee, it would be found, that in the year 1798, when the return to the committee was made, the only emolument attached to the office was the fees. He did think that the case of the Masters in Chancery, connected with the impeachment of lord Macclesfield, bore directly on the question under consideration. When a regulation of the situation of Master took place, in consequence of that impeachment, was any recompence made to the eight solvent Masters? Certainly not. A general regulation of the office took place; which extended to those against whom there was complaint, as well as to those against whom there was none—it was the principle which was levelled at. It was also particularly worthy of observation, that lord Macclesfield denied his having granted permission to any of the Masters to make use of the suitors' money, as they had done; the inference from which was, that be considered such a use of it, for individual advantage, as illegal. And he thought he did not go too far in saying, that any officer procuring emoluments in a similar manner, namely, by using suitors' money for his own benefit, was doing that which he had no right to do. The case of lord Macclesfield, he conceived, afforded him an authority, to quote against the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Stephen) who had observed that the onus lay with those who supported the Bill, to prove, that the profits made by the Registrar were not legal. He could also refer to the case of Churchill, tried before lord Alvanly, in which the court sanctioned, by their opinion, the principle, that if parliament could point out a specific sum, applied by any public officer to his own benefit, in the way of interest, he might make such officer accountable for the profit so derived. And, grounding himself on this authority, he had no doubt, that if the use of any particular sum could be traced to lord Arden, he might be made responsible for its produce. If that were the case, what became of those legal rights which had been so much spoken of? But the fallacy of contending for such a right was still more evident, when it was known, that the judge of the Admiralty Court, if he pleased, might order, by the authority vested in him, all the suitors' money to be placed in the Bank of England. It should also be recollected, that the person filling this office gave no security. This being the case, was it proper that the House should legislate on personal respect? If they admitted such a principle, the time, perhaps, was not far distant, when they would legislate from feelings of dislike and prejudice. He had but one other observation to make, and that was, his perfect conviction, that the principle of the Bill would be entirely, defeated, if the clause proposed were annexed to it.

with some difficulty obtained a hearing, and declared that he had many times wavered about, undetermined on which side of the question he should vote; at one time he was convinced that the clause was proper, at another be was as firmly persuaded of its unfitness. Upon the whole, however, he was inclined to think that lord Castlereagh was in the right, and should give him his support. He sat sometimes on one side of the House, and sometimes on another; but take which side he would, he did not feel that he made a part of the House, and should therefore make his vote as little stationary as his person.

The House divided. For the Clause proposed by lord Castlereagh, 80. Against it, 14. Majority 66.

proposed several alterations, some merely verbal, and others affecting the principle of the Bill itself. Among the latter was one that continued to inferior ecclesiastical courts the power of excommunication, in consequence of the difficulty which he had found in accommodating that part as it originally stood, to all the variety of local circumstances throughout the kingdom.

said, he had contemplated the extension of the provisions of the Bill to Ireland, and had intended to propose a clause for that purpose, but having learned that the member for Armagh had a separate measure calculated for that country under his consideration, he had dropped his design under the impression that the hon. member would bring forward his projected Bill either in the present session of parliament or early in the succeeding.

thought the Bill was to be so altered as to deprive it of its chief value, in his estimation, that which went to remedy the serious evils attendant upon the power of excommunication in inferior courts. He wished the difficulties experienced by the right hon. and learned member were distinctly communicated to the Committee. With respect to the intended Bill for Ireland, he had had a conversation with the hon. member for Armagh upon that very subject; and he knew it was his intention to bring in a Bill precisely similar to the one as originally framed by the right hon. and learned gentleman. But he did not know whether he would adopt the alterations now proposed in the Bill before them. And with regard to that Bill, he wished it had gone much further than it did. He could see no good reason, for instance, why spiritual courts should take any cognizance in matters of defamation; why, for slanderous expressions spoken in one case, the remedy was in civil courts, and in another in spiritual courts. He knew that great abuses existed in this part of their jurisdiction. He concluded by repeating his disappointment at the alteration in the Bill relating to excommunication.

regretted that he should cause the disappointment of the hon. and learned member, but he was compelled to do so from information he had received from different parts of the country. For instance, in the dioceses of Exeter, York, and Chester, much of the ecclesiastical business was performed by the instrumentality of the subordinate courts. He had deliberately weighed the subject, and was convinced that the greatest inconvenience would result from retaining the clauses of the Bill as they now stood; he acted from an overwhelming necessity, and he really did not think it worth while to incur so much practical inconvenience as would certainly ensue.—The amendments and alterations were then agreed to.