rose to move for "leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act of the 3rd of William and Mary, chap. 14th, for the Relief of Creditors against Fraudulent Devises, and a similar Act of the 4th of Anne, relative to Ireland." The hon. and learned gentleman went into an historical review of the law of Devises, from the enactment of the law called Statute Merchant, passed in the reign of Edward 1st, for the assurance of debts, which he observed proceeded on the basis of the old law of that day, evidently founded on the still older system of the feudal law. That law had been framed with reference to the exigences of the times, and like most laws thus judiciously framed, it had, either by the ingenuity of the judges, or the consent of the people generally, been accommodated to the improved state of society, and generally acted on since. By this law, an attempt had been made to render the property of the higher orders extra-commercial; which, in effect, proved a public benefit to the community. At that period the existence of a great public debt was unknown in this country, spreading itself over a large portion of the property of the community, and the enactment he contemplated would have been almost needless. Since that period, the state of society and of property had materially changed; and this change had produced an impression on his mind, that it would be wise to extend the statute of king-Edward, for the assurance of debts, which now only affected landed property, to property in the funds; for why should a man who was possessed of large property in the funds, be allowed, as he was at present, to live in prison, rioting and wasting that property in defiance of his creditors, and defeating the intentions of the legislature? The object of this bill was, to render the property of any man dying in the possession of a large sum of money or funded property, liable to the payment of that person's debts, though in the hands or possession of the heir or a devisee. Our law knew of but two sorts of debts—specialty debts, and debts on simple contract. Estates descending to the heir were bound by specialty debts; but in case of a devise to a stranger, if the party possessed himself of the property under the devise, and spent it before this action was brought by the testator's creditor, no remedy remained for the creditor, as in the case of an heir similarly circumstanced. And this, because the former took by devise and not as heir. In order to amend the law in this respect, the act of the 3rd of William and Mary was passed. The bill he should propose to introduce would be framed so as to give, in these cases, the same remedy and assurance for debt against the devisee as against the heir at law. The act introduced by that eminent and justly-esteemed lawyer, sir Samuel Romilly, had totally failed of its effects. He was bound to state his own sentiments upon the subject, and he would venture to assert, that a more mischievous measure had seldom been introduced, for altering the practice of the court of Chancery in equity cases. By the 47th of the late king, facility was given to obtain execution, in cases of the decease of debtors possessed of real property. By that law, if a man died a bankrupt his simple contract debts could be recovered out of his real estate. The measure introduced by sir Samuel Romilly tended to increase the costs of the court of Chancery; as otherwise it would be impossible to proceed under it. But when a person did so proceed, he was stopped at the very threshold by an inquiry, as to whether the deceased was or was not a trader; which inquiry had the effect of still further increasing the expenses. It was a singular fact, that the law of the present day stood precisely as it did in feudal times, with respect to infant heirs. The guardian now, as then, received the produce of the lands, and might be looked upon as the owner of the ward and lands, until the infant became of age; and in case of an action being brought against a minor, he was allowed to plead his non-age in stay of the action; so that a creditor in such a case might be deprived of all remedy for twenty years. His object was, to remedy the evil by taking away this shield, and thereby prevent the delay and expense which took place in the suits of creditors. Another point upon which he proposed to make an alteration, which he considered of great importance, and which, if adopted, might be looked upon only as a preparatory step to a still greater and more important alteration in this branch of the law, went to enable the infant to consent to a sale for the payment of creditors, instead of pleading his non-age. As the case now stood, a court of Equity would sell an estate in cases where the infant was under twenty-one years of age; but after a man had paid his money, they refused to make a conveyance of the property, alleging that they had no power to do so until the minor came of age. The purchaser might remonstrate against the injustice of paying his money to the creditors of the property, without securing to him a proper title to it, but without effect; the bargain was made, and he must wait for years until the minor became of age. There was one case, where a purchaser who had been so treated by a court of Equity, sold again to a second purchaser; who, however, refused to fulfil the bargain, unless a proper conveyance was made to him. "Oh, but" said the first purchaser, "I'll make you fulfil it; I purchased from a court of Equity in a similar way but could receive no conveyance." The case went into Chancery, and what did the then lord chancellor do? He decided that the second sale was defective, inasmuch as the first purchaser had not obtained a good title to the property; so that the unfortunate first purchaser had his money divided amongst the creditors of the estate, while he was left not only without a conveyance, but was also saddled with the additional expenses of his application. The clause which it was his intention to introduce would allow the infant to make a conveyance at once: in short, his object was so to alter the general law upon this subject, as to give every facility to the recovery of the debts owing by persons dying possessed of landed property. This he proposed to do, by at once simplifying and consolidating the other acts, which as they now stood, were couched in difficult phraseology, and not easily understood. It had been stated on a former occasion, that he was an enemy to all reform in the court of Chancery. Those who entertained this opinion, laboured under a great mistake. No man was more anxious than himself, to do away with the complex and surplus forms of those laws, which, taken as a whole, he looked upon as the best by which any country was governed. He admitted that there existed anomalies which ought to be removed. He looked at the substance and at the forms of those laws, and where these forms were intricate, or unnecessary and useless, he was anxious that they should be removed. He hoped the motion he was now about to make would be taken as an humble pledge of his sincerity upon this point. When allusion was made to the appointment of a commission on this subject, it was hinted that he was likely to be appointed one of its members and to have a certain control over it. He was decidedly opposed to any such appointment, and was not to form any part of such commission. But it was objected, that gentlemen of the profession ought not to be appointed members of that commission, because they were prejudiced in favour of existing forms; but if they were not to appoint such men, were they to select unlearned men; men unacquainted with the evils which existed, and the remedies which ought to be applied? The learned member concluded by moving "for leave to bring in a Bill for further facilitating the Payment of Debts out of Real Estates."

supported the motion, and expressed a hope that the learned member would obtain, as he deserved, the thanks of the country for his exertions to amend the law in this respect.

said, he congratulated the learned gentleman upon the course he had taken upon this occasion, as he, for one, had set the learned member down as an opponent of all reform in the court of Chancery. If the hon. member acted up to his statements of that evening, he would effect all that was desired by those most anxious to reform the abuses of that court. He thought that the estates of a debtor, dying possessed of landed property, ought to be made available to the payment of his debts, as well as personal property.

said, that his opposition to the bill was solely with a view to induce the House to assimilate the bill to the law of England. Great inconvenience was felt in this country from the permission allowed to foreigners of gaining a settlement here in a year, or he believed in less time; while in Scotland, even according to the present law, a settlement could not be made under three years. It was now attempted to extend the period to seven years; a change which would have the effect of relieving Scotland at the expense of England, from the multitudes who daily came over from Ireland. But overlooking that circumstance, he could not see any reason for such a difference as the bill was intended to make between the two countries.

thought it would be very difficult to assimilate the laws of England and Scotland in this respect, while there existed so great a difference between their laws in other respects. He bore testimony to the good conduct of the poor Irish who emigrated, and some of whom settled in Scotland, but represented their multitudes as most alarming. It was a mistake to suppose that they had not poor-laws in Scotland. They had, but the people were too independent in mind to depend upon those laws. The present facility of gaining a settlement in Scotland would burthen it beyond its capability.

said, that the present bill was anxiously desired by the people of Scotland, under an apprehension that, without it, that country could not bear the burthen imposed on it by the emigrations from Ireland; especially as in Ireland they had no reciprocal provision for their poor.

said, that though the effect of this measure would be one which he must regret as far as England was concerned, it could not fail to be of considerable advantage to Scotland. The object of the bill was to keep the poor Irish out of Scotland; but he feared the effect of it would be to make them come in greater numbers into this country; and if Scotland was exempted from the consequences of that evil, and England was more exposed to its influence, hon. gentlemen must not wonder that the English representatives should show some jealousy as to its success. The bill seemed scarcely to place England and Scotland on a fair footing; since it went to free the former from an evil which would only fall the heavier upon the latter.

did not consider it fair to object to a law on the ground that, though it was a good law in itself, the people of Scotland ought not to have it, because the people of England had a bad law upon the same subject. He thought the people of England were called upon to protect themselves against the additional pressure which the influx of the Irish poor flung upon their poor-rates, if no measure were adopted for their relief in Ireland. He was not, however, one of those who conceived that the emigration of the labouring population of Ireland into England was hostile to the interests of England. As long as labour was wanted, the English land-holder was glad to receive the Irish labourer, because his appearance in the market diminished the rate of wages: now that labour was superabundant, he changed his tone, and called for a protection against his becoming a burthen upon the poor-rates, before he had resided three years in the country. He thought that some protection was necessary for the people of England; at the same time he hoped that those who intended to oppose this measure would not object to it, because it was calculated to do good to Scotland. He would say to the people of England, "Get a similar measure for yourselves; and do not deprive us of the means which we have devised for benefitting ourselves."

said, that though he supported this bill, he did not object to the introduction of Irish labourers into either England or Scotland, on the score of the reduction which it produced in the rate of wages. It might be an evil; but he did not know how to prevent it, unless they prevented all intercourse between the three countries. The times were bad now, but it was not unreasonable to hope that they would be better soon. It was intended to prevent any future burthen from being imposed on Scotland, in the shape of poor-rates. The Scotch had no means of preventing the Irish labourer from settling among them; neither did he wish that they had. What he wished was, to prevent the Irish labourer from obtaining any settlement in Scotland without a previous residence of three years or more within it. In Scotland, the people wanted no support for their poor, either from England or Ireland: all they wanted was, that each country should support its own poor. How that consummation was to be brought about, was another question; but he thought it unjust that England and Scotland should be called upon to provide for the poor of Ireland, merely because Ireland would not provide for them herself.

said, it must have been observed by the House, that almost every gentleman who admitted the benefit which had accrued to England and Scotland from the introduction of Irish labourers into those countries, had lamented over the increased introduction of them within the last few years. But in their lamentations over the introduction of the poor, they had entirely forgotten the introduction of another class; he meant the rich landed proprietors of Ireland. They were anxious to prevent the emigration of the poor from Ireland; but they said nothing about remitting back to Ireland the absentee proprietors; whose rents, however, they sought to diminish by the imposition of poor-rates. He was not exaggerating when he said, that a sum of three millions was annually drawn from Ireland by its absentee landlords; and that that sum was expended in giving employment to the artisans of England, and was therefore withdrawn entirely from any employment which might produce benefit to the pauper population of Ireland. To the introduction of the rich Irish landlord into England, no gentleman had yet made any objection; but many appeared astounded at hearing that the withdrawal of the rich land-holder from Ireland had brought pauperism on its inhabitants, and an influx of Irish poor on the neighbouring countries. He would not urge the objections which he felt to the establishment of a system of poor-laws in Ireland, until some person declared himself ready to point out to him a mode, by which a fair administration of the money levied as poor-rates could be ensured in that country. There were whole districts in Ireland, where, if rates were to be levied for the relief of the poor, it would be impossible to discover individuals who would administer them in such a manner as to give the poor the full benefit of them. He would appeal to the members of the committee appointed a few years ago in the city of London, to distribute the contributions of the charitable among the distressed peasantry of Ireland, whether they did not repeatedly, in the course of their inquiries, find themselves at a loss to discover proper persons in Ireland to intrust with the distribution of the funds committed to their care. He believed that, owing to the selfishness of their agents, the poor of Ireland did not receive one half of the funds which were sent over from this country for their relief. That was owing to the unfortunate condition of Ireland; and he was afraid it was beyond the skill of any gentleman to devise a scheme, which would ensure the fair distribution of poor-rates in Ireland.

said, that so far was he from feeling any hostility towards the natives of Ireland, that he had absolutely introduced this bill to do away with any hostile feelings which their influx into Scotland might have generated. For his own part, he wished to be able to deal more liberally with the Irish paupers than he could do under the existing law. The Irish poor were at present relieved in Scotland upon as niggardly a scale as was possible, from a prevalent belief, that if they were relieved more liberally, a greater number of them would come over, and thus a greater burthen would be thrown upon the country. The hon. member for Kent seemed to dread the effects of this measure upon England. Now, he was sanguine enough to hope that this measure would confer benefit upon Scotland, though not to any large amount; and he was quite certain that England would not suffer by it. He did not think that this bill would turn the tide of Irish emigration from Scotland into England, nor that it would even turn it from flowing direct to Scotland. He did not believe that the crowds of Irishmen who landed almost every day in Scotland, came there for the purpose of obtaining a settlement in either three years or seven. They were driven by the craving wants of nature to get that support in Scotland, which they were not able to find at home. He hoped that when they did come to Scotland, the people would treat them well; but he also hoped that they would not permit them to become a permanent burthen upon their industry. Such was the principle of the measure which he had introduced into the House.