The object of the notice I have to submit to the House is to renew the resolution of February 26, 1830, with the addition of words carrying out the spirit of that resolution, purporting that neither the Member himself, nor any person in partnership with him, shall be engaged in transacting the private business of the House for pecuniary reward, whether such reward be received by the Member or by such partner, although by some collateral agreement the Member shall not participate in the profits of the Parliamentary business. Without, therefore, mooting the point of construction of the resolution as it now stands, and disembarrassing the question of all party feeling or personal application, it appears to me that there is no alternative between rescinding the resolution or of extending it as I propose; and I am clearly of opinion, that the latter is the course we should pursue. The profession have hitherto, as a body, to my certain knowledge, held that the resolution operated to preclude such qualified partnerships; and if once it is known that it does not, sure I am that there are several active and intelligent men among my professional brethren who will avail themselves of the latitude thus allowed to carry on a most lucrative concern. I know it may be alleged that there is no preventing near relations, or even friends, from engaging in the same course, without any tie of partnership; but this could never be carried on, or continued on the same scale of advantage as by an existing partnership, which allows of such constant and confidential intercourse as would give every facility for undue influence; indeed, as it is, a very thin partition divides us from an active, clever class of men, any one of whom obtaining by means of a limited partnership with a Member, a locus standi within these walls, would largely benefit by the connexion, and I had rather see a measure for rendering a practising solicitor ineligible to sit in this House than leave a door open for the flagrant abuse that might otherwise ensue. My sole motive is to protect professional respectability and Parliamentary integrity as regards Members of this House, and any one who aspires to the highest distinction which an Englishman can attainߞa seat in this assemblyߞshould, as far as in him lies, preclude the possibility even of any imputation attaching to his conduct in it, by resorting to expedients for evading or escaping the obvious intention of the resolution. It has and may be said that the late Sir James Graham and Mr. Smith of Drapers'-hall were, while in Parliament, connected in partnership with firms transacting Parliamentary business. I doubt the fact; but this I know, that both those gentlemen had died or retired from Parliament long before 1830, when the resolution was passed, and therefore their conduct whatever it may have been, did not fall within the view since taken by the House of such proceedings. Having thus endeavoured to state my views, I beg leave to moveߞ" That it is contrary to the law and usage of Parliament that any Member of this House should be permitted to engage, either by himself or any other person, in the management of private Bills before this or the other House of Parliament for pecuniary reward, to be received by such Member, or by any person standing in any relation or partnership with him."

observed, that he had no desire to get rid of the important question brought forward by the hon. Member for Truro by moving the previous question, or that the House do proceed with the orders of the day, or indeed by any side wind. Neither had he any desire to meet the proposition by a direct negative, but, at the same time, if he was to be called upon at once to give an opinion whether the resolution ought to pass or not, he must give it his negative to-night. He hoped, however, that the House would not be forced to come to a hasty decision upon the subject. He could not avoid directing the attention of the House to a few cases, with respect to which the adoption of the resolution would be most objectionable. In the first place, he did not think the words were proper to meet the case lately brought under the attention of the House, with reference to the hon. Member for Penryn, who was admitted to have acted bonâ, fide, and without the slightest stain on his reputation. He thought it would be more desirable to avoid involving the House in a resolution that such a course of conduct was contrary to the laws and usages of Parliament. In the next place, he thought the resolution would, in effect, go much further than his hon. Friend himself in- tended. Was his hon. Friend aware that by a somewhat recent statute partnerships might be formed with reference to joint-stock banking? Many hon. Members doubtless held shares in the joint-stock banks, and under this resolution they must either get rid of their shares and partners, or see that the list of shareholders did not contain the name of any solicitor, and if so, they must take care he was not engaged in Parliamentary practice. The same remark would apply to the partners in extensive breweries of whom he knew, it not unfrequently happened that an attorney was one of them. Was his hon. Friend prepared to say, that any Member of the House, one of a brewing firm, having a partner who was in the profession, should be obliged to get rid of that partner, or take care that he had nothing to do with Parliamentary business? He hoped his hon. Friend would consent to adjourn the further discussion of the matter, as he (Sir F. Pollock) wished to have an opportunity of communicating with the members of the profession upon it, and of seeing if some better mode of meeting the difficulties of the case could, not be devised and adopted. He had no desire to stifle the matter, which he admitted to be of importance, but if compelled to express an opinion upon it now, he should feel himself compelled to give it his decided negative. He would, however, now move that the question be adjourned to this day fortnight.

said, he should be happy to meet the wishes of the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon, if he could be insured a certain day on which the subject should be discussed. Therefore if this day fortnight were set apart for it, he should be most happy on that understanding now to adjourn the consideration of the proposition.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the property qualification of Members to serve in Parliament. He hoped the motion he was about to make would receive the sanction of the House without much discussion. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members, that early in the present Session the hon. Baronet, the Member for Cornwall, submitted a motion for the purpose of abolishing altogether the property qualification of Members of the House. He (Mr. Warburton) would much prefer that motion to have succeeded, but as he thought there was no chance of its being carried, he proposed, not to abolish the property qualification, but to amend the law relating to it, and to enact that the property qualification should be 300l. per annum for cities and boroughs, and 600l. per annum for counties, but should not be confined to real property. The proposition was so reasonable that he could not anticipate any objection to it. The hon. Member for Cornwall, when he brought the matter forward, stated, and stated correctly, that the statute of Anne was founded with a view to increase the strength of Jacobite Members in the House, and that as the country interests were supposed to be more Jacobite than the town interests, the property qualification was required to be of real and landed property. But no such reason now existed, for it could not in these times be pretended that a gentleman who has property, not in lands, but arising from the funds, or otherwise, was not equally as fitting to be returned as a Member to this House as a person whose income was derived exclusively from real property. No one would now venture to assert, that Gentlemen whose property was wholly landed were the best qualified to discuss and consider many questions raised in the House. But the statute was easily evaded, and for that reason the present Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to its recognition in the Reform Bill. The oath, too, was left to the construction of the party by whom it was required to be taken, and being so, was not in any degree stringent. It was something like the declaration required to be made by a party who purchased a commission in the army. Such party was obliged to declare on his word and honour as an officer and a gentleman, that he had paid no more for his commission than the regulation price. The colonel of the regiment was also required to make this declaration, and yet it was notorious that not a single commission was sold for which much more than the regulation price was not given. If such a declaration as this was not binding, how could an oath upon which the party taking it could put his own construction, be so? It was because he despaired of persuading the House to get rid of the property qualification altogether that he endeavoured to persuade them to agree to amend the present law. The House had already admitted the principle in two cases. By the Reform Act persons not possessed of freehold property, but holding leasehold property to a given amount, were admitted to vote for Members representing counties. By the Bill for regulating the jury-lists, introduced by the right hon. Baronet, others, besides the owners of real property, were called on to act with freeholders. If, then, they had broken down the old property qualification in some cases, why should they object to alter it in the case of Members of that House? He called upon the hon. Member for East Cornwall to support his motion. He could do so without being chargeable with inconsistency. Would not that hon. Baronet have a better chance of carrying his own views into effect with respect to this question, hereafter, if he supported this proposition? The principal clauses of the Bill which he proposed to introduce were to this effect:ߞHe intended to fix 300l. a year for boroughs, and 600l. for counties, as the amount of the qualification of Members of Parliament. He proposed to admit tenures of land of a different description of property to those now required. He would take leaseholds of a sufficient length of term to give the party a reasonable prospect of having an income of 300l. or 600l. a year, as the case required, secured on that leasehold property for life. He would take not only leasehold, but any description of personal property, property in the funds, for instance, or any other kind of property that, was likely to give the possessor a clear income of 300l. or 600l. a year for life. If a man had a valuable collection of pictures, although he derived no income from them, still they were to be considered as personal property, and if the pictures were of sufficient value to be equal to an amount of capital that would produce a rent-charge of 300l. or 600l. a year, why should not the possession of such a collection of pictures be admitted as a qualification? [Oh, oh.] Why not? He would also include professional men. Why should barristers, or physicians, or gentlemen in the army and navy be excluded, if they possessed an income of 300l. or 600l. a year? He did not see why he should not also include fellows of colleges, not members of the church, who were in the receipt of the required amounts of income, Such were the terms of qua- lification for a seat in that House which he contemplated. In order to carry his plan into effect, he must provide in his Bill for the repeal of those clauses in the statute of Queen Anne and in the act of union between Great Britain and Ireland relating to the qualification of persons elected to serve in Parliament. With regard to certain exceptions, such as that relating to the sons of peers and others, he should leave them to be provided for in the course of the progress of the Bill. The hon. Member concluded, by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal an Act passed in the reign of Queen Anne, intituled, "An Act for securing the freedom of Parliament, by further qualifying Members to sit in the House of Commons;" to repeal an enactment contained in the Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, providing for the qualification in respect of property, of the Members elected on the part of Ireland, to sit in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom; and to make other provisions for the qualifications in respect of property of Members elected to sit in the House of Commons, in place of those repealed.

said, he could not allow this motion to be agreed to without addressing a few observations to the House in reply to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bridport. He protested against any insinuation of a want of consistency on the part of those who were opposed to property qualification altogether if they did not support the present motion. He was of opinion that every attempt to alter the constitution and established laws of this country ought to be based on some grave and tangible principle. They ought not to interfere with any law without due caution and deliberation. The mere interference with any law was bad in itself; it was an evil, and one that could only be justified by some great and leading principle. It could not be justified by what was ordinarily, but correctly, termed a shifting expediency, which meant nothing more than a changing of the tack and a shifting of the sails to meet every wind that blew. No alteration should be attempted, then, unless we could tell what we were about, and what the precise end was we had in view, being fully aware what it was we were seeking, and using justifiable means to obtain our object. His hon. Friend spoke of the course taken in reference to the Ballot and the Reform Bill. Why, if they had stood out for the Ballot, the same terror that carried the Reform Bill would have carried the Ballot along with it; and they who quailed before the people, if those who advocated the Reform Bill had stuck to the Ballot, would have agreed to that measure as contentedly as they did to the Reform Bill. He thought that it was a wise thing for those who at first opposed the Reform Act to accept the Bill as they did, and as it was. It would remain as it was for many a good day yet, and all those evil influences which the Reformers attempted to cut down at the time that measure was passed would again grow up in all their thorough pay and mischief, and they would yet have to carry a sweeping Reform of Parliament. He objected to the proposition of the hon. Member for Bridport, for, while the hon. Member stated that money-qualification was no test of the probity, honesty, or capability of any person in that House, he proposed that a person because he possessed a valuable collection of pictures should be qualified to have a seat in it. So that if a man possessed a Salvator Rosa, or a good picture of a robber, he would be duly qualified to become a Member of the House of Commons. With respect to the exception in favour of the eldest sons of Peers, it might be observed that they ought to be persons who had received an education that fitted them to occupy the important office of senators. But he had seen, day after day in that House, half a dozen instances of the utter inefficiency and incompetency of sons of Peers to sit in that House, and he could point them out. What was the qualification required to become a Legislator? In his opinion it meant that a man should have studied legislation, and jurisprudence, and human nature, and not that when he arrived at the age of twenty-one years, after having studied at Oxford or Cambridge nothing but Greek, Latin, and Mathematics, he should come into that House as a legislator. He was for carrying out a good principle to the full extent, and if their efforts to accomplish that object failed, let the blame fall on those who wished to keep up the exclusive system.

would not offer any objection to the present motion, as he thought it might be expedient to consider the state of the law of qualification as it now stood. He had no objection to have the qualification consist of a permanent interest in landed property, but he had some doubt about the practicability of the scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Bridport. He had looked into a Bill passed in the reign of King William, by which qualification by personal property was allowed, but it was found difficult to render the plan really efficient. If the object of the hon. Member for Bridport in making this motion was to procure the repeal of the law of qualification by a side windߞif such was his desire, he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to seek that object by a distinct and positive motion. He said that, because he thought if any description of property was to be admitted as a qualification according to the owner's valuation, it would be folly to suppose that such a law of qualification would be of any use at all. Every one knew that property of the description referred to by the hon. Member for Bridport might be borrowed and transferred from hand to hand with great facility. To prevent a person from using a borrowed qualification, it might be required, as it was by a Bill once introduced by a noble Lord now in the other House that every Member should be required to retain the bond fide qualification during the whole of the time he sat in that House. He certainly was one of those who at that time did not wish the Bill to pass, but in the case of a qualification arising out of personal property only, some such provision would be quite necessary.

was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman did not oppose the motion for leave to bring in the Bill. He was at a loss to conceive what could be the feelings of those hon. Gentlemen who wished to have no property qualification at all. That was a principle which he must oppose. The question now was whether the present law did not require some improvement, and whether the Bill proposed would effect the improvement which might be deemed necessary. If they interfered with the existing law, he thought they should do so effectually, and not leave it in an imperfect state so that it could be evaded. The course of objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire, would, he thought,. be equally applicable to the present qualification as to those proposed by the hon. Member for Bridport, because it seemed at present there was somebody who would trust Members with qualifications when no property had really passed into their hands. He recollected a case, he should not mention names, of a gentleman, one of the richest men in England, and his son being Members of that House, although neither father nor son was possessed of the qualification by virtue of which they sat in it. He rejoiced that the matter had been brought before the House, and he hoped in the progress of the Bill proposed a proper amendment of the law would be made. He was therefore quite ready, for one, to give his most hearty concurrence to the motion, and even if his opinions were what they were not, and he was disposed to admit the repeal of all qualification whatever, he would not on that account object to a Bill for the amendment of the existing law.

thought, that if a variety of qualifications were allowed, as proposed by the hon. Member for Bridport, they would, in all probability, be very strictly enforced, and the law would be more stringent, and not so easily evaded; whereas now it was notorious that the present qualification law was evaded every day. There were, perhaps, a quarter, or one-half, of the Members of that House who were possessed of a fictitious qualification only. It would, therefore, be an improvement if the law were altered, so as to compel persons to have a qualification in either land or money, or pictures, or some sort of property or other. But his own opinion was, that the proper qualification, the only real and true qualification a man could possess, was, that he had the confidence of a majority of the electors of any place that returned him. That was the only true and real qualification that ought to be required. He wished the hon. Member for Bridport had been present at a meeting of the Working Men's Association the other day, for he would have seen there men who worked for their living daily, and yet were as well qualified as many Members of that House to sit in it. Entertaining these opinions, he felt it to be his duty to move as an amendment, that the property qualification of Members of Parliament be altogether abolished.

had but a brief reply to make. He had mentioned the case of a collection of pictures merely in illustration of his argument. There were but two general descriptions of property, and his Bill would go to make them both available by way of qualification.

was exceedingly sorry that his hon. Friend should attempt any legislation on this subject, especially after what had occurred on the preceding evening. He repeated what he then said, that those proceedings were inconvenient to the magistracy, to the public, and to those who had embarked capital in beer-shops. In fact, they could be productive of no good to any one.

rose to propose the following resolution:—" That it is the opinion of this House, that the general post letter receiving-boxes, at the branch offices throughout this metropolis, should be kept open for letters being put therein at any time convenient for the people, between seven o'clock p. M. and twelve at night, as is the case at the General Post-office in St. Martin's-le-Grand, and every post-office in the kingdom; and especially that the receiving bags for general post letters, in the Houses of Lords and Commons, be also kept open until twelve at night, thus making the time of the franking privilege all over London the same as at St. Martin's-le-Grand, and in all other towns." He observed, that this resolution affected the convenience of two classes of persons—the public at large, and the Members of that House. The plan he proposed would cost the country nothing, while it would very much promote the general convenience. It was probably well known, that all the post-office boxes at the receiving-houses, Through out the metropolis, were closed at seven o'clock in the evening, as was also the box connected with the Houses of Parliament. Now, he happened to know, from personal observation, that from the hours of seven to twelve a great many letters were put into the post-office in country-towns; but in London, people were prevented from doing this. While in all other places the post-office boxes were kept open for twenty-four hours, in London they were not open more than eleven hours in the day. He had been frequently deprived of his privilege as a Member of Parliament, by the early closing of the box and on making a representation to the General Post-office, he was desired to send his letters thither after the hour of seven in the evening. On Monday last he did so, but he found that the letters arrived at their destination a day later than usual, and on the back of them was marked, "Put in too late." He did not see why the boxes should not be open for the reception of letters until eleven or twelve o'clock at night.

admitted, that it was within the province and duty of that House to look into and control every department, and especially so important a branch of the public service as the Post-office, with the view of regulating, diminishing, or altering the rate of duty charged on letters, and correcting any abuses which might be found to exist in the general management of the establishment. But, at the same time, he put it to the hon. Member for Greenock himself, whether it would not be misapplying the functions of Parliament and the time of the House, to undertake the task of determining the hours and other circumstances attending the opening and shutting of letter-boxes throughout the metropolis. It might be all very well to convey some suggestion on the subject to the recognised authorities at the Post-office, but it "was altogether inexpedient that the House should be called on at once, without inquiry and without knowing all the circumstances of the case, to adopt any general resolution on the matter. A great deal of those small matters of administration depended on minute local and other circumstances, which it was impossible for hon. Members duly to consider. The Post-office was responsible for its arrangements, and although something might be done with respect to the second part of the motion as to the receiving bags for the Houses of Parliament, which, however, would necessarily increase the number of clerks for inspecting franks, he really did not think any case had been made out, as to the first part of the resolution, for the interference of the House.

regretted the unwillingness evinced at the Post-office to carry into effect such recommendations as the present: unless the House took the matter up, it was in vain to offer any suggestions to that department. No man deprecated more than he did any species of interference with the details of a public office, but he could not see why, for instance, all the general receiving offices should not be opened of a Sunday, or why he and every other person in the same district should be obliged to send a servant with their letters to St. Martin's-le-grand, when the general accommodation might so easily be met by leaving the slips open during the whole of that day. Much less inconvenience would have been suffered had the Bill for regulating the Post-office, which the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced last Session, been carried into effect. There would then have been a proper publicly recognised head to that department, who would take care that all the details were duly attended to; but at present the public business was sometimes altogether kept at a stand still, while the Postmaster-General was hunting or otherwise amusing himself. He did not mean to undervalue the services of Lord Conyngham, but it was quite necessary that the head of the post-office should be a permanently resident officer.

took that opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman, or any other connected with Government, what were the regulations under which Parliamentary papers were sent by post? The general impression was, that Members were entitled to send a- Parliamentary paper, and provided it were of a limited weight great advantage might arise from it. [Mr. Hume. There is no limitation]. In that case there was the possibility of very great abuse. Suppose every Member exercised the privilege of sending reports, some of which weighed from eight pounds to ten pounds, it must obviously interfere with the arrangements of the Post-office. He could easily conceive great public advantage attending the circulation of their Parliamentary papers, but it always appeared to him that some precise regulations should be laid down as to the exercise of the privilege; for if eight or ten Members availed themselves of it, having a right to insist that the papers should be conveyed by the mail on the same day on which they enclosed them, the whole arrangements of the Post office must be materially interfered with. He did not think that Members of that House were aware of their rights in that respect, [Mr.Hume, Yes, they are:] Was it, then, a fact that any and every Member might send by post? [Mr. Hume: Fifty or sixty books of reports.] Then if each Member had such a right it might occasion the most serious inconvenience, and there ought to be some limitation of the right, or the velocity with which the Post-office communications in this country were conducted might be materially interfered with. With respect to the proposition of the hon. Member for Greenock, he thought there would be great danger to the security of letters if it were laid down as the universal rule in consequence of an order of that House, that every Post-office in the metropolis should be kept open between ten and twelve at night, without Some concomitant restrictions, for skilful thieves would contrive when there were no passengers in the streets successfully to abstract the letters. The object which the hon. Gentleman had in view would be much better answered by calling the attention of the executive officer to the subject, who would have the opportunity of considering what precautions should accompany the plan.

had always considered it imperative as fur as possible to transmit Parliamentary papers on the same day, although sometimes it was a matter of no small difficulty, and, from their enormous weight, interposed in all cases the most serious delay in the general arrangements of the establishment. When it was impracticable to dispatch them by the regular mails the same day, they were invariably sent off the next evening, or by the first steam packets. With respect to the opening of the general post receiving boxes on Sunday he had communicated some days ago with Colonel Maberly, who at once agreed to adopt the suggestion, and for the future they should be kept open in the same manner as the two penny-post letter-offices, As to the other parts of the motion it would he thought be better to leave them with the head of the executive department. However difficult it was to attend to all the details, and although Colonel Maberly was already greatly overworked, having scarcely a moment to spare beyond the immediate routine of the day, for on him the whole duty of the onerous establishment rested, yet Colonel Maberly was in every respect most anxious to meet the wishes of the public, and it was no fault of his if the Post-office was not conducted in the most efficient and satisfactory manner.

deprecated opening the general post letter boxes on the Sunday. Hon. Members might be much better occupied than in writing letters on the Sunday. But if the present system were found inconvenient, and some change were desirable, he would much prefer extending the privilege of Members sending off twenty letters on the Monday, to opening the offices on the Sunday.

said, the Post-office Commissioners had recommended that letters arriving in London on Sunday morning, instead of waiting, as at present, till the Monday evening, should be sent out by the mails which left town on Sunday, towards their destination in the country.

observed, that with reference to Sunday deliveries in the town of Cheltenham, there were two deliveries on Sundays. Again, the Speaker of the House of Commons got his letters on Sunday. But, in Dublin, there existed this strange anomaly, that the letters from "us aliens" were delivered on Sundays, but letters from the interior of Ireland were not. The hon. Member stated that it was his intention to withdraw his motion.

said, that it was his intention to move an amendment to this resolution, as regarded the reduction of the salaries of the Commander-in-chief and the Military Secretary. He considered it highly detrimental that Lord Hill should hold the office of Commander-in-chief, entertaining, as he did, political opinions at direct variance with those professed by his Majesty's Government, because he had the opportunity of exercising his influence in the patronage of his office in a manner that was calculated to interfere with popular reform.' He did not wish to throw any odium on Lord Hill's public conduct; but he did protest against his being retained in this office, and he called upon hon. Members who professed to be reformers, to vote with him on this occasion, in order to give the people a test of their sincerity. What could be the reason which induced a Whig government to retain a Tory Commander-in-chief? Would a Tory government have allowed a Whig Commander-in-chief to remain in office? He could state, that this subject was one in which, the public felt a deep interest; and he did not go into any company, he did not meet any of his constituents, without the question being put to him, as to what was the reason which actuated the Government in the extraordinary conduct they pursued with reference to this point? The Military Secretary also entertained, as did every member of his family, high Tory principles; and considering that these high offices should not be held by individuals entertaining political opinions hostile to those of the Government, he should move that the amount of the vote be reduced the sum of 6,282l., being the amount of the personal salaries of the Commander-in-chief and the military secretary.

wished to state that he differed entirely from the opinions put forth on this subject by the hon. Member for Middlesex. The duties of the Commander-in-chief were discharged by Lord Hill with perfect impartiality. He knew no instance to the contrary, and he believed none could be produced. He hoped the House, therefore, would not consent to strike off the whole of his salary, which had hitherto been regularly granted.

said, that the House was now considering, not the manner in which officers discharged their duty, but the principles which they held. If Lord Hill maintained the principles attributed to him, it was impossible that they should not bias his conduct. The government of the army would never be properly conducted so long as the authorities at the Horse Guards thought differently from the Administration; and it was essential to the general welfare that the opinions of the array should be in consonance with those of their fellow-subjects.

complained of the inconsistency of the conduct pursued by the hon. Member for Middlesex, whose constant complaint was, when a Tory government was in power, that they appointed no persons to office but those who entertained similar political opinions with themselves. He would contend that a more mischievous doctrine than that advanced by the hon. Members for Middlesex and Liverpool, he had never heard; for the effect of it was, to convert the whole country into a political arena, and the consequence would be, that it could never experience peace or tranquillity. They were told by the hon. Member for Liverpool, that there ought to be a political army. Now, he would take upon himself confidently to assert, that this was an opinion that was not shared by any considerable number of persons in that House or out of it; and although that hon. Member and others flattered themselves that they spoke the sentiments of a great mass of the people of this country, he would say it was a most miserable delusion. He would say, that the largest portion of the respectable part of the community did not participate in the opinions to which he had referred. He knew nothing of Lord Hill but as a public officer, and he supposed he was retained in the exercise of the situation which he held, on the ground of his peculiar fitness to discharge the duties of his office. Let the House look to what the effect would be of changing any public officer on a change of government. What an expense it would incur to the country. He had seen many such changes, where persons of superior abilities had been replaced by their inferiors in that respect, while the country was saddled with the pension of the one and the salary of the other. The idea of establishing a pure democracy in the country which the bon. Member for Middlesex and his political supporters entertained, was a foolish Utopian notion which could never be realised. He protested against converting all the officers of state, magistrates and public servants, into political partisans. This system had been lately acted upon in Ireland, though the country was in such a disturbed state that it was hardly possible for his Majesty to get persons to undertake the administration of its affairs, and it had been pro- ductive there of the most prejudicial consequences. Persons who carried their opinions to such an extravagant length as this, were the greatest enemies to the quiet and tranquillity of the country.

said, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, did not wish to see all the public functionaries consisting of the friends of liberal opinions, but those leading officers of State, only, on whom depended the character of the Government. It was well known, that not only was the Commander-in-chief opposed to the principles of Ministers, but the army had been made a mere appanage to a family hostile to the popular cause. If they were not afraid to speak out on the subject, the reason of Lord Hill's being in office would be stated simply thus—The present Ministers found that they would not be allowed to come into office unless he was continued in power, and they determined to abandon the control of the army, and to effect as many improvements in other branches of the public service as they could. If Government had really entertained opinions as liberal as those which they professed, and had been desirous of doing justice to their supporters, they would have stood out and refused to come into office until Lord Hill was put out. The country expected them manfully to confess that they were liberal only on sufferance, and that they did not put out Lord Hill because they could not. Lord Hill now ruled the army in defiance of Government, and the reason was, because hon. Gentlemen opposite had too much power in that House, and were numerous enough to pay of the efforts of the friends of the liberal cause. A little longer, and, if the state of parties remained the same, the present Ministry would be turned out. Ministers ought not to make false excuses, but should own that they could not deprive Lord Hill of his office, and therefore would not trouble themselves about the matter.

deprecated this mode of incidentally raising a discussion upon the merits of an absent illustrious individual without notice, and challenged any person in that House, competent to form a judgment upon a military subject, to deny that the Commander-in-chief was eminently qualified to fill the situation, and had actually discharged its duties with strict impartiality.

said, he could not coincide in opinion with the hon. Member who had just sat down, and he would take that opportunity of mentioning a circumstance which would show that there were just reasons to suspect that the influence of political considerations was not lost upon the noble Lord at the head of this department, and had its effect even upon those who were applicants at the Horse-Guards. A case had come within his knowledge which he would mention. At the time Lord Grey was in office, a gentleman of considerable property in Gloucestershire died and left the whole of it to his son, who, wishing to travel abroad, was desirous of the advantage of wearing the English uniform, and applied to the head of the Whig party for a commission in any regiment, he was indifferent which. Finding, however, that he could not obtain this favour through the Whigs, he went to the family of the Duke of Beaufort, whose son, Lord Edward Somerset, held a situation in the Horse-Guards. Upon making that application he fairly and distinctly said,—"My family have always hitherto been Whigs, and not on the same side of politics that you are; but if we can obtain the commission from the Horse-Guards through the influence of the Beaufort family, we shall in future be on the Tory side." The application, he believed (but he should be sorry to state it as a fact without knowing it to be such), was made through Lord Edward Somerset, and, in the space of a short time, permission came down from the Horse-Guards to Gloucestershire for the gentleman on whose behalf the application had been made to purchase a commission. A commission was purchased accordingly; and that gentleman and all whom he could influence or command, had been Tories ever since.

rose but to make one observation. It was utterly impossible, he said, to give any answer to the statement that had just been made, ignorant as he was of the facts of the case; and when the hon. and gallant Officer reflected on what he had said, he thought the hon. and gallant Officer must acknowledge that he should not thus have brought forward a charge imputing blame to one who was not present to defend himself from the attack. He would call upon the House not to prejudge the case, but to wait until Lord E. Somerset, or some of his friends, bad an opportunity of explanation; it might be that there were circumstances that would account for the extension of the favour, entirely independent of party feeling. The hon. and gallant Officer should not certainly have brought forward a charge of unfairness and partiality without giving notice to the parties implicated.

denied that he had made any charge, he had simply mentioned a fact in illustration and support of the position that it was unadvisable to intrust such power in hands that were hostile to the political principles of a Government.

thought it hard that the noble Lord should make it a matter of complaint, that a specific and distinct fact relating to the partiality of the Horse-Guards should now be mentioned, because he understood that the noble Lord had challenged all those who disputed the propriety of continuing Lord Hill in his present situation to produce any case in which partiality had been shown by that noble Lord. But no sooner was a specific case adduced, than the noble Lord complained of it. This was a sort of argument which he (Mr. Grote) did not understand. He thought that no answer had been given to the question put by the hon. Member for Middlesex—namely, "Would Sir R. Peel, if he had remained in office, have retained a Commander-in-chief who was a Whig?" If the Gentlemen opposite were prepared to answer that question in the affirmative, then he would admit that they were now acting with consistency; but if they could not do so, then it was quite clear that they were not able to carry out the principle for which they were now contending.

said, that it was not important what were the politics of Lord Hill, but only whether he had suffered himself to be swayed by political bias. Could hon. Gentlemen opposite bring any charge of that nature home to Lord Hill? In the absence of Lord E. Somerset it was impossible that the hon. House could lay any stress on the circumstance that had. been mentioned. After what had fallen from the hon. Members for Middlesex and Liverpool, it would be seen by what spirit the party opposite were actuated; nothing but party spirit could have dictated the amendment.

declared, that he had never been able to understand why, when a change of administration took place, it should be thought right that the head of the naval department of the State should be changed, but that the head of the military department should not. He believed that the Country had suffered very considerably in consequence of such a distinction being made between the two set vices. When Earl Grey first came into office, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, wag placed at the head of the Admiralty, and the House was aware that many alterations were made by that right hon. Baronet in the civil department of the Admiralty which had worked great advantages to the country. He believed that the saving effected by those alterations amounted in one year to between a million and a million and a half. Now, it was his firm belief, that if a similar change had taken place at the head of the military department, the country would have reaped an equally great advantage from it.

thought, the reply to the argument of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was very Obvious. With the duties of the First Lord of the Admiralty Was combined the superintendence of the civil department of the navy; whereas with the administration of the civil affairs of the army, the Commander-in-chief had nothing whatever to do; therefore it did not belong to his department to introduce those economical improvements in the civil department of the army, which were effected in the naval department by the First Lord of the Admiralty, when the right hon. Baronet was appointed.

said, that according to the argument of the hon. Member for Tynemouth, if it could be shown to him that the Commander-in-Chief had a controlling power over the civil affairs of the army, the amendment of the hon. Member for Middlesex ought to be adopted. Now, he (Mr. Aglionby) thought it could be easily shown, that the Commander-in-Chief did possess that power; and if so, the hon. Member was himself bound to support the amendment.

said, that he did not mean in the slightest degree to derogate from the military or personal character of Lord Hill. Indeed he had had opportunities of seeing that noble Lord in situations where he showed himself well entitled to the love and confidence that was shown towards him. He (Colonel Thompson) would be the last man, therefore, to disparage the well-earned military fame or the excellent private character of that distinguished officer; but he was Opposed to the noble Lord upon political grounds, and upon those grounds only. He felt that the amendment of the hon. Member for Middlesex deserved the support of all Liberal Members, and therefore he should vote for it.

said, that an important motion of this sort ought not to have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Middlesex without due notice. This was only the first step of a certain party to bring the army under the control of Parliament, and he could not conceive any measure fraught with greater mischief to the country than taking the control of the army and navy out of the hands of the Crown, in which they were at present placed by the Constitution.

said, that the army, as a body, ought not to have any political bias, and Lord Hill had proved by the admirable state of the army at present that he had supported that principle in the exercise of his command. There was no man deserved higher of his country than Lord Hill, and he ought not to be attacked by a side-wind motion of this nature.

said, that a Tory Government had shown in the case of Lord Beresford, that they considered a military commander subject to political control. When the Duke of Wellington brought forward the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, Lord Beresford was at the head of the Board of Ordnance at that time, and the noble Lord applied to the head of the Government to know if he might be permitted to refrain from voting on that occasion; the reply of the Duke of Wellington was, that Lord Beresford might vote as he pleased, but that the Master-General of the Ordnance must vote for Catholic Emancipation.

was sure there was not an hon. Member in that House who was actuated by any feeling personally hostile to Lord Hill, but, upon political grounds, he thought the motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex ought to be supported,

said, that his present course of proceeding was perfectly regular and constitutional.

denied that the course followed by the hon. Member for Middlesex was either regular or constitutional. What would the hon. Member gain by the success of his motion? Not the substitution of one individual for another as Commander-in-Chief of the army, but the entire abolition of that office. If the hen. Member desired to act in an intelligible manner, he ought to propose an Address to the Crown, setting forth that that House, notwithstanding the deep gratitude it felt for the distinguished military services of Lord Hill, was of opinion, that he ought to be dismissed from the office of Commander-in-Chief, because his political opinions were not such as the House could approve of. That would be an intelligible mode of proceeding, though it would unquestionably be the first proposition of the sort ever known in the history of the country. Motions had undoubtedly been made in that House relative to the army, but they were directed against the Ministry of the time being, for allowing political considerations to bias them in the disposal of military patronage. It had been said, that a Tory Government would not suffer a Whig to exercise the functions of Commander-in-Chief. Did, then the hon. Gentleman, who ventured on that statement, not know that the brother of Mr. Fox was appointed Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, at a time when that gentleman was the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons? Were they not also aware that the father of Lord Grey was Commander-in-Chief in the West Indies, and that Sir John Jervis, afterwards Lord St. Vincent, had been selected from the very ranks of the opposition to command in the West Indies? In fact it was the duty of the Government to take advantage of professional merit wherever it was to be found. The hon. Member for Ipswich had told a story about the Duke of Wellington and Lord Beresford, He (Mr. Wynn)did not know whether or not that story was true, but he certainly was not disposed to believe it. With respect to the other case which had been mentioned to the House, he certainly thought that a notice ought to have been given of the intention to bring it forward. It was not fair that the reputation of an officer like Lord Hill, who had claims on the gratitude of the country, should suffer on account of anonymous statements. With respect to the question before the House, he considered, that the object which the hon. Member for Middlesex had in view amounted to an improper interference with the prerogative of the Crown. It was undoubtedly the right of the House to allot what sum it might think proper for the expenses of the army; but if a charge was intended against any individual, it ought to be stated intelligibly, and directly in the form of an address The present proceeding was an attempt to dictate to the Crown whom it should not employ, and the next step would be to dictate whom it should employ. Thus, if the hon. Member for Middlesex's object were attained, that House would arrogate to itself the management of the army, than which nothing could be more dangerous to the constitution.

was surprised, that doubts should have been expressed respecting the accuracy of the Statement he had made. He had been challenged to state names. He would do so. The gentleman on whose behalf the application was made to Lord Hill was Mr. Lovesey. The application was made by Lord Segrave and refused; but when made by the Beaufort family it was granted.

said, that he understood, from various letters he had received, that numerous petitions would have been prepared against this obnoxious measure, had not the nature of the first division on the Bill been misunderstood in the country. The provisions of the Bill were of the most vexatious character; and would compel a creditor to expend 200l. or 300l. for the chance of recovering a debt of 50l. The creditor, after two actions, after having held out to him the vain and delusive hope of recovering his debt, and having been defeated, would be left without any sort of redress, and would not only lose his original debt of 50l., but would be out of pocket upwards of 100l. in expenses. And this was the sort of boon which the learned Attorney-General, in his wisdom and goodness, bestowed on the commercial world. But this was not all. If the clause of which the hon. and learned Attorney-General had given notice to follow the 17th, should pass into a law, a gross injustice would be done to the 50l. creditor. In that clause the Attorney-General proposed, that where a man was creditor for 100l., he should have the power, unless his debt was paid within twenty-one days, or the debtor could give approved security, for which he would have to offer two sureties—of making his debtor a bankrupt on the twenty-second day. Now, it was evident, that in all cases where the 100l. creditor possessed this power, he would exercise it if he thought that he could not get his money as soon as he wanted without it. But what would be the result of clothing the creditor with this extraordinary power? It would lead infallibly to that abuse which the bankrupt laws were most particular in guarding against—namely, the giving of an undue preference to a particular creditor. But the hon. and learned Attorney-General, in the fulness of his wisdom and from his desire to conciliate some great men in the city with whom, he was told, the hon. and learned Gentleman held communion, gave the 100l. creditor this monstrous power of making his debtor bankrupt, if his own individual debt were not paid in three weeks. "Well, but," the learned Attorney-General might say, "supposing the debtor to be made a bankrupt by the 100l. creditor, the 50l. creditor will come in for his share of the estate, as well as the man who makes the bankrupt." That was very true, if matters came to bankruptcy; but, of course, this would be the very thing which the debtor would wish to avoid, and in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred where there were any effects, the debtor would, at any loss, pay the 100l. creditor his debt in order to avoid the Gazette, while the 50l. creditor, at the end of two or three years of litigation, would be left without recovering a farthing of the money owed to him, and greatly out of pocket by the expenses of prosecuting his claim. Why should more indulgence be given to the great than the small creditor? Again, it was provided that if a man made affidavit that such and such a person, being a trader, was indebted to him in the sum of 200l., then, unless the money was paid within twenty-one days, or the trader found two sufficient sureties for the payment of the debt and costs, he was to be declared a bankrupt. He believed it was Solomon who said—he was not quite sure it was Solomon, for he read it about forty years ago—"Be surety for no man." Suppose any man made an affidavit that an hon. Member of that House owed him 10,000l., and that hon. Member was a trader. He might be worth 30,000l., and yet be unable to pay the money within twenty-one days, or to find sureties for so large an amount; he would then be made a bankrupt on an affidavit. This was what must be the inevitable result of the 18th Clause, if it became law. With regard to the clause at present before the Committee, he felt sure that the 50l. creditor would rather wave his debt, than attempt to recover it by proceedings so expensive and tedious as those which the clause prescribed. Yet this was the measure on which the Attorney-General so much plumed himself, and for which he expected to get the thanks of the mercantile community. He should further observe, that this 12thClause, except so far as the 18th Clause restored them, repealed the whole of the bankrupt laws, while the fraudulent debtor, by the aid of the 6th, 7th, and 8th sections, would be able to concert measures by which he might give an unfair preference to one creditor over others. He should now merely say, that to this 12th Clause he should give a decided negative, and he moved that it be struck out of the Bill, and he would divide the House upon the question.

was anxious to call the attention of the Committee to the bearing of this clause. For his own part, he was not an advocate for anything like arrest for debt, except in extreme cases; and he was decidedly in favour of abolishing imprisonment for debt so far as was practicable. He must, however, admit that his hon. and learned Friend opposite had not carried out the recommendations of the Common Law Commissioners in this particular, and he really could not go along with him in admiring the policy of this clause. According to the report of the Commission, of which he had the honour to be a member, it was recommended that every facility should be given to make the property of the debtor available to his creditors. He must say, that the details of some of the clauses of this Bill did not contain sufficient machinery to carry this object into effect. Any man not arrested for debt, and against whom a judgment had been obtained, finding himself without the means of paying his creditor in full, might, as the law now stood, go to prison and petition the Insolvent Debtors' Court. It was in his power, when pressed by an arrest or by demand for the payment of a judgment debt, to apply to some tribunal, and make a cessio bonorum for the benefit of his creditors. It was his opinion that the debtor without going to prison ought to have the opportunity of dividing his property among his creditors fairly; but that ought to be followed by a clear and undoubted discharge from his liabilities, so that he might not be harassed again. Now, this clause made the same provision for one single judgment creditor, which the law had never created before, except for the purpose of dividing the debtor's property among all his creditors, and giving the debtor himself a release from the engagements which he had contracted! If a person of large property were sued for a judgment debt, and the debt were not paid instantly, not all his creditors, but one individual creditor, might call upon him for a schedule of all his effects—not merely a schedule of property sufficient to satisfy that particular judgment, but he could call upon him to disclose all his concerns, and if the debtor on his examination gave dissatisfaction to the Commissioner, he could be brought before a judge and sent to prison till he should satisfy the judge. Now, he did not see the great advantage of this course, and he saw a very great disadvantage in making every creditor of the party the investigator of the debtors' concerns, toties quoties every time a judgment debt was obtained, while the debtor every time got, no discharge at all. Constant complaints were made of the proceedings under a commission of bankruptcy in consequence of their inquisitorial character, and in the Insolvent Court the case was the same. The system of forcing a debtor to make a complete discovery of his property by sending him to prison if he gave dissatisfaction, and keeping him there until the judge was satisfied, ought at least to be followed by some corresponding advantage to him. He would not, as the clause stood, be in the same position as an insolvent debtor or a bankrupt under the present law, and after, successive examinations by separate judgment creditors, after he had been stripped of every farthing, he would be incapable of obtaining fresh credit, if an Act of Parliament did not give him relief from his liabilities. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General might perhaps object to a cessio bonorum, but if this clause were framed on this principle, he for one should object to it, as being exceedingly harsh and severe. It was contrary to the principles of the law of England,, and he was astonished that his hon. and learned Friend should think of giving a single judgment creditor the whole power of bankruptcy and insolvency to enable him to get his debt paid, and yet give the debtor no relief. His hon. and learned Friend said, he wished to abolish imprisonment for debt; but under this clause where was the difference between the present and the proposed law? Was there any difference in going to gaol on a Commissioner's warrant or a sheriff's writ? or was there any magic in the former which would infuse a greater share of candour into the breast of a debtor? If a debtor wished to defer paying his debts, what would he do? He would say, "You ask me for a schedule—I shall not give it you" He would then be taken before the Commissioner, who would ask him, "Will you make a disclosure of your property?" "No," "And why not?" "Because it would ruin me. If I go to prison for three or four months, I shall be able to pay all my creditors, and have enough for myself; but if I make a disclosure of my concerns now, you will seize all my effects and sell them in such a manner as will be my ruin." Now then, were they prepared to give the judgment creditor this power, and yet not extend the slightest relief to the debtor as something thrown into the other scale? A man who avails himself of the Bankrupt and Insolvent Acts knows that he delivers up his assets to all his creditors; he knows therefore, in the first place, that all his creditors have a common interest, generally so at least, some cases of fraudulent preference excepted; and thence he knows, in the second place, that the assignees can have no interest to squander and throw away his property, but that they will make the most of it, and try to get 20s. in the pound for all. They might not succeed in doing so in cases of insolvency; but they often did in working commissions of bankruptcy; and sometimes they even realised a surplus. Well, whether or no they contrived to get a surplus, the importance of carefully managing the estate would at least remain unquestionable. By this clause they proposed giving the power of enforcing a disclosure of all a debtor's property; by some antecedent clauses they had empowered the sheriff to seize and assign all the property of a debtor. Suppose, then, a man to have a debtor for 500l., and the debtor be found insolvent; the creditor would get his judgment; he would get his assignment; he would try to pay himself he would turn every thing he could into money; he would sell reversions, remainders, and interests of all kinds, regardless of the imprudence of selling them at unfavourable periods careless whether one farthing would or might be made to remain for other creditors, or for the debtor himself, and intent solely on making up his 500l., and the costs of recovering it. This could not be the case now, or, if it were the case, it behaved the Attorney General to meet it—it was the duty of the House to look into it, and if such an error did exist, to cure, not to copy it. Insolvent cases, he knew, were rarely worth pursuing; the Insolvent Commissioners on their circuits only emptied the gaols without benefit to the creditors: but that was not the case in bankruptcies, when once it was thought worth while to issue a fiat. That system might not be perfect, but it was better than one which would admit the creditors to come in separately. Now, the proceeding itself under the clause, when called for, would not be operative. He could not see what difference there was between the warrant of a Commissioner and the writ of a sheriff, by which the former could compel a debtor unwilling to disclose, to make a disclosure under the threat of doing no more than the latter—sending him to prison namely. If they wished to give power to the Commissioner, they should give him the power of protecting the debtor—they should do so by enabling him to make the debtor do justice to all. Did they expect the debtor would obey the command to disclose for the benefit of one creditor only? No, he would not; he would declare his intention to go to gaol—he would refuse to be a party to the fraudulent preference against the other creditors proposed to him. He had had the honour of being a member of the Common Law Commission, as would be recollected; he had joined in the recommendation of that commission he saw no reason to deviate from those recommendations; but those recommendations had been accompanied by no practical details. He wanted to see the machinery by which those recommendations were to be carried into practice perfect. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Attorney-General, that it was expedient to limit imprisonment for debt.' He was aware that in so doing a saving would be made to the community in the expenses of abortive suits, useless and harassing proceedings, amounting to be- tween 250,000l. and 300,000l.; he was desirous of seeing the principle carried out; but, because he thought that it would confer no more benefit on the debtor than he possessed now—because he thought it would not operate with greater terror on the debtor than the provisions of the present law—because he thought that it would give an undue preference to one creditor over another, he Should negative the proposition that this clause stand part of the Bill. He never would support a measure for squandering and throwing away insolvent property.

was glad to find that the opinions of his hon. and learned Friend had remained unchanged; and to him, as an authority, he would refer the hon. Member for Knaresborough. His hon. and learned Friend agreed that the creditor should be invested with a more direct remedy against the property of the debtor; he did not disapprove of the preceding clauses, which placed within the reach of judgments property and interests which formerly had been beyond them, but he objected to the 12th. Now, it must be obvious, that the new remedies would be in practice useless, unless a power were created of compelling debtors to make disclosures of the property henceforth to be surrendered to their creditors; this was only what was done by the 12th clause: it was necessary to cases the others out. The power of compelling the debtor to produce a schedule was substituted for the power of incarcerating his person; and this substitution was complained of as a hardship. It would but rarely, even as now imprisonment for debt, be put in force in cases, namely, where suspicion of concealment attached to the debtors. His hon. and learned Friend had complained of the imperfection of the proposed cessio bono-rum. In the former Bill he had tried more than he could effect; and he thought it better to have this less measure. His hon. and learned Friend doubted that a debtor would be discharged; he thought there was nothing to prevent a discharge if a voluntary cessio bonorum were made. In consequence of an interview with which he had been honoured by a deputation, at the head of which was the Governor of the Bank, he had given notice of a clause, by which the advantages of an act of bankruptcy would be secured to all parties three weeks after the filing of an affidavit by the creditor or creditors of a debt amounting to 100l., or debts amounting in the whole to 150l. or 200l., and that the debt or debts were just, and the service on the debtor of a copy and a notice requiring; payment. This was taken from an Act of Parliament passed in the 6th of George 4th, by which, under similar provisions, Members of Parliament were made liable to be declared bankrupts. He wished to make insolvency unambiguous; and he thought that inability to pay, to compound, or to secure a debt in three weeks after demand was a correct test., According to his proposal, it would be three weeks after demand without requiring judgment. Believing that the measure met every part of the case, that there was no hardship in it, and certainly no hardship equal to those inflicted by the present law, he should vote for it.

thought that the Attorney-General should have chosen the sums in the additional clause of which he had given notice, so as to include the interest of the community, and not in such a way as to consult the interests of the powerful deputation from the city only.

asked, whether the Attorney-General would consent to a clause or proviso, giving a party against whom judgment and notice had issued, an appeal under the 12th section to the Insolvent Debtors' Court. As the Attorney-General would leave the clause, there would be three codes—the insolvent code, which would apply to cases of injury; the bankrupt code., which would apply to trade; and this special code, applying neither one way nor the other. Were a man relieved by the Insolvent Court, a person could afterwards afford to give him credit, because in that court the equity of subsequent creditors is preserved. Under this code no such credit could be given, for no such equity would exist. It would be better to make but one insolvent code; he however, preferred two. The notice alluded to would not meet the case of a trader, and he thought all creditors and all debtors ought to have, respectively equal benefits. Would the Attorney-General consent that the debtor might apply within fourteen days to the Insolvent Court? The debtor would then have the protection of a fit code.

said, that it was utterly impossible for him to hesitate about disagreeing to the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, on account of the mishief which had already arisen from the operation of the Insolvent Debtors' Act.

thought the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon a very extraordinary one, considering that the hon. and learned Member was one of the Commissioners who signed the report on this subject, in which great stress was laid on the waste of property which took place in the Insolvents' Court. His intercourse with commercial men led him to a conclusion quite different from that to which the hon. Member for Knaresborough had come respecting this Bill. He considered that it would be a great improvement on the existing system.

said, that at the present moment a great many men were kept out of their resources by the elements. He wanted to know what would be the effect of this clause, supposing that those individuals so deprived of their resources by the elements should be compelled within one and twenty days to come forward and disclose their assets to any single creditor? If you give the creditor the power of compelling such disclosure, you should give the debtor protection, by giving him a release from the claims of those creditors who availed themselves of that disclosure. It would be too bad to let a debtor be cited by creditor after creditor, to make this disclosure, and then when that disclosure had been made, to his great expense and loss, to leave him in such a situation as would disable him from ever rearing up his head again. God forbid that such should ever be the law of this country. He looked upon this Bill as an axe laid to the root of the commercial credit of the country. He should certainly divide against this clause, as it gave the creditor an advantage for which the debtor received no equivalent.

reminded the hon. Alderman that he ought to contrast the mischiefs arising from the present law with those which he anticipated as likely to arise from this clause, to which he so strongly objected.

said, that the true answer to the objection of the hon. Alderman opposite (Alderman Copeland) appeared to him to be, that this clause could not come into operation until the creditors should have obtained judgement against the debtor, and he was sure that no commercial man would assert that the obtaining of a judgment was not an injury to the commercial credit of the person against whom the judgment was obtained.

was fearful this clause had not been considered with the attention it deserved. The effect of it would be to give an undue preference to the relentless creditor, and to prejudice the interests of the indulgent. It moreover gave encouragement to fraudulent transactions, and denied protection to the unfortunate debtor. He was decidedly an advocate for the abolition of imprisonment for debt; at the same time, the creditor ought to be armed with prompt means wherewith to realize the assets of his debtor.—The mode of effecting this was the question. The present Bill enacts that after judgment obtained, the creditor may call for, and at a future time enforce, a schedule of the assets of the debtor. But in the interval (and three months is the shortest period in which such schedule can be effectively obtained) arrangements may have been matured by which all his property may be disposed of, and the creditor exposed to a vexatious amount of law expenses by way of addition to a debt now made worthless. But in cases where no fraud is practised, and the debtor insolvent, yet not subject to the bankrupt laws, why should one creditor sweep away every thing, leaving the debtor exposed to the unsatisfied demands of his exasperated creditors?—The moment a man is found to be incompetent to meet his engagements, an equal distribution of his effects should be made, and when no fraud is imputable to the debtor, his future liability should cease. To effect these two objects—an early and easy distribution of property and the acquittal of the debtor,—there can be and ought to be no difficulty, but he was sorry to be compelled to say the remedy was not provided by the present Bill. He was satisfied the Attorney-General had given great and unwearied attention to the subject, but he was opposed at every turn, which made it a hopeless toil for him to effect what is really desirable. A Committee of the whole House was not the suitable tribunal for such an inquiry; which ought to be before a Select Committee of professional and commercial men, who would sift the subject in all its bearings and intricacies. Equally unsatisfactory was it to hear hon. Gentlemen express their indifference to the discussion, as the crudities and absurdities of the Bill would be corrected in another place; The House of Commons ought to be able to frame and mature its own measures, or it could never answer the ends of deliberative legislation. However, if this Bill were the best that could be offered by the Attorney-General, with any prospect of its final success, he would vote for it, in the hope that progressive measures would be framed, by which the law of debtor and creditor might be placed upon a more satisfactory footing.

objected to it, are giving to a single Commissioner the power of committal, which he deemed to be unnecessary, and as giving to the Commissioners conjointly the power of making rules and orders without any control over them, save that of the Lord Chancellor.

defended the clause. The rules and orders which the clause entitled the Commissioners to make only related to the practice of their court. The Commissioners of Bankruptcy had told him that they could not exercise their functions properly unless they possessed the power of committal, and therefore he had given it to them by the clause.

objected to the clause, and declared his intention of dividing against it.

supported the motion, in order that the matter might be discussed in a fuller House. He was unwilling to invest the Commissioners with the power contemplated in the clause.