was punishable by the rules of the prison, and that it very rarely occurred, particularly of late. Then as to the want of medical attendance, to which the committee had referred, he had the satisfaction to state, that medical aid was gratuitously supplied by the marshal to all prisoners who could not afford to provide it for themselves, and that so far from any peculiar mortality prevailing in the prison, the average of deaths within the walls of the King's-bench had been for years considerably less than that usually found among the same number of persons out of prison. Under these circumstances, of the accuracy of which he was assured by Mr. Lushington, who was one of the members of the committee, he felt himself warranted in stating, that the assertion of the hon. gentleman was unfounded, namely, that no improvement had taken place in the King's-bench prison since the report of the committee. He had farther to state, that when Mr. Lushington last visited the King's-bench prison, and had all the rooms thrown open to him, to ask every prisoner whether he had any cause of complaint, he was uniformly answered in the negative. After this, he appealed to the House whether the hon. gentleman's animadversions upon the conduct of that prison were justifiable, and he would ask the hon. gentleman upon what information he thought proper to ground such animadversions? Reverting to the report of the committee, he felt he had shown that the principal grounds of complaint in that report were already remedied by the act of the marshal himself, and whatever grievance remained would, he was satisfied, be completely done away by the judges of the King's-bench, who had the report under their consideration.

With res

alteration whatever was made. pect to the disposition of the judges to attend to the report of a committee of that House, that might be judged of from this fact,-that although the report of the committee of 1792 respecting the abuses of the prison under consideration was laid before the judges of the King's-bench, the succession of judges since that day had so scandalously neglected their duty, that that report was never acted upon-that no proceeding whatever was taken in consequence of its suggestions. As to the state of the King's-bench prison, he could assert from personal observation, that he never examined any part of that prison without witnessing scenes shocking to humanity—that its general condition was quite uniquethat, in fact, nothing like its abuses was to be found in any prison in modern Europe. It did not therefore become the hon. gentleman, for various reasons, to come forward and make any attack upon those gentlemen who undertook the performance of a public duty merely from a regard to humanity.

Mr. Law replied, that he had made the observations which had just fallen from him, in consequence of the hon. gentleman's having used the expression that no improvement had been made in the state of the prison, knowing, as he did that very great improvements had taken place, he could not but believe that the hon. gentleman had not made the inquiry he ought to have done. As to the marshal's salary, the judges had no control in the appointment of it; and of the three offices held by him, two had been given to other persons.

FARMING STOCK BILL.] Mr. Lockhart rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill" to regulate the Sale of Farming Stock and Crops taken in execution." He said, that by the common law, the sheriff, under a writ of execution, did not merely take the corn thrashed out, but he also was empowered to take corn in the sheaf, hay, and straw. Now, this was di

rally inserted in leases, that the hay and straw derived from the farm should be spent on it; besides which, the lessor's right under this provision attached on the property long before the creditor could have any claim against it. It was true that the landlord might perhaps gain some redress in equity by filing a bill for an injunction; but besides that this was neither pleasant nor

economical, it was a remedy that generally came too late. He therefore proposed to prevent the sheriff selling hay and straw under the writ of execution, where a provision was contained in the lease that such articles should be consumed on the premises, by introducing a bill to regulate the sale of farming-stock in executions.Leave was given to bring in the bill.

SINECURE OFFICE OF THE LATE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.] Mr. H. Martin asked, whether it was the intention of ministers to act upon the resolution of the House of Commons, on the 31st of May, 1810, with respect to the place held by the late earl of Buckinghamshire, in which place that resolution recommended a new regulation upon the expiration of the vested interest?

Lord Castlereagh said, that he was not prepared to answer the hon. member's question, but that he would inform himself upon the subject.

Mr. Martin stated, that if it was the intention of ministers to discard the recorded resolution of the House, he would take the earliest opportunity of submitting a motion upon the subject.

Mr. Horner expressed a hope, that ministers would not, in defiance of a resolution of the House, attempt to make any new grant of an office, the profits of which were so large, while the duties were insignificant.

|

applied to the discharge of the salaries of the judges or other officers in the establishment of such courts respectively; and the surplus, if any, be carried to the consolidated fund of Ireland." On the proposition of Mr. Bankes, the 11th resolution was also read, viz. resolved, "that it is the opinion of this committee, that a bill or bills be brought in, to carry into effect such of the said resolutions as may require to be provided for by parliament."

Mr. Brougham asked, whether, if there was not any existing or vested interest in the place under consideration, it was the intention of ministers to make any new grant of that place?

Lord Castlereagh said, that he was at present unable to give the hon. gentleman any answer, but that he would inquire.

Mr. Brougham observed, that from the Report of the finance committee of 1808, there was a vested interest in the place alluded to only on the part of lord Buckinghamshire and the two sons of lord Hardwicke. Now if any new grant of the place had been made, it must have taken place either between the years 1808 and 1810 or since that period in defiance of the resolution of that House.

Mr. Peel said, he was certain that no grant of this place had been made since 1812, nor he believed since 1810.

Mr. Peel replied, that he had formed no intention on the subject, as he was not indeed aware of the death of the Earl of Buckinghamshire until he had that night entered the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Wednesday, February 7. PROPERTY TAX] Mr. Lambton presented a petition from the farmers and occupiers of land in the Middle and West Divisions of Chesterward in the county of Durham, praying for the repeal of the property tax, also of the reduction of the assessed taxes, and some regula tion respecting tythes, all of which bore so oppressively upon agriculture. hon. gentleman took occasion to express his wish and hope, that this petition would be followed by numerous petitions of the same character, in order to convince ministers that the people of England would

The

not, among their accumulated distresses, endure the pressure of taxation for the express purpose of supporting unprincipled tyrants upon their thrones whether those tyrants were the Bourbons of Spain, or the Bourbons of France [Hear, hear!] Ordered to lie on the table.

FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL.] Sir Samuel Romilly rose, pursuant to notice to move for leave to bring in a bill which had, he said, already passed that House twice, and upon the last occasion without any division upon it, or even a single objection against it. Therefore it might be conceived that there was no necessity to make any observation at present in support of the motion. But yet, from some observations which had been made upon the merit of the measure, and from the nature of the objections pressed against it elsewhere, he felt himself called upon to occupy the attention of the House for a few moments. This was the more necessary lest the objections alluded to should have any effect upon some minds in consequence of the authority from which they proceeded. The object of the bill he had the honour to introduce was simply this, that freehold property should be subject to the payment of simple contract debts-that those who were perhaps the object of a testator's capricious bounty should be compelled to discharge that testator's debts instead of living in splendour upon his property, while his creditors were, probably suffering distress and reduced to bankruptcy. Against such a proposition he could not imagine any valid objection. If in any measure to remove existing evils any greater evils were likely to be induced, he would admit that it was the duty of the legislature to pause and abstain from such a remedy, in order to avoid the con. sequences. But what were the conseqences apprehended according to a statement elsewhere? Why truly, that if the bill were adopted the person upon whom any freehold property devolved could not dispose of such property without a decree in a court of equity, or without being fully satisfied that all the simple contract debts of the testator were discharged, and it was asked whether it would be fair to subject the disposal of freehold property to such an obstacle or incumbrance? But the fact was, that no such consequence was to be apprehended, and he believed that no member of the profession to which he belonged in that House would attempt

to assert it, although the assertion had been made by a great authority in another place. The apprehension was, indeed, quite chimerical and groundless; nay, if it were not from a consideration of the great authority by whom it was expressed, he could hardly notice it with respect. The only view of the bill was, to place the simple contract debts, in the same situation with bond debts, and to compel a debtor's property to pay all fair claims upon it, and yet, to this indisputably just proposition, the objection to which he had adverted was put forth in the most formidable manner. By an act of 1807 the same remedy was given against the freehold property of persons in trade, which he proposed to extend generally, and yet no inconvenience, such as he had remarked upon, was ever found to result from that act. No decree of a court of equity was ever found necessary to facilitate the disposal of the freehold property of traders. Therefore he was warranted in concluding, from experience as well as from law, that the objection alluded to was chimerical, was perfectly nugatory. Another objection stated to the measure was, that it did not go far enough, that it did not include copyhold estates. This objection, however, came not from the friends but from the enemies of the bill, who probably wished to impede its progress by involving it in additional difficulties. For it was notorious that according to law copyhold estates were not liable to the payment of any debts, even during the life of the debtor, and yet by these objectors it was desired to subject such estates to those debts after his death. But what was the obvious wish of these objectors? They knew that if their proposition were adopted, a cry was likely to be raised against the measure; that it was a very bold innovation; that it proposed to interfere with the rights of every lord of a manor, and probably the old clamour about reverence for antiquity, and veneration for the habits of our ancestors, would be called into action against the bill altogether, to render the opposition to it more formidable. Another objection to the bill, and he felt it indeed only necessary to state it, like the others he had mentioned, in order to demonstrate its futility. It was urged, that the effect of the bill would be to afford an opportunity for the establishment of demands against freehold property, upon mere parole evidence, and thus offer an encouragement

to perjury. But to obviate this objection, it was only necessary to state that parole or verbal evidence would be sufficient to establish any claim upon a debtor in his lifetime and why not after his death? Verbal evidence was sufficient to establish any claim upon personal property, and why not then upon real property? If indeed such evidence were insufficient, then a most material change must be made in our law, affecting alike all descriptions of property or contract, in which it was at present deemed valid. But the objection referred to was nugatory. Another objection was, that if the bill were adopted, young men entitled to freehold property would be furnished with undue facilities of obtaining credit, and thus led to ruin. But this also was chimerical; for it was notorious, that those who were likely to give credit or lend money to supply the extravagance of young men, were in the habit of securing themselves by bonds, which always affected the freehold property; and the view of the bill he proposed was to put simple contract creditors, whose claims were generally more just, upon the same footing. Another objection which proceeded from the friends of the bill, but not members of the profession, was, that it was not constitutional-that it interfered with the rights of juries. If it would drive parties into equity, he should indeed allow, that this was an objection to the measure; and he was the last person who would wish to put parties to the delay or expense of a chancery suit. This objection had been urged, as if the remedy proposed were to drive parties to a bill in equity, instead of obtaining redress by action: but this was not the case; the object was to afford redress by action, instead of driving parties to a bill and action too. At present, whenever any difficulty occurred, the party, after an action, was frequently driven to a suit in equity: by the present measure, the remedy in equity would not be taken away indeed, but the remedy by action would be added. He should touch on one more objection before he concluded: it had been suggested, that this was not a single measure, but that the proposers meant to follow it up by a whole course of experimental alterations. This certainly was not the case, nor did he think it possible at present. Most happy should he be, if he could carry the reform of the laws of debtor and creditor to a much greater extent than had hitherto

been attempted; for sorry he was, that notwithstanding all the boasts respecting our system of judicature, the practice of our laws was most grossly defective in justice, and not at all calculated to the state of society in which we live. To say nothing of the circumstance that only half of a debtor's land could be taken in execution by his creditor, it was notorious that a debtor could always protract the payment of his debts at pleasure, by delays profitable only to the profession, by writs of error, sham pleas, and other tricks too numerous to be mentioned. It was indeed most desirable that they should be all abolished; and if he had the power to do so, or it were possible, he should be most happy to see such a measure carried into effect. At present he had only to propose the single measure before the House, which was, if possible, more desirable at this moment than at any former period, both on account of the aggravated distresses of the country, and because we had lately adopted a most important alteration in our civil policy, by the introduction of the insolvent debtor's act-a measure which at the time he thought beneficial, and continued to think so still. But justice ought to be rendered to the creditor as well as the debtor, which he feared was not the case under the present insolvent act; though, when it passed, he understood, that some improvement was to have been made in it respecting the interests of creditors. He concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to subject the freehold estates of persons who die indebted to the payment of their simple contract debts."-Leave was given.

BILL TO RESTRAIN GRANTS OF ANNUITIES.] Mr. Preston moved for leave to bring in a Bill to restrain the Grants of Annuities on the terms of being re-purchaseable. The hon. and learned member enlarged upon the necessity of preventing this mode of raising money, which was in its consequences so injurious to the interests of the community, and had at length obtained a frequency which rendered it high time to call for legislative interference.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow objected entirely to the measure proposed, and thought it would be only an augmentation of the evil complained of, by forcing every person in distress to borrow money on the pernicious terms of an irredeemable annuity. He was persuaded that all legisla