Mr. VAN BUREN, in the commencement of his remarks, spoke in so low a tone that the Reporter could not distinctly hear him. He was understood to say, that, if there was any ground for opposing the measure, it was that it might interfere with the laws of the States. The bill had formerly been before the Committee on the Judiciary, of which he was a member, and had been found full of difficulties. Its importance dictated that it should be carefully investigated. He was, however, of opinion, that the objection started by the gentleman from Virginia was founded upon an imaginary difficulty. He recollected that clause to which he took exception was formerly proposed by a member from Virginia. It went to provide, that, whenever real estate was removed by the debtor from liability to execution, the creditor was restored to his right of issuing a capias ad satisfaciendum; and the debtor was deprived of the benefit of the act, and the liberties of the jail were taken away; so that the creditor in Virginia would have an increased security over the debtor by this provision. Mr. V. B. had not read the bill this year, but believed it mainly the same. He did not apprehend that the difficulty pointed out by the gentleman from Virginia would be experienced. He was friendly to the bill in general, and thought it a good measure; nor was he apprehensive of any evil that would result from it.