HL Deb 30 March 1836 vol 32 cc834-5
The Duke of Richmond

stated, that he trusted that this Bill would be altered. He believed that the object of this Bill was to prevent Magistrates in Scotland taking bail in cases of letter-stealing, which they were now able to do. This he thought was going against the principle of a measure that was passed last year, by which the powers of taking bail were enlarged. He did not see why there should be any alteration in the great object in view—namely, that no person should be sent to gaol if he could get sufficient security that he would appear and take his trial in due course of law. This principle had been established in England, and, he believed, also in Scotland, by the recent Act; but by this Bill the power of taking bail was taken from the Magistrates of Scotland, and the Court of Justiciary alone could do so in cases of letter-stealing. He knew that the prisons in Scotland were in a much worse condition than in England. If then they wished to prevent men being committed to a gaol in England, still much more should they endeavour to do so in Scotland, for offences in which bail could instantly be taken. He did not wish to throw out the Bill, but he was anxious to call the attention of the Government to the subject, and would suggest that the measure should be postponed till after the holidays.

The Lord Chancellor

observed, that the Bill did not prevent bail being taken, but pointed out the mode in which it should be taken for offences of this nature in Scotland. He understood that bail could not be taken by Magistrates in cases of this kind.

The Earl of Haddington

recommended that the measure should be postponed until after the holidays.

The Duke of Richmond

remarked, that by this Bill bail could only be taken before the Justiciary Court, which was most expensive, and would prevent those who lived at a distance from Edinburgh from obtaining bail at all.

The Earl of Rosebery

admitted, that the Committee up stairs were of opinion that it was very desirable to allow bail to be taken in as many cases as possible. He, therefore, thought that it would be better to postpone the Bill, that they might see whether it could not be improved in this respect. If the object of the measure was to render the taking of bail more effective than at present, he believed that there would be no objection to it on the part of his noble Friend. If, however, it was to narrow the power of admitting persons to bail charged with these offences, it would require very serious consideration.

Measure postponed.

Back to