said, he had received notice of a petition which his constituents were about to entrust to him, against the bill. He hoped, therefore, that an opportunity would be afforded to allow their sentiments to be heard. The bill made a most serious alteration upon the subject. If the hon. member would consent to take the discussion upon it in the committee, 1132 he had no objection to allow the bill to be read a second time.
§ Mr. J. Wood
hoped the Solicitor-general would turn his attention to the evils resulting from that expensive writ, the special original. He had lately heard of a gentleman who was compelled to pay 17l. and costs for a debt of 90l. He understood the objection of the hon. member for Westminster would be founded principally upon the condition of the county courts, and upon their not affording any adequate remedy to the creditor. As he understood, however, that those courts were about to be improved, be was convinced that the bill would be productive of much good, both in checking the giving of credit and relieving the poor from vexatious distraints.
After a few words from the Attorney-general and Mr. Davies Gilbert,
§ Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, he was one of those whom the hon. member for Bodmyn, and his Majesty's Attorney-general would find difficult to convince, that a poor man was not as much entitled to a legal remedy against persons withholding a small sum due to him, as a rich man was against the debtor to a larger amount.
The bill was read a second time.