The Solicitor-Generalopposed the bill, 1131 He thought it contained too sweeping a remedy, and was calculated to introduce an entirely new machinery into the system of law, which at that late period of the session was objectionable. He should therefore move, "that the bill be read a second time this day six months."
§ Mr. Humeexpressed his surprise that the learned gentleman should oppose his bill, whilst he was introducing another bill on precisely the same principle, but which, being limited to sums under 20l., did not go far enough.
The Attorney-Generalremarked in terms of some severity, upon the ignorance, both of the Scotch and English law, displayed by the hon. mover. The bill itself had scarcely a single clause which could be called intelligible, and seemed to be the composition of some writer of the signet, rather than of a lawyer possessed of experience adequate to such a difficult task. The difference between simple and specialty debts, and between arrest on mesne process and execution after final judgment, were every where confounded. He was quite ready to admit that he thought the amount of debts for which arrest should be permitted ought to be extended. He even thought that 100l. would be a sum to which such arrests might be restricted; but he would by no means propose hastily such an alteration in the existing law. The House would remember that these laws were made for creditors, rather than for debtors; and he cautioned the hon. gentleman not to trust entirely to the information which he obtained by means of correspondence with persons confined in gaols. The ground on which he resisted the bill was, that it proposed to substitute the law of Scotland for that which prevailed in this country.
The amendment of the Solicitor-general was then put and agreed to. The bill was consequently lost.