HC Deb 18 March 1835 vol 26 cc1169-70

On the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Imprisonment for Debt (Scotland) Bill being read,

Mr. John Maxwell

suggested, that the Bill should be transmitted to Scotland before being sent up to the House of Lords. The measure had not been introduced too soon. If it had not. been brought forward all the gaols in Scotland would have been filled with unfortunate debtors.

The Lord Advocate

said, it was intended to refer the Bill also to a Select Committee.

Sir John Campbell

suggested that the amount for which debtors were liable to imprisonment, should not be lower than 10l. He had rather it was 20l.; but he would be satisfied with the sum he had named.

Mr. Wallace

begged to say a few words in reference to the conveyancing law of Scotland, to which allusion was made on the former question. It was a most scandalous system—a barbarous relic of antiquity. The Report of the dilatory Commissioners ought not to be waited for. As they were unpaid it was not likely they would leave their personal engagements for the sake of the public; and their Report, he was assured, would not be completed till August, when any attempt to legislate on the subject would be useless and preposterous. He had four Bills already prepared, which had cost him much labour and expense, and he saw no reason why he should not offer them to the House, either to supersede the forthcoming recommendations of the Commissioners, or to compete with the Bills which the learned Lord had intitimated that he had in readiness.

The Lord Advocate

explained that the amount had been limited to 8l. 6s. 8d. because for that sum there was a particular summary process, under which a great number of debtors were imprisoned. The limitation was recommended by the Commissioners, and it would effect the release of two-thirds of the debtors confined for small sums. If he had not carried the Bill the whole length of the principle it was from a wish to see the English measure first adopted by the Legislature. When that had been carried, he would have no objection to the further extension of the Bill before them. This question, however, would also be for the discussion of the Committee.

The Bill was read a second time and referred to a Select Committee.