COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 13 July 1864)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
appealed to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Paull) not to proceed further with the measure in the present Session. The Bill related to a subject which was included in a measure proposed by the Lord Chancellor to the other House, and which measure had been withdrawn in consequence of objections that were made to certain portions of it. The Lord Chancellor was not satisfied with the present 1432 state of the law as regarded commitments by County Court Judges, and intended to consider whether a Bill might not be framed which would put an end to the injustice which now existed, and which would not be open to the objections that had been raised to the Bill he had recently introduced. He therefore moved, that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

§ MR. HORSFALL
said, that a very strong remonstrance had been sent from Liverpool against this Bill, and, therefore, he would urge the hon. Member not to press it at this late period of the Session.

§ MR. MALINS
also recommended that the Bill be withdrawn. He greatly regretted the withdrawal of the Lord Chancellor's Bill, and trusted that next Session an effective measure would be introduced to put an end to grievances which were admitted to exist. He was opposed to imprisonment for debt in any form, and in the case of small debtors especially imprisonment was often ruinous to the debtor, and was seldom or never beneficial to the creditor.

Mr. J. A. TURNER, Mr. BEECROFT, and Mr. CLAY
said, that they had received very strong remonstrances from their constituents against the Bill.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he was sorry to find that the Government were not prepared to support the Bill, which only proposed a simple act of justice to the people, and ought not to be rejected solely because Chambers of Commerce, which had obtained a bankruptcy law to their liking, objected to a measure which would benefit other classes.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
denied that the Government were opposed to the principle of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor adopted the principle of this Bill, and was only desirous of considering whether the objections made to it could be met.

§ MR. PAULL
said, he would have liked to have adopted the course pointed out by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), but after the opinions which had been expressed by other Members, he should not ask the House to go on with his Bill at present. It had none of the objectionable features of the Bill of the Lord Chancellor, but instead of curtailing the credit of the working classes it would extend it. He should at an early period of next Session introduce the same Bill.