HL Deb 03 May 1842 vol 63 cc2-3
Lord Campbell

wished to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, what was the present state of the Lunacy Bill, the Bankruptcy Bill, the Local Courts Bill, and the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.

The Lord Chancellor

said, with respect to the Lunacy Bill, it had been read a first and second time, and stood for the committee; it was his intention to-morrow to give notice for the committee on Monday. As to the Bankruptcy Bill, it had been read a first time, and he would propose the second reading some day in the ensuing week. With respect to the third bill, the Local Courts Bill, he had found such conflicting interests, and such difficulty in reconciling them, that he had not been able to lay it on the Table; but he trusted to meet such a concurrence of opinion, that he should be able to introduce it soon after the recess.

Lord Abinger

trusted the bill would never be laid on the Table of the House; but if it was, he should give it his determined opposition.

The Lord Chancellor

believed he had given no answer to one of the questions put by his noble and learned Friend; namely, that with respect to the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill; and he therefore begged leave to inform him that the bill had been prepared and was ready to be introduced in the other House.

Lord Brougham

was exceeding glad to find that the intention of his noble Friend was such as he had stated; but with respect to the policy of the Bankruptcy Bill taking precedence of the Local Courts Bill, he entertained great doubt. If his noble Friend would look more narrowly into the subject, he would find the more convenient course would be, to proceed first with the Local Courts Bill, and afterwards to add the Bankruptcy Bill to it.

The Lord Chancellor

begged leave to state that the bill was already laid on the Table of the House, and no inconvenience could result from the second reading of the bill, because, at any future stage, the progress of the bill might be stopped if necessary, until the other bill had been read a second time. He begged leave to state, that it occurred to him that it was not necessary to postpone the bill, and to proceed with the other bill, for this reason, it was nothing more than extending the principle of the bill introduced by his noble and learned Friend with respect to bankruptcy, which had been found to operate so beneficially, that several merchants of London had presented a petition to extend the operation of the bill to the whole country. The object of the bill was, in consequence of the increased facilities for communication, to extend the jurisdiction of the town commissioners, and to provide a jurisdiction for the country.

Lord Brougham

said, that the bill met I with his concurrence, both in principle I and detail.

Back to