CITATION AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 76.)—SECOND READING. (Hansard, 16 May 1871)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he regretted that the Bill had not been entrusted to some of the noble and learned Lords who were better acquainted with the subject than he was, and better able to deal with the peculiarities of the custom with which the measure was intended to deal. To the people of Scotland what the Bill dealt with was a matter of much interest and importance. As their Lordships were probably aware, the Bill had already passed through the other House, and had met with the approval of many eminent Members on both sides of that House. The object of the Bill was to amend the process of citation in Scotland, and to make the system somewhat similar to that existing in England. By an Act of the Scottish Parliament, passed in the reign of James V., the affixing of copies of letters or precepts to the gate or door of a house, after the officer had given six knocks, and failed to get an entrance thereto, was made a lawful and sufficient citation. As their Lordships might imagine, such a system gave rise to many evils. This was known in Scotland as the "Lockhole" citation. He believed Scotland was the only country in which such a practice prevailed. The whole thing was left to the discretion of the officer serving the citation, no matter what manner of person he might be. The consequence was that those officials took very little trouble in serving the citation personally, and the person served often knew nothing of the matter until he found himself arrested. In England this was not the case. The server of such documents in England was obliged to do his best to serve personally, and evidence was necessary that the service had taken place. In Scotland the citation was thrown into the keyhole, and no trouble was taken as to 869 whether the person required continued to live on the premises or not. In fact, he had heard of a case in which it was no secret that there had been no citation served at all; the official, knowing that it was quite sufficient for him to say that such a service had taken place, did not give himself the trouble to go through the formality, yet when the requisite number of days had passed, the person who should have been served was arrested, and had to bear the consequences. A Commission had sat upon the subject, and had strongly recommended an alteration in the law. Mr. Justice Willes and other eminent authorities also recommended an alteration in the law. In the Bill, most of the recommendations of the Commission and the Committeemen who had given their opinion on the subject were turned to account. The Bill proposed to do away with the lockhole system altogether. There would be no more affixing of citations to the gate or door of a man's house, or, in the case of the defender having removed from his house, leaving a citation in the hands of an inmate. In certain cases, a registered letter by post was substituted for the lockhole system. The case of a person refusing access or concealing himself culpably, was fully provided for in the Bill. Where the citation about to be served was on a Small Debt Court summons of removal from any house or premises, if the defender could not be found, and his place of dwelling for the time was not known, or admission to it could not be obtained, a copy of the summons must be affixed to some particular part of the premises from which removal was sought, and intimation of such affixing must be sent in a registered letter, by post, to the last known address of the defender. These were the principal provisions of the Bill. The question involved was very simple. Possibly the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Colonsay) might not consider that the Bill was altogether perfect, and would like to make some alterations in it. He would have full opportunity of doing so; but he (the Earl of Airlie) trusted that the object of the Bill was sufficiently just to meet with general approval.