HL Deb 10 June 1880 vol 252 c1588

House in Committee (according to Order).


said, that he had no objection to offer to the Bill. He presumed his noble and learned Friend considered it to be convenient, that there should be a long and a short period of limitation; the one for debts which it was not desired to call in for a considerable time, and the other for those as to which there was no such original purpose of forbearance. In the administration of assets, the distinction between simple contract and specialty debts had been abolished; but he supposed his noble and learned Friend thought there were good practical reasons why the limitation of time as regarded actions for simple contract and specialty debts should not be the same.


explained that the scheme of the measure was practically the re-enactment of the Statute of Limitations, only that the periods of proscription were shortened. For simple contract debts the period was limited to three years instead of six, and for specialty debts to 12 instead of 20 years. He had serious doubts as to whether it would be expedient to bring the latter class down to the period fixed for simple contract debts. For a simple contract debt such as slander the period was to be one year, assault two years, and all others three years.

Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3ª on Tuesday next.