said, he wished to say a few words upon the subject of the Small Debts (Scotland) Bill. He thought he had reason to complain of the conduct of the Under Secretary of State in making it a party question, and summoning the Government Members for the purpose of throwing it out. He had also to complain of a want of courtesy towards himself. He certainly did hope that such means would not have been adopted to throw out upon its third reading a bill which had been brought in and passed through a Committee of the House of Lords, and which would have been of such great benefit to Scotland. The clause for raising the jurisdiction, he expected would be lost, but he was not prepared for the throwing out of the whole bill. The clause had obtained the approval of the House upon two divisions, and therefore he was unwilling to abandon it. He thought, therefore, the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman a most unusual one. It was most unwise to deprive Scotland of the benefit of the bill, merely because he (Sir W. Rae) would not humble himself by withdrawing a particular clause.

entreated the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, while he endeavoured to defend himself against the charge which had been brought against him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He did not think the House would accuse him of allowing party motives to forget the courtesy which was due either to the House or the right hon. Gentleman. There was a length to which courtesy should go, but it ought not to be permitted to triumph over principle. When the bill was in the House a previous Session, as well as at every stage of it since, he stated his objection to the clause. He objected to giving an increased jurisdiction to the justices of the peace, when they had in Scotland as the judge of the inferior court, the sheriff depute, a person brought up to and learned in the law, and always ready to adjudicate. He also told the right hon. Gentleman, that he would take every opportunity of resisting the bill in the House unless he would consent to withdraw or alter the clause, in which case he stated his readiness to support the bill. The right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, wrong in stating, that in throwing out the bill, he had been influenced by party motives, or had been guilty of any want of courtesy towards the right hon. Gentleman himself.

moved the addition of the words "within the space of three years after the date of the aforesaid discharge," in line 40, in order that the judgment might not take effect beyond that term.

thought it was hardly worth while to make any amendments on such a miserable abortion of a bill as this. Letthe bill go forth with all its imperfections, and let the responsibility rest with the other House, which had passed, and the Government, which had sanctioned it. He was only induced to consent to the passing of the bill from the conviction that an efficient change would be brought about sooner if this measure were adopted, than if the law were allowed to remain in its present state.

resisted the amendment, as making a very important alteration in the system that now prevailed. That part of the system to which it related, if altered at all, ought to be wholly re-modelled.

said, it almost seemed from the tone taken by the Attorney-general as if that House had little to do with the bill in the way of deliberation, and must be content to take it as it stood, or not at all. For his part, he confessed, he was not so unfavourable to the bill as the hon. Member for Bridport. It was obviously not a perfect measure; but it made several most important improvements on the present law. If the bill should pass, the fraudulent debtor would no longer have it in his power to set his creditors at defiance, and live in a state of criminal affluence within the walls of a prison, but would be brought before a competent court, and compelled to surrender whatever property he possessed. On the other hand, the creditor would not be allowed, as at present, to keep the debtor in prison for an interminable period, in the indulgence of a spirit of censurable vindictiveness. They were not now, in his opinion, in a condition to discuss the whole law of debtor and creditor, and therefore, although he thought that many useful improvements might be made in it, he was disposed to acquiesce in this bill.

was only anxious not to hazard, by too many amendments, at this late period of the Session, the passing of a measure which all must look upon as extremely beneficial.

wished, that insolvents should be put on the same footing as bankrupts. It was very hard to allow a judgment to hang over an insolvent which would prevent him from ever re-establishing himself in business.

objected to the amendment, as causing an inconvenient alteration in the existing law. In the Insolvent Debtors' Court, there were at the present moment between 100,000 and 200,000 judgments, which were liable to be enforced at any time.