GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2318, 8 September 1881, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

HOUSE OF RBPBE3ENTATIVEB. Thursday, September 8. MORNING SITTING. Tho House met at 11 a.m. protection op debtors’ bill. Sir G. Grey moved the second reading of the Protection of Debtors’ Bill. It was intended to render property to tho extent of £SO exempt from eeizure for debt, rent, or any other cause, and to allow bankrupts to retain property to the same amount. The Hon. J. Hall said it was too late in tho session to properly consider so important a subject. He objected to the first clause, as it would prevent seizure of goods even for a penalty, unless tho person hod upwards of £SO worth. Sir W. Fox objected to the third clause, which would render landlords a prey to unscrupulous tenants. He suggested a post* ponement until next session, promising to give the subject full consideration during the recess.

Mr Wbston contended that clause 4 was absolutely prohibitory, and would prevent anyone from effecting a mortgage. He took exception to the clause, which, he contended, was unworkable. He concurred in the opinion that the Bill should remain over, as it was most unlikely they could do the subject substantial justice this session.

Mr Shephard held that there was another crinoiple in the Bill. Its effect would }e to put an end to credit among the bumbler classes, and in case of rente they would either have to pay in advance, or else the tenant would be bound to give a good substantial security. In contradistinction to many adverse opinions expressed on the subject, he conceived this would involve a considerable hardship. He acquiesced in the second reading, but advocated the propriety of allowing the Bill to stand over at that stage, at least for the present. Mr Andrews spoke in favour of the Bill, contending that the existing usage was to bring the poor into a hopeless state of poverty. The etep was in a right direction, although he was not qnite sure the amount of £SO was correct. He suggested it would be better to reduce the amount to £2O.

Mr Shrimsei spoke on behalf of the poor and unfortunate landlords. The Bill, as it stood, opened the door to dishonesty, and its tender mercies were to make the landlord harsh and uncompromising. As the law stood they did not hear of so much abuse practised by the landlord as to warrant this extreme step. Mr Swanson thought the Bill a far-reach-ing one. So far as he could judge, the Bill was one that would prevent poor, enterprising people from raising money sufficient to give them a start in life.

Mr Sbddon supported tho Bill as a step in the direction of abolishing legal recourse for recovery of debt altogether, a consummation he considered devoutly to be desired. Mr Pitt spoke of the distress for rent as a remnant of the dark ages, and as such be desired to see it swept away. Sir G. Geby replied that rich persons were enabled to make settlements upon their wives and children, and that secured the effects from debt. This Bill proposed to make a similar settlement for the wives and families of the poor. [Left sitting.]