e Debtors
Act 1869), contains a series of important provisions for the punishment of
fraudulent bankrupts. Under these provisions the laws of the two countries
on that subject are practically assimilated, although some minor
differences still survive. One of the most important of these differences
is, that while the Scottish act makes the failure, within the three years
prior to the sequestration, to keep "such books and accounts as, according
to the usual course of any trade or business in which he (the debtor) may
have been engaged, are necessary to exhibit or explain his transactions" a
criminal offence, the English act contains no provision of an analogous
character; the non-keeping of such books being treated as a fact to be
taken into account in dealing with the debtor's application for his
discharge but not coming within the scope of the criminal law. On the other
hand, there are a few minor trading irregularities dealt with in the
English act which are not specifically included in that of Scotland.
Another important distinction is that under the Scottish act the same
offences may be treated differently, according as they are brought for
trial before the court of justiciary or a sheriff and jury, in which case
the maximum penalty is two years' imprisonment; or before a sheriff without
a jury, in which case the penalty is limited to imprisonment for a period
not exceeding sixty days. This distinction admits of a useful elasticity in
the administration of the law, having regard to the comparative importance
of the case, which is hardly possible under the English act.

Another most important modification of the law is effected by the Debtors
Act 1880, combined with the Bankruptcy and Cessio Act 1881, and the Act of
Sederunt anent Cessios of the 22nd of December 1882. Under the law existing
prior to these enactments, the process of _cessio bonorum_ operated chiefly
as a means for obtaining release from imprisonment for debt on a formal
surrender by a debtor of all his goods and estate. But under this process
the debtor was not entitled to a discharge, and his future-acquired
property was still subject to diligence at the instance of unsatisfied
creditors. By abolishing imprisonment for debt (except in regard to crown
debts and public rates and assessments), the legislature also practically
abolished this use of the process of cessio, and the process itself would
probably have become obsolete, but for certain changes ef