HC Deb 25 February 1857 vol 144 cc1303-5

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 1.

MR. M'MAHON

said, that as the hon. and learned author of the Bill (Mr. Craufurd) proposed to exempt the Sheriff Courts in Scotland from the operation of the Bill he should withdraw an Amendment of which he had given notice.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he thought there was a sort of compact entered into on the last occasion between the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) and the House that the Bill should be reprinted before the House was asked to discuss it, and he trusted that the Committee would be again postponed until that had been done.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he must deny that he had made any such promise. He proposed to include the Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster, and the Court of Common Pleas at Durham in the Bill. An Amendment had been suggested by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to the effect that a copy, instead of a mere memorial of a judgment, should be transmitted to a Court out of which it might be desired to issue execution under the Bill; but he (Mr. Craufurd) could not accede to that proposition, as he thought it would entail unnecessary expense. He proposed to limit the time within which execution might be obtained as a matter of course on judgments under the Bill to twelve months; after which time it would be necessary to make a special application for execution.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he acquitted the right hon. and learned Gentleman of all breach of faith, but he had regarded his silence, when the former proposal was made for reprinting the Bill, as consent.

MR. HUGHES

said, he trusted that the extensive Amendments introduced might be printed before the Committee was asked to discuss the Bill.

MR. G. BUTT

said, that although the Amendments were numerous, they principally affected the question of substituting a copy of the judgment for a memorial. He would propose that those Amendments be considered, and then to have the Bill reprinted.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, he had suggested the particular alteration in order to increase the efficiency of the Bill. A memorial would not throw the necessary light as to the scope and object of the action on which judgment had been obtained.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, in his opinion the proposal of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would utterly destroy the object of the Bill.

MR. NAPIER

said, he could not but remark the want of harmony in the treatment of the Bill, notwithstanding the length of time it had been under consideration. The difficulty was not with regard to the principle of the Bill, but to its details. He could not see any reason why, as in the case of a protested bill of exchange, a Judge's order might not be applied for, and the Judge should determine whether execution should issue absolutely or be issued upon terms. If there had been a Minister of Justice the Bill would have been framed in a manner more calculated to conciliate general approval.

MR. CLIVE

said, he believed that the promoter of the Bill had suffered from the interposition of "too many cooks."

MR. M'MAHON

said, he would recommend the reprinting of the Bill, as conducing to the ultimate saving of time.

MR. WARREN

said, he would suggest the same course, but he should advise the promoter of the Bill not to accept the alteration proposed by the Attorney General for Ireland.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, he would now propose in Clause 1, to leave out the word "memorial," and insert the word "copy" instead. His object was to supply the defendant to the action with fuller information than was contained in a memorial as to the grounds on which the judgment rested. He should, therefore, move that in all cases the party against whom execution was sought should be furnished with a copy of the judgment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "memorial" and insert "copy."

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he was quite satisfied that such an Amendment would be detrimental to the working of the Bill, entirely at variance with the practice of the County Courts in England, and with the practice generally in Scotland.

SIR ERSKINE PERRY

said, that his experience in India was opposed to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. If it was intended to guard against judgments fraudulently obtained in Ireland the proviso was unnecessary, as an affidavit before a Judge in Chambers setting forth that the judgment had been so obtained would protect the defendant from execution.

MR. M'MAHON

said, he considered that a memorial would not suffice for the proper identification of parties.

MR. DUNLOP

said, he regarded the Amendment as inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, the very first object of which was to avoid the necessity of a second time investigating the question in dispute upon its merits.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, he saw plainly enough that their difficulty arose from attempting to assimilate the legal procedure of the three countries. From what he had seen of Scotch practice he should be inclined to say that the procedure there was most prolix. The Amendment simply contended that before execution could be levied every defendant should know clearly the grounds on which the judgment was granted; and he must say he thought it a most rational proviso.

Question put, "That 'memorial' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 99: Majority 22.

MR. BOWYER

said, he should now move that the Chairman report progress.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he was about to make the same Motion, to enable him to consider whether the Bill, which had been attacked in its principle by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, was worth proceeding with. He should second the Motion for reporting progress.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Thursday, 5th March.