HC Deb 20 May 1857 vol 145 cc626-33

Order for Committee read. Motion made, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.

MR. BLAND

said, as the principle of the Bill had been sanctioned by the House he should be prepared to co-operate in making it as good a Bill as practicable. But he wished the Committee to be postponed until after the other Orders of the Day, because most of the Irish Members were absent on a deputation to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He would move the postponement according to the suggestion he had made.

MR. SPEAKER

The Order of the Day has already been read. The Question is that I do now leave the Chair.

House in Committee.

Clause 1

(Where Judgment has been obtained in the Courts at Westminster, a memorial thereof registered in Ireland, and vice versâ, shall have the effect of a judgment of the court in which it is so registered).

MR. BLAND

said, in the absence of almost every Irish Member, he could not permit the Bill to proceed: and he should move that the Chairman report progress.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided:— Ayes 10; Noes 157: Majority 147.

MR. BLAND

rose to propose an Amendment, the purport of which was, that Clauses 1 to 13 be omitted, and that other clauses, of which he had given notice, be inserted.

THE CHAIRMAN

said the hon. Member could only simply negative the Motion that this clause be inserted.

MR. SPOONER

said, his objection was, that there was no security against collusive judgments, and he suggested to insert the word "adverse" before the word "judgment." He threw that out for consideration and for that purpose would move it.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, no doubt the law would be liable to abuse in that respect, but it would give no new facilities for fraud or greater than now existed. There was a subsequent clause which provided that the judgment should have no greater effect than a warrant of attorney, which, if collusive, would be void in the event of bankruptcy.

Amendment withdrawn.

COLONEL FRENCH moved that the Chairman report progress. It was unfair to force the Bill on in the absence of almost every Irish Member. The Irish Members were at that moment waiting on Lord Palmerston on an important subject, and could not be present.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 151: Majority 140.

Question again put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. BLAND

said, he was opposed to the clause, and should move that it be omitted. If he succeeded in excluding it he should move to insert another in lieu of it, the effect being that an attested copy of the judgment should only have the same force as a warrant of attorney to confess judgment. This clause was framed in accordance with the opinions of Chief Justice Monahan, and would give the Court in which the judgment was registered a control of it.

MR. AYRTON

also opposed the clause, which, he said, raised the whole question of the Bill, as it involved in principle the whole. It was desirable, no doubt, to expedite the recovery of judgments; but the Bill would be extended to all classes of judgments. The Bill was badly framed, and required substantial alteration. The clause, as at present framed, was not put together in the manner best calculated to carry put the objects of the Bill.

Question put, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 43: Majority 94.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2

(Where judgment has been obtained in the Courts at Westminster or at Dublin, a Copy thereof registered in Scotland shall have the effect of a Decreet of the Court of Session).

MR. AYRTON

objected to the terms of the clause as being most untechnical in their character, as they proposed that judgment should be taken on one side of the court, and that execution should go on in the other. He was not very conversant with the law of Scotland, but feared that this proposition was very much like commencing an action in the common law courts of England, and taking a judgment in the equity courts. He hoped the learned Lord Advocate would inform the House whether, in his opinion, the clause as at present framed was consistent with the existing administration of the law in Scotland?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

expressed his belief that the clause in the Bill would have precisely the same effect as that proposed by the hon. Gentleman, and in his opinion it was preferable of the two.

MR. DEASY

pointed out that judgments of courts of equity, which often affected the payment of large sums of money, were not referred to in the Bill. Changes in the law relating to land in Ireland had also been made of late years, and he should have liked to see a Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, who was well acquainted with the course of recent legislation upon that subject, instead of a measure brought in by a private Member, and framed in complete ignorance of the existing state of things with regard to the effect of judgment in Ireland.

MR. NAPIER

took the same view, and contended that the Government were not justified in taking up the Bill unless they were prepared to accept it in its present shape. He thought it would be better to report progress.

MR. ROEBUCK

complained, that in considering a measure to alter the law of the three kingdoms the House had not the assistance of the Attorney General for England as well as that of the Attorney General for Ireland and the learned Lord Advocate. A Bill ought to have been brought in on the authority of those three Gentlemen if brought in at all, and not by a private Member. He hoped that the present Bill would be, as it had been on a former occasion, kicked out with the contumely which it deserved.

MR. WHITESIDE

regretted that the hon. Gentleman should have brought in a Bill which, with all deference to him, would affect subjects which he did not understand. The effect of the measure would be to complicate the transfer of land in Ireland, which at present was comparatively easy.

MR. NAPIER

formally moved, that the Chairman report progress, in order that the Government might consider whether the measure really harmonised with the law of the three kingdoms.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, that when the Bill was originally introduced decrees of courts of equity came within its scope; but it now applied only to judgments of the courts of law, and he could not see the force of the difficulties in the way of its successful working which had been pointed out. The Bill did not seek to alter the mode of procedure in either of the three countries, but simply to expedite it.

MR. MALINS

supported the clause. The principle of the Bill was involved in this clause, which simply proposed, that a judgment obtained in England should, if properly registered, have the force of a judgment in Ireland, and vice versâ; and as the laws of both countries were substantially the same, he for one could see no objection to the clause. The Bill was intended to remove anomalies in the laws of the three kingdoms, which it was a marvel and a disgrace had existed so long. Hon. Gentlemen might say that this was a Bill which the Government ought to have introduced. But although no one had had greater experience than himself of the difficulties standing in the way of legislation by a private Member—difficulties which had restrained him from attempting to remove many well-recognised defects in the law—he was not going to thwart the efforts of private Members in the absence of interference on the part of the Government, when they were bold enough to attempt the reform of admitted abuses in the law. It was too much the fashion to say that Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House, because they happened to adhere to certain great Conservative principles, were opposed to all reforms. That, however, was nothing more than a mere fanciful thing; and for himself he would affirm that no one was more anxious than he was to see the work of law reform rapidly progress.

MR. BUTT

wished to remind his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins), that the law of judgments in England and Ireland was entirely different.

MR. MALINS

The only practical difference is that a little more particularisation is required in Ireland than in England.

MR. BUTT

must confess his objections to the Bill were very strong. In the first place, he very much objected to the same court having control over the judgment that had control over the execution. In Ireland execution was a judicial act; in England it was Ministerial. He should like to see a provision inserted, making it necessary that notice should be given to a defendant against whom a judgment obtained in one country and registered in another, that such a proceeding had taken place. He should wish also that power should be given to a court in which proceedings were taken in a cause originated in another country, to remit the cause for trial in the court of the country from which it came.

COLONEL FRENCH

suggested that the Government should take the advice which had been given them in reference to the Bill by the hon. Member for Sheffield, and should more carefully consider its provisions.

MR. NAPIER

said, that after what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Deasy) and other hon. and learned Members, to the effect that the Bill, instead of carrying out an advantageous principle, would introduce confusion into the legal system in Ireland, he felt it to be his plain duty to continue his opposition to the measure.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) deserved great credit for the perseverance with which he had conducted the Bill through the House, and, feeling satisfied with its provisions so far as they bore upon the laws of Scotland, should vote against the Motion for reporting progress.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, that in his opinion fraudulent executions—of which there were many instances—would be greatly promoted under the operation of the Bill.

MR. MALINS

, on the other hand, thought the Bill would offer no additional facilities whatever for fraudulent executions, which were quite practicable under the existing law. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 187: Majority 98.

MR. AYRTON

said that, considering the very different opinions which prevailed as to the merits of the Bill among hon. Members competent to form a judgment in the matter, he should suggest that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of lawyers, who, as the subject was of an entirely legal character, could best investigate its details and bring them into a satisfactory shape.

MR. P. O'BRIEN

said, it was obvious from the frequent divisions upon this Bill, that the Irish Members were unanimous in opposing it. He would, therefore, recommend its further progress to be postponed until the Irish Judges had been communicated with as to its effects in Ireland.

MR. BLAND

should take the opinion of the Committee upon this clause. The laws of Scotland were so unintelligible that he could not consent to allow the decrees of the Scotch courts to run into England and Ireland.

Question put, "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Committee divided:—Ayes 179; Noes 92: Majority 87.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3

(No Memorial of a Judgment shall issue without rule of Court or Judge's Order or Certificate).

MR. M'CANN

expressed his belief that there was not a man in the House who knew enough of Scotch law to enable him to form a judgment on this Bill. He advised the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) to postpone the measure until next Session; if, meanwhile, he would bring out a short edition of the Scotch statutes, he (Mr. M'Cann) would promise to read it. He admitted that he did not understand much of Scotch law, but as far as he was acquainted with it, he did not wish it to be applied to Ireland. The measure had been before the House five or six years, and there had not been a single petition in its favour. It was a crude piece of legislation, and it would be very wise to allow another year to bring it into maturity.

MR. DEASY

proposed some verbal Amendments, which were agreed to.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the clause, as it stood, would deprive all litigants of the right of getting a copy of the judgment in an action or suit in the superior courts for debt or damages.

MR. SPOONER

would like to hear that objection answered.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

assented to the introduction of an Amendment, at a future time, to remedy the defect referred to.

Mr. ROEBUCK

concurred in the objection made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and thought it would be advisable to strike out the clause altogether, with the view of framing a new clause.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, that it was his object in framing the clause, to prevent a copy of the judgment being given until an order was obtained.

Clause 4

(Where Decreet has been obtained in the Court of Session, an extract thereof registered in England or Ireland, shall have the effect of a Judgment of the Court in which it is so registered).

MR. DEASY

proposed an Amendment, To add at the end of the Clause the words "Provided always, That from and after the registering of any such copy or extract of any such judgment or decreet as aforesaid, it shall not be lawful to issue any execution in or out of the Court in which such judgment or decreet was originally obtained or recovered, unless an application for leave to issue such execution shall first have been made to the Court, or a Judge of the Court in which such judgment or decreet was originally obtained or recovered as aforesaid, nor unless it shall be shown to the satisfaction of such Court or Judge that the debt, damages, or costs for which such judgment or decreet was obtained or recovered, or some part thereof, is still due and unsatisfied, and that no other execution for enforcing payment thereof has been issued out of the Court in which such judgment or decreet was registered, or that such execution was in the whole or in part ineffectual.

MR. CRAUFURD

opposed the Amendment as unnecessary.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 96: Noes 163; Majority 67.

MR. AYRTON

said the clause would necessitate the opening of three registries of judgments, thus tripling the existing expenses connected with the registration of judgments. He thought the mere addition of the letter I or S, as the case might be, to the entry of Irish and Scotch judgments in the existing registry would fully answer the object of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd).

MR. BLAND

apprehended that, as the Scotch law was a fusion of law and equity, the Scotch decreets would enable Scotch creditors to obtain execution for equitable as well as legal demands, and if so they would have an advantage over English and Scotch judgments, because under the latter merely legal and not equitable demands could he recovered. He should like to hear the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) express his opinion upon this point, as he had adverted to it on a previous occasion.

MR. MALINS

said he had considered the point, and was now of opinion that a judgment obtained in Scotland against the estate of a debtor in England or Ireland ought to be enforced against that estate, provided the judgment were obtained by a process analogous to that resorted to in England and Ireland. He could not perceive the force of the objection of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, because, even under the existing law, searches had to be made in the English registry office for the purpose of ascertaining whether a judgment had been obtained against a man in Ireland or Scotland.

Clause agreed to; Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7.

MR. BLAND moved that the Chairman report progress.

COLONEL FRENCH

hoped that before the Bill again came before them the Government would reconsider the course they were taking. He thought the Irish Members, 105 in number, who, with one solitary exception, were all opposed to the Bill, had grave cause to complain of the Government for forcing this measure upon them.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Wednesday, 24th June.

The House adjourned at three minutes before Six o'clock.