§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF BELMORE,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the terms of the English and Irish Acts for the Abolition of Fines and Recoveries, with reference to the acknowledgment of deeds by married 619 women were identical. The English and Irish Courts of Common Pleas respectively made Rules, as they were empowered to do by the Acts. These Rules were identical. They made it suffice if one of the Commissioners was a disinterested party. Acting on the faith of the Rules, many deeds had been executed before Commissioners, where one was an interested party. The question arose in England as to whether such an acknowledgment was not invalid, and the Rule itself ultra vires. The arguments, &c., were to be found in the Report of the case, In re-Ollerton, 15 C.B. Before judgment was given, an English Act was passed to validate such acknowledgments—17 & 18 Vict. This Act was never extended to Ireland. The same question had arisen in this country. If the proposed Act were not passed—(1.) A great injustice would be done in the particular instance in which the deed was executed on the faith of the Rule of Court. (2.) There would remain the absurdity of having the law in the two countries different on this important point. (3.) There was no saying how many deeds and titles might depend upon such acknowledgments. He (the Earl of Belmore) need only say, in addition, that this Bill, although introduced by a private Member into the House of Commons, had the cordial approval of Her Majesty's Attorney General for Ireland.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no objection to the Bill being read a second time, as before the next stage of the Bill was taken he should have an opportunity of examining it. He would not, therefore, oppose the present stage.
§ Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.