HC Deb 14 March 1850 vol 109 cc942-3

The House went into Committee on this Bill.

Clauses from 12 to 35 inclusive were agreed to.

On Clause 36.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that as this clause was a compensating one, he would postpone its consideration until the bringing up of the report.

MR. H. HERBERT

said, that he understood great injustice had been done to several clerks in the Rolls Court, and he wished to call attention to the circumstance.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the claims of those persons were in no ways connected with this Bill. The proper time for urging the claims of those persons would be when the Bill for the amendment of the Court of Chancery should be brought forward.

MR. REYNOLDS

said, that there were upwards of fifty copying and engrossing clerks who would lose their employment by the contemplated changes. Those persons had been servants of the public, some of them for the last fifty years; surely their long services gave them some claim to consideration.

MR. SADLEIR

also urged the claims of those persons as worthy of consideration.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that, no doubt, a general compensating principle would be recognised in all cases where compensation would be extended under similar circumstances in England.

MR. REYNOLDS

said, that there was no precedent in England for the description of persons whose case he had mentioned—the copying and engrossing clerks—all of whom would be ruined by this Bill, unless they got compensation.

The clause was then struck out, in order that a new clause might be substituted on the bringing up of the report.

Clauses from 37 to 47 inclusive were agreed to.

On Clause 48,

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that he proposed to make the operation of the Bill commence on the first day of Trinity term next ensuing. It would be much more convenient to fill up the blank in this way than to make the Bill commence on the first day of Michaelmas term. Since he had postponed the compensating clause, he had been informed that he could not bring in a compensating clause unless in a Committee of the whole House. Under these circumstances, after the remaining clauses were disposed of, he should move that the chairman re port progress, and sit again on Friday week.

MR. SADLEIR

said, that at this stage of the Committee he wished to introduce a clause, the object of which would be to prevent fraud, and to abolish the system of city attachments, so much complained of, in Dublin, and one or two other cities in Ireland. By the law, as it at present stood, a creditor could, upon his simple oath, issue an attachment, and sweep away the goods of the debtor; and it often occurred that fraudulent executions were put in at the instance of debtors to the injury of the creditor. His object was to give a remedy against the goods instead of the person of the debtor.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the clause would give to the creditor the benefits of an execution without having first obtained a judgment. All the creditor had to do was to swear that he believed the debtor was going out of the country, in order to obtain an execution against his goods; and he would be able to do so upon the ex parte swearing of an interested party.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

considered the clause highly objectionable, and must oppose it.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

considered that the Amendment should be made the subject of a specific Bill, if the principle involved in it was adopted by the House.

MR. REYNOLDS

objected to the introduction of the clause, it gave such immense power to vindictive creditors.

MR. SADLEIR

said, as the Irish Members did not take a very lively interest in the Bill, and as the Government opposed the clause, he would withdraw it.

Committee report progress; to sit again on Friday, 22nd March.

The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.