HC Deb 03 May 1850 vol 110 cc1149-57

The House then went into Committee on this Bill; Mr. Bernal in the chair.

MR. J. STUART

said, he had given notice of an instruction to the Committee to insert a clause that should provide a remedy for what he thought every body who had attended to the discussions in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and every body who had attended to the state of landed property in Ireland, must admit to be one of the greatest evils that had afflict-ed that country. In the course of last Session, on the Motion of, he believed, the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, the House appointed a Committee to inquire and report on the state and condition of landed property in Ireland in the hands of receivers acting under the Court of Chancery. It appeared, from the report of that Committee, that there was land in Ireland under the dominion of the Court of Chancery, the rental of which amounted to not less than a million a year. The receivers of the Court of Chancery received the rents, and had the management of the property. That all the land so situate was in a state of most deplorable mismanagement, had been acknowledged on both sides of that House. But they wanted no greater evidence than what appeared in the report of the Committee of last Session. Witnesses thoroughly conversant with the subject, including the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, had been examined; and the Committee reported the existence of most gross abuses—that the appointment of a receiver sealed the fate of the debtor and his property, and was, therefore resisted and deferred in every possible way; that the receivers were tempted to collect as early, and to pay over the money as late as they could, themselves using the money in the meantime; and that the tenants had no chance whatever of making improvements. Such was the deplorable condition of property under receivers appointed by the Lord Chancellor; all parties concerned—the debtor, the owner, and the tenant—were injured by the system. One class alone derived a profit from it, the professional auxiliaries. It was a deep reproach in some quarter or other that such a state of things should be permitted to exist. This Bill dealt with the court under which these receivers were appointed; and though he wholly disapproved of the Bill, he wished to call the attention of the House to the necessity of remedying this evil. He had given notice of this, and felt surprised that the hon. and learned Solicitors General for England and Ireland had not directed their attention to the matter, especially as the report of the Committee had been before the House for a twelvemonth. He should move a clause, having for its object the redress of these grievances. He could anticipate no objection to the principle of such a clause, which simply embodied the recommendation of the Committee of last year. It proposed to give the Lord Chancellor of Ireland full power so to regulate the system of receivers, by orders framed for that purpose, and would meet all the evils which the Committee had pointed out.

The CHAIRMAN

asked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he intended to put his Motion in the shape of a new clause?

MR. J. STUART

intimated that that was his intention.

The CHAIRMAN

then stated that, as a new clause, the proposition must be made after all the other clauses had been disposed of.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that although it would not be necessary for him now to enter into a lengthened reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, yet perhaps it might be convenient that he should make a few observations on what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member.

The CHAIRMAN

said, that it was impossible for him to have known what the hon. and learned Member for Newark was about to propose; he could not therefore prevent his proceeding; but now that one irregularity had taken place, he would recommend the Committee not to pursue that irregular course any further.

MR. B. OSBORNE

apprehended that the hon. and learned Member was perfectly right in drawing the attention of the House to one of the greatest abuses that existed in Ireland. So far from taking it ill at the hon. and learned Member having referred to the report of the Committee for which he (Mr. Osborne) had moved, he felt grateful to him for having applied his sound and legal mind to the discussion of this question. He did not think any mere forms of the House ought to obstruct a Member from drawing the attention of Parliament to such a question.

The CHAIRMAN

I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon, but he is out of order.

MR. J. STUART

, while submitting to the better judgment of the Chairman on the question of form, thought they were, in truth and in substance, discussing the question whether a clause to the effect he had proposed should form part of the Bill. He did not think they would be greatly violating any forms of the House if the Chairman would extend to them a little indulgence on this occasion.

MR. B. OSBORNE

did not claim it as an indulgence, but he claimed it as a right.

The CHAIRMAN

said, he felt bound again to interfere, and to press on the Committee the importance of adhering to those rules, which had always been observed since he had had the honour of filling the office of Chairman.

MR. B. OSBORNE

Then docs the hon. and learned Solicitor General mean to quash all discussion on the Bill?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, on the other hand, he was anxious for it, but had been called to order. He might state that, so far from the House having taken no step in this matter, they had passed the judgment on Small Titles Bill, which contained some important provisions on the appointment of receivers.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, if the question could not be discussed in Committee, he would move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, an opportunity for the discussion would be afforded after the other clauses were gone through, by moving the addition of a new clause. He hoped the Committee would support the Chairman in adhering to the usual rules of conducting the business.

MR. B. OSBORNE

asked if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newark would take the opportunity pointed out of moving his clause?

MR. J. STUART

Oh, certainly; as soon as the other clauses are agreed to.

On Clause 1,

MR. TURNER

asked whether in applications made under that clause, the relatora must obtain the sanction of the Attorney General.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, this would be necessary in cases where the suit was instituted in the name of the Attorney General. The clause would give power for a petition to be filed instead of an information, all other matters remaining as they were.

MR. TURNER

would beg to ask another question, as to the proof of service of notice which would be requisite, and pointed out the possibility of a false affidavit of service being made, whereby the parties would be left entirely at the mercy of those pretending to give the notice.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that security would be taken for complete and sufficient notice, just the same as in this country. No doubt the court was very jealous, indeed, about the sufficiency of the notice; and a subsequent clause provided that, subject to the regulation of the court, the notice should be proved in the same way as a subpœna. This clause merely referred to notice of a petition being filed; but the same precautions were taken as in the service of a subpœna or bill of information. In the English Court of Chancery it was not necessary to obtain an answer from a defendant; he might, under certain regulations, be proceeded against pro confesso.

MR. TURNER

would leave the matter in the hands of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 2 to 14, inclusive.

On Clause 15,

MR. WALPOLE

said, that he objected to this clause altogether, because it transferred powers to the Master which should be left with the court alone.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that he would endeavour to modify the clause so as to obviate the objections of his hon. and learned Friend, by specifying more distinctly the matters to be referred to the Master. His hon. and learned Friend would have an opportunity of considering the amended clause on bringing up the report.

Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 16 to 29, inclusive.

On Clause 30,

MR. B. OSBORNE

observed, that within the last few weeks the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had given a most extraordinary judgment as to the proceedings of the court in Ireland. There was a case in which a stablekeeper was receiving 10s. a week from an attorney of the name of Callaghan, who made him swear to the accounts, the man not being able to write. This case was brought before the Master of the Rolls, who wrote to the Lord Chancellor, and recommended that the attorney should be struck off the rolls of the court. To the surprise of the profession, the Lord Chancellor merely heard the case, gave him a lecture, and dismissed him. He wanted to know why the Lord Chancellor was not disposed to move in the business? This solicitor went before the court, and made an affidavit that it was the most common thing for a most respectable man to appoint his servant as receiver. What was the opinion of Sir Edward Sugden as to this case, which had been passed over in this light way? He was asked, on the inquiry into the Court of Chancery in Ireland, "With reference to the number of receivers, is it your opinion it is a great evil in Ireland? "Answer—"Undoubtedly, the evils are so great, that no country can possibly prosper under them. I cannot conceive any greater evil." That was Sir Edward Sugden's opinion upon this subject. The Master of the Rolls gave the same opinion. Was the House aware of the enormous amount of property under the Court of Chancery of Ireland? If so, the House of Commons would not be satisfied to leave the matter as it was.

MR. HATCHELL

said, that he could not allow the present observations to pass without placing his protest, on the part of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and on the part of the profession, against what had been stated. Did the hon. and gall nt Member mean to suggest that these abuses occurred in the time of the present Lord Chancellor? [Mr. OSBORSE: They were all equally bad.] The Lord Chancellor who, for some years past, had had the management of the court, had endeavoured to put an end to these abuses, arising unfortunately from the state of property in Ireland. The appointment of receivers, their security, and the mode of controlling them, was all grounded on the practice and precedents of the Court of Chancery in England. They were under the same control, and were bound to account in the same manner. The embarrassments of the estates in the country had led to these abuses. As to the Lord Chancellor, it was perfectly well known that when he came to the bench in Ireland, he used his utmost efforts to rectify these abuses. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland had two years ago tried to get rid of these abuses. The hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex had made some allusion to a solicitor in Ireland having made his stable servant a receiver, and that such a step had been sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor. If such a thing were done by the Lord Chancellor, it was done merely on the evidence that came before him, and in accordance with the rules of the court. The hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex had appeared to contrast the conduct of the Master of the Rolls with that of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; but, while he (Mr. Hatchell) readily admitted the ability and urbanity of the Master of the Rolls, he must also say, that in the case to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, no blame whatever could be attached to the Lord Chancellor, who had acted in the strict discharge of his duty.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

begged to call the attention of the Committee to the course which had been taken in consequence of the report of the receivers' committee. Receivers were either receivers under judgments, under what was called Pigot's Act, and receivers under the estates of infants and lunatics. The latter were not mismanaged; but with respect to receivers under judgments, they were really the officers of the judgment creditor, appointed for the purpose of getting execution of his debt. It could not be expected that receivers in such a case would lay out money to improve an estate, as was done by the other class of receivers. The only mode of getting rid of the evil was by getting rid of receivers under judgments altogether. Now, what had been done in consequence of this? The House had passed a Bill by which no receiver would in future be appointed over an estate in Ireland on a judgment. That was a very considerable step in the improvement of the system, and receivers under judgments would rapidly disappear. Nothing gave him greater confidence in the Bill upon which the Committee had bestowed their attention that evening, than the manner in which the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls had done him the honour to consult with him on the subject; and he was satisfied that there existed a sincere desire on the part of both those distinguished Judges to carry out by a series of orders a complete reform of the Court of Chancery.

MR. B. OSBORNE

, in explanation, said, that it was supposed that because he had praised the Master of the Rolls he had made an attack on the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. But even if he had made that attack, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken offered no defence; no explanation of the case to which he had alluded, of a solicitor having appointed his own stable servant at the rate of 10s. a week to act as a receiver; that solicitor in palliation stated that he knew twenty-three solicitors who did the same thing.

MR. KEOGH

said, that he was aware of the facts of the case, and he would by permission of the House explain them, and having a perfect knowledge of them, he felt that not the slightest censure could be with propriety cast on the Lord Chan- cellor of Ireland. The Master of the Rolls had not sent, as had been stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, a recommendation that this attorney should be struck of the rolls, to the Lord Chancellor. He merely sent a statement of his own opinion on the subject. The solicitor's statement was that the property in question amounted to about 300l. a year; and it was a most difficult matter in Ireland to induce persons in a respectable station to undertake the management of estates under the Court of Chancery, for which they would not obtain a remuneration exceeding 5l. or 6l. a year. The solicitor stated that he had not been able to procure as receiver such a person as the Court would desire, but that he had given the best evidence in his power that the estate would be properly managed by himself becoming guarantee for the person he had employed. It appeared, also, that the estate had throughout been well and efficiently managed, and that not one farthing of money produced by the property was lost. These were the facts of the case, and he threw himself on the mercy of the court. Under these circumstances he thought that there was no ground for passing censure on the Lord Chancellor. At the same time that he (Mr. Keogh) stated this he was as willing as any man to admit that the greatest abuses existed in Ireland under the Chancery Courts, and said it was his strong opinion that solicitors should not he appointed receivers.

MAJOR BLACKALL

hoped that if the House was to legislate by a clause in this Bill as proposed, there would be time given to consider it. Perhaps the Chairman had better, therefore, report progress.

MR. J. STUART

said, he would bring up the clause on the report.

Clause 30 agreed to, and the following clauses up to Clause 37.

On Clause 38,

MR. GROGAN

objected, that the word "officers" did not sufficiently specify the persons entitled to compensation, and moved the omission of a part of the clause, in order that clerks who might not be properly considered officers, should have an opportunity of preferring their claim for compensation to the Treasury. He did not wish to coerce the Treasury to grant them compensation, but to place them in a position to demand it. If the clause was not intended to include those persons, he would press his Motion to a division.

Amendment proposed, page 15, line 42, after "officers of," to insert "or persons employed in."

Question put, "That the proposed words he there inserted."

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

could not consent to the addition of the words. The clause did not prevent those persons making their claims if they desired to do so; and it was for the Treasury to determine whether they came within the meaning of the clause, and were entitled to compensation.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 96: Majority 70.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved that the Chairman report progress, intending then to move that the Bill he immediately re-committed with the view of introducing additional amendments, having them printed, and considering them on the further re-committal of the Bill.

MR. KEOGH

rose to inquire if the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had any intention of introducing a provision for the purpose of giving a Parliamentary title to estates sold under the authority of the Court of Chancery as well as to those sold by direction of the Encumbered Estates Commission?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

replied that it would be quite impossible to introduce any such provisions in the Bill then before the House. The subject was one of great magnitude, in legislating on which many guards and checks would be required.

The House resumed.

Bill reported; re-committed; considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered on Friday next, and to be printed.

The House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.