HC Deb 04 February 1856 vol 140 cc182-3

said, he begged to ask for leave to introduce a Bill enabling execution to issue in any part of the United Kingdom under judgments or decrees obtained in certain Courts of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The House had already affirmed the principle of the measure; but the law officers of the Crown had expressed disapproval of the form in which it stood last year, he had, therefore, struck out all reference to Courts of Chancery and the Incumbered Estates Courts. He had also provided that the certificate required by the Act should issue only on a rule of Court or Judge's order.


said, the Bill of last year was thought very objectionable in Ireland. It was considered by a Select Committee of that House, who tried in vain to amend it, and on their recommendation it was rejected in the House by a large majority. He would not oppose its reintroduction, but would vote against the second reading.


said, he desired to know whether the hon. and learned Solicitor General had turned his attention to the Bill, and also whether the power of enforcing judgments was to be made reciprocal in the three kingdoms?


said, the details of the Bill of last Session appeared to him objectionable; but the object was a good one, and he thought could be accomplished without infringing the distinctive principles of the jurisprudence of England and Scotland. He was not prepared to express any opinion upon the details of the measure now sought to be introduced, but he thought the end so desirable that he would be loth to put any obstacle in the way of attaining the great object; of amalgamating the jurisdiction, and facilitating the execution of a judgment passed in one country and desired to be enforced in another.


, in reply to Sir F. KELLY, said, that he intended the power of enforcing judgments to be reciprocal.

Leave given.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. CRAUFURD and Mr. DUNLOP.

Bill read 1°.