HC Deb 08 July 1856 vol 143 cc505-6

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 1.

MR. WHITE SIDE

said, he wished to propose that a limit should be put to the power of appointing a receiver by enacting that no receiver should be appointed where the debt did not exceed £150 a year.

MR. HENLEY

said, the mischief and misery that had been worked in Ireland through the receiver system could hardly be exaggerated, and he did not think the Bill was of a nature to overcome those evils. He would suggest, however, that a limit should be fixed below which no receiver should be appointed, not only as to the amount of the debt, but as to the amount of the rental of the estate on which the receivership was appointed.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, he was willing to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

MR. NAPIER

said, he thought £150 was the lowest amount that could be adopted.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, that in many cases receivers were appointed over an estate for a debt of £20, the costs incurred by such, appointment being ten times that amount, while receivers were appointed in several instances also where the annual value of the estate was only £50. If the rental was limited to £100 a year, he (Mr. Whiteside) would accept the Amendment.

MR. M'MAHON

said, that receivers had been the curse of Ireland, but the Amendment would compel the sale of estates, or of a portion of them, over which a receiver could not be appointed. The sooner the system of receivership was abolished, however, the better.

MR. DEVERE

said, the receiver system in Ireland had been shown to be atrocious, and of benefit to no one but the receiver. The debtor lost his debt, the tenants lost their interests, and the owner lost his property by the deterioration of the land under that system. He was glad, therefore, to see the limitations proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen, however indefensible on principle.

LORD NAAS

said, he was very glad to hear that the House was going to place a limit upon the receiver system.

MR. HUGHES

said, he thought that the limitation of the rental was more important than the limitation of the debt, and that in all cases where a petition for a receiver was presented, the Court ought, in order to prevent fraud and injury to creditors, to be satisfied that the property was applicable to the benefit of the party seeking the appointment. He should propose that the rental should be limited to £100 a year.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, that he would adopt the sum of £150 of debt, but be thought the £150 rental was too high. Therefore he proposed to give the Court of Chancery a discretionary power to appoint a receiver without any limitation as to the amount of rental.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.

House resumed.

Bill reported, without amendment.