Commons Sitting of 20 May 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Registration of Long Leases (Scotland); Burial Acts Amendment.
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL—

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. ADDERLEY MR. ADDERLEY moved that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair. The hon. Member said that the principle of the Bill having been so fully recognized on a former occasion, he hoped that he should be allowed to proceed with it at once. He thought that the clauses and Amendments which he was about to introduce would fully meet the views of the hon. Members who had placed notices with respect to the Bill on the paper.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR GEORGE GREYhoped that the hon. Member would only go into Committee proformaâ, in order to have the Amendments of which he had given notice printed. The Bill was one of great importance, and though he should be sorry to stand in the way of its being considered in Committee, he thought sufficient time ought to be given to ascertain the opinion of boards of guardians, and others who were interested, throughout the country regarding it. His right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster took a deep interest in the question, and he hoped that they would have an opportunity
  622
  of fully considering all the details of the measure. But that could not be done on the mere introduction of new clauses; and therefore, if the hon. Gentleman refused to accede to the course he had suggested, he should vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding (Viscount Goderich).
  MR. MILEScordially concurred in the opinion of the right hon. Baronet. This measure, however benevolent might be its object, would interfere greatly with the operations of poor-law guardians throughout the country, and it contained many clauses which were objected to even by some of its supporters. He thought it very desirable, therefore, that time should be given for consideration, and he hoped his hon. Friend would adopt the suggestion thrown out to him.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that, as Ireland was to be exempted from the operation of the Bill, it might appear at first that an Irish Member had no right to offer any objections. He could not, however, conceal from himself that the vast majority of the disorderly and vagrant children who would come under the operation of the Bill were the children of Irish parents who had located themselves in the metropolis and other large towns, and therefore, as an Irish Member, he felt considerable apprehensions. The question of taxation was an English one, and he would not deal with it; but he hoped his hon. Friend would propose a clause which would lull the apprehensions now felt that the religious principles of the children would be tampered with by some of the managers of the proposed schools. Had his hon. Friend witnessed the heart-burnings and outrages which had arisen in Ireland from the system of proselytism, he would wish to place his scheme above all suspicion in that respect, and to make it a blessing instead of a snare to the lower classes of the community.
  VISCOUNT GODERICH,in moving that the House resolve itself into the said Committee this day three weeks, observed that he had nothing whatever to say against the object of the measure. It would, no doubt, be an excellent thing if children could be reclaimed from crime and vagrancy; but in considering this measure they ought also to consider its machinery, and what effect it would have upon the present law. He only wanted to show that the Bill was of such a character that it required the utmost consideration before

  623
  it was passed. It proposed to make an alteration in the existing poor law by dealing with the rates and the funds now administered by the guardians; and therefore both they and the people who paid the rates ought to be allowed ample time to consider the question. It proposed to do three things, of a very grave character. In the first place, it placed the guardians and the justices in such a relation to each other as could not fail to be productive of very great inconvenience, and would probably lead to many conflicts. The Bill would give power to the justices to send the children to the schools to be established under the Act, and if, after examining the parents, they considered that they were not in a condition to support such children, the justices were invested with an arbitrary power of making them chargeable upon the parish. Thus, all power of putting the parents to the test now enforced by the guardians would be entirely taken out of their hands, and that safeguard which the poor law set up to ascertain the real ability of the parent to support his children, would be destroyed, it being for the justices to say whether in their discretion the child ought to be maintained by the parish or not. This Bill also would virtually defeat the present law of settlement in the case of these children, because not only was it enacted that the children might be declared chargeable to the parish, but to that particular parish in which they were apprehended in the commission of the act of vagrancy which subjected them to the provisions of the Act. He had no objection, indeed, to an alteration of the present law of settlement, but he thought it ought to be effected by a specific measure introduced into the House and properly discussed, and not by a side-wind like this. What would be the effect? Why, that in numerous cases they would have the settlement of the parents in different parishes to those in which the children were arrested, and then an entirely new principle would be imported into the law of England. The House would recollect that one of the great difficulties that arose on the former measure was that which related to the settlement of Irish paupers, and many grave objections were advanced by boards of guardians in different parts of England on that ground. But one of the greatest objections to this measure was that which arose under the 17th clause, which provided that the justices might summon the parents and inquire into their circumstances, and then, in their discretion,
  624
  might order them to pay a certain sum towards the maintenance of the children so apprehended; but if, on the other hand, they did not conceive that they were in a condition to pay for the support of the children, they were authorized to make an absolute order, without consulting the guardians, that the children should be supported out of the poor rates. Now, the effect of this would be that a parent would only have to send his children out into the street to beg, and thus get taken up by a policeman, in order to enable him to go before the magistrates, state his inability to support his children, and get them thrown on the parish. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought it highly desirable that the Bill should be postponed until the country had given a full expression of opinion upon it.
  MR. HADFIELDseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three weeks, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ADDERLEYcomplained of the obstruction thrown in the way of the measure, and was by no means convinced that its postponement now would be a means of saving time in future, because precisely the same objections might be hereafter raised. At all events, he thought he was entitled to introduce his Amendments, and proceed with the measure until they came to the clause to which the chief objections were raised. He reminded the House how difficult it would be for him to obtain another day, and expressed his surprise that, considering the second reading was carried by nearly ten to one, he should not now be allowed to proceed with its details. So far from the measure being objectionable, the testimony of the important town of Birmingham was in its favour, for he had a letter from the guardians there, stating that when it became known that there was an intention of opposing the Bill, they met, with other bodies interested in the improvement of national education, and passed Resolutions strongly in favour of the measure. After taking the sense of the House on the 16th clause, he should have no objection to the Bill being re-committed as suggested.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he had already expressed an opinion favourable to the principle of the Bill, and was anxious to see some measure passed on the subject; but

  625
  he wished to see a well-considered measure, not a crude and indigested one. In its present shape the Bill would give rise to a great deal of useless discussion, which might be avoided by acceding to the proposition for the postponement of the Bill. There were several points of detail on which the promoters of the Bill did not appear to have made up their minds, and it was of great importance, before any discussion took place in Committee, that the various boards of guardians throughout the country should have an opportunity of considering the Bill in its matured shape.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he did not wish to discuss this measure, but the conduct of the Government with regard to it. It appeared to him that the duty of the Government was to watch well how laws were made in this House, and that they ought to be responsible for every enactment, and not to allow private Members to alter the whole system of the country in enactments Introduced for special objects. It was, therefore, in his opinion, the duty of the Government to say whether they would adopt this measure or not. He said that the Government ought to be called upon, not to ask hon. Gentlemen what their intentions were, but to state their own. The House and the country wanted to know what Government thought of this measure in relation to, and as tampering with, the poor law. They ought not to try, like the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding, to put off indefinitely its discussion— to put it off for ever—for that, in fact, was what they were doing; but to take a more manly course, and either say that it was a measure which they could not approve of, or to take it out of the hands of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire, and to give it their earnest attention. His own opinion was, that the subject was so important that it ought to be dealt with by the Government alone.
  MR. KENDALLurged the necessity for postponing this Bill, in order that the opinion of the poor-law guardians throughout the country might be taken.
  MR. PALKalso pressed the House to postpone the further consideration of the Bill, and that upon the ground that the measure, if passed as it stood, would, in practice, cause the most mischievous consequences. It would interfere most tyrannically with the only pleasure which the poorer classes of labourers had, the society and solace of their children. But he admitted that the subject, as it stood, was
  626
  surrounded with difficulties requiring legislation, and he agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), that the Government ought to take the matter into their own hands.
  MR. ROBERT PALMERalso pressed for a postponement of the measure, but he suggested that the House should go into Committee pro formâ, that certain important Amendments might be printed. The Chairman might then report progress, and sit again that day four weeks.
  MR. ADDERLEYassented to this course, and
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed; Bill reported; to be printed, as amended (Bill 25); recommitted for Wednesday, 17th June.

JUDGMENTS EXECUTION, &c. BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. BLANDsaid, as the principle of the Bill had been sanctioned by the House he should be prepared to co-operate in making it as good a Bill as practicable. But he wished the Committee to be postponed until after the other Orders of the Day, because most of the Irish Members were absent on a deputation to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He would move the postponement according to the suggestion he had made.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Order of the Day has already been read. The Question is that I do now leave the Chair.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1
  (Where Judgment has been obtained in the Courts at Westminster, a memorial thereof registered in Ireland, and vice versâ, shall have the effect of a judgment of the court in which it is so registered).
  MR. BLANDsaid, in the absence of almost every Irish Member, he could not permit the Bill to proceed: and he should move that the Chairman report progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 10; Noes 157: Majority 147.
  MR. BLANDrose to propose an Amendment, the purport of which was, that Clauses 1 to 13 be omitted, and that

  627
  other clauses, of which he had given notice, be inserted.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member could only simply negative the Motion that this clause be inserted.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, his objection was, that there was no security against collusive judgments, and he suggested to insert the word "adverse" before the word "judgment." He threw that out for consideration and for that purpose would move it.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, no doubt the law would be liable to abuse in that respect, but it would give no new facilities for fraud or greater than now existed. There was a subsequent clause which provided that the judgment should have no greater effect than a warrant of attorney, which, if collusive, would be void in the event of bankruptcy.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  COLONEL FRENCH COLONEL FRENCH moved that the Chairman report progress. It was unfair to force the Bill on in the absence of almost every Irish Member. The Irish Members were at that moment waiting on Lord Palmerston on an important subject, and could not be present.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 151: Majority 140.
  Question again put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BLANDsaid, he was opposed to the clause, and should move that it be omitted. If he succeeded in excluding it he should move to insert another in lieu of it, the effect being that an attested copy of the judgment should only have the same force as a warrant of attorney to confess judgment. This clause was framed in accordance with the opinions of Chief Justice Monahan, and would give the Court in which the judgment was registered a control of it.
  MR. AYRTONalso opposed the clause, which, he said, raised the whole question of the Bill, as it involved in principle the whole. It was desirable, no doubt, to expedite the recovery of judgments; but the Bill would be extended to all classes of judgments. The Bill was badly framed, and required substantial alteration. The clause, as at present framed, was not put together in the manner best calculated to carry put the objects of the Bill.
  Question put, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 43: Majority 94.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2
  (Where judgment has been obtained in the Courts at Westminster or at Dublin, a Copy thereof registered in Scotland shall have the effect of a Decreet of the Court of Session).
  MR. AYRTONobjected to the terms of the clause as being most untechnical in their character, as they proposed that judgment should be taken on one side of the court, and that execution should go on in the other. He was not very conversant with the law of Scotland, but feared that this proposition was very much like commencing an action in the common law courts of England, and taking a judgment in the equity courts. He hoped the learned Lord Advocate would inform the House whether, in his opinion, the clause as at present framed was consistent with the existing administration of the law in Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEexpressed his belief that the clause in the Bill would have precisely the same effect as that proposed by the hon. Gentleman, and in his opinion it was preferable of the two.
  MR. DEASYpointed out that judgments of courts of equity, which often affected the payment of large sums of money, were not referred to in the Bill. Changes in the law relating to land in Ireland had also been made of late years, and he should have liked to see a Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, who was well acquainted with the course of recent legislation upon that subject, instead of a measure brought in by a private Member, and framed in complete ignorance of the existing state of things with regard to the effect of judgment in Ireland.
  MR. NAPIERtook the same view, and contended that the Government were not justified in taking up the Bill unless they were prepared to accept it in its present shape. He thought it would be better to report progress.
  MR. ROEBUCKcomplained, that in considering a measure to alter the law of the three kingdoms the House had not the assistance of the Attorney General for England as well as that of the Attorney General for Ireland and the learned Lord Advocate. A Bill ought to have been brought in on the authority of those three Gentlemen if brought in at all, and not by a private Member. He hoped that the present

  629
  Bill would be, as it had been on a former occasion, kicked out with the contumely which it deserved.
  MR. WHITESIDEregretted that the hon. Gentleman should have brought in a Bill which, with all deference to him, would affect subjects which he did not understand. The effect of the measure would be to complicate the transfer of land in Ireland, which at present was comparatively easy.
  MR. NAPIERformally moved, that the Chairman report progress, in order that the Government might consider whether the measure really harmonised with the law of the three kingdoms.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that when the Bill was originally introduced decrees of courts of equity came within its scope; but it now applied only to judgments of the courts of law, and he could not see the force of the difficulties in the way of its successful working which had been pointed out. The Bill did not seek to alter the mode of procedure in either of the three countries, but simply to expedite it.
  MR. MALINSsupported the clause. The principle of the Bill was involved in this clause, which simply proposed, that a judgment obtained in England should, if properly registered, have the force of a judgment in Ireland, and vice versâ; and as the laws of both countries were substantially the same, he for one could see no objection to the clause. The Bill was intended to remove anomalies in the laws of the three kingdoms, which it was a marvel and a disgrace had existed so long. Hon. Gentlemen might say that this was a Bill which the Government ought to have introduced. But although no one had had greater experience than himself of the difficulties standing in the way of legislation by a private Member—difficulties which had restrained him from attempting to remove many well-recognised defects in the law—he was not going to thwart the efforts of private Members in the absence of interference on the part of the Government, when they were bold enough to attempt the reform of admitted abuses in the law. It was too much the fashion to say that Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House, because they happened to adhere to certain great Conservative principles, were opposed to all reforms. That, however, was nothing more than a mere fanciful thing; and for himself he would affirm that no one was more anxious than
  630
  he was to see the work of law reform rapidly progress.
  MR. BUTTwished to remind his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins), that the law of judgments in England and Ireland was entirely different.
  MR. MALINS: The only practical difference is that a little more particularisation is required in Ireland than in England.
  MR. BUTTmust confess his objections to the Bill were very strong. In the first place, he very much objected to the same court having control over the judgment that had control over the execution. In Ireland execution was a judicial act; in England it was Ministerial. He should like to see a provision inserted, making it necessary that notice should be given to a defendant against whom a judgment obtained in one country and registered in another, that such a proceeding had taken place. He should wish also that power should be given to a court in which proceedings were taken in a cause originated in another country, to remit the cause for trial in the court of the country from which it came.
  COLONEL FRENCHsuggested that the Government should take the advice which had been given them in reference to the Bill by the hon. Member for Sheffield, and should more carefully consider its provisions.
  MR. NAPIERsaid, that after what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Deasy) and other hon. and learned Members, to the effect that the Bill, instead of carrying out an advantageous principle, would introduce confusion into the legal system in Ireland, he felt it to be his plain duty to continue his opposition to the measure.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEthought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) deserved great credit for the perseverance with which he had conducted the Bill through the House, and, feeling satisfied with its provisions so far as they bore upon the laws of Scotland, should vote against the Motion for reporting progress.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that in his opinion fraudulent executions—of which there were many instances—would be greatly promoted under the operation of the Bill.
  MR. MALINS, on the other hand, thought the Bill would offer no additional

  631
  facilities whatever for fraudulent executions, which were quite practicable under the existing law.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 187: Majority 98.
  MR. AYRTONsaid that, considering the very different opinions which prevailed as to the merits of the Bill among hon. Members competent to form a judgment in the matter, he should suggest that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of lawyers, who, as the subject was of an entirely legal character, could best investigate its details and bring them into a satisfactory shape.
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, it was obvious from the frequent divisions upon this Bill, that the Irish Members were unanimous in opposing it. He would, therefore, recommend its further progress to be postponed until the Irish Judges had been communicated with as to its effects in Ireland.
  MR. BLANDshould take the opinion of the Committee upon this clause. The laws of Scotland were so unintelligible that he could not consent to allow the decrees of the Scotch courts to run into England and Ireland.
  Question put, "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Committee divided:—Ayes 179; Noes 92: Majority 87.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3
  (No Memorial of a Judgment shall issue without rule of Court or Judge's Order or Certificate).
  MR. M'CANNexpressed his belief that there was not a man in the House who knew enough of Scotch law to enable him to form a judgment on this Bill. He advised the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) to postpone the measure until next Session; if, meanwhile, he would bring out a short edition of the Scotch statutes, he (Mr. M'Cann) would promise to read it. He admitted that he did not understand much of Scotch law, but as far as he was acquainted with it, he did not wish it to be applied to Ireland. The measure had been before the House five or six years, and there had not been a single petition in its favour. It was a crude piece of legislation, and it would be
  632
  very wise to allow another year to bring it into maturity.
  MR. DEASYproposed some verbal Amendments, which were agreed to.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the clause, as it stood, would deprive all litigants of the right of getting a copy of the judgment in an action or suit in the superior courts for debt or damages.
  MR. SPOONERwould like to hear that objection answered.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDassented to the introduction of an Amendment, at a future time, to remedy the defect referred to.
  Mr. ROEBUCKconcurred in the objection made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and thought it would be advisable to strike out the clause altogether, with the view of framing a new clause.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that it was his object in framing the clause, to prevent a copy of the judgment being given until an order was obtained.
  Clause 4
  (Where Decreet has been obtained in the Court of Session, an extract thereof registered in England or Ireland, shall have the effect of a Judgment of the Court in which it is so registered).
  MR. DEASYproposed an Amendment,
  To add at the end of the Clause the words "Provided always, That from and after the registering of any such copy or extract of any such judgment or decreet as aforesaid, it shall not be lawful to issue any execution in or out of the Court in which such judgment or decreet was originally obtained or recovered, unless an application for leave to issue such execution shall first have been made to the Court, or a Judge of the Court in which such judgment or decreet was originally obtained or recovered as aforesaid, nor unless it shall be shown to the satisfaction of such Court or Judge that the debt, damages, or costs for which such judgment or decreet was obtained or recovered, or some part thereof, is still due and unsatisfied, and that no other execution for enforcing payment thereof has been issued out of the Court in which such judgment or decreet was registered, or that such execution was in the whole or in part ineffectual."
  MR. CRAUFURDopposed the Amendment as unnecessary.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 96: Noes 163; Majority 67.
  MR. AYRTONsaid the clause would necessitate the opening of three registries of judgments, thus tripling the existing expenses connected with the registration of judgments. He thought the mere addition of the letter I or S, as the case

  633
  might be, to the entry of Irish and Scotch judgments in the existing registry would fully answer the object of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd).
  MR. BLANDapprehended that, as the Scotch law was a fusion of law and equity, the Scotch decreets would enable Scotch creditors to obtain execution for equitable as well as legal demands, and if so they would have an advantage over English and Scotch judgments, because under the latter merely legal and not equitable demands could he recovered. He should like to hear the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) express his opinion upon this point, as he had adverted to it on a previous occasion.
  MR. MALINSsaid he had considered the point, and was now of opinion that a judgment obtained in Scotland against the estate of a debtor in England or Ireland ought to be enforced against that estate, provided the judgment were obtained by a process analogous to that resorted to in England and Ireland. He could not perceive the force of the objection of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, because, even under the existing law, searches had to be made in the English registry office for the purpose of ascertaining whether a judgment had been obtained against a man in Ireland or Scotland.
  Clause agreed to; Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  MR. BLAND MR. BLAND moved that the Chairman report progress.
  COLONEL FRENCHhoped that before the Bill again came before them the Government would reconsider the course they were taking. He thought the Irish Members, 105 in number, who, with one solitary exception, were all opposed to the Bill, had grave cause to complain of the Government for forcing this measure upon them.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Wednesday, 24th June.
  The House adjourned at three minutes before Six o'clock.