§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 8 (Execution of bills of sale).
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped the Committee would not for one moment consider that in proposing a slight delay for the consideration of this Bill he had any other motive than to see right and justice done. He had considered the measure very carefully, and arrived at certain conclusions with regard to it; and in the course of the few days that had elapsed since the Bill was last before the Committee he had received a very singular confirmation of his views. 1399 The President of the Law Society of the United Kingdom had sent him a paper containing a number of objections to the Bill; and he found that not only were all the points which he had urged taken up, but that the document went even further than he had gone. There was one point suggested by the Law Society to which he referred that he wished to urge upon the Attorney General. It had reference to solicitors employed at the execution of a bill of sale; and the document stated that "counsel considered that if such clause be retained the words 'for this purpose' should be added at the end." He would not take up the time of the Committee by moving the words as an Amendment on that occasion, inasmuch as it was impossible to follow the very peculiar wording of the clause; but he asked the hon. and learned Attorney General to bring up words on Report limiting the clause in the manner suggested.
§ MR. LEWIS FRYsaid, since the Bill was in Committee on Thursday last, he had received a communication from the Incorporated Law Society, which represented the branch of the Legal Profession specially concerned in this clause. The Committee would remember that, as the Bill formerly stood, it was the duty of the solicitor to state in the attestation of the bill of sale that he had read it over and explained it to the person about to sign it. But when the clause was last before the Committee the wording was materially altered, and the duty was thereby imposed on the solicitor of "carefully explaining the nature and effect" of the bill of sale to the assignor. He asked hon. Members to observe the great distinction between the two forms of words. The non-performance of the duty of explaining the nature of the instrument would, under the original clause, render the solicitor liable to proceedings for professional misconduct; but the clause as it now stood rendered him liable to criminal proceedings for non-performance of the duty imposed upon him. It might possibly appear to some hon. Members that the suggestion of the Incorporated Law Society that the alteration would give rise to frivolous prosecutions was without foundation. It was, however, deserving of great consideration. He was now too late to move any alteration or addition to the clause; but, at the 1400 proper time, he proposed to move a substantive clause, which would provide that criminal proceedings under this clause should not take place without the sanction of the Attorney General. Solicitors would consider themselves safe in the hands of the Attorney General; but if the Committee refused to alter the Bill in such a manner as he had spoken of, he should feel it his duty, on Report, to move that the whole clause should be omitted.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Local registration of contents of bills of sale).
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 1, to leave out "the prescribed time" and insert "three clear days after registration in the principal registry."—(Mr. Whitley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 10 (Bill of sale under 50l. to be void).
§ MR. WHITLEY, in proposing, in page 3, line 13, to leave out "fifty" and insert "twenty," said, this, no doubt, was a very important alteration; it was an alteration he moved in the Committee upstairs; but he was beaten there. Since then he had received representations from a great number of people on the subject, and he felt justified in renewing his proposal. The President of the Board of Trade said the other day that the Bill went too far, or it did not go far enough. No one felt more strongly than he did the conduct of the extortioner; but, at the same time, as a matter of principle, he did not see why the poor man should not have the same power of borrowing as the rich man. The object of the Bill, no doubt, was to stop, if possible, usury; but he thought the Bill would do a great deal of harm, and not good, to the poorer classes. Instead of lending upon bills of sale, men would fly to other expedients. They would, for instance, find some means of hiring the furniture of the poor people, and no registration would be required, while they would have complete control 1401 over the property. The usurers would be driven to adopt some such expedient to carry on their trade. The Bill would increase the difficulties under which the poorer classes laboured, and would place them more than ever under the control of the usurer. In this belief he proposed the Amendment which stood in his name, and he hoped the Committee would see its way to adopt it.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 13, leave out "fifty" and insert "twenty."—(Mr. Whitley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he quite agreed that this was an important matter which the Committee was now called upon to determine. What was proposed was an alteration which ought not to be hastily accepted. The matter came before the Committee which sat last year; it was very fully considered, and there were some matters affecting the evidence given before the Committee to which he wished to call attention. He would admit that he was waging war against a class of men—the usurers. Not only from the evidence given to the Committee, but from a general knowledge, he regarded these, men as absolute enemies of the poor men—they were perfect pests of society. Unfortunately, they chiefly directed their efforts at those who could not protect themselves, but who would be protected by the legislation now proposed. For one moment he would call the attention of the Committee to the extent that bills of sale had come into existence of late years. In the year 1877 the total number of bills of sale registered was 13,220; but in 1880 it had increased to 51,000. Now, in 1877, when there was a total of 13,000, there were 4,125 bills of sale for less than £50; but in 1880, when there was a total of 51,000, there were 36,000, or nearly three-fourths of the whole, which were for sums less than £50. The meaning of that was this—that of late years there had been a class of persons living by false pretences. There were persons who represented themselves to be widows or charitable persons anxious to lend money to needy persons. They found it was more to their own interest to lend in small sums, because they could get more 1402 out of the initial charges, and, indeed, charge in proportion a higher interest. Of late years the trade had taken a new start. It was all at the expense of the poor man, for it was given in evidence before the Committee that the bills were drawn very carefully—drawn in such a form that sometimes there were 20 conditions of re-entry. It almost invariably happened that when a poor man gave a bill of sale his home was broken up and his goods seized. His hon. Friend (Mr. Whitley) had fairly stated his view that the poor man should be as well able to borrow as the rich man; but he (the Attorney General) thought it better for poor men to suffer any inconvenience than to go into the hands of the moneylenders. A man had better pawn a portion of his goods—he had better have execution for the debt he had honestly incurred, for it was certain if he once began to borrow from usurers the time would come when there would be a seizure of his goods on some small pretence, and for a much larger sum than was really due. Every kind of charge in the shape of costs was added, and he who borrowed small sums, under the circumstances, was certain to find himself ruined in the end. His hon. Friend admitted the principle that protection should be given. He did not wish to trouble the Committee with figures; but they would find there was a vast number of bills of sale given for between £20 and £50. He was afraid that if they adopted the low figure of £20 the money-lenders would be prompted to lend a little more than £20. He was surprised his hon. Friend did not approve of the limit at £50, because when such a sum or higher was concerned, they did get something like commercial transactions. It was very proper there should be some protection given to the poor man; but it was for the Committee to inquire where the line was to be drawn. He knew that Members of the Committee had received remonstrances as to why a poor man should not borrow; but he was confident that most of those remonstrances came from persons interested, and they were the lenders and not the borrowers. The borrowers did not tell them they wanted protection; and a large number of the Committee were of opinion that what ought to be done was not to give them protection, but to prevent them borrowing altogether 1403 —the opinion of the Committee was that few had better suffer inconvenience than many of them should be ruined. Whilst he could not ask the Committee to follow his judgment in every respect, he did think they would be doing good, whilst they would inconvenience a few, if they struck home at the money-lenders, and virtually bring, as they would by this Bill, their trade to a close. He hoped the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would take the sense of the Committee by dividing upon the Amendment.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it was a pleasure in the House of Commons to sometimes get out of the range of political controversy. He gave the Attorney General every credit for the sincerity of his opinions in this matter; but it was a curious thing that the limit of £20 was the very limit that the Incorporated Law Society approved of. The hon. and learned Attorney General spoke about remonstrances having come from interested parties alone—namely, from the moneylenders; but that was not the fact, because after dispassionate consideration the Incorporated Law Society approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley). The Attorney General had referred to the evidence given before the Committee; but he (Mr. Warton) protested strongly against the system prevailing in the House, of always accepting en bloc the recommendations of any Committee whatever. If the New Rules of the First Lord of the Treasury were ever adopted, and they had such things as Grand Committees, all independent judgment in the House would be completely strangled. He did not feel it necessary to be bound by the decision of any Committee whatever; and he begged to remind the Attorney General of some part of the evidence he had not mentioned at all. The evidence showed there was a large number of people carrying on a small trade, who, by the fact that they were able to get small loans of £15 or £20, were able to go on from week to week, and in this way to get over their difficulties. It was shown that to small butchers and bakers small loans were very valuable; and he trusted the Committee would give its approval to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. He did not ask the Committee to be guided by anything he had to say; he did not ask them to be guided by anything his ex- 1404 perienced Friend (Mr. Whitley) had said; but he did ask them to respect the opinion of the Incorporated Law Society.
§ MR. MONKsaid, he agreed with what had fallen from the Attorney General, and wished to say that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), the Committee upstairs were unanimous in coming to the decision that £50 should be the figure below which bills of sale should not be given. In reply to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) he would say that even small butchers and bakers could not afford to pay 50 and 60 per cent for the loans they got from money-lenders. Only yesterday he had a letter from a small tradesman, in which the writer complained bitterly that they had not put some limit in the Bill; and he said money-lenders ought not to be allowed to exact more than 30 or 40 per cent, inasmuch as pawnbrokers were only allowed 20 per cent. He regretted that, in the opinion of the Committee appointed by the House to consider the matter such limitation did not appear feasible. The Committee examined money-lenders themselves, and those witnesses said that it would be to the advantage of the poorer classes of people who wanted to borrow money not to be allowed to raise money on bills of sale. He must take the sense of the Committee on the limit of £50.
§ MR. FINDLATERsaid, he quite sympathized with the Attorney General in his desire to protect people from usurers; but, having this object in view, they must not go too far in the measures they adopted. They must take care not to interfere unduly with legitimate transactions between wholesale houses and small traders. A bill of sale given by a small dealer to a wholesale house in order to enable him to carry on his trade should be valid. In many instances such a document would be given for the balance of an account at the ordinary interest of 5 per cent. He felt that, unless some steps were taken to render the provisions of the Bill much less stringent, these legitimate transactions might be very materially interfered with. Believing, as a matter of course, that as this law was introduced into England it would also be introduced into Ireland, he had put himself into communication with wholesale houses in 1405 that country, who concurred in his view; and, as a result, he did not wish this provision to pass without entering his protest against it. He did not object to the amount mentioned, and he only referred to the point at this stage for the reason that later on he intended to oppose the clause altogether.
§ MR. BARRANsaid, the hon. Member who had preceded him need have no fear that the wholesale trade of England would be influenced by this clause being passed. No respectable wholesale house would take a bill of sale under the circumstances mentioned; therefore, he thought the hon. Member might set his mind at rest on the matter.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid, he was not advocating the cause of the usurers. What he wished to point out was this—and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had drawn particular attention to it—he (Mr. Whitley) was not aware, and he did not think the Committee were aware, that while they were trying to protect the poor man they might be doing him a great injury.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, he wished to add an Amendment in page 3, line 13, after the word "void," to the effect that the sum actually paid to the grantor should be set forth in every bill of sale. It seemed to him that it was only right and proper that the grantor should be informed on this head, and that it should be fully set forth what he was actually going to receive.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 13, after "void," insert "and the sum actually paid to the grantor without any deduction for bonus, discount, or interest, shall be truly set forth in every hill of sale, otherwise the same shall he void."—(Mr. Henry Allen.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. MONKsaid, he had some doubts as to whether the object the hon. Member had in view would be carried out by the addition of these words. There was nothing said in the Amendment as to solicitor's costs. The hon. Member mentioned "bonus, discount, or interest;" but a charge might very properly be made under the head of solicitor's costs, so that the object of the Amendment could easily be evaded. It 1406 would be a new precedent altogether to set forth the exact sum advanced; and he doubted whether the Amendment ought to be accepted. Unless the hon. and learned Attorney General thought these words should be accepted, he (Mr. Monk) should certainly be disinclined to agree with them.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, his hon. Friend threw some responsibility on him in this matter. He would remind hon. Gentlemen who were Members of the Select Committee that the subject had been fully considered upstairs, the desire being to carry out the views expressed by the hon. Member (Mr. H. Allen). A great many practical difficulties, however, had presented themselves, one being that, in a great many instances, bills of sale were not given for sums advanced, but for debts for goods received. If the Committee wished to adopt the principle advocated by the hon. Member, they could not accept this Amendment, as it might be that in a bill of sale transaction no sum had been paid to the vendor. This view, also, should be presented to the Committee. If the sum actually paid was not set forth, the bill of sale was to be void. Very good; a bill might be rendered void by a bonâ fide mistake. A man might say—"You have stated in the bill of sale that you advanced £21, whereas you only gave me £20; therefore, the amount is not truly cited, and the bill of sale is void." He (the Attorney General) agreed with the principle the hon. Member had in view, as also did the Select Committee; but, after careful consideration, they had come to the conclusion that, as it would be so difficult to draw up a clause to cover all these matters, it would not be practicable to do what the hon. Gentleman suggested.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he doubted whether the Committee should insert a provision of this kind in the Bill. The Amendment suggested one of the most easy ways in which the 10th clause—if it was to be passed at all—might be evaded; and he could not help thinking that either on Report, or at some subsequent stage, the Attorney General or the hon. Member for Gloucester would be able to propose some method by which the object of the hon. Member could be achieved without adopting such an Amendment as this.
§ MR. LEWIS FRYsaid, he wished to point out that the object the hon. Member had in view was practically carried out by Clause 7.
§ MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, the Committee had examined some most experienced County Court Judges on this question. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mottram had laid great stress upon having the sum actually paid, distinct from commission, interest, or expenses stated in the bill of sale. The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. L. Fry) would be quite correct, he thought, as to a statement made in another clause, provided they interpreted the words as meaning that the "consideration" should be without deduction. He was not clear that it would be correct to say that the consideration was not fairly stated, for it might be still a true consideration, though there might be fraudulent deductions made from the payment. He did not feel inclined to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 11 (Bill of sale void as against trustee in bankruptcy).
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he believed this clause was one of the most important in the Bill; and before he moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice he should like, if it was not wearying the Committee, to give them again the opinion of the Incorporated Law Society, which opinion went far beyond his own and far beyond his Amendment. The Society had said they were of opinion that it was not right that the validity of a bill of sale should depend upon whether or not the grantor committed an act of bankruptcy after its registration. No prudent person would lend money. ["Divide!"] He understood the feeling of the Committee. It seemed clear that they were really in their hearts opposed to bills of sale altogether. Then, why not say so, and make this a Bill for the abolition of bills of sale altogether? No prudent man would think of lending money on a bill of sale if such a clause as this remained in the Bill. The Incorporated Law Society were altogether opposed to the clause; but he was aware that in the House of Commons they must often have compromises, and he did not expect he could carry an Amendment to strike out the clause. He would give his reason 1408 why he thought the period of four months should be adopted in preference to 12. In the Act of 1862, c. 32 & 33 Vict., which, with another measure they were familiar with, formed the Bankruptcy Act, the period of four months was what he might call a sacred period. They would find, on referring to the Act, that within four months of the presentation of the Petition the bankrupt must not remove any part of his property. He must not falsify, destroy, or mutilate any of his books within four months of his bankruptcy; he must not make any false entry in any of his books or documents within four months of his bankruptcy; he must not make any alteration or omission in any document within four months of his bankruptcy; he must not obtain property on credit within four months of his bankruptcy. Sub-sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, out of the 11 clauses of the Act, referred to things which the bankrupt must not do within four months of his bankruptcy. But, when he came to the last sub-section, his argument became very much stronger. The 15th sub-section was to the effect that, if within four months next before the presentation of the bankruptcy petition or the commencement of litigation, a person disposed of any property obtained on credit, and not paid for, he committed a misdemeanour. If the clause stood in the Bill as at present framed, they would be in this curious position—that they allowed a person to pawn or dispose of all property obtained in the way of trade up to within four months of his bankruptcy; but refused to allow him to dispose of his own property within 12 months of his bankruptcy. He (Mr. Warton) maintained that the prohibition in the Bill now before the Committee should be added to the nine or 10 prohibitions of the Act he had referred to, all of which were limited to within four months of the bankruptcy.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 14, to leave out the word "twelve," in order to insert the word "four."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he could not attach the weight the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) did to the opinion of the Council of 1409 the Incorporated Law Society. That Council had entirely misapprehended the object of the clause. They had given it as their opinion that it was not right that the validity of a bill of sale should depend on whether or not the grantor had committed an act of bankruptcy after its registration. This Act did not propose to deal with that question at all. What the Act did propose to do was to go back to a limited extent only to what was the state of the law prior to 1878. When the hon. and learned Member said that no prudent money-lender would advance money on the security of a bill of sale subject to this contingency, he forgot that every bill of sale, prior to 1878, was subject to this contingency without any limit of four, six, or 12 months. In 1878, what he was bound to call that foolish and disastrous Act was passed, which repealed "the Order and Disposition" Clause of the Bankruptcy Law, and which every witness before the Select Committee said was the cause of the enormous increase of bills of sale—from 11,000 to 15,000. Every money-lender examined told the Committee the value they attached to the abolition of this clause, and made no concealment of their delight, because it deprived the honest creditors who had trusted the trader with goods of that security which legitimately belonged to them, and placed the whole of the property of the debtor in the hands of the preferential creditor, who held the bill of sale. He should be glad to see the law again as it was before 1878; and if there should be a Bankruptcy Act this Session, he would call attention again to this question. The Committee were, however, now dealing with bills of sale, and they found that, by the Act of 1878, great wrong and great injustice had been done; and what the Committee were asked was, to say that a bill of sale, given within 12 months of bankruptcy, should not be valid, so far as related to goods in the possession of the bankrupt at the time of his bankruptcy. It was a principle of justice that a man's goods should belong to all his creditors; and he hoped the Attorney General would adhere to the clause as the Committee had left it. He should prefer no limit of 12 months; but that was the least limit that ought to be fixed.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid, he agreed in the remarks of the hon. Member for 1410 Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler); but he thought the hon. Member forgot that the alteration in the law was owing to pressure by the mercantile community. Representing, as he did, a great commercial community—Liverpool—he attached considerable importance to this clause. In 1878 it was the commercial bodies of the country that caused the change in the law, because they found that a man who had house property or freehold property could borrow to the last penny on his property; but a man with £20,000 or £30,000 worth of property, if it consisted of personal property, could not do so. Many large manufacturers throughout the country had spent £20,000 or £30,000 in erecting machinery and warehouses; and they borrowed on bills of sale, which were advertised, and of which, therefore, all the creditors had knowledge. It was in the interest of the commercial bodies that the alteration was made; and he thought that unless the Committee were prepared to go so far as to say that no man should borrow on personal property, they must do away with bills of sale altogether; but believing that bills of sale, which enabled men to spend large sums of money on their works, were entitled to protection if the creditors had notice, if the clause was to be passed at all, he thought it ought to follow the lines of the Bankruptcy Act, and that was why he proposed four months. The Committee might say men should not borrow at all; and to say that after 12 months the security should disappear was virtually to decide that mercantile men should not borrow upon their property. It was not in the interest of the money-lenders, but in the interest of the commercial community, that he took this view; and if there was to be any alteration, the Committee ought to follow the Bankruptcy Act and make the limit four months.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that for every bill of sale of a commercial nature there were 10 that were in no way connected with commerce. A man who knew he was insolvent, and could not continue in his position and meet his necessities, would give a bill of sale to one particular person who advanced him a sum of money, and that particular person would take all his goods as against all the other creditors. These bills of sale were given in anticipation and in con- 1411 templation of insolvency; and when the bankruptcy occurred the real meritorious creditor got nothing at all, the one person taking everything. What the Committee had to determine was the period when a man was likely to give a bill of sale in anticipation of bankruptcy; that might be not within 12 months, but within four months, when he got close up to his bankruptcy. His own view was that a 12 months' limit would be a sufficient security for the meritorious creditor, and that by that means he would be protected against being cheated by the money-lender, who now took all.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, by this Bill it was proposed to repeal the "Order and Disposition" Clause of the Act of 1878, and to go back to a state of things which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton desired. If this period of uncertain ownership was to be created at all, he thought it should be shortened.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Bill did not propose to repeal the Act of 1878, except so far as regarded inconsistencies.
§ MR. MONKwished to state that the Chambers of Commerce were in favour of the longer term, and would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) that in a previous division on this subject he had voted with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, when there was a majority of 2 to 1 in favour of a long term.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, that at that time a Select Committee had not approved of even a qualified repeal of the 20th clause of the Act of 1878.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 13: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 53.)
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ MR. MELLOR, in moving, in page 2, after Clause 6, to insert the following Clause:—
§ (Bill of sale with power to seize except in certain events to be void.)
§ "A bill of sale by way of mortgage shall be void if the mortgagee is thereby empowered to seize the goods assigned for any other than the following causes:—
- (1.) If the mortgagor shall make default in payment of the sum or sums of money thereby received at the time therein provided for payment;
- (2.) If the mortgagor shall become a bankrupt or suffer the said goods or any of them to be distrained for rents, rates, or taxes;
- (3.) If the mortgagor shall fraudulently remove or suffer the said goods, or any of them, to be removed from the premises;
- (4.) If the mortgagor shall not, without reasonable excuse, upon demand in writing by the mortgagee, deliver to him his last receipts for rent, rates, and taxes;"
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, after Clause 6, insert the following Clause:—
§ (Bill of Sale with power to seize except in certain events to be void.)
§ "A bill of sale by way of mortgage shall be void if the mortgagee is thereby empowered to seize the goods assigned for any other than the following causes:—
- (1.) If the mortgagor shall make default in payment of the sum or sums of money thereby received at the time therein provided for payment;
- (2.) If the mortgagor shall become a bankrupt or suffer the said goods or any of them to be distrained for rents, rates, or taxes;
- (3.) If the mortgagor shall fraudulently remove, or suffer the said goods, or any of them, to be removed from the premises;
- (4.) If the mortgagor shall not, without reasonable excuse, upon demand in writing by the mortgagee, deliver to him his last receipts for rent, rates, and taxes."—(Mr. Mellor.)
§ Question proposed, "That the said Clause be there inserted."
§ MR. MONKsaid, he thought there was very great force in all that had been stated by his hon. and learned Friend; and without taking up the time of the 1414 Committee he would say at once that he was ready to accept the clause.
§ MR. WARTONwould suggest that the 1st sub-section should be amended by making it read "time or times," instead of "time."
§ MR. MELLORsaid, he had no objection.
§ Proposed Clause amended by inserting, in 1st sub-section, after "time," the words, "or times."
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended, be added to the Bill."
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsuggested that, as the clause had now been read a second time, it would be better, for the sake of uniformity, to substitute some other term for the term "mortgagor." In the other clauses of the Bill the borrower was called "grantor."
§ MR. MONKagreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) that the word "grantor" would be a better term than "mortgagor," and in the second line of the 1st subsection the word "received" ought to be altered into "secured."
§ Proposed Amendments made.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed that the words, "by way of mortgage," in the first line of the clause, be omitted. They would only lead to confusion.
§ Further Amendment made.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
§
MR. LEWIS FRY moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following Clause:—
No prosecution for any dereliction of duty by a solicitor under section eight shall be instituted without the fiat of Her Majesty's Attorney General.
He moved this clause at the request of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, to whose Report reference had already been made, and who were certainly entitled to be heard on a question of this nature. They were of opinion that without some such clause members of their Profession might be exposed to threats of extortion and to frivolous prosecutions by unprincipled persons; and it would certainly be hard to impose a statutory obligation upon solicitors, and then to render them liable to prosecution upon flimsy pretences.
1415
He hoped that the Attorney General would see his way to accept the clause.
§
Amendment proposed, after Clause 8, insert the following Clause:—
No prosecution for any dereliction of duty by a solicitor under section eight shall be instituted without the fiat of Her Majesty's Attorney General."—(Mr. Lewis Fry.)
§ Question, "That the said Clause be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, that if he was in Order he would move the omission of Clause 9, for the purpose of inserting clauses requiring a copy of the bill of sale, with inventory, &c, to be presented to the Registrar of the County Court, and that the bill of sale should be filed and an abstract sent to the Registrar of the Queen's Bench Division. The learned Attorney General informed him, however, that he could not move the omission of the clause at that stage, because it had already been agreed to.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member could not move the clauses he had placed on the Paper in substitution of a clause already agreed to; but he might move them as additional clauses.
§ MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, that, under those circumstances, he would bring up the clauses on the Report.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERbegged to move the clause which stood in his name, and which provided that where a Company registered under the Companies Act was wound up within 12 months after the execution of a bill of sale, the bill, as against the liquidator, should be void in respect of any personal chattels subsequently acquired by the Company. A great many businesses in this country were now carried on by means of Companies, with limited liability, under the Joint Stock Companies Act, and there was a good deal to be said in favour of the clause, because these Limited Companies had all their capital paid up, and their only available assets were the goods in their possession.
§ New Clause—
§ (Bill of sale to be void as to personal chattels in certain cases.)
§ "Where a Company registered under 'The Companies Act, 1862,' is wound up either compulsorily or voluntarily within twelve months after the execution by such Company of a bill of sale, such bill of sale shall, as against the liquidator or liquidators of such Company, be 1416 void in respect of any personal chattels which at or after the date of the commencement of such winding up are in the possession, or apparent possession, or the order and disposition of such Company,"—(Mr. H. H. Fowler,) —brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. STUART - WORTLEYasked if the object of the clause was not already effected by Clause 14?
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.