HC Deb 27 March 1882 vol 268 cc117-35

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he had to move an Amendment which was a very important one, and one to which he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would agree. The Bill proposed that where a bill of sale was registered and the owner of the property was not bankrupt within 12 months of that registration the bill of sale should hold good. He wished to amend Clause 17, which destroyed a great part of the usefulness of the measure and would lead to a great deal of litigation, putting commercial bodies to great expense. What was really the way in which it would act? Large sums of money were advanced on machinery. Bills of sale were a security. They were registered, the creditors having notice of them. To his knowledge, very large amounts were lent by persons in Liverpool to spinners and manufacturers on the security of these bills; but if this clause passed in the way proposed by the Attorney General, all such bills of sale might be absolutely void. Yet, at the same time, it appeared, on the face of the Bill, that all bills of sale registered 12 months before bankruptcy would be valid. He thought he was right in saying that if the Bill passed as it was proposed by the Attorney General, bills of sale executed by non-traders would be legal, but those executed by a spinner or other manufacturer would be bad. That would be undesirable. It would be better to at once abolish all bills of sale, and say that no security should be allowed for personal property, than to pass an Act which professed, on the face of it, only to legalize those bills of sale which affected non-traders, who were a decimal portion of the community, and make those affecting traders illegal. That was a very serious difficulty indeed. In regard to the objection that his proposal would involve that which was formerly the mode by which creditors were deceived, he contended that legalizing these bills of sale and giving notice to the creditors was the legitimate mode of making a good security. He earnestly hoped the House would understand the objection he had brought forward. He knew that the matter was a technical and difficult one; but, at the same time, what he had stated would be the effect of the Bill, and he therefore hoped his Amendment would be accepted.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, to leave out Clause 17, and insert the following Clause:—

(Repeal of sections eight and twenty of principal Act.)

"The eighth section of the principal Act is hereby repealed, and the twentieth section of the principal Act, and all other enactments contained in that Act, so far as the same are inconsistent with this Act, are hereby repealed, but this section shall not affect the validity of anything done or suffered under the principal Act before the commencement of this Act."—(Mr. Whitley.)

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was sure it was his own fault entirely, but he did not understand what the hon. Member had endeavoured to convey to the House. The clause in the Bill proposed to modify the Act of 1878. Before that Act was passed, if any property was found, without the consent of the true owner, in the possession of a person who was a trader, and who became a bankrupt, the property would pass to the trustee in bankruptcy under the Order and Disposition Clause. In 1878, all bills of sale were taken out of that Order and Disposition Clause, and the result was the multiplication of bills of sale. It was thought desirable not to go back to the old law, but, by the 13th clause, to take a middle course, and to say that if a bill of sale should be made within 12 months—that might be in anticipation of bankruptcy—the Order and Disposition Clause should apply, and the creditors should obtain the benefit of the goods, as against the bill of sale. The matter was discussed by a Select Committee, and it was thought this was taking a moderate and middle course, and therefore a safe course; and, he must say, he did not understand what the hon. Member's objection to it was. An objection might arise, not upon the construction of the Bill, but in this way—that if they passed the Bill in this shape, money-lenders would endeavour to defeat its operation, and, instead of taking bills of sale at all, would make agreements of absolute sale from the borrowers to them, and then let the property back again to the borrowers. This would not be a bill of sale, but a purchase of the property. They would have to consider, when the question of Bankruptcy came before them, whether they ought not to strike out "non-trader." To make the Order and Disposition Clause apply to non-traders, as well as to traders, was a matter for consideration. In the meantime, it was now proposed that there should be no bill of sale under £50, and the result, in 99 out of 100 cases, would be that the person giving the bill of sale would probably be a trader, and then the Order and Disposition Clause would apply, and thus everyone who was a trader would be safe by this Section 13. He hoped the House would adhere to the proposition, for it had been fully considered.

MR. MONK

said, he hoped that, after what the Attorney General had said, the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) would withdraw his proposed clause, more especially as the Attorney General had said that in the Bankruptcy Bill which would shortly come before the House, he would endeavour to deal with the difficulty. He himself must oppose the clause.

MR. MELDON

said, he thought this was a point of great importance. He did not admit that this Bill had been promoted by traders or commercial communities; he believed it was promoted by Chambers of Commerce; but nothing could be more mischievous. The matter was raised in 1878, and the difficulty surrounding the question of bills of sale was then fully considered. It was then pointed out that bills of sale, in the interest of commercial communities, ought to be real securities, or be abolished altogether. If the latter were done, well and good; but if bills of sale were allowed and tolerated and legalized, they ought to be surrounded with such conditions that persons advancing money should know how they stood. Bills of sale could be nothing but traps for the mercantile community unless this was done. He could well understand that the Government were not willing to consent to the entire abolition of bills of sale; but they should say that any person giving a bill of sale should show such indications of solvency that a bill should not be followed against him. If it was for a period during which an act of bankruptcy would run, then it should be void; and if there was a provision that any bill of sale given between acts of bankruptcy could be taken advantage of in six months, people would know where they were. But by this Bill there was the consequence of what was known among lawyers in bankruptcy as the Repudiated Ownership Clause. That left things in a state of glorious uncertainty. To enable a liability to be set aside under that clause, a number of different facts must be proved. People who advanced money liked to know whether the security was good or not; but now they would be in a state of uncertainty for 12 months, and then not know whether they might be involved in expensive litigation. The matter had not now been as fully discussed in Committee as it was in 1878; and he thought that before a Bill of this gigantic importance to the commercial community was disposed of, some further opportunity ought to be given for its consideration; and he should move that the debate be now adjourned, in order to have that opportunity of looking more fully into the matter, and of proposing other Amendments. He knew that the views he had expressed were largely shared in the commercial community.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Meldon.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

expressed his regret that the House had not had the assistance of the hon. Member before, and said, the matter was very much discussed in 1878; but the Act, having been working for three years, had revealed a state of things that was perfectly intolerable. The present Bill was introduced last year, and was then referred to a Select Committee, and by that Committee fully considered. A Bill substantially the same as the present Bill was printed and circulated, and had been in the hands of Members for six months, and fully discussed during this Session. If the hon. Member had asked for further consideration on the second reading, or in Committee, he was sure the House would have listened to all the hon. Member had to say; but he thought it was a little late now to make this proposal after the Bill had been so long before the House, and he trusted that the Motion would be withdrawn.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his opposition. He knew a great deal about the state of things under the present law; and, while he did not think this Bill went as far as it should, yet as a Bankruptcy Bill was to be introduced, which would be a complement to this measure, the whole subject could be treated then. The abolition of bills of sale, under the Order and Disposition Clause, got rid of three-fourths of the number of bills which were now a means of great extortion and injustice; and therefore he hoped that, under the circumstances, the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. WHITLEY

said, that, after what the Attorney General had said, he should not press his Motion, although he feared this clause would lead to a great deal of litigation.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARTON

moved, in Clause 6, page 2, line 10, at end, add— Or any hay, straw, corn, produce, live or dead stock, in or upon, or Drought in or upon, any land or farm in substitution for any nay, straw, corn, produce, live or dead stock, enumerated in the schedule to such hill of sale, and which have been actually paid for by the grantor of such hill of sale. The hon. and learned Member said, it would be in the recollection of the Attorney General, in the discussion—which he could not call a full discussion—in Committee upon this Bill, a hurried discussion took place, and, with the usual rapidity, the first four clauses, and nearly the fifth, were carried in about a minute. When the fifth was reached, he ventured to call attention to an Amendment in his name in the present form, but without the last words—" have been actually paid for by the grantor of such bill of sale." The Attorney General then said he would consider the matter upon Report, and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) accepted the proposition. This proposition was forced upon him by the fact that farmers throughout the country were becoming alive to the great danger they were exposed to in doing what they had a perfect right to do—namely, borrowing money upon their stock. Farmers fed and fattened their own cattle, and could not always keep the same cattle from year to year while the bill of sale might last. They must substitute one animal for another, and they could not always have the same truss of hay, or the same corn; and it was only reasonable that they should have this power he now proposed. It was no pleasure to him to bring the matter before the House; but many agriculturists required this power. It might be asked why he did not put the same thing into the 4th section with regard to persons who were not farmers? He should have been very glad to do so; but the rate at which the Bill had proceeded gave him no opportunity. But there was another answer. Farmers stood in a different position from ordinary traders. A farmer might for a long number of years, and after several good harvests, find himself solvent; but he had to take his chance of good and bad seasons, and through bad harvests he might be temporarily pressed for money, and it would be hard to deprive him of the opportunity of raising money on his present stock or on animals, which must be substituted. He believed he had the support of one of the most distinguished agricultural Members of the House—the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot)—and he hoped the Attorney General would redeem his pledge to consider this matter.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 10, after the word "executed," to add the words" or any hay, straw, corn, produce, live or dead stock, in or upon, or brought in or upon, any land or farm in substitution for any hay, straw, corn, produce, live or dead stock, enumerated in the schedule to such bill of sale, and which have been actually paid for by the grantor of such bill of sale."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he wished to acknowledge the courtesy shown by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) when he brought forward this same proposition. He had undertaken to consider the point, and he could assure the hon. Members that it had been fully considered. An endeavour was made to give way to the desire expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, and to accept the Amendment; but, after full consideration, those in charge of the Bill found they could not accept it. The House was aware that a practice had grown up in regard to bills of sale among moneylenders of not only taking assignments of all the goods possessed by the borrowers, but of all the goods afterwards to be acquired. That system applied very widely, and it was thought advisable to provide, as Clause 5 proposed to provide, that bills of sale should include only the goods enumerated in the schedule. In that way a borrower would assign all he had, but not what he would have in the future. With that object Clause 5 was inserted; but there were certain exceptions it was thought right to make. If a farmer wished to assign his crops, which were growing or which might grow, there was no reason why he should be prevented from assigning those crops. And if a portion of fixed machinery was taken down and replaced, the substituted machinery might be the subject of the bill of sale. But the hon. and learned Member now proposed, as he said, in favour of, but it seemed to him (the Attorney General) against, the farmer, that the farmer should be the only person permitted to assign property he had not got. There were two objections to this proposal. In the first place, the farmer was the very man who wanted protection; and it had been shown by evidence that the money-lenders were making their way through the agricultural districts in consequence of the depression there existing; and that borrowers, ignorant in regard to such transactions, gave bills of sale which were perfectly destructive to them. They were unaccustomed to such transactions, and yielded to the specious representations of the money-lenders, and district after district had been overrun by these money-lenders. Again, if this contention were admitted in regard to farmers, it must be admitted with respect to manufacturers, for there was no reason why a farmer should be excepted, and not a manufacturer or tradesman. The effect of the Amendment would be to strike out of the clause the protection desired. The framers of the Bill had to consider whether they should extend the exception to other persons or leave the Bill as it was, and the balance was so strongly in favour of the principle contained in the Bill that they came to the conclusion to adhere to the Bill as it stood.

MR. WHITLEY

said, that he regretted that the Attorney General had not seen his way to accept the proposed Amendment, for he thought the decision would have a most disastrous effect on the commercial world. He did not think anyone could have the slightest sympathy with the money-lenders; but in attempting to deal with them the Government were doing what would have a dangerous effect upon commercial communities. They were upsetting the legislation of 1878, which was arrived at on the representations of the commercial world, and in a way which they did not understand. They believed that the Bill dealt with Jew money-lenders; but instead of that it would prevent tradesmen from borrowing upon stock they had actually paid for. There was a great distinction between persons who assigned goods they had paid for and people who assigned what they had not paid for. He thought that if the House considered the question from the grave effect it would have upon large commercial operations, they would hesitate before they passed the clause as suggested in the Bill. Many communications had been made to him upon this point both by farmers and commercial men, and he thought that, it was very probable that, in the endeavour to deal a blow at the userers, they would injuriously affect the commercial classes.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he had listened most attentively to the statement of the Attorney General, and he was bound to say he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had given the consideration he might have done to a statement made on this point the other evening. Goods bought and paid for were in quite a different category to goods bought on credit, and the Attorney General might even now see his way to introduce words which might have the effect of keeping the Bill within the limits he had laid down in the 5th clause. No one wished to encourage money-lenders; but he feared that unless something were done to comply with the wishes of his hon. and learned Friend, an injustice might be done to many tenant farmers.

MR. MONK

said, the promoters of the Bill had an anxious desire to accept any Amendment in the interests of the farmers that was feasible. They found it impossible, however, to accept an Amendment of this sort, which would allow certain privileges to farmers which were not to be allowed to other traders. If they passed this Amendment in the shape in which it appeared on the Paper, it would be necessary to allow, for instance, shopkeepers to give bills of sale on their floating stock. It was all very well to say that this was live stock which had been actually paid for. It would be just the same if it was paid for by bill due six or 12 months hence. The subject was very fully discussed last year by a Select Committee consisting of 15 Members of that House, and after long and anxious consideration they extended to farmers the right to give a bill of sale on their growing crops, so there was an advantage given to them which did not apply to ordinary traders. He must agree with the Attorney General in opposing the present Amendment.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he thought it would be a great mistake to accept the Amendment, though he was certain the hon. and learned Member introduced it with the best intentions towards the farming class. The phrase, "stock bonâ fide paid for," would be deceptive in its operation, and he had no doubt that injustice would often be done, although the terms of the clause might be complied with. He had had a good deal of experience in this sort of thing, and he should certainly say that, in the interest of mercantile, farming, and trading communities, the less people had to do with bills of sale the better.

Mr. WILLIS

said, he should support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, because he objected strongly to Clause 5 of the Bill. The effect of Clause 5 would really be to put an end to most important commercial transactions.

MR. SPEAKER

The House is now engaged in considering Clause 6. The hon. and learned Member cannot go back to Clause 5.

MR. WILLIS

said, he would content himself by stating that he would support the proposal of the hon. and learned Member, because it would, to a certain extent, modify the pernicious effects of Clause 5.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, it would be seen, if the Amendment were adopted, that a trader might buy on credit stock to the amount of, say, £100, but for which he did not pay 1d.; he might give a four months' bill. He might immediately raise money upon that stock by means of a bill of sale. It very often happened that the money-lender got his money, and that the legitimate creditor got nothing at all for his goods. It had been proved in thousands of cases that the dealing with future property was a source of the greatest fraud and. robbery.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. MONK

moved, in Clause 7, page 2, to leave out lines 18 and 19, and insert— Personal chattels assigned under a bill of sale shall not be liable to seizure by the grantee for any other than the following causes.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. H. G. ALLEN

moved, in Clause 7, page 2, line 36, after "given," to insert— And if such consideration shall be wholly or in part the payment of money, then the amount of such money thereupon or theretofore, actually received by the grantor, without deduction. He thought it was of great importance that there should not be deductions for bonuses and interest, and so on, from the sum actually received by the grantor. It very often happened that very large sums were deducted by the money-lenders, and that the unfortunate and, in frequent instances, ignorant borrower, received a sum which was not the amount represented on the face of the bill. He thought there was a great concurrence of opinion on this point. Over and over again it had been stated by County Court Judges, before whom these eases were now constantly coming, that in almost all cases the borrower was misled by the sum stated on the face of the bill, and that he received only a small proportion of the sum stated in the bill, deductions being made for all kinds of things.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 36, after the word "given," to insert the words "and if such consideration shall he wholly or in part the payment of money, then the amount of such money thereupon or theretofore, actually received by the grantor, without deduction."—(Mr. Henry Allen.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought that, on the whole, it would be better to let the clause stand as at present framed.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. WARTON

moved, in page 3, line 5, after the word "grantor," to insert the words "for this purpose." It was only necessary the solicitor should be solicitor to the grantor for this purpose, and those were the words which were suggested in the Paper circulated by the Council of the Incorporated Law Society. If the Attorney General would look into the matter, he would find the insertion of the words would make the clause read more effectively.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, after the word "grantor," to insert the words "for this purpose."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the proposition, although it would do no good, would do no harm. He could not, however, insert the words where the hon. and learned Member proposed to place them, but at the end of the clause. With that modification he would accept the words— And is the solicitor of the grantor and not the solicitor of the grantee for this purpose.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, to strike out the word "is" after the word "and," in line 5, put, and agreed to.

Further Amendment, to add, at the end of the Clause, "for this purpose," put, and agreed to.

MR. MONK

proposed, in Clause 10, line 7, to leave out the word "eight," and insert "nine."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. H. G. ALLEN

moved the omission of the end of Clause 11 after the word "registrar," in line 16, for the purpose of inserting words to provide that the registrars of the County Courts should be the registrars for the purposes of the Bills of Sale Aots,1878 and l882, and should file a copy of the bill of sale, and of the affidavit, and a copy of all the particulars required by the principal Act, in accordance with the provisions contained in the principal Act, and within three clear days after such filing and registration should transmit, in the prescribed form, an abstract of the contents of the bill of sale to the registrar acting under the provisions of the principal Act. The only object of this Amendment was to provide that in country districts the registrar of the County Court should be the registrar under the Act instead of the registrar in London. He believed that the adoption of that regulation would bring about a great saving of expense, and, in the end, no harm would be done, because an abstract would still be sent to London. It would be of great advantage in the country districts, where many of these transactions took place, that a bill of sale should be registered, in the first instance, in the County Court of the district. In the Committee a strong opinion was expressed that bills of sale in country districts should be registered in the County Court of the district.

MR. MONK

begged his hon. and learned Friend's pardon. The Committee were unanimous the other way.

MR. H. G. ALLEN

said, he had been perusing the answers and responses made to the Lord Chancellor upon certain queries as to the working of the Bills of Sale Acts, and he found that there was a great concurrence of opinion, if not among Members of the Committee, yet among the most experienced witnesses examined, that these bills of sale should be registered in the County Courts. Mr. Falconer, a Judge of one of those Courts, of very great experience, said that all bills of sale should be registered in the district where the assignor resided, and it was only necessary to send to the London office a duly examined abstract. A similar response had been received from the County Court Judge of Bedford, who said that the registration of bills of sale in the district County Courts would very much diminish the expense of registration, and such was also the opinion of many other witnesses of the greatest ability and experience. The alteration which he proposed was calculated to give facilities to those who lived in the country to discover what incumbrances there were on the property, and to diminish the expense now incurred; and also the delay in searching for these bills, which at present involved a considerable expenditure of money and time to persons living in remote country districts. They were now required to come up to London in order to conduct their inquiries; and the unnecessary cost thus entailed would be altogether obviated if they were registered, in the first instance, in the district County Courts. No inconvenience would be entailed in London, because the abstract would be sent there within three days of its being filed. Under these circumstances, he proposed to amend the clause in the way suggested by the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 16, to leave out from the word "registrar" to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the words "of the county court in whose district such places are situate, and if such places are in the districts of different registrars, then each such registrar shall be the registrar or registrars for the purposes of the Bills of Sale Acts, 1878, and 1882, and shall file the copy and affidavit, and enter, keep, and index in a register to he kept by him in the office of the said county court, the particulars required by the principal Act in the manner and in accordance with the provisions and regulations contained in the said principal Act with regard to the filing, entry, and registration thereby required, and shall also within three clear days after such filing and registration, transmit an abstract in the prescribed form of the contents of such hill of sale to the registrar acting under the provisions of the principal Act, who shall file, keep, and index every such abstract in the prescribed manner, and shall not be required to file, keep, or index the copy, hill of sale, affidavit, or other particulars relating thereto, except as aforesaid."—[Mr Henry Allen.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. MONK

said, the Committee were quite unanimous in agreeing to the provision of the Bill as it stood at present—namely, that all bills of sale, which, by the way, must all be sent up to Somerset House to be stamped, should be registered in London. The central Registry was easy of access to everyone. It was a very simple thing for agents in London to take a note of the bills of sale registered here and transmit notices to the country, when an abstract of them could be sent down to the registrars of the County Court where the bills of sale originated. The information would be obtained in that way much earlier by the world in general than if bills of sale were required to be registered in the County Courts of the district in which they were given.

MR. H. G ALLEN

pointed out that the clause contained a provision requiring an abstract to be sent to London.

MR. MONK

said, that in that ease the information would come to London later than it did at present. At present it was transmitted immediately; but under the amended clause there would be a delay. He hoped the House would be unanimous in rejecting the proposal.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

also expressed a hope that the Attorney General would not accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MELDON

said, they had now arrived at a most important clause of the Bill; and he felt so strongly that legislation in this direction was quite wrong that after having first called attention to the serious omission in the clause—Clause 13—he intended to move the rejection of the clause altogether. Clause 13 sought to apply what was known as the "Disputed Ownership" doctrine in a modified form to the Bill. In 1878, the principal objection made to the passing of this clause was that so long as the "Disputed Ownership" Clause was in operation no bill of sale could be looked upon as a bonâfide or valuable security at all. He wished to point out out that the validity of a bill of sale did not depend upon the grantor being in possession of the goods at the time of the bankruptcy, but whether or not the grantee under a bill of sale was able to come into possession sooner than a wholesale trader who had advanced money on the security of a bill of sale. Wholesale traders might live some distance away from the place where the person who gave the bill of sale was residing; but the usurer would probably live on the spot, and would possess much better means of knowledge and be able to find out more rapidly whether the trader was about to become bankrupt or not. In the case of such bankruptcy, within 24 hours he would be able to obtain possession of the goods, and thereby make valid the bill of sale which was his security; whereas the wholesale dealer, who resided at a distance and had no means of knowing the moment at which a trader became bankrupt, would lose his money in consequence of the "Disputed Ownership" Clause being put in force. The Act of 1878 gave a further protection to the bonâfide holder of a bill of sale, because it was not sufficient to show that the goods were in the actual possession of the grantor; but it was also necessary to show that the possession or apparent possession was with the consent of the person to whom the goods really belonged. This clause was said to be a compromise between the two; but it changed the law materially against the bonâfide holder of a bill of sale, because now, no matter what efforts the bonâfide wholesale dealer made to obtain possession of the goods, even by violence, the money-lender could keep him out, and this new clause actually prevented him from obtaining the value of his goods. This was a departure from the law never known in the Bankruptcy Law before. The most material provision of the Bankruptcy Law was that such a transaction should be with the consent of the person who was the owner of the goods; and he did not think the Attorney General would agree for one moment to accept the clause in its present shape. Having pointed out this omission in the clause, he wished to say, further, that the matter was one upon which he felt strongly, regarding it, as he did, as backward legislation; and he should, therefore, have to put the House to the trouble of dividing upon the subject. He wished the House to understand clearly the position of the question. This Bill was brought in, owing to the action of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, in order to prevent usurers from lending money at exorbitant interest; but it was very well known that in the way of ordinary trade there were many persons who supplied goods on bills of sale, and that a large number of bills of sale were held by wholesale dealers. It was not wise, he thought, to make a material alteration in the law to the prejudice of these wholesale dealers, simply because there was a moment of panic, owing to the fact that usurers were in the habit of lending money on bills of sale. He thought this attempt at legis- lation had not been very carefully considered. What was the position of affairs? He quite admitted that bills of sale ought to be swept away altogether; but, at the same time, they had no right to allow bills of sale to be a legal and valid security, and then surround them with such provisions that they only became traps and pitfalls to induce persons to invest money in unreal security. Instead of applying the ordinary doctrine of bankruptcy and disputed ownership, it was suggested that it should not apply in a case where the ownership had occurred within a year. The question of validity would not, therefore, apply to goods that had been taken into the possession of the grantee in 12 months; but the bill of sale was made to turn upon the fact whether the goods had been seized within 24 hours or not. Twenty-four hours after the bankruptcy had occurred possession could be taken by the grantee; and this clause, in that case, did not apply, and the Bill, if passed, would, in his opinion, afford no protection at all. The clause simply gave an opportunity to those who lived on the spot, at the last moment, having allowed the trader to obtain all the benefit of having a reasonable possession of the goods, and having, perhaps, by an act of collusion, received early information to take steps for obtaining possession of the goods; whereas a bonâfide holder of a good bill of sale, who did not possess the same means of information, could not do so. The simple effect of this clause was to enable the bankrupt, just before his bankruptcy, to give notice to some favoured creditor who held a bill of sale, and that favoured creditor immediately stepped in and obtained possession of the goods—his bill of sale being valid, while the bonâfide creditor was absolutely shut out. The whole matter was fully considered in 1878, and subsequently, in reference to the Bill which dealt with Ireland. He believed that most people would be willing to abolish bills of sale altogether; but if they were to be valid securities, it was highly improper to surround them with pitfalls and traps such as had been introduced into this Bill. The Attorney General had stated that this was only a compromise, and that it was going back, to some extent, in the direction of the old Act. The old law was not satisfactory; but he thought he had shown the House that this clause, as it stood, was very much worse than the old law as it was in 1878. He begged to move the rejection of the clause.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 13.—(Mr. Meldon.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that the clause, as affecting the commercial community, was one that had met with the approval of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, who, as he believed, were perfectly well able to protect the interest of those concerned. The hon. Member had, however, pointed out a defect which was quite unintentional; and if he would withdraw his objection to the clause as a whole, he should be perfectly willing to agree to the insertion of the words "by consent and permission of the true owner."

MR. MELDON

said, he should have no objection to withdraw his Motion for the purpose of amending the clause, if he could afterwards move its rejection.

MR. SPEAKER

I must point out to the hon. Member that, if the clause is amended, he cannot propose the rejection of the clause at this stage of the Bill.

MR. MELDON

said, in that case he would adhere to his Motion for the rejection of the clause.

Question put, "That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes 66;Noes 7: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 61.)

Amendment proposed, In Clause 15, page 4, line 7, to leave out from "Company," to end of Clause, and insert "or other body is wound up under 'The Companies Act, 1862,' and the Act amending the same, any bill of sale given by such Company or body within twelve months next preceding the commencement of the winding-up, shall, as against the liquidators of the Company or body, be void, in respect of any personal chattels which, at or after the commencement of the winding-up are in the possession or apparent possession, or the order and disposition of the said Company or body."—(Mr. Monk.)

MR. MELDON

said, there were some words in this Amendment to which he objected, inasmuch as they would make the clause really unintelligible, and create, moreover, great difficulty. They were "or other body" wound up under the Companies Act of 1862. The ex- pression "or other body" was one that did not occur in any of the Companies Acts, the wording of which, he thought, ought to be followed in the Amendment. He suggested the omission of the words.

MR. MONK

said, he saw no reason for retaining the words objected to, and was willing to agree to their omission throughout the Amendment.

The words "or other body" in line 1, and "or body" in lines 3, 4, and 5 of the Amendment struck out.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, After the word "are," in line 7, to add "by consent and permission of the true owner."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 18, page 4, line 29, leave out the first "and," and insert "on payment of a fee of one shilling, or such other fee as may be prescribed, and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed, and shall be entitled at all reasonable times."—(Mr. Monk.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 18, page 4, line 33, after "stamp," insert "Provided, That the said extracts shall be limited to the dates of execution, registration, renewal of registration, and satisfaction, to the names, addresses, and occupations of the parties, to the amount of the consideration, and to any further prescribed particulars."—(Mr. Monk.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. O'SHEA

said, with the object of making the Bill apply to Ireland, he should move the omission of Clause 19.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 19.—(Mr. O'Shea.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 19 stand part of the Bill."

MR. MONK

pointed out that the original Bill did not apply to Ireland, which was under a separate Act. He trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

objected to the Amendment, the effect of which would be to make the present Bill applicable to Ireland, where there was a distinct system of legislation in respect of bills of sale. The result of engrafting the pro- visions of this measure upon the system now in force could only be productive of mischief.

MR. MONK

said, he thought it was right that there should be one system of legislation in respect of bills of sale. The want of it had, no doubt, given rise to a great deal of confusion in Ireland. It had given the greatest possible power of extorting enormous sums from unfortunate individuals in Ireland. The mode by which it was proposed to remedy the evil was not a good one; it should be done by the hon. Member, or someone else, this Session introducing a Bill to deal with the law of Ireland. If the hon. Member would do that, the measure would have the support of those who had been Members of the Bills of Sale Act Committee.

MR. O'SHEA

said, that, after the recommendation of his hon. Friend, he should withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.