CIVIL BILL COURTS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 313.) (Hansard, 3 June 1892)

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,) Dublin University
Perhaps hon. Members would like me to say a few words with regard to this Bill. I may say that it does not deal with all the questions in the Irish County Courts, but it is useful as far as it goes. My attention was called by representatives of the mercantile community of England and Ireland to the difficulty and delay which arises in practically undefended cases in obtaining judgment for the recovery of small debts. This difficulty is of two kinds, both of which are attempted to be dealt with by the Bill. The first difficulty is that the Courts are not continuously sitting. An attempt is made to meet that by providing machinery by which a decree by default may be entered up in the office of the Clerk of the Peace for the amount of the claim; and, secondly, that in practically undefended cases, where the plaintiff lives at a distance he may, with the process, serve a notice in writing that he intends to rely in proof of his claim upon an affidavit made by himself or some other person mentioned, and call upon the defendant to state whether he requires the personal attendance of the plaintiff or of a witness on his behalf at the hearing. I am aware that a certain portion of the mercantile community wish to have more extensive reforms than this Bill provides; but my object has been to remove, as far as possible, the principal existing evils without making the Bill of such a contentious nature as might prevent its passing. However, I shall be ready to consider in Committee any suggestions which may be offered on behalf of the mercantile community and others.

§ MR. SEXTON
I admit the difficulty of the subject with which the right hon. Gentleman has had to deal, and I am not aware of any sufficient reason for opposing the Bill in its present stage. I would like, however, to recall to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the interview which took place between himself and the representatives of the Dublin Mercantile Association, when the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the views of the mercantile community deserved the utmost consideration at the hands of the Government. Now, it is obvious that unless a Bill of this kind is satisfactory to that community it might as well not be passed. Since the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this Bill representatives of that Association have communicated with me, and it does not appear from their communications that he has satisfied them in either of the matters to which he has alluded. They complain with energy that the Bill still leaves them in a position vastly inferior to those who have to go to the Courts in England and Scotland. Amongst other things, they ask for far more frequent systematic sittings of the Courts; and, secondly for the issue of decrees in undefended cases without going into open Court. The right hon. Gentleman only provides that the plaintiff may make an affidavit, whereas they ask that the defendant should be allowed to do so also. I believe this Bill is a well-meaning attempt to meet the difficulties urged by the representatives of the Dublin Mercantile Association, and, therefore, I shall not oppose it; but I respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he will do well, before the Bill reaches the Committee stage, to confer with the representatives of that Association, as the further progress of the Measure may depend upon the degree of concurrence which may be arrived at.

COLONEL NOLAN
The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) is, no doubt, well acquainted with the views of the mercantile community of Dublin; but, at the same time, I look upon this Bill with a considerable amount of suspicion. I do not think it is a Bill that should be hurried through the House of Commons before 569 farmers and others have been able to express their opinion about it. A complete change in the process of the law might be very injurious to a large number of people, and I do not think the Attorney General ought to make the action of the Bill retrospective. In my opinion it should only apply to debts incurred after the passing of this Act. It seems to me that this Bill as it stands might produce very unpleasant consequences, and I should not like to be responsible to my constituents for its provisions. If we were going to take the Committee stage in about a month there would be time for the country to consider it; but that is impossible, and I suggest to the Attorney General that he should take out the retrospective part of the Bill.

§ (4.33.) DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
It appears to me that this Bill may be utilised for the recovery of rent, and if that is so it is certain to meet with most uncompromising resistance. I should like the Attorney General to make that point clear.

§ *(4.34.) SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)
This question was raised at the meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce in Dublin. It was introduced by the Dublin Chamber, and the Bill only seeks to effect an alteration in procedure. It gives no additional powers. It was said in Dublin that there was great delay in the recovery of debts; that the sittings of the Courts were infrequent, and they have not the same processes of recovery as we have in England. This Bill is intended to still further assimilate the law in England and Ireland. The law has worked very well in England, the County Court process being speedy, cheap (except as to fees), and effective, and it is thought that what has been beneficial here will be beneficial elsewhere.