§
Amendment proposed—
Page 18, line 35, leave out 'or of a board of guardians.'
Page 18, line 37, leave out 'or board.'
Page 18, line 38, at end, insert—
'The money required to meet the expenses of a board of guardians shall be supplied by the county council, borough council, or urban district council in the proportions in which they may be liable for the same upon the prescribed demand of the board, and shall be paid out of the consolidated rate.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe honourable Member's Amendment will have the effect of making boards of guardians apply practically for money to the urban district council, which would be taking it out of the hands of the county council. If the honourable Member will look at the last sub-section he will see that his other objections are there provided for. Upon these grounds, I am not prepared to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 19, line 23, after 'amount,' insert—
Provided that in a county borough the council may, if they think fit, make one poor
1579
rate for the whole financial year, and collect the same in equal moieties, one moiety for each half-year."—(Mr. Hemphill.)
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLIn the city of Dublin the object of this Amendment has been brought very much under my notice, for a very great inconvenience would arise if they had to alter their system, which has continued to work satisfactorily now for a great number of years. My Amendment provides that they may make one poor rate for the whole financial year, if they think fit, and that practice has been adopted now for a great number of years in the city of Dublin. The rate there is struck for the whole financial year, but it is collected in two instalments—two half-yearly instalments. The continuance of this system has been very strongly urged by the advisers of the corporation, and it will involve great additional expense if this clause is made to apply to Dublin. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman would like to consider it when he brings forward his clause about the Collector General.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe only difference between the procedure proposed and the clause as it stands is that a county borough may provide for the total poor rate by striking one rate, instead of making the poor rate twice a year. Of course, if the guardians, in striking their estimate, required a larger amount, the county council would have to supply that, I suppose, from the borough fund.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLYes, from the borough fund.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI see no serious objection to the Amendment, and if it is a matter of great convenience that it should be added I will accept it. We originally provided that sub-section on the supposition that the service of the half-year was incorrect as applied to the guardians. I believe, however, that that is not so, and I have no objection to the Amendment if it is a matter of convenience that the system suggested should be followed.
§
Question put—
That the proposed words be added to the section.
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 19, line 31, leave out from the second 'and' to 'shall' in line 32."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURIf this Amendment is carried the section will run thus—
Such poor rate shall be made either immediately prior to, or at the beginning of, the first six months of the local financial year and the second six months of that year, and shall be made in respect of the service of such first six months or second six months, as the case may be.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYWill not some consequential change be necessary if that Amendment is adopted? This clause we are now discussing is based on the supposition that there shall be two poor rates.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI think, perhaps, that had better be left till the Report stage.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 19, line 34, leave out from 'be' to the end of line 37."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 19, line 38, leave out from 'that' to the end of line 39."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThis Amendment raises the question as to whether the poor rate made to meet expenses other than guardians' expenses should come under the restriction that they shall not be retrospective. The clause, as it stood, might have been read as meaning that the guardians' expenses could in no case be raised by a retrospective rate, or as meaning that the provision as to a retrospective rate should not apply to them.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
1581
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 20, line 5, leave out from 'period' to 'and,' in line 7."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYI beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. Proceedings against boards of guardians, and other local bodies, as regards the Statute of Limitations are now covered by the ordinary law. When you sue a board of guardians proceedings are not barred any more than they are against a private individual. But the effect of this clause is to provide a new Statute of Limitations applying to boards of guardians and other public bodies. That seems to me to be a most mischievous proceeding, and, furthermore, instead of doing that in a plain way which every lawyer and layman could understand, it is done in a curious and indirect way, which really throws the law in doubt every time you sue a board of guardians. If the board of guardians owes a man a debt, the same Statute of Limitations shall not apply as applies in a case where a debt is due by an ordinary individual. Why should a man be debarred from suing a board of guardians within the ordinary six years' term? Is there any reason or principle for it? Of course, it is introduced here in consequence of these complicated provisions as to what rates are to be retrospective and what rates are not to be retrospective. I have very little sympathy with these restrictions of local bodies at all. If money is honestly expended by a board of guardians, or by a local body of any kind, in discharging its duties, I think the fact as to whether the money was spent in respect of work done, or materials supplied twelve months before, or two or three years before, is utterly immaterial. What will be the state of things which will arise every time you sue a board of guardians? We will suppose that you sue a board of guardians for £500. You supply the goods, but delay in sending in your bill, and when you do send it in it is not within the six months. Forthwith it becomes the duty of the court to inquire whether or not you have used due diligence in enforcing your claim; and if the court considers that you have failed 1582 to use due diligence in forcing the claim—in other words, if the court considers that you have given the board indulgence, your right to sue is barred altogether. I cannot conceive on what principle the Government advocates such a proposal. Any difficulty as to whether the matter is retrospective or not ought to be finally settled by the judge. If the court gives judgment for you, then the board ought to pay the money. Apparently this clause is full of difficulties, because it seems that if you obtain judgment you may go in and take the goods and chattels of the board; you may seize the furniture that is in the workhouse, whether you have used due diligence or not. But if you fail to use proper diligence, then the local board are to be placed in this position: that they cannot raise the money out of the rate, and they must let you seize their goods and sell them in order to realise your money. I am entirely at a loss to know on what grounds the Government defend this proposition. If the debt is lawful, and if judgment is recovered, it ought to be in the power of a local body to pay that money, no matter how far off the liability was incurred. I do not know whether this proposal takes cognisance of the payment of a bond. Supposing a board of guardians raises money on a bond or a mortgage: you can at present sue for 20 years on a bond or mortgage, and, apparently, the proposal of the Government is that in that case it is to be the duty of the court to see whether or not you have used due diligence to sue on your bond, or of raising the money under mortgage, and if the court thinks you have not, the local body is debarred from raising the rate to pay it. I think that is a perfectly monstrous proposal, and I hope that my Amendment will be carried.
§ MR. DILLONWill the right honourable Gentleman explain, when he is answering, what the exact bearing of this section is on unions that have for a long time past been heavily in debt?
§ MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)I think that this clause is an attempt to do what is a good thing in a wrong way. I venture to differ from my honourable and learned Friend in this, and do think 1583 that there ought to be a short period for action against local authorities. There is such a provision in the English Public Health Act, and I can see myself no reason why there should not be a similar provision in the Irish Act; but it is clear that this is an attempt to do it in a roundabout way, which will cause all sorts of difficulty. The limitation ought to be a limit of action and not of execution. The question as to whether a creditor had taken steps against the local authority in proper time ought to be determined on the occasion when the action is tried, and not left to be determined afterwards by some other and, perhaps, more expensive proceeding. A creditor's advisers ought to be able to tell him the law when he begins to sue, and not afterwards. I think it is quite clear that a mistake has been made in this section. What I venture to suggest is, that the Government should leave out all the words after the word "sum" in line 4, or, perhaps, make it "any sum" instead of "a sum," and then leave out the rest of the section, and devise some general limitation as to actions against local bodies. On that point I do take somewhat strong views that there ought to be a period of limitation, and my opinion is that that period of limitation, as against individuals ought to be shorter, because I think that the more we do to prevent creditors who do not sue in a reasonable time taking proceedings the better all round. As a rule, people who give long credit are not philanthropists, and the reason that they give it is that they do not want to have the details of their debt too deeply Inquired into. I should, therefore, very much like to see the period of limitation short in every case, but especially in the case of local bodies. I think in their case there ought to be the same limitations as apply to local bodies in England, but this clause does not seem to me to be the right way of doing it.
§ MR. ATKINSONThe object of this section is perfectly plain. It seems desirable that boards of guardians or local authorities should let each half-year provide for the expenditure of that half-year, so that money provided for a par- 1584 ticular half-year should not be expended on debts incurred many years previous. Consequently, we think that in future when a debt is incurred it must be paid six months after it has been incurred, in order to prevent boards of guardians and other local anthorities running into arrear, and not raising sufficient money to meet their liabilities, so as to throw upon ratepayers in succeeding years the debts that ought to have been borne by ratepayers in past years. The judgment can be obtained six months after the debt became payable subject to one condition, that might bear hardly upon creditors occasionally. It may be that they did use due diligence, and yet that they were not able to recover the judgment within the six months, and for that reason we have provided that it shall be competent to the court in which the judgment is recovered, notwithstanding the lapse of that period of six months, to certify that the creditor has used all due diligence, and, if the court so certifies, the creditor should be entitled to recover. The honourable Member for the City of Londonderry said that he thought it would be a bad law. He admitted that it would be desirable to have a statute of limitations, but he said that it had better be done by a hard and fast rule or statute preventing anyone recovering a debt after a certain period had elapsed. That would be wanting in elasticity. It would shut out the man who had used due diligence. I want to secure a greater amount of elasticity so that those who have used diligence, even if they do not get judgment in six months, shall yet be paid. The man who deliberately holds back without any excuse or reason, is the man who by this provision will not be paid. Therefore, instead of having a hard and fast rule to disentitle a man who has used due diligence, we have provided a rule which, while it does not disentitle the diligent, certainly does disentitle the creditor who is not diligent.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLI am in favour of the clause as it stands rather than the Amendment. My reason for that is that we must recollect that rates will now, or very shortly, be very much increased, and the whole burden of these rates will fall upon the 1585 occupying tenant. I do not think it is at all unreasonable that a person who has a demand against a board of guardians should insert his claim within six months, and I think it very desirable that he should do so, especially as this section provides that, in case of a creditor being ill, or for some other reason which might possibly allow the six months to elapse, and thus Work injustice by shuting him out altogether, he can submit his reasons to the court. I think this section is an improvement on the ordinary plea of the statute of limitations for six months, because it gives the judge before whom the case comes a power to say that there was good cause for the creditor not having brought forward his action within the limits of the time; and I would further point out that this section is an ease to the ratepayer, because he will be sure that the money spent in the six months is for food supplied and work done during that period; whereas to allow a man to sue under the existing statute, at the end of six years, is a great hardship on and an unreasonable one upon the ratepayers, who may be paying for things the benefits of which had been received by other persons. Holding as I do the opinion that this is an improvement on the existing law, I am decidedly in favour of the clause as it stands.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYThe right honourable Gentleman opposite has made as flimsy an argument in defence of this proposal as ever I heard.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURIt is the same as the English Act.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYThen the English Act is very bad. This is a clause for the encouragement of litigation. Limitation is a good thing in its way; but whether there ought to be a limitation of the expense of local bodies or not is quite another question. I myself would have no objection to a short period of limitation, if the same thing were applied to private individuals. But I say that this clause has all the vices which a proposal of the kind can have, and has none of its advantages. What is the nature of the ordinary limitation in an action? It is this: that the party knows before he 1586 begins the suit whether he is entitled to get his judgment or not. If a man owes me money, and I allow six years to pass without getting any acknowledgment, I know that judgment will be given against me; but in this case, in order to know whether I have a right to recover or not, I must bring my action—I must litigate—I must argue it out before the court, and it is only when the court has said, "Oh, this debt has been a long time about, and I do not think you ought to get your judgment," it is only at the very last minute, when all the costs have been incurred and the judge has given his decision, that you know whether you have a right of action. Is that a satisfactory state of things? I think it is an incentive to litigation. I can quite understand it if you think it is desirable to put a clause into this Bill that no action should be brought against a local authority unless within three years after the cause of action has arisen—or 12 months, or what not—but let us know where we stand. Let a man know when he begins his action whether he is entitled to recover or not. Supposing a man in Cork comes to me and says, "The board of guardians owes me money; what am I to do?" How can I advise him? Is it a proper position to put me in? It may all, and does all, depend upon who the judge is and who the litigant is. One judge might think that the proceedings had been taken in time, and another judge would not. One litigant may be obnoxious to the judge, another litigant would not. A hundred considerations might arise. The ordinary Statute of Limitations depends, in the first place, on the date when and where the debt accrued. It depends, further, on the question whether or not you have any acknowledgment of it. Will the right honourable Gentleman tell me the meaning of this clause?—
Where a person recovers judgment or obtains a decree in any court for a sum which originally became payable six months or more before the said period.Supposing a debt is due to me, and at the end of six months I take a promissory note. Does that renew my right? And supposing at the end of that six 1587 months I take another promissory note. Does that renew my right?
§ MR. ATKINSONCertainly not.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYThe right honourable Gentleman says certainly not. Then, as I understand, it is the proper thing always to go back to the beginning of the transaction, and there you have a series of negotiable instruments. You may have a bond for your debt, and if the board are sued on the bond they can say it is true that we gave you a bond, but the debt in respect of which we gave it was two years ago; therefore we decline to pay it. Is that rational? I see that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Trinity College is here. Does he understand it? It seems to me we ought to have one equal law, whether for corporations, for local bodies, or for private individuals. The Attorney General says that this provision is to prevent local bodies throwing on future generations debts which they have incurred. The answer to that is that the ordinary creditor may be trusted to sue in time, and recover his debt within a reasonable period. To make the argument of the right honourable Gentleman of any value it would involve the necessity of there being a sort of conspiracy between the local body and the creditor to postpone the payment of the debt for an indefinite period. Does the right honourable Gentleman suggest that the ordinary shopkeeper who supplies goods to the board of guardians is going to wait to sue for his debt? It is impossible. The tendency which future ratepayers have against that is the tendency of creditors to get paid as soon as possible. It is an inherent tendency in the nature of creditors which may be very well relied upon to protect the ratepayers. If, out of the average creditors, you have an occasional one who is not very diligent in suing the county council or the district council, I really do not see that any great hardship is inflicted upon the locality in an odd case of that kind. But, if you do want to provide for such an odd case, provide for it by a formal Statute of Limitations—provide that a man shall not sue 1588 for a debt payable by the county council unless within three years after the original cause of action accrued. Exclude whom you will, but, at any rate, let the lawyer whom the creditor consults be able to answer "Yes" or "No." Has the client got a cause of action or not? That is the vice of the right honourable Gentleman's proposal. It compels litigation before you can find out whether or not you are entitled to sue. I do press the right honourable Gentleman to consider the matter. He has said this is in the English Act. I am told it is not. Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will refer us to the clause of the English Act, if it exists. But, English Act or no English Act, I want, at any rate, that the Statute of Limitations shall take that form, so that every man may know what his rights are, and not leave it to the discretion of a particular judge as to whether he shall recover a debt or not.
§ MR. ATKINSONA three years' limit would leave every one of the vices you are anxious to guard against. The honourable Member again and again asserts that it is entirely absurd to suppose that a creditor will give three years' credit to the board of guardians.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYThe average creditor.
§ MR. ATKINSONThe point is that they have done so. There is hardly a board of guardians at this moment in Ireland which has not had large debts hanging over their heads from time to time. That is exactly the sort of thing we desire to guard against. We desire to insist on boards of guardians making each half-year pay for the half-year's debts, and we can only effect that by this means, and we take a very short limit. By taking a short limit, it is possible to inflict injustice, and therefore we have inserted the provision that if the creditor, notwithstanding that the debt has gone over six months, shows that he has used due diligence in prosecuting his claim, he shall not be debarred. I cannot conceive any difficulty whatever in his not knowing whether he has postponed taking action under circumstances 1589 which would disentitle him to get a certificate that he has used due diligence. There can be no conceivable objection to the proposals we make, safeguarded as they are.
§ MR. CARSON (Dublin University)I understand that the point of the Attorney General is that the guardians should be compelled to pay within six months all debts which are properly applicable to those six months. If that is the object of this section, I do not see that it will in the slightest degree be carried out by this provision, and I will tell you why. This provision only relates to cases where judgments are recovered with regard to debts six months old. But, supposing a creditor recovers his judgment, he can have that judgment without enforcing it. He can wait one, two, three, four, five, or even six years after obtaining his judgment without levying execution, without any consideration for any person at all. Really, so far as I can see, the only effect of this section will be that every creditor will be bound at once to proceed and take an action and obtain judgment, and then wait as he could wait previous to the passing of this section, before he proceeds to enforce it. So far as I can see, this section will be absolutely nugatory, and it will only lead, in cases where parties are willing to give credit to boards of guardians—and it is often very necessary to do so—to their obtaining judgment against the boards, and their leaving their judgments there unexecuted as long as they like, thus getting rid of the whole question of this statute of limitation. I must say I do not at all think that it is such an easy matter to determine beforehand whether a judge will hold that due diligence has been shown or not. I think it will leave the law in a state of great uncertainty. There is one other point I think to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee. When the section enacts that the judge is to decide whether due diligence has been used, does that affect the enforcing of the claim before or after judgment has been obtained? Because if it only relates to the time before judgment, this question of due diligence in enforcing the claim may not arise until several years after a particular judgment has been obtained. I do think it would be 1590 much better to enact a reasonable statute of limitations which would be applicable to all debts. If you like to make an exception in the case of public bodies, and say, instead of six years, it shall be two, there will be no objection to your doing so. But it is quite plain to me that this section, in the way it is explained here, will lead to nothing in the way of paying a particular debt out of a particular rate every six months. And, having regard to the fact that it has been usual to give credit in Ireland, in some cases necessarily for some time, because very often, by reason of excessive distress arising, it is only with the greatest difficulty that the rates can be got in at all, I would press upon the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General that they should reconsider this section.
§ MR. MURNAGHAN (Tyrone, Mid)It does appear to me in the interest of the ratepayers this is a very necessary clause. I do not think that the fact that creditors delay a long time before sending in their bills to local authorities is altogether an unmixed blessing. That is my experience. I know one instance where the attorney to a board of guardians delayed several years in sending in his bill, and when at last he eventually delivered it, it was of such dimensions that it was only with the greatest of difficulty that the board of guardians were able to strike a rate sufficiently large to meet that charge. I do not think these feelings are imaginary at all. I think they are very real and solemn, and I think it is only right that the boards of guardians should be made to pay their debts regularly, and conduct their business in a business-like and straightforward manner, and not have bills hanging over from year's end to year's end in this very unbusinesslike way. I think the Government is right in sticking to this section. I know one case where I was a sufferer, where I had to pay £30 arrears of back rates on some property. I acquired, simply because there was no provision made for collecting them. I am rather instructed to see that the lawyers are so anxious to insure that there is to be no more work for themselves in this matter. It is a revelation to me to see them trying so to deal with 1591 this matter as to take out of their own hands all work they might have to do. They evidently do not want any more work in Ireland. I look upon this provision with suspicion, and to the non-legal mind certainly there is something very uncertain in the way in which the legal gentlemen are attempting to assist it.
§ MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)In my opinion this is a very important point, and I think we should take into account the proceedings of the boards of guardians in dealing with the accounts. Take, for instance, tenders. In inviting tenders they still put in a clause that payments shall be made quarterly; when the quarter when the money is due comes round they generally appoint a finance committee to consider the bills sent in and to investigate the items. That committee sits a few days before the board of guardians meets. Perhaps the contractor has not sent his account in at the time the finance committee meets, but a day or two after, and he is informed that his account cannot be considered until the next quarter. When the next quarter comes the finance committee may not have met, and the six months' limit which you put in this Bill is up. Is it fair, under those circumstances, that the creditor should have no right to take proceedings for the recovery of his money? I think it would be very hard upon him if a creditor were debarred from proceeding under circumstances like those. The effect of this will be that there will be no finance committee appointed, and the accounts will not be properly checked. There is also the possibility of the unions' accounts being overdrawn. I know several cases where, in the case of poor unions, that is the fact. There is also another possibility: that of the rate collector having neglected his duties, and not having got the rate in time to pay, and in those cases where there is no money, and the account at the bank is overdrawn, the creditor is to be left without his bill and without a right to proceed for the recovery of the same. I think that there ought to be no hard and fast line in this matter.
MR. T. M. HEALYI think, if anything were necessary to prove the humbug of the contention as to the large ratepayers it is this provision. It was said that the small ratepayers would elect these boards of guardians, and that they would elect men of their own class, and now we are told that the boards, when elected, are going to be foolish enough to delay paying their bills for the sake of the large ratepayers. That is the suggestion of the Government. This has been treated all the way through as if it were a question of a demand by the boards of guardians. The honorable Member for Mid Tyrone thinks it will militate against the rates. This is a demand, not by the guardians but against the guardians.
§ MR. MURNAGHANMay I be permitted to say—
MR. T. M. HEALYWhen I have finished, Sir. Now, in my opinion, the suggestion of the Government ought to be carried out to its true logical conclusion. I see no objection to the making of a six months' statute of limitation Make it, by all means. What I object to is the discretion given to the judge. One judge may exercise a discretion which is not followed by another. One man may make a claim, and have it allowed, whilst another man, because he is of a different religion, or from other circumstances, may be refused. Make your limitation six months, or, if that is found to be unjust, make it 12 months, but let us have the law in its entirety; let it be certain, and do not let us be dependent upon the will or the discretion of any particular judge. And you must remember other interests in Ireland will be affected in this matter. In this clause there is a stoppage of credit in the case of the unions and all local bodies. It may be good or bad. I do not say that it is bad at all, and I would not object to a provision which made it impossible for them to have a day's credit. Let us get down to that, but let us have a hard and fast line. Let it be six years, six months, six weeks, six days, or six minutes, but let us know what it is. What we object to is that when a man consults us as to whether 1593 he can recover his debt we cannot assist him. You must look up the circuit, and if it happens to be that a generous and kindly judge is going the circuit, you may advise him that he has a chance of recovering his money; but if it be a canny northern judge who is taking the circuit he will allow no liberty whatever, and you cannot recover. Let us have any limit you please, but do not leave it to the discretion of the judge.
§ MR. ATKINSONIf I understand the objection of the honorable and learned Member for Dublin University, it is that the creditor will not be bound to have judgment satisfied, and he proposes to substitute for the clause a short period of limitation; but it is certainly news to me that any period of limitation is fixed there. The judgment must go on and be satisfied, and a judgment under this clause would be in the same position as any other summons under the statute.
§ MR. CARSONThat is exactly what I say.
§ MR. ATKINSONThe objection taken by the honorable and learned Member for North Louth in reference to this clause is that it leaves some discretion to the judge, which enables him to exercise an option, and he objects to the discretion being left to the judge. I do not know that the provisions of the English Act would satisfy him better, because there the discretion is left to the Local Government Board, under 22 and 23 Vic, cap. 49.
§ MR. ATKINSONNo; but it is equally important that they should endeavor to deal with their payments for six months in six months. It will enable the boards of guardians to get legitimate credit, and will compel them to abstain from doing that which they ought not to do.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXIt appears to me that here the limitation is confined to action. The action must be brought 1594 within six months, and you must get your judgment in six months. I never heard of any provision in any Act where you have to adopt a procedure of that kind or lose your money. There was some limitation in the Public Health Act, but that was a limitation of action Here you must obtain judgment in six months, and if you do not get it you must get a certificate that you have exercised due diligence, and that the reason of your not having got it is through no fault of your own, but owing to the council not being ready, or something of that sort. As I read it, it does not merely apply to boards of guardians, but to county councils and corporations like Belfast and Dublin, and I think it is a matter which ought to be very carefully considered. It would place them in a great difficulty, in the case of a long running contract, were the payments not to be made from day to day. I think this matter ought to be reconsidered.
§ MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)I have endeavored to follow this clause, which I believe to be an honest and sincere attempt on the part of Her Majesty's Government to do some injury to the common enemy, the creditor, and confer some benefit on the common friend, the debtor. I cannot understand why the Government have thought fit to bring in a limit for the benefit of these bodies Why should they be treated differently from the ordinary debtor? They have put down a statute of limitation here, which does not seem to have a limit. I am not sure, as I read the clause that there is any period during which the creditor is bound to obtain his judgment. The judgment is to be one for money, which has accrued during a certain period—that is to say, the same period as the rate; but I very much doubt whether, by this section, any limit is put to the time in which you may obtain judgment. The intention clearly is that there should be a limitation, but I do say the intention is not carried out, because it is defeated by the creditor getting indulgence if he can show he has exercised due diligence, and the point of doubt in my mind still remains as to whether there is, under those circumstances, any limitation of the period by this clause.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUROur object is to secure that the liabilities incurred by the boards of guardians within a period of six months shall be discharged not later than within the succeeding period of six months and if the honorable and learned Member's Amendment is carried it will entirely defeat that object, because the creditor would still be able to obtain judgment at any time within the Statute of Limitations. There are difficulties in the clause as it stands. I quite admit that if honorable Members opposite Perfer it, we should take the exact words of the English Act and give the Local Government Board discretion as to an extension of time. I am quite satisfied, and am prepared to consider that between now and the Report stage.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYI am thankful to the right honorable Gentleman. I now understand him to promise that he will reconsider the whole matter. I agree with him that, so far as possible, boards of guardians and county councils and all local bodies should discharge their debts within a period. I think there is something to be said for the principle that a debt should be discharged within a reasonable period. What I understand the right honorable Gentleman to say now is that he pledges himself to consider the whole matter, and to put upon the Paper some liberal concession.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURSo long as the object of the clause, which is that boards of guardians and county councils shall pay their way as they go, and not allow debts to be left over for an indefinite period, is secured, I am perfectly indifferent as to the precise machinery by which it is done; but it must not be said that I am prepared to give up the object of the clause altogether.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYI am quite satisfied with the assurance of the right honorable Gentleman, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 36, as amended, added to the Bill.