JUDGMENTS IN EXECUTION. (Hansard, 18 March 1834)

The Marquess of Westmeath
thought the Bill vicious in principle, and that it ought not to be allowed to proceed further. He, perhaps, should be told, that the Bill gave no right to creditors which they did not at present possess. That might be the case; but still he maintained that the Bill would give encouragement to parties to obtain by sinister means what they might now obtain by a straightforward course. He believed that the provisions of the Bill were entirely unknown to the practitioners of the law in Dublin; and he put it to their Lordships, whether it would be wise, at a time when the question of the Repeal of the Union was agitated, to irritate these parties by an enactment which had the appearance of an attempt to deprive them unfairly of a portion of their practice, by transferring it to London? He thought the noble and learned Lord would do well to postpone the second reading of this Bill, until the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was able to attend in his place.

The Marquess of Clanricarde
was favourably disposed towards the Bill, because he believed, that it would have the effect of inducing persons of property to send their capital to Ireland, but he objected to the ex-post-facto character of the measure. For instance, he believed that existing creditors would, by the Bill before the House, have an advantage over their debtors, which, by the present law, they did not possess. He wished the Bill to be postponed, in order that the opinion of Irish lawyers might be had on it.

§ Lord Wynford
said, that the law in Ireland was the same as the law in England, and consequently English lawyers were as able as Irish lawyers to judge of the merits of the Bill, It would inflict 360 no hardship upon existing debtors—it would not make them pay more than they owed, but would in reality save them money by altering the process of proceeding. The Bill was well known in Ireland, and, under these circumstances, he saw no reason for postponing the second reading.