COMMITTEE, THIRD READING. (Hansard, 26 July 1864)

§ LORD ST. LEONARDS

said, this Bill effected some improvement in the law relating to judgments which he had himself in vain endeavoured to accomplish, and, therefore, he could not find fault with the measure. But he had never attempted more than to protect bonâ fide purchasers or mortgagees against judgments. But one clause of the Bill took away the right of every judgment creditor as against the property of the debtor, unless and until he actually sued out execution upon his judgment. That, in his opinion, was not expedient, and very unwise. There was another provision of the Bill which was of 2084 the utmost importance. By the law as it at present stood execution could not issue upon any judgment so as to affect the land until twelve months after judgment had been obtained; but under the provisions of this Bill the son of a tenant for life of an estate, who was entitled to the remainder, and who might, as eldest sons had done before, and most probably would do again, be desirous of anticipating his inheritance; he might go to a Jew money lender, who would advance him money, the borrower giving him a judgment on his interest in the estate; and by this Bill the creditor, the moment he obtained that judgment, might sell the reversion, and thus the property of the youth might pass from him for a very inadequate consideration. It might be said, that with the quickness with which business was now transacted in Chancery this might be effected under a mortgage. But the answer was, that a mortgage was a contract. He considered this a very important measure, and would have divided the House upon it if he had been in a position to do so.