Sitting of 21 May 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Sale of Spirits; Judgments Law Amendment (Ireland); Land Debentures (Ireland).
SALE OF SPIRITS BILL.

  [BILL NO. 51.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. P. W. MARTIN, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it was not intended to interfere with the object, but to improve the action, of a particular section of the 24 Geo. II., c. 40, known as the Tippling Act. At the time of the passing of that Act drunkenness prevailed among every class of society, to an extent of which we happily could form no idea. Gin, in those days, was openly sold at the corner of every street. The intention of the Act was to prevent per sons whose intellects were clouded by drink from being made liable for public-house scores contracted while in that condition. He did not at all desire to interfere with that Act so far as it applied to spirits consumed upon the premises, but to prevent a perversion of that law, which was now daily employed as a means of defeating the just claims of honest tradesmen. The preamble of the Tippling Act recited that immoderate drunkenness prevailed among the lowest and meanest classes, and therefore there could be no doubt that its object was to protect the poor from unfair temptation and fraudulent demands. The amount of 20 s. was fixed as the limit below which no single supply of spirits could be sued for, and the reason for that amount being taken was that, until lately, it represented the quantity which wholesale wine and spirit dealers could supply. Since the recent change of the law allowing smaller quantities to be sold by wine merchants and others, the existing law had been grossly perverted and abused. A person with a fraudulent intent, and never meaning to pay for what he received, was now able to go to a wine merchant or licensed victualler—to hotel-keepers of the most

  1989
  respectable class—and order spirits in small quantities, for which, when the bill was sent in, they refused to pay. If an action was brought against them, they pleaded the Tippling Act, and the Judge before whom the case was tried had no alternative but to give a decision in their favour. Thus the Act was used as an engine of fraud, in proof of which he had received accounts of hundreds of cases from all parts of the country, in which respectable persons had failed to recover debts of this kind due to them, and in which there had been no real infringement of the Tippling Act, a few of which he would state to the House. In one case an hotel-keeper at Nottingham supplied an attorney with a small quantity of spirits, and upon suing for his bill, which amounted to £14, the Tippling Act was pleaded, and he not only lost his money, but had the bailiffs put into his house for the defendant's costs, £7 15 s., which he had to pay, together with the expenses of the levy. The next case was that of a wine merchant at Sheffield, who supplied goods to a clergyman to the extent of £15 8s. 1d., and was defeated in his action by the plea of the Tippling Act; but in that case the congregation of the reverend defendant were so disgusted with the plea that they subscribed and paid the wine merchant's demand. In a third case, a debtor was supplied at various times with brandy by a wine merchant—the spirits being actually bought as necessaries in medical practice; but when an action was brought for the amount of the bill, £40, the plaintiff was defeated by the plea of the Tippling Act, In another case, a lady of high rank, at Chatham, had set up the same plea to repudiate a debt for brandy which had been supplied for the use of her late husband when upon his deathbed. It was true that she also pleaded poverty as an excuse for non-payment. It might be asked—Why did not wine merchants and others insist upon having ready money for spirits? But it must be remembered that spirits were usually only a portion of the articles supplied, and a tradesmen could not require ready money for one article alone without implying that his customer had an intention to cheat him. He thought the facts he had stated proved that there did exist a certain amount of hardship upon persons who were engaged in a lawful trade. But was the remedy worse than the disease? His belief was, that
  1990
  by passing this Bill the House would not increase tippling or the consumption of spirits. The scamps who now bought liquor and afterwards refused to pay for it, would not try to obtain it at all if they knew that payment could be enforced; and therefore, in this point of view, the consumption of spirits would be diminished instead of increased. Again, his Bill entirely excluded the case of spirits drunk on the premises. He contended, that if the sale of spirits was bad, it ought to be prohibited; but if not, legislation with regard to it ought to be such that what was honestly sold should be honestly paid for. Those for whom he was now speaking were among the most respectable per sons in the trade, and he asked the House in the cause of justice not to refuse a second reading to this Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose according to notice to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He thought that when the reasons for the original law were balanced with those urged in favour of its amendment, it would be found that no real necessity existed for this Bill. In the first place, the Bill was confined entirely to spirits. He admitted that there was a distinction to be drawn between beer and spirits. Beer was an article of belief with Englishmen, but to this no reference was made. Now, gin was an innovation. It came over from Holland with the Revolution, and was, perhaps, the only misfortune attendant on; that great event. The people of this country had before that time got on very well without it; they effected the Revolution without it; and he was not at all aware that gin was necessary for the preservation of the national liberties. At first it was made and sold without restriction; but, in 1729, free trade in gin had produced such a demoralizing effect that repeated com plaints were made upon the subject. The drinking of spirits and strong water, it was declared, "had become very common, especially among people of lower and inferior rank; and the constant and excessive use of spirits tended greatly to destroy their health, to render them unfit for useful labour and business, to debauch their morals, and inciting them to perpetrate all vices." Legislative measures were accordingly taken to restrict the sale of spirits; but these measures were, perhaps, so se-

  1991
  vere as to defeat their own object, and for twenty years reaction followed reaction in the legislation on this subject. Fielding and other writers called attention to the evil, and the authorities of the City of London were alarmed at "the habitual and excessive use of spirituous liquors among the common people," which they said went on "to an extent unknown inform times," so as to be a reproach to our religion and civil polity. At last, in 1751 the Tippling Act was passed, the main feature of which was the clause which tin hon. Member now sought to modify. I struck at the root of the evil by providing, that if licensed victuallers chose to sol drink, they should not be able to enforce payment. The result was, that while be fore the Act nothing could exceed the debauchery which existed among the common people, the whole state of things changed in two or three years—not in the metropolis only, but throughout the kingdom, and the consumption of gin was reduced by one-half, while there was a great improvement in the morality of the people. Lord Hervey, in 1743, predicted that if the Government ever made spirits a great article of revenue, they would be ready to wink and connive at any measures for increasing the consumption. Notwithstanding, however, that the Government had in some degree cultivated the sale and consumption of spirits, they had always maintained the principle of the Tippling Act. Two years ago, however, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, than whom no Chancellor of the Exchequer had done more to give a stimulus to the drinking trade, introduced a clause into the Revenue Bill restricting the operation of the Act. When, however, he (Mr. Ayrton) pointed out that it was not a mere matter of Excise, but one affecting closely the morality and well-being of the people, the right hon. Gentleman omitted the clause. And so it was. His hon. Friend had taken a narrow view of this subject. The question for consideration was, not whether the interests of the licensed victuallers demanded the repeal of the law, but whether such a repeal would be for the interests of the community at large. His hon. Friend had looked at the dark places of the city which be represented, and had mistaken the interest which he ought chiefly to study. The Bill did not deal with frauds committed by people who went into taverns, and, after eating and drinking, refused to pay for what they had had; but it did permit
  1992
  a man to enforce payment for spirits sent by him to the house of the purchaser. To resist payment in such a case was de scribed as a fraud. Now, every publican knew it to be one of the conditions of his trade, that if he sent out spirits without then and there obtaining payment, he could not sue his customer in a court of law for the debt. Where, therefore, was the fraud committed upon him? There was no fraud on one side or on the other, because both parties conformed to the law. Licensed victuallers knew perfectly well what the law was. Why, then, should they not urge it as a reason for refusing credit, and so avoid the risk of loss? But, so far from this, they sent out spirits in order to drive their trade, hoping ultimately to get their money. Why, this was the very evil which the law was passed to repress. When a man was inclined to drink more than he could afford, or more than was good for him, it was some check upon him to say, "Money down." On one side there was only an inconvenience of which every publican could relieve himself by refusing credit; on the other hand, there stood a public law, which was of high importance for the maintenance of public morality. The licensed victuallers enjoyed exclusive privileges in respect of the sale of their commodities, and the law of which they complained was one of the conditions on which these privileges were granted. If, then, they offered to surrender their privileges in order to get rid of the condition annexed, he would gladly accept the offer. But they made no such proposal; and unless they did so, they could not expect Parliament to forego the condition. The Legislature had made a bargain with them, saying, "You shall have the monopoly of selling this noxious drink, provided you will do so under certain conditions which we think essential for public morality;" and they could not ask to be released from the restraints which had been put upon them without also foregoing the privileges which they enjoyed. For his own part, he did not want to see hungry publicans driving their trade. If this law were repealed, they would issue handbills, would take every means of attracting people to their shops, and, like other tradesmen, would use every art for he sake of increasing the consumption of liquor. But the Legislature had wisely said, "You shall employ no such temptation. We bestow upon you all the evils of monopoly and protection, and you must take

  1993
  these with their consequences and conditions." The Legislature had of late formally adopted the principle upon which this Act stood by refusing to give any right of action where the cause was improvident and unnecessary. Thus, a man could not recover a wager, because the Legislature said that wagering was wasteful and demoralizing. Gin-selling was an analogous occupation, and Parliament said that in neither case should there be any power of recovering the debt. The facilities presented by the County Courts for the recovery of small debts were such that tradesmen now almost forced their commodities upon the working classes, who then came entirely under their dominion through the machinery of these courts. Would Parliament set the same machinery in motion for the sale of gin, and give to licensed victuallers the same power to sue there? This Bill was unnecessary and uncalled for by the country at large, and was only brought forward with the desire of conferring on a limited class a benefit to which their peculiar position did not en title them; its effects would be injurious and demoralizing, and he should therefore move that it be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  MR. DODSONsaid, that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets seemed to be one of those who thought it possible to make people sober by Act of Parliament, and had quoted the Tippling Act as having effected the object. But he had made no allowance for changes in the feelings and habits of the people. It was true that in the latter part of the reign of George I., and in the beginning of the reign of George II., most restrictive laws were passed to suppress drunkenness among the people; but these laws were so excessively stringent that they defeated their own object, and the only result was that smuggling and illicit distillation, and every direct and indirect violation of the law, were superadded to intemperance. The hon. Gentleman said, that the Act of 1751, which contained this restriction, had operated in favour of temperance. But the Act mitigated the absurd stringency of the law previously existing, and the results to which the hon. Gentleman pointed only showed that temperance depended not so
  1994
  much upon the law as upon the general habits and feelings of the people. It was said that the common people at the time mentioned by the hon. Gentleman were infected by these habits of intemperance. Such habits, however, were then not confined to the lower ranks, but pervaded all ranks of society. They were not due either to the existence or the absence of law, just as you could not trace to this cause the present increasing sobriety among all classes. The clause of which the repeal was now proposed was a miniature Maine Liquor Law. He was not going to discuss the policy of that law, but those who sup ported it would at least like that it should be brought into operation under favourable conditions—whereas this clause did not prevent drunkenness; it only led to a considerable amount of fraud and dishonesty, and, instead of checking the consumption of liquor, tended rather to encourage it. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said the publicans had no right to complain, because they were a privileged class. Their privileges, he believed, chiefly consisted in having to pay a high licence duty, and having their business liable to certain police regulations in tended to preserve order, neither of which privileges he supposed the general public grudged them. The object of the present Bill was to prevent fraud and encourage honesty, and he hoped the House would consent to the second reading.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, he had come down to the House with a doubt on his mind as to the course he would take upon the Bill, and having listened attentively to all the speeches, he thought the case was one in which plausible arguments might be introduced on both sides. He could not agree that this was not a question of fraud. He held it to be a deliberate fraud for a man to purchase an article from another with out any intention of paying for it, and when called upon to pay for it to deliberately refuse to do so. The Bill was limited to altering the law with respect to small portions of liquor consumed off the premises; but had the innkeeper no remedy at present? He thought he had. He was not compelled to deliver his goods. He enjoyed a monopoly in his trade, subject to certain police and other regulations, and he ought to know that one of the provisions of the law was, that if he trusted people for small quantities of liquor to be consumed off the premises, he could not recover the money. He might say to his

  1995
  customer, "I decline to supply you with liquor on credit, because the law says you shall pay ready money." He had sufficient power in his own bands to prevent a fraud being practised upon him. Sufficient cause had not been shown for the introduction of the Bill. He did not know what course the Government intended to take with regard to the measure, but from the arguments in support of it he did not think a case had been made out for the alteration of the present law.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the hon. Member for Rochester would not press the second reading, not on the ground of any theory, but because of what he believed would be the practical effect of the Bill. Almost all who had any experience of the working of the Tippling Act among the population generally, knew that it had been of considerable advantage. It had been so, certainly, in the district he re presented, where there was an anxiety, not confined to the rich or any other class, but shared in by the poorer classes, that it should be applied to beer as well as to spirits. Even under his own Bill the hon. Member proposed to retain some of the advantages of the Act, for he did not enable a publican to recover for spirits drunk on the premises. But that restriction might, he thought, by the Bill as proposed, be easily evaded. The arguments by which the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Dodson) supported the Bill would go much further than the measure itself; they would apply to leaving the whole trade in liquor free. The hon. Member said, they could not make men sober by law. Certainly not; nor could they make men honest by law. Nobody expected to make men sober or honest by Act of Parliament, but they did hope to prevent the seller of intoxicating liquors inciting and alluring the humble classes to drink and crime. That was the real meaning of all the efforts of Parliament upon this subject. Why, otherwise, would they have had the licensing system, or interfered with the sale of this commodity at all? It was hardly fair to tax the opponents of the Bill with being advocates of the Maine Liquor Law. That law entirely prevented the use of the commodity; but they only tried to prevent its abuse. That was the object of the Tippling Act. He had another reason for opposing the Bill. The more they looked at any question relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors the
  1996
  more must they be convinced that an other session could not elapse without the whole subject being fully considered, and it would be better to postpone the Bill until that time arrived. If it were true that publicans were ignorant of the present state of the law, this discussion would have at least one good effect, because it would show them, that if they sold spirits without taking ready money, they did so at the risk of not being paid for it afterwards. If they were aware of that, their grievance disappeared, and the hon. Member would have the satisfaction of knowing that he had done good ser vice to his clients.
  SIR GEORGE GREYwas bound to say that the hon. Member for Rochester had established a grievance which called for some remedy. The clause in the Tippling Act (Clause 12) was a valuable one as it affected liquors consumed on the premises. Nothing could be more injurious than to repeal that clause, and enable a licensed victualler to encourage persons of the lower class of life to assemble in his house and run up great scores for spirits of different kinds, consumed in small quantities. That would lead to great intemperance. But the hon. Member did not alter the law in that respect. He said that there was the case of persons in a higher rank in life who were supplied with small quantities of spirits upon credit. Those spirits were sent out quite legitimately by the licensed victualler or wine merchant—for both were equally affected by the law—in the full confidence that he would be paid; but when the Bill was presented, the parties refused to pay, and under the Tippling Act the amount could not be recovered. He admitted that was a discreditable state of things, and for that reason he was disposed to agree to the second reading of the Bill; but he thought the clauses would require some modification in Committee, so as to avoid those evils against which the Tippling Act was directed.
  MR. ROEBUCKhoped the hon. Member would not withdraw his Bill. The clause of the Tippling Act was a mere police regulation, and it had been turned to dishonest practices. Persons calling themselves gentlemen had sent for small quantities of liquor—a bottle of spirits or of wine; when the bill was sent in, if the items were kept under a certain sum the parties refused to pay, on the plea that the publican had broken the law. They drank the liquor, but were not will-

  1997
  ing to pay for it. What harm could be done by doing away with the law as it stood? Was it likely that a poor man would so easily get credit? The persons who got credit were supposed to be gentle men, though they acted just as gentlemen ought not to do. The only persons who gained by the present state of the law were the dishonest, who wished to secure an enjoyment at another man's expense. He approved of the Bill, because it protected the honest creditor against the dishonest debtor. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not withdraw the Bill on the supposition that the House might go into the whole question at some future time. Let them do right when the occasion for it offered.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, the Bill involved two considerations—a matter of police, and protection against fraud—which could not well be separated. If the hon. Gentleman so altered the Bill as to apply it solely to persons in a superior condition of life, he did not suppose there would be any particular objection to it; but in order to afford a remedy for frauds by such persons, he proposed to repeal an Act which had been in operation for a hundred years, and was admitted to have worked well. In seeking to get rid of the means of fraud, the hon. Member was getting rid of that which had been found to be useful in other respects. He was therefore sorry that the Government had consented to the second reading of this Bill. He was perfectly persuaded that the country was against the principle of the Bill, though he believed they would be ready to agree to any measure to prevent fraud; and if some measure could be framed which should have that effect only, he should have no objection to support it He thought the Bill was too wide, and that the hon. Member had better with draw it and introduce another to remedy the specific evil of which he complained.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, that the question ought to be considered, not in the interest of the publicans, but in the interest of the people. The publicans forgot that theirs was an exceptional trade. That it was regarded as a dangerous one was proved by the restrictions with which it was fenced. By numerous petitions the attention of the House had been directed to a subject of daily increasing importance—the Permissive Bill of the United Kingdom Alliance. He knew that some hon. Members looked upon it as a most absurd
  1998
  proposal, and therefore it required some courage in a Member to avow himself a supporter of the measure. He did not do so without having looked carefully into the question. At present persons suffered greatly from the trade carried on in their neighbourhood, frequently as much against their will as against their best interests, simply by the fiat of two or three magistrates. The Permissive Bill simply aimed at giving the people interested—those who would derive the benefit or suffer the injury—a veto upon a licence, and he did not think that was any interference with liberty. It simply took away power from two or three magistrates acting irresponsibly, and gave it to the people themselves. The Permissive Bill was not the prohibitory law known as the Maine Law. The general question ought to be considered as a whole with a view to the public good. The Bill before the House was a suspicious measure. The publicans evidently expected that it would promote an increase of their trade. Such an increase would be injurious; and therefore he could not support the measure.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORagreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) that the man who sent for liquors from a publican to be consumed in his own house ought not to be enabled to evade payment. It appeared to him that the hon. Member who had brought forward this measure had precisely hit the line that was required to be drawn.
  MR. HALIBURTONsaid, the question was one very difficult to deal with. Laws that attempted to abolish the use of liquor altogether defeated themselves. It was impossible to carry them into operation. The Maine Liquor Law was practically inoperative. Liquor was sold all over the State of Maine, and all over the other States, and it was said to find its way into very high quarters. In his opinion, the consumption of liquors was rather increased than diminished in those States where the law was prohibitory. Still, the sale of liquor was a subject which required legislative direction. It ought not to be sold except by licence granted by magistrates to a proper number of fit persons carrying on the trade in suitable places, as they could then apply police regulations in the use of that which had a tendency to all evil. After a very long experience in the administration of criminal matters, he did not make too large an estimate when he asserted that two-thirds of all the offences

  1999
  which had been brought before him for adjudication had arisen from the use of ardent spirits. Viewing, on the one hand, the inutility of too great restrictions, and, on the other, the evil effect of free trade in liquor, he was in favour of the Tippling Act, and should therefore vote against this Bill. Objections of a very singular character had been urged against the pre sent law. It was said to encourage men to get possession of goods which they did not intend to pay for; but that argument was equally applicable to the Statute of Limitations. The last time he was in the United States he was told that some years ago there was a Scotchman in a small village on the river Mississippi who became the possessor of a small tract of land. He ran up a score with a man who kept a grog-store, and the whole of the score amounted to no more than a barrel of whisky. Being unable to pay, he said to his creditor, "Take my strip of land." The publican was not very well pleased, because it was a poor bit of land and seemed nearly valueless. One half of the land, however, was transferred. It was said to have subsequently become worth £1,000,000, and the man who owned the other half would not take £500,000 for it. This was a striking illustration of the evil of allowing the sale of liquor without restraint. It was a subject which required a great deal of consideration and ought to be taken up by Her Majesty's Government. There was some excuse for their not taking it up this Session when they had so many matters of importance to deal with, when their time was so marvellously occupied, and when they had done so much in the way of effective legislation. It was not to be expected that in so busy a Session they could attend to this matter; but looking forward to an easier Session next year, he hoped they would apply themselves to it.
  MR. P. W. MARTINin reply said, he never thought the Bill would apply except to the rich, believing, of course, that the poor would not be trusted; but, if it was thought necessary, he had no objection to provide for its special application to the rich, by fixing the quantity of spirits the value of which could be recovered at, say, a reputed quart.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, that before the division took place, he wished to address an appeal to the hon. Member for Rochester to withdraw the Bill, and let it be introduced in another Session.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 53: Majority 29.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Wednesday 18th June.

JUDGMENTS LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL NO. 270.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WHITBSIDE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it would affect the real property law of the country. It was a Bill to amend the law relating to judgments in Ireland. A judgment was the decision of a competent Court that A should recover his debt from B. It gave a right to recover out of the profits of the land, but did not affect the land itself. Some years ago the writ of elegit was introduced, by which a judgment creditor could take a moiety of the land, and in practice prevent any portion being sold. In the reign of George II. judgments were made assignable at law. The consequence was, that judgments obtained for very small sums—for a grocer's bill of £50—were sometimes assigned, and were then made the subject of the most costly litigation; a bill in Chancery was filed, accounts taken, a receiver appointed, and costs run up to a large amount. The judgment became a charge upon the realestate; so that a man with perhaps an income of £10,000 a year could not dispose of a single acre of it until he had got rid of this judgment. The evil was inquired into by the Real Property Commissioners in 1829, and they pronounced against a system which made land unsaleable and entailed unnecessary expense. The Act known as Sir Michael O'Loghlen's Act was intended to remedy the abuse, but it really increased it; and Pigott's Act extended the pernicious right to appoint receivers to chattels real as well as land. A Committee of this House considered the question, and Lord St. Leonards, then Sir Edward Sugden, said in his evidence—
  "I think that the law as it now stands in Ireland is mischievous to everybody, that it leads to the rapid accumulation of judgments, that it tends to create permanent debts, that it prevents the owner of land selling to advantage, and that it is the cause of great litigation and great costs."
  A subsequent Committee reported against the appointment of receivers, unless it

  2001
  could be made to appear that the interests of the parties required it; and the Committee resolved that the several Acts which regulated the rights of judgment creditors against the real estate of debtors required to be amended. There was a third Committee, which equally condemned the receiver system. The principle of the recommendations of these Committees was, that land should be placed, in regard to judgments, in the same position as goods were. With regard to goods, a judgment was of no force until it was actually put in execution; and a person against whom a judgment had passed was not prevented from disposing of his goods until they were taken possession of under the execution. The She riffs' Act was introduced by Sir Michael O'Loghlen, by which the old writ of elegit was taken away and receivers appointed in lieu; and another Act, known as Pigott's Act, extended the former Act so as to include chattels real. The consequence was, that receivers multiplied all over the country. In the 12th and 13th years of the reign of Her Majesty an Act was passed which was to render judgments unpopular in Ireland. It repealed the Act of George I., which allowed a man to as sign a judgment to another, and provided that receivers should not be appointed in cases where the judgment was for less than £150. He could never understand why there should be any distinction between judgments for less than £150 and judgments for a larger amount, and in this Bill the distinction was removed. In the following year a Bill which was introduced by Sir John Romilly became law. The first part of that Act provided that judgments should not any longer be a burden or lien upon land; but the second part, which he proposed now to repeal, enabled a judgment creditor to make an affidavit that he was informed and believed that his debtor possessed certain lands, and to register the judgment against those lands. The idea was, that the creditor would only register against some of his debtor's lands and leave the rest free; but in practice it was found that judgments were registered against all the lands which a man had in the world, and sometimes more, because it had not unfrequently happened that the affidavit described more property than the debtor, in fact, possessed, and thus a lien appeared to exist upon the land of one man for the debt of another. He ventured to assert that no law had created more diffi-
  2002
  culty, embarrassment, and litigation than that Act of Parliament. Then came the question, what was this thing created by Act of Parliament? Was it a judgment, or was it a mortgage? For some time it was held to be in the nature of a mort gage, and, being registered, entitled to priority over all subsequent mortgages. But it seemed to be thought now that that was a blunder, and that what was only a judgment never could become a mortgage. In the Bill which he now asked the House to read a second time he had endeavoured to embody the recommendations of the competent authorities who had considered the subject. The object of the Bill was to make judgments no longer a permanent burden on land, but to give judgment creditors a right to sell the land by petition to the Landed Estates Court or the Court of Chancery, and to provide that a judgment should not affect a purchaser or mortgagee, unless it was registered as a lis pendens. What he wished was to assimilate the law of Ireland, in respect of judgments, to that of England; and he hoped the House would read the Bill a second time, leaving the consideration of particular clauses for discussion in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, the Bill was a very important one, affecting as it did the rights of all the proprietors of land in Ireland; and as it would enable any judgment creditor for the sum of £50 to bring the estate of his debtor into the Landed Estates Court and have it sold, it required the greatest consideration. He should like to hear the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to the working of this Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Irish law officers had given an opinion against this Bill; and, for that reason, he would ask the House to agree to an Amendment which he meant to propose—namely, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. For a long time judgments had been a common and favourite security in Ireland; but it appeared to him that this measure might have the effect of lessening the value of judgments by rendering them less secure. Pigott's Act put the law relating to Irish judgments on exactly the same footing with the law of judgments in England as it wag when that Act passed, with the

  2003
  exception that it left untouched the old Irish Acts allowing judgments to be as signed at law. Under Pigott's Act, by the mere entering-up and registering of a judgment the judgment creditor became entitled to a charge on all land, including leaseholds the property of his debtor, in the same manner as if the latter had agreed to give him a charge on his estate in those lands. That was found to lead to inconvenience, and the Act of 1849, the 13 & 14 Vict., was introduced by the present Master of the Rolls. That was the Act which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Whiteside) wished to abolish. It must be considered as a whole; and its object was to prevent judgments from being a charge on all the debtor's land generally, without any specification on the register. It required a specification of the lands upon which the judgment was to be a charge. At the same time it took away the old remedy by elegit, but gave the creditor a better and more direct remedy. It was true that within the last two years the law of judgments in England had been altered; but the Act which effected that alteration did not take away the power of the judgment creditor to apply for a receiver or the old legal remedy by way of elegit; while the Bill of his right hon. Friend would put the judgment creditor in this position—that unless he went to the Landed Estates Court and sold up his debtor he should have no remedy against him. He was not satisfied that such a change would be desirable in a country where judgments were so common a security. It would be much better to introduce a Bill declaring that judgments should be no charge upon land at all, than to pass a measure which would lead creditors to believe that they got good security by a judgment, when, in reality, they would only get a security of a very precarious character, unless they brought their debtor at once into the Landed Estates Court. He begged to move that the Bill be road a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now ' stand part of the Question."
  MR. LONGFIELDwould be inclined to agree with the Solicitor General if the question to be decided were that of either
  2004
  accepting this Bill or of rejecting it. He certainly saw some objectionable provisions in the Bill, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced it almost admitted to require amendment; at the same time, he believed that there were also some wholesome and valuable features in the measure, which in his opinion would go far to improve the law in Ire land in regard to judgments, which law was at present in a most disgraceful condition. He thought that under these circumstances it would be an injury to the landed property of Ireland if they refused to read this Bill a second time, and there fore he respectfully submitted, that as the Bill contained principles which, if agreed to, would lead to a better transmission of property in Ireland from hand to hand, they should give it a second reading, and endeavour to make this a useful measure when they got into Committee.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYconcurred in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Mallow (Mr. Longfield), that it was most desirable to amend the law in Ireland in regard to judgments. He would vote for the second reading with a view to their moving that the Bill be then referred to a Select Committee, and there entirely remodelled. In taking that course he only intended to bind himself to the declaration that the law in its present state was objectionable.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, he should vote for the second reading. He thought that the Solicitor General had misconceived the scope and object of his right hon. Friend's Bill. So far from the object of the measure being to either invalidate or render less secure judgments upon land, he (Mr. George) considered that the very principle of the Bill was to render those judgments more secure, in giving power to judgment creditors to render them at once effective by a sale of the land in question. The remedy, which had almost become obsolete, of appointing a receiver on the foot of a judgment over the land, in the opinion of the best legal authorities in Ireland, ought to be done away with. The remedy by elegit allowed a party to enter into possession of land, and to its profits, subject only to an account being rendered within some indefinite term of years of what the value of the land really was. It appeared to him that it would be most desirable to abolish such a remedy altogether. He would certainly support the second reading, believing that the

  2005
  measure would have the effect of simplifying the remedies of judgment creditors, and of making the securities more safe and more acceptable than they were under the existing law.
  MR. MALINSconfessed he was at it loss to collect from the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General any reasons why this Bill should not be read a second time. He (Mr. Malins) thought it was most desirable that the law of England and Ire land upon this subject should be assimilated. He thought no hon. Member would venture to deny that proposition. If the practice in England were not to apply for the appointment of a receiver over the property in question, what objection, be asked, was there to establish a similar practice in Ireland? Again, in regard to proceeding by elegit, it was true that n judgment creditor might exercise the right of taking the land of the debtor, and of receiving the rents and profits. But the judgment creditor in England scarcely ever took that course. He resorted to the Court of Chancery for the sale of the land. Now, the Bill of his right hon. Friend proposed to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England in those respects; and he could not understand how any reasonable objections could be urged against it. In his opinion it would be most ungracious and unjustifiable, under such circumstances, to reject this Bill on the second reading.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, having had the honour to be a Member of the Committee that sat on this subject, he felt impressed with the opinion that the law of Ireland in regard to judgments was in a most unsatisfactory state, and required immediate amendment. He must, therefore, express his deep regret that the Government had thought fit to meet the second reading of this Bill with a direct negative, without giving any sound reasons against its principle, or holding out any hope that it was their intention to amend the law in Ireland in reference to this subject. Nobody could say that that law was satisfactory, and therefore it was the more to be regretted that the Government should seek to put a negative on the only effectual attempt that had been made to improve the law. All the objections urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) against the measure could be easily amended in Committee. He looked upon the proceedings taken under the existing law in Ireland as an injury and a curse inflicted upon the unhappy owners of
  2006
  the land, without any advantage to the creditor, but only for the benefit of certain parties who kept up this cursed machinery for the purpose of sucking the blood of their unfortunate victims, who were obliged to submit to their heartless demands in the shape of overwhelming costs.
  MR. HADFIELDregretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) had not brought in a Bill to abolish the existing law of judgment al together. He did not see why judgments affecting real estate should not be put on the same footing as judgments on personalty.
  MR. MACDONOGHsaid, that the letter of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had shown no reason why this Bill should not be read a second time, but had merely raised objections to details which might be met in Committee. He had himself been in communication with bankers of eminence in Ireland, and his right hon. Friend had agreed to modify the provisions of the Bill so as to meet the wishes of that important body of persons. If the Bill was read a second time, he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend would not object to refer it to a Select Committee, on which the landed gentry of Ireland might be thoroughly represented.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that it had been shown by one Gentleman after another that the existing law upon the subject was unsatisfactory, and therefore it ought to be altered. Upon the understanding that the Bill was to go to a Select Committee he should support the second reading.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his impression remained unshaken, notwithstanding till that had been said by hon. Members in favour of this Bill, and he could not entirely approve of its principle. At the outset, it seemed as though the principle of the measure was the assimilation of the law of Ireland to that of England; but, as far as he was able to investigate the provisions of the measure, he thought he was warranted in saying that it would not have the effect of assimilating the law of the two countries. The right of having a receiver and the writ of elegit were both taken away by the Bill; how, therefore, could it be said to be an assimilation of the law of England and Ire land? The Act of Lord St. Leonards, which had been only about two years in operation, placed many restrictions upon the creditor, affecting seriously his inter-

  2007
  ests. That law, however, had not been established long enough in the country to enable them to judge of its efficacy. Nevertheless, under all the circumstances of the case, the Government would not object to the second reading of the Bill, with a view to its being referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. WHITESIDEwas glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman had put the Government right with regard to this Bill. He had never heard feebler arguments than those by which it had been met. He had been asked why he did not maintain the law of receivers. His answer was, that it had been condemned by two Committees, of which the late Sir James Graham, the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. E. Ellice), and the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) were members. The objections to the Bill had been founded upon the opinions expressed by Gentlemen who were absent from that House, and who, he was sorry to say, were never likely to be present.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed to a Select Committee.

DEBENTURES ON LAND (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL NO. 64.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WHITESIDE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, its object was to afford facilities in raising money by the owners of land in fee simple in Ireland, who were a very numerous class, without rendering a judgment necessary or the more expensive auxiliary of a mortgage. The proposition was, after the Landed Estates Court had granted a perfectly clear title to an estate, to allow the Court to give to the purchaser, if he asked for it, a right to possess, use, or disuse debentures charged on that estate, and included in the conveyance in the way pointed out in the Bill; so that if in after life he should require to raise money to meet any exigency, it should not be necessary for him to have recourse to a mort gage or judgment, but should have the means of helping himself from his own re sources. The Bill had been draughted by one of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court, and had received the unanimous approval of all the other members of that
  2008
  court; it was proposed altogether in favour of the landed interest, and the only class who would be probable sufferers under its operation would be the legal practitioners; but he knew they were far too enlightened, liberal, and just to offer opposition to any scheme intended for the benefit of the country. The objections urged against the measure proceeded upon the assumption that after a man had obtained a clear title it was undesirable to give him facilities in re-incumbering the property, and a supposed case of a rash and profligate man was always adduced. But would not a man of that character get through his property if these facilities never existed? And did it follow that he would be ruined sooner because he could obtain money upon reasonable terms instead of at an exorbitantly high rate? The rental was examined in the Landed Estates Court, and therefore all questions of value and title were concluded; and it was only necessary to fix the amount to which the issue of debentures should be authorized. Under the present system a man with an income of £2,000 a year wanting to borrow £500 was obliged to apply to his lawyer, who possessed himself for the purpose of his title-deeds, and in all probability retained them for the rest of his life. He again made application to an agent, who shook his head and talked of the difficulties in the money-market, which could only be surmounted by one of two causes—either appointing his son to act as receiver over the estate, or upon payment of a reasonable bonus. Mean while, the landlord pressed for the loan of money which he was anxious to obtain; and the solicitor replied, that after he had drawn out an abstract of title and com pared it with the register, and submitted it to counsel for opinion, his client might hope to receive the money in a period somewhat shorter than was occupied by the Siege of Troy. Railway companies were authorized to issue debentures on security much less valuable than that presented by the owner in fee, and he confessed he could see no objection to the proposal, for the system of registry which the Bill included was of so perfect a character as to preclude danger from fraud or forgery. The scheme had been originally propounded by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Scully); but until its details were connected with the machinery of the Landed Estates Court, he did not believe that its working would have been

  2009
  safe. In support of the measure there was the very highest testimony. The present Solicitor General for Ireland, in a paper read before the Social Science Congress, strongly recommended the adoption of Judge Longfield's proposal; and he might remind the House that the learned Judge himself, before he attained his pre sent high office, was a Fellow of the University to which he belonged, was distinguished for his mathematical attainments, and was at one time Professor of Political Economy. His mode of conducting the important business which came before him was known to the House, and he had only to add that he believed his clear head, strong sense, and sound judgment were not likely to be led astray on a subject with which he was so intimately acquainted.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2°.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he understood that there was no objection to refer the Bills both of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the County of Cork to a Select Committee; and he took the liberty of suggesting, as the subjects had a natural connection with each other, that the other measure which had just been under the consideration of the House should be referred to the same tribunal. At first sight, it would appear as if his right hon. and learned Friend, having abolished, as far as in him lay, one species of security in Ireland, was endeavouring to create in its place another description of security. For some years Parliament had been doing its best to disencumber landed estates in Ireland; but now it seemed to be thought desirable that Parliament should create a new machinery for re-encumbering them. Whether the framers of these two Bills had or had not succeeded in guarding against the evils which were felt when judgments were transferable, nobody could read them without being sensible of the extreme importance, as well as the extreme novelty of these plans, for their applicability was not confined to Ireland. His hon. Friend the Member for Cork County was certainly entitled to the credit of priority of invention in this case, whether it was a good invention or a bad one. He did not undertake to pronounce positively, at present, whether it was good or bad: he was aware that the hon. Member had paid great attention to the subject; and upon the kindred question of the registration of title to land the country was,
  2010
  no doubt, indebted to him for able and useful suggestions. But the main features of this plan appeared to be that half of the landed estates in Ireland were to be melted down into marketable securities, and that the Landed Estates Court was to become a bank of issue of transferable securities—not transferable from hand to hand, but by registration, in much the same manner as Consols at the Bank of England. His right hon. Friend appeared satisfied that the Court would, in all cases, get at the actual value of the estate. When sales took place, no doubt an approximate value might be arrived at; but it was obvious that a very different degree of credit was due to value ascertained by the evidence of surveyors and valuers; and from the nominal value serious deductions must be made, especially with regard to property of a fluctuating character, such as houses and mines, which did not depend on the permanent value of the land. It was one thing to form an opinion of the vigilance of a court from past experience of business with which it was well acquainted, and quite a different matter to place under its discretion and control the hypothecation of the whole land of Ireland, to be administered upon a system entirely novel. The Bill of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin provided greater securities than were contained in the other Measure; but on its side, also, the Bill of the hon. Member for the county of Cork profess ed to offer some advantages. The hon. Member for Cork proposed to superadd to the transfer of these debentures by entry on the register another mode of transfer by memorandum, which would make the debentures negotiable by indorsement, if not actually transferable by delivery from hand to hand, which would in effect be creating a new currency in addition to that already existing in the country. He did not presume to offer opposition, in this stage, to either of the Bills; but it was well the House should have time to reflect upon the large and momentous question which they were called on to decide. Especially in the face of the great authorities which had been quoted, he would not venture to form any final opinion. It might be that this was a great and valuable discovery in the interest of the landed proprietors of both countries; but the House could not fail to see that it must he attended with import ant results, not only to the landed proprie-

  2011
  tors, but to all those who were in any way concerned in the monetary operations of the country; and, if he did not deceive himself, under either plan the beneficial ownership of the land to the extent of the debentures proposed to be issued would be, to all intents and purposes, severed from the duties of the proprietor.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, the subject was not wholly a novelty, as in 1853 he brought in a Bill which was read a second time, and which embodied the whole of the scheme now laid before Parliament. He gave every support to the proposal of his right hon. Friend; for though it differed in details, the principle was identical, having been borrowed from his own original measure. The difference between the "Debentures on Land" Bill and the "Land Debentures." Bill reminded him of King James the First's famous conundrum "What is the difference between live fish and fish alive?" The letter "a," and no more. He had no objection to the Bills being referred to a Select Committee, for he believed the more the subject was investigated the more surely would the principle of land debentures be approved.
  LORD NAASsaid, he could not agree with the observations of the Solicitor General, that by sending the Bill to a Select Committee the House would not pledge itself in favour of the principle of the Bill. He should prefer to see it rejected at once. He objected altogether to the principle of the measure. There was really no necessity for it, and no specific evils had been pointed out which would be cured by it, The Landed Estates Court disposed of property to the amount of a million a year, and there was never any lack of purchasers. In that respect, therefore, the Bill would answer no useful object. Some years ago the present Master of the Rolls introduced a Bill to empower the Landed Estates Court to endorse borrowing powers on the conveyances which they granted, that every purchaser of an estate could borrow half the purchase-money immediately after he got the conveyance. He and others opposed that Bill, and it was withdrawn. He was equally hostile to the present Bill. He questioned the propriety of affording great facilities for embarrassing landed property. He could not see the difference between the debentures which would be created by the Bill and the judgments which had been denounced so loudly. He was afraid that the proposed scheme would
  2012
  offer great temptations to land-jobbers, who would purchase estates merely for the purpose of selling them again as soon as possible. The issue of an enormous amount of new securities would have a very injurious effect on existing securities on land. There was one county, for in stance, where only a single estate had passed through the Estates Court, the practice being to raise money by private mortgage; but if this Bill passed, mortgagees would be tempted to exchange their present investments for the new securities. He doubted whether the landed interest desired the Bill. He knew a number of landowners who did not. There was no difficulty in raising any amount of money as a first charge on land in Ireland at 4½ per cent interest, and funds for improving property could also be raised on the most advantageous terms. His right hon. Friend had referred to the in convenience of voluminous title-deeds, but the Bill would not provide the slightest remedy for that evil. The proposal must therefore be very carefully dealt with; and if the Bill were sent to a Select Committee, some pledge should be given that no further proceeding should be taken during the present Session.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsupported the Bill, and suggested that the extent to which debentures should be is sued might be limited to a third of the value of the property.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEopposed the Bill. The debentures would be likely to get into the hands of low attorneys, who were already great money-lenders to tenants; and it would affect existing mort gages unfairly.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, that as a lauded proprietor in Ireland he viewed the proposal with the greatest possible alarm. The establishment of the Encumbered Estates Court had been, on the whole, a most successful and beneficial measure; but the scheme before them was of a retrograde character.
  Bill read 2°, and committed to the Select Committee on Judgments Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill. [Bill No. 203.]
  And on May 27 Select Committee on the Judgments Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill and the Land Debentures (Ireland) Bills nominated—
  MR. WHITESIDE, Mr. LONGFIELD, Mr. HENRY HERBERT, Sir FREDERICK HEYGATE, Mr. GEORGE, Mr. ENNIS, Sir GEORGE LEWIS, Mr. SCULLY, Mr.

  2013
  POLLARD-UROUHART, Lord NAAS, Mr. MONTAGU SMITH, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, The JUDGE ADVOCATE, Sir HUSH CAIRNS, Colonel VANDELEUR, and Colonel FRENCH:—Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.