The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-14 00:00:00

(SCOTLAND) TRANSFER BILL.

Sir J. OGILVY proposed the second reading. He said
it was based upon the recommendation of the Royal Com-
mission.—Agreed to.—(Committee on Fi iday.)
JUDGMENTS, &c,, LAW AMENDMENT BILL,
Mr. HADFIELD moved the second reading. He said
the profession throughout the ci,untry were unanimously in
favour of the bill. It would not have a retrospective effect,
and wculd not apply to Ireland. Three-fifths of all th 3 re-
gistered judgments were actually under £lOO, and in the
aggregate did not cover more than £3,000. The house
could not reasonably continue to protect an interest of this
kind. A t the present time a buyer must search to see it
any judgment had been entered against the vendor, even
though the transaction was completed at a distance. He
cited causes where judgments had been entered within an
hour of the actual sale, and this might occur at any time.
It was important to alter the present system, be-
cause innocent, fair dealing people might have their
purchases vitiatedby sharp practice on the part of attorneys
and others. There was a conflict of opinion between Lord
St. Leonards and the Master of the Itolls with respect to
searching, the former contending that such a proceeding
was imperative up to within an hour of the completion of a
proposed purchase, whilst the latter held that it was not.
The present law was obsolete so far as benefit to the public
was concerned, and ought to be, therefore, abrogated.
Mr.EIUMBERSTONE supported the second reading, as
the present law was exceedingly vexatious and most in-
jurious to both the buyers and sellers of land. The law
was pregnant with absurdities. For instance if a person
put up a picture for sale for £l,OOO, the buyer was actually
liable to lose his purchase money if he paid without
searching to ascertain if there were any judgment against
him.
Mr. MALINS explained the past, the present, and the

J pia
proposed law, and said he should support the law because
it was based upon just and rational principles, and would
correct the absurd and anomalous state of the present law.
It served the interests only (if the " money jobbers" and
" 60 per cent." men, who trafficked on the needs and nEces •
cities of persons driven to extremity to raise money on any

terms.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL admitted that the sub-
ject was of area importance, and fully appreciated the ex-
cellent motives which induced his hon. and learned friend
(Mr. Hadfield) to bring this measure forward ; but he
obj,cted to the bill btc.i.use it would institute a retrograde
movement by effecting the recently-settled lAws with re •
Tect to debtor and creditor. The bill went no further than
this: it would relieve people of the payment of 2s or 3s.
toe searching to see whether persons with whom they were

dealing had any judgment entered up against them, a course
which it was obvious strict p• udence dictated. Phis was,
strictly speaking, the sole purpose of the bill, which was a
mere oagatello in comparison with the question of the bona
fides of persons having property and offering it for sale.
(Hear, hear.) He opposed the bill, because it would
materially tend to nullity the faatute law which had worked
well and usefully.
The hou•e then divided, when there appeared--
For the second reading 23
Against it...
Majority the second reading-20
POISONED GRAIN PROHIBITION BILL
(IRELAND).
Mr. PAULL moved that the order for the second read-
ing be discharged, in order to introduce an amended bill.
Leave was accordingly given to introduce a new bill, and
it was read a first time.