The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-10 00:00:00

JUDGMENT EXECUTIONS.

Mr. CRATFURD moved for leave to bring in a bill
to enable executions to issue in any part of the United
Kingdom, under a judgment obtained in any court in
England, Scotland, or Ireland. In stating the grounds
for the introduction of this bill, very few observations
would be required from him. The evil which the bill
sought to remedy was this, that as the law now stood,
if a plaintiff obtained a judgment in a common law court
of this country or Ireland, or the Court of Session in
Scotland, and the party against whom the judgment was
obtained retired into any of the neighbouring countries,
he could not execute the judgment without bringing an
action on it in one of the courts of the country into
which the party had retired, and giving security for
costs. This was found to be a great evil and hardship,
and his only surprise was that a remedy had not been
applied before to such a state of things. The principle
which he proposed to introduce was not new. About 20
ago a bill exactly similar in principle to the one which
he now asked leave to introduce, was brought into
the House of Lords by Lord Wynford, and was read
a second time, but for some reason which he was not
able to ascertain it had not been carried farther. The
principle of the bill was this, that upon the obtaining of
a judgment in a court of common law or court of chan-
cery, or by order of the Court of Session in Scotland, an
extract of such judgment should be registered in every
court of the United Kingdom, and that such judgment
should be quite as valid and effective in the country into
which the defendant might have retired, as in the country
under the jurisdiction of the court where it was originally
obtained. At present there was no power of compelling
the execution of that judgment except in the court in
which it was issued. As this bill was intended to affect
the whole country, he intended to put the three coun-
tries on a footing of mutuality, so as to enable a plaintiff
to sue in the court where the cause of action arose, or
where the breach of contract occurred. At present, by
the power of foreign attachment which existed in Scot-
land, a plaintiff could attach the money of a debtor en-
terih'g 'Scotland, or may person wherheld money for him.
But no reciprocal power existed in England. His object
was to 'give greater mutuality than existed at present.
These' were the princiiaa.i provisions of the bill, and
though tnO sie'in its provisions, he hoped it would be
fruittel',in its consequences, and in order that it might be
I well digested; he had no objection that it should be re-
ferred to a select committee after the second reading.
I ' 'The :LORD ADVOCATE said he cordially approved
of the object of the bill, which wits certainly a step, and
ad itnp(irtane'gtep; in the right direction. (Hear.) •It
Was' certainly very unfortunate that the courts at the two
ends of the cdiintky treat the judgments of eaoh
other as those of foreign countries. He would, however,
look with care to the provisions which had been framed
to carry out the objects of the measure. He congratu-
lated his hon. and learned friend on bringing the sub-
ject forward, and he should certainly give him all
the assistance he could. (Hear.)
Mr. NAPIER—I say ditto on the part of Ireland.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—And I say ditto on
the part of England. (Much laughter and cheering.)
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL REPORT.

Mr. HUME moved that the report of Mr. Solly
Platt, one of the commissioners who conducted the in-
quiry into the case of Kingston-upon-Hull, be laid on
the table of the house. He did not ask to have it printed,
but merely that it should be in the house, so as, if neces-
sary-, to be accessible to members.
Mr. FITZROY had no objection to the laying of the
petition on the table, but he would object to its being
printed, as a tremendous expense had already been in-
curred in this inquiry.
The motion was then agreed to.
THE SUSPENDED WRITS.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that in moving to postpone
"the issue of writs for the boroughs which formed the sub-
ject of inquiry before the various commissions, he did
not iiitcrid to move the postponement of any of the writs
fur the period he had named in the notice papor (6th of
April), but only till the 17th of March. The reason
why lie took this course was that the house certainly
was not in a condition to judge whether all of these
writs should be issued or not. That was especially
the case with regard to the borough of Tynemouth.
It was also desirable, before the house came to any de-
cision with respect to the issuing of these writs, that the
house should be put in possession of the intentions of the
Government with respect to the Bribery Prevention
Bills which his hon. and learned friend (the Attorney-
Get.er,d) would state on Monday next. (Hear.) With,
regard to the borough of Tyriemoutli, the report, he un
derstood, would be delivered to-morrow morning. The
borough of Tyneruouth was, as far as he was able to con-
sult the report, in a different position from the other
boroughs. But when the house was in possession of that
report, and the evidence, they would judge if any dis-
tinction should be made with regard to that borough or
any other borough. He would now only move that no
warrants for ,new writs for Barnstaple, Cambridge, Can- ,