The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-20 00:00:00

JUDGMENTS EXECUTION BILL.

The house then went into committee.
Mr. BLAND said as a number of Irish members were
absent from the house, he should move that the chair-
man report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The committee then divided, when there appeared
For the motion
Against it
Majority --147
_ _

Mr. SPOONER objected to the first clause of the
bill. The measure as it at present stood, he thought,
wonld give facility to fraud.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND,
said the fears of the hon. gentleman were groundless.
Col. FRENCH moved that the chairman report
progress. Ile complained of the forcing on of this bill
in the absence of upwards of 100 Irish members, who
were attending an appointment with Lord Palmerston.
The committee again divided, and there appeared
For the motion
Against it
Majority ----140
On the question that clause 1 stand part of the bill,
Mr. BLAND moved the omission of it with the 12
following ones. His object was to give the attested
copy of any judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench,
Common Pleas, or Exchequer at Westminster and
Dublin, or the decreet of the Court of Session of &lot-
land, the same-force and effect as a warrant of attorney
to confess judgment.
After a few words from Mr. AYRTON,
The committee divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
... 43
Majority -94
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the bill.
On clause 2, being read,
Mr. AYRTON moved the omission of the clause, for
the purpose of introducing a clause regulating procedure
in the precise case which was found in the Act for
Winding•up Joint-Stock Companies.
The LORD ADVOCATE said the form of the clause
was certainly different from the one cited by the hoe.
gentleman, but its effect was precisely the same.
Mr. AYRTON withdrew his amendment.
Mr. NAPIER moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress.
Mr. ROEBUCK said this was a very important bill,
as it proposed to alter the law most materially. Such being
the case the present measure ought to have beenintro-
duced by the Attorney-General for England,
and the names of the Attorney-General for
Ireland and the Lord Advocate ought to have ap-
peared on the back of it, and not those of private
members. Such a circumstance would have given autho-
rity to a bill, and he deprecated the practice of Govern.
ment leaving to private members the introduction of
measures which they ought to bring forward.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the bill, as
it was brought forward to remedy an evil
which
was
antiquated and expensive.
After a short discussion, the committee divided.
For the motion ........................... 89
Against it ..................... . 187
Majority ................................... _9B
On the motion that Clause 2, as amended, stand part
of the bill,
Mr. AYRTON suggested that the bill should be re-
ferred to a select committee composed of lawyers, with
a view of fully considering the whole question.
After a few words from Mr. BLAND,
The committee again divided on the question that the
clause as amended stand part of the bill.
For the motion
Against it
Majority --77
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 3 was then proposed.
Mr. M'CANN said it was five years since the hon.
member for Ayrshire first brought forward a bill similar
to the one the house had now under its considera-
tion, Ever since that time the measure had improved by

time, and by next year he thought they would be is
a position to legislate on the subject. The pre-
sent bill was certainly not required by the
mercantile community, as there had not been a single
petition presented by that bo,ly in its favour,
The clause, after a short discussion, was omitted.
On clause 4 bean' proposed,
Mr. DEASY moved an amendment to the effect that
from and after the registering of any copy, or extra.it
of any such judgment or decreet as provided by the
clau.?e, it should not have effect unless leave to issue
had been granted by the juige before whom it was ori-
ginally recovered.
Mr. CRAUI?[JIID opposed the amendment.
The committee divided when there appeared—
For the amendment 96
Against it

Majority against it 67
On the motion that clause 4 stand part of the bill,
Mr. AYE.TON said, by clause 4 great difficulty and
expense would be caused, and therefore he begged
to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he
thought it beneficial to set up two new registers in the
Court of Common Pleas—one for Ireland, and the other
for Scotland. He thought, without much difficulty, one
registrar could perform the duty.
No answer was given to the question of the hon.
and learned member, end the clause *as then ordered
to stand part of the bill.

On clause 5 being prop3sed,
Mr. ROEBUCK said the hou3e had omitted clause
3. He thought this one must necessarily also be ex-
p❑nged.

- A verbal amendment was made, and the clause was
agreed t 3.

After a long discussion, clause 6 was agreed to.
Clause 7 was under discussion at a quarter to
tfx, at which hour the chairman rep: rted progress, and
oLtainel leave to sit again.

The other orders were then read and postponed.
BURIAL ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
THE ELECTIVE F RANCHISF;

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE obtained leave to bring in a
bill to facilitate and afford more frequent opportunities
f r the registration of the elective franchise in Englund
ald Wales.