there should be a short memorandum of the difference. That is one of the suggestions I have to make. My other suggestion is this: there are certain unions of course, I am more particularly interested in the west of Ireland— in which the circumstances may be entirely different. Take the case of a union with a debt. They may be gradually working off this debt, and if they strike a higher rate in this particular year for the express purpose of work

ing off this debt, I do not think it would be fair to take that as the estimated expenditure. I think the right honourable Gentleman ought to take into consideration all these circumstances.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I may remind the honourable Member that the circumstances he has mentioned will be taken into consideration.

Clause 35 as amended agreed to.

Question put

rate for the whole financial year, and collect the same in equal moieties, one moiety for each half-year." Mr. Hemphill.)

"That the proposed words be added to the section."

66

Agreed to..

Amendment proposed

Balfour.)

MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If this Amendment is carried the section will run thus

*MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: In the city of Dublin the object of this Amendment has been brought very much under my notice, for a very great incon Page 19, line 31, leave out from the second venience would arise if they had to alterand' to 'shall' in line 32."-(Mr. Gerald their system, which has continued to work satisfactorily now for a great number of years. My Amendment provides that they may make one poor rate for the whole financial year, if they think fit, and that practice has been adopted now for a great number of years in the city of Dublin. The rate there is struck for the whole financial year, but it is collected in two instalments-two halfyearly instalments. The continuance of MR. MAURICE HEALY: Will not this system has been very strongly some consequential change be necessary urged by the advisers of the corporation, if that Amendment is adopted? This and it will involve great additional clause we are now discussing is based on expense if this clause is made to apply to the supposition that there shall be two Dublin. I do not know whether the poor rates. right honourable Gentleman would like to consider it when he brings forward his clause about the Collector General.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The only difference between the procedure proposed and the clause as it stands is that a county borough may provide for the total poor rate by striking one rate, instead of making the poor rate twice a year. Of course, if the guardians, in striking their estimate, required. a larger amcunt, the county council would have to supply that, I suppose, from the borough fund.

"Such poor rate shall be made either imme diately prior to, or at the beginning of, the first six months of the local financial year and the second six months of that year, and shall be made in respect of the service of such first six months or second six months, as the case may be."

MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think, perhaps, that had better be left till the Report stage.

Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed―

"Page 19, line 34, leave out from 'be' to the end of line 37."-(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed

"Page 19, line 38, leave out from that' to

*MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Yes, from the end of line 39.”—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

the borough fund.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I see no serious objection to the Amendment, and if it is a matter of great convenience that it should be added I will accept it. We originally provided that sub-section on the supposition that the service of the half-year was incorrect as applied to the guardians. I believe, however, that that is not so, and I have no objection to the Amendment if it is a matter of convenience that the system suggested should be followed.

Mr. Flynn.

The

MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Amendment raises the question as to whether the poor rate made to meet expenses other than guardians' expenses should come under the restriction that they shall not be retrospective. clause, as it stood, might have been read as meaning that the guardians' expenses could in no case be raised by a retrospective rate, or as meaning that the provision as to a retrospective rate should not apply to them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed

"Page 20, line 5, leave out from period' to 'and,' in line 7."-(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

to use due diligence in forcing the clainr -in other words, if the court considers

that you have given the board indulgence, your right to sue is barred altogether. I cannot conceive on what principle the Government advocates such a proposal. Any difficulty as to whether the matter is retrospective or not ought to be finally settled by the judge. If the court gives judgment for you, then the board ought to pay the money. Apparently this clause is full of difficulties, because it seems that if you obtain judgment you may go in and take the goods and chattels of the board; you may seize the furniture that is in the workhouse, whether you have used due diligence or not. But if you fail to use proper diligence, then the local board are to be placed in this position: that they cannot raise the money out of the rate, and they must let you seize their goods and sell them in order to realise your money. I am entirely at a loss to know on what grounds the Government defend this proposition. If the debt is lawful, and if judgment is recovered, it ought to be in the power of a local body to pay that money, no matter how far off the liability was incurred. I do not know whether this proposal takes. cognisance of the payment of a bond. Supposing a board of guardians raises money on a bond or a mortgage: you can at present sue for 20 years on a bond or mortgage, and, apparently, the proposal of the Government is that in that case it is to be the duty of the court to see whether or not you have used due diligence to sue on your bond, or of raising the money under mortgage, and if the court thinks you have not, the local body is debarred from raising the rate to pay it. I think that is a perfectly monstrous proposal, and I hope that my Amendment will be carried.

MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. Proceedings against boards of guardians, and other local bodies, as regards the Statute of Limitations are now covered by the ordinary law. When you sue a board of guardians proceedings are not barred any more than they are against a private individual. But the effect of this clause is to provide a new Statute of Limitations applying to boards of guardians and other public bodies. That seems to me to be a most mischievous proceeding, and, furthermore, instead of doing that in a plain way which every lawyer and layman could understand, it is done in a curious and indirect way, which really throws the law in doubt every time you sue a board of guardians. If the board of guardians owes a man a debt, the same Statute of Limitations shall not apply as applies in a case where a debt is due by an ordinary individual. Why should a man be debarred from suing a board of guardians within the ordinary six years' term? Is there any reason or principle for it? Of course, it is introduced here in consequence of these complicated provisions as to what rates are to be retrospective and what rates are not to be retrospective. I have very little sympathy with these restrictions of local bodies at all. If money is honestly expended by a board of guardians, or by a local body of any kind, in discharging its duties, I think the fact as to whether the money was spent in respect of work done, or materials supplied twelve months before, or two or three years before, is utterly immaterial. What will be the state of things which will arise every time you sue a board of guardians? We will suppose that you sue a board of guardians for £500. You supply the goods, but delay in sending in your bill, and when you do send it in it is not within the six months. Forthwith it MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry): I becomes the duty of the court to inquire think that this clause is an attempt to do whether or not you have used due dili- what is a good thing in a wrong way. I gence in enforcing your claim; and if venture to differ from my honourable the court considers that you have failed and learned Friend in this, and do think

MR. DILLON: Will the right honourable Gentleman explain, when he is answering, what the exact bearing of this section is on unions that have for a longtime past been heavily in debt?

when a debt is incurred it must be paid six months after it has been incurred, in order to prevent boards of guardians and other local anthorities running into arrear, and not raising sufficient money to meet their liabilities, 80 as to in succeed

that there ought to be a short period for | ticular half-year should not be expended action against local authorities. There on debts incurred many years previous. is such a provision in the English Public Consequently, we think that in future Health Act, and I can see myself no reason why there should not be a similar provision in the Irish Act; but it is clear that this is an attempt to do it in a roundabout way, which will cause all sorts of difficulty. The limitation ought to be a limit of action throw upon ratepayers and not of execution. The question as to whether a creditor had taken steps against the local authority in proper time ought to be determined on the occasion when the action is tried, and not left to be determined afterwards by some other and, perhaps, more expensive proceeding. A creditor's advisers ought to be able to tell him the law when he begins to sue, and not afterwards. I think it is quite clear that a mistake has been made in this section. What I venture to suggest is, that the Government should leave out all the words after the word "sum" in line 4, or, perhaps, make it "any sum" instead of "a sum,' and then leave out the rest of the section, and devise some general limitation as to actions against local bodies. On that point I do take somewhat strong views that there ought to be a period of limitation, and my opinion is that that period of limitation, as against individuals ought to be shorter, because I think that the more we do to prevent creditors who do not sue

in

a reasonable time taking proceedings the better all round. As a rule, people who give long credit are not philanthropists, and the reason that they give it is that they do not want to have the details of their debt too deeply inquired into. I should, therefore, very much like to see the period of limitation short in every case, but especially in the case of local bodies. I think in their case there ought to be the same limitations as apply to local bodies in England,

but this clause does not seem to me to be the right way of doing it.

MR. ATKINSON: The object of this section is perfectly plain. It seems desirable that boards of guardians or local authorities should let each half-year provide for the expenditure of that halfyear, so that money provided for a parMr. Vesey Knox.

ing years the debts that ought to have been borne by ratepayers in past years. The judgment can be obtained six months after the debt became payable subject to one condition, that might bear hardly upon creditors occasionally. It may be that they did use due diligence, and yet that they were not able to recover the judgment within the six months, and for that reason we have provided that it shall be competent to the court in which the judgment is recovered, notwithstanding the lapse of that period of six months, to certify that the creditor has used all due diligence, and, if the court so certifies, the creditor should be entitled to recover. The honourable Member for the City of Londonderry said that he thought it would be a bad law. He admitted that it would be desirable to have a statute of limitations, but he said that it had better be done by a hard and fast rule or statute preventing anyone recovering a debt after a certain period had elapsed. That would be wanting in elasticity. It would shut out the man who had used due diligence. I want to secure a greater amount of elasticity so that those who have used diligence, even if they do not get judg ment in six months, shall yet be paid. The man who deliberately holds back without any excuse or reason, is the man who by this provision will not be paid. Therefore, instead of having a hard and fast rule to disentitle a man who has used due diligence, we have provided a rule which, while it does not disentitle the diligent, certainly does disentitle the creditor who is not diligent.

*MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I am in favour of the clause as it stands rather than the Amendment. My reason for that is that we must recollect

that rates will now, or very shortly, be very much increased, and the whole burden of these rates will fall upon the

six

any

66

occupying tenant. I do not think it is | begins the suit whether he is entitled to at all unreasonable that a person who has get his judgment or not. If a a demand against a board of guardians man Owes me money, and I allow should insert his claim within six months, years to pass without getting and I think it very desirable that he acknowledgment, I know that should do so, especially as this section judgment will be given against me; but provides that, in case of a creditor being in this case, in order to know whether ill, or for some other reason which might I have a right to recover or not, I must possibly allow the six months to elapse, bring my actión-I must litigate I and thus work injustice by shuting him must argue it out before the court, and out altogether, he can submit his reasons it is only when the court has said, Oh, to the court. I think this section is an this debt has been a long time about, and improvement on the ordinary plea of the I do not think you ought to get your statute of limitations for six months, judgment," it is only at the very last because it gives the judge before whom minute, when all the costs have been the case comes a power to say that there incurred and the judge has given his de was good cause for the creditor not cision, that you know whether you have having brought forward his action within a right of action. Is that a satisfactory the limits of the time; and I would state of things? I think it is an incenfurther point out that this section is an tive to litigation. I can quite underease to the ratepayer, because he will stand it if you think it is desirable to be sure that the money spent in the six put a clause into this Bill that no action months is for food supplied and work should be brought against a local authodone during that period; whereas to rity unless within three years after the allow a man to sue under the existing cause of action has arisen--or 12 months, statute, at the end of six years, is a great or what not-but let us know where we hardship on and an unreasonable one stand. Let a man know when he begins upon the ratepayers, who may be paying his action whether he is entitled to refor things the benefits of which had been cover or not. Supposing a man in Cork received by other persons. Holding as I comes to me and says, "The board of do the opinion that this is an improve- guardians owes me money; what am I ment on the existing law, I am decidedly to do?" How can I advise him? Is it a in favour of the clause as it stands. proper position to put me in? It may all, and does all, depend upon who the judge is and who the litigant is. One judge might think that the proceedings had been taken in time, and another judge would not. One litigant may be

MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman opposite has made as flimsy an argument in defence of this proposal as ever I heard.

would not.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the obnoxious to the judge, another litigant same as the English Act. A hundred considerations might arise. The ordinary Statute of Limitations depends, in the first place, on the date when and where the debt accrued. It depends, further, on the ques have tion whether or not you Will the right acknowledgment of it. honourable Gentleman tell me the meaning of this clause?—

any

MR. MAURICE HEALY: Then the English Act is very bad. This is a clause for the encouragement of litigation. Limitation is a good thing in its way; but whether there ought to be a limitation of the expense of local bodies or not is quite another question. I myself would have no objection to a short period of limitation, if the same thing were applied to private individuals. But I say that this clause has all the vices which a proposal of the kind can have, and has none of its advantages. What is the nature of the ordinary limitation in an action? It is this that the party knows before he And supposing at the end of that six

:

Where a person recovers judgment or obtains a decree in any court for a sum which originally became payable six months or more before the said period."

Supposing a debt is due to me, and at the end of six months I take a promis sory note. Does that renew my right?