PUBLIC RECORD
OFFICE
TIT
Reference :-
8855 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
(EXTRACT.)
28
Enclosure 4 in No. 8.
BOARD OF TRADE to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Board of Trade (Commercial Department,) Loudon, S.W. April 20, 1886.
I AM directed by the Board of Trade to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Bramston's letter of the 30th ultimo,* with reference to the communication addressed to you from this Department on the 19th October last on the subject of the proposed Indian Bankruptcy Bill, which contained suggestions for conferring upon Courts having Bauk- ruptcy jurisdiction in this country, and in India and the Crown Colonies, the exercise of reciprocal authority in regard to the suspension of proceedings and the enforcement of judgments in certain circumstances.
In reply, I am to state for Lord Granville's information, that, having carefully considered the Bill forwarded with Mr. Bramston's letter, which has been designed for the purpose of ensuring the more speedy execution in the United Kingdom of judgments obtained in Indian and Colonial Courts, the Board are of opinion that the clauses relating to bankruptcy and insolvency require careful consideration. According to these clauses any order obtained under any law, however questionable, in any Colony attracts to itself proceedings in the United Kingdom, and must be enforced by the Courts of the United Kingdom. But creditors are numerous and may live in different parts of the empire. Supposing that the majority of the creditors of a bankrupt live the United Kingdom, and that an Order in Bankruptcy is obtained in Jersey or in Canada, ought the Courts in England to be obliged to surrender their own jurisdiction and to enforce the colonial law ?
The Board would refer to section 118 of the English Act of 1883 for the purpose of showing how this difficulty has been dealt with within the United Kingdom, and they desire to suggest that it would be advisable to submit this Draft Bill to some counsel experienced in English Bankruptcy Law for the purpose of such examination and revision as may be necessary.
SIR,
Enclosure 5 in No. 8.
BOARD OF TRADE to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Board of Trade, August 31, 1886.
I AM directed by the Board of Trade to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, transmitting by direction of Mr. Secretary Stanhope a copy of correspondence with the Law Officers respecting the proposed Colonial Judgments Bill, and requesting the observations of this Board.
In reply, I am to request that you will inform Mr. Secretary Stanhope that the Board of Trade have already expressed their concurrence in the extension of the principle of Section 117 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, to India and the Colonies, and that as the Law Officers, having had their attention called to the matter, do not share the appre- hension expressed by the Board of Trade in their letter of the 20th April last as to a possible conflict of jurisdiction between the Colonial and Home Courts, the Board of Trade have no longer any objection to offer to the Bill in question.
The Under Secretary of State, Colonial Office.
SIR,
I am,
&c.,
(Signed) HENRY G. CALCRAFT.
Enclosure 6 in No. 8.
COLONIAL OFFICE to F. T. PIGGOTT, Esq.
Downing Street, January 20, 1887. WITH reference to previous correspondence on the subject of the Colonial Judgments Extension Bill, I am directed by Sir Henry Holland to inform you that the
↑ Not printed.
• Enclosure 3, page 27.
† Enclosure 2, page 20.
29
Lord Chancellor, to whom the draft Bill has been submitted, has expressed himself in a sense opposed to the Bill, and under these circumstances Sir Henry Holland does not think there would be any advantage in proceeding further with the proposed Bill.
(Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT,
Sir,
F. T. Piggott, Esq.
am, &c.,
Enclosure 7 in No. 8.
F. T. PIGGOTT, Esq., to COLONIAL OFFICE.
2, Doctor Johnson's Buildings, Temple, E.C.,
January 22, 1887.
I HAVE received the information that the Colonial Judgments Extension Bill is not to be further proceeded with with the greatest regret, and I should esteem it the greatest honour if I might endeavour to remove the Lord Chancellor's objections to it. I know personally how necessary merchants consider such an Act in the interests of Colonial commerce. The following example which has come under my knowledge may serve to show the injustice worked by the present system.
A. and B., partners, resided at the Cape; they referred a dispute to two arbitrators and an umpire, the award to be made an Order of Court. The award was made in favour of A, and it was subsequently made an order of the Supreme Court at the Cape, both parties being represented by Counsel. B then came over to England leaving insufficient assets to pay the amount due: it became necessary therefore for A to sue on his judgment in this country. In spite of the above facts, all manner of imaginary defences have been set up, not one of which will ultimately succeed; they are, however, sufficiently plausible to enable the defendant to get leave to defend and prevent the plaintiff obtaining summary judgment under Order XIV. The result is, that after all the litigation at the Cape the successful party is let in for a long law suit in England, and as he is living abroad has the additional inisfortune to have to find security for costs. It is a mystery to me how Colonial commerce exists at all under such circumstances. If you still adhere to your determination, however, perhaps you would allow the matter to stand over until the Colonial Conference meets in the spring; the passage of a series of such Acts in England and the Colonies would be an important and practical step in the direction of Imperial Federation; and if you would allow me, I should be happy to lay my views on the subject before the Conference.
To the Right Hon. Sir Henry Holland, Bart.
1 am, &c., (Signed)
Enclosure 8 in No. 8.
F. T. PIGGOTT.
MESSRS. ST. BARBE SLADEN and WING to COLONIAL OFFICE.
1, Delahay Street, Westminster, S.W., January 27, 1887.
DEAR SIR,
AN Act has lately been passed by the Victorian Parliament, the short title of which is "The Probate Act, 1886," whereby is enacted that all probates and adminis trations of any deceased persons who have left property within the Colony of Victoria, granted by any court of competent jurisdiction in the United Kingdom or the Australasian Colonies, are to be of like force as if granted in Victoria on copies being filed and sealed there.
Similar Acts are in existence in the Colonies of New Zealand, South Australia, Tasmania, and Western Australia, and have been found very convenient and to work well in practice.
We have been requested to endeavour to procure a similar enactment by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in respect of probates or administrations granted by courts of competent jurisdiction in any of the Colonies of deceased persons leaving property within the United Kingdom.
The practice of resealing English probates in Scotland and Ireland in respect of property in those countries as well as in England, and vice versa, already prevails, and we fail to see D 3