that they are too meagre. On the whole, we have thought it best to leave this part of the Bill substantially unaltered.

There are two other subjects still connected with the execution of decrees, each of considerable importance. One of those subjects relates to the things that may be taken in execution of a decree; and the other, to the priority of one decree-holder over another.

In the Code there is contained no express exemption of the things that may be taken in execution. It is true that in those seldom-used sections which do duty for an insolvency law, it is provided that the insolvent may retain his wearing apparel and necessary implements of trade. But in Section 205 of the Code, which relates to execution-sales, it is said that all the property of the judgment-debtor, without any exception whatever, may be attached and sold. That extreme generality has been somewhat restricted by judicial decisions, and in our Bill No. III we followed those decisions, and made it part of the express written law that the exemptions in question should be allowed; and we also added that the salary of a Government servant should be exempted from attachment. Whether the salary of a Government servant can be legally attached at the present moment appears to be a matter of some doubt; the prevailing opinion is that it can be, and it is not infrequent in practice to have the salary attached by the creditor while still in the hands of Governel ment. Our proposal to exempt it has met with a various reception-laudatur ab his, culpatur ab illis. We have adhered to the principle that public policy requires a Government servant to receive that amount of salary which is thought fit for his office. When he has got it, it is his; he must spend it as his affairs require; and we have no more concern with the amount that he pays to his creditors, at least as long as he keeps himself free from scandals and in a position to perform his duties, than we have with the amount he may spend upon his wife, his servants, his charities, or his amusements. Our business is to see that the judgment-creditor shall not intercept the money that is coming to the Government servant, and cut off those supplies which are necessary to enable him to perform his duties. We have therefore maintained that principle, and have extended it to Railway servants who, in this country at least, stand very much in the position of Government servants.

If the Council will look at Section 266 of Bill No. IV, they will find a list of the articles that we propose to exempt from attachment. Under head (b) we exempt tools of artisans, implements of husbandry, and cattle kept bond fide for agricultural purposes. Those articles were exempted in accordance with a great number of opinions received from o mufassal officers, representing the hardship and impolicy of bringing people to total ruin by attaching such property; and we have added head (j), which exempts the wages of laborers and domestic servants. The principle is that it is against public policy to make a man compulsorily idle either by taking away from him those tools which are necessary to enable him to earn his living, or by anticipating the wages of his daily labor, and so destroying all motive for self-exertion.

The next topic is the priority of decrees inter se. That is at present regulated by Section 270 of the Code, which provides that the person who first attaches property shall be the first to be paid out of it, even as against another creditor who has obtained a prior decree. Now there is no principle of justice whatever in that rule. Possibly the Code is framed upon the analogy of attachments of another kind, in which, when it happens that there are more suitors than one, it is allowable that a prior attachment should prevail. If so, the analogy hardly applies to objects that are inanimate and capable of division. In fact all rules on this subject must be more or less arbitrary and artificial, and we have got to find out the rule that is most convenient.

Now the present rule leads to some unseemly scrambles for priority, so that it may become a matter of accident or of favor whether A or B or any other letter of the alphabet should be the lucky person to get paid in full to the detriment of other creditors. The Judge of Kaira speaks on this point as follows:

"The provision that the holder of the decree on whose application the property sold was first attached, shall be entitled to be first paid out of the assets realized by the sale, does not appear to be quite an equitable one, and also gives rise to several questions which cannot be satisfactorily settled. It often happens that a certain decree-holder presents his application first for the attachment of a certain property, and another decree-holder presents an application for the attachment of the same property some days subsequently; but owing to some unavoidable accident the ministerial officers of the Court carry out the attachment under the second application first, and then attach

the same property a day or two subsequently under the first application. In such a case, it is quite unjust that the person who presented his application subsequently should have precedence over the first applicant in the matter of the appropriation of the assets. Again, when several decree-holders have presented applications for the attachment of the same property on the same day, and attachments have been made thereunder simultaneously, it is most difficult to determine how the assets should be divided.'

From Sindh we hear somewhat the same story. The Judicial Commissioner tells us

"If several applications are presented simultaneously, the appli cants might be satisfied rateably. In the Small Cause Court at Karachi there is sometimes a rush of, say, twenty decree-holders, each anxious to be the first to attach. All applications put in at the opening of the Court might be held to be simultaneous.'

That which goes on at the extreme western point of our dominions is not due to the longitude, for we find just the same state of things in British Burma, the extreme eastern point of our dominions. Mr. DeWet, our Government Advocate there, says :

"Provision should, I think, here be made for a case that is very common anyhow in Rangoon, where several persons attach property of the same judgment-debtor on the same day, and where the several warrants are handed to the officer of the Court at the same time. Which of these is to be deemed the first attaching creditor? The practice here has usually been to divide the proceeds of sale between them all rateably, but for this there seems to be no authority.""

Now the Council will see that the recommendations. which these gentlemen make are that when attachments are simultaneous there shall be a rateable division. We think that the principle of rateable division may be carried a little further; in fact as far as is convenient. We see no reason why there should not be a rateable division among all the judgment-creditors up to the point when it becomes inconvenient to delay dealing with the assets. Therefore it is provided, in Section 295, that the attached property shall be divided rateably among all persons who apply for execution of money decrees against the same judgmentdebtor prior to the realization of the assets.

Another matter also connected with the execution of decrees is the imprisonment of debtors.

There are many gentlemen, with whom I believe that my honorable friend Mr. Hope sympathises, who would have us abolish the remedy of imprisonment altogether. We do

not see our way to that, but we propose to shorten the terms of imprisonment materially. At present the terms are limited by Section 278 of the Code, which provides that the maximum term of imprisonment for any amount of debt shall be two years; if the debt is Rupees 500, six months; and if Rupees 50, three months. We propose to shorten inter those terms by providing that the maximum term should be six months, and if the debt does not exceed Rupees 50, the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six weeks.

There are some matters.in our Report which I will pass over with the briefest possible indication. We propose to reserve for the District Courts certain processes involving much discretion and responsibility. We also propose to give to the District Judges and to the High Court a certain control over the Small Cause Courts. These are points on which I have no personal knowledge, and which I have not found discussed in these papers. My friend Mr. Cockerell, who has experience of them, will be able to tell the Council more clearly than I can what is the precise practical effect of our proposals. But with regard to Small Cause Courts I may say that, ever since I have been in India, I have heard from various quarters that some power of supervision over their decrees is needed.

In Chapter XVI of our Bill No. IV we have provided for the use of affidavits, an instrument at present unknown in the mufassal. It is however a very useful mode of taking evidence in all uncontested cases, and in applications which are of an urgent and provisional character. Nor do I believe that when sifted by cross-examination, as it is always liable to be here, affidavit evidence is more likely to mislead than oral evidence. In point of fact, one who cross-examines on affidavits has a considerable advantage in that his enemy has written a book, and a book which he has had time to study before he comes to cross-examine. Doubtless the use of a new instrument will require some care and circumspection, and it will also probably require some directions from the High Court to the subordinate Courts, for which we have provided; but with that precaution I see no reason why the alteration should not be productive of considerable advantage.

While on the subject of evidence, I will call attention to an alteration made by Section 184. We provide there that

the local Government may, in cases in which an appeal is allowed, permit the evidence of witnesses in any Court or class of Courts to be taken down by the Judge in his own hand in English. That is an innovation which in cases actually appealed would be attended with great advantage, -if it could be done consistently with the interests of justice in other respects,-because the Appellate Judge would then have the evidence in the same form before him as the Judge in the Court below. I need hardly dilate on the advantage of introducing the English language wherever we can consistently with more important public interests, and I have no doubt that the local Governments will take very good care that the course of justice is not obstructed by any order upon this subject. The Secretary (Mr. Stokes) reminds me that not only will the mind of the Appellate Judge be left freer to work when he is provided with the same materials as the Judge below, but that a great deal of expense will be saved in translations for the Appellate Courts if the original proceedings are taken in English.

In Section 433 we have attempted to deal with the rather delicate subject of a foreign potentate suing in our Courts. In that term I mean to include the Native Chiefs of India who are our feudatories. With regard to them the question is apt to arise much more frequently than with regard to those potentates who are foreign to all intents and purposes. The matter is one of some difficulty, and the difficulty has been recently illustrated by the case of the Rájá of Nahan, who keeps a shop in Ambála and was sued there by his own agent. We have had the advantage of seeing the principles applicable to this case discussed in a very clear and instructive judgment by the Chief Court of Lahore, who disallowed the suit. What we think is that if a foreign Chief become a suitor or a trader or a landholder in our territories, he may fairly be subjected to the incidents of the position he has chosen to assume. But in order to protect the dignity of such personages, and to avoid complications which are sometimes very awkward, we have thought it better to provide that in such cases suits shall not be instituted, nor decrees executed, without the consent of the Government. Those provisions we have embodied in Section 433 of Bill No. IV.

The last point I think it necessary to trouble the Council with-and they will be very glad to hear that it is the