SECOND READING. (Hansard, 15 May 1882)

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, the object of the measure was simply to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts, which was optional up to £50, and make it compulsory up to that sum. The Bill was in the form that had been recommended by Select Committees of the House. Measures had been introduced to carry out a similar reform. It was a Bill of only one clause, extending the jurisdiction of County Courts from £20 to £50.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the second reading of the Bill, as its effect would be to throw a greater amount of work upon the County Court Judges. He knew something of County Court Judges, having practised before three of them, and he must say the result of his experience was that these gentlemen were most unfit to try cases. He would not go into individual cases; but, with very few exceptions, the County Court Judges were found to be very bad lawyers. He earnestly hoped the hon. Member, for whose opinions he had the greatest respect, would postpone the measure for further consideration. The hon. Member knew perfectly well that the County Courts Act of 1867 took away a great deal of work from the Bar, and this measure would take away still more. There was another point, with regard to which his hon. Friend over the way might be inclined to agree with him. He had always felt it to be a defect in the law that in every case the round sum given in a judgment should of necessity carry costs. The juries were bound to give a verdict for an amount "not exceeding" a certain sum—should a verdict for the sum not to be exceeded always carry costs?

§ MR. DODDS
pointed out that the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was one for consideration in Committee, and he hoped the House would be free to read the Bill a second time.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, he did not know much about this Bill; but it purported to deal with County Court jurisdiction in England, which was a subject of immense importance. He would, therefore, like to know whether the measure had the support of the Government, for the House was entitled to know whether those who were responsible for the legal administration of the country had considered the Bill and approved of it. He thought it only reasonable that the second reading should be postponed until the House could be informed upon that point.

§ MR. WHITLEY
said, he hoped the measure would not be pressed to a second reading.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he did not wish to press the matter beyond the wish of the House; but he thought this discussion should take place on the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair. The principle of the Bill had been approved again and again, both by the Government and by hon. Members who were supporters of the late Government. The Bill would not destroy the right to have cases tried in a Superior Court; but it provided that where a certain case was taken into a Superior Court the plaintiff should not obtain his costs. He knew the difficulty of making progress with Bills of this kind at this season of the year: and, therefore, if hon. Members would allow the second reading to be taken, he would undertake that there should be ample opportunity for discussion, if discussion was required.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, he was most unwilling not to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member; but he must say he thought that, under the circumstances, the House should adjourn the consideration of the subject.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, there should be an understanding that there should be no block put against the Bill.