HC Deb 16 July 1849 vol 107 cc403-8

The House then wont into Committee on this Bill; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.

On Clause 1,

MR. CARDWELL

said, he should be glad if the Attorney General would state the grounds on which he had brought forward the first five clauses of the Bill. So far as he was informed at present, he decidedly objected to the Bill passing into a law; and if there were any other Members present, representing large constituencies, he hoped that they would be able to induce the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone these five clauses. It was thought right in the original Act to provide that where the plaintiff resided more than twenty miles from the defendant, he might still sue for a debt, though under 20l., in the superior courts; but if the first clause of this Bill were adopted, the plaintiff must follow wherever the defendant thought proper to go. This was not in accordance with the policy of the common law, which contemplated that the action should be tried where the cause of action arose, and where the witnesses were to be found; and that principle was consistent with common sense. A man might reside at Birmingham, and contract debts there, and when he had exhausted his credit there, might betake himself to Liverpool. He did not mean to say anything against the principle of the old County Courts Bill. The principle of that Bill was the diminution of costs; but the costs of a suit would certainly not be diminished if a plaintiff were obliged to follow his debtor from Birmingham to Liverpool. He thought that such a state of the law would lead to great expense, and to the defeat of justice, and he had heard many objections urged against it both by members of the legal profession and by commercial men. He hoped, therefore, that the Attorney General would not proceed with these clauses.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that if he were informed that the opinion of the mercantile community was adverse to these clauses, he should at once withdraw them, and proceed with the other clauses of the Bill. They were intended to improve and simplify the County Courts Act. He might mention an alteration of the existing law which would be effected by the 6th and 7th Clauses of the Bill. The judges of the local courts could now, in certain cases, commit debtors to the house of correction; and repeated complaints had been made to the Home Office by parties who had been so committed, that their hair had been cut close, and that they had been treated as misdemeanants. It certainly was not the intention of the Legislature that this should be the case; and he had introduced a clause providing that persons in such circumstances should be confined in the debtors' prison. But, as in some parts of the country the debtors' prison might be at a distance of twenty, thirty, or even forty miles from the court, and it was not likely the plaintiff would be willing to incur the expense of conveying the debtor to prison, he (the Attorney General) proposed by another clause, that when such inconvenience should be certified to the Secretary of State, the defendant might be imprisoned in a neighbouring gaol, subject to such regulations with regard to treatment as might be laid down by the Home Secretary.

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive were then struck out of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 were agreed to.

On Clause 8,

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

stated, in reply to Mr. W. PATTEN, that he had introduced this clause to obviate the frauds which he understood were frequently committed upon creditors in consequence of a landlord's execution taking precedence of the writs of the local courts.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 9,

MR. FITZROY

stated that he intended to propose a clause increasing the jurisdiction of the county courts from 20l. to 50l.; and with reference to that he now moved that words, empowering the Secretary of State to fix and regulate the fees to be taken in respect to that increased jurisdiction, he added to the 9th clause. The principle of the county courts had been described to be to bring cheap justice home to every door, and though political slang, in most cases, was not realised, he believed that the working of the county courts had been most beneficial. If that point were conceded, he could not understand how the extension of the jurisdiction to 50l. could be opposed; for it was as desirable to have 50l. worth of justice meted out cheaply at one's own door as 20l. worth. A step had been taken in the right direction to enable parties to recover their just debts without enormous cost; but he feared the Attorney General was not inclined for any further steps being now taken towards that just end. The limitation of the jurisdiction of these courts to debts of 20l. might have been desirable on their first establishment; but, after two or three years' experience, the advantage of the system had been most strikingly established. In the superior courts the costs in causes for the recovery of debts were extremely heavy; and he mentioned that a friend of his had been arrested for 85l.; and upon inquiry, it was found that that sum constituted the costs incurred by his friend in a vain attempt to recover 8l. He regretted that the Solicitor General was not now present; for on the last occasion of the discussion of this Bill, he expressed a hope that the jurisdiction of the courts would be extended. The only objection to his proposed clause which he anticipated, besides that which might be taken on account of the expected suffering of the attorneys' pockets, was one in reference to the necessary standing at the bar for these judges; but that might be obviated by substituting twelve years for seven years. He had no objection to the clause not being made compulsory.

Amendment proposed— To add at the end of the Clause these words, 'and it shall he lawful for the Secretary of State in like manner to fix and regulate the fees to be taken under and in respect of the increased jurisdiction hereby given.'

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

presumed that, if the present Amendment were negatived, the hon. Gentleman would not again raise the discussion by the proposition of his clause. He concurred with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that the working of the measure establishing the county courts had given great satisfaction to the public at large; but he deemed that it would not be safe, with the experience they had yet had, to extend the jurisdiction of the courts to 50l. without giving an appeal from the decisions of the judges. If the jurisdiction were so far extended without an appeal, he believed these courts, instead of giving great satisfaction, would create a perfectly opposite feeling. Their operation had been most beneficial because it had boon confined to the recovery of small debts; and if their jurisdiction were to be extended, the hon. Gentleman's arguments in reference to bringing cheap justice home to every one, might just as well induce the Committee to extend the jurisdiction to 100l. or 200l. as to 50l., and to allow questions of title to be decided in thorn. Though the courts had, in respect to a limited jurisdiction, worked beneficially, he was not prepared, without having some power and control over the judges, with the view of obtaining uniformity of decision, which was not so important whore the amounts in dispute were small, to increase the jurisdiction of the courts to 50l; and he should, therefore, oppose the Amendment.

MR. WILSON PATTEN

regretted to learn that the Attorney General intended to oppose the clause, for he had received a variety of communications begging him to support it, as many parties were willing to forego part of their claims when above 20l. in order to obtain the advantage of a decision in the county courts. It was true that with this proposed extended jurisdiction there ought to be an appeal to the superior courts; but that might be provided for by the introduction of a clause.

CAPTAIN PECHELL

supported the Mo- tion of the hon. Member for Lewes, and animadverted on the manner in which the judges of the county courts had been treated by the Treasury in respect to their travelling expenses, the tendency of which was to lower the judges in the estimation of the public.

SIR G. GREY

said, in the early stage of the Bill the Treasury were reproached with great extravagance, and now they were blamed for making a very inadequate allowance. The only object which the Treasury had had in view was to make such arrangements as would secure the efficient working of the Act, and they certainly had not the slightest desire to degrade the judges. Although he admitted that the courts had fully answered public expectation, he still doubted whether they would work as satisfactorily to that class of suitors who had hitherto resorted to them in order to obtain a speedy remedy, after their jurisdiction should have been enlarged. At the same time, he was not prepared to say that after more experience, accompanied with those conditions hinted at by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, it might not be possible to extend the jurisdiction; but of this he felt assured, that to attempt this in a hasty manner would be to defeat the object in view. The argument, in fact, of the hon. Mover seemed to be against any limit whatever, and would justify an extension of the jurisdiction to 100l. as well as 50l.

MR. SPOONER

suggested that it might be well to insert a clause in the Bill, empowering the judges of the county courts to try cases up to the amount of 50l., wherever both parties consented.

MR. MULLINGS

admitted that these courts had worked most satisfactorily, but could not concur in the proposition to extend their jurisdiction to 50l. It should be recollected that the trial by jury—that was, by a jury constituted as the juries in the superior courts—was abolished by the county courts measure. However, he was willing to extend the jurisdiction to 30l. He thought the travelling expenses of the judges were fixed at too low an amount, and conceived that the Government would do well to increase their salaries to 1,500l. a year each, and let them then pay their own travelling expenses.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that the Committee were about to divide on a serious question, which he did not think should be settled in this incidental manner, upon the addition of words which were not necessary. As the county courts were now constituted, there was no appeal whatever from them, and in different courts the decisions and the principles of the decisions rested on different grounds, so that in the Court of Queen's Bench and in the Exchequer endeavours had been made over and over again to obtain means to overturn the decisions—through writs, for instance, of prohibition—a most expensive course of proceeding. As the principle involved was great, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Amendment.

SIR J. GRAHAM

thought the question whether the jurisdiction should be extended to 50l. one of very great importance, which ought not to be decided incidentally upon a clause not really raising the question, and upon words which the Attorney General held to be not really necessary. The hon. Member for Lewes had better raise the question in a more substantive form.

Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 62: Majority 28.

The remaining clauses were agreed to.

Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.