Commons Sitting of 2 May 1850

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Lymington, John Hutchins, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Attornies' Certificates.
Reported.—County Court Extension.

ATTORNIES' CERTIFICATE BILL— ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [26th February], "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Attornies' and Solicitors' annual Certificate Duty."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
SIR F. THESIGERsaid, he felt great pleasure in expressing his acknowledgments to the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex by whom the Bill had been introduced, for the great and disinterested exertions which he had long made to relieve the solicitors from a tax which pressed so heavily on them. He would not have come forward to support the Motion of the noble Lord, if he did not feel that justice imperatively required that these taxes should be abolished. The tax was 12 l. in London, and 8l. in the country; and if the solicitor did not pay it, he was prohibited from practising. The amount realised by the tax was about 90,000 l. a year. He complained of this tax as partial, and therefore unjust, a single class being singled out for assessment. He had boon anxious, it being an important element in the consideration of the case, to

1103
ascertain the reasons which had been urged for its original imposition. He found that it was first imposed in 1795, at a time when the Minister was extremely anxious to procure money for the expenses of a lengthened and calamitous war. Mr. Pitt said, that all the previous sources being preoccupied, he felt obliged to propose a general tax on shops. His proposal was objected to, and one Member, a Mr. Alderman Thompson, proposed as a substitute a tax on attornies' licenses, stating that at 30 l. each it would produce a total of 150,000 l. a year. The result proved how dangerous it was for individual Members to suggest taxes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as before the end of the year both taxes were imposed. A different fate, however, subsequently awaited them. With respect to the shop tax, Mr. Fox never ceased until he procured its removal; but nobody was found to do battle for the attornies. Instead of having any one to procure relief for them, the tax was increased every year until it had attained its present heavy amount. It might be urged that so long a silence was a proof that its operation was not oppressive; but prescription was no defence of injustice; and, moreover, as class legislation was now so generally repudiated, there could not he a better time selected for its removal. The higher branch of the legal profession was exempt; why, then, tax the attornies? It might be urged that bankers, pawnbrokers, horsedealers, and others, were obliged to take out licenses; but there were many reasons why it should be necessary in their case which did not apply to the legal profession. The House was not perhaps aware of the enormous amount of tax imposed on attornies. In the first place there was a 120 l. stamp on the articles, whereas if the tax were ad valorem as in other cases, it would not he more than 6l., the usual premium for articled clerks being about 200 l. But that was not all. The attorney was not permitted to practise until he had paid 25 l. more, being about 145 l. in all before he could enter upon the active practice of his profession. Now he (Sir F. Thesiger) maintained that this was an enormous levy of itself; but in addition they were annually obliged to pay license amounting to about 4 per cent of their average incomes. There were some peculiarities in this tax which made it fall on the parties concerned with peculiar hardship. The attorney was obliged to take out his certificate before the 16th Decem-
1104
ber in each year; and the House would perhaps be surprised to learn that in 1849, 595 failed at the appointed time, and 190 failed altogether. It might, perhaps, be said, "So much the better, so many attornies the less;" but it could hardly be contended that they should thus, for missing one annual payment, he obliged to forfeit all the capital they had invested in the first instance. He trusted he had now said sufficient, in addition to what had already been said by the noble Lord opposite in a former debate, to induce the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote a portion of his surplus to the remission of this most objectionable tax.
The CHANCELLOR of THE EXCHEQUERwas sorry to say he must oppose the remission asked for, solely on the ground that the amount could not be spared from the revenue. He did not feel hound to give any further reason for opposing the remission of a tax, that task more properly belonging to the proposal of a new one. It was sufficient for him to state that it was an existing tax, and that it would not he convenient to the revenue to remove it. He had stated on a former evening what would be the probable amount of the surplus, and how he intended to appropriate it; and he could assure the House that no thing had occurred to alter his intentions, although his plans might require some modification in the details. There might be justice in this claim for remission; but it should be remembered that there were thirty other callings in which licenses were required, all of whom might petition with equal justice. There was a license, for instance, on horsedealers. Why not grant remission to them? Why not to all? But that all would amount to one million a year. No one in the House would surely expect him to give up that amount. The hon. and learned Member for Abingdon had understated the amount to which the revenue would suffer by the proposed remission, for he had merely stated the amount levied in England, whereas it would be necessary, if remission were made, that it should extend to the three kingdoms. The amount in that case lost to the revenue would be 117,000 l. a year. He had now stated the grounds on which no remission could be made in the current year, abstaining from going into the merits or demerits of the particular case, as he did not wish to prejudge it, or to prejudice its discussion in a future year. He called upon the House to reject this Motion—not

1105
on any ground peculiar to the proposal itself, but simply because he did not think it right to call on the Government to give up so much of the public revenue. The hon. and learned Gentleman had urged that the effect of this tax had been to induce many to give up a lucrative and honourable profession; but, on looking at the list, he found that if 700 attorneys had retired during the last five years, 700 new ones had been added to the list, so that on the whole the country had not been much the loser. Under all the circumstances, he trusted the House would refuse the remission of the tax.
The O'GORMAN MAHONsaid, he thought the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex ought to be extremely well satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had given the persons interested in this question every reason to hope that at a future period their claims would be favourably entertained. At the same time, he thought it right to say, on behalf of his countrymen who were subjected to this tax, that they were compelled to expend a large sum of money upon their education, and that they were far superior to the class to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer had compared them—that of horsedealers.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that what he had stated was, that horsedealers had to pay for a license, and that it was a legitimate argument that the imposition of that tax was as great an injustice upon them as the certificate duty was upon attorneys. It was far from his intention to say anything that could be regarded as derogatory to gentlemen who followed the profession of attornies—a profession which he regarded as highly honourable.
COLOSEL CHATTERTON: Sir, when the attention of the House was last called to this measure by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex, he entered so fully and so faithfully into the great injustice of this oppressive tax, that I shall not have occasion to trouble the House with many remarks; and particularly so, as I cordially agreed with all that fell from the noble Lord. But, Sir, as upon that occasion, I presented a petition from a most respectable, talented, and highly deserving body of gentlemen, the solicitors and attornies of the city I have the honour to represent; I feel called upon to express my anxiety for the success of this Motion, by the abolition of this tax. Its inequality and injus-
1106
tice cannot be denied: unlike every other tax, it has progressively increased since its first imposition, although those labouring under its annoyance, contribute their share, with other subjects, to the exigency of the State. It is not founded upon any principle of either equity or justice; for why should this, the lower branch of the profession, be annually taxed, when the higher orders are altogether exempt? Why should they be particularly selected? If it is just, if it is reasonable, to impose a tax upon them, why should not the bar—the Church—the medical profession, equally suffer, as well as those occupations of merchants, bankers, manufacturers, tradesmen, &c.? That this tax is felt as a serious and oppressive grievance, is evident from the many petitions against it which have crowded your table—as well as from the well-known fact, that nearly 600 solicitors and attornies were last year deprived of some of the advantages of their profession, by inability to pay the demand within a given period. Being persuaded. Sir, it is never too late to do an act of justice, I trust the House will agree with me in the necessity of relieving this most respectable body of gentlemen, the attornies and solicitors of the united kingdom, from this oppressive and unjust impost, which although it has existed for more than seventy years, was never founded upon a single principle of just taxation or of right.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he would vote for the remission of this tax, with the view of compelling the Government to return to those duties which, in his opinion, had been very injudiciously removed.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 136: Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Clay, J.

Anson, Visct.

Clive, H. B.

Arkwright, G.

Cobbold, J. C.

Armstrong, R. B.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Bailey, J.

Codrington, Sir W.

Baldock, E. H.

Coles, H. B.

Bennet, P.

Collins, W.

Beresford, W.

Compton, H. C.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Cubitt, W.

Best, J.

Deedes, W.

Blackall, S. W.

Denison, E.

Blandford, Marq. of

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Dickson, S.

Boyd, J.

Disraeli, B.

Bremridge, R.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Duff, G. S.

Cayley, E. S.

Duff, J.

Chaplin, W. J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Chatterton, Col.

Dunne, Col.

1107

Edwards, H.

Monsell, W.

Evans, Sir De L.

Morris, D.

Evans, W.

Mowatt, F.

Ewart, W.

Muntz, G. F.

Fagan, W.

Norreys, Lord

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Floyer, J.

O'Connor, F.

Forbes, W.

O'Flaherty, A.

Fordyce, A. D.

Packe, C. W.

Fortescue, C.

Palmer, R.

Fox, W. J.

Pearson, C.

Freestun, Col.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Fuller, A. E.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Galway, Visct.

Perfect, R.

Gooch, E. S.

Pilkington, J.

Grace, O. D. J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Greenall, G.

Prime, R.

Guest, Sir J.

Pugh, D.

Gwyn, H.

Repton, G. W. J.

Hall, Sir B.

Ricardo, O.

Hamilton, G. A.

Richards, R.

Hastie, A.

Rushout, Capt.

Heald, J.

Salwey, Col.

Henley, J. W.

Sandars, G.

Henry, A.

Scully, F.

Herbert, H. A.

Seymer, H. K.

Hervey, Lord A.

Shafto, R. D.

Heywood, J.

Sheridan, R. B.

Hildyard, R. C.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hodges, T. L.

Sidney, Ald.

Hodgson, W. N.

Smyth, J. G.

Hood, Sir A.

Somerset, Capt.

Hope, H. T.

Stafford, A.

Horsman, E.

Stanford, J. F.

Hotham, Lord

Stanley, E.

Houldsworth, T.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hughes, W. B.

Stuart, Lord D.

Jones, Capt.

Sturt, H. G.

Keating, R.

Sullivan, M.

Keogh, W.

Thompson, Col.

Kershaw, J.

Thornhill, G.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Lacy, H. C.

Trollope, Sir J.

Lascelles, hon. E.

Verner, Sir W.

Lawless, hon. C.

Villiers, hon. F. W. C.

Lennox, Lord A. G.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Waddington, D.

Leslie, C. P.

Waddington, H. S.

Long, W.

Wakley, T.

Lopes, Sir R.

Wall, C. B.

Lushington, C.

Watkins, Col. L.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

West, F. R.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Westhead, J. P. B.

Manners, Lord J.

Williams, J.

Martin, J.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Martin, S.

Wilson, M.

Matheson, Col.

Wrightson, W. B.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

TELLERS.

Miles, P. W. S.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Miles, W.

Thesiger, Sir F.

List of the NOES.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Berkeley, Adm.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Booth, Sir R. G.

Bowles, Adm.

Baillie, H. J.

Bramston, T. W.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Bromley, R.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Barnard, E. G.

Brotherton, J.

Bass, M. T.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Beckett, W.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Bellew, R. M.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

1108

Cardwell, E.

Loch, J.

Carew, W. H. P.

Lockhart, A. E.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Christy, S.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Clay, Sir W.

M'Gregor, J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Cobden, R.

Mahon, Visct.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Melgund, Visct.

Colvile, C. R.

Mitchell, T. A.

Corbally, M. E.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Crowder, R. B.

Morison, Sir W.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

O'Connell, M. J.

Denison, J. E.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Dick, Q.

Ord, W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Oswald, A.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Paget, Lord C.

Duncuft, J.

Parker, J.

Dundas, Adra.

Pelham, hon. D. A.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Philips, Sir G. R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Pusey, P.

Emlyn, Visct.

Rawdon, Col.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Rice, E. R.

Euston, Earl of

Rich, H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Romilly, Col.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

Rumbold, C. E.

Foley, J. H. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Forster, M.

Russell, F. C. H.

French, F.

Rutherfurd, A.

Glyn, G. C.

Scrope, G. P.

Gore, W. R. O.

Seymour, Lord

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Shelburne, Earl of

Grenfell, C. P.

Slaney, R. A.

Gronfell, C. W.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Smith, J. B.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Harris, R.

Spearman, H. J.

Hastie, A.

Stanton, W. H.

Hawes, B.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Stuart, H.

Heathcote, G. J.

Tenison, E. K.

Hollond, R.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Howard, Lord E.

Thornely, T.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Towneley, J.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Townshend, Capt.

Howard, P. H.

Trelawny, J. S.

Hutchins, E. J.

Tufnell, H.

Jermyn, Earl

Vane, Lord H.

Jervis, Sir J.

Vivian, J. H.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Wilson, J.

Legh, G. C.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Lemon, Sir G.

Wyvill, M.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

TELLERS.

Lewis, G. C.

Hill, Lord M.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Grey, R. W.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Robert Grosvenor and Sir Frederic Thesiger.

COUNTY COURTS EXTENSION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. KEOGH MR. KEOGH moved, that it be an instruction to the Committee to extend the operation of the Bill to Ireland. He had been told that he should have moved for

1109
leave to introduce a separate Bill, and that it was not competent for him to move the extension to Ireland of a Bill that had been introduced for this country; but if the House should be of opinion that the provisions of the Bill ought to be extended to Ireland, he believed there would be no difficulty in introducing an Amendment to carry that object into effect. They had already all the machinery for the purpose in operation, as the assistant barristers' courts in Ireland had jurisdiction, in cases of contract, up to 20 l., and in cases of ejectment up to 50 l. One of the objections to the present Bill was, that there was no appeal from the county courts judge; but that objection could not apply to Ireland, as there was there an appeal from the decision of the assistant barrister to the Judge of Assize, which was found to work well, as the arrangements were such as to prevent over-litigation. He had known in his own experience, persons to have brought actions in the superior courts for 10 l., and to have put their opponents to 40 l. or 50 l. costs, and it was most desirable that such a state of the law should be put an end to.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to Ireland."
SIR Gr. GREYsaid, he did not think it necessary to enter at present into the question of how far it was desirable to extend the provisions of the County Court Act to Ireland, as he thought it was evidently impossible that such a question could be decided by an Amendment introduced in a Bill the simple object of which was to amend the Act already in existence in this country. The matters referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman might be very properly considered in connection with a Bill which his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was about to introduce, for consolidating and improving the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland. Therefore, in opposing the Motion, he did not wish to be understood as intending to express any hostility to the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view. With regard to the general question, as to the extension of the jurisdiction of county courts, he could only say that, after the House had so decidedly expressed its opinion that the jurisdiction of those courts ought to be extended, it was not his intention to offer any further opposition to the first clause, ex-
1110
tending the jurisdiction of county courts to 50 l.
MR. MONSELLhoped that the Bill to which the right hon. Baronet had referred, with regard to Civil Bill Courts in Ireland, would be introduced during the present Session. If an assurance to that effect were given, he would recommend his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his Motion.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, the Bill to which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had referred was already prepared, and if there was any prospect of carrying it during the present Session, it would be submitted to the House.
MR. KEOGHsaid, that, after the statement of the right hon. Baronet, he would not press his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The House went into Committee.
On Clause 1,
MR. MITCHELLsaid, he represented on this occasion the sentiments of a committee of gentlemen in the city of London, who watched over the interest of the commercial classes, and were presided over by Mr. W. Hawes. They had directed their attention to this Bill, and the Amendment which he wished to introduce in this clause was one that had been suggested by them. The firm of one of these gentlemen had 12,000 accounts on their books, to an aggregate amount of 50,000 l., and of these accounts seven-eighths were under 50 l. Another firm had 605 accounts, of which 466 were of the same class. Now, they felt very strongly that the system of paying by instalments, which was generally adopted in the county courts, should not be applied to commercial arrangements. For instance, goods to the value of 200 l. might be sold, to be paid for in four instalments of 50 l. each. If the first instalment were not paid, and an action were brought in the county court, the judge might order payment in six monthly instalments; and if this system were generally applied to such transactions, no person could be sure that his commercial bills would be paid at all. He considered the Bill an excellent one as regarded all persons not engaged in trade, and he should have no objection to the extension of the Bill to persons in trade also, provided the discretion were not left to the judge of ordering the payment of this class of debts by instalments. He begged, therefore, to move the insertion of words at the end of the clause, to the effect that in any

1111
action where the defendant was a person subject to the bankruptcy laws for the time being, the court should not have power, without the consent of the creditor, to order that the debt and costs should be paid by instalments, or at any future time.
MR. W. BROWNwas understood to state that as an immense number of trading transactions took place between 20 l. and 50 l., it was important that the defendants should be directed by the judge to pay the amounts owing with all convenient despatch.
MR. MULLINGSobserved that a party was not liable to the bankrupt laws unless he owed 50 l.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be, that the judge would be obliged to order immediate payment in all cases where the debt ranged between 20 l. and 50 l., and that if the defendant were unable to meet that order upon the instant, execution would issue against his goods. He thought some discretion ought to be left to the judge, by the exercise of which the defendant, under certain circumstances, would not be unduly pressed for the payment at once of the entire debt.
MR. FITZROY: Not having been made aware of the Amendment, he trusted that the proposed addition to the clause would be postponed until the bringing up of the report, and said that in the meantime he would give it due consideration.
The ATTORNEY GENERALthought caution was necessary before the addition were adopted. In the superior courts, if payment was not made within a week of the judgment, an act of bankruptcy was of necessity committed.
MR. S. MARTINsaid, there was extreme difficulty in determining in this country whether an act of bankruptcy had been committed, and he was anxious to know, supposing the additions to be adopted, how that important fact was to be tried.
MR. COCKBURNthought nothing could be more easy in framing this clause than to define the circumstances under which a party should be within the bankruptcy laws. If the judge were allowed to extend the period for payment of debts between 20 l. and 50 l., then the creditor would be put in this condition, that he could not proceed with his execution, and so make a man a bankrupt. He believed that one of the most valuable parts of the old Bill was the power it conferred on the judge of making the period of payment accommodate itself to the circumstances of
1112
the defendant. It seemed to him that something like a middle course might be taken on the present occasion, whereby some jurisdiction might be given to the judge before execution issued, and also whereby the creditors would have an opportunity of collecting the assets. The question as to whether the party had committed an act of bankruptcy would not arise in the case.
The ATTORNEY GENERALthought that if there was to be a discretion given to a judge, it ought to be general and for all purposes. If the power to give time was to be limited to two months, the limitation ought to apply to all debts, whether under or over 20 l.
MR. W. BROWNconsidered that though there might be some ground for giving the judge a discretionary power to grant time in the case of a book debt, it was otherwise whore a bill had been given. The creditor might be depending upon its due payment in order to meet his engagements.
MR. COCKBURNsaid, the discretion hitherto granted to the judges of the county courts had not been abused, and that was one very important reason why it should be continued to be exercised by them.
MR. MITCHELLwould withdraw the addition he proposed, with the understanding that he could introduce it again upon the bringing up of the report.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 2,
The ATTORNEY GENERALproposed as an Amendment to strike out the schedule of fees appended to this clause, and to leave them as they stood under the existing Act. There were three classes of fees—the judges' fees, which went to Government, as the judge received a fixed salary; the clerks' fees, which went to the high bailiff; and the clerks' fees, which went to the clerks. He saw no reason for making a graduated scale of fees in this instance. It might be necessary in the case of small sums, and therefore there did exist a graduated scale in the existing Act up to 10 l., but he saw no reason for carrying it beyond that. Even of the fees now levied there had been loud complaints, and some of them, he feared, were too well founded. He would therefore propose that the fees now payable for sums above 10 l. should continue to be payable for sums of 50 l.
MR. FITZROYthought the Attorney General was dealing unfairly in this mat-

1113
ter; and he hoped that, as the hon. and learned Gentleman was exhibiting a jealous vigilance with regard to county courts, he would turn his attention to the fees paid in the superior courts of this country where he practised, and justice was administered. The doctrine had never been held by the House of Commons, and he believed it never would be agreed to by hon. Members, that the energies of judges should be taxed in the manner this Bill proposed, and that they were not to receive increased remuneration for their time and attention. If the principle was worth anything in actions below 20 l., it must be worth something in those above it. A man who recovered 19 l. would be much dissatisfied if he had to pay the same fees as a man who recovered 49 l. He was sure the House would never sanction the principle of throwing additional duty on any man without giving him remuneration. The fees were not imperatively fixed by the Bill, for the concluding words of the clause gave power to the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, to "regulate, vary, lessen, or increase them in such manner as shall seem to him fit." He had no objection to take one uniform scale of fees—the first in the schedule, for instance—and was content to leave the amount of remuneration in the hands of the House; but he would certainly take the sense of the House if the hon. and learned Gentleman pressed his Motion.
SIR G. GREYwould remind the hon. Member that the argument of the Attorney General was, that the judges would have to decide on a higher class of cases, but no part of the fees would go into their pockets, as they were paid by a fixed salary. Surely the hon. Member did not think greater acumen would be required in a high bailiff to serve a summons, than in a judge to decide on a case? If an absolute uniformity of fees was established, they might be obliged to make the amount so high that it would not be worth while in many cases to go into court at all. The argument of the hon. Gentleman, that if there was to be no difference in fees between 20 l. and 50 l., there should be no diffierence between 10 l. and 20 l., was of no force, because the officers of the court would have increased duties and fees in proportion.
ALDERMAN THOMPSONwould support the Amendment, the fees in the old Act being, as he thought, much too high; and he mentioned cases that were not unfrequent in the neighbourhood of his iron
1114
works, where a workman was sued by a shopkeeper for a debt of 5s., and the poor man had not only to pay the debt but a fee of 7s. 6d. besides; and more than that, the bailiff said, that as they were fourteen miles from the county gaol, to which he had the power of conveying the debtor on his apprehension, and as he was entitled to charge 1s. a mile for travelling expenses if he went there, he would not let him go unless he paid him 14 s. besides for mileage. If the bailiff was entitled under the present Act to make such a charge, he hoped the Attorney General would take care to amend it in the present Bill, and to provide that the bailiff' should not be paid for services which were not performed. He saw no reason why there should be a graduated scale of fees because the court had received an extension of its jurisdiction, which he regretted. He thought this was a vicious and a bad Bill; and if it were passed, the time was not distant when the House of Commons would be overwhelmed with petitions for its repeal or modification.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wanted to understand the principle of this Bill. It proposed to extend the power of the court from claims of 20 l. to claims of 50 l. He wanted to know if the judge could not be paid a fair sum of money for dedicating the whole of his time to the service of the public, and if there should not be any fees exacted as regarded him? If they could attain to that, what would be the consequence? The small debtor would not be at all affected as to where he was, or what he was. The cases would be determined by a judge who did not practise at all, but who devoted all his time to the court. He (Mr. Roebuck) would not underpay any gentleman; he would appoint an efficient judge, and pay him adequately, and he would not let him be dependent for fees on a poor debtor. He knew the interests at work out of doors on this subject. He could not have come down to the House that night without understanding some thing of those interests. He had been pulled about by the coat until he thought the coat would have been pulled off him by certain parties; but he hoped the House would not pander to these interests. Let them discharge every consideration of that kind from their minds. What they wanted was the administration of justice. They wanted it cheap and efficient, and of such a sort as that the people would believe it to be justice. He asked the Attorney General if they could not attain that end

1115
without a graduated scale of fees? Could they not have a court that would administer justice without reference to the interests by whom he had been assailed in coming down to the House? He denounced the people who had treated him in the manner he had just described. He had heard it said by Gentlemen that the livelihood of barristers would be determined by the vote they came to that night. Why, what had they to do with barristers or attorneys either? It was a disgrace to the country and the House of Commons to be thus assailed. He would say let the judges, and every officer of these courts, be paid by salaries and not by fees.
SIR G. GREYfully agreed with the principle laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman; it was a principle upon which the Government had long been acting. The salaries of the judges were fixed already, and it was but right that he should remark that the judges had no interest whatsoever, not the slightest, in the amount of business brought into their courts. When the Act was first introduced they had been paid by fees, as the exact amount of duty was not ascertained; but eventually these fees were commuted for salaries, and the judges were given to understand that their whole time should be devoted to the court. The Parliament fixed their salaries at a maximum of 1,200 l., but the Government had not thought fit to go to the full extent, and gave them but 1,000 l. a year, so that, if any necessity arose for it, an increase of 200 l. per annum could still be made to their salaries. The clerks were also paid by fixed salaries, as far as practicable; but a difficulty had arisen in some cases in fixing the exact amount on which their fees should be commuted, which would, however, he hoped, be got over.
MR. ROEBUCK: But I want to know, if you buy the whole time of the judge, why do you not buy the whole time of the bailiff?
SIR G. GREY: So far as practicable, that had been done also; but it would require a long statement to explain all the difficulties in the way. Some bailiffs had been appointed for districts; some for portions of districts; in some cases two had been appointed; so that it was impossible at once to commute their fees for any fixed salary, as had been the case with the judges. When the commutation took place, the clerks would be expected to place all their time at the disposal of the court.
MR. ROEBUCKwished it to be understood that the principle was now established of paying by salary and not by fees.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the principle had been already conceded and fixed by the old Bill. But the salaries of clerks opened up a difficult question. Some of the judges had placed all the business of their districts in the hands of the high bailiffs, whilst others had appointed a clerk in each town. Some had appointed only one clerk, and others had appointed two, dividing the duties between them.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, that nothing gave him more concern than to observe the unfortunate course which had been pursued by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General on a former evening, in opposition to the Bill, and he trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would now give the benefit of his assistance in improving the efficacy of the measure. He (Viscount Duncan) had been requested to move an amendment with respect to the bailiffs' fees. He believed it was a notorious fact that the country high bailiffs were out of pocket by the present scale of fees. If, therefore, the amount was raised from 20 l. to 50 l., the duties and responsibilities of high bailiffs would be proportionably increased, and he contended that they ought, therefore, to have an increase of emoluments. A high bailiff was liable for the property in his charge, and to actions for wrong caption; and he would remind the House, if they expected respectable persons to perform these duties, they must pay them adequately. He should be very well pleased to hear that all parties, judges, officers, and clerks, were paid by salary, and that fees were entirely abolished. He, however, felt it was his duty to draw the attention of the House to the case of the high bailiffs as one deserving of consideration.
MR. AGLIONBYgave his cordial support to the principle of the Bill, which he took to be the relief of small debtors from the courts of common law and Chancery. He admitted that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewes had in the main followed the principle of the former Bill, and it was to be hoped that the Government would adopt the plan of paying those who laboured, and none other. On the whole, he thought that the House and the country were deeply indebted to the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the present

1117
Bill. If it passed into a law, it would produce many beneficial results, and he did not apprehend that any of the predictions which they had heard from the hon. Member for Westmoreland would be fulfilled. It was difficult to suppose that any one could deny the fairness and expediency of enabling the poorer classes of society to obtain justice without loss of time or waste of money. It was also very clear that if they imposed additional duties upon the judges or the officers of those courts, they ought not to refuse those gentlemen additional remuneration. One of the oldest and best economists in that House—he meant his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose—had often said that though he would pay no man for doing nothing, yet he would not expect any man to labour without adequate reward.
MR. COCKBURNavowed himself favourable to the Bill, but objected to the schedule of fees, which he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw. They were actually larger than the fees in the superior courts. The object of the House was to obtain not only speedy justice, but cheap justice. If the old fees had been found insufficient, that would be a reason for increasing them; but it was not so. He believed, on the contrary, that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had probably somewhere about 30,000 l. as surplus. Now, he thought that all taxes on the administration of justice were vicious in principle, and ought to be discontinued. There could be no ground for adding to the scale of fees, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his schedule.
The ATTORNEY GENERALagreed that it would be advisable to reduce the fees to the poorer classes as low as possible. The Government had been long considering the best mode of doing it. It had been under their consideration for a good while before the introduction of the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
MR. FITZROYwas loth to proceed contrary to the declared opinion of the House: he would therefore accede to the proposition made by the hon. and learned Attorney General. He wished, however, to observe that if they put the clerks upon fixed salaries, and if they took the present average of fees, nothing would be more unfair than to leave those salaries without increase in the event of increased labour being imposed upon those functionaries; for example, adding the insolvency cases in the country, and the charitable trusts,
1118
besides the 50 l. extension. Under present circumstances very few of the judges practised at all, and scarcely any within their own districts. Then there was a further injustice as to the fees. The salaries of the judges were generally 1,000 l. a year, the average of their fees was 1,400 l.; why was the surplus seized on by authorities who had no right to appropriate it? The travelling expenses of the judges were very considerable, often absorbing half a year's salary at a time, which imposed on some of the judges the unseemly practice of running up long bills, and leaving them for a considerable time unpaid. Then the sums granted for travelling expenses were too small; 15 s. a day was by no means sufficient. An attorney in the most severely-taxed bill of costs was allowed 1l. a day. With such an allowance it could not be said that those judges were able to travel on as good a footing as ordinary commercial travellers. There was another point which he wished to notice, namely, the sum paid before a suitor could proceed; at present it was 1s. in the 1l. Now, he thought it ought to be lowered to 2½ per cent. Having said so much, he should withdraw his opposition to the Amendment.
MR. CHRISTOPHERsaid, at present an experiment was being made by these courts, and it was not as yet clearly ascertained what the proper scale of fees ought to be. Now with respect to the appointments, all he could say was that gentlemen of high legal attainments had been readily found to fill posts of even higher responsibility than those of judges of county courts. He hoped Government would not be induced to increase the salaries of the judges, and if there was a surplus from fees, that suitors would have the benefit by being required to pay a less amount of fees.
SIR G. GREYmerely wished to say that what the hon. Gentleman now stated about a breach of promise on the part of the Government towards these judges, was not exactly correct. The hon. Gentleman having made the same statement to him (Sir G. Grey) in private, he referred to the records of that House, and found that he had distinctly stated in answer to a question that the maximum was to be considered not as the fixed amount of salary but as a maximum, and that the amount of salary would be fixed by the Government according to circumstances. There was never the slightest intimation given that

1119
the maximum amount of salary would be the amount fixed upon. He denied that he had promised that any augmentation of the salaries should take place: what he said was, that the salaries should be considered. Speaking from experience, he should say there was not the slightest difficulty in obtaining able and efficient men at the salaries fixed. The hon. Gentleman had stated that they did not treat the judges as gentlemen, inasmuch as they only allowed them 15 s. a day for travelling expenses besides 1s. 6d. a mile. Now that sum exceeded the allowances paid to general officers when travelling, and he thought it was amply sufficient.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have the power of increasing the salaries of these judges, and Parliament ought not to interfere with his discretion, and compel the right hon. Gentleman to increase these salaries, whether he thought it expedient or not. Such a course would be equally unprecedented and improper. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might surely be trusted with this power; and if he thought the salaries were not sufficient, he would raise them.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the salary of 1,000 l. a year for the judges was in a great many cases quit a godsend, and that they were exceedingly well paid. If there were any case in which it was proper that a larger salary should be given, the Secretary of State had the power in his hands. Look at the similar cases of barristers in Ireland. These gentlemen had a great deal more to do than the judges of county courts. They tried torts up to 20 l., replevins up to 50 l., ejectments up to 50 l., and had criminal jurisdiction besides. Their salary was 400 l. a year; they had 100 l. a year besides as revising barristers, and they had fees which he would put down at the highest possible figure—500 l., making 1,000 l. altogether. He was the last to desire to put down the really working man, but he had a right to ask what they could get the business done for. He said that 1,000 l. a year was an ample and a generous salary. And don't let them have any appeal to sentimentality. The hon. Gentleman talked about travelling expenses being 500 l. a year. 500 l. a year for travelling expenses! Why, he could travel from one end of the kingdom to the other, from London to Carlisle, by railroad, in a first-class carriage for less than 3l. Good
1120
God, what was the meaning of 500 l. a year for travelling expenses? 1,000 l. a year he took to be an ample salary; and if if it were not, he took it for granted they would next year have complaints in that House that justice was not administered as the public desired.
MR. HUMEsaid, they were now considering whether one schedule or another should be adopted. They were all in favour of the Bill, but he thought that the scale of fees for plaints under 10 l. should be less in proportion than for plaints above 10 l.
SIR G. R. PECHELLthought the scale of allowances for the travelling expenses of the judges was too low. They ought not to compel a judge to associate in the commercial room with a bagman. Lords of the Admiralty, when they travelled, were not restricted to 15 s. a day.
LORD D. STUARTsaid, that if the Government really desired to carry economy into the administration of the county courts, they would get rid of the treasurers, who discharged no heavy duties. The truth was the Government did not like to get rid of them; they were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and the appointment placed a large amount of patronage at the command of the Government. It would be better to make some arrangements for dispensing with these treasurers, and the county courts would get on perfectly well without them. In many cases the clerks of the courts had very little to do, and it would be an excellent plan to join their duties to those of the treasurer. The Act provided that the offices of treasurer and clerk should never be held by the same person; but that was a mistake. At present the clerks and bailiffs were, in many instances, carrying on their duties at an expense to themselves. It might be asked why, if this were the case, they did not resign? The reason was that they entertained the hope that the Treasury would perform the promises which it had again and again made to them; and but for that hope they would, he believed, in many cases, surrender their offices. He hoped that the system of indirect taxation practised in these courts would be put an end to. He would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he considered the judges in the county courts overpaid or not? If they were not overpaid, why should be impose upon them additional duties? and, if they were overpaid, then, with whom did the fault lie, but with the

1121
Government? He believed the Bill would be of advantage to the country, and therefore he hoped it would pass; indeed, so great was the anxiety of the country at large for such a Bill, that he believed they would have it on almost any terms.
SIR G. GREYrepeated the statement he had formerly made, that he had never made any distinct pledge on the part of Government that at any future time clerics and bailiffs should be paid by salaries instead of fees.
MR. COCKBURNsaid, the operation of the proviso would be, that Government would have the power of paying by salaries instead of by fees. Now great inequalities existed with regard to the emoluments of county court clerks. There were 89 of them who received less than 50 l. a year each; 90 receiving between 50 l. and 100 l.; 125 received between 100 l. and 500 l., and 27 above 500 l.; and of these 27 Government had reduced 15 to 500 l. a year. Now, it did apoear to him that clerks of county courts ought not to be limited to a salary of 50 l. a year. The system of the court was to order payment by instalments, and parties were calling at the office day by day and hour by hour to pay those instalments, and the clerk was obliged to keep a clerk to attend on these persons, and a salary of from 50 l. to 100 l. was not sufficient. The object should be cheap justice, but that should not be carried so far as to lead to the employment of inefficient persons. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had given expression to an unworthy sneer, about 1,000 l. a year being a godsend to many of these judges; his hon. Friend could not help sneering. At the same he would say, if 1,000 l. was sufficient, do not pay more; but on the other hand, do not let 100 l. or 200 l. a year pre vent their getting efficient men. At the present time some of these judges had a good deal of time on their hands, and some of them practised to a considerable extent. By imposing these new duties upon them, their time would be sufficiently occupied. They could not practise, and it appeared to him it would not be just to give them no more salary; at the same time he thought that was a matter that should be left to Government.
MR. HUMEthought they should leave the matter entirely with the Government. It was very easy to raise salaries, but it was not so easy a matter to reduce them. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone spoke of the vast amount of patron-
1122
age enjoyed by the Government in the appointment of the treasurers. Now, sixty courts had been established, and as many treasurers might have been appointed; but he believed that only nine had been appointed for the whole country.
MR. AGLIONBYcould not put trust in Government with regard to raising the salaries, inasmuch as the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had intimated very plainly that he had not the slightest intention of raising the salaries on account of the additional duties to be imposed on the judges. He thought it would be exceedingly unfair not to increase the remueration when the duties were to be so much increased.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he had prepared a clause to provide for that.
MR. J. EVANSsaid, that if the judges who had liberty to practise, with their salary of 1,000 l. a year, had so much extra business forced on them that they could not practise elsewhere, it was only fair that their salaries should be increased. If this was done, they might with great advantage have a power in small cases similar to a judge in equity.
SIR G. GREYwished it to be distinctly understood that he had never said that in no circumstances should any increase in the salaries take place. All he had said was, that from the information which Government at present possessed on the subject, he was unable to say that it would be their duty to increase the salaries. He understood from the Lord Chancellor that the county court judges were distinctly informed by him that they would be expected to devote their whole time to the duties of their office, and might be charged with additional duties; and he certainly did not see that any of them were entitled to compensation on account of the loss of their practice.
MR. ROEBUCKunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to say, that these gentlemen were distinctly told by the Lord Chancellor that their whole time was to be employed in the service of the Government, and that if additional duty was imposed upon them they could have no claim for additional salary. If that were so, then the case of these gentlemen was at once settled.
SIR G. GREYrepeated the statement. As to the remuneration which the county court judges received, some of them were paid more than the amount of fees received

1123
by them before the commutation took place, and some of them less. The maximum salary fixed by Parliament was 1,200 l. a year; but as yet the Government had not seen it right to give more than 1,000 l. a year.
MR. AGLIONBYasked if it was not the case that men who had given up lucrative situations and accepted these judgeships, and who, when paid by fees, were in the receipt of 1,400 l. or 1,500 l, a year, had been reduced to 1,000 l. a year?
SIR G. GREYsaid, those gentlemen, when appointed, received an intimation that at the earliest possible period payment by fees would be abolished, and payment by salaries substituted. Some of them, no doubt, received fees to a much larger amount even than the maximum salary fixed by Parliament; but it surely never was contemplated that the salary should be equal to the highest amount of fees received. The only matter for regret was that they had not been able to carry the commutation into effect sooner.
MR. CLAYasked if they could expect to get competent men to fill these situations, when they were found to be overwhelmed with work? His belief was that they would not, especially at such salaries as it was proposed to give them.
MR. T. EGERTONsaid, that he conceived the whole time of the judges was to be devoted to their duties. The magistrates of his county (Cheshire) considered them liable to act as chairmen of the quarter-sessions. In these days of economy it was most desirable that this should be the case.
MR. MUNTZthought the judges were amply paid with 1,000 l. a year. He would leave it to the Government to raise the salaries if they thought proper.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, there were many complaints of the fees being excessive. He was glad the proposed scale had been withdrawn. The increase might safely be left to the Government, who, in his opinion, were the best guardians of the public purse. Any one listening to this debate might have supposed that this Bill was not one brought forward to benefit the public, but solely for the advantage of certain individuals.
Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 was struck out.
On Clause 4,
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that by the present law the plaintiff was required to bring his action in the court
1124
which had jurisdiction over the place where the defendant resided; it was now proposed to allow the plaintiff to issue process from the court of the district in which he himself resided. The question which the Committee had to consider was, whether it was fitter that the creditor should follow his debtor, or whether the debtor should be required to attend to the summons of the creditor in the district in which the creditor resided.
MR. CROWDERsaid, he should move the omission of the clause. Nothing could be more monstrous than that a person living in Cornwall should have the power of compelling a debtor who lived at York to appear in the Cornwall court. He disapproved of the whole principle of the Bill, but had not the opportunity of opposing it on the second reading.
MR. FITZROYsaid, he had endeavoured to consult the interest of the defendant in the framing of this Bill. Suppose the plaintiff resided in London, and the defendant in Cornwall, and the defendant, at the trial, should not deny the debt: if the plaintiff were obliged to take all his witnesses down to Cornwall, that would put the defendant to a great expense for costs; whereas if the trial took place in London, no such costs would be incurred.
MR. MITCHELLsaw no reason for considering the defendant more than the plaintiff. Why should not a defendant at York be made to appear in Cornwall, as well as a Cornwall plaintiff be compelled to sue at York? In his district, a number of small debts were lost, because the parties could not afford to sue at a distance.
MR. ROEBUCKthought the rule ought to be to lay the venue where the contract was made. It was probably true that in a majority of cases the creditor had right on his side; but by requiring him to sue in the place where the contract was made, it would be fair to both parties. It was in accordance with the general principle of the law, from which he saw no good reason for departing.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, this was a very simple rule, where the contract was made in writing; otherwise the question became a very nice one; it arose frequently in the courts at Westminster, and was a very complicated one. The principle of the old Bill was to give a cheap remedy. Where the parties were not at more than twenty miles distance, the creditor must sue in the court of the debtor; where the distance was greater,

1125
the rule did not obtain. It was most desirable to frame the clause so as not to work hardship to either party. On the whole, he thought the best course would be to strike out the clause, and give the party the option of suing in the superior courts.
MR. ROEBUCKadvised the hon. and learned Gentleman to give these courts the same discretion as to costs as the superior courts had.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, that debtors might remove purposely to avoid being sued. He would give the judges power to decide whether a plaintiff should sue where he resided, or should follow a defendant to his district.
MR. COCKBURNsuggested a middle course. The question was, on which side the inconvenience lay. The plaintiff had to establish his case by witnesses or by his books, and therefore, primâ facie, the inconvenience would be with him if he was compelled to take them to a distance. Some latitude ought, therefore, to be given to the plaintiff to bring his suit in the district in which he lived. On the other hand, it would often be inconvenient if the plaintiff had the power of bringing the defendant from a great distance. It had been suggested to leave the matter to the judge. That seemed reasonable, though there was some objection to allowing the judge of the district in which the plaintiff resided to have the decision, for he would only have an ex parte statement to guide him. He should therefore suggest, the plaintiff should be entitled to sue the defendant in the district in which he lived, if the judge of the district in which the defendant lived, on a case being submitted to him by the plaintiff, should so decide.
MR. CARDWELLwas as anxious as any person could be to give an efficient remedy to the plaintiff where his case was bonâ fide; but suppose a man set up a claim in a county court against a person with whom he had no transaction, and who lived in London, why the expense of going to York, for instance, would be greater perhaps than the entire demand was worth, and consequently the practice, if adopted, would open the door to a system of fraud.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, he thought the judge who was to try the merits of the case ought to be entrusted with the discretion of fixing the locality in which it was to be tried.
MR. CROWDERobjected to the course
1126
proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton. The question was being argued on the supposition that the plaintiff was always in the right, and the defendant in the wrong; but this Bill gave a power to parties to apply to these courts in cases of contracts, and it might happen that where such parties disagreed, one might for mere annoyance drag the other into the court of the district where he himself resided, though it might be many miles from the defendant's residence.
MR. HATCHELLwished, as the principle of this Bill might be adopted in the measure that was about to be brought in for Ireland, to state, that at present, as regarded the local courts in that country, a defendant must be sued in his own locality; and when they spoke of the difficulty imposed on the plaintiff in such a case, the Committee should recollect that the principle and object of this Bill was to give to plaintiffs a considerable benefit by enabling them to sue for debts which they could not sue for now, except at a ruinous expense in the superior courts of Westminster. If the present clause were adopted here, it would perhaps be adopted also in Ireland, and cases might happen in which a man in a humble station of life in Cork or Tipperary might be sued for 5l. or 10 l. in a court 100 miles off, and would rather submit to the claim, though it might not be just, than go to the expense of resisting it,
MR. MULLINGSsaid, that they had to decide in the present case where the balance of difficulty was very nearly equal. But as it was generally presumed that the balance inclined in favour of the plaintiff, he thought that the action should be tried in the district in which he resided.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the difficulty was in a great measure got rid of because the defendant could be sued, by leave of the judge, in any county where he resided, if the action was brought after six months, or he could be sued where the cause of action arose.
MR. AGLIONBYdid not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had got rid of the difficulty. He thought the action should be brought where the plaintiff resided.
MR. P. WOODconsidered that the difficulty arose from the extension, in which he concurred, of the jurisdiction from 20 l. to 50 l. Persons at York might sue a party in London for a pretended claim of some 10 s. or 15 s. He would take a case that frequently happened, of a person leaving

1127
some publication at your house, and pretending that you had subscribed for it—and it would be hard in such cases to oblige a party to go to York to defend himself against such a claim. Now, he was generally opposed to a middle course, but he thought that this was a case in which it might be taken, namely, that in all actions for debts between 20 l. and 50 l, which might generally be considered as bonâ fide debts, the plaintiff should have the power of suing the defendant in the district in which he (the plaintiff) resided.
Clause withdrawn, on the understanding that a new one should be proposed on the bringing up of the report.
On Clause 5,
The ATTORNEY GENERALexpressed his objection to it, on the ground that it would tend to increase the expense of proceedings. In his opinion one main cause of the well working of the county court system was the limitation of fees by Act of Parliament.
MR. FITZROYwished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General, if a respectable attorney could be found to practise in these courts at a fee of 15 s.? If they extended the jurisdiction of these courts, surely they might, in order to secure the attendance of respectable solicitors, increase the rate of remuneration.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the clause set forth that no person should be heard unless he were an attorney, or barrister, or a per son instructed by an attorney, with the permission of the court, so that it was evident there would be no preaudience. It struck him that a question then arose which it would be well for that House to decide, and which was this. He believed that, by the alterations which this Bill would cause, there was certain to be created a provincial bar in this country, the effect of which would be, in a great measure, to interfere with the London bar. They would have a small provincial bar, which would be composed, according to the provisions of the Bill, of barristers and attornies. That being the case, he thought it would be well to introduce amongst that bar those finer feelings, and that nice sense of honour, which he (Mr. Roebuck) demanded to be acknowledged as the distinguishing characteristics of the bar of England at present. It would be a great mischief to break down the honour and respectability of that bar; and, therefore, he thought the end and object to be desired, namely, the honour and integrity of
1128
the bar, would be attained by the clause under discussion.
SIR G. GREYobjected to the clause, and said it was the first time such a duty as the regulation of fees to practitioners in courts was sought to be imposed on the Lord Chancellor. He, therefore, thought it better to adhere to the restrictions made by Parliament, and assign a maximum.
MR. W. MILESsaid, they had the strongest possible reason to rely on the decision of the Lord Chancellor, as being the highest authority in legal matters in the realm. He, therefore, hoped and trusted his hon. friend would stand by the clause, and that the Committee would not mix it up with the provisions of the clause which followed it.
MR. COCKBURNsuggested the insertion of some words which would limit the regulations of fees by the Lord Chancellor to cases between 20 l. and 50 l.
MR. LAWsaid, that as the Act had been extended from 20 l. to 50 l., he could assure the House that no respectable practitioner would come into court in such cases at a fee of one guinea. If they compelled the plaintiff, then, to go into one of these courts with an action for the recovery of 50 l., why forbid him to engage the services of counsel, unless those services could be obtained for a guinea?
SIR G. GREYsuggested that, as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton had not succeeded in framing a clause which would meet the difficulty of the case, the better course would be to allow the whole of the clause to be negatived, with the view, after due consideration, of bringing it up on the report of the Committee. If the Committee divided on the clause at present, he believed that they would be unable properly to understand what it was that they were dividing about.
MR. COCKBURNproposed that the whole of the first part of the clause, which was merely a recital of the 9 & 10 Vict., c. 95, should be struck out, and he would then suggest the insertion of some words which would, in his opinion, meet the case.
The first part of the clause was accordingly struck out of the Bill.
MR. COCKBURNthen moved the insertion of the words he had proposed.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 4, line 28, after 'Enacted, that,' to insert the words, 'in all cases where the demand shall exceed twenty pounds in Actions of Debt, and five pounds in Actions of Tort.'"
MR. MITCHELLsaid, that as it still

1129
involved the same principle as that to which the Government had previously objected, he could not understand upon what ground they could accept the Amendment.
SIR G. GREYobjected to the insertion of the words, inasmuch as they would have the effect of laying down a totally different principle with respect to the regulation of fees above 20 l., as compared with sums under that amount. It was, also, in his opinion, objectionable to impose upon the Lord Chancellor the duty of regulating the fees in these courts. If the Committee thought that the maximum fees fixed by the existing Act in cases of 20 l. ought to be increased in cases of the proposed higher amount, it was the duty of the Legislature at once to fix what should be their amount, as it had done in the already existing Act.
Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 162: Majority 96.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 struck out.
On Clause 7,
MR. CROWDERsaid, that the object of this clause was to make it imperative on the plaintiff to sue in the district court in cases of debt or cost under 50 l., or at least if he resorted to a superior court the judge was to have the power of refusing costs. It might not suit the taste of some plaintiffs to resort to the county court, and there was a great difference of opinion amongst judges as to the merits of the cases which came before them. He proposed, therefore, that it should be optional with the plaintiff whether he would sue in the superior court or in the county court. The House should not forget that barristers of seven years' standing might be judges of the county courts; and that, if they happened to be ill or unavoidably absent, they might nominate as their deputies barristers of only three years' standing, who would perhaps have to decide questions as important as any that were decided in Westminster Hall. This Bill professed to give advantages to plaintiffs to recover debts speedily, and he feared that some hon. Members looked upon it as merely a Bill to settle undisputed debts. It was more than that, and he objected to this clause, because it did not give the right of appeal to a plaintiff who failed in his action, and allowed a defendant, in case of his failing, the right of appeal on his lodging the money in court. He would propose, then, that
1130
the whole of this clause should be expunged, as he thought it should be in the option of a plaintiff, in cases where the sum was not above 50 l. or under 20 l., to sue in the courts of Westminister, or the inferior courts, just as he thought fit.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he considered that the limit placed at 50 l. was one of the chief principles of the Bill. He thought that the sooner they should settle whether it was placed at 50 l. or 20 l. the better. There might be various cases in which it would be requisite to extend it to 50 l. on debts and demands; but that was an open question as far as he was concerned. It was a matter worthy of consideration of the Committee whether or not by this Bill they would be encouraging parties who might be every night engaged in public-house squabbles, to get up trumpery cases of assaults. Another question was whether they should go back to the old system of 5l., or adopt the 20 l. limit as the limit.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that if certain consequences followed in the case of 5l., why should they not make the matter so that the same consequences would follow in the case of 20 l.? He wished that Gentlemen on his side of the House should not think that they were by these proceedings merely taking steps to injure this person or that, but they were revolutionising the whole system of jurisprudence in this country. He himself was prepared to take that step, and accepted the 50 l. principle.
MR. FITZROYsaid, that he was prepared, if the Committee required it, to make a modification, and make it 10 l. instead of 20 l. as regarded costs.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he was prepared to abide by the Bill as it stood, and was sorry that the hon. Member who proposed the Bill should show such a want of confidence in it.
MR. HUMEhoped that the hon. Member would allow of 20 l. being inserted.
MR. FITZROYsaid, that he had only inserted the sum of 10 l out of deference to what he conceived to be the opinion of the House. He should prefer 20 l.
The blank to be filled up with the sum of 20 l., was agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8, was struck out. Clauses 9, 10, 11, agreed to.
Clause 12 withdrawn.
Clause 13 struck out.
The ATTORNEY GENERALbrought

1131
up the several clauses of which he had given notice.
MR. HENLEYobjected to proceeding with new clauses at that hour.
SIR G. R. PECHELLhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman did not seriously intend to press the House to decide upon these clauses now. One of them at least he intended to oppose, and some time ought to be given. They should be brought up on the report,
MR. COCKBURNsaid, that the clauses were valuable additions to the Bill, but thought the consideration of them should be postponed if there was any opposition to them.
MR. HENLEYthen moved that the Chairman report progress.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that an understanding that the Bill was to be reprinted, and that the House should again go into Committee on the new clauses, would possibly meet the views of hon. Gentlemen.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would agree to the suggestion if the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would concur in it.
House resumed.
Bill reported; to be printed, as amended.
Re-committed for Thursday 16th May.
The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.