§ Order for Committee read.
§ MR. AYRTON moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to assimilate the Sheriffs' Court of the City of London in all respects to a County Court. He said, that as the title of the Bill was the County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction Bill, and the Sheriffs' Court was not a County Court, he could not make the Motion in Committee. The Sheriffs' Court was a very peculiar Court. While there were County Courts for every other part of the United Kingdom there was one spot that was exempt from this most beneficent legislation, and that spot was the City of London. When the affairs of the Corporation 680 were examined by a Royal Commission they reported unanimously against the maintenance of this Court. Again, in 1859, when a Private Bill was brought in for the purpose of reforming this Court, the feeling of the House was so strong that it was abandoned. The Committee appointed in 1861 to inquire into the local government of the metropolis also unanimously reported in favour of the abolition of this Court. But, in spite of this unanimity of opinion, the Court continued to exist. While the country was paying £250,000 a year for the administration of justice in the County Courts, this Court was allowed to levy fees to the amount of £5,000 a year and upwards. The salary of the Judge was only £900 a year—a sum far below that paid to the County Court Judges—and there was an accumulation of the fund arising from fees of £8,000. The ultimate destination of this was unknown, though probably it would be made available for some of those festivities of which the Corporation delighted to partake, and which they valued as one of their most desirable franchises. The Bill proposed to give this anomaly a still further recognition. He thought it would be discreditable to the House to go on sanctioning this system. The Bill extended the equitable jurisdiction to the Sheriffs' Court, and he contended that they either ought not to do this, or that, if they did, the other County Court Acts should extend to that Court.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to assimilate the Sheriffs' Court of the City of London in all respects to a County Court."—(Mr. Ayrlon.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not agree to the proposed Instruction. If the Government were to propose to overturn the constitution of the Sheriffs' Court and to displace the Corporation of London in reference to it, he feared that they would be making the Bill the occasion for a contest between the Government and the City of London, which would preclude the hope of passing the measure in the present Session. The Bill actually went to some extent in the direction which the hon. Member desired. The Sheriffs' Court was under a somewhat different form and a somewhat different jurisdiction, doing the work of the County Court; and this Bill would give to it the same equitable jurisdiction that it gave to the County Courts. Another year the assimilation would be 681 carried still further. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press the Instruction.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that not wishing to endanger the passing of the Bill, he would withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn,
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Jurisdiction in Equity to be exercised in County Courts in certain Suits and Matters).
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he entertained great doubts whether the jurisdiction proposed to be given to County Court Judges was not far too great, and whether it would not tend to clog the working of their Courts, thereby injuring rather than benefiting the public interests. Were it not so near the close of the Session, he should have felt disposed to move that the maximum of £500 should be reduced to £200.
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he should support the clause as it stood, and indeed thought the limit might have been safely fixed at £1,000. Small tradesmen resorted to the County Courts with great confidence, and he thought the jurisdiction ought to be extended to a larger sum.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he approved the clause, believing that the County Courts had given general satisfaction, and that the public were anxious to have these equitable suits rapidly and economically decided by them.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the extent of the jurisdiction proposed to be conferred by the Bill had been carefully considered, and he believed it might safely be intrusted to the Judges of these Courts. He thought that £500 would be a proper medium.
§ MR. MURRAYsaid, he hoped that the limit would not be fixed below £500. If they placed it at a lower amount than that the utility of the measure would be greatly impaired.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that he did not question the competency of the County Court Judges to exercise such a jurisdiction, but feared that the imposition of these new duties upon them would interfere with the small cause business which they now dispatched with so much advantage to the public.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
§ Clause 4 withdrawn.
§ Clauses 5 to 12 agreed to.
682§ Clause 13 (Certain Fees to be taken, out of which Judges shall have their Salaries increased to such an Amount as the Fees received will be sufficient to pay to each Judge not exceeding £1,600).
§
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved, in line 20, to leave out from "carried" to end of clause, and insert—
Paid over to the credit of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the salaries paid out of such Fund to the Judges of the County Courts shall be increased by three hundred pounds a year: Provided always, That the salary of the successor to any Judge who under this Act shall receive a larger salary in the whole than one thousand five hundred pounds, shall not exceed one thousand five hundred pounds: Provided also, That if any Judge heretofore appointed shall resign his office by reason of any permanent infirmity before he shall have received or become entitled to receive the increased amount of salary payable to him under this Act for the full period of five years, any annuity which the Lord Chancellor may recommend to be paid to him upon such retirement shall be calculated with reference to the average amount of salary received or receivable by him for the five years next preceding the date of such retirement, and not with reference to the yearly salary which he shall be entitled to as a Judge of County Court at the time of presenting his petition for the grant of an annuity.'
In margin of clause, substitute for present note—
Certain fees to be taken and to be paid over to the Consolidated Fund, and the salaries of the Judges to be increased by 6300 a year;
§ Clause amended, and agreed to.
§ Clause 14 (Judge not obliged to hold Courts in September).
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved an Amendment to allow the County Court Judges, with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor, to select any other month than that of September for their annual vacation.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHthought the Judges should be required to take their holidays during the period of the long vacation.
§ MR. MURRAYsaid, if a County Court Judge wished to take his holyday at any other time than the long vacation he ought to provide a substitute.
§ Clause amended, and agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§
COLONEL WILSON PATTEN moved a clause to follow Clause 18—
[Appeal to be made either to the High Court of Chancery or a Vice Chancellor.]
In any case which may be the subject of an appeal under this Act in causes arising within the
683
County Palatine of Lancaster, the appeal may, at the option of the party appealing, be made either to the High Court of Chancery or a Vice Chancellor thereof, or to the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster, or the Vice Chancellor thereof; and that in case of an appeal to the Court of Chancery for the said County Palatine or the Vice Chancellor thereof, the order on such appeal shall have the same effect as if it had been made by a Vice Chancellor of the High Court of Chancery.
He said, that this was the first time the Courts of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster had been treated otherwise than the Superior Courts of Westminster Hall. The object of his clause was to preserve to the former the rights which they had hitherto enjoyed.
MR. POTTERsaid, that there was an exemption clause already by which all the rights of the Courts of Stannaries in the Duchy of Cornwall were reserved. If that were done in Cornwall why should it not be done also for the Chancery Courts of the County Palatine of Lancaster, the business of which was a hundred-fold greater than that of all the Courts of Stannaries?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Bill gave no new jurisdiction to the Courts of Stannaries or took anything away. At present there was an appeal from the decision of the Vice Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster to the High Court of Chancery. If the clause were agreed to the effect would be to deprive the mercantile community of Liverpool and Manchester of the rights of ultimate appeal which they now possessed, inasmuch as the decision of the Vice Chancellor would, under the Act, be final. This clause gave the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine official jurisdiction; and he did not see any reason why the suitors there should be compelled to put up with an inferior equitable jurisdiction.
§ MR. C. TURNERsaid, the Attorney General was entirely wrong in thinking that the people of Lancashire would not be satisfied without going to the High Court of Chancery. The truth was, they did not want any power to appeal to the Courts in London, but to have appeals decided in the cheapest Court, and in the speediest manner. He believed the mercantile interests both of Liverpool and Manchester were quite satisfied with the decisions of the gentleman who presided over the Chancery Court at Liverpool.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that this was but a repetition of the attempts so often made to annihilate these Courts. Their defenders had the disad- 684 vantage of having to meet the lawyers of Westminster Hall, who were always trying to bring the Courts of the Palatine up to London. These attempts had hitherto always been successfully resisted; and he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to the clause.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to suggest that the words "at the option of the party appealing" should be altered so as to give both parties the option.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that he would assent to this Amendment.
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, the Attorney General need not fear the Courts here being disturbed with many appeals by Lancashire men to the prejudice of their own just, epuitable, and economical Courts.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought it possible to carry theoretical objections too far, and he therefore would consent to the insertion of the clause.
§ MR. C. TURNERsaid, that on behalf of the people of Manchester, who would naturally wish to have recourse to the local court, he must oppose the Amendment proposed on the ground that it would render the clause valueless, inasmuch as one of the parties would be sure to object.
§ Clause amended, and agreed to.
§ Preamble agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]