HC Deb 22 July 1867 vol 188 cc1911-4

Order for Committee read.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Costs not recoverable in Superior Courts where less than £20 on Contract or £10 on Tort).

MR. AYRTON

asked whether the provisions contained in it were to apply to the Westminster Courts only, and not to other courts where high rates of costs were in vogue?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it would be necessary to make very extensive inquiries in order to ascertain in what Courts the higher scale of costs prevailed, so that it was thought expedient to confine the operations of this Bill to the London Courts.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (In certain Cases Judge of Superior Courts may order Cause to be tried in County Court).

MR. NEWDEGATE

observed that the purpose of this Bill was to increase the jurisdiction of the County Courts. There was also another Bill before the House providing for compensation being granted for the abolition of certain offices in Manorial Courts. If it were the pleasure of the House to increase the duties of these persons, surely they had a right to present their claims and show the additional duties that would be cast upon them. The retiring allowance they were to receive was calculated on the smaller scale upon which they were now remunerated; and if Parliament went on increasing jurisdiction it would be right that the salaries of the officers should be increased in proportion, and their retiring allowances in a corresponding ratio.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

thought that no encouragement should be given by the House to the maxim, that if it should be found necessary to re-adjust the duties of the officers of certain Courts, therefore the salaries should be re-adjusted. It was proper that all officials should be adequately remunerated, and if existing remuneration was inadequate, that might form a ground for seeking an increase of salary. It ought to be generally understood that gentlemen who accepted these offices were bound to perform the duties which Parliament might impose upon them. While he desired that they should be fairly remunerated, he protested against making every measure which gave them new jurisdiction an occasion to increase their salaries.

MR. NEWDEGATE

begged the Committee to remember the restriction of plaints coming before the County Courts in the first instance, and to consider that in some cases a man was called upon to abandon all private practice.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that the registrars gave up the whole of their time to the performance of their functions; but he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that if Parliament thought fit to increase their duties it was hardly fair to come to that House and claim additional salary. Fresh duties were constantly imposed upon the Judges of the Superior Courts, but no claim for additional salary was ever made by them. At the same time additional duties had been thrown upon the registrars, and the subject had been brought under his consideration in consequence of an application made by them. Under the Act of Parliament a discretionary power was given to the Lord Chancellor, and it was only fair that when additional powers were thrown upon the registrars they should have an additional salary if it were thought right by the Lord Chancellor to give it to them.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Suits in which Jurisdiction under 28 & 29 Vict. c. 99 may be exercised).

MR. AYRTON

thought that the clause might be omitted. In point of fact it proposed to exclude the great body of the people from obtaining justice in the Superior Courts, and compelled them to have recourse to the County Courts. The clause, in his opinion, was so objectionable that he should move to have it struck out.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

hoped that the Government would persevere with this clause, believing it to be one of the most important clauses of the Bill. The object of this provision was to prevent those frivolous and unfounded claims being made which under the present system were so often made the subject of actions in these Courts.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

was of opinion that the clause would be found a useful provision. It was a common practice in respect to the offences named in the clause for an attorney to bring an action for the plaintiff, and the defendant was mulcted in a considerable sum of money, as the plaintiff in many a case, was unable to pay the costs. The Judge might be trusted not to make the order for security, if he saw that there was reasonable cause for action.

MR. AYRTON

asked whether the Attorney General would consent to introduce into the clause words signifying that security for costs should not be required in case the Judge was satisfied that the cause was a proper one to be tried in a Superior Court of Law.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

consented to the introduction of the words.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

Clauses 24, 25, and 26 postponed.

Clauses 27 and 28, agreed to.

Clause 29 (Repeal of so much of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 110 as enables Loans to be Recovered before Justices).

MR. OSBORNE

moved the omission of this clause, on the ground that it struck at the root of all the loan societies, which were so great a convenience to the working classes. No less than £500,000 was in the hands of the borrowers, from these societies, for which interest was paid at the rate of 6 per cent.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

consented to the clause being struck out.

MR. BRADY

said that the loan societies which the hon. Member had praised so much had been the ruin of many an honest hard-working artizan as they extracted 40 or 50 per cent from the borrower.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, if loan societies were bad things the Government might bring in a Bill to abolish them, but there was no necessity for worrying them by increasing their law expenses.

Clause negatived.

Clause 30 (Repeal of Enactments in Schedule (C.).

MR. MONK

said that this clause proposed to abolish the power of County Courts to imprison for debt. He thought such an alteration in the law would operate very hardly upon the poor, who would be unable to obtain credit if it were effected.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said the hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood the effect of the clause, which did not abolish the power of the County Courts to imprison for debt.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 postponed.

Clause 33 agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress, to sit again To-morrow.