[BILL 202.] CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 16 July 1875)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he had an Amendment to propose which he trusted would meet with the acceptance of the House. When he originally came to consider how an order upon the defendant to perform his contract should be enforced, it occurred to him that if the master or servant waived his right to obtain damages at once, an order should be made for the performance of the contract, and that the plaintiff should be able to ask for a summary mode of obtaining the money which he had a right to demand. The clause he had inserted with regard to the order upon the defendant to perform his contract was proposed in the interest of the men themselves, and he had no intention of reviving the punishment of imprisonment for breach of civil contract. He repudiated any intention of reviving imprisonment by these words, and he trusted that the House would acquit him 1590 of any such intention. But finding that an impression had gone abroad that such might be the practical effect of the clause, he had now to propose another plan, which would, he believed, induce persons to become sureties for a person against whom damages were given without imprisoning the man himself. Instead of awarding damages, resulting in the case of non-performance in imprisonment, the Court might order that the man should perform his contract and require sureties that he would do so. If the surety were called upon to pay the money for the person against whom damages had been awarded, he would have the same right to recover the money against the defendant which the master originally had. Without further explanation, therefore, he would move in page 2, line 14, after "defendant," leave out "to" and insert "and one or more surety or sureties that the defendant will."

§ MR. MUNDELLA
heartily assented to the proposal, which was practically the one he had himself made on Monday, and which the House had then divided upon.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
then moved, in page 2, line 17, leave out from "and may be," inclusive, to end of Clause, and insert as a separate paragraph— Any sum paid by a surety on behalf of a defendant in respect of a security under this Act, together with all costs incurred by such surety in respect of such security, shall be deemed to be a debt due to him from the defendant; and where such security has been given in or under the direction of a court of summary jurisdiction, that court may order payment to the surety of the sum which has so become due to him from the defendant.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the course he had taken in adopting an alteration which was precisely that for which during a considerable debate the Opposition had contended. The Bill, as amended, would meet with the unanimous consent of the House, now that it contained no provision for imprisonment for the breach of a civil contract. They were ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced the Bill in what he conceived to be the interest of the working men; but it contained a most objectionable provision, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman 1591 would admit that the Opposition were justified in the somewhat pertinacious objections which they offered to the clause.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he did not wish to make the Amendment the subject of controversy, and he was grateful to the House for the manner in which they had received it. He had not seen his way on a former occasion to give the surety that right which he thought he ought to have against the defendant, and the Amendment supplied that which was not suggested the other night.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
then moved, in page 5, line 4, after "summary jurisdiction," insert— And in particular for the purpose of regulating the costs of any proceedings in a court of summary jnrisdiction, with power to provide that the same shall not exceed the costs which would in a similar case be incurred in a county court.