OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 5 April 1877)

§ MR. GREGORY
rose to call the attention of the House to the functions and duties of District Registrars as provided by the Judicature Acts and the rules and orders made under the same. He reviewed the provisions of the Judicature Act in reference to the appointment of District Registrars, 70 of whom were to be appointed. Of that number 40 had actually been appointed, and their duties were of the most important description. They had absolute jurisdiction, subject, of course, to appeal to the High Court of Justice, over all questions which came before them up to the time of the cause going to trial, and under the Acts the Judges had power to refer to them all accounts and inquiries consequent upon such trial. He thought that gentlemen who exercised this great jurisdiction should be absolutely free and open from all suspicion, he would not say of fair dealing, but of any influence whatever, and that they should be in the same position as Masters in the Supreme Court of Judicature or of the Judges' clerks sitting in Chambers, as they did every day. But, unfortunately, by some slip in the Judicature Act of 1875, no provision was made that the parties appointed to these offices should not carry on private practice, and some 26 out of the 40 were really carrying on private practice in the places where they exercised their jurisdiction, so that they might have before them cases from their own chambers or offices or in which their partners had an interest. As a matter of principle it was not right or proper that a man having judicial functions to perform should be permitted to carry on private practice. He had intended to move— That, in the opinion of this House, it would be desirable that provision should be made for 671 the discontinuance of practice as barristers or solicitors of persons holding those offices during their tenure of the same. He was precluded by the Forms of the House from doing so; but ho hoped to hoar some satisfactory explanation from the Government on the subject.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, no doubt that, as an abstract proposition, it would be better if the Registrars who had to perform judicial functions of considerable importance were not allowed to engage in private practice. That was a good rule in the abstract; but if the Registrars were not allowed to practice, the new system under the Judicature Act could not be carried out, as a few details would show the House. Under that Act some 26 Registrars had been appointed, out of the 75 mentioned in the Act—that was to say, in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Hull, and in some smaller places—and they had to perform important duties, but with the exception of a few places they were remunerated by fees and not by salary. It would be found that the annual amount of the fees received by these gentlemen for discharging their very important judicial functions ranged from £5 or £6 or £8 or £10, to £100, £200, £300, £700, and £800. If, therefore, the District Registrars were prohibited from continuing their private practice, it would be impossible to get gentlemen possessing the requisite knowledge to undertake the duties of those offices. Of course, if Registrars of the High Court were to be prohibited from practising privately, it would be necessary to place a similar restriction upon the Registrars of County Courts. [Mr. GREGORY: Those Registrars are liable to a fine of £50 if they practise in the County Courts.] But those Registrars were not prevented from carrying on practice in other branches of their Profession — as, for instance, conveyancing. This, however, might be done. In large towns when District Registrars were appointed a stipulation might be made that they should accept the duties and the salary, if they were paid by salary, and enter into stipulations that they would not practise. The recent appointment at Manchester had been made on the payment of salary, and not by fees, and one of the terms in all future appointments of the kind would be the payment by salary and not by fees, In 672 reference to a remark which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, he begged to say that if a Registrar were to make an order in a matter in which he was concerned privately for some client, it was clear that such order would be bad, and it would at once be set aside on appeal.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
said, that if the Registrars were not to be allowed to carry on their private practice it would be absolutely necessary that they should be paid a larger salary. It was a subject that deserved the serious consideration of the House and the Government. One great evil of our provincial system was that too much important work was entrusted to underlings. In fact, a great deal of the work done by Judges' clerks ought to be performed by the Judges themselves. There was danger of abuse when District Registrars were allowed to practise, from their being directly or indirectly concerned for someone interested in the matter, in which case he might act on knowledge that was not judicially before him.

§ MR. MORGAN LLOYD
said, that in these matters there must he compromises, as in almost everything with which they had to deal. There was no principle in our system of judicature. It was an agglomeration of inconsistencies and contradictions from beginning to -end. All our Courts ought to form one entire system. Every action in the High Court of Justice might be brought in London; but in the County Courts they could only be brought in the district where the parties resided or the cause of action arose. It was impossible to amend the present system with the information they possessed, and there-fore he suggested the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole matter.

§ MR. NORWOOD
said, there was great force in what the hon. and learned Attorney General had stated, and his reply to the hon. and learned Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was as satisfactory as could be expected. He hoped that the view which had been put forward by the Attorney General would remain fixed on his mind, as well as on that of the Lord Chancellor, and that some definite rule would be laid down in regard to District Registrars which would place matters on a more certain and satisfactory footing. In his own com- 673 mercial experience he knew a case where the Registrar was interested for a client. He handed the case over to a junior, who argued it before the interested Registrar. He thought that in the great towns the gentlemen appointed to be Registrars of the County Courts should have a competent salary fixed by the Lord Chancellor, and should receive their appointments on the condition of withdrawing altogether from private practice.

§ MR. HERSCHELL
said, the practical point was that populous and non-populous districts should not be treated alike, and that in the large places where the Registrars received sufficient salaries they should have great powers; but in districts where they could not provide a sufficient salary by means of fees their powers should be more restricted.

§ MR. MONK,
who had the following Motion on the Paper:— That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that any money, not specially voted for that purpose, should be expended in the removal of the mounds which have recently been erected in Hyde Park, said, that as, in point of Order, it could not be put from the Chair, he would take another opportunity of bringing it before the attention of the House. He congratulated the Secretary of the Treasury on the clear statement he had made that evening, and he regretted that there had been no one present on the front Opposition bench to listen to him. He also regretted that the Estimates showed an enormous increase, and feared there was no chance of a reduction.

§ MR. DILLWYN,
referring to the statement of the Secretary of the Treasury, that the increase was occasioned by the demands that had been made for what was called paternal government, considered it an extraordinary statement to come from a Government which had just passed such a centralizing measure as the Prisons Bill.