Commons Sitting of 25 February 1880

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (District Courts)*[87]; Cruelty to Animals*[88]; Middlesex Land Registry*[89]; South Western (of London) District Post Office*[90]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order*[91]; Patents for Inventions*[92].
Second Reading—County Courts [6]; Hypothec Abolition (Scotland) [34]; Blind and Deaf-Mute Children [41],debate adjourned;Judicial Factors (Scotland)*[50]; Excisable Liquors Traffic (Scotland)*[49]; Common Law Procedure and Judicature Acts Amendment*[80].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Bankruptcy Act (1869) Amendment*[46].

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  COUNTY COURTS BILL— [BILL 6.]
  (Mr. Norwood, Mr. Rowley Hill, Mr. Watkin Williams, Sir Eardley Wilmot.)
  COUNTY COURTS BILL— [BILL 6.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. NORWOOD,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that before he proceeded to explain the clauses of the measure, he thought it right to remind the House of the circumstances under which the Bill appeared before them. In the Session of 1878 there were no less than four County Courts Bills introduced by private Members—one by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), another by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Rowley Hill), another by himself (Mr. Norwood), and a fourth by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. J. Cowen). The three first Bills were very similar in purport, although they differed in certain details; and it was the pleasure of the House to refer them to a Select Committee. The Committee sat for 17 days and examined a considerable number of witnesses, among them being Lord Justice Bramwell and Mr. Hollams, both Members of the Judicature Commission, and various County Court Judges, mercantile men, and solicitors. After full deliberation, the Committee made their Report, the gist of which was—first, that there should be no increase in the exclusive jurisdiction of the County Courts; that there should be concurrent jurisdiction in an extended class of cases; that the salaries of the County Court Judges should be raised to £2,000 per annum; that they should be entitled to a pension amounting to two-thirds of their salary, after 20 years' service; that the Registrars should not be permitted to practice either in their own districts or elsewhere; and that the hon. Member for Hull be requested to bring in a Bill in conformity with those recommendations. The present Bill was precisely as it left the Select Committee. The provisions of it were simple. In the first place, there was no extension of exclusive jurisdiction in any form. The concurrent Common Law jurisdiction was extended from £50 to £200,
    1386
    actions for the recovery of rent from £50 to £200, and actions of ejectment from £20 to £40. The 4th clause of the Bill, and the one to which he attached the most importance, was in harmony with the recommendations of the Judicature Commission, and had received the approval of law reformers since the days of Lord Brougham. It was to the effect that, with the exception of Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty business, it should be competent for the plaintiff to bring his action, whatever the amount, in the County Court, with full power, as a right, for the defendant to move for the transfer of the case into the Superior Courts. As he regarded the matter, this was really the most important clause of the Bill. It knitted together, in the most complete way, the County Court system and that of the Supreme Court itself; and he was of opinion that if the Bill contained nothing more than this 4th clause it would be a very valuable and important measure. It was unnecessary that he should defend the course taken by the Bill, because not only was it approved of by the Select Committee, but the Government themselves had endorsed the views contained in the measure in the most marked manner. Last Session they took a somewhat unusual course, for notwithstanding the fact that the Bill sent down by the Select Committee was then before the House of Commons, the Government introduced a Bill in the House of Lords, through the Lord Chancellor, which was very similar in its character to the measure recommended by the Select Committee, although not altogether identical with the Bill he was now introducing. It was a very excellent measure, and contained many clauses that were not only unobjectionable, but would be of the utmost advantage. He might, therefore, claim that he had the approval of the highest Legal Officer in the Kingdom and of the Government on behalf of his Bill. One objection which he had heard raised against the Bill from time to time, and particularly from members of the Legal Profession, was this—"It is all very well to extend the jurisdiction; but we maintain your Judges are not competent to exercise such jurisdiction." They said, in effect, that the County Court Judges were an inferior class of men. He (Mr. Norwood) ventured to differ altogether from that opinion. He

    1387
    thought that some of the learned gentlemen who administered the law in the County Courts were quite equal to the Judges in the Superior Courts. He believed that the great bulk of those gentlemen were perfectly competent to discharge not only their present functions, but the extended jurisdiction which would be imposed on them by this Bill. If, as he feared it might be the case, there were some gentlemen who were not so learned or able as might be wished, he could only say that the fault was not in the County Court system, but in those upon whom devolved the responsibility of appointing the Judges. Of course, he could not speak from personal knowledge of the qualifications of those gentlemen. He was only a layman, and was, therefore, not competent to form an opinion. He was bound, however, to admit that appointments were occasionally made to the County Court Bench which met with almost universal reprobation from those who were best qualified to form an opinion—namely, the Bar itself. He did not allude to any one Lord Chancellor, or to any one Party in politics more than another; but it was very painful—more than painful, it was a serious injury to the administration of justice—that from time to time unknown and incompetent men should be appointed instead of the best men available. There was another cause why sometimes the County Court appointments were not satisfactory, and that was that the salaries paid to those gentlemen did not give that large choice to the Lord Chancellor which he would otherwise possess. He (Mr. Norwood) thought himself that the present salary of £1,500 a-year was scarcely sufficient to induce a gentleman, who had had a most expensive education and training, to sacrifice his prospects at the Bar at a comparatively early period of life. It was, therefore, notorious that when they had satisfactory appointments—and he repeated again that able and learned men did exist on the County Court Bench—they were too frequently men who had passed the prime of life, who wished for rest and retirement, and who therefore accepted a position of comparative ease, which, under other circumstances, they would not have consented to occupy. The question really was this—was it not a matter of expediency, as well as justice, that they
    1388
    should remunerate the County Court Judges somewhat more handsomely? There were 57 County Court Judges, who received £1,500 a-year. Three or four of that number had £1,800 a-year under an old rule, which came into operation many years ago. The utmost burden the present proposal would place upon the Consolidated Fund would be £27,300 a-year if every Judge were advanced to £2,000 a-year. But it was in evidence that it would be easy for the Lord Chancellor, with the power which he now possessed, to reduce the number of Judges by a re-arrangement of the existing Circuits, which would make a great reduction in the amount of extra charge that would be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund. He might point out, as a matter of justice to the present Judges, that they had no increase at all in their salaries since the year 1865, and yet the amount of extra work thrown upon them had been very great. Between the years 1865 and 1878, no less than 32 additional Statutes had been passed, which threw extra duties upon the County Courts. Under the Bankruptcy Law, as consolidated in 1869, the entire burden, as far as the Provinces were concerned, of the administration of the Bankruptcy Law devolved upon the County Courts. In point of fact, those Courts had this unique jurisdiction—that the Judge himself was competent to decide all questions of law which arose out of the administration of the Statute. That fact alone was, he thought, quite sufficient to show the importance of the functions exercised by the Judges. He was afraid that he himself had been a guilty person, inasmuch as he had been instrumental in throwing additional labours upon them, in respect to the two Bills he had introduced giving Admiralty jurisdiction. He had then proposed a clause to increase the salaries of the County Court Judges by £500 a-year; but it was withdrawn on an assurance from the Government that the case of these gentlemen would receive full consideration. In 1869 a Motion was made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) that £300 additional should be given, and the proposition was seconded by a right hon. Gentleman who now occupied the important position of Home Secretary, and who advocated the proposed increase as a matter of justice to the

    1389
    Judges. He had not dwelt longer upon this point than he considered to be necessary to place the question fully before the House; but he wished the House to bear in mind that the business of the County Courts had greatly increased of late years. The increase in the amount derived from County Court fees since 1865 amounted to £150,000 per annum. The bankruptcy fees were not so easily ascertained; but he was assured that at least £20,000 a-year of surplus profit went into the Exchequer from that source alone. Then, again, all the cost of the old bankruptcy system was saved, and it amounted to £56,470 per annum; and if the additional jurisdiction was given under the Bill, there would, of course, be a large increase in the business of the County Courts, and the income derived from fees would grow in proportion. The gross disproportion which existed between the salaries of the Registrars on some of the chief County Court Circuits and those of the Judges deserved a passing remark. There were two or three Returns on this subject—one obtained by the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell),and another by his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley). Prom these Returns it appeared that, in addition to the emoluments derived by some of the Registrars holding the office of High Bailiff, and that many of them were Registrars of the High Courts by virtue of holding the office of Registrar of the County Courts, the amount of fees derived by Registrars in large towns was in excess of the salary of the Judges. For instance, the two Registrars of the Birmingham Court, after paying for clerks and all outgoings, received £5,665, being a sum of£2,832 10 s.each, or nearly double the salary of the Judge of the Birmingham County Court. The Registrar of the Bradford Court received £3,188, and the two Registrars of the Leeds Court £3,471, which gave them an average of £1,735 10 s.each. At Newcastle, where there was only one Registrar, the fees amounted to £3,341, and in Nottingham the one Registrar received £1,909. Thus the chief officer of the Court received a fixed salary of £1,500 a-year, while the subordinate officer—the Registrar—was receiving, in some cases, nearly double. As he had said before, he had no wish to enter too fully into the details; but he must sub-
    1390
    mit that a fair case had been made out on behalf of a hard-working class of public servants, the vast majority of whom were able men, who discharged their duty well. Since their original appointment they had been called upon to perform many additional functions; and as those functions were of extreme value to the country, it was only right that the gentlemen who discharged them should receive the increased salaries proposed by the present Bill. He was of opinion that the additional sum which he proposed to give to the Judges—namely, the increase from£1,500 to £2,000 a-year, would be money well spent. That the County Courts were highly appreciated throughout the country at the present moment was shown by the fact that the number of suitors who resorted to them was increasing every year. He was of opinion that every subject of Her Majesty was entitled to have any case in which he was interested tried by a gentleman of undoubted judicial power and ability; and if that was not always the case at present one reason why it was not so was that the salary was not sufficient. If the proposals contained in the present Bill were adopted, and the salary were raised from £1,500 to £2,000, it would certainly open a much larger field of selection. There was only one other question to which he considered it necessary to allude, and that was the clause which would entitle the County Court Judges to a retiring pension, amounting to two-thirds of their salary, after 20 years' service. The position of a County Court Judge at this moment was this—that he could not obtain a retiring pension unless he made an affidavit that he was physically incompetent to discharge the duties of the office. He thought that was a very invidious position in which to place a public servant like a County Court Judge. It was, therefore, recommended that the County Court Judge, in reference to his retirement, should be in the same position as the Judges of the Superior Courts, and that, after the long service of 20 years, he should be entitled to a retiring pension amounting to two-thirds of his salary. In conclusion, he would only add that the present County Court system was working with extreme satisfaction. Upwards of l,000,000 plaints were introduced into the County Courts last year. The system brought justice to the

    1391
    very doors of the people, and the transactions were growing in numbers and importance every day. In the meanwhile, the price of agricultural and other produce was increasing. In point of fact, every article of consumption was increasing in value, and that was in itself an argument for giving an increase in the amount of concurrent jurisdiction. There was also another consideration which was of the greatest possible importance. It was well known that the block of business in the Superior Courts had been a matter of comment of late years. It had often been discussed, and it had been pointed out how seriously it interfered with the business of the country, and, at the same time, that it was undesirable to increase the number of the Judges of the Superior Courts. He would simply add that this measure, the Second Reading of which he now moved, would have a very distinct and beneficial effect in reducing the amount of business which now crowded the Superior Courts.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOT,in seconding the Motion, congratulated his hon. Friend on the perseverance and ability which he had shown in dealing with this subject; but he could not congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the course they had thought proper to adopt with respect to the measure. In 1875 he introduced a Bill having for its object optional jurisdiction—that was to say, giving a plaintiff power in any case to sue in the County Court. He proposed that alteration in the law after having had an interview with the late Lord Brougham, the founder of County Courts, who was anxious to see that improvement adopted. He was, however, induced to withdraw the Bill on the assurance from the Secretary to the County Courts at the Treasury that the Government proposed in the ensuing Session to bring in a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of County Courts. That promise was not fulfilled. In 1877 he introduced again the same Bill; but it was opposed by the Attorney General, representing the Government, and the Second Reading was negatived without a division. He was sorry that his learned Friend the Attorney General had not more power in this matter, because he was sure that if it were left to him the question would have been settled long ago. He remembered, however, that Lord Selborne as Sir Roundell Palmer
    1392
    and Attorney General had stated that these things were all in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General being a mere dummy. In 1878 three Bills were introduced dealing with several branches of the subject, and, at the suggestion of the Attorney General, they were referred to a Select Committee. The Committee, of which he had the honour of being Chairman, sat for 17 days, and examined a vast number of witnesses, amongst whom were two gentlemen who were acting on the Superior Courts of Common Law Commission—Lord Justice Bramwell and Mr. Hollams, an eminent solicitor. After careful consideration, the Committee came to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of County Courts ought to be extended, that certain excluded subjects of action should be admitted, and that after 20 years' service the Judge should be entitled to a retiring pension. The result of their deliberations was embodied in a Bill, which, however, could not be passed at so late a period of the Session. In the next Session—namely, 1879, his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) again introduced his Bill; but the Government met him by introducing a Bill of their own in the House of Lords, which, after receiving a Second Reading, was never heard of again. As a firm supporter of Her Majesty's Government, as one who approved highly of their foreign policy, he felt bound to say that they had not shown equal ability, energy, and determination in the administration of domestic affairs. Had they done so, with the powerful majority at their command, many of the social questions now awaiting legislation might have been satisfactorily dealt with long ago. The Criminal Code Bill, for instance, which was going to a Committee, might have had a chance, which it did not now possess, of being passed this Session. Another point upon which the Committee did not pronounce an opinion, but with respect to which he believed they were nearly all agreed, there being only one dissentient on the Committee, was the desirability of occasionally promoting County Court Judges to seats in the Superior Courts. That was frequently done in France and in America, and it would not only have the advantage of transferring experienced and able men from one Bench to another, but it would be a stimulus to the County

    1393
    Court Judges to beep themselves in legal matters up to the mark. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Hull had very properly made his Bill applicable to all Courts of inferior jurisdiction; but if the House should think that the privileges of the Lord Mayor's Court and other local Courts ought to be retained, that was a question which might very fairly be dealt with in Committee. He had himself been for 18 years a County Court Judge, and he could bear testimony to the great responsibilities and labour devolving on the office; and he hoped the salary question would receive the most careful consideration from Her Majesty's Government, for he thought£2,000 a-year was not at all too much. The Bar of England opposed this increase of salary; but, in doing so, he thought they made a mistake. He earnestly hoped this important measure would receive the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Norwood,.)
    MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, that although he should refrain from moving the rejection of the measure, he could not agree that the County Courts were popular, and declared that, although they were "cheap," he might almost say they were "nasty." His object in rising was to say a few words in favour of the exemption of the Lord Mayor's Court of the City of London from the provisions of the Bill. That Court was one of the most expeditious in its action of any in the Kingdom, and its popularity with the citizens exceeded that of the suitors in the County Courts. It was one of the most ancient Courts in England, and had always stood well in the estimation of the commercial public. In 1873 it disposed of no fewer than 16,357 actions, attachments, and other suits. At that time the learned Judge who presided over the Court of Common Pleas, which was not so much blocked with business then as it was now, took offence at the Lord Mayor's Court, and, by prohibitions, prevented a large amount of business from passing into it. So much did this tell against the Lord Mayor's Court that the number of suits was reduced, in 1874, to 13,585; in 1875, to 8,629; and in 1876, to 8,548. The ac-
    1394
    tion of the Common Pleas was then put an end to by another Judge, who said that that Court had gone mad on the subject of the Lord Mayor's Court. The result was that, in 1877, the cases in the Lord Mayor's Court rose to 11,370; in 1878, to 12,975; and in 1879, to 14,016. These figures showed the great popularity and usefulness of the Court, and he felt sure that the House would hesitate before it interfered with a Tribunal which was so useful to the commercial body of the City of London. The power of attachment was in itself most useful to prevent great wrong being done. Instead of a uniform system of County Courts throughout the country, he should prefer a uniform system of Lord Mayor's Courts.
    MR. B. WILLIAMSadmitted that the Lord Mayor's Court had exercised a salutary jurisdiction in civil cases. Other Courts had jurisdiction of a similar character, and even in the remote town that he had the honour to represent there was a Recorder's Court, the jurisdiction of which was not limited to any amount whatever. These Courts might be dealt with at the proper time; but the question now before the House was whether this Bill, which embodied a measure of reform that was loudly demanded in every populous district in the country, should pass into law. Formerly, he looked on these proposed changes with disfavour; but at last, in consideration of their general approval in the country, he had come to regard them with reluctant favour. Although, as a practising Common Law barrister, his own income would be considerably decreased by the passing of this Bill, yet its provisions were of such importance to the commercial and working classes that he would be wanting in public spirit if he refrained from expressing his approval. The theory existed that the Superior Courts ought to do substantially the legal work of the country; but that legal work had so grown, and had become so complicated, that the centralization of the law which had existed in this country since the Conquest would commence to cease to exist if this Bill became law. The Judicature Acts had not simplified procedure in any way, nor had they facilitated the obtaining of justice by the poor. On the contrary, what with counterclaims, interrogatories, appeals, and expensive references to official referees and

    1395
    arbitrators, those Acts had increased the expense of litigation. Again, the solicitors in London who were agents for country solicitors were naturally interested in bringing business to London, and the Courts at Westminster were crowded with cases which could much better be tried in the country. He regretted, also, to have to say that the Judges had shown a great dislike to being detained in Assize towns, and had consequently manifested a great tendency to transfer cases from the country to the Metropolis. The present system had also the effect of accumulating large masses of written or printed papers, with the inevitable result of delay and expense. This was not legislating in the interest of the poorer classes. Accordingly outside the House, and especially in all the great centres of commerce, there had arisen an irresistible demand for the extension of the County Court jurisdiction. As the people no longer hoped to get cheap and speedy justice from the Judges of the Superior Courts, they sought to obtain it from some other quarter. In his opinion, however, the transference of business from the Superior Courts to County Courts would be only cutting the knot and not solving it. At present the County Courts were not prepared for a very great increase of business, and he thought the system should be so amended by the Bill as to be more adapted for the increased jurisdiction proposed to be conferred. He would suggest that Judges of County Courts should hold quarterly sittings, in which all the waiting cases should be tried in their order of entry, as at the Assizes, so that there would be a kind of County Court Assizes. It was also a question for consideration whether some sort of pleading should not be introduced. The Lord Chancellor's Bill, by which it was proposed to increase the work of the County Court Judges, had not proposed also to increase their pay. It would have been necessary to do so, and also to choose the very best men available for the posts. On the whole, he supported the Bill of the hon. Member for Hull, though he intended to bring forward several Amendments in Committee. He hoped some delay would be granted, so that those who were interested in the question would have time to consider how the Bill could be best amended; but the time had come when
    1396
    something should be done to relieve the Superior Courts of some portion of their work, and to bring law and justice to the doors of the poor.
    MR. WHEELHOUSE,in moving that the Bill be road a second time that day six months, congratulated the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) upon the clear and definite statement he had given of the objects of the Bill in introducing the measure; but, having said that, he was sorry to say that he could not agree with the views expressed by hon. Members who had taken part in the debate, except those advanced by the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Cotton). The Bill appeared to him (Mr. Wheelhouse) to be a Bill for the purpose of giving exclusive, or nearly exclusive, jurisdiction to the County Courts of this country, by taking away from the Assize Courts and the Courts of Nisi Prius the jurisdiction that had hitherto been assigned to them. He had not the slightest objection to the proposal to raise the salary of the County Court Judges from £1,500 to £2,000 a-year, if it was thought desirable; but lie strongly objected to the statement that if that was done the Lord Chancellor would have a better class of men to select from in making the nominations. He believed that the present County Court Judges were quite as good as any that would, be tempted to accept the office if the salary was raised as proposed. He had many objections to the measure; and one was that, although it was said the Bill would not interfere with the jurisdiction of other Tribunals, he believed it would practically sweep them away, and abolish what was called local jurisdiction. He believed that there were many local Courts, such as those of the Lord Mayor in London, the several Sheriffs and their Assessors, Courts of Venue, and such Courts as that of Passage at Liverpool, which did their work wonderfully well, with their jury of 12, following the rules of the Superior Courts at Westminster. Why should these be abolished, merely for the purpose of enlarging the jurisdiction of a Tribunal which was originally instituted for the recovery of small debts? He could see no motive whatever, nor the slightest necessity for such change. Reference had been made to the Judges, and on that point he wished to make a few observations. No doubt,

    1397
    there were one or two splendid exceptions to the general rule, and he did not know why he should not mention one of them, and that was the Judge of the Bradford County Court, Mr. Daniel. He apprehended that no Judge who ever sat upon the Bench did his work more judicially and more carefully than he did; but that was not the character of all the County Court Judges in England. There were, in fact, many instances in which the County Court Judge was individually not popular in his district, and there were charges made against them, now and again, of giving undue preference. Some of them had their sons or nephews everlastingly practising before them; and it was said occasionally, whether rightly or wrongly, it was not for him to say, that the verdict, in too many such cases, was very apt "to follow the son." If the popularity of County Courts was referred to, it seemed to him to simply amount to this—that the poorer classes had no other means of getting that which was due to them. Now, if anyone went into a County Court, especially in a large provincial town, he would very often, though by no means always, find it dirty and unclean, and filled with a number of people against whom they would not brush if they could possibly avoid it; and, so far from their being popular with the heads of the Profession, he knew that nearly every solicitor of the highest note or repute in the United Kingdom objected to go into them if he could possibly avoid doing so. As to the increase of business in County Courts, it was due to the fact that many persons knew perfectly well that if they dared to go to the higher Courts with such inquiries they might have to pay a large amount of costs. But was that justice? No; it was merely sending a man to the Court perforce, and to which Court he did not wish to go, merely because it might suit the other side to force him to that Tribunal. It was idle, therefore, to speak of the County Courts as being as popular as the Assize Courts or the Courts of Nisi Prius generally. They were told that this Bill was intended to benefit that class of people which, somehow or other, they heard of pretty often theoretically in this place; but about whose existence as litigants, except as defendants for small sums, they did not hear much anywhere; and to say that it was
    1398
    to be a benefit to the poorer classes of this country to raise the jurisdiction of County Courts from £50 to £200 was really, with all due deference, to actually put the rich man himself in the position of the poor man, and to force him down by the action of the screw. If any man was obliged to sue for a sum less than £200 in one jurisdiction alone, all he had got to say was that was a hardship upon him, and especially if that jurisdiction was one in which the Judge very often sat alone, and in which, when assisted at all, he had a jury of only five, which was not the number in a case at Nisi Prius. For his own part, he would rather not go to such a Tribunal, if he could help it, however much he might respect the individual Judge. They were given to understand that great alterations would have to be made in the Bill in Committee, if it was allowed to pass the Second Reading. He thought it would be better not to pass the Second Reading until they had increased knowledge beyond what they at present possessed of the intended provisions which were to be inserted. He very much objected to skeleton Bills, where they did not know precisely what they were doing, and still less knew what they were to expect would be put into the measure hereafter. In his opinion, it was infinitely preferable that Bills of this character should be in the hands of the Government, who would be responsible for them, rather than that of a private Member; and there being all the objections to this measure which he pointed out, he thought he was justified, under the circumstances, in moving its rejection.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was not surprised at the speech of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, because it was quite in accordance with every speech the hon. and learned Member made when measures of progress were brought before the House. It was, however, to say the least of it, singular to argue against the extension of the jurisdiction of County Courts because the

    1399
    places in which they were held were dirty and unattractive to the public. This was a great measure, and one of great importance as regarded the interests of the people of this country. If the Courts were in a dirty and unsatisfactory state the attention of the Government ought to be called to the matter, the Courts being entirely under their management, with a view to the necessary improvements being effected. When, however, the hon. and learned Member argued that the County Courts were not popular, he took a view which was not held by many Members of the House. If they only looked at the great progress those Courts had made, with respect to the amount of business they had done since they were established many years ago, they could only come to the conclusion that they were ably performing their duties, and were most popular Courts in the eyes of the people of this country. As showing the advance which the County Courts had been making in the amount of their business and in popularity, he would quote some statistics, from which it appeared that in the year 1850 the number of plaints entered in the County Courts was 390,000; in 1866, when there was an increased jurisdiction given to them, it was 872,000; in 1877 it was 1,024,000. It was impossible that there should have been such an increase if the people had not been satisfied that the Courts were fairly and properly dealing with the cases before them. Again, an equally strong proof of their popularity was found in the fact that the amount of money involved in the cases had advanced from £2,052,000 in 1866 to £3,330,000 in the last year of the Return. To the Committee which sat two years ago, Memorials were presented from most of the commercial bodies of England, and from various incorporated law societies, in favour of increasing the jurisdiction of the County Courts. Therefore, it might be concluded that these Courts were doing a large and good work, which justified the supporters of the Bill in asking the House to assent to the Second Reading of the Bill by which it was proposed to extend their jurisdiction. From time to time increased jurisdiction had been conferred on the Courts. Prom 1865 to 1878 no fewer than 32 Acts of Parliament had been passed, conferring new and extended powers—some more
    1400
    and some less. Among these powers, jurisdiction had been given in equity to a limited extent, and in 1877 they found that these Courts had 613 equity cases before them. In 1867, another jurisdiction, which showed more than anything else the confidence which the Judges had in these Courts, was conferred, when power was given to the Judges of the Superior Courts to send cases to the County Courts to be tried. In 1877, no fewer than 770 cases of an important character were so remitted to the County Courts. In 1868, Admiralty jurisdiction was given; and in 1877 there were 370 Admiralty cases considered by these Courts. In 1869, bankruptcy jurisdiction was transferred to them, and that transfer had been the means of saving between £50,000 and £60,000 a-year to the country. In 1877 there were 9,900 petitions in bankruptcy and insolvency, and 1,280 court debtor summonses considered by the County Courts. The House had been told that this Bill would injure the members of the Common Law Bar. It was very doubtful if such a result were at all likely to follow; but, at all events, the business of Parliament was to look to the interests of the public, which were certainly bound up in this proposal. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wheelhouse) did not think that the proposal made in the Bill would benefit the poorer classes. But, even if that were so, he did not see why the classes just above the poorer classes, and also shopkeepers of the lower middle class, and even the more wealthy classes, should not have the advantage of cheap law. They knew that there was a great block of business in the Superior Courts, and this measure would afford them great relief. With regard to Clause 10 of the Bill, limiting the amount of costs to be allowed in certain actions, the fact was that that clause, with certain alterations made by the Solicitor General, was passed by the Select Committee unanimously. That clause was not meant to interfere with the few Local Courts, but was intended only to prevent them abusing the present system by the great costs they might bring on defendants, and he trusted the House would support it in Committee. He knew nothing about the City of London Court; but he was acquainted with the Courts in Lancashire to which this law

    1401
    was especially, directed, and great complaints were made by the poorer classes of the serious hardships which they suffered in those Courts. He had moved for a Return with respect to the solicitors costs in regard to cases of small amount in the Salford Hundred Court of Record; and he thought, when hon. Members examined it, they would agree that it was quite time that some limitation should be put upon the abuses which occurred in the Local Courts. He found, for instance, that for obtaining £15 the solicitor's costs were £47, to obtain £10 they were £42, to obtain £5, £24; and, again, in a case of £10, they were £61. In the cases taxed, as if tried in County Courts, on the other hand, to obtain £9 19 s.,the taxed costs were £3 2s.8d.;to obtain £7 9s.they were £2 15 s.2d.,and to obtain £5 they were £2 0s.8d.That comparison went far to justify a clause of that nature. Large questions would naturally go to the High Court of Justice, and this clause did not interfere with them at all, but dealt specially with Local Courts. As to the clauses dealing with the salaries and pensions of the County Court Judges, he believed the Solicitor General was in favour of what was proposed, and that the Attorney General was not unfavourable, though he feared the Government might not be willing to give its assent. But even the most economical Member of the House might support the clauses, because it was desirable that when good work was to be done it should be done by good men; and it was impossible to get good men without paying them good salaries. He was convinced that the amount received from the additional fees—to say nothing of bankruptcy fees—that would come in under this Bill, would more than make up for the proposed additions to the salaries. Last year the total cost of the County Court system was £583,483, and the amount received by the Exchequer £426,400, leaving £157,088 to be made up in other ways. Thus the County Courts contrasted in this respect favourably with the Superior Courts, the total expenditure upon the latter being £514,420, towards which the receipts in the way of fees, &c, were £249,056, leaving a balance to be made up of £265,354. Although there had been such a great increase of the business of
    1402
    the Courts, no increase in the salaries of the Judges had been made since 1855. In 1869, when bankruptcy business was transferred to the County Courts, he brought forward a Resolution in the House in favour of increasing the salaries by £300, and he was fortunate enough to be supported by his right hon. Friend who was now Home Secretary. Therefore, he could appeal to three Members of the Government—the Home Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General—on this point, and say he hoped the Government might see its way to grant the increase proposed in the Bill. But, supposing the Treasury were not prepared to find the £25,000 that would be required for the purpose, the Lord Chancellor might reduce the Circuits, and save money by so doing. The Registrars and High Bailiffs had their incomes very much increased through fees; while the salaries of the Judges remained the same, and were, in many cases, much below the incomes received by the Registrars. For instance, while Mr. Daniell received a salary of £1,500, the Registrar of his Court received £3,128 last year. At Birmingham, while the Judge received £1,500, there were two Registrars who received between them more than £5,500. In Newcastle the Registrar received £3,341. Similar anomalies existed in other large towns; and there could be no doubt that, by a judicious improvement in this direction, an increase of the Judges' salaries might be effected without adding to the total expenditure. But if the Government were not prepared to grant a salary of £2,000 all round, they might do so in the case of the six Judges of the Metropolitan Courts, where the business done was of great importance, and also in eight Circuits connected with large towns, such as Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds. Of the remaining 25 Judges, those of 10 years' standing might receive £1,800 a-year, and the others an addition of £100 a-year. That plan would require something like £16,000. He trusted the Government would not only give their support to the proposal for increased jurisdiction, but be able to do what the Lord Chancellor did not propose to do last year, and give to a deserving body of men that increase of salary which he considered the work they performed well deserved.
    MR. GREGORY,as a Member of the Committee which had this Bill before it, adhered to the opinion he then formed that the Bill, taken generally, was a useful, he might almost say, a necessary measure. The County Courts were popular with his own Profession, and he knew the great advantage to the public of their institution and extension. But he thought this extension must be kept within reasonable limits. Clause 4 proposed what appeared to be the indefinite extension of the jurisdiction of these Courts; and that, he thought, was objectionable. That extended jurisdiction was proposed to be given not only with respect to Common Law; but to equity. He did not know whether he would object very much to the extension of the Common Law jurisdiction of these Courts, but to the proposed extension of their equity jurisdiction there were grave objections. Equitable jurisdiction involved the powers of injunction, recovery, and administration, and dealt with large masses of property. The power of injunction was a very large power indeed, and involved the immediate action of the Court. Injunctions were issued to meet immediate injuries or supposed injuries to property; and the Court might on the moment, by means of an injunction, and without having even heard the defendant, stop a building, stop the sailing of a ship, stop the recovery of a debt, stop an action, and exercise other powers almost indefinite in their results. Such powers put into the hands of a Local Court might produce the most serious consequences, and any proposal to that effect would require the gravest consideration. And so with regard to the other points to which he had referred. The Courts had not the machinery, or, in many cases, the knowledge or experience, for the exercise of those functions; and the opinion of many of the Judges of the County Courts was against the jurisdiction being extended to them. He should not object to the proposed increase in the salaries of the Judges; but before any such increase was granted the Judges should be required to do their work. It would be found that many of the Judges did not sit for more than four or five or six months in the year. If the number of Judges was diminished and the service was consolidated, and if the power of delegating the functions of the Judges was withdrawn from the
    1404
    Judges, it would be a proper thing to increase the salaries as proposed by the Bill. Delegation was at first intended merely for a temporary purpose; but in some cases the functions of the Judge had been delegated for months and years, and nothing was known of the persons to whom they were delegated. With these alterations, he cordially approved of the Bill.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANvery much regretted that this Bill should have been opposed by the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Cotton), who, he thought, was hardly justified by the reasons he gave in opposing a measure of great public importance with reference to its action on the Lord Mayor's Court. He ventured to remind him that the Lord Mayor's Court was made for the public, not the public for the Lord Mayor's Court. As to the opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse), that might be taken as a matter of course, seeing that he had opposed every single law reform which had been brought forward since he had held a seat in the House. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) thought the principle of the Bill altogether right and sound. He believed in the principle of free trade injustice, and they ought to allow a plaintiff to launch his case in any Court which seemed to him best fitted for the purpose. He did not altogether like the idea of drawing a hard-and-fast line, and saying that an action for a certain amount should be tried in a County Court, but if for a large sum it must be tried elsewhere. A case involving only £100 might be more difficult than one involving £1,000. Owing to the indisposition of a friend, he had himself acted on one occasion as a County Court Judge, and it had taken him a whole morning to settle a case involving£2 10 s.,and he now believed his decision was, after all, wrong. A great deal depended on the character of the Judge and also upon the Local Bar; much, also, must depend on the nature of the case to be tried. He hoped, with the aid of this Bill, County Courts would practically take the place of the Assizes. That would be one of the most valuable law reforms that could be conceived. Before that could be done, they must have men who were fit and who would do the work. They must have really good County Court Judges, and the only principle of

    1405
    their selection should be detur digniori.The County Courts should not be places of refuge into which stranded "silks" without business, or briefless juniors without experience, might be pitchforked. If they could get a good Judge for £1,500, he did not see why they should pay him £2,000 a-year; but a good Judge was cheap at £2,000 a-year, while a bad Judge was dear at £200. Though they did not require men like Sir George Jessel or Lord Justice James to do County Court work, any more than they wanted razors to cut blocks of wood, it was in the highest degree necessary that they should have for Judges men who would maintain the efficiency of the Courts, and command the confidence of the suitors.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDthought the commercial community was very much indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Hull for the great trouble he had taken to obtain an extension of the County Court system. The benefits of enlarged local jurisdiction were very much felt by those who were engaged in business, more particularly by the commercial public, who wanted, not so much elaborately good law, as the sound, sensible, and prompt settlement of the matters in dispute. It was better, in most cases, to get half or two-thirds of one's rights promptly than, after protracted litigation, being dragged from Court to Court, to obtain abstract justice with costs three or four times the amount. The results in these Courts had not only been prompt and economical, but the decisions had been highly satisfactory. It appeared from the statement of Lord Justice Bramwell that he had scarcely any appeals from County Courts. He was not afraid of the proposed extension of jurisdiction, even in equity; and as to salaries, he thoroughly agreed that a Judge should be well paid. Pensions, however, should be given with some caution. The system of superannuation was growing up very largely in the Public Service; and though it was only fair that workmen employed at moderate wages in the Dockyards and other such places in the country should have a provision for old age, he feared that an extension of the pension system to gentlemen earning considerable salaries might lead to very formidable claims. He should not, however, oppose the Bill, but should give it his support
    1406
    on account of the benefits which would be conferred on the community by it.
    MR. DILLWYN,while thinking that some extension of the jurisdiction of County Courts was desirable, very much feared that the block of business which was complained of as arising in London would, under the Bill, be transferred to the country, and that the large cases would be taken by preference, and injustice would thus be done to the ordinary class of suitors. He saw no provision in the Bill for remedying that evil. Paying the Judges higher salaries would not enable them to do more work, unless a new or improved machinery were provided, and this Bill did not supply that machinery. He should not, however, oppose the Bill; but he hoped if the Bill was read a second time a considerable interval would be allowed before it went into Committee, to enable hon. Members to consider what Amendments should be introduced.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would support the Second Reading of the Bill; but he objected to the section of the same which made it compulsory to bring all cases under £200 into the County Courts. He believed that if a defendant regarded his case as of sufficient importance to be brought into one of the higher Courts he should have power to remove it from the County Court. If an Amendment to that effect were not introduced he should vote against the third reading. He did not think that Lord Justice Bramwell could be cited as an authority on County Court appeals, because the latter would go to Courts of which he had not much cognizance. The block of business in the Courts originated in the Court of Appeal, where cases were more than a year in arrear. He thought it deserved consideration whether Appeal Judges should be allowed to go Circuit.
    MR. ANDERSONdid not think in practice the difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would be found to exist, for the reason that the County Courts in Scotland, that had a much wider jurisdiction, and had, in many cases, a much larger amount of work to do than the English Courts, had never had the complaint made against them that small cases were allowed to stand over in favour of large ones; in fact, the contrary had been the case. His objection to the measure was that it went too far in one direction, and not far enough

    1407
    in another. So far as it was a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts it was very good indeed; but it should go further, because to limit the jurisdiction to £200 seemed to him perfectly absurd. The County Court, which was called the Sheriff Court in Scotland, could hear cases on matters affecting personal property to any amount. There was, in fact, no limit at all. Then why, he asked, should they limit the jurisdiction of the English County Courts? The Scotch Courts could even hear real estate cases up to £1,000; and that being the case he did not see why the jurisdiction of the English Courts should continue limited as it was, or even as it was proposed to be by this Bill. But, more than all this, while the Scotch County Courts had this wide jurisdiction they had also a criminal jurisdiction; and instead of the system under which these extensive powers were held by these inferior Courts working badly it worked extremely well. He would recommend the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) to extend the jurisdiction much further than he proposed in the Bill, and that he should take the Scotch County Courts for his model. What he objected to in the Bill, however, was that it was sought to extend the salaries of the English County Court Judges to £2,000 a-year; and he objected because those functionaries in Scotland had no such salaries, notwithstanding that they had much wider jurisdiction, and many of them much more continuous work. There was, in most cases, he understood, not continuous work in England, but it existed in Scotland; and in spite of this and the great responsibility of the Judges these men were paid very inferior salaries indeed. Only in one or two cases was there such a thing as a salary of £1,500 a-year. He could not see, therefore, why there should be a very large and a uniform salary in the cases of these English County Court Judges. Surely it was a monstrous and absurd proposal that every Judge, without reference to the importance of the county or the work he had to do, or the responsibility that devolved upon him, should at once have his salary advanced to £2,000 a-year. He hoped the House would not tolerate such a thing. He did not like the pension clause; but he did not think it was so objectionable as the proposal to raise the salaries to £2,000
    1408
    a-year, and to make that a uniform rate without reference to amount of work or responsibility.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, he had at first intended to allow the recond reading of this Bill to take place without any comment from him; but after the speeches which had been made he thought it right to say a few words. He could not at all agree with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Den bighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) as to the practicability of dispensing with the Assize Courts. Indeed, if he thought the scheme proposed was meant to supersede the Assize Courts, and replace them by the County Courts, he would deem it his duty to oppose the Second Reading. He did not imagine, however, it would do that at all. He was strongly of opinion that the institution of Assize Courts and the bringing down of Judges in proper cases to the country was invaluable. It created a feeeling of confidence in the impartial administration of justice, quite independent of local influences, which it would be impossible to obtain in any other way. It would be a calamity to the public if the system of Assizes and Judges going to administer justice in the country were abolished. He was delighted to find, by the admissions on both sides of the House, that the County Court Judges were doing their work well and efficiently, and that the recent appointments had given satisfaction. The extension of the jurisdiction of County Courts was an experimental measure. What was proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. B. Williams) appeared to amount to a circuitous way of turning County Courts into a different form of superior Court, the resort to which the institution of County Courts was intended to avoid. What was desired in County Courts was speedy justice in cases not worth the greater cost of a more elaborate machinery. Still it might well be that an increased limit might be reached without interfering with the efficiency of the County Courts. With reference to the clauses proposing increase of salaries, it must be distinctly understood that if the Bill was read a second time it was with no sort of pledge or even suggestion on the part of the Government that the increase of salaries would be given. The Lord Chancellor

    1409
    would shortly propose a consolidation of County Court Acts, in connection with which this question might be considered. It must not be assumed that, because additional work was created for the Courts, therefore, as a matter of logic and necessity, there must be an increase in the salaries of the Judges. It might be—though he did not say it would.—that the re-arrangement would involve an increase in the number of the Judges, and not necessarily an increase in the salaries of the existing Judges; but these were matters it was impossible to speak of onà priori grounds. The question must be considered by those who had the responsibility of considering the County Court system as a whole. Therefore, if the change proposed were to be made, it must be made upon its own merits, and upon the distinct understanding that the Government was in no way pledged to an increase of salaries. The only principle he assented to in not resisting the Second Reading of the Bill was that there was to be an extension, in certain circumstances, of the jurisdiction of these Courts; but how it was to be fenced, guarded, and restricted, was a matter that might be fairly dealt with in Committee.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that it would be the worst economy, and in no way conducive to the interests of the public, to appoint incompetent persons as County Court Judges, and there was danger of such appointments being made if they went on extending the jurisdiction without raising the salaries. There were already appointments which did not appear to have been made with a due sense of the responsibility involved; and it would become a crying evil if such appointments were multiplied, and if the jurisdiction of the Courts were extended and Judges were selected for political or personal reasons rather than on account of their fitness to discharge the duties. He hoped the Government had not absolutely closed their ears to the appeal that would be made to them in connection with the money clauses of the Bill, but would be prepared to give a sufficient salary to obtain efficient men. He should support the Bill, and hoped the House would read it a second time.
    MR. NORWOOD,in reply, desired to remind some of the speakers that the Bill was now presented in the form in
    1410
    which it had been approved by a Select Committee. He ventured to hope that the Government would listen calmly to the appeal that would be made to the Treasury for additions to salaries which, he believed, would, when re-adjustment of Circuits was effected, not amount to more than £15,000 a-year. There might be such a thing as false economy in the administration of justice. He would only add that he was surprised at the opposition offered by the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Cotton).
    MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, that, with the permission of the House, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 34.]
  (Mr. Agnew, Mr. Baillie Hamilton, Sir George Douglas.)
  HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 34.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. VANS AGNEW,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he did not propose to occupy the time of the House at any length on this occasion; and he would, in as few words as possible, explain certain changes which occurred in the Bill as printed this Session as compared with the measure of last year. It would be in the recollection of the House that last Session the Bill he had introduced was read a second time, amended, and passed through Committee, and remained in that state waiting for Report until the end of the Session. While it was in that state certain Amendments were given Notice of on the Paper; and in the Bill of the present year he had given effect to the Amendments passed in Committee, and he had also added to the measure as much of the Amendments that were moved upon Report as he could accept. Perhaps he should best save the time of the House by mentioning these particulars in which the Bill had been changed from what it was last year. On Clause 1 there was an Amendment by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour). The hon. and gallant Member wished to

    1411
    change the date at which the Act would come into force. At the end of the 1st clause, the wording of the Bill as originally introduced was "the passing of the Act," and the word "commencement" was afterwards substituted by the Lord Advocate; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had informed him that he had no objection to return to the former word to suit the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire. Then, in the 2nd clause, at the bottom of the first page, there was a provision for 14 days' notice being given of action being taken before the Sheriff; and this Amendment that the hon. Member for Wigton Burghs (Mr. Mark Stewart) and several other Members had given Notice of he had incorporated in the Bill. There was another Amendment by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire the greater part of which he had adopted, the only change in it being in line 23. In the Amendment given notice of the words "all just claims" occurred; and he had substituted the word "legal" for the word "just," the former being the less likely to give rise to differences of interpretation. In the latter part of that clause he had put in an Amendment of which he had given Notice on Report, carrying out the intention of an Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend; and he considered the words he had introduced more comprehensive than those of his hon. and gallant Friend. These were the only alterations he had made in the Bill. The principle of the measure was the same as that of the Bill of last year; and his desire was to put it before the House so that they might agree to the Second Reading, and that the matter might be taken up at the point where it was left last Session. He would not occupy the time of the House by repeating any of the arguments he had used last year, because the subject had been thoroughly thrashed out, and it would be a waste of time to go over them. He had merely to add that last Session the Bill was read a second time by 204 votes against 77, or a majority of 127; and he wished particularly to point out to the House that in the division 49 Scotch Members took part, of whom 47 voted in favour of the Second Reading, only two hon. Gentlemen representing Scotch constituencies voting against it. This was a matter which
    1412
    ought to weigh with Members of the House, showing, as it did, how unanimously in favour of the Bill the Scotch Representatives were. He would not occupy any more time by dwelling on the subject, but would simply move that the Bill be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Vans Agnew.)
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that he had on former occasions expressed considerable misgivings with regard to the policy of passing the measure, especially seeing that it touched only one branch of the subject—namely, the question of rural hypothec in Scotland, leaving untouched the cognate questions of the Law of Distress in England and urban hypothec in Scotland. He had expressed his misgivings last year, and what had since happened had certainly not reduced those misgivings. His position was this—he represented an urban constituency, and a constituency that consisted of towns situated in rural districts, amongst the inhabitants of which were many merchants, who had large dealings with the farmers and with the rural people of the neighbourhood. Therefore, if it were the case that there was a grievance felt by the traders of Scotland, it would be in those towns that he represented; and feeling, as he did, that the opinion and experience of practical men must be of much greater value than his own, he had repeatedly declared in public, and he had made it known to his constituents, that, though he, personally, had great doubt as to the advisability of passing the Bill, still, if he saw a strong feeling amongst his constituents in favour of the measure, he should feel himself bound to withdraw his opposition. But he had had no representations showing that his constituents wore in favour of the proposed change in the law; and he was, therefore, bound to believe that there was no strong feeling on the subject among them. Indeed, his experience led him more and more to believe what he had always expected—that though the Bill had the reputation of being very generally approved in Scotland, the fact was that it was agitated and got up only by large and wealthy farmers, who were anxious, as far as possible, to diminish the competition of poorer men. He believed that

    1413
    that was a fact, and that other people who had been silent really knew very little about the effect of the Bill. He had expressed these opinions before, and he now declared that he did not withdraw them. Another consideration had presented itself before his mind with considerable force since this matter was last discussed, and which made him very unwilling to see the Bill passed. They knew that in the course of last year the subject of agricultural distress had occupied the attention of the country, and had created some considerable anxiety; and they knew that a Royal Commission was sitting on the subject. Men of great experience had inquired into the matter, and some hon. Gentlemen had visited America for the purpose of obtaining information. He himself had also visited America, and had paid considerable attention to the subject; and he had formed opinions upon the subject which might mature when the Committee reported. They were opinions subject to correction; but he had been led to entertain them, because, like a great many other people, though very far from wishing to abolish farming on a large scale, still he was of opinion that there was great room for a class of small farms in the country. Scientific men had expressed the opinion that much good might be effected by splitting up large farms into small plots, as in America, and that milk, eggs, butter, and such things, which were at present imported from abroad, could be easily produced at home. A great many millions had been spent in getting eggs from France, butter from Normandy, and agricultural supplies from other places. What, he asked, was the principal obstacle to small farms? What was the obstacle to their establishment as an experiment? He believed it was this—that landlords and landlords' agents found the difficulty of dealing with their tenants' increase in consequence of their insolvency, and matters of that kind. A landlord, who had a farm from which he got £800 or £1,000 a-year, preferred to deal with a large and solvent tenant, as he was then enabled to travel about and enjoy himself. If he were to split up that farm into eight or ten or a dozen farms his difficulties would be very much increased. He did not like to make the experiment, even though it might be profitable in the
    1414
    end. It appeared to him (Sir George Campbell) that the difficulty of dealing with small farms would be very much increased if this system of hypothec were abolished, because, in that case, a landlord would not be dealing with, one rich man, but a dozen poor men. He would have to see that his tenants were solvent, and take steps to see whether they had the means of paying their rents. He thought the law was favourable to small farms, and that its abolition would be a disadvantage to them, and make it less likely than it was at present that landlords would split up their estates into small holdings. For these reasons it was that, though he did not take on himself to oppose the Bill, he expressed the doubts he entertained as to the advisability of its becoming law.
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, that notwithstanding the arguments of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell), whose constituents, as he said, not being agricultural, were not interested in the Bill, he still hoped the House would agree to the Second Reading. If the hon. Gentleman had had the honour of being elected for Dumbarton in 1868, he would then have found that the constituency would have been unanimously in favour of this Bill; and, therefore, his opinion would have been quite different from what it was now. If the hon. Member doubted that, he thought he would find it understood in the Burghs of Kirkcaldy. If the hon. Member thought it to his interest in that burgh to introduce urban hypothec, he ought to have the courage of his opinions, and move an Amendment. He was quite sure that if he did so he would not be returned again. The fact was there were two kinds of property, and in juxtaposition; and there could be no divided feeling in reference to the Law of Hypothec. The fact was, to abolish urban hypothec would be to injure the great body of householders, and render property less valuable in towns and cities. But the reverse was the case in counties. The unanimous feeling among the farmers of Scotland was that the present law should be abolished. It was thought by them to be injurious to their interests, in bringing people to compete with them who knew very little of farming, and increased the rents in consequence. He had to say that this was a hardship, and if ever

    1415
    there was a time when Parliament should lessen the burdens of the farmers it was the present moment. If the Scotch farmers did not make such an outcry as their friends on the other side of the Channel, he could assure the House that they had suffered to as great an extent as their brethren in Ireland. This was a question which had been long before the House, and which had been almost carried several times. Last year, but for the interference with Business in that House, it would have passed, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would give it their hearty support. As being a measure generally demanded by the tenantry of Scotland, there could be no better evidence than that last year 47 Scotch Members supported the Second Reading. When he remembered that the feeling was so unanimous, although he was not prepared to say that the abolition of hypothec had the concurrence of English Members, he hoped English Members would give it their hearty support.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the time afforded for discussing this great question—for such it was in the opinion of Scotch farmers—was so curtailed that any remarks Scotch Members might wish to make must unavoidably be brief. He would, therefore, merely observe that when he took up the question of hypothec his object was to effect the abolition of an unjust law, injurious to the public welfare, and by its removal reconcile the interests of farmers and landlords; and he had pursued that object with a single eye to the common good. He thought nothing could be more injurious to the well-being of the country than the continuance of the feeling which prevailed in the minds of farmers and others connected with the cultivation of the soil of Scotland, and which must continue to exist while this measure remained to be dealt with. He could have wished to have had the Bill in the simple form in which he himself had introduced it—namely, with one clause simply abolishing hypothec, leaving the adjustment of differences between the landlords and tenants to the landlords and tenants themselves. His object in now rising, therefore, was not to detain the House in coming to a decision—at all events, not to make a long speech, so that other Members might not be precluded from saying a few words—but to
    1416
    urge Members from the counties of Scotland to accede to the Bill in its present form, leaving any Amendments which might be proposed to be made in Committee. He must, however, recognize the good service done by the hon. Member for Wigtonshire in trying to improve the Bill as originally proposed, and to recognize the fact of important Amendments having been adopted, which he (Sir George Balfour) had proposed. Still, he must say that simple abolition of a bad law was, in his opinion, the best form. Even in its present defective form he thought the Bill capable of benefiting the farmers of Scotland very greatly. There could be no doubt that the Amendments might be useful in effecting one object—that more capital would be introduced into the cultivation of the land than had hitherto been. He thought the Law of Hypothec prevented capital from being invested, and by creating security in the minds of landlords as to their rent of the land, and by combining other interests in proper stocking and better cultivation, they might expect new openings for capital by persons possessed of it having freedom of action in consequence of the abolition of the Law of Hypothec. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell), he very much regretted to find one who represented an urban constituency criticize the agricultural measure in the way he had done, and he hoped the House would not act upon the statements he had made. On the grounds stated he should support the measure, and ask the House to accord it a Second Reading.
    LORD ELCHOobserved that the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down was himself inclined to legislate on the subject last year, or the year before, and brought in a Bill which did not deal with agricultural hypothec only, but with urban hypothec also.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: The noble Lord is mistaken. My Bill, as brought before the House, was simply with regard to agricultural hypothec. It was originally intended to apply to urban hypothec; but that was taken out.
    LORD ELCHO: Exactly so; the first Bill that the hon. and gallant Gentleman brought in was, as he (Lord Elcho) had stated, intended to deal with both subjects, agricultural and urban; but after

    1417
    a time the hon. and gallant General withdrew the Bill, and substituted another Bill dealing only with agricultural subjects. It would, he supposed, be a Breach of Privilege to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman what pressure had been brought to bear upon him in order to induce him to give up the broad principle which he had first adopted. That, however, struck him as an apposite question to put to his hon. and gallant Friend. He had no wish to take up the general question, for it had been his lot to speak more than once upon the subject, and last year he had unburdened his soul fully. Certainly, he had no wish to talk the subject out—far from it—and he had not risen for that purpose. Last year he had moved an Amendment; but that Amendment was not directed against the principle of the Bill, but simply against the way in which the question was dealt with, and affirming certain truisms which never had been controverted. Those truisms were as follows:—1st, That the Law of Hypothec was the equivalent of the English and Irish Law of Distress; 2nd, that the principle of preference given by the Law of Hypothec, whether it be to the owner of houses or land, was a principle that pervaded the Commercial as well as the Land Law of this country; 3rd, that the Law of Hypothec for the rent accruing or the rent accrued was the law of every civilized country in Europe, as well as of England and Ireland, and also of America, Wurtemburg being the only civilized country in which the law did not apply; 4th, that under this law, as stated By the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell) and others, small farmers had risen to be large tenants, and that had proved beneficial to the agriculture of Scotland; and, lastly, that the subject, if dealt with at all, should be dealt with as a whole, the urban hypothec being treated as well as agricultural, and the Law of Distress in England and Ireland, as well as the Law of Hypothec in Scotland. Such was the substance of his Resolution. What happened? He failed to carry it. For the first time, a Conservative Government had dealt with this question in the way which they had done. The Lord Advocate, if he might use the expression, went the whole hog. The Lord Advocate, however, although he
    1418
    converted himself, failed to carry along with him the majority of his Government, for on that occasion four Members of the Government voted with him and nine against the Resolution. He ventured think that this question should be dealt with in a statesmanlike, and not in a perfunctory, manner. The Bill was read a second time. No doubt the Home Secretary voted with him; but he was very much inclined to believe that the Home Secretary at the time did not know what the Law of Hypothec was. He perhaps considered it a barbarous law as compared with the Law of Distress; but, be that as it might, the conversion of the Lord Advocate and the Government led to a successful division, and the Bill was carried in its Second Reading. But there was very soon a Nemesis awaiting upon the Lord Advocate and the Government. Within a few weeks afterwards a Gentleman who represented an Irish constituency moved a Resolution against the Law of Distress, proposing that that law should be abolished. Now, the Mover had referred naturally to what had taken place in regard, to the Law of Hypothec; and how did he strengthen his position as to the removal of the Law of Distress? By proving that the Law of Hypothec, which the House of Commons had by its vote abolished—that was to say, on the representation of the Lord Advocate—was a milder law and more limited in its operation than the Law of Distress. The Mover pointed out, in favourable contrast to the Law of Distress, that the Law of Hypothec was limited to the year's crop and rent. So much for the Mover. What course did the Government take? Their Law Officer said that it was a bold proposal—a strong proposition—to abolish this law in the United Kingdom. It was, he said, one of the oldest laws, a law which worked in many ways in the interest of the tenant, and to abolish it would be injurious to the tenant. In short, ejectment would be necessary as an expedient if it were abolished, and the result of its abolition would be the payment of rent in advance. In fact, no case had been made out for abolition. That was the result of the discussion on the Law of Distress, which the Mover of the Resolution, who wished to abolish it, said was a much harsher law than the Law of Hypothec. His hon. Friend

    1419
    behind him (Mr. Clare Read), who voted for the abolition of the Law of Hypothec, had said that he supported the Law of Distress because it was so interwoven with our agricultural system that its repeal would be detrimental both to landlords and tenants. He would ask his hon. Friend—whom they were glad to see returned in safety across the Atlantic—whether the Law of Hypothec was not also interwoven with our agricultural system? What had the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the Law of Distress? Speaking for the Government, he said that the question was one on which, at the first blush, they could not seem to legislate, because it touched so many interests that it would require very great deliberation. There was no necessity, in his mind, for abolishing the law, because, he said, there were points in the Law of Distress which demanded consideration. A division took place, and with what result? That all the Members of the Government, those who had voted with him (Lord Elcho), and those who voted for the abolition of the Law of Hypothec alike, and 26 Conservative Members who had voted for the repeal of hypothec, all voted for the maintenance of distress—that was to say, of a more partial and limited law. Now, what was the reason of this? The reason was given by the Lord Advocate and his hon. Friend (Mr. Vans Agnew). Simply political expediency. The Lord Advocate had given them his reason for the action of the Government—that not only were the people of Scotland almost unanimous—both tenants and landlords—in favour of the abolition of hypothec, but that the Representatives of the people in that House were practically unanimous on the point. He (Lord Elcho) thought they mistook the feeling of the people of Scotland on the point. He did not think those statements represented the real feeling of the masses of the people of Scotland. Now, his hon. Friend had said that when the tenants of England demanded the abolition of the Law of Distress, as the people of Scotland had demanded the abolition of the Law of Hypothec, he would be willing to vote for it. The argument, then, was this—that in the United Kingdom there were two distinct laws—one for one part of the country, and another for another part. They were identical, with this difference—that the one they desired to
    1420
    abolish was less harsh than the other. The results were the same throughout the United Kingdom, except in Ireland, where the tenure of land was different. Therefore, in a country like the United Kingdom, where, for reasons best known to themselves, the majority of the Representatives of one of the Kingdoms held that this law ought to be abolished, it must then be abolished, not in one part but another. Where would such doctrines lead them to? How about Ireland? How as to the Irish demands for fixity of tenure, reduced rent, and the like? How as to no rent in Ireland, which was the last phase of the Irish Land Question? How as to the Home Rule? If they legislated simply, not on the merits or demerits of a question, but on its applicability or non-applicability to a particular part of the country, how could they meet the demands of the Irish Members with such an argument in their mouths, doing away with the Law of Hypothec and maintaining the Law of Distress? He maintained that it was not statesmanlike. He had stopped the progress of this Bill last year, and he was not ashamed of having done so. He did so, because he thought it desirable that the Conservative Government should have time to consider before the next Session of Parliament how they were to deal with this question, and whether they were to deal with this question, and whether they would deal with it in a statesmanlike way. If the law was wrong in Scotland it was equally wrong in England and Ireland; and if it were wrong in regard to land here it was equally wrong throughout the civilized world. If it were wrong with regard to private and public interests, let them repeal it throughout the Three Kingdoms. If it were in principle sound, and the law required a few amendments, then he would say amend it, and get rid of this term which had given a bad pre-eminence to the Scottish law. But, as a Member of that House, he entered his protest against legislating on a question of that kind—which they were told, on the best authority, was interwoven with their whole system of land tenure in England, Ireland, and Scotland—in the way in which Her Majesty's Government had dealt with it. Now, it was for the Government to consider what course they would

    1421
    take; and he was inclined to think I that, seeing the condition of the question in Ireland, and that the question would be brought before the Royal Commission, that it would be a much wiser, a more natural, and a more statesmanlike way of dealing with the subject not to pass the Bill this year, but to wait till they got the Report of the Commission, and then consider, with that Report in view, whether they would repeal this law, or modify it and make it equal for the Three Kingdoms. He did not speak of the landlords' interest in this question—if the sun would only shine they could take care of themselves. He did not think they would suffer. He thought it more likely that the tenants would suffer. This was a matter of business. It was all very well to read of new leases given by men who had come recently to their property nominally doing away with hypothec; but he thought it would be found that those leases contained other clauses which gave, perhaps, better security to the landlord than the Law of Hypothec as it stood. At any rate, by fore-renting, by quarterly payments, by caution, and by other means and expedients, a landlord could protect himself, if he chose. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members who cheered ought to abolish distress in England as well as in Scotland. All he asked was that they should deal with this law in a statesmanlike manner, applicable to the whole Kingdom. In any case, he did not expect that those who agitated this question would derive from it the benefits they expected, for if the Law of Hypothec were abolished the landlord would only make up for his want of security by increasing the rate.
    LORD COLIN CAMPBELLsaid, he would detain the House only a very short time. He quite agreed that the subject had been thrashed out, and the arguments worn threadbare; but he was, on that account, all the more astonished to hear the objection, with regard to small farmers, urged by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. That was an argument, he believed, which was brought forward on a previous occasion by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho); but as he represented a constituency noted for the prodigious size of the farms, it had appeared to him the noble Lord reflected the opinions of himself and not of that con-
    1422
    stituency. The noble Lord came down to the House, and said that there were certain truisms which he ventured to lay before the House last year, and not one of which was repudiated. He must say he was astonished that the noble Lord should make such a statement when, as a matter of fact, no sooner had he sat down, than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate got up and repudiated every single one of the propositions which the noble Lord had laid before the House. He would, however, venture to affirm one truism which might commend itself to the attention of the noble Lord, and that was that the Law of Hypothec might be rigidly defined. It was a law which offered to the landlord a premium for choosing the highest bidders and the worst farmers that the whole community could furnish. He knew that the subject had been confused by false analogies. The Lord Advocate himself had exposed some of these. The law had been compared to the lien of a shipowner on the cargo. But that was a totally distinct case, for there they had the property not passing out of the hands of the shipowner; whereas, in the case of hypothec, before the sequestration the crops never came into the hands of the landlord. As to the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), with regard to small farms, he believed it had been refuted over and over again, and the refutation was to be found in the most ample form in the evidence given before the various Committees which had inquired into the question. It was not the small farmers who required the protection of the law, but the landlords who encouraged not the small farmers, but that much larger class of men who were more distinguished by their love of speculation than by their knowledge of agriculture. It was not the men who had risen from the position of ploughmen or agricultural labourers who required the protection of this law. They were generally men who, by energy, foresight, thrift, and care had been enabled to obtain possession of a farm, and who had strictly calculated the means by which they could work it with profit to themselves and to the community at large.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON): Sir, I have no intention to occupy the time of the House for any considerable period in asking them to read the

    1423
    Bill a second time, and I should not have had anything to say but for the observations which have fallen from the noble Lord below the Gangway (Lord Elcho). The noble Lord has kindly referred to me as a "convert;" but I should like to be informed to what I am a convert, and when I was converted. I stated to the House last year that I did not hesitate to say that it had all along been my opinion that no case had been made out for the Law of Hypothec, and no good argument adduced for its maintenance. I have heard a good deal upon the subject, and have the greatest possible satisfaction in informing the noble Lord that though listening attentively and carefully, and with the full consideration which is due to arguments from the noble Lord, I have never felt in the slightest terror of conversion. The noble Lord has also referred to a statement of mine in regard to rack rents in Scotland. I wish he had either remained long enough in the House to hear what I had to say on the subject, or had perused my former speech in the report of Hansard,because the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff) gave me an opportunity to explain that statement. What I said was, that I did not mean that the land was rented at an extortionate rate, but that it was generally rented at its full market value. To that opinion I still adhere, and I do not believe that in this matter the agriculturists of Scotland stand in the same position as their brethren in England. I quite admit that the questions of distress and hypothec are intimately bound up with the Land Laws of the country, and I also believe that you should not touch any portion of those Land Laws without full and due consideration; but, on the other hand, I dispute the proposition that, so far as Scotland is concerned, the question of hypothec has not undergone full consideration. That is not so, however, with the Law of Distress, and I did not understand that many of those who voted in the majority on the last occasion did so on the ground that the Law of Distress ought to be maintained, but that inquiry should be made in the matter; and that I understood to be the meaning of the words cited by the noble Lord. I farther say confidently that this question has been finally considered by landlords and tenants in relation to the Land Laws of
    1424
    Scotland, and that the conclusion they have come to is, I will not say absolutely, but practically, a unanimous conclusion—namely, that the Law of Hypothec may be safely eliminated from our system. That conclusion having been arrived at, I do not think this House should interpose between a wish for legislation in this direction, because it is right and proper for other countries to overhaul their systems of Land Laws and make up their minds on the subject before we obtain any alterations. I will not follow the arguments of the noble Lord addressed to hon. Members below the opposite Gangway; but with regard to the old objection that urban hypothec is not also dealt with in this Bill, the law in that case differs in most vital respects from the Law of Agricultural Hypothec. It is not considered an expedient or a necessary condition of things in every country that everybody should have a farm; but it is a necessary condition of things in Scotland, owing to our law against vagrancy. It is necessary that every person shall have a house over his head who does not mean to be either in the workhouse or the police station. Accordingly, I believe there are a large number of people who are able to secure by means of the Law of Hypothec that they may become lessees of a house, who, but for that law, would be driven to a very disagreeable alternative; but to speak of the two things as depending on the same principle is altogether a mistake. I say nothing of that particular law. It may demand investigation; but it differs in principle from the Law of Agricultural Hypothec.
    MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, he would support the Second Reading of the Bill; but he appealed to the Lord Advocate to give his particular attention, before the House went into Committee on the Bill, to the 2nd clause. With the exception, perhaps, of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), he believed that there existed on the part of Scotch Members a general wish to abolish the Law of Hypothec in Scotland; but in doing that he understood the position of the landlords to be exactly the same as that of seed merchants, manure merchants, blacksmiths, or tradesmen. It seemed to him that they did not want to put the landlord in any

    1425
    other position. That, he understood, was the general desire. But he would like the Lord Advocate to tell him this—if a man entered into an agreement with a tenant, and made it part of the bargain that the tenant should forfeit his right if he got into arrears for 12 months, he had no means of carrying out that agreement—he meant no summary means. He wanted the learned Lord to give his attention to that particular point, as it was a matter which must be dealt with by some Scotch law. He simply wished to see the landlord put in his proper position in the matter, and, as he understood the 2nd clause of the Bill, it would not do so. He accordingly appealed to the Lord Advocate to put the law in such a state that if two parties entered into an equitable agreement they might be able to carry it out, so that when a tenant got into arrears a landlord should have a summary means of getting rid of him according to his agreement.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYthought the law was sufficiently explicit on the point referred to by the hon. Member. He thought the Bill was considerably improved since it was presented last Session. There was only one point to which he wished to refer, and to call the attention of the Lord Advocate. He thought it was quite clear—and if it was so the Bill would have his best support—that when a landlord ejected a tenant he would be bound to pay him for the crops which were on the ground. He understood that that was the object of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; and he believed that if that was provided the Bill would be very much in accordance with the wishes of the people of Scotland.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYthought the present was the best Bill on Hypothec which he had seen. It had been very much improved since it had come before the House on a previous occasion. He had never been in favour of the abolition of the Law of Hypothec himself; and he only wished to say that he very much feared that if the Bill became law the tenants in Scotland would not derive that benefit from it they expected.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

  BLIND AND DEAF MUTE CHILDREN BILL— [BILL 41.]
  (Mr. Wheelhouse, Mr. Montague Scott, Mr. Benjamin Williams.)
  BLIND AND DEAF MUTE CHILDREN BILL— [BILL 41.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
    MR. MONKsaid, the Amendments made in the Bill of last year were not embodied in the Bill now submitted. If they were to be re-introduced he would not oppose the Bill.
    MAJOR NOLANhad no objection to the Bill as it stood, but must oppose it if the Amendments were to be inserted.
    It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

  MOTIONS.

    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (DISTRICT COURTS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. JOSEPH COWEN, Bill to amend and extend the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts 1873 and 1875, and to make provisions for the better Local Administration of Justice in England,ordered to he brought in by Mr. JOSEPH COWEN, Mr. RIPLEY, Mr. ROWLEY HILL, and Mr. EUSTACE SMITH.
    Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 87.]

    CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HOLT, Bill to amend the Law relating to Cruelty to Animals,ordered to be brought in by Mr. HOLT, Mr. ASHLEY, Mr. HARDCASTLE, Sir EARDLEY WILMOT, and Mr. CHARLES WILSON.
    Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 88.]

    MIDDLESEX LAND REGISTRY BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Bill to improve the constitution and extend the district of the Middlesex Land Registry, and to amend the Law relating to the registration and transfer of land in Middlesex and the Metropolis,ordered to be brought in by Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Mr. GREGORY, and Sir SYDNEY WATERLOW.
    Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 89.]

    SOUTH WESTERN (OF LONDON) DISTRICT POST OFFICE BILL.
    On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to enlarge and acquire a site for the South Western (of London) District Post Office,ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Lord JOHN MANNERS.
    Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 90.]

    DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863," and the Acts amending the same,ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. JAMES LOWTHEK.
    Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 91.]

    PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, Bill to amend the Law of Patents for Inventions,ordered to be brought in by Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. DALRYMPLE, and Mr. ALEXANDER BROWN.
    Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 92.]
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.