[BILL 139.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 9 June 1884)

§ MR. GREGORY
said, this clause raised a very important question. It was proposed that there should be paid annually a sum of £33,500, which was to be raised by additional taxation on the suitor. The grounds for that were said in the Bill to be the necessity for providing for excessive expenditure on the Royal Courts of Justice. By the Act of 1865 a certain amount of money was provided for the construction of these Courts—namely, £1,500,000, and that was to be provided in this way. First of all, by a Treasury grant to be recouped by a certain amount of Consols standing to the credit of the Suitors' Fund, and the proceeds of the sale of the old buildings, which would be rendered useless by the construction of the New Courts. The sale produced £200,000, the Consols realized about £800,000, which the Treasury received, and the balance of the £1,500,000 was paid by an increase of the fees paid by the suitor. That was the contract under the Act of 1865, and the Treasury undertook that the buildings should be erected for that amount. But a much larger sum had been expended, and there was something like a balance of £800,000 or £900,000 to be provided for by increased taxation of the suitors. That had been expended under a contract between the builders and the Treasury, and in regard to that contract suitors had had no voice. But it was now sought to throw upon them the increase which had been so incurred, and for that purpose an Order had been issued increasing the fees of the Courts to a considerable amount. In many cases the fees had been doubled, and nearly in all raised from the lower to the higher scale. He did not wish to detain the Committee at that late hour; but he did think that the suitors ought not to be called upon for a further contribution under any circumstances. The construc- 1878 tion of the New Courts was not only for the benefit of suitors, but for the public generally, and the administration of justice and the contribution of the suitors ought not, in any case, to go beyond the extent provided by the Act of 1865. He also thought the suitors in Chancery and in the High Courts were already fully penalized without the additional taxation now imposed upon them. They contributed something like £400,000 a-year for the administration of justice—a very heavy tax—and, as a matter of principle, he was prepared to contend that the administration of justice was a matter of right, for which the suitor ought not to be called upon to pay at all events. He protested against suitors being made liable for expenditure incurred by the Government for public purposes; and he hoped the Committee also would take the view that this should be a public charge, and would not consent to putting this increased charge upon the suitors. He did not say this expenditure was unnecessary, but it was incurred by the Treasury, and they ought to provide for it. In order that this matter might be fully discussed, he begged to move that Progress be reported.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, that the hon. Gentleman, of course, knew that on the Motion he had made it would be irregular to discuss this matter; but he would consent to report Progress.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
wished to suggest that the Secretary to the Treasury should place on the Table a Return showing the proposed rate of fees compared with those hitherto exacted. He thought the House ought to be in possession of that information.

§ MR. COURTNEY
replied, that there was no proposed new scale of fees. The scale of fees had already been authorized and was now law.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, he believed a Return had been moved for by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), which, if printed, might be useful to hon. Members.

§ MR. EDWARD CLARKE
asked whether there was to be any understanding as to a day when this matter could come 1879 on for proper discussion? This case, he thought, was a valuable illustration of the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule, and, as a good many hon. Members were anxious to discuss the question, they would be glad if the hon. Gentleman could give them some idea as to when they would have an opportunity.

§ SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD
said, a great number of members of the Profession had been present, from time to time, waiting for this Bill to come on, sometimes even till 3 o'clock in the morning.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, he did not desire to keep hon. Members waiting, and, if it would be convenient, he would propose to resume the discussion on this Bill on this day week; but he could not state at what hour it could be taken.