HC Deb 27 February 1903 vol 118 cc1016-26

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

This is a Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton and myself for the purpose of increasing the jurisdiction of local courts in the administration of justice, and also with the object of decreasing the delay in the trial of questions and the cost of obtaining judgments. No notice of opposition to the Bill has been given, and the question has been so frequently discussed in this House that I think it needs but little advocacy on my part. The jurisdiction of the County Courts rests on the Act of 1888; and. speaking generally, the limit of that jurisdiction is £50. The object of the Bill is to substitute in the County Courts Jurisdiction Act £100 for £50 where the latter sum appears. The House will, I think, agree with me that, having regard to the existence of the County Courts, the development of their jurisdiction, and the confidence which the public have in them, the time may be considered to have arrived when this extension of their jurisdiction is perfectly justifiable. I would not take the House through the alterations proposed in the original Act—the alterations being mainly verbal. In Section 56, what I may call the personal jurisdiction of the Court has been increased from £50 to £100, and others of a cognate order. There are cases, such as that of a minor who seeks to recover wages, where the jurisdiction is increased from £50 to £100, and there are provisions of a similar character which refer to the recovery of small properties. Frequently a trespasser has to apply to the High Court for such relief, and the costs there are often as much as the fee-simple value of the property. These cases will now be subject to local jurisdiction. Again, on the question of costs the present fide is that where less than £20 has been recovered in the High Court in an action which might have been tried in the County Court, no costs, are recovered, and if the sum is between £20 and £50 scale costs only are recoverable. That indicates that in the opinion of Parliament there should be a proportion between the amount sued for in the Court and the costs to be awarded. When one thinks of the very large expense frequently incurred in eases for advocacy, for witnesses, solicitor's fees, and the like, especially when the action is tried at a distance from where it originated, I think it ought to be a very serious question of principle which would justify a recourse to the High Court for the recovery of any sum less than I have indicated in the margin of the Bill. I speak from experience, having been registrar of a large County Court for many years. There is public confidence in these Courts; their judgments have worthily secured the approbation of public feeling; the administration of justice in them is acceptable; and the change which I venture to advocate is one which is desired.

I confess, if I were dealing with this subject from an ideal instead of a practical point of view, my own proposal would be to confer unlimited jurisdiction on County Courts, with the right of removal to the Superior Courts of any proper case approved by a judge. The present rule is that parties may agree to give the County Court unlimited jurisdiction, and the consequence of that rule is that one party very seldom approaches the other to ask for that consent, because it is thought to indicate weakness, and would probably lead to a refusal. But if unlimited jurisdiction were given prima facie with the right of removal on any question of fact or law, I believe that a very large part of the litigation of this country would be transacted in the County Courts. I say this, firstly, because I believe the tribunals have the confidence of the public; and, secondly, that a trial on the spot, with certainty as to when the case would be reached, instead of witnesses and others being delayed in some assize centre, or in London, with uncertainty as to the hearing of the case, would be endorsed by public feeling, and would conduce, as far as practicable, to the principle of the local administration of justice. The success of the district registrars of the High Courts is appreciated locally; but the trial cannot take place locally. It may take place at an assize, which involves cost and delay. Owing to the Judicature Act and the County Courts Acts, many local courts, like that of Hull, have fallen out of practice, and are not resorted to because the Judicature Act has not been applied to them by the authorities, who prefer the jurisdiction of the County Courts. But if an improved practice, making the local courts more available, is refused, I think a great claim is established for some increase in the jurisdiction of the County Courts.

I am informed, and believe, that the Bar, as a whole, would not be opposed to this change. It would not affect the leading members of the Bar; and, as regards the Junior Bar, they are now more localised, and the various local courts would have the advantage of their advocacy. While the system continues as it is, and while so many actions have to be entered for trial in London, the expense in many cases, especially those covered by the Bill, must be out of all proportion to the amount involved; and it is with the object of securing more certain and less expensive justice that I have introduced this Bill. It has the support of the Incorporated Law Society, and of Chambers of Commerce; and I believe it has the support of the public generally. I quite admit that, owing to the somewhat sudden ending of the debate on the Address, the Bill may come somewhat suddenly on the legal authorities; but I am going to make a proposition to the Attorney General which I hope he will accept. I quite agree that no private Member could hope to carry a Bill of this character through the House if it met with the opposition of the Government. Therefore, I would propose to the Attorney General that he should consent to the Second Beading, and I will at once say that the Government can then exercise control over the Bill. If they feel it ought to be enlarged, or that some additional provisions as to practice should be introduced, or that the time has not yet arrived for it, I am quite willing to sacrifice my own opinion, and to invoke the aid and co-operation of the Government in securing what I believe to be a large and beneficial measure in the interests of the local administration of justice. I hope, in these circumstances, the Attorney General will see his way to accept what, in my opinion, is a reasonable proposition.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)

There is one observation of my hon. and learned friend which, I think, everyone who has had any experience of legal matters will confirm, and that is the extent to which County Courts have earned the confidence of the public. They have done most admirable work and are admirably conducted. The question of extending their jurisdiction has been brought forward from time to time.

A great many proposals have been made, one by my hon. and learned friend himself, that the County Courts should have unlimited jurisdiction, giving, at the same time, complete power to the High Court to remove cases which seem to be more properly tryable in the High Court. Any proposal of that kind, although it may be discussed in a general way, is one which cannot be possibly made the subject of responsible action except after a very exhaustive inquiry. My hon. and learned friend referred to the suddenness with which this Bill has come on, and, owing to that, I am not in a position to say anything with regard to the action which the Government will take on the matter. I have personally very different views on the subject; but, under the circumstances, I think it is proper that I should not enter into any statement which would be merely a statement of my own personal views. The whole matter is well deserving of complete inquiry, but I am bound to say that I think it is a matter that should not be dealt with except as a whole. There are other matters with regard to County Courts which require consideration; and I have very great doubt as to the propriety of proceeding in the way this Bill proposes. I think the subject is one of grave importance, and that action should not be taken except upon some definite principle. There is no definite principle in fixing £100 instead of £50.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

Or in fixing £50.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

I agree, but £50 being there I think before we alter it we ought to see on what principle we are to proceed. There is no more principle in one than in the other, but before we take action we ought to arrive at some definite principle. In these circumstances, I am not going to ask the House to vote against the Bill. I cannot, however, give the support of the Government, and I must reserve complete liberty of action as to its further stages.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)

said he was glad to have heard the Attorney General's sympathetic reply, but he could not quite agree with him that there was no basis of principle about fixing £100 as the maximum limit. If he rightly recollected, £100 was the limit up to which the High Court could remit an action on a contract to the County Courts; and in the discussions he had had with County Court judges and with barristers, who practised largely in the County Courts in South Wales, it had often been re presented to him that the raising of the limit from £50 to £100 in the case of personal actions, to which the Bill referred, would be of advantage to all concerned. What was the present position? If a man owed him £50 he could sue him in the County Court. If a man owed him £75 on some contract he had to take his action to the district registrar, go through the form of issuing a writ in the High Court, and then take out a summons before the district registrar to have the action remitted to the County Court. Of course, there were advantages in going to the High Court, because it was quite possible that as a creditor for £75, he might obtain his judgment more quickly than by going to the County Court; but he was told that the general feeling of the trading community, at any rate in South Wales, was in favour of raising the limit from £50 to £100, in order to facilitate the decision of disputes, not of a very large character, and the collection of debts of not very great amount. He therefore thought the Attorney General, when he came to consider the matter, would see that there was real ground for raising the limit from £50 to £100. He admitted that there must always be difficulty and hardship to some people by fixing a limit; but the real reason why many, who considered the question of extending the limit, fixed upon the £100 limit, was founded upon the practice in law in regard to the remission of actions from the High Court to the County Court. It was perfectly evident that if unlimited jurisdiction were conferred on the County Courts a very largo alteration would have to be made in regard to the law of the County Courts, and in regard to the conditions Hi practice. He hoped the Attorney General would allow the Bill to go to a Second Reading, and he could then consider whether Amendments were required in order to make it a good and practicable measure.

SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)

said the Bill proposed a reform in a direction which he himself had advocated for many years. He understood that the Attorney General had not been able to ascertain the opinion of the Government on the measure; and he did not think that the House would expect the hon. and learned Gentleman to express a definite opinion on it unless he had had a full opportunity of considering it. The strong argument in favour of this or some other similar or more extended reform was that only in one respect was their jurisdiction limited to £50. In the administration of estates they dealt with amounts up to £100, and in Admiralty cases they dealt with considerably larger sums of money, and decided the most difficult questions that could arise. There seemed to him to be no conceivable reason why, in the ordinary case of the recovery of a private debt, which was after all only a simple contract, the jurisdiction should be limited to £50. The administration of justice in Scotland had been alluded to as an analogy, but the sheriffs of Scotland, who stood in exactly the same position as the County Court judge in this country, and who, by the way, received only about half the salary, had unlimited jurisdiction. There was no doubt the administration of justice in Scotland was exercised extremely well, and no one had ever heard one word of complaint with regard to the way in which justice was administered in that country. This was a small reform. All that was desired was that the jurisdiction should be extended from £50 to £100. He, in fact, was astonished at the moderation of the mover of the Bill in asking for so little. He himself would have asked for a great deal more.

Then came the case of analogous changes which would no doubt have to be made if there was extended jurisdic- tion. If there was any desire to make other changes in the Bill they might be made with the consent of Parliament, and thus make the measure more valuable. If that were so, and if that Bill was allowed a Second Beading, and was referred to the Grand Committee on Law, there might be an instruction to the Committee to widen the scope of the measure to effect some desirable changes in the practice of the County Courts.

* MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)

said although this Bill did not apply to Ireland, everybody knew that if it was carried for England, in a very short time similar legislation would be initiated for the sister country. He had had considerable experience of the working of the County Court system of Ireland, and after much anxious consideration he was of opinion that this Bill ought to be allowed a Second Reading. Its only fault was that it did not go far enough. He could never understand why there should be any limitation to the jurisdiction. The County Court judges in either England or Ireland, and he believed in Scotland as well, were men of considerable experience in their profession, and he saw no reason, if they were competent to decide questions involving sums of £50 and £100, why they should not be entitled to adjudicate when much larger matters were indispute. His idea was that every suitor should have the option of going to the County Court in the first instance, there should be no limit of jurisdiction as to amount, and it should be the right of the defendant to apply in a proper case to have the matter transferred to a higher Court. That was absolutely the converse of what at present existed. That would meet all cases and be of great public benefit, because at the present time many persons who had rights to assert were deterred from coming forward to assert those rights on account of the expense. He hoped the Bill would be read a second time. He would extend the power of appeal so as to prevent injustice being done, and if that were achieved he had no doubt that the course of justice would be greatly advanced by giving every citizen a right to go to a cheap Court to assert his rights.

MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.)

said he had heard with pleasure that the hon. and learned Attorney General had no intention to oppose this Bill. It was a matter of great urgency to the public who wanted cheap and rapid justice. He rose to support the appeal made to the hon. and learned Attorney General that this Bill should be referred to the Grand Committee with the instruction suggested.

(Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

said he accepted the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and with the hope that the Government would consent to the Bill going to the Grand Committee, he begged to move that this Bill be referred to the Grand Committee on Law, and that it be an instruction to that Committee, if it thinks fit, to extend the scope of the Bill so as to not only extend the jurisdiction, but amend the practice of the County Courts.

* ME. SPEAKER

The instruction cannot be moved without notice.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

Then, Sir, I simply move that the Bill be referred to the Grand Committee on Law.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law.