§ (1) An annual fee of one guinea shall be payable on the first day of April in each year or on such other date as the council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons may from time to time determine, by every member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, save as excepted in Sub-section (4) hereof, such fee to be paid to the registrar of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on or before the thirtieth day of April, or such other day as the said council may from time to time determine, in each year. On receipt of such fee the registrar shall cause to be posted to the member paying the same a copy of the Register of Veterinary Surgeons free of all cost.
§ (2) if the annual fee of any member shall not have been paid on or before the thirtieth day of April (or such other day as the said council may from time to time determine) in any year, the registrar shall send to such member by registered post at the address given in the Register of Veterinary Surgeons for the time being, or to any other address of which written notice shall have been given by such member to the registrar, a notice requiring payment, and if such payment shall not be made within one month from posting such notice a final notice shall be sent to such member by registered post.
§ (3) If any member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons shall not have paid such annual fee for the time being within one month from the posting of the final notice mentioned in the last preceding sub-section, thereupon such unpaid fee shall become and be a debt due and payable to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons at the then existing head office of the College, and if the member so making default be ordinarily resident or domiciled in England or Wales may be sued for and recovered in the county court having jurisdiction over the district in which the said office may for the time being be situate, and if the member so making default be ordinarily resident or domiciled in Scotland such debt may be sued for and recovered in the sheriff court of the sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh, and if the member so making default be ordinarily resident or domiciled in Ireland such debt may be sued for and recovered in the Civil Bill Court in Dublin: Provided always that the council shall have power to withhold such proceedings for the recovery of the said fee in cases in which in the opinion of the council the member is unable to pay. In any such proceedings a certificate 796 purporting to be under the hand of the secretary of the college setting forth that a member's subscription is due and unpaid shall be primâ facie evidence thereof and of a member's default in payment.
§ (4) This section shall not apply to members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons who do not practise in the United Kingdom or to holders of the veterinary certificate of the Highland and Agricultural Society who have been or may hereafter be admitted as members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in conformity with clauses one and two of the supplemental charter of 1879 granted to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, or to existing practitioners as defined in section fifteen of the principal Act.
§ (5) The council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons shall forthwith prepare and pass bye-laws for the disposition of the money from time to time received in respect of the annual fee, and shall have power from time to time to add to, vary, and alter the same (such bye-laws, additions, variations, and alterations to be made and carried out subject to the conditions prescribed in the charter of the college dated eighth March eighteen hundred and forty-four): Provided always, that such bye-laws and any alterations thereto shall have no force or validity until the same shall have been submitted to, and approved by, the Privy Council.
§ Major MACKENZIE WOODI beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words, "office may for the time being be situate" and to insert instead thereof the words, "member may be ordinarily resident."
This is one of three manuscript Amendments, all raising substantially the same point and not in any way attacking the principle of the Bill. As the Bill stands, this Sub-section provides means whereby, if a Member does not pay his fee, it may be recovered as a debt, but it must be recovered in London if the Member be resident in England, in Edinburgh if he be resident in Scotland, and in Dublin if he be resident in Ireland. It seems to me monstrous that veterinary surgeons living in Shetland or in Caithness or in Stornoway should be dragged up to Edinburgh to answer a charge of this kind. Presumably, if a Member refuses to pay his fee he has a substantial case, and he ought to have every opportunity of presenting it in the best possible way. He cannot do that if he has to appear in Edinburgh. The Bill, as drafted, seems to me to give a preference to the town practitioner as against the country practitioner. Why should there be a corner of law business in Edinburgh, London, or Dublin? With regard to Ireland, if the Bill be passed as it now 797 stands it will remove a cause of action not only from the country to the town but from one parliamentary jurisdiction to another. I cannot for the life of me see that there is any reason why a man should be bound to defend his case in London or Edinburgh instead, as in other cases, at the county court nearest to his home. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be able to accept these Amendments. In order to carry out the same point wih regard to Scotland and Ireland, I propose to omit the words "of the Sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh," and to insert instead thereof the words "having jurisdiction over the district in which the said member is ordinarily resident," and also to omit the words "in the Civil Bill Court in Dublin," and to insert instead thereof the words "in the county court having jurisdiction over the district in which the said member is ordinarily resident."
Dr. MURRAYI beg to second the Amendment.
I think that the case made out on behalf of the Amendment is quite a strong and reasonable one. I do not know why small debts of this sort should be placed in a different category from debts of another kind. Why should not these debts be recoverable in the Debt Court of the place in which the member resides? I do not see why men from the remote north of Scotland should be taken to the Sheriff Court of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh. I have great respect for Peebles which sends a very distinguished Member to this House, but I do not know why on that account or on any other account all the veterinary Scotsmen from various parts of the country who may forget to pay their guinea subscription should be hauled up to the Sheriff Court of Peebles. There may be some historical reason for it, and, if so, I should like to know what it is. I can quite understand that the College may be disinclined to incur the expense of proceeding in different parts of the country, especially as the only ground on which action might have to be taken is that the member has forgotten to pay his subscription. He may be a very busy man. He may have delayed opening his letters, as some professional men do occasionally. He may have forgotten the subscription was due, and I would ask, why take him away from his practice and haul him up to the Court in Edinburgh and Peebles, in order to 798 make him pay? What would be the result? Not only would he have to pay the guinea, but he would have to pay his railway fare to and from—a not inconsiderable item in these days, and he would also have to defray various incidental expenses. In addition, he might be called upon to pay legal expenses, so that the whole proceeding might swallow up the proceeds of his practice for many a day. I do not see why we should regard the Sheriff Court of Peebles and Lothian as the High Court of Scotland, to be had resort to for the collection of small debts. Surely a small debt of this kind could be collected in the ordinary way. We are entitled to have some explanation from the Minister in charge of the Bill of his justification for this proposal.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYThe object, as I understand it, of the, Amendment, is to save expense and inconvenience, but the last speaker should know that the Sheriff Court of Edinburgh has nothing to do with Peebles.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYThe name of the court specified in the Bill is not Edinburgh, and I have an Amendment on the Paper which gives its exact title.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Morison)The Bill reads, "the Sheriff Court of the Sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles, is at Edinburgh."
§ Mr. CAUTLEYAt any rate, I have down an Amendment to put in the exact name of the court. We suggest that it would be a most intolerable burden upon the College to have to take proceedings in local courts in distant parts of the country. I think the hon. Member who Seconded the proposal cannot have read the Bill, for there we have laid down the steps that must be taken before legal proceedings can be instituted. Those steps do away with all chances that the non-payment may be due merely to forgetfulness. In the first Sub-section it is laid down that the fee shall be paid to the Registrar of the College before the 30th April in each year, and in Sub-section (2) it is provided that if it be not so paid, the Registrar shall send to the member, by registered post, written notice requiring payment, and if such payment be not made within one month, a final 799 notice is to be sent to the member by registered post.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYHe gets full warning that if he does not pay by a certain date, proceedings will be instituted. Under Sub-section (3) there is a provision that the Council shall not be bound to resort to proceedings in cases in which, in their opinion, the member is not able to pay. It is difficult to see, therefore, how there can be any real defence to any such proceedings as may be taken, and if the Council is of the opinion that it ought to proceed to recover the subscription, I do suggest that it would be unfair that it should be driven to have recourse to various Sheriff Courts in distant parts of Scotland. It is reasonable to assume also that the individual will not suffer by being brought to Edinburgh, because, if he has a good defence, and if he succeeds in showing that the Council were so foolish as to sue a man for the subscription when he was not completely responsible, it may be taken for granted that the judge of the Edinburgh court would make the College pay his expenses.
§ Major MACKENZIE WOODBut he would not get compensation for his loss of time?
§ Mr. CAUTLEYIt does seem to me it would be a gross hardship to the College to put it to the expense of taking proceedings in courts in distant parts of the country. The merit of the arrangement suggested by the Mover of the Amendment is absolutely outweighed by the disadvantage to the College, which, after all, for its administration which is conducted in the interests of the country and of veterinary surgeons themselves, has only the guinea subscription from some 3,300 registered members to rely upon. That income ought not to be whittled away in expenses incurred in running about to distant county courts.
§ Mr. HOGGEI am sorry that the Minister in charge of the Bill does not seem inclined to accept the Amendment. I have listened to the speech which has been delivered in response to that of the Mover of the Amendment, and I have come to the conclusion that it constitutes a strong argument why the Amendment 800 should be accepted. If this College has only a membership of 3,000 to rely upon for its maintenance—a fact which I have heard stated for the first time—I would like to know what is going to happen if, in the event of an unsuccessful action in Edinburgh against a veterinary surgeon who is brought there from Stornoway, its funds are substantially reduced by the costs of the proceedings. This would represent a bigger inroad on the College funds than would be caused by any attempt to recover the subscription through local courts. By the course suggested in the Amendment you get rid of all compensations for lost time and you get the thing done inside the domicile of the man concerned. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has sufficient confidence in the Sheriff's Courts in Scotland to know that you can get as good a judgment there as anywhere else. If that is so, why put the already small funds of the College in jeopardy, which might very easily be if a man were brought to trial either in Edinburgh or London, for the purpose of recovering a guinea? If you are going to create, as you do under this Bill, all the machinery for the recovery of a guinea, you are jeopardising the success of the College. You should accept a commen sense Scottish Amendment. We have not only the convenience of our own fellow-countrymen in view, but also the good of the funds of the College. I am certain that the Lord Advocate, who understands the Scottish legal system, if he cared to intervene as a private Member in this Debate, would say that my argument is sound and that the Amendment ought to be accepted.
§ Mr. MORISONI would appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill, to agree in substance with the proposal made by my hon. Friends opposite. I think that he rather exaggerates this matter. As has been pointed out, in most of the cases no defence is possible and all that will require to be done is to get the decree of some Sheriff's Court, but if all these cases have to go to a Sheriff's Court in Edinburgh, the decree has then to be taken to where the defendant is domiciled, and this will lead to delay and, I believe, to as much expense in the long run as would be saved by having all these actions raised in the one court. But there is another point. We have many provisions of this kind in Acts of Parliament in Scotland, 801 and there is a regular practice in regard to them, and I would suggest that in this Clause we should conform to what is the ordinary practice. I would suggest that the words, "or domiciled" should be deleted, and the Clause will then conform to what is our usual practice.
§ Captain ELLIOTI would add my request to those of other Scottish Members that this very reasonable Amendment should be accepted. The chief argument against it was that it would be an intolerable burden for the College to send people all over Scotland. I cannot see why it should be a more intolerable burden to send them over Scotland than to send them over England and Wales. In England and Wales the debt may be sued for and recovered in the County Court, and in Scotland it would have to be sued for in Edinburgh. I have no knowledge of the conditions in England, but I have a certain amount of knowledge of the conditions in Scotland, and in the country districts a long journey to Edinburgh would involve much hardship to the veterinary surgeons. There is another point. It is surely of importance that a trial of this kind should take place in the district in which the veterinary surgeon lives and that the question of his failing to conform to the regulations should be dealt with where he has his practice and not in a far-away place like Edinburgh, so that there would be greater publicity in the district and less expense to the man. The burden on the college can be borne more easily than the burden on the little man who is being brought into Court. It has been said that there are some 3,300 registered veterinary surgeons. I believe that the unregistered veterinary surgeons number something like 15,000.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI have no means of telling.
§ Captain ELLIOTThese are the small men, making the small incomes, and are the men who would be the most hard hit, as the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) has pointed out, by having to come, say, from Stornaway to Edinburgh.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThis Amendment, which happens to refer only to England, has been discussed only by Scottish Members. I support what has been said by my hon. Friend (Dr. Murray). So far as England is concerned there is no 802 particular reason why for the recovery of a small sum like this the ordinary County Court should not be employed rather than the County Court in London. Even supposing a man thinks he has got a defence to a case, he is entitled to have the case tried and it would be a very heavy expense to put upon him to have to come up to London from some distant part of the country like Cornwall or Devonshire to contest a case here, and in a very large number of cases it would have the effect of his not appearing. For that reason I imagine that the general rule in English law, that you should sue a man in the County Court in the district where he lives, should apply to this case as much as to any other. I was very much interested in the discussion between Scottish Members. It always interests me as one of the few Englishmen in the House to listen to these discussions. I would like very much to know what is the proper name of the Court, of the sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh? It is only right that the House should be put in possession of the facts of the case by the Lord Advocate, but I am sorry to say that he addressed the House with a lack of bravery that was shocking to see. He never told us a single word as to what this important Court was, and one might leave the House as ignorant in regard to it as one came in.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI think that what I said cannot have been quite clear. It was entirely on the saving of costs and the question of expediency. The point was that if the College had two or three persons in default, this power to go to the one court would enable all those cases to be dealt with in one place on one day, and so save the expense of taking the Secretary and other officers, and probably two or three witnesses, to each of the various places in which the members concerned might happen to be. I recognise the weight of what the Lord Advocate says, but, although what I have said does not seem to weigh with him, I am convinced that there would be a great saving of costs to the College.
§ Major M. WOODI should like to say a word in answer to the observations of the hon. and learned Member. He bases his case on the saving of expense. If I believed that there would be any substantial saving of expense, I would not have put forward this Amendment, but 803 I cannot see that there will. If there is no substantial case to be tried, there will be no witnesses. Again, the hon. and learned Member seems to suggest that the case cannot be heard without the appearance of the Secretary and a number of officials. The Bill, however, provides that documentary evidence shall be sufficient, and all that will be necessary will be for the secretary of the College to instruct the local solicitor, and send him the documents and certificates, which will be produced in court. There will be no necessity to send an official to Scotland or Ireland, as the case may be. Even if there were, in the case, say, of a veterinary surgeon resident in Caithness, he would have to come down to Edinburgh, and the officials, if they have to go at all, would have to go to Edinburgh. It would be much better, if it is merely a question of expense, that the man should either come down from Caithness to London, or the London people should go to Caithness, rather than that each should go to half way. I am certain that there is no real saving of expense, and it is introducing an entirely new principle for no reason at all. I am quite prepared to accept the amended form suggested by the Lord Advocate.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI think that, in view of the general feeling that has been expressed, it would be wise if my hon. and learned Friend were to accept this Amendment. It is rather difficult to follow, but I understand that it only applies to Scotland.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThe Amendment which is now before the House is to leave out the words "office may for the time being be situate," and to insert instead thereof the words "member may be ordinarily resident," and the question put from the Chair was "that the words 'office may for the time being be situate' stand part." That applies merely to England and Wales, and does not touch Scotland, which is dealt with in a subsequent Amendment which the hon. Member said he was going to move.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. That being so, the difficulty I felt has been removed. Otherwise, we should have been applying this system in Scotland, of allowing the pursuing to take place in 804 the court where the member was ordinarily resident, whereas in England we should have to go to the court where the head office of the College is situated. There is still one difficulty It is proposed to leave out the words, "or domiciled" in respect to Scotland, but those words appear also, a little earlier in the sub-section, with regard to England and Wales, and the same would apply there. I do not know whether it is possible now, under the rules of Order, by leave of the House, to go back to that point.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall)The point could be met by withdrawing the present Amendment, which has been put from the Chair. Unless that be done we could not go back.
Sir A. BOSCAWENIf the hon. and gallant Member withdraws the Amendment now, will he be able to move it later? Otherwise he will have lost the opportunity.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERYes.
§ Mr. BARTLEY DENNISSI do not think it necessary to withdraw the Amendment, because the words "or domiciled" are merely surplusage, and do not put difficulty in anybody's way in regard to England.
§ Mr. MORISONI think those words do introduce a little difficulty, because a man might be ordinarily resident in England and domiciled in Scotland, and might be sued in either court. The principle is that the man should be sued in the court where his ordinary residence is, and I think that should be adopted.
§ Sir W. WHITLAI have not had time to put in a written Amendment, but I wish to direct the attention of the House to the provision with regard to suing in the Civil Bill Court of Dublin. You have before the House at the present time—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERWe shall come to that later on.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "or domiciled" ["ordinarily resident or domiciled in England or Wales"].—[Mr. Morison.]
§ Major M. WOODI beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "office may for the time being be situ- 805 ate," and to insert instead thereof the words "member may be ordinarily resident".
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI desire to draw the special attention of the Lord Advocate and of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to this. I quite agree with the Mover of the Amendment, and with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) that in the ordinary course you sue a defendant in the court in the place where he lives, and primâ facie, therefore, that would have been right. The only question is one of expediency and the saving of money. On which side does the advantage lie? The case of the solicitor to the college—and my experience would confirm it—is that if this Amendment is accepted and this veterinary college is compelled to go to different County Courts in England, Scotland, or Wales for the purpose of recovering one guinea, that will be irrecoverable, and you are going by the powers which you have given by the Bill to make it compulsory on every registered member of the College of Veterinary Surgeons to pay his guinea. At present the college is getting these guineas paid voluntarily by such members as choose to pay. A great many do not pay because it is a voluntary payment. If this Amendment is accepted and the college, whose head office and only office is in London, is compelled to go to various courts in the country where the defendant resides, the money will become irrecoverable. In the ordinary way there would be very few cases if the college had the power of enforcing it. Of course, there is a debt which can be enforced. But if you make it common knowledge that the debt is unenforceable, it comes in very much the same category as it is now, a voluntary payment, and the loss to the college will be almost incalculable. I feel the weight of what the Lord Advocate has said now that he is backed up by another Member of the Government. It is only in the interests of this college and of veterinary surgery that I take up this attitude. I ask them to reconsider whether it is not true that they are going to make this debt practically irrecoverable. If on the other hand the Bill stands as it is the 806 whole of the Scotch cases, if there are any, or the whole of the Irish cases and the whole of the English cases will be put down on one day, the solicitor and the officer of the Veterinary College and the necessary witnesses can all attend on one day and these cases can be heard, and the general saving will be very considerable indeed. If on the other hand they have to go to the North of Scotland or the wilds of Ireland, the guinea will not be worth getting. I feel the weight of what has been said and I should be most willing to accede. If I am forced of course I shall accede. I do not want to put the House to the trouble of a division after what has been said. But I ask for reconsideration.
§ 2.0 P.M.
§ Colonel GREIGI am sure the hon. Member is rather exaggerating We all want to have the most effective and economic method of enforcing this right. It would be perfectly easy for the solicitor representing the college to instruct a local solicitor. In most instances it would not be necessary to have any oral evidence. It would be purely documentary evidence. Look at it from another point of view. If these cases are heard in a County Court or Sheriff Court in their own district, the whole of the circumstances will be admirable matter for the local press, whereas if they are sued in the central jurisdiction they may come up for a day's holiday and nothing more will be heard about the decision. Surely one summons, even in a district far removed from Edinburgh, in a local court will have far more effect than the system the hon. Member advocates.
§ Sir B. STANIERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Greig) has tried to point out how easy it would be for the college to instruct a solicitor to appear in some local court. In order to instruct the solicitor in a local court the Veterinary College would have to pay him to carry out the duties he is asked to do.
§ Major M. WOODJust as in London.
§ Sir B. STANIERThe payment would be in the neighbourhood of a guinea, therefore the college which is suing for a guinea has to pay the solicitor a guinea for doing the work. Would not that break down the whole value of the Bill?
§ Major M. WOODIt has to do that in any case.
§ Sir B. STANIERI believe the weight of this point is so great that the college would be a loser rather than a gainer.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONThe chief opposition to this has come from the Scottish Members, and I cannot understand why a college should be put in an entirely different position from anyone else who is suing. Hon. Members representing English constituencies have not very much interest in this, and we have, because we are very jealous of our customs and practices in Scotland. If a college can only be successful by suing its members for its guineas, it is high time some other method was tried of putting it on a sound footing. But this is a very dangerous precedent. I do not see why a college should be put in an entirely different position from any other creditor. Here you have a precedent, it might very well be argued, that the case of a poor debtor in any part of the country should be tried where the firm has its headquarters. We ought not to allow this to be introduced. If a college can only maintain itself by suing its members for its guineas, I am afraid there is something else required. I appeal to the hon. Member that if he pays no attention to Welsh or English sentiments he will at least pay some attention to Scottish sentiment on this question and not introduce something that is entirely contrary to our universal practice.
§ Mr. MORISONI appreciate what has been said by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill and I quite agree that if a case is brought and the secretary and some officials of the society has to be brought to court it certainly is more economical to have these cases brought in London than to have them in separate courts. This is a class of case in which there is not only no defence but which in the great majority of cases no defence is statable. It is only in the very exceptional cases that you will have any witnesses. Therefore, the problem which the House has to consider, if it is to regard this question as one of economy, is whether it is much more economical to have to take a decree in the Sheriff Court at Edinburgh, and then have that decree sent down to the district where the defender resides in order to be 808 enforced and the execution carried out, or whether it is more economical to take the decree in the Sheriff Court of the district where the defender is resident, and have it enforced and executed there. If the question is looked upon in that light, I suggest that, as regards the question of expense, the practice in Scotland is in favour of the latter. I cannot speak for the practice in England, but it seems to me that in Scotland at all events the ordinary rule could be applied and the Amendment suggested could be accepted. With regard to the expense in regard to agents, where you employ an agent in Edinburgh or in Caithness the statutory fee is 3s. 6d., or something like that.
§ Mr. MORISONYes.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI quite agree that it is far more convenient for the College to be able to sue in its own Court and to save up fifty summonses and go down one day and do the work. The balance of convenience is in favour of the ordinary rule of law that a man is entitled to be sued in the district where he lives. It is made as easy as possible for the College of Veterinary Surgeons to sue without bringing any evidence at all.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYThat is in undefended cases.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONSub-section (3) provides that
In and such proceedings a certificate purporting to be under the hand of the secretary of the college setting forth that a member's subscription is due and unpaid shall be primâ facie evidence thereof and of a member's default in payment.Therefore, all they have to do is not to employ a solicitor at all, but go to what is called a default summons or a pink paper summons in which the person simply swears that the money is due and he annexes this letter to his declaration, which can be done by a man in London and sent down to the local County Court, and unless the defendant puts in a notice that he has a defence the matter will go through without any trouble at all. That is in undefended cases, which will be 99 per cent. of the cases. In the hundredth case the defendant puts in a defence. He does that at his own risk, because if he goes before the Court and loses the Court may make an order for him to 809 pay all the costs. If, on the other hand, he wins his case, it is only fair that he should not be put to the expense of coming to London to contest the case. If he has a substantial claim he is entitled to urge to have it brought in his own district so that he shall not incur unnecessary expenses. It is only in that one hundredth case that the College will have to employ a local solicitor. As this is a matter upon which there is a difference of opinion it is a question on which the House might be asked fairly to divide. I am in favour of the Amendment.
§ Sir B. STANIERIf the college puts in a summons in Edinburgh for the payment of a subscription from a veterinary surgeon, could that be sent off to a Court in Caithness and could it be taken up by the Court in Caithness by instructions from Edinburgh? If that could be done it would meet the point of the hon. Member opposite and would meet a good deal of the points of the college.
§ Mr. MORISONNo, Sir. The procedure in Scotland is simple. All you require to do in the case of a defendant who is a defaulter would be to take out a summons in the Sheriff Court where the defendant is ordinarily resident. That would be the same in Edinburgh as in every other centre. Then a summons is served, and if as would happen in the great majority of cases the defendant did not appear, the decree goes by default and there would be no necessity for witnesses, documents, or anything of the kind. It is just as convenient to do that in Caithness in the great majority of cases as in Edinburgh. As regards expense, if you had the Clause as the promoter of the Bill wants it you would get a decree in Edinburgh and then take it up to Caithness in order to enforce it.
§ Mr. R. MCLARENThe hon. Member in charge of the Bill, as well as the hon. Member for Aberdeen who has moved the Amendment, are wanting to arrive at the same conclusion but by different methods. It has been said that documentary evidence would be sufficient in the case of anyone being sued in Court, but I am not sure whether any sheriff in Scotland would give a decree in an undefended case unless there were witnesses there to prove the fact.
§ Major M. WOODIt is provided in the Bill.
§ Mr. MCLARENI am rather afraid that we in Scotland would be rather jealous of doing anything that would interfere with the sheriff's jurisdiction. If the Lord Advocate can satisfy me that documentary evidence would be taken as proof in connection with a case, then it is a different question. I think the House ought to know exactly where we stand in the matter. If in undefended cases it was necessary to travel down, say, from London, the expense would be serious.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI do not propose to go to a division. I have done my best to convince the House.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3), leave out the words "or domiciled" ["resident or domiciled in Scotland suck debt"].—[Major or M. Wood.]
§ Major M. WOODI beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "of the sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh."
§ Mr. ROBERTSONI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir B. STANIERI appeal to the representative of the Scottish Office to give some explanation of this.
§ Mr. MORISONThe office of sheriff in Scotland is of a totally different character from the office of sheriff in England. The sheriff in Scotland is one of the King's executive officers, and he has in his courts jurisdiction to decide all financial questions, even to an unlimited amount. He has also very large jurisdiction in questions relating to real estate. Each county has a sheriff. Most of the sheriffs have deputies who are called sheriff-substitutes. The sheriffdom consists of the particular county or of the counties that are joined together. There is one sheriffdom in Scotland known as the sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles. There is only one sheriff in that sheriffdom, but there are three or four sheriff-substitutes, who sit in different places. If you wish to raise an action in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court the way in which to describe the court in which the case is raised is "the sheriff court of the sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh." The Bill gave the correct description as it was originally framed. There is no other 811 sheriffdom in Edinburgh or in Scotland so far as the Lothians and Peebles are concerned. We have a sheriff of Fife, of Ross and Cromarty, and of Caithness, and so on, and they have all got their sheriff-substitutes. If the clause in the Bill contains the words "sheriff court," that is all that is required.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI am very much indebted for the illuminating explanation of the Lord Advocate. After what has been done with regard to England, it seems to me that we are bound to accept the suggestions with regard to Scotland.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSIf to stop at the words "Sheriff Court" is sufficient definition of the particular court in which this matter may be tried, I should like to know whether there are any other Sheriff Courts besides this one, and would they have proper jurisdiction?
§ Mr. MORISONThe Sheriff Court is a court constituted by statute and there are provisions in that statute arranging rules. If the College takes out a summons, the Sheriff Court has jurisdiction if the person is "ordinarily resident."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Major M. WOODI beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "or domiciled" ["domiciled in Ireland"]. A man's residence is not necessarily the same as his domicile. He might be domiciled in Scotland and resident in England.
§ Major Sir KEITH FRASERMight I ask for a definition of the words "domiciled in Scotland"?
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Major M. WOODI beg to move, to leave out the words "in the Civil Bill Court in Dublin" and to insert instead thereof the words "in the county court of the district in which said member is ordinarily resident."
§ Mr. ROBERTSONI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir W. WHITLALast week we had before the House a Bill to establish a Parliament in Dublin and a Parliament in Belfast. How is it possible for these words to stand in the Bill? We will have a separate judicature, and the writ in Belfast will not run in Dublin. There is 812 also mention of a Veterinary College in Belfast. You have made a change for Scotland and it is absolutely essential that you should make this change to the county court as regards the island of Ireland, which is now to be divided into two. I support the Amendment.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI quite agree that the Bill must be made symmetrical, but is the County Court the right tribunal?
§ Sir W. WHITLAI have no legal knowledge, but I understand the County Court system in Ireland is similar to that in England.
§ Major M. WOODI have no legal qualifications as regards Ireland, but I submitted this Amendment to a solicitor Member from Ireland, and he said it was right.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONWe were told in the case of Scotland that the expense would be small, and perhaps we could be told what would be the exact procedure to recover money in this way in Ireland. Is there any default procedure in Ireland, as, if not, it would be a great charge? My own idea is that you have got no such court procedure in Ireland as you have in England.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSI feel in a very great difficulty over this Amendment. When we were discussing the question of the Court in Scotland, we had the great advantage of the presence of the Lord Advocate, and I think it would help us in coming to a conclusion on this question if some Law Officer for Ireland were present to enlighten us. I do not know whether I should be in order, but I should rather like to move the adjournment of the Debate in order to secure the attendance of a Law Officer.
Mr. DENNISSEvery lawyer knows that the system of County Courts in Ireland is almost entirely the same as that in England.
§ Sir R. WOODSI beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned".
It is quite clear to me that there is no one in the House at present who is able to speak in any way authoritatively on the point raised by this Amendment, and I therefore think we should adjourn the discussion in order to secure the attendance of some of the Law Officers from Ireland.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI beg to second the Motion.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI hope the Motion will not be accepted. It is very important that we should get this Bill, as there is general agreement on its main principles. It is merely a technical point that has arisen in connection with the jurisdiction in Ireland, consequential upon the changes which have been made in respect of England and Scotland. If there is any real difficulty, and if we are unable to clear it up here to-day, it will be quite possible to put it right in another place. In any case, it would be most undesirable that a Bill of this sort, which is really wanted in the interests of veterinary science, should come to an end and not be carried to-day on a technical point. I hope, therefore, the House will resist this Motion.
§ Sir R. WOODSI beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.