§ LORD BEAUMONTbegged to ask the noble Lord (Lord Brougham), who had 828 charge of the County Courts Further Extension Bill, what course he intended to pursue with reference to one point, which had not been alluded to in former debates on the Bill, but which appeared to him to make a dangerous alteration in the law, and which, therefore, he wished explained? He found that by the 16th clause, it was to be enacted that either party, who should be dissatisfied with the determination of the County Court Judge in point of law, in any case, whether tried by jury or not, might appeal to the Superior Courts. Now, the effect of this would be to give a power of appeal in cases less than 20l., and virtually to do away with the advantages of the original Act: for by the 13 & 14 Vict., a party who might be dissatisfied with the decision of a County Court on a point of law, might appeal; but that only applied to cases involving sums between 20l. and 50l. He wanted to know what was the intention of the noble Lord, for he considered that this power of appeal in such cases would be totally destructive of the efficacy of the County Courts. If the learned Lord persisted in the clause, he (Lord Beaumont) would move to expunge it; but if the noble Lord agreed with him as to the danger of retaining it, he would willingly leave the amendment of the Bill to the learned Lord.
LORD BROUGHAMwas glad of the opportunity of making some remarks upon the Bill, and thanked the noble Lord, though he had not before known his intention of asking the question. Of the two courses open to him with reference to these County Courts, one was to bring in a general Bill consolidating in one Act—which would have been a matter of the utmost convenience—all the Acts relating to, and all the portions of Acts bearing upon County Courts, and to take that opportunity of correcting any errors that had crept into the Acts of 1846 and 1850, and into other Acts, or sections of Acts, bearing upon the same subject. Whatever mistakes experience had shown to have been committed, would thus have been removed; what omissions it had exposed, would have been supplied; and what additions it had proved desirable, would have been made. In short, a variety of improvements on the original system of 1833, 1846, and 1850, would have been thus accomplished. But to this there were two objections: the first, that it would be desirable to wait for still further experience; the second, that there were other 829 measures besides this in contemplation, which, if they were carried, would bear materially on the County Court jurisdiction. Hence the delay as to that general Act. But the other course, and which he had pursued, was to obtain at all events, and immediately, the benefits of the present Bill, and which he had therefore brought in as nearly as possible in the same shape in which it came out of the other House of Parliament, as in that form it might be said to have the sanction of both Houses and of the Government. It was in the other House of Parliament that the clause to which the noble Lord alluded had been inserted. It was not his, for he was anxious to keep the law to what it was before, and to confine the appeal to cases of between 20l. and 50l.