BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 21 February 1865)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

—My Lords, in rising to present to your Lordships a Bill to confer a certain limited jurisdiction in equity in the county courts of England and Wales, I have to state that these courts have at present a jurisdiction not extending beyond the authority exercised by the courts of common law. Your Lordships are aware that there is at present a great and marked difference between the subjects that are properly within the jurisdiction of the courts of equity and those which come under that of the courts of common law. A great number of matters in which the poorer classes are materially 487 interested do not come within the range of the jurisdiction of the County Courts as at present established, and therefore frequently there is a denial of justice in such cases. One of the most frequent instances of the denial of justice under the present system arises in this way. Suppose a man in humble circumstances dies intestate; his property may amount to £120, or even £150, and he may leave a widow and children; and frequently the widow is the step-mother of the children. It constantly happens that disputes arise among the family with regard to the division of such small estates, and, unfortunately, when they do arise, the only possibility of their being determined and the amount equitably distributed under the existing system is by resort to the Court of Chancery. Now, although the expenses of litigation in the Court of Chancery have of late years been much diminished, yet when cases of such small amount arise they cannot be determined in a court of equity unless they are brought to London, which requires the agency of solicitors residing in London and also of others in the country. All the necessary communications require the concurrence of these different solicitors, and all matters which demand proof have to be proved by evidence collected in the country and transmitted to London. The result of this system is that in such cases as I have supposed of a small amount of property, if there be injustice, that injustice cannot be redressed—and consequently these poor families suffer a denial of justice—because there is at present no tribunal which can take cognizance of the case because it does not involve sufficient property to pay the expenses incurred. Another source of great injustice and inconvenience to the poorer classes, and which amounts also to a denial of justice to them, arises in this way:—A dispute may take place between two tradesmen in a country town who are in partnership, which may lead to a desire to dissolve the partnership and wind up their affairs by having an account taken and applying the property in payment of the joint debts. Now, that cannot be done by the County Courts under the present system, the only tribunal available for such a purpose being the Court of Chancery; and the expenses of that court are so great as to prevent resort to it in small cases; and it practically, therefore, amounts to a denial of justice. There are many other cases—such, for instance, as small mortgages—involving the necessity 488 of a speedy appeal to some court where the proceedings are not so expensive nor the process so slow as of necessity characterizes the superior tribunals. There again is an urgent necessity for some cheap and speedy remedy, to be administered by tribunals which ought to be at the door of the poor man, and to which he might resort in an easy and simple manner. I will not weary your Lordships by adding other instances in support of the principle of the Bill, because I believe the necessity of the measure to be generally admitted. The measure I now present to Parliament formed a part of a larger scheme laid before this House last Session. My anxiety was excited very much at that time, from observing the great number of persons committed to prison by the process of the County Courts—a process which appears to me to be injurious to the greatest possible extent, and which is founded upon a system which leads poor men into habits of great improvidence, makes them the slave, in a great measure, of the shopkeeper, and obliges them to pay a higher amount for the goods which they have to purchase for their families. My Lords, I am sorry to say that my proposal of last year excited, as your Lordships will remember, very grave opposition throughout the country, showing how extensive and deeply rooted was the system of giving credit, and the large amount of profit which was derived by shopkeepers from the present system, in consequence of the power which the County Courts gave them to deal with these poor men, and though I felt convinced that it would have been a great benefit to the poor man, your Lordships will recollect that I gave up that Bill. But I was induced to do so in a great measure because I had succeeded in otherwise making some alterations in the proceedings of County Courts which, at that time, I believed would result in much relief to the poor. I am happy to say that my anticipations in that respect have been realized, for I find that though the rules to which I refer were only made in the end of 1863, and did not come into operation till 1864, while the number of persons actually committed to prison in 1863 was 8,583, and in 1862 9,373, the number in 1864—I trust in a great measure, owing to the operation of the new rules—was only 6,428, being 2,155 less than the number in 1863. There is another alteration in the practice of the County Courts, which I propose to recommend 489 to the Judges of these Courts, and, though at first sight it may appear a trifling one, I think it is likely to be very beneficial in its operation. At present the order made by the County Court Judge may be carried into effect by a sale of the goods of the debtor, or by his imprisonment; but, in the first instance, it frequently occurs that a time is given for the payment of the debt by monthly instalments. Now, how does this work? Let us suppose the case of a man in humble circumstances—a labourer for instance—who has been ordered to pay a sum in that way—say four shillings a month, which is one shilling a week. It may probably happen that if he has got a shilling, or two or three shillings, in his pocket which he has been saving up against the end of the month, when the instalment is to be paid, some temptation may arise, some emergency may occur, which he is unable to restrain himself from yielding to, and not being in a position to pay the next instalment he is sent to prison for non-obedience to the order. I propose to recommend to the County Court Judges to introduce, as far as they can do so, the practice of ordering the instalments to be paid weekly instead of monthly; and I have every hope that the result of this change will be to induce the poor man to obey the order, and so to diminish the number of commitments. There is another proposal which I sought to give effect to in the Bill of last year, but which is not in the measure now before your Lordships' House. Your Lordships are aware that the term after which debts are barred by the Statute of Limitations is at present six years. I thought that term too long in the case of small County Court debts, and by the Bill of last year I proposed to reduce that term to one year. That, however, gave rise to great complaint. I hope to introduce some general measure with the object of reducing the present term, and fixing it at two years instead of one year—the proposal of last Session. There is another proposal, with reference to actions in County Courts, which I intend to make one of the subjects of a separate measure—namely, that actions shall not be brought for the score of ale or other liquor consumed in a public-house. As to the Bill which I am now about to lay upon your Lordships' table I hope it may pass through Parliament, for I feel satisfied that it will improve our County Court system, and remove from it 490 some of those imperfections which are so much complained of, and which press with severity on the humbler classes.