SECOND READING. (Hansard, 12 April 1866)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR,
in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it had come up from the other House of Parliament, and was intended to amend the law relating to County Courts. It referred to two functionaries of these courts—the treasurer and the high bailiff. At present the finances of the County Courts were managed in this way—the fees were all paid to the registrars, who accounted for them to the treasurers, and the treasurers to the Treasury. There having been, un- 1116 fortunately, occasional defalcations, the matter had been looked into by the Treasury, and they had come to the conclusion that the whole machinery of treasurers was unnecessary. That machinery had been introduced into the system of County Courts because they were considered in some respect of the nature of the old courts of conscience, and courts of regret, in which the pecuniary affairs were all managed by treasurers. Experience, however, had shown that the registrar might just as well account directly to the Treasury as indirectly through the treasurer, and the first clauses of the Bill accordingly proposed to substitute such direct communication for the present intermediate system. The latter clauses of the Bill related to the high bailiffs, who stood in much the same relation to the County Courts as the High Sheriffs to the ordinary Courts, their only duty being to execute the processes, and that was always done by means of a subordinate officer. In some cases a high bailiff was appointed for a whole county; in others there was a high bailiff for each court, and in others the high bailiff was appointed for two or three counties. But the fact was the work was all done by subordinates. The high bailiff got a salary of £700, and in some instances £800 and £900 a year, and he employed a deputy, who did the whole duty. He found no fault with the high bailiffs for that, but though some of the County Court Judges were opposed to the change, the maintenance of the office was attended with great expense and was unnecessary. The appointment was a very comfortable one, but still its abolition would be a saving to the country of £34,000 per annum. For that reason the Bill had received the unanimous approbation of the other House, and he trusted it would also be unanimously agreed to by their Lordships.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, his attention had only been drawn to this Bill an hour or two previously, when he received letters from two County Court Judges on the subject, and he wished to state to their Lordships the objections to the Bill contained in those letters. He understood that four years ago a proposal was made to abolish the office of high bailiff. Upon that occasion the opinions of the County Court Judges were taken on the subject, and, though some of them were in favour 1117 of the proposal, the majority were opposed to it. With respect to the proposal contained in the measure now before their Lordships, no objection was made to the abolition of the office of treasurer, and thus getting rid of the official who stood between the registrar and the Treasury. The case of the office of high bailiff, however, presented some little difficulty, for he was informed that the registrar and the high bailiff acted as mutual checks upon each other, and that if the office were abolished entirely new rules and regulations must be made for the County Courts, in order to prevent underhand work. With regard to the allegation that the office of high bailiff was a sinecure, he had been told that the office of registrar was a sinecure also. He knew nothing of the subject himself, but he had felt it his duty to bring before their Lordships the statements which had been made to him, in order that the matter might be properly and carefully considered.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, the registrars could not in any sense be said to hold sinecures. Some of them, it was true, had very little business to do; but still they were required to attend every sitting of the Court.