§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in rising to call the attention of the House to the excessive fees levied on suitors in the Civil Courts of Bengal; and to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, if Louis Ramay, a Frenchman who was imprisoned because he was unable to pay the costs, about £300, of a suit for his inheritance against the administrator, which was decided against him, was still in prison, he would order his release; and if he had no objection to lay Sir Richard Garth's Minute on the Court Fees Bill, 1881, on the Table? said, that if he did not make a long speech he hoped it would not detract from the importance of the subject, and his noble Friend the Secretary of State was already acquainted with the figures. Up to 1867 the tax on suitors in Civil Courts amounted to one-fourth of the expenditure; now it amounted to nearly double the cost of the Civil Courts of Bengal. An initial fee of 475 rupees was levied on a suit for a bond for 10,000 rupees — that was to say, a one-and-twentieth part of the value. If the object of those heavy fees was to check litigation it did not succeed, for Sir Richard Garth pointed out that it had the effect of preventing cases being settled out of Court. In 1880, the Secretary of State for India was asked in the other House what sum the Government of India realized by this tax upon suitors over and above the expenses of the Court establishments? Lord Hartington, in reply, stated £45,000 as the sum realized. It appeared that that sum was arrived at in this way—the cost of all the Courts in India, both Civil and Criminal (British Burmah included), was deducted from the amount of the tax receipts. It was unjust that the Civil suitors of Bengal should be made to pay for the Criminal Courts of all India, for the maintenance of Criminal Courts was a primary duty of the Government, and was of equal interest to all the inhabitants of India. Sir Richard Garth, however, said that Civil suitors in India not only bore the burden of the Civil Courts, but of the Criminal Courts also, besides contributing, in addition, a large surplus, amounting probably to not less than £100,000, for the benefit of the general public. He would ask the Secretary of 1708 State if he could explain the discrepancy between these figures and those supplied to Lord Hartington; and if he would lay Sir Richard Garth's Minute on the Table? As to Louis Ramay, his father was a Frenchman, and at his death the administrator declared the son to be illegitimate, and refused him his inheritance. There were no printed reports of the hearing of the case, so he did not know on what grounds the administrator had prevailed; but, from what he had heard of the case, he thought Louis Ramay had been treated with injustice. But, besides the grievance of losing the inheritance he had looked forward to, he had been imprisoned, because he was unable to pay the heavy fees exacted by the Indian Government for fulfilling its duties to its subjects. That afternoon he had received a letter from Calcutta stating that Louis Ramay had been set at liberty; and if his noble Friend the Secretary of State had given the Indian Government a hint to that effect, he hoped he would say so.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the Secretary of State for India had no power in any case to order Louis Ramay's release; but if he was in prison for the reason alleged in the Question, he could obtain his release by declaring himself insolvent. This was a matter of ordinary law. As to the last paragraph of the Question, he was unable to lay Sir Richard Garth's Minute on the Table of the House, as it had not been officially transmitted to him. The subject of Court fees generally was under the consideration of the Government of India; but he would remind the noble Lord that the question was one of extreme difficulty, great care being requisite to avoid fixing the Court fees at a figure which would practically amount to a denial of justice; and, on the other hand, to guard against their lowness giving encouragement to the prevailing love of litigation. There were several questions to be considered, and they could only be properly determined by those who had practical knowledge of the Courts in India.