§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), in asking their Lordships to read the Vexatious Actions Bill a Second time, said the practice of bringing absolutely wanton and vexatious actions by persons of no responsibility whatever on every conceivable subject, had now become such a scandal that the time had arrived when some sort of stop should be put to such proceedings. The misfortune was that these actions were apt to create an example and to multiply themselves, and, although a particular plaintiff might be estopped, he would have many successors, and the practice would go on undiminished. The difficulty was to have some process by which they could stop useless, wanton, and mischievous actions and, at the same time, not place unnecessary obstruction in their Courts against the bringing of causes by those of Her Majesty's subjects who really had a grievance. The object sought to be secured by the Bill was that there should be some protection to the persons sued. It was quite true that in such cases as those to which he was directing attention, verdicts followed for the defendants, but it appeared to be forgotten that they had to appear to defend themselves, and to instruct counsel, and the result was that though they succeeded, they succeeded at a loss to themselves. It was to put an end to that wanton and vexatious course of procedure that this Bill had been devised. The list he had did not go further back than 1891, but that was quite sufficient for his purpose. It opened on the 1st of January, when Lord Esher was summoned in the Queen's Bench for damages for slander. The action was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious. The other actions were as follow:—19th January, Mr. S. L. Simeon, Clerk in the House of Commons, damages for neglect of duty, proceedings stayed until costs paid; May, 1892, the Speaker, damages for refusing to present petition, dismissed with costs on appeal from Master's order; 13th July, 1892, the Speaker, at Westminster County Court, £1 13s. 8d., cost of copy affidavit made for defendant at his request, judgment for defendant with costs; 27th July, 1892, Mr. Simeon, Brompton County Court, damages for trespass under fi fa, non-suit with costs; 1411 25th January, 1893, Mr. A. K. Stephenson, Westminster County Court, £1 1s. for work and labour done for defendant, judgment for defendant with costs; 28th July, 1893, the Speaker, Clerkenwell County Court, work and labour done, judgment for defendant with costs; 12th December, 1893, Mr. A. T. Hare, City of London Court, work and materials, paid into court; 9th January, 1894, Mr. A. T. Hare, City of London Court, work and materials, case struck out, plaintiff not appearing; 14th February, 1894, Speaker's butler, Clerkenwell County Court, damages for assault, judgment for defendant with costs; 8th March, 1894, the Speaker, Westminster County Court, damages for assault committed by defendant's servant with defendant's approval—first the servant and then the servant's master—judgment for defendant with costs; 25th April, 1894, the Speaker, Sir A. K. Stephenson and Mr. Hare, damages for corruptly and maliciously conspiring and combining amongst themselves to obstruct and defeat the course of justice, judgment for defendant with costs; 24th May, 1894, the Serjeant-at-Arms, Westminster County Court, damages for assault, judgment for defendant with costs; 14th June, 1894, Mr. Hare, Mr. Gardner and Sir A. K. Stephenson, Clerkenwell County Court, £1 damages for corruptly and maliciously conspiring, judgment for defendant with costs; 28th June, 1894, the Speaker, damages for refusing to present petition, judgment for defendant with costs; 12th July, 1894, Chief Inspector Horsley, £1 1s. damages for assault, judgment for defendant with costs; 25th July, 1894, the Lord Chancellor, Westminster County Court, damages for refusing to present petition, judgment for defendant with costs; 8th December, 1894, the Lord Chancellor, £1 1s. for neglecting to attend the Court pursuant to summons on the 25th July, 1894, struck out, petitioner not appearing; November, 1894, Lord Halsbury, Mr. Mackenzie and Mr. Graham, High Court of Justice, £1,000 damages for not appointing trial of petitions, dismissed as frivolous and vexatious; 19th February, 1895, the same defendants, damages for refusing to present petition, judgment 1412 for defendants with costs; 4th March, 1895, the same defendants, an appeal from Order of 19th February, 1895, and for new trial, appeal dismissed; 25th March, 1895, Lord Herschell and Lord Esher, damages £1 for refusing to attend on subpœna on 19th February, 1895, and obstructing the course of justice, judgment for defendants with costs; 10th April, 1895 (hearing 9th May, 1895), Lords Herschell and Esher and Judge Lumley Smith, Clerkenwell County Court, damages £1 for conspiring to obstruct justice by depriving plaintiff on 19th February, 1895, of his right to examine Lords Herschell and Eslieron subpœna, dismissed with costs; 22nd May, 1895, Judges Lumley Smith and Meadows White, motion for rehearing of last mentioned action, dismissed with costs; 4th July, 1895, the Prince of Wales, Sir E. Maunde Thompson and Mr. R. Garnett, Clerkenwell County Court, damages for maliciously refusing to renew plaintiff's ticket to British Museum Reading Room, judgment for defendants with costs. The list of actions he had read as having been brought by one person against a number of other persons—cases of a vexatious and frivolous kind—made out a case, he believed, for the interference of their Lordships' House. The object of the Bill was to prevent wanton and vexatious proceedings of this kind. It was proposed by the Bill that the conduct of a person engaging in wanton and vexatious litigation and not paying the necessary costs should be brought to the attention of the Attorney-General, and that the Attorney-General might, in his discretion, apply to the High Court of Justice, who might then make an Order that no process should in future be issued in the person's behalf without leave obtained in the High Court for that purpose. While the interests of the public and of citizens who had good cause of complaint were sufficiently protected by the provisions of the Bill, he thought the time had arrived when persons should be protected from groundless and vexatious proceedings and the infliction of the costs attending them. He therefore moved that the Bill be read a Second time.
§ LORD HERSCHELLagreed with his noble and learned Friend that some Measure of this kind was necessary, and 1413 he was satisfied that, while the Bill gave protection against wanton and vexatious action, it placed no obstruction in the way of persons who had real cause of action.
§ Read 2a (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.