The Express.
London, England, 1862-05-07 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(THIS DAY.)

The Srmanwri took the chair at 12 o'clock.
The ilwastead and Eps Dowse Railway 8111 eras read
g third time and
Several Wastes were presented spinet the re. revised
educatiou code.
COUNTY COURT PROCEDURE BILL.
_ .

Mr. INIAHON moved the second reading of this bill,
explaining that it consisted only of eleven clauses, em-
bracing principally amendments which had been sug-
gested by persons of practical experience in county court
procedure tending generally more to assimilate the practice
In these courts as to the rules of evidence, and the power to
raise questions of law for the purpose of appeal to the
practice of the superior courts. There was another pro-
vision, and if the bill evoked opposition at all, he appre-
hended it would be upon this, vu., for repealing that
death of the County Courts Act which made the
decision of the judge in CASCO under 20/. as absolute
as that of a Turkish I:whew, and which enabled
hini. if the parties did not appear, or the order of the
court, made perhaps on ex parte statements, was not
obrpol in regard to payment, to commit the defendant
over and over again for the same debt. He could see no
fe11...0n why there should be one law for claims under 201.
and another for debts above that amount, and he proposed
therefore to give, within certain limits, • power of
mtroal against the decision of the judge. He proposed
slice to allow equitable defences to be set up in answer to
plaints where there was no defence in law, as in the supe.
nor courts. There were other clauses of less importance,
Minded merely to simplify the practice, but those he had
described were the main provisions.
The ATTORNEY•OKNEHAL thought, it would be in-
es redient to proceed further with the bill. The county
courts stood upon a different footing to the superior courts,
and the opinion of the county court judges was adverse to
the measure proposed. Experience had shown that
none of its provisions were necessary, and there
was only one clause, the 6th, which be thought the
hose would, under any circumstances, be disposed to
atm. As to the power of commitment by county court
juil,tes, alluded to by the hon. and learned member, he saw
reason for interfering with it. But the provisions of the
Common Law Procedure Act might now be made available
to the class of cases referred to ; and that explanation die-
,4l of several clauses of the hon. and learned mem-
de{s bill. Claus 9of the bill was in operation in
all the county courts in England, by rules which the
county court judges, with the concurrence of the Lord
Chancellor, were empowered to make, and the two next
clauses followed in the same way. The iuterpleader jrvis-
diatom enacted by one of the clauses, the county court
judges saw no necessity for, besides which it was opposed to
that general view on which the county courts were
founded, and might entail considerable expense and incon-
venience upon the litiganta. The jurisdiction to enter
equitable defences was equally objectionable. It was rarely
ever resorted to in the superior courts, anal was obviously
inconvenient to refer to the courts constituted for wholly
different purposes questions of equity. It was found in
practice that when such questions arose they
were referred to the ordinary courts of equity,
instead of the parties availing themselves of the
powers conferred by the Common Law Procedure Act.
The principle of the bill was opposed to that of the
County Courts Act, which was to withdraw from the
',term courts, and so to exempt the parties from the ex-
prom and delay of proceeding in those courts, claims
under a certain amount. To the sixth clause, were it, con-
tained in a general bill for establishing • county court
junoliction, he should not object, but it, was
undesirable in matters not of preening importance
to legislate piecemeal, and therefore he opposed that
rho. It was possible some amendment was needed in
the county court practices, and if th the representation of
the judges of those courts would receive due attention. lie
moved that the bill be read • second time that day six
_mouths.

Mr. HENLEY m.rvested one point in which amendment
em required. He alluded to the position In which the lower
dames were placed under the county court law in regard
:o imprisonment for debt. Practically the recent changes
ci the bankruptcy law exempted persons of the middle
and higher classes from debt, but as to the poor they were
L'Ae to imprisonment, not for fraud, but if they did not or
muld not pay when the judge ordered them to pay. The
remit was that we had now in our gaols many persons be-
bulging to the humbler claws who were confined for debt
and not for fraud, while their families were thrown upon
the parish. He hoped the attention of the government
would be directed to this anomaly in the law.
Mr. AYRTON joined in the recommendation.
Sir G. GREY admitted that the point was one desers:ng
the consideration of the government, sad promised that the
subject should be seem to.
Mr. M'MAHON replied, observing that if they were
to depend upon the suggestions of the county court judges
for improvements in county court position, any measure d
reform so based would not be worth the paper on which it
was printed.
After a few words from Mr. VAICS, the second reading
of the bill was negatived.
SMOKE NUISANCE (METROPOLIS) AC AMEND.
BILL.

The house then went intoooinr;ilitee on this bill.
I Left sittiag.l