The Express.
London, England, 1850-05-03 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 3, 1850.

disposal of the The government had takes power to
pay them 1,2001. s par as • mazimum, but they bad le-
mimi a unrithi it lON, set masiamiew it weeleary fo
pay more the, 1,0001. • per for at AMIN as le parilmmed.
bred DUNCAN simperted lONS w iteamelty as a great
impenitent, sad oda that if libep mkooMett love respect-
able sad efSciest satvtatie, theyMtet Iltp them well.
Mr. AGLIONBY, who wan* soppirted the seesenn,
bogged et ties boa. premolar el the ammo to withdraw his
sebedtde of fees, whisk were larger thea as protest, sad by
being gradawed would be attended with great iooonvesissei,
' and throw additional responsibiiity upon the judges. If
they Lapsed additleael duties spout the Whom el ttiMo
spirts, it was their boandea duty to pay then amordlegly ;
bat they oaths to be paid by a salary, and net by Tess.
Mr. COCKBURN also avowed himself favenralik to the
bill, bat objected to the schadsle of lees, white he Loped the
honourable gentleman would withdraw.
Mr. FITZROY rid that faith had Sat been kept with
these judges, and all be asked was that they should give
them the madman whisk it was proposed to the them
before they threw aiditional ditties ea these. As It was the
wish of the his.. to adnpt the widen of the Attorney G
octal be would not offer any opposition to it, but ha did
think that a mots fitting compeasatiou should be awarded
to the judges
Sir G. GREY merely wished to say that what the bee.
✓eatlemas now stated about a breach of pramise on thu part
of the government towards these judges was sot mostly 1110 f.
root. Tba hon. gentleman having made the seam statement
to his (Sir G. Grey) in private he referred to the mooed' of
that hones and found that he had distinetly stated in &sawn
to • gambit that the maximum was to be considertul not
as the Axed anittaxt of salary but as a mavmam, and that
the amount of salary would be Bard by the govern-
ment according to circumstances. There was never

the slightest intimation given that the maximum amount of
salary would be •he amount fixed upon.
Mr. CARDWELL end they were goleg to give to the
Treasury the power of regulating these salaries, and did they
ever hest of a case of government hairiest such a power, and
the House of Commons interfering with their discretion, and
compelling them to increase the salaries?
Mr. ROEBUCK remarked that the salary of 1,0001. a
year for the judges wu in a great many cases quits a god-
send, and that they were exceedingly well paid. If there
were any ease is which it was proper that a larger salary
should be given, the Secretary of B:ate bad the power in his
hands.
Mr. HUME said they were new considering whether one
schedule or another should be adopted. They were all In
favour of the bill, but he thought that the scale of fees for
plain,. under 101. should be less in proportion than for
plaints above 101.
Bir 0. R. PECHELL thought the scale of allowances
for the travelling expenses of the judges was tco low. They
ought not to compel a judge to associate in the commercial
room with a bagman. Lords of the Admiralty, when they
lied, were not restricted to 15s. a day.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY should support
the payment of the officers by salaries instead of fees.
Lord D. STUART said this well not a question of taxing
the public, but there was a surplus of free, out
of which the salaries might be paid. If they pro-
reed so reosonsime, why did they out get rid of those
officers who did very little duty, hut had large salaries—
the treasurer? Ne. Government did not want to get rid
of them. They wished to I.r a rye the patronage. He
believed that in many instances the clerks had very little to
do, and he thought it would be well to join the two of
of treasurer end clerk.
Mr. COCKBURN said the operation of the proviso would
be, that government would have the power of paying by
salaries instead of by fees. New great ineqsalities
existed with regard to the emoluments of county court clerks.
Tome were 89 of them who received less that 601. a year
each ; 90 received between 501. and 1001.; 115 received be-
tween 10111. and 5001, and 27 above ; and of these 27
government had reduced 16 to 5001. a year. Now, it did
appear to him that clerk. of county courts ought cot to be
limited to a salary of 501. a yrar.
Mr. HUME thought the government were acting properly
iv not Lein, too hasty to give large ma'aries. With r. gird t
the treasurers, the government might have appointed 60, but
they had only appointed nine fur the whole of the country.
The consolidated food was not charged one farthing for the
treasurers' salaries.

.----- -----
Mr. AGLIONBY could not treat to the government to
increase the ulterior, it necessary, through uthutional

Mr. EVANS said that if the vju htes who had liberty to
practise, with their salary of 1,0001. • year, bad so algal
extra business forced on them that they could not practise
elsewhere, it was only fair that their salaries should be
increased If this was done, they might with great
advantage have • power in small casts smiler to • judge in
equity.
Sir 0. GREY repeated his statement as to the intentions
of government with respect to the salaries. He believed
that the judges had only practised in sone few instances, and
be nenied that they would have any claim to compensation
if • tditional duties were thrown upon th, m. It bad been
originally contemplited that their whole time would be
occupied in the duties of their office.
Mr. ROEBUCK said if the right hon. baronet was correct
as to these brine the terms of the appointment of the judges
by the Lard Chancellor, the qleation was plac..d on an
entirely differnit footing.
Sir G. GREY sail he had certainly understood from the
Lied Chancellor that, in conferring the appointments two
these gentlemen, he had intimated to them that the whole of
their time was to be at the disposal of the government. At
first they were to be paid by fees ; and an doubt, when the
fees were commuted into • salary of 1,0001., though this
might be an increase of Income in some cases, it bad been a
diminution in others. Still, no one had a right to complain,
as the commu.ation had taken place in virtue of a power
vested in the government by the original act, and was dis-
tinctly contemplated when the weevil appointments were
made. At present, he considered • salary of 1,0001. • year
was fully adequate.
Mr. AGLIONRY said he had 'always understood that the
terms of the appointment were different. He wished to ask
whether some of the judges had not given up offices of eon-
sidesable value to take the ju lgeships, which were then
paid by fees amounting in some cues to 1,4001. or 1,5001.

. .
Sir 0. GREY said there was no doubt the judges were
appointed, in the first instance, with a right to receive the
fees which parliament had sneezed to the operations of the
courts, but with the distinct intimation which had been
publicly stated over and over again in parliament, that at
the earliest possible moment payment by fees would be
ab dished and salaries substituted ; and it was in accordance
with that understanding that the alteration had been made.
Mr. W. CLAY thought it essential that the judge, should
not only be good men, but such as the public had confidence
in. He feared such men would not tartly be obtained,
after this bill passed, with the additional work which it
I would cast upon them.
' Mr. T. AGERTON was understood to say that he con-
ceived the whole time or the judges was to be devoted to
their dutiee. The magistrates of his county (Cheshire)
considered them liable to act as chairmen of the quarter
sessions. In these days of economy it was most desirable
that this should be the case.

Mr. MUNTZ thought the judges were amply paid with
1,000 l.• year. He would leave it to the government to
ratio the salaries if they thought proper.
Mr. BROTHERTON said there were many complaints of
the fees being excessive. He was glad the proposed scale
had been withdrawn.
Clause 2 was then agreed to, and clause 3 was struck out.
On the next clause—
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the clause as it stood
woad have the effect of giving the courts jurisdiction in the
residence of the plaintiff, instead of that of the defendant, as
heretofore. It was an important coterie's whether the altera-
tion would be productive of convenience. The provision had
bean considered with great care before it was inserted In the
original bill.
Mr. CROWDER said be should move the emission of
the clause. Nothing could ►e mans monstrous than that •
person living in Cornwall should have the power of com-
pelling a debtor who lived at York to appear in the
Cornwall Court. (Hear, hear.) He disapproved of the
whole principle of the bill, but had not the opportunity of
opposing it en the second reading.
Kr. FITZROY said he had introduced the clause with •
view to lave expense. It had been represented to him that
the laving ti the public would by very considerable; but he
would leave the clause in the hands of the committee.
Mr. MITCHELL saw no reason for considering the de-
fendant more than the plaintiff.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought the rule ought to be to lay the
venue where the contract was nude.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL said this was a very
simple rule, where the contract was made in writing; other-
wise the question became a very nice one ; it arose fre-
quently in the courts at Westminster, end was • very caw
Outsold one. The principle of the old bill was to give a
cheap remedy. On the whole he thought the best course
would be to strike out the clause, and give the party the
optic. of seise la the superior emir s.
Mr. ROEBUCK advised the hon. and learned gentleman
to give these roams the mine discretion as to costs as the
sup tior courts had.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that debtors might remove pur-
posely to avoid being sued. He would give the judges
power to decide whether • plaintiff should sue when he
resided, or should follow a defendant to his district.
Mr. COCKBURN would suggest that there could be no ob-
jection to giving to the judge in the defendant's district the
power to decide I. which court the case should be Vied.
After a few words from Mr. CARDWILL,
Mr. MITCHELL said that the judge should be allowed
the diacretion of deciding where the souon should be tried.
Mr. CROWDER (Meowd to the plaintiff bout/ compelled
to go • considerable distance—perhaps from Cornwall to
York—to ask the judge for permission to bring the action
where be himself resid. The judge must also in that CUM
decide upon the esparto statement of the plaintiff, which
would not be fair to the defendant.
Mr. HATCHELL said the greatest wrong and injury was
inflicted in Inland by the power which the plaintiff had of
bringing the defendant some 100 or 160 miles oa account of,
it may be, a very entail debt.
Mr. MULLINGS said that they had to decide in the pre-
sent owe where the balance of difficulty was very nearly
equal. But as it was generally presumed that the balance
Inclined in favour of the plaint.; he thought that the action
should be tried in the disq.ct in which he resided.
The ATTORNEYGENERAL said that the difficulty
' was in • great measure got rid of because the defendant
could be sued, by leave of the judge, in any county where
he resided, if the action was brought after six months, or he
I could be sued where the cause of action arose.
Mr. AGLIONBY did not think the hon. and learned
I gentleman had got rid of the difficulty. He thought the
action should be brought where the plaintiff resided.
Mr. WOOD said that there were fraudulent creditors, as
well es fraudulent debtors, and he should, therefore, be
I unwilling, at least In the cies of small debts, to give the
plaintiff the power of forcing the defendant to • considerable
&stenos from his home.

Alter • few word. from Mr. Reams, the plisry we
sherd fee a division, but none took place. The clause wee
psecposed on the anderoundleg that it would be farther
diseased oar bringing up the repeat.
On clause 6 hake proposed
The ATTORNEY-OHNEkAL objected to iteimettion in
the bill.
Mr. FITZROY wished to kik the Attorney-00mM if •
respectable Mutiny could be found to peactios is them
courts at • fee of 164. ? (Hear, bear.) If the, estended the
jurisdiction of these solute, surely they might, in order to
make the atteudsace of respectable solicitor., Mamie the
rate of remuseration. (neer, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK sold the clause set forth that no person
should be heard wakes he were au attorney, or banister, er
• person instructed by an attorney, with the permission of
the courtt los that it was evident there would be no pre-au-
dime*. It struck him that a question then arose which
it would be well for that house to decide, and which wee this.
He believed that by the alterations which this bill would muse
there we. certain to be arsenide provisosl bar in thlacountry,
the effect of which would be, in a great seeseare, to interfere
with the London bar. They would have a small provincial
bar, which would be composed, wording ;to the provisions
the bill, of barristers attorneys. (Hear. hear) That
being the cm, he thought it would be well to Intrados°,
smouget that bor those fleet feelings, sad that nice sense of
honour, which he (Mr. Roebuck) demanded to be acknow-
ledged as the die, ieguishing characteristics of the bar of
England at present.
Sir O. GREY objected to the clause, and said it was the
first time oath a duty as the regulation of lees to practi-
tioners in courts was sought to be imposed on the Lord
Chancellor. He therefore thought it home to adhere to the
restrictions made by parliament, and assign • maximum.

illear, hear.) - -
After a few words from Mr. PIGOTT, which did not each

the gallery,
Mr. MILES said they had the strongest possible reason
to rely on the decision of the Lord Chancellor, as being the
highest authority in legal matters in the realm. He there-
fore h. peel and trusted his hon. friend would stand by the
clause, and that the committee would not mix it up with the
provisions of the clause which followed it.
After a few words from Mr. EVANS,
Mr. COCKBURN egniSed his intention of moving an
' amendment. but did not don.
Mr. LAW said that as the act had been extended from
201. to 601., he could WWII the house that no moveable
practitioner would come into court in such eases at a fee of
on. guinea. (Hear, hear.) If they compelled the plaintiff,
then, to go into one of these courts with an action (or the
recovery of 601., why forbid him to engage the ureic( s of
counsel, unless those services could be obtained for a guinea ?
(" He sr, hear," and " Divide. divide.")
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took
place.
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. MILES addressing the committee mud attempting to
move an senendment. amidst great uproar.
Sir O. GREY suggested tee the hon. member that the best
course wsuld be first to allow the clause to he negatived.
Mr. COCKBURN moved to strike out the whole reci•el
respecting the power to be vested in the Lord Chancellor
wit, regard to cou:,sel's fees.
The omission of the recital was then agreed to.
Mr. COCKBURN then moved to insert words to the effect
that the Lord Coaueellur should have the power to regulate
the fees i e all eases of debt or demand exceedtng 201.
Mr. MITCHELL said this provision invo'ved tf e eame
principle as the ohs struck cut, and he could not understand
the gov. Himont supporting it.
Sir 0 GREY begged to say that he thought the t revision
very objectionable. (Hear, hear.) If the house wilted to
interfere at all, it should ;fix the maximum itself, and not
throw upon the Lord Chancellor the unprecodented duty of
regulating ths f,,sof counsel and attorntes. (Hear, hear.)
Ike e•ommittee then divided.
Fur the amendment (l6
Against it
The remainder of the clause was then struck out.
Clause 6 was then agreed to.
On clause 7 being proposed,
Mr. s;ROWDER Nail that the object of this clause was to
make it imperative no the plsir.tiff to sue in the district
court in cases of debt or cost under 601., or at least
if he resorted to a superior court the judge was to have
the power of Wooing cis s. It m ght net suit the taste of
some plaintiff. to resort to the County Curt, and there was
a greet u.fferenee of opinion amongst judges auto the merits
of the eases which came before them. He would
propose, thin, that the whole nf this el .use should be
expunged, as he thought it should be in the option of a
p 1 ontiff, in ores where the sum was not above 601. or under
20 ~ to sue in the courts of Westminster, or the infer:or
croup, just as he thought fit.
Tne ATTORNEY GENERAL said th►t he considered
that the limit placed at 001. was one of the chief principles of
the bill. lie thought that the sooner they Moduli settle
whether it was placed at 501. or 201. the better.
Another question was whether they should go back to
the old eye em of 51., or adopt the 201. limit as the limit.
Mr. ROEBUCK Bald, that it certain consequences fol.
lowed in the case of 51., why sh ,uld they not make the
matter so that the same consequences would follow in the
Case of 201. He wished that gentlemen on his side of the
h ease should not think that they wide by these proceedings
merely taking steps to injure this person or that, but they
were revolutionising the whole system of jurisprudence iu
this country. (lieu.) He himself was prepared to take that
step, and accepted the 501 principle.
Captain FITZROY said that he was prepared to make a
modification, and make it 101. instead of 201. as regarded
costs. _ .

Mr. AGLIONBY said be was prepared to abide by the
bill ee is erood, and was sous, that the Lou. member who
propmed the bill should show such a want of confidence
10 at.
After some suggestions from Mr. MARTIN and Mr. H.
PALMER,
Mr. IiUMR hoped that the hon. and learned member
would allow ad 201. being inserted.
Mr. FITZROY said that he had only inserted the sum
of 101. out of deference to what he conceived to be the
opinion of the Aou•e. lie should prefer 201. (Hear, hear.)
The words 201. were then i d.

It was then proposed that In line 35 the words " except
in ease of judifment by default" be inserted —Agreed to.
Mr. MITCHELL proposed an amendment to the effect
that nothing in the hill should be construed so interfering
with the jurisdiction of the superior courts in cues wherein
writs an mat had been sued out.

At the suggestion of Mr. AGLIONBY, this amendment
was postponed.
Mr. MARTIN proposed a proviso at the end of clause 7,
to this effect Provided that nothing in this clause shall
eztend to actions on covenant for naltquidated damages."
After an observationmom Sir G. GREY, the amendment
was postponed until the bringing up of the report.
Sir G. STRICKLA.ND proposed that the clause should
be struck out.

Sir 0. GREY thought the clause necessary to carry out
the &canon of the house, to extend the jurisdiction of these
spurts to 601.

Mr. ABLIONBY also supported the clause,(which, after
11011111 conversation, was ordered to stand part of the bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL m.v.,d the omission of
the eighth clause, which he said abolished by a side wiad
every !inferior comet in England. If it wee the object to
abolish all the local and borough courts do so openly and
directly, and then would come the question of compensation.
(Hear, hear.)
The motion was agreed to, and the clause was struck out.
Clauses 9 and 10 were agreed to, with some verbal
amendments. Clause 11 was also agreed to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the two fol-
lowing clauses, 12 and 13, the appeal clauses, be omitted.
Mr. COCKBURN thought an appeal would be nemmary
to make the bill work satWaetorily, but as the present appeal
clause was most improperly drawn, he would not object to
the hon. and learntal gentleman's proposition, but on the
report he would propose a clause for giving a power of

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that he bad given
notice to add clauses—l. Prohibiting the deputy judge from
practising within the district for which he shall act as de-
puty. 2. Requiring clerks and assistant clerks hereafter
appointed to reside in their districts. 3. Authorising the
Trues ury to order payment of judges, clerks, or bailiffs by
salary instead of fees, in lieu of the mole now adopted of so
doing by °vier in council. 4. Veering the pewee of appoint-
ment and dismissal of servants and court-keepers, &c.' in
the Treasury. 6. Repealing 9 & 10 Vic., cap. 96, sce.72,
and empowering the clerk of the court to procure fur the
proper authorities a list of persons assessed to the poor
at 201 from whom jurors are to be selected. 0. Taking
the power to use town-halls, dm, free of expense, for the
used the wort. 7. Enabling the parties or their attorneys
to serve process. 8. Giving power to the clerks to enter
payment by consent, and to make order thereon accordingly.
Ho moved that the first clause be brought up.
Cope PECHELL said that members had only had notice
of these amendments this day. Some of them were very
important, and the house should have time to consider them.
Mt. COCKBURN &freed that the dawns ought to be
postponed ; but thought the house was deeply indebted to
the Attorney-General for their introduction.
Mr. HENLEY moved that the chairman report progress,
and sok leave to sit again. These clauses almost amounted
to a new bill.
It was ultimately agreed that the bill be reported, with
amendments, to the house.
FACTORIES BILL.
Lid ASHLEY proposed that this bill should be com-
mitted on Wednesday next, and asked what were the inten-
tion. of the government with reaps& to the 11111111111*.
Mr. W. BROWN hoped the bill would not be committed
for a fortnight at lomat.
Lord ASHLEY declined to accede to the request, and
Wednesday was axed for going Into committee on the bill.
LARCENY SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.
Mr. MILES Intimated that he had no objection to exclude
Ireland from the operation of this bill.
After a few words from Mr. MtCou.aoli, the third read-
ing of this bill was poetposted to Thursday next.
SUPPLY —BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ANSTEY moved, that when notice has been given of
any amendment to the question of going into committee of
supply or ways and means, each amendment shall be called
in its order on the paper, and no debuts on the original
ration shall take place until each amendment has been
posed of.
Ilir. GREEN opposed the motion.
Sir J. GRAHAM also oppoesed it.
Mr. HUMII tt meat that, if carried, the motion would
limit hoe. members very materially.
The motion was, by leave, withdrawn.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
Sir B. HALL moved for a return of the names of all
persons who have been appointed or nominated in reversion
to any Lacs ia the ecclesiastical worts of England and Wales,

stating the notate of the Moe, the date of appointment or
nomination in reversion, the age of the person or persons at
the time of such appointment or nomination, and whether
such person or persons perform the duties of the office in
person or not, or was then in, or bassinets taken, holy orders;
and the name or title of the person 'nekton such appoint-
ment, togetbor with AO emoluments and income of the office.
—Ordered.