The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-24 00:00:00

MI.ITRIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS—Last Evening.
The LORD CHANCBLLOR to AK his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Kilkenny Junction Railway—Parsonstown and Portumna
Bridge Railway—Pontypridd Water—North-Eastern—
Lancashire and Yorkshire and West Yorkshire Railway
Companies Amendments.
THE REGIUS PROFESSORSHIP OF GREEK.
The Earl of DERBY referred to some remarks made by
the noble and learned lord on the woolsack in the course of
his speech the other evening on the occasion of the
debate upon the subject of the endowment of the
Regius Professorship of Greek at Oxford. The
observations of the noble and learned lord conveyed
what had been considered a reflection upon the university,
which, he said, had obtained certain grants from the public,
certain exemptions from taxation, and especially an exemp-
tion of the privileges given to the Queen's printer, on con-
ditions that they should devote a portion of the emoluments
to the endowment of the professorship of Greek. He denied
that when these privileges were conferred upon the Uni-
versity there was any stipulation for the endowing of the
Greek professorship, nor any stipulation for the endow-
ment of the professorship. Were the charge substantial
he should be as ashamed as he was proud of his connection
with the University.
The LORD CHANCELLOR readily exonerated the
University from having committed a breach of any distinct
understanding, but censured it for having failed to
charge its obligation to make adequate provain for the
Greek Professor.
Lord GRANVILLE also condemned the course punned
by the University, after which the subject dropped.
COUNTY COURTS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this

bill,
after briefly referring to the civil
Lord BROUGHAM,
war in America and the war between Denmark and Ger-
many, said that 58 out of 60 county court judges were op-
posed to that part of the present measure which provided
for the abolition of the power of imprisonment for debt on
judgment summonses, There were 900,000 plaints brought
every year in the county courts. These did not result in
more than 9,000 judgment summonses ; while a very small
proportion of those against whom such summons were taken
out were sent to prison. The truth was that the proportion
of those who were impriscned on judgments obtained from
the county courts was less than that of those against whom
judgments were obtained in the superior courts. Under
these circumstances he could not assent to this part of the
bill ; but, on the other head, those of its provisions which
invested the county courts with an equitable jurisdiction
had his cordial approval. He concurred with the Lord Chan-
cellor in thinking that it was desirable to introduce a shorter
period of limitation for small debts than that which was at
present fixed by law.
Lord ST. LEOTARDS objected not only to the aboli-
tion of imprisonment for debt on judgment summonses,
but also to the reduction of the period of limitation for
small debts from six years to one year. He thought
that it would not be safe to reduce that tuna to less than
three years. Credit was capital , and if they took from
the labouring classes their credit they took from them
their on'y capital. A labouring man would be placed in the
most serious difficulties, and would often be driven into the
workhouse if he were not enabled to obtain credit during
hard times, or the winter season, when he could not obtain
employment. But it was clear that if they abolished the
power of imprisonment for debt, no one would trust the poor
man who had no property. He thought also that their
sympathies in legislating on this subject should not be be-
stowed wholly on the debtor; they ought also to bear in
mind the position of the creditor. He had a fair right to
be provided with an effectual means of recovering his debts ;
this he would not have if the power of imprisoning the
debtor ware taken away. It was true that the bill provided
that a debtor might be imprisoned if he had contracted his
liabilities by fraud, or had wilfully wasted his property by
unjustifiable extravagance after the issue of the judgment
summons; but he did not think that a creditor ought to be
driven to 'rove either of these things—both of which would
frequently involve considerable difficulty—before he could
be entitled to take steps practically effective for the enforce-
ment of his claims. The noble and learned lord proposed
that when a judgment was obtained against a labouring
man, the county court judge should issue a notice
to his emp:oyer requiring him to set aside a portion of the
man's wages, and pay them over to the high bailiff in dis-
charge of his debt. It would be quite impracticable to work
an enactment of this kind. The only effect of trying to en-
force it would be that, as soon as any employer received
such a notice as he had described, he would discharge the
man to whom it related. He strongly objected to investing
the county court judges with the powers of judges of courts
of equity. They had not the requisite knowledge to enable
them to discharge ouch functions. And he was perfectly
certain that it they enabled suits which were at present con•
dusted in the Court of Chancery to be brought in county
courts, the result would be an immense and most injurious
increase of litigation.
Lord CHEL3ISFORD was anxious that the subject to
which this bill related should not be regarded as a legal
question. It was, in truth, a social question of the hiehest
importance, and involving very deeply the welfare of the
labouring classes. This bill might be divided into two gene-
ral heads. He would not refer to that part of the bill which
conferred equitable jurisdictionupon the county courts, be-
cause he believed that this might be found very useful. Ile
would confine his remarks to that other portion of the mea-
sure which deprived county court judges of the power of
imprisoning debtors who refused or neglected to pay their
debts under 52,0 after judgment had been recovered against
them. In 1859 the Legislature took away from the judges
the power of committing, except in cases of fraud, or where
it appeared to the satisfaction of the judges that the defen-
dant had the means is pay the debt and refused to do so.
His hon. and learned friend, in the month of March last
year, evidently with a view to this measure, issued a circular
letter to the judges, asking whether this power of commit-
ment should be abolished or modified in any way : 57 out of
60 of the judges, replying to that circular letter, were of
opinion that this power ought to be retained. Under the
old law the imprisonment of a debtor was the act of the cre-
ditor; at present imprisonment was the act of the judge for
disobedience of the law. A debtor was formerly imprisoned
whether he had the means to pay or sot ; the power of com-
mitment under the existing system could only be exercised
where a debtor had the means to pay and refused, or where
he was fraudulent, reckless, or dishonest. Out of 9000,000
plaints, representing a sum of £2,000,030, issued in one year,
more than one-half were settled before judgment. About
400,000 judgments were issued for an amount of upwards of
£1,000,000, and costs upwards of £lO,OOO, From these there
were about 9,000 commitments ; but as it appeared that
one-third of this number paid before imprisonment, only
6,000 persons, or l per cent. on the 400,000 judgments,
were actually imprisoned. With respect to commitments
for small sums, their lordship should be acquainted
with the circumstances of each case, and should bear in
mind that it was only when a debtor possessing the
means refused to pay that. he could be committee.
The noble and learned lord declined to admit that county
court judges always looked at such cases from a creditor's
point of view, and expressed his belief that the Lord Chan-
cellor, in introducing the measure, had scarcely done justice
to the county court judges. He went on to quote from the
reports of the county court judges to show that, though
they regarded the power of commitment on judgment sum-
monses as the most irksome and disagreeable portion of
their duty, they nevertheless considered it essential, and
that to abolish it would be most injurious to the just in-
terests of suitors. He did not believe that any alteration
in the law was necessary in order to meet the cases quoted
by the Lord Chancellor. For instance, no judge who knew
his duty would commit the debtor in such cases where a
tailyman obtained a summons against a father for goods
supplied without his knowledge or consent to his daughter,
or against a husband for useless finery supplied under
similar circumstances to his wife. The bill appeared to be
specially directed against tallymen, and to prevent what the
neble lord called the dangerous and mischievous facility
of credit which was given to the labouring clams. He
(Lord Chelmsford) expressed his belief that in many
districts the services of those tallymen were absolutely
essential to provide the wives and children of cottaners
with suffioient clothing, and that any abuse of the system
was prevented by county court judges invariably refusing
to make the husband liable for any goods supplied to the
wife which were not absolutely necessary. It appeared
to be assumed that it the power of commitment were
taken away from the county court judges credit would not
be given. He pointed out that, if this were done, the
only security which labouring men could offer to their
creditors would be taken away, and they would be deprived
of credit, which in innumerable cases was positively
necessary; and showed hew injuriously it would affect
Also the class of small shopkeepers, many of whom
would be driven to the parish. It was proposed by the
bill that in lieu of the power of commitment there should
be power of execution against the goods of the debtor for
amounts over £l. But that would not meet the case in
Which the present power of commitment was peculiarly
efficacious, namely. where the debtor lived in furnished
lodgings and had ample means to pay his creditors, but from
obstinacy, or from the desire to e his sensual tastes,
did not do so. In such cases, taking away the judgment
summons would remove the only means by which the credi-
tor could compel his debtor to be honest, and the result
wound be that county courts would be useful for ascertain-
ing debts, but of no use for enforcing them. It was pro.
posed by the second section of the bill to reduce the
period of limitation for bringieg actions under £2O, That
principle, he thought, might be made general with advan-
tage, but he could not understand upon what principle a dis-
tinction was made between debts under and debts over
£2O. He could not understand upon what principle debts
under £2O should only be recoverable for the space of one
year after they were contracted, while debts above that
amount would continue recoverable for six years. He
thought it would be more advantageous to introduce an
em-cement for the S arute of Limitations, in regard only
to the titre wittrn writers all debts should be recoverable
law. He c ondentned the clan-e for taking away
pre, under £2O in the

e.m.rta