The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-16 00:00:00

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAXER took the Chair shortly af,er Twelve
o'clock.

LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
The Lords' amendments to ►he London and Black-
wall Railway (Amendment and Extension of Time) Bill
were considered and agreed to.
THIRD READING.

The Borough of Louth, and Free Grammar School in
Louth Bill, was read, a third time and passed.
REPORTS.

The reports on the following Bills were considered
and agreed to:—
Commercial Road (comprising the Cannon-street Roads,
the Commercial Road, the Horseferry Branch of
Road, the East India Duck Road, and the Harking
Road).
Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company.
MARYLEBONE AND FINCfILEY TURNPIKE-

ROAD BILL.
This Bill was ordered to be re-committed on Wednes-
day next, in consequence of some informality.
SECOND READINGS. .

The following Bills were read a second time and or-
dered to be committed:—

Aberdeen Destitute Female Orphan Asylum (David-
son's) Estate.
Clive's (Hon. Robert Henry) Estate.
Duke of Norfolk's (Duke of Sutherland's) Estate.
Hurd's Estate.

Lady kirk (Robertson's).
Ogle's Esate.

ReYnolde Estate.

Ricbards' (or Harman's) Estate.

PETITIONS.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a petition against
the endowment of Maynooth.
Mr. W. PATTEN presented a petition from a place
in Lancashire, praying the House to extend the powar
of Cuunty Courts.
Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition in favour of
the Railway Dissolution Bill.
HARWICH ELECTION.

Mr. SPOONER presented a petition from Mr. Elms-
ley, an attorney at Harwich, stating that an action had
been brought in the Court of Queen's Bench, arising
out of certain bribery transactions alleged to have taken
place at the last Harwich election, and praying that the
short-band writer, who attended the Harwich Election
Committee, might be ordered to attend the trial of the
action, which was about to take place at Cheltenham.
The Hon. Gentleman moved that the prayer of the pe-
tition be agreed to.
Mr. GREENE thought time ought to be allowed
to consider the matter, as it was not usual to order the
attendance of short-hand writers, or the production of
their notes, at trials, and some inconvenience might arise
if they did so now.
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL saw no objection to
the prayer of the petition. Ho apprehended the notes
were required 'to check the evidence of witnesses who
were to be examined upon the trial, and as their pro
duction would be sufficient for that purpose, without re-
quiring the attendance of the short-hand writer, he
would suggest that the petition should be amended ac-
cordingly. . .

Mr.SPOONER adopted the suggestion, and the psti.
tion was withdrawn.

SMALL DEBTS ACT AMENDMENT (COMPEN.
SATION FOR OFFICES ABOLISHED).
On the question for going into Committee on this
Bill,
Lord DUDLEY STUART objected to its principle.
No doubt it contained some excellent provisions, but
he protested against the pijnciple of compensating
the officers of courts for M- loss of their offices,
He could not understand the extraordinary tenderness
of the House for the interest of lawyers. They had
not rendered the country such great benefits to justify
their demanding compensation whenever their interests
were interfered with. In fact they had no more right to
compensation than -had a road-side innkeeper whose
business had been destroyed by the establi.bment of a
railway. He thought it would be unsafe to trust the
Lords of the Treasury to give compensation, for on two
former oceasions, when such power was given to them,
they had shown great extravagance. It would be much
better for the House of Commons to 6x the amount if
they were to have compensation; but he should be able
to show when they went into Committee that these
people were not entitled to any. He must, therefore, pro-
test both against the principle of granting compensation
and the mode in which it was proposed to he given.
After a few words from the ATTORNEY- G ENER AL,
The House went into Committee, Mr. Bernal in the
chair.

On the first clause being proposed,
Mr. OSBORNE said his Hon. Friend had taken a
technical objection to the principle of compensation,
but he opposed it upon a much higher ground. He
maintained that the institution of this court from the
beginning was utterly illegal, inasmuch as it imposed
taxation upon the people by means of fees, without the
consent of Parliament. The Marshalsea Court was
probably the most ancient one in the kingdom; it followed
the King wherever he went, and administered justice
between persons connected with his household. The
judges of it, however, were found to exceed their do-
minion, and were in the habit of trying cases unconnected
with the King's household, and in consequence of this
various Acts were passed with reference to its jurisdic-
tion. In the reign of Charles 11. letters patent were
granted to constitute the Palace Court ; but it would be in
the recollection of the Attorney-General that in the cele-
brated case of Fish v. Wagstaff the legality of the Court
was questioned, and the judgment which it had given re-
versed. Under the Stuart King neither the judges, nor
the officers and others connected with it, were very par-
ticular. During the Commonwealth the Court disconti-
nued its sittings, but resumed them again at the
Restoration. At that time there were six attorneys and
four counsel practising in the Court, and there were
documents now in the British Museum which would
prove that these gentlemen clubbed together for the
purpose of inducing Lord Chancellor Hyde, by a bribe
of 1,0001., to get them letters patent. Lord Chancellor
Hyde pocketed the money, and succeeded in getting
what they wanted, and the Court was allowed to con-
tinue its corrupt and villanous administration of the law.
He had no doubt that but for the letters of the gentle-
man, known by the name of " Jacob Omnium," these
blood-sucking attorneys (for he would not mince
the matter, and did not mean to apologise)
would have gone on plundering the people as they bad
already done. Now, as the jurisdiction of the court ex•
tended for only twelve miles round London, he could
not see upon what principle of reason or justice the
people, for instance, of Yorkshire, or any other part of the
county, could be called upon to pay compensation to
these officers. The lawyers might as well ask for com-
pensation in consequence of the establishment of county
courts, for he was told that they had taken :away at
least a quarter of their business.—(Hear, hear.)
Besides, the officers of the Palace Court had
already succeeded in obtaining compensation under the
Act for abolishing imprisonment for debt. He had been
told that 2,0001. had been paid by the banisters for their
right to practise, but the tact was, that the actual sum
required for a barrister was 2004 while only
100/ was required for an attorney. The officers
of this court had been paid over and above
their dues several times over. He had with him an
analysis of fees and compensations paid to them, which
he would just read to the House. The Knight Mar-
shal and Judge in 1846 received fees to the amount of
914/. 2s. 100,, be then received compensation to the
amount of 60/. in cash, and an annuity of 3061. In 1848
his income from fees amounted to 714/ The deputy in
1846 received fees in 1846, to the amount of 242/. 103. ;
in 1848 his fees had increased to 7421. The same was
the case too, with the Prothonotoy and his deputy.
Then with regard to the Pattomier of the court. Mr.
8.. E. Willoughby had received fees before the institu-
tion of the county courts to the amount of 8504 per
annum. Ho then received compensation to the amount
of 1,9001., and in 1848 his lees had increased to
1,547/. Mr. P. Millar, in 1846, received as compen-
sation 7501., and in 1848 his fees had increased from
3001. to 1,4401. per annum. Mr. Sheppard in 1845
and 1846 received 728/. per annum, his com-
pensation amounted to 2,1401., and in 1848
he received no less than 3,5371. in fees. Look
too at the increase in the number of writs—in 1846, the
number was 2,330 ; there were 409 cases tried, 9,910 of
undefended causes. Why, what claim had these men,
these bloodsucking- attorneys—he would not mince the
word. nor did he mean to apologise for it—who had so
long plundered the public, what claim bad they to coin-
penFatioe ?
Tbo ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that compensa-
tion was to Le granted to them on the ground that the
number of writs had gradually increased.
Mr. B. (413084 TE protested agaiast compensation at

all. He should like to hear the Attorney-Ganeral's
opinion of the legality of the court; compensation was
sought for these lawyers because they had paid more
than the regulation price for their places. Why, did not
an officer often have to pay more than the regulation price
for his commission, and would the House think of
granting him compensation? The law was much better
represented in this House than the army. Well, then,
in 1848, there were 6,535 writs issued, and 1,054 cases
tried. He altogether objected to the principle of re-
ferring this matter to the Treasury, he thought it would
be much better referred to a Select Committee of the
House. _ _

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was necessary
that this clause should be passed, whether the question
of compensation were referred to the Treasury or to a
Select Committee. _ _ .

Mr. S. WORTLEY wished to know whether there
would be an opportunity affsaded of discussing this ques-
tion afterwards. _ _ .

The ATTORNEY. GENERAL said there would; and
on this understanding the clause was agreed to, and the
House resumed.
SMALL DEBTS AMENDMENT ACT.

The House went into Committee on the second read•
ing of this Bill.
Mr. CARDWELL hoped that be should succeed in
persuading his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-
General to postpone ,any further proceedings on this
Bill. He objected to some of the changes attempted in it.
A party might go and reside at 13irraingham and con-
tract a debt there; as soon as be had exhausted his
credit at Birmingham ho might remove to Liverpool.
He ( NEr. Cardwell) was entirely in favour of the dimi-
nution of costs in the county courts ; but would the
costs of the case he had put be diminished if a man was
compelled to follow his debtor to Liverpool? In such a
case it appeared to him a defeat of justice would be
likely to ensue. He had received several communica-
tions from gentlemen of the legal profession residing in
Liverpool, stating the practical mischiefs which would
result from the operation of such a Bill as that before the
House. He had also received :loader communications
from the gentlemen who represent the Tradesmen's
Guardian Society in that town. Believing it would
be a considerable departure from the wisdom of the
common law, and would ratter tend to increase than
diminish expense, he hoped his Honourable and Learned
Friend (the Attorney-General) would not press the
clauses in question.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his sole object
was to make the Act more efficient for the recovery of
small debts; but if he found it was the general opinion
of the members of the Committee representing mercan-
tile communities that those clauses had better be
omitted, he was ready to abandon them.
Mr. MUNTZ could quite corroborate the statement
of the lion. and Learned Member for Liverpool as to the
objections to this Bid among mercantile gentlemen. He
bud received a great number of communications on the
subject, not from gentlemen of the legal profession, but
from tradesmen, to all of whom it was objectionable.
Ho therefore toped the Hon. and Learned Attorney-
General would withdraw the objectionable clauses.
Mr. BROTHEIVION was very glad to find the
Attorney-General was disposed to withdraw the objec-
tionable clauses In Manchester (so we understood) an
Act was obtained for a Small Debts Court, at an ex-
pense of twelve hundred pounds, which expense had
not since been defrayed. That court had been of
great utility; its jurisdiction extended to about 100
townships, including a population of not less than
1,000,000. A preference was often given to the court
in question over the county court. Within the list two
years 3,700 cases had been entered in it, and more than
2,000 of them were for sums under 10/.
Lord DUDLEY STUAR 12 said the clause as it stood
did not abolish the court reerred to by the Honourable
.Member for Salford; but if such courts would improve
their prictice they would still retain plenty of business.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it seemed to be
the feeling of the Committee that he should withdraw
the first five clauses, and he would do so. Ile would
then begin at the sixth clause. The Learned Gen-
tleman then went on to explain that debtors were now
committed to the House of Correction, and had their hair
cut, and were treated as misdemeanants, of which, as
a matter of course. much complaint was made, for
parties who moved in a respectable sphere of life were
treated contrary to the spirit in a hich the Act was passed
Ile had introduced a clause into this Bill by which those
persons would be treated as deb:ors, and that where the
gaols were too cr.:IAA and at too great a distance
that provision should be made for their nearer reception.
Mr. B. COCHRANE wished that what was specified
as " contempt of couttlin the 7th clause were clearly set
forth, as the clause said that a person might be com-
mitted for contempt of court if he used abusive language
to a bailiff going to or from the court. Now, who was
to decide what was contempt of court in such a case?—
(Hear.) Again, if a poor man could not pay, was he to
be committed for contempt?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the contempt
consisted of insulting a judge, a juror, or a:bailiff, and for
non-payment. The 113th section, which made contempt
committable to the House of Correction, was repealed
in this Bill, and altered to the debtors' prison.
Mr. MULLING S suggested that other places than the
county debtors' gaol should be Provided for the recep-
tion of persons committed under the County Courts
Act. For instance, the county gaol of Gloucestershire
might be fifty miles from the spot where a man was
committed. Now there were four houses of correction
in the county. Could not some arrangement be made,
by which pariies might be placed in those gaols and
treated as debtors?
Clauses 6 and 7 were then agreed to.

On clause 8 being proposed,

Mr. W. PATTEN-drew attention to the fact, that it
had been held that a sheriff's writ ran in preference to
one of the County Court, and that it had been decided
that the claim of a landlord should be prior to that of
any other creditor.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said a difference of
opinion prevailed upon the point among the judges, and
that it was just one of those matters that should be con-
sidered by the judges appointed by the Lord Chan-
cellor.

After some observations from Mr. W. PATTEN and
Mr. MULLINGS, the clause was agreed to.
On clause 9 being proposed,
Mr. Fri ZROY moved, pursuant to notice, to insert
the following clause:—•" And whereas it is expedient to
extend the provisions of the said Act of the tenth year
of the reign of her Majesty to all debts, damages,
and demands not exceeding fifty pounds. Be it
therefore enacted, that the jurisdiction of the
several courts holden or to be holden under the said Act
"of the tenth year of the reign of her Majesty, shall ex-
tend to the recovery of any debt, damage, or demand not
exceeding the sum of fifty pounds, with and subject to
the several powers and provisions of the said Act, ex-
cept so far es the same are:hereafter altered or repealed."
He could not see on what grounds the Attorney-General
could oppose this proposition ; and with respect to the
50/. clause; if it was thought not advisable, he had
no objection to its not being compulsory.
Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, although he
coincided in what had been said by the Hon. and Gal-
lant Gentleman as to the utility of these courts, he did
not think it would be prudent at present to extend the
jurisdiction from 20/. to 501. Before such a change
could .be made in the law some power of review must
be established.

Mr. W. PATTEN regretted to hear that it was the
intention of the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General to
oppose the clause. It would be of great service to the
manufacturing districts, and he thought the alteration
might be agreed to after some slight modification.
Captain PECHELL should undoubtedly support the
proposal ; but he was not surprised at the Learned
Attorney- General opposing it, as in 1835 ho resisted a
similar suggestion to extend the jurisdiction from
201. to 501. The great opponents to proposals of this
nature were the lawyers, who were afraid of business
being taken out of Westminster Hall, and disposed of in
the country, and until that selfish feeling were got rid of,
the public would not reap the full advantage of these
courts.

Sir GEORGE GREY quite admitted that these courts
had acted most efficiently, and he was nut at all pre.
pared to say that, after some further experience, their
jurisdiction might not be extended; at present, how•
ever, he could not consent to this proposal.
Mr. SPOON ER suggested that the county courts
should have jurisdiction in actions for 501., where both
parties were disposed to consent to it. He was, how-
ever, oppoed to the motion.

akeLLINGS was in favour of extending their
jurisdiction to larger amounts, and should support the
motion before the House.

After a fow words from Mr. Ellis, Mr. Brotherton, and
Mr. Charles Lushington,_

Lord DUDLEY STUART said as the county courts
had worked well, he was glad to see that the general
opinion of the House was in favour of extending their
jurisdiction. If the clause of the lion. Member for Lewes
was carried, he was sure that it would give great satis-
faction.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, as there was no
appeal from these courts, he thought it would be unwise
to extend their jurisdiction. IF they did they would
have to reconstitute the whole of them, and he therefore
should recommendithe House not to consent to the mo-
tion of the Hon. Member.

Captain PECHELL said his opinion had been much
fortified by the information given by the Hon. Member
fur Salford, that the court there worked well.

Mr. FITZROY had heard nothing which could change
his opinion as to the expediency of the extension to 501.
Atter a few words from Mr. EVANS,
Mr. SPOONER rose to ask whether the words pro
posed by the Hon. Member for Lewes were necessary?
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL said they were not.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the question of the-exten-
sion of jurisdiction was one of such importance that he
thought it should not be incidentally raised upon a point
which did not involve it. He should advise that the
Hon. Member should withdraw his clause.

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it ... ... ...
... 62
Majority against the c:ause . . —2B
The remaining clauses of the Bill were agreed to with-
out discussion.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said, with reference to the
compensation clause, he begged to ask the Attorney-
General upon what principle the compensation was to to
made.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL said he took the
principle simply of four years' purchase; and the com-
pensation would be awarded by the Lords of the
Treasury.
Lord DUDLEY STUART objected strongly to the
Treasury having anything to do with the matter
of compensation. In the four years preceding the
passing of the 7 and 8 Victoria, in 1814, the aggregate
amount of the. fees was greater by 10,000 L than in the
tour previous years; find yet the Treasury -awarded
upwards of 7,000 L to the officers. He could not con-
ceive a more shameful way of dealing with the public