The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, April 8.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Fire o'clock.

PETITIONS.

The Earl of EGLINTON presented several peti-
tions from various places in Scotland praying for the
adoption of some measure to repel Papal aggression.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented several peti-
tions with a similar prayer.
THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S DEBT.
..

Lord AIONTEAGLE asked if the Government would
lay before the House the papers relating to the demand
of 400,000/. recently made by the East India Company
on account of the Chinese war?
Lord BROUGHTON said it was quite true the East
India Company had made the demand in question, and
that a correspondence was going on on the subject. He
had no objection to lay the papers before the House.
MUTINY BILL AND MARINE MUTINY BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, these
Bills were respectively committed.
HALIFAX RAILWAY.

Earl GREY presented certain papers relating to this
railway to the House.
COUNTY COURTS EXTENSION BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented some peti-
tions against this Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM, in moving that their Lord-
ships do resolve themselves into committee
this Bill, contended that the Bill would not render
necessary either a large increase in the number
of those judges or a greater increase in the
salaries of existing judges than they had already ample
funds to meet. Now, the average number of days during
which each county court judge had sat was 157 days in
the year, and not one of those who had sat above the aver-
age had sat more than 167 days in the year; therefore,
allowing ample time for vacation, they could give
a much greater number of days to the public service.
There would be, therefore, no necessity to make
any large increase in their numbers, although such
increase might be necessary in the metropolitan dis-
tricts, and perhaps in some few others. Th© fund at
present in hand for fees would be amply sufficient to meet
all increased charges, for these courts were not only self-
supporting, but gave a considerable surplus. The fees
accruing in 1848 for judges were 87,6611.; and fur clerks
87,2821. They had now nearly 120,0001. a year
accruing from these courts, out of which they
had to pay 60,000 i. a year to the judges, and to
the clerks 5001. a year each, except in some few in-
stances in which the clerks still received fees. Under
the present arrangement there was a great surplus, and
under a better arrangement, making all the clerks de-
pendent upon a salary, the surplus would be still
greater. If the business increased, of course they would
hare to increase the salaries of the judges and of the
clerks, but every addition of business brought
an increase of fees more than sufficient to meet the in-
crease of expenses in these courts.
Their Lordsbips then went into Committe on the Bill.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Lord BROUGHAM proposed that as the arbitration
clauses and the reconcilement clauses were those most
likely to meet with opposition, they should be postponed
to the last.
After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR

the course proposed was agreed to.
On the proposal of the kclause giving to the county
court judges a jurisdiction in Equity,
The LORD CHANCELLOR objected to the clause,
on the ground that the county court judges were not
fitted by practice or experience to decide the difficult
class of cases to be brought within their jurisdiction by
this clause. He then contended that persons in the
country must necessarily have their agents in London,
and he should also add that county court solicitors
would be called off from their other duties to advocate
causes before the Master of which they knew nothing
whatever, and in their examination of witnesses whom
they had not met before, they would labour under con-
siderable disadvantages before the Master. He did not
think that such a system would prove beneficial. In a
word, he thought that from the facility of railroads and
steamboats, that the expense of bringing witnesses to
London would not be a very material object to litigants,
and be should also say that he considered the county
court judges incompetent, and that they could not trans-
act their duties without London agents. If the Master
should make an error there was every facility for having

the subject examined again, whereas if the county court
judges should be erroneous, there would be considerable
difficulty and expense to both parties. He should, there-
fore, propose that clause be omitted.
Lord BROUGHAM believed that his Noble and
Learned Friend did flat see the purport of the clause,
from the opposition which he offered, and for that rea-
son he wished to explain its meaning. Now, he would
have his Noble and Learned Friend understand that.the
Lord Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, or the Master of
the Rolls, was, by this clause, as well as by the 77th of
the Bill of 1833, empowered to send any case to the
county courts, and oa that point he was supported by
his noble and Learned Friends Lords Lyndhurst and
Cottenham, who expressed it as their opinion that such
a mode of proceeding would greatly tend to relieve
suitors in the Court of Chancery from considerable ex-
pense and delay, to which they must necessarily be sub-
ject in the Master's office. He should also say that the
value of the decision of the judges in the county courts
should not be measured by their salaries, which he re-
gretted had been reduced, but he hoped that there
would not be a further reduction. He would then say
that it the clauses was rejected he would not further press
the Bill.
Lord CRAN WORTH coincided with his Noble and
Learned Friend (Lord Brougham), and considered that
it was just that inquiries should be made, and that the
witnesses, on being examined by the Lord Chancellor or
Tice-Chancellor, or Master of the Hulls, should then be
sent to the county courts, and for that reason he per-
fectly concurred in the utility of the clause. He should
also add, that there would be considerable facility and
cheapness occasioned by it, and that if there were a few
disadvantages, there would be a preponderating majority
of advantages, and he therefore considered that that
clause would be a step towards improvement.
Lord CAMPBELL wished to give his adhesion to
the clause' for though it might be said that he was a
postulant for equity, he could assure their Lordships
that he had made an irrevocable vow in favour of com-
mon law.—(Laughter.) He should, in addition, say
that it was always contemplated that matters of that
description should be referred to the judges in county
courts.
After a short explanation from Lord BROUGHAM,
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not consider that
there were any grounds for such a clause, because, in
the case of infants and lunatics, the judges in
county courts were not competent to decide; yet, as
his Noble and Learned Friends had concurred in the
benefit of the clause, he did not intend to divide the
House. It had been said that such inference could be
made when any inquiries were necessary, but the matter
to be judged of was in many cases of the most intricate
description, and, therefore, he considered that it would
be improper to invest the county court judges with any
such power as those clauses contemplated. It was said
that the questions of pedigree and such like, which
would come before them under these clauses, were of
the most simple nature ; but fifty years' ex-
perience had taught him that such was not
the case, for even in those questions of pe-
digree which arose among the relatives of tradesmen and
classes in that grade subjects of great intricacy often
occurred, and generally speaking he would say that those
county court judges were not capable of judging re-
specting them. The Bill of 1833 seemed to suppose that
inquiry was necessary before any such reference should
be made, for it was expressly stated that if it should
appear that it was advisable evidence should he taken in
the country, such and such should be done, but before
such could appear, there must have been inquiry, and
therefore he conceived these clauses were defective, in
not providing for such. He would not, however, divide
the Committee after what had been said by those Noble
and Learned Lords who had taken part in the debate,
although he still retained his opinion as to the evil ten-
dency of those clauses.
Clauses from 13 to 25 inclusive were then agreed to.
On clause 26 being read, which repeals the clause in
the Act of 1846 which provides that no barrister can ac-
cept of a fee in any county court without being in-
structed by an attorney,
Lord CAMPBELL moved the rejection of the clause.
As regarded the superior courts there was a sufficient
guarantee from the etiquette which prevailed amongst
the members of the bar, that no barrister would conduct
a case unless instructed by an attorney, and as regarded
them no enactment was necessary; but so far as those
county courts were concerned, were there no enactments
prohibiting the practice it would lead to the greatest
abuses. for it would introduce a class of practitioners
into those courts of a lower grade than that now prac-
tising.
Lord BROUGHAM did not see the justice of passing
an enactment on the subject as regarded those county
courts, while there was no such enactment restricting
the practise in any of the other tribunals of the country;
and therefore he thought the clause in the Act of 1846
unjust towards those parties.
The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the clause.
Should it pass it would give rise to a class of practition-
ers in those courts which no judge wished to see any-
where.

After a few words from Lord CRANWORTII and Lord
BROUGHAM, the clause was withdrawn.
On clause 27 being read, which, in conjunction with
clause 28, authorised parties with consent to bring actions
in the county courts of any description whatever,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he considered the
latitude giiron too much, as, were the clauses adopted, it
would place the county court judges in suck a situation
as that they could not possibly perform their duty.
Lord BROUGHAM said these clauses were explana•
tory of a section in a former Act, which gave similar
powers to those bestowed by these sections. They were
intended, especially clause 27, merely to remove doubts
that had arisen as to the operation of the Act of 1846.
It was intended by this to save parties expense.
Lord BEAUMONT considered they should endeavour,
as far as they could, to carry out the Bill of last year,
but not to gi, beyond that.
Lord CA AIPBELL remarked that the section of the
former Act of which this was explanatory had not been
acted upon, and ho believed never would be acted upon.
After a few words from Lord CRANWORTH and Earl
GREY,
Lord BROUGHAM considered it would be the
greatest possible advantage to enable parties to go before
the judges and at once determine their dispute.
Clauses 27 and 28 were then struck out.
Clauses 29, 30, and 31 were agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 were postponed.
Clause 34 was agreed to.
On clause 35 being proposed,
Lord BEAUMONT opposed it. He thought that
such a clause would deprive suitors of the remedy pro-
posed to be given to them by the other puts of the Bill.