The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-27 00:00:00

SALMON FISHERY BILL

On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. HOPWOOD suggested that as the bill contained
many important provisions, it ought to receive full consi-
deration, which would be impossible during the present
session. He therefore suggested that the bill should be
postponed.
Col. W. PATTEN concurred in the suggestion, and
added that it would be desirable that the provisions of the
measure should be considered by a select committee, with a
view to amend the laws relating not only to the taking, but
to the sale of salmon out of season.
The suggestion was adopted, and the Chairman having
left tho chair, the bill was dropped.
RAILWAY COMPANIES ARBITRATION BILL.
On the motion of Col. W. PATTEN this bill went through
committee, and was reported without amendments.
IMPRISONMENT FOR SMALL DEBTS_ BILL.

The house having gone into committee on this bill,
Mr. COLLIER, who had introduced the measure, ex-
plained that he did not seek to interfere with the existing
law relating to debtor and creditor, or with the jurisdiction
of county courts. as was supposed by the writers of certain
letters in the public journals; but his object was simply to
enact that no commitments should in future be made with-
out hearing, as was now the practice. At present there was
a difference of opinion among the county court judges on
the provisions of the existing statute, some of them holding
that they have power to commit a debtor to prison who does
not appear on a judgment summons, and without inquiry;
others entertain the opinion that they are bound to hear the
debtor before they commit him to prison. A return
moved for last year by the Attorney-General showed that
last year no less than 8,000 persons had been committed on
judgment summonses. It must be remembered that these
imprisonments did not discharge the debts, but was in-
tended as a punishment for not obeying the orders of the
court. In some cases at Durham, for instance, the persons
so committed were treated as felons. A letter from the
governor of Carlisle gaol showed him that he had received
into his custody two girls so committed, one for a debt of
£1 Bs. Bd., and the other for lls. 10d. The writer added
that he had one old man who had been committed seven
times for a debt of £9, and had been in custody at various
times for twelvemonths, a longer imprisonment than he
would have been sentenced to if he had stolen the money.
These were real cases of cruelty, and the object of this bill
was to remove the only stigma on county courts, and to
render them a popular source of the administration of
justice.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was of opinion that
those county court judges who adopted the practice of com-
mitment without inquiry had put a wrong construction on
the act. This construction had been adopted by thirteen
or fourteen out of the sixty county court judges, and there-
fore he thought the public was indebted to his hon. and
learned friend for having introduced this measure. The first
section of the bill had received the approbation of the ma •
jority of the county court judges ; but with regard to the
second clause of the bill they were of opinion that it would
tend to upset altogether the system of credit now in opera-
tion with the labouring classes, and would be productive
of much misery to that class in times when employment
was scarce, owing to the fluctuations in trade, and therefore
its enactment would be impolitic. This was set forth in
the report of the standing committee of the County Court
Judges, which had been formed at the instance of the late
Lord Chancellor (Lord Chelmsford), with a view to ex-
amine and inquire into the. operation of the County Court
Act, and the provisions of the bill now under consideration.
The report was worthy of consideration, and he trusted
would induce the house to be of opinion that it would be
impolitic to interfere with the law at present in force, with
respect to credit for small amounts. 'When the committee
came to the second clause he hoped these considerations
would not be lost sight of. •
Mr. HENLEY observed that the commitment without
inquiry was in pcencon, and in the nature of a criminal pro-
cedure. It never could be intended that a man for a small
debt should be committed time after time without inquiry.
He therefore supported the first clause, which would set at
rest this system whieh operated so cruelly upon the poorer
classes. There ought to be but one remand when fraud was
proved, as was the practice of the Insolvent Court; and not
commitments ad infinitum.
,Mr. CLIVE said that his experience as a County Court
Judge had led him to believe that none but fraudulent
debtors were ever committed. He, however, concurred with
his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General, with re-
spect to the fir clause of the bill, which he thought to be
unobjectionable. With respect to the second clause it was
not yet under consideration.
Mr. PAGET expressed his fears that an attempt to do a
great right would effect a serious evil upon the working
classes, by such an enactment as that which the second
clause would carry out. He should therefore move " that
the chairman do now leave the chair."
Mr. E JAMES could not believe that the stability of
the system of credit would be endangered by the abolition
of imprisonment for debt. That fallacy had been exploded
by the committee which sat on the question of the abolition
of arrest on inesne process, and experience had shown that
credit had not been endangered by the abolition of arrest
for debt under £2O. He supported the bill, and trusted
that some limit would be put to the terms of imprisonment
ordered by County Court judges.
Major STEWART drew attention to the fact that in his
county the majority of county court commitments were for
debts incurred with hawkers who travelled the country,
and induced wives to take their wares unknown to their
husbands. He knew many instances in which, for debts
incurred with these hawkers, young females, under 19 years
of age have been committed for several terms. He therefore
hoped that this bill would receive the sanction of the Legis
lature.
Mr. AYRTON called upon: the hon. member for Not-
tingham (Mr. Paget) to withdraw his amendment and to
allow the bill to proceed. The house could not better
occupy its time than by the consideration of this measure.
Mr. HODGKINSON objected to the change in the law
proposed by this bill, and supported the amendment moved
by the hon. member for Nottingham.
Mr. PAUL concurred in the views enunciated by the
hon. and learned gentleman the Under- Secretary for the
Home Department (Mr. Clive), and hoped the committee
would be allowed to proceed with the bill.
Sir G. C. LE WI S thought the committee was in a position
to proceed with this measure, and seemed to be disposed to
do so. He would, therefore, join in the suggestion that
the amendment ought to be withdrawn, and the committee
allowed to go on striation with the clauses of the bill. He
denied that the system of imprisonment originated with the
present county-ccurt judges, but the practice had been im-
ported by some of the county-court judges who had been
judges of the old Courts of Request.
Mr. PAGET withdrew his amendment, and the el ause
was agreed to, as was also the preamble, and the bill was
ordered to be reported without amendments.
HIGH SHERIFFS' EXPENSES BILL.

On tliiequestiondialhisbilll3e now committed,
Mr. WISE moved as an amendment that " the house
resolved itself into committee on this bill on this day three
months." The object sought to be effected by this bill was
so trifling as not to be worth the paper on which the bill
was printed. It purported to diminish the expenses of the
sheriff, but it did not deal with those of the dinners, the
equipages, and the like, of these high functionaries, but
simply with the javelinment and other minor expenses not
worthy of being the subject of legislation. The bill sought
to chargo county rate with something like £lO,OOO per an-
num for the expenses of the sheriffs, who already received,
under a vote of this house, a similar sum for providing
lodgings for the judges and matters of that kind. He gave
the bill his decided opposition, and trusted the house would
be spared the trouble of going into committee with it.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY thought the bill ought not to be
postponed, as it might be disposed of in a very short space
of time. It would do away with the gingerbread parapher-
nalia of the javelinmen, who usually did not belong to the
soberest class of the community, and on this as well as
on other grounds he was prepared to support the bill.
Mr. DEEDES opposed the bill, which proposed changes
which ought not to be conceded without full deliberation.
This would be ensured by referring the subject to a select
committee.
Mr. HENLEY remarked that the bill proposed to sub-
stitute the police for the javelinmen in keeping order in
court, but he doubted whether any of the Police Acts
gave the High Sheriff any power or authority over the
police force, and therefore he should object to the bill, and
should support the amendment.
Major PARKER also opposed the bill, which would en-
tail upon counties the expense of an increased number of

police.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that some objections had been
made to the bill to which he did not think it justly liable.
He did not think that these javelinmen, or Sheriffs re-
tinue were at all necessary in these peaceful times, and he
did not believe that any addition to the county pol The would
be necessary for the preservation of order in court at the
asstzes. On the whole, he was of opinion that the bill,
though crudely drawn up, was deserving of consideration.
Mr. HUMBERSTON thought that the whole subject of
sheriffs' expenses should be considered by a select commit-
tee, and a bill brought in by and on the responsibility of
the Government.
Lord HENNIKER supported the bill, and urged the
house not longer tc delay its progress.
Mr. HUNT also supported the bill, which wentjavteorniesmtabeinn-
lish a practice which had already been acted upon. in the
county which he represented. The system worked well,
and it had been found that the police were more effective ' '
maintaining order in court than the county
ever had been.
asn assistenecessary
s s theary in e changerorder
Th e mldagithsatrtatchye
bcomulwd
Mr. J. LOCKE thought that if the case was
stated by the late speaker, the passing of this bill wasswuchholalys
unnecessary.
wtoil‘trhierlolueENtel'etjghAieslMsahtEleorSniff.hferom liability to be fined by the judge
if he had not [provided the retinue of a proper number of
javelinmen, as now required by the old law.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH brie replied, amidst loud cries for
a division.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
ForFbiolrl amendmenttwhaeseue
ntly
the motion
lost 112
Majority ll5
The —0 "
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.
1 was agreed to wit ent into committee on this bill. Clause
without any discussion.
On clause 2 being
put,

- Mr. S. ESTCOURT objected to it, and a division with-
out any debate took place. •
On the division the numbers were—
For the clause 127
Against it....
Majority for the clause --
The preamble having been agreed to, the house resumed,
and the bill was reported without amendments.