settled without due deliberation. I hope the wrongdoer, to the extent of the whole that my noble and learned Friend (Lord of the expenses to which it has been put, Brougham) will be content with the assur- if that be possible, or, at least, to the exance that the Lord Chancellor has very re- tent of a large portion of those expenses. cently brought the matter under the atten- If, then, the fees, or, as my noble and tion of the Government, and although this learned Friend has called them, "the is not a time when the Government are taxes "levied in the County Courts were well able to make new charges upon the merely levied upon the losing parties to funds derived from public taxation, I can defray the charges to which they have put assure my noble and learned Friend that the country and the plaintiff, I should not the whole question he has brought under think there was anything incorrect in that notice will receive our most serious and mode of proceeding, either in theory or in attentive consideration. practice. But, unfortunately, these taxes LORD CAMPBELL: I am not prepared are levied in only too many cases upon the to go quite so far as my noble and learned plaintiff, the successful plaintiff-for the Friend (Lord Brougham) and to say that present arrangement is that the plaintiff no debtor in a court of justice should be should advance a per centage of something called upon to pay his portion of the cost like two shillings in the pound upon the to which the country is put in affording a sum he claims in order to put the case in means of recovery. I may condemn the train. It is true that the plaintiff is enprinciple of taxing judicial proceedings, titled to recover that advance from the but, at the same time, I do not see any-losing party on getting a judgment in his thing erroneous in the practice of making favour, but it is one thing to get a judg the wrong-doer pay at all events a small ment in his favour, and quite another thing sum towards maintaining the establish- to get the money in his pocket. The rements requisite for the due administration sult generally is, or, at all events, freof justice. Formerly, shameful sinecures existed in the courts, and all suitors were called upon to pay for the benefit of persons holding those sinecures. For a long period such offices prevented any reform in the law, but they have happily been got rid of, and I hope will never again be permitted to exist in any court. As regards the county courts, I certainly am of opinion that my noble and learned Friend has pointed out evils which ought to be remedied, one of which is that the plaintiff, under the present system, is obliged to pay an enormous sum in the shape of costs, whereas it often happens that, though the judgment of the court is in his favour, he never receives a single farthing of the sum for which he has sued; I cannot, however, see that it is any great hardship to call upon wrong-doers to pay their quota of the expenses of administering justice. With regard to the other point touched upon by my noble and learned Friend, if it really is the case that the Lords of the Treasury have power to raise or to lower the salaries of the County Court Judges as they think proper, I think such a principle is monstrous, and is one which cannot be endured. THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The theory of this subject is extremely clear. It is the duty of the State, no doubt, to provide for the administration of justice, but I consider it equally clear that the State is entitled to reimburse itself upon quently is, that the plaintiff, having advanced the money in order to put himself into Court, gets a judgment to enable him to recover that money, together with the original sum claimed by him from the defendant; but then this defendant turns out to be a man of straw, and so the plaintiff has to pay for the privilege of litigation. Now, my Lords, this is a state of things which calls for a remedy, and the subject was inquired into by the County Court Commissioners, who made a Report eight or ten weeks ago, one of their recommendations being, that in this matter there should be considerable alteration. That has been under the consideration of the Government, and I can assure my noble and learned Friend, that one main reason why nothing has been done or is intended to be done in the present Session, is that the whole question of County Courts, which has so often and so ably been brought before your Lordships by my noble and learned Friend, still remains under consideration. The Government feel that this is a matter to which they can no longer shut their eyes; and they know that, whatever may be the other calls upon their attention, and however great may be the other burdens upon the country occasioned by the present state of things, this whole question must be looked into at once, and the County Court suitors must be relieved from that which they consider to be a very serious grievance. With regard to the latter part of my noble and learned Friend's observations, as to the salary of the County Court Judges, it certainly is not right that the amount of a Judge's salary should fluctuate at the discretion of the Treasury. I would remind the House that, at one time, when there was a considerable outcry against the amount of the Judges' salaries, Lord Denman, upon his appointment as Lord Chief Justice, with that honourable feeling which always characterised him, in deference to the prevalent feeling that the Judges' salaries were too high, consented to take 8,000l. instead of 10,000l. a year. The salary, however, remained upon that footing simply upon Lord Denman's agreement, and he had a right to call for the other 2,000l. whenever he liked. That was thought a very unconstitutional thing at the time, and a Bill was afterwards introduced into Parliament, with the full consent of his Lordship, to remove from this proceeding its unconstitutional character, and to fix the salary of the Lord Chief Justice at 8,000l. a year for the time past as well as for the time to come. Now, I think the present position of the County Court Judges' salaries is even more objectionable than that state of things, for it is certainly not right-I may say it is not to be endured that the Treasury should have the power to say to one Judge, "You shall have 1,500l. a year," and to another, "you shall have but 1,2001.," there being no distinction made by which to point out who should be entitled to the higher salary. The Judge who presides over a Court in which only 150 cases are tried within a certain time, should not be told that he must be paid less than a Judge who tries 200 cases, because one Judge, however few may be the cases he tries, has spent as much time as any other in qualifying himself for the situation that he holds; and, as each Judge gives his whole time to the discharge of his duties, I think the salaries ought to be the same. It would be very improper to say that a man whose qualifications, whose knowledge, industry, and unsullied character bear comparison with those of any other in the same position;-that a man who has abandoned his profession, given up everything on receiving this appointment, and who devotes the whole of his time to the discharge of his duties, shall receive a smaller salary because in his district there happens to be less litigation than in another. Certainly that is a very inadequate mode of VOL. CXXXVIII. (THIRD SERIES.] estimating the value of a Judge's services. Even by the present mode of calculation, under the present erroneous arrangement, an erroneous result is arrived at, because I do not think it is always the Judge who does the most work who now receives the highest salary. LORD BROUGHAM: It will be unnecessary for me to trouble your Lordships with more than one or two words by way of reply to what has fallen from my noble and learned Friend. But I must protest against the doctrine that wrong-doers who have the misfortune to be called into Court ought to be made to pay the expense of administering justice. As well call upon those who have the misfortune to reside on an exposed part of the coast to defray the whole charge of the national defences. LORD CAMPBELL: Such persons are not "wrong-c -doers." LORD BROUGHAM: No, but they are unfortunates; and you single out those who have the misfortune to be defeated suitors, and make them pay a penalty, because you say they are in the wrong. without regarding the circumstances of each case. LORD DENMAN stated, that as his name had been mentioned, he wished to explain the circumstances under which his lamented father's salary was reduced, for it had appeared to him hard that the salary which had been confirmed by Act of Parliament only in the July before the November in which the appointment was made should be taken away by a "side wind." The fact was, that when the salaries of the Judges were settled in the House of Commons, Mr. Denman had voted that the salary should amount only to a sum beyond its then fixed rate equivalent to the loss of saleable offices to which the Lord Chief Justice was entitled, but no such office was vacant during the period in which Lord Denman held his office, and he never regretted the reduction, and was glad to avoid discussion of the subject amongst those with respect to whose rights he would have to adjudicate. His opinion always led him to allow the payment of "law taxes by those who set the law in motion;" and when causes below 50l. are tried in the Superior Courts, it shows that the suitors prefer those courts to the County Courts. Moreover, if you crowd those courts with actions for large sums, the delay that will arise in petty actions will greatly increase their expense, 3 Z and the payment is only like the prepayment of the postage. The surplus above 1,2001. a year should depend on some fixed principle, to be ascertained by the County Court Judge, as easily as the fees in the office of county magistrates. House adjourned till To-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, June 18, 1855. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1° Union Charges Act Continuance; Rating of Mines (No. 2); Youthful Offenders (No. 2); Christ Church (Todmorden) Marriages Validity. 2° Court of Exchequer (Ireland). 3° Consolidated Fund (£10,000,000). TORQUAY DISTRICT CHURCHES BILL. Order for Third Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed-"That the Bill be now read the third time." MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE strongly objected to that clause in the measure, under which the expenses incurred in its passing through Parliament could be defrayed out of the proceeds of the pew rents which might be received from any persons what ever during a period of thirty years. Such a provision would be a manifest violation of ecclesiastical law, and might be so used as to leave no seats for the poor in their own parish church. He also objected to that portion of the preamble of the Bill in which it was declared that its object could not be gained without the special intervention of Parliament. In his opinion all that was valuable in the measure could be attained by means of existing statutes, and that statement of the preamble was, therefore, he considered, inaccurate. Under those circumstances he should move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." MR. MILES said, that this was a peculiar case, and stood upon its own merits. With respect to mortgaging the pew rents to persons from whom money might be borrowed, they had a direct precedent in the Act of Parliament called the Pimlico Act. Under the present Bill free seats were accorded to every inhabitant of the parish; and when the House considered the total want of church accommodation in Torquay, they could not fail to see that this was a Bill of necessity. The measure came down under very different auspices from the Committee to what it went up. They had now not only obtained the consent of the patrons-the Dean and Chapter of Exeter-but they had likewise obtained 1,000l. to be set apart immediately as a sum of money, the interest of which was to be given to the clergyman. MR. LASLETT hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn. LORD SEYMOUR said, he should support the Bill, which was one much desired in the district to which it referred. An Amendment which he had suggested in the 23rd clause had been acceded to. MR. HADFIELD said, he would not oppose the third reading, but he wished for some explanation with regard to the 32nd clause. Under that clause it appeared that not only all the Church Building Acts in existence were to be extended to this Act, but also all the Church Building Acts which might hereafter come in force. It was admitted that no person could understand those Acts, and therefore their extension to the present Bill would only make "confusion worse confounded." He certainly trusted that it was not intended by the present Act in any way whatever to throw an obligation upon the Church Building Acts in existence which should prevent their expiring in July, 1856. MR. BLACKBURN said, that the clause in question was put in by the opponents of the Bill, and was accepted by the promoters. MR. PALK said, that the population of Torquay had very much increased during the last few years, and the church accommodation had not kept pace with it. It was by the advice of the Bishop of Exeter that the promoters had applied to Parliament for the powers sought by the Bill, including the power which the hon. and learned Member thought so objectionable. MR. GRANVILLE VERNON hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn. SIR JOHN SHELLEY bore testimony to the necessity for further church accommodation at Torquay, and supported the Bill. MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE said, he would respond to the appeal which had been made to him, and withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. prisoners under a flag of truce, inquired of the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could state to the House the facts of the case, or lay upon the table any despatches received upon the subject? SIR CHARLES WOOD: I am exceedingly sorry to say that the statement to Report brought up, and read; to lie on which my hon. and gallant Friend alludes the table, and to be printed. IRISH CHURCH-QUESTION. MR. SWIFT asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was true that application had been made by the English Government to the Emperor of the French to secure his interference with the Holy See in regard to the appointment of a coadjutor bishop for the Catholic diocess of Elphin, such interference being supposed to be in favour of the Rev. Mr. Kilroe, Secretary of the present Bishop of Elphin, and a known political partisan of the Irish Attorney General?-2. Whether any such interference in respect to the appointment of a coadjutor bishop, if not made formally by the English Prime Minister to Count Walewski, had been made less officially through some subordinate Members or agent of the English or French Governments; or whether there had been any interference substantially of this nature or to this effect in any other form, or through any other channel?-3. Whether the Government had any objection to lay upon the table of the House the correspondence which is known to have taken place on occasion of the vacancy of the Catholic diocess of Armagh in 1850, and the letters, whether emanating from Members of Lord John Russell's Cabinet, or from subordinate Members of the same Administration, by which an attempt was made to secure in Rome the appointment to the vacant see of a nominee of the English Government? VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No correspondence of the kind to which the hon. Member refers has taken place, and, in regard to any former correspondence on the subject, I have no knowledge whatever of it. OUTRAGE ON A FLAG OF TRUCE AT HANGO-QUESTION. CAPTAIN DUNCOMBE, referring to a statement in The Times of Saturday last with respect to a murderous outrage said to have been committed on one of the boats' crew of Her Majesty's ship Cossack, at Hango, while engaged in landing Russian is only too true, I will state to the House what I believe did actually occur; and, in order that the fullest information may be laid before the public with reference to the subject, I will lay upon the table the despatches received this morning from Admiral Dundas, containing the full particulars of the transaction in question. It appears that some short time ago Her Majesty's ship Cossack took and destroyed some coasting vessels off Hango, and three persons were carried off as prisoners— namely, the captain of one of the vessels, his son, and another Finnish sailor. Admiral Dundas, anxious not to visit with any unnecessary severity the trade of the country, so long as the communications and supplies between the Gulf of Finland and St. Petersburg were interrupted, directed that the Cossack should put back to Hango and restore to liberty the persons so captured, and also four other prisoners, who had requested that they might be put ashore at the same place. The Cossack accordingly returned to Hango for that purpose, and, anchoring a short distance from the place, sent the cutter in under the command of Lieutenant Geneste with the seven Russian prisoners and an ordinary boat's crew. A flag of truce was displayed at least half an hour before they reached the jetty. Nobody, however, was seen but a single man, who ran away. The officers and prisoners landed, and put upon the jetty the baggage of the prisoners, the men remaining in the boat; when a body of Russian soldiers, thought to be 300 or 400 strong, came down to the jetty; upon which the British officer waved the flag of truce, and explained why they had come on shore; the Finnish captain also took the flag of truce from the lieutenant, and tried to explain both in English and Finnish the purpose for which the boat had come on shore. The officer in command of the Russians not only understood English, but spoke it, stating that they did not care for the flag of truce, they would show how the Russians could fight; whereupon some hundred Russian soldiers immediately fired on the officer and the Finnish prisoners on the jetty, killing them all, and then MR. HEADLAM inquired whether any British officer had availed himself of the protection of a flag of truce for the purpose of taking soundings, at Kertch or elsewhere? 2152 2151 Business of the House- COMMONS} Morning Sittings. fired into the boat until every man fell. | House are already overworked — their They then rushed into the boat, threw some labours cannot be concluded within even bodies overboard, dragged one wounded that period of time, as, after the House man out, and bayoneted him on the jetty, rises, they have duties to perform of the and retired, leaving five bodies for dead in most urgent nature, which cannot be omitthe boat. The boat not returning, later ted. And we must also remember that in the day the gig was sent, but could only Mr. Speaker has not only to sit twelve ascertain from a distance that the cutter hours a day in presiding over our proceedwas moored by the side of the jetty, with ings, but he has likewise other important some dead bodies in it. In the night one duties to this House to discharge, and man-a black man-who was wounded by those who are connected with the Admitwo balls, one in the arm and the other in nistration of the House are in the same the shoulder, contrived to cut the fasten- situation. Now, it is easy for us to agree ings of the cutter and scull her from the to a morning sitting which very often surjetty; and, in the meantime, the Cossack, mounts a difficulty that would otherwise which was standing in, in order to ascer-present itself in the conduct of our busitain what had become of the crew of the ness; but what I wish to impress on the boat, and to claim the men, supposing noble Lord is, that our resorting to this them to have been taken prisoners, picked practice with facility tends to put a presup the single survivor upon whose state- sure on individuals which it will be really ment the truth of the circumstances which impossible for them to sustain. In my I have detailed to the House must neces- opinion, morning sittings, in connection sarily rest, he being the only one of the with the transaction, ought to be quite the boat's crew left to relate it. exception, and not be allowed to become a permanent feature of our procedure; and I make this observation not with reference to the convenience of Members of this House, except the right hon. Gentleman who occupies the Chair, but to the interest of those whom we are bound to consider— namely, those who have to fulfil most important duties, and duties which necessarily require accuracy and precision in their performance. To illustrate the working of the system, I may take the very case which has just now arisen. The first business set down for the morning sitting tomorrow is the Irish Tenant Compensation Bill; but upon that I find an hon. Gentleman has given notice of an Amendment which opens up the discussion of the principle of that measure; therefore, if we enter into that subject, Mr. Speaker will have to be in the Chair; and we may easily consume four hours in such a discussion. Now I think the noble Lord ought as much as possible to discourage the recurrence of these morning sittings; but, if he still perseveres in them, he should at least lay down some general principle to regulate their adoption. For example, if they are to take place, it is desirable that when they do so they should be limited to the consideration of the details of measures in Committee or in progress, which may, under those circumstances, be thus dealt with with advantage; but, certainly, morning sittings ought to be avoided as much as possible when the principles of Bills are to be discussed with SIR CHARLES WOOD: So far as any report has been received at the Admiralty, I believe any such statement to be utterly untrue. The Despatches from Admiral Dundas on the subject were then laid on the table. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MORNING SITTINGS. MR. DISRAELI: I see, Sir, that tomorrow there is to be a morning sitting, and I take this opportunity to express a hope that the noble Lord at the head of the Government has considered the question of such sittings since I made an observation on the subject a few days ago. I have not any intention now to dwell on the inconvenience which it will cause to Members of this House if we adopt the system of morning sittings; but I wish the noble Lord would consider the effect which the habitual holding of these sittings may have upon the labours of the right hon. Gentleman who sits in the chair, and upon the staff charged with the transaction of the business of this House. The fact is that if we, as a matter of course, adopt these morning sittings, the Speaker will very often have to sit in that Chair, with a slight interval, for more than twelve hours continuously. Then, the staff of this |