The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-21 00:00:00

NAVY.
Mr. HUME moved for a return, in colurans, of the
name of each of her Majesty's ships and vessels of war,
distinguishing those in commission and in ordinary, on
the Ist day of January, 1849; stating where and when
built, and by whom built; the tonnage, breadth, Extreme
length of the keel and gun deck for tonnage, the number
and size of guns; distinguishing those ships fit for ser-
vice, and the estimated time to be so fit, the expense of
each ship, stating the charge of materials and of labour
for the hull and equipment, and the total expense of each,
and the cost per ton, distinguishing separately steam-
vessels, and the power of their engines ;
also, the aggregate number of tons and the aggregate
cost of the whole ; also, the amount required to be voted
tor each ship or vessel in the year 1849-50 (page 49 of
Report of 1848). Returns of the number of ships in
ordinary, in classes, in each year since 1828, stating the
number of tons of each class. Of the number of ships
in commission, in classes, in each year since 1828, stating
the number of toss of each class (in continuation of
Return, page 59, of Report of 1848). Account, in ab-
stract, of the total amount expended on each of her
Majesty's ships and vessels in building and repairing,
at home and abroad, for establishment of dockyards,
and for the repair and improvement of dockyards, dis-
tinguishing at home and abroad, in each year since 1828,
stating the aggregate of each year.—Agreed to.
POOR-RATE (IRELAND).
Mr. SCULLY moved for a return from each union in
Ireland, of the date and amount of the last rate struck
previous to the let day of March, 1849, stating for how
long a period, in each electoral division, the rate is cal-
culated to last, and where the Commissioners have re-
commended the striking of a less rate than that calcu-
lated by the guardians as necessary --Agreed to.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
Mr. WYLD moved for a return, by Metropolitan
Commissioners in Lunacy, of admissions into all lunatic
asylums in England and Wales, between the Ist day of
January, 1846, and the 31st day of December, 1848;
showing the number of private and pauper patients ad-
mitted in each year, the number of each class discharged
cured, not cured, and died.—Agreed to.
FINANCIAL REFORM.
Mr. HUME moved for an account showing the total
charge of military and naval half-pay and pensions, and
civil superannuation and compensation allowances in the
year 1828, and each of the subsequent years to 1848 in-
clusive, compared with the whole expenditure (inclusive
of the charge f(r debt) for the effective establishments
and other national expenses in the same years. (In
continuation of Appendix I. to the Third RE,port of the
Finance Committee of 1828.)—Agreed to.
SMALL DEBTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. FAGAN, in moving the second reading of
the Bill for facilitating the recovery of small debts in
Ireland, said he would only occupy the attention of the
House for a short time while he stated the reasons
which had induced him to introduce this measure. It
was the boast of English Members who were well dis-
posed: towards Ireland, that they were anxious, in all
cases where it was practical, and where they believed
it would be advantageous to Ireland, to assimilate the
laws of that country to those of England. The 129th
section of the County Courts Act enacted that all per-
sons bringing actions into superior courts for debts
below 201., should do so at their own peril with regard
to the costs which might be incurred. If they succeeded,
they obtained no costs; and if they were defeated they
were obliged to pay the costs as between client and at-
torney, unless the judge should certify that the actions
were fit ones to be brought before the superior courts.
That clause was enacted in 1846, and it had given
general satisfaction in England As a specimen of the
amount of satisfaction which it had given, he referred to
a petition, presented a few days ago, from the merchants,
traders, and others of Sudbury and its vicinity,
stating that not only small debts had been recovered
by it throughout the country, but that actions for very
large sums had been brought under its provisions at a
comparatively small expense, and that many actions for
large sums had been settled out of court. They also stated
that they were of opinion that the jurisdiction of the
county courts might be extended to actions under 501.,
and that such a provision would give still greater satis-
faction. He referred to an instance of the evil effects of
the present state of the law with regard to the recovery
of small debts in Ireland, where an industrious farmer,
in the county of Waterford, was served with a writ for
a debt of 41. Os. 9d., upon which the costs amounted to
31. 10s. That was a most mischievous state of the law,
and unquestionably called for some speedy redress.
He had embodied in this Act the provisions of the
County Courts Bill which had been applied with so
much success in this country. Indeed so much had he
sought to assimilate the Bill to the one he had learned,
that he was quite at a loss to understand what argument
could be brought forward to show that the enactmenis
to which he had referred should not be extended to Ire-
land. He was perfectly aware that professional men in
Ireland—and perhaps many in that House—might op-
pose the Bill, because it would lessen the expenditure of
money in their profession, but the great mass of the
community were most anxious to see this law carried into
effect. It was stated that the debtor ought to pay his debt
at once, and that if he did not do so that the
creditor was perfectly justified, and, int fact, entitled to
put him to any expense he might think proper. He,
however, utterly denied that argument. The next pro-
vhion of the Bill was to euable assistant barristers in

26%
102

Ireland to award costs to witnesses, as they had not that

power at present.

The Act for the abolition of impri-

sonment for small debts in Ireland gave them the power
to award costs to the amount of 5/. This Bill proposed
to endow them with a similar power. I❑ some parts of
Cork a person might be proceeded against for 40s. in a
court twenty miles distant, where he must take his wit-
nesses, and perhaps be obliged to stop some days in that
distant town; yet the assistant barrister had no power
to award costs. Now that was a crying grievance, and
the barristers agreed i❑ opinion that the Act of last
sion in respect of allowing costs should be extended to
cases of the nature proposerl to be dealt with in this
Bill. The next provision was to enable justices of the
peace at petty sessions to take under their jurisdiction
civil bill debts of the amount of 40s. They had now
the power of adjudicating as arbitrators with, respect
to claims on "mortality societies;" but he wished, under

this MI, to en-low them with the power of deciding debts
40s The Recorders c.f Ireland agreed in a thai, cases
of adjudication, as well as amions of replevin, should be
placed in their jurisdiction. The Bill proposed to give
that power. If th 2 G.,v,rntn,•nt, who, he understood, in-
tended to oppose the Bill, would consent to its second
reading, he should feel happy to consent to its amend-
ment in Committee, and to alter its title in accordance
with the views they might express. He begged to move
the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. NAPIER felt it his duty, notwithstanding the
strong grounds urged by the Hon. Member in support
of the Bill, to oppose its being read a second time.
on the ground that it would be utterly inoperative with
respect to Ireland. It was impossible to apply the pro-
visions of the County Courts Bill in operation here to
Ireland with the sxiAing machinery, In Ireland the
juritdietien with regard to the recovery of small debts
depended entirely upon the residence of the defendant,
to whom this Bill had especial reference. Under the
Civil Debts Act a creditor could be proceeded against in
the court of the county; and nothing was more con-
venient, more just, more cheap, or more summary, than
the mode of proceeding laid down by that Bill; but
would the Bill of the Hon. Gentleman work in that
spirit? It would not. Apply it to the case of a whole-
sele dealer in Dublin, who had creditors throughout the
different towns of Ireland. He would have, in order to
prove his case, to send his bookkeeper or collector
throughout that country at great expense and incon-
veeience. The 128th section of the English County
Courts Act empowered a creditor to bring his action in
a court wthin twenty miles of the residence of the de-
fendant; but then they had here the important advan-
tage of cheap and rapid railway conveyance for wit-
nesses, which did not exist in Ireland. Besides, the
courts csald summon witnesses from any part that
might be deemed necessary ; but in Ireland! witnesses
could Lot be summoned unless they resided in the county,
so they could not compel the attendance of any witness.
who did not reside in the county. He merely mentioned
that to show that taking one section of an enactment,
which might work exceedingly well in a particular part
of the kingdom, in connexion with its other clauses,
would be exceedingly unsuitable in another Act
having reference to another part of the country.,
In addition to that, there was no power to compel the at-
tendance of witnesses out of the county. Again, there
was no power given to either party to summon a jury,
though such a power was lodged in the court. H
thought the rights of debtors were not at all preju-
e
diced in the way .that had been suggested by the
Honourable Member for Cork. If the demand
was a small one, it was very unjust in the debtor to
put the creditor to the expense of an action.—(Hear,
hear.) But under the present Bill he might pay the
debt into an) court at any time, even up to the eve of
the trial, and unless the creditor would take that sum
out as a full discharge of his debt and costs, he
lost all his costs, and the debtor was in the
same position as if he had paid the money from the
first. If the debtor thought the proceeding in a supe-
rior court was hard, he (Mr. Napier) thought he should
come in the first instance and say so, rather than run
the chance of a verdict of 201. at the end of
the proceedings. He (Mr. Napier) said, that by the law
as it at present stood every fair case was justly met.
He was sure the Right Hon. Gentleman who brought up
the Bill was actuated by the
..teest motives; but he was
sure also, when he considered the difficulties of carrying
it into effect, he would review the provisions
of the proposed measure, if he did not
altogether withdraw it. The Bill, besides
the objections which he had stated, would con-
vert the petty sessions courts of Ireland into places re-
sembling criminal courts, where the most disgraceful
scenes would continually occur. For those reasons, and
finding that no further improvement could be made in the
present machinery in Ireland under the well-recognised
system of assistant barristers' jurisdiction, which worked
so well, that he thought it wee nut at all desirable that
any change should take piece he thought it his duty to
oppose the Bill.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE hoped, after what had fallen
from the lion. and Learned Member. opposite(Mr.Napier),
his Hon. Friend the Member for Cork would not press
his Bill.—(Hear.) Ile gave every credit to the Hon.
Member for his good intentions, but he thought he would
find his attempt to assimilate the law of England with
that of Ireland, which he was doing by the present Bill,
was not so very easy a matter. He (Sir W. Somerville)
himself had made some of those attempts, and he found
great legal obstructions, which he did not foresee, had
been thrown its his way. The Hon. Member for Cork
seemed to think that he was doing by this Bill
what was useful and beneficial. Now in the
Bill of last session, to which allusion had been
made, for the recovery of small debts under
101., which was only a partial attempt to assimilate the
law of England to that of Ireland—it his Hon. Friend
the Member for Cork, had known what a strong protest
the Government had received from the inhabitants, he
would have paused before introducing this Bill. He
(Sir W. Somerville) would just add that the Attorney-
General for Ireland entirely concurred with the views
expressed by the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Napier)
with respect to this Bill.
Sir DENHAM NORREYS sincerely trusted that the
Roth and Learned Gentleman would not object to the
Bill going into Committee. To many] of the objec-
tions he could not answer, but it struck him
that as the principle of the Bill was allowed to be
good, that the details of it might be so altered as to
render them entirely efficacious for the benefit of
the country. It was true that the enactment of
the Bill might be injurious to the several
members of the bar, and take that practice out of their
hands which had previously been confined to the sup rior courts.—(Cries of " Bear, hear," and " No, no.")
He found much in the principle which was in keeping
with common sense, and he believed that in some courts
much difficulty was created from the insufficient
means of the suitors. It appeared to him that a
reasonable case had been made out, and that inquiry at
any rate ought to be instituted. With respect to
the 40s. clause, that was a subject which required much
consideration. He would, therefore, desire that the
principle of the Bill, being affirmed, it should formally
go into Committee, and then be referred to a Select
Committee up stairs.—(gear, hear.) He thought that
this would be the best way of assimilating the practice
of the small debts courts in Ireland to the practice•at
present followed in this country. The principle of the
Bill was allowed to be good, and the details might mily
be arranged.
Mr. HUME said that he conceived that this Bill ought
certainly to go through its second reading, and if it were
necessary to alter its various clauses, why let it be re'
ferred to a Committee up stairs—the clauses might,
as some of them certainly appeared to be faulty; but the
principle of the Bill was allowed.to be good, and it had
never been the practice of that House to throw out a
measure which was intrinsically good simply because it
was introduced by a private Member, and some of its
details were defective. If there were no other reason
than this, there was at least sufficient cause to go through
the second reading, that it was a standing complaint
with Irishmen that the British Parliament did not legis-
late for Ireland in the same way in which they legislated
for England. It appeared that the Bill was quite in
ac-
cordance with the law of the country and with the
feelings also of a large portion of the Irish commu-
in
a prin-
ciple
leaaLordc
measure a
asked
him s
kft dre
small least
headnjt. fStre efi
Governmentfteen y crshada
extending the principleicwas of this Bill, o.Ltoorbolraedt
identicalto
withh
beg e oNr broughtteothchbeoil this,
Noble
recognised by the coun in
ty
ethe ui3r twc:.' whuyhniii hterheey dhwwiadalhd:n.
the
ee
principlexfend his
wasßill
good
to
idne
England,bts for 501.--
(Hear,
why/ --
(Hear, hear.)
not extend it to Dublin, especially as it was in accordance
with the feeling of the public in Ireland? A great party
was in favour of it.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE—A great party was also op-
posed
to it.

Mr. aumE—Nothing more likely. He could very
well conceive that there were great objections to the
Bill on many accounts. It was very likely to save a few
fees out of the pockets of the Learned Gentlemen Who
usually officiated in the higher courts of the Irish
capital.—(Laughter and cries of "No, no.") He trusted,
therefore, that as this was the only apparent objection
that the Bill should be read a second time, and it neces-
sary., be referred to a Select Committee up stairs.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL quite concurred in the view
which had just been stated by the Hon. Member for
Montrose.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL begged to differ from
the Hon. Member for Montrose in his estimate of the
likely effect of a Small Debts Bill. Instead of the
County Courts Bill having injuriously affected the
legal profession, it had worked just in the other
w4y. The Bill was in many respects defective, and
he submitted to the Hon. Gentleman the Member foa
Cork whether it would not be better that he sh°,„ll4l
withdraw the Bill altogether, in order that another I':
might he brought in, in accordance with the existing
machinery of the courts in Ireland?
Mr. SCULLY would join in the recommendation to
withdraw the Bill, provided the Government would un-
dertake to bring in a measure on the subject.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD supported the se-
cond reading of the Bill, because he believed its object
was most laudable. He thought, notwithstanding what
had been said by the Hon. Member, that the clauses of
the Bill were fully sufficient to support its details.
Mr. FAGAN said that if the Government would •
dertake to introduce a Bill upon the subject, he would ' •
withdraw the present measure; but if they would not
he would press the second reading to a division.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE would undertake to give the
matter his best consideration, with a sincere and anxious
desire to do all he could tor the benefit of Ireland, but be
would not undertake to bring in a measure on tile
subject.
Mr. BOUVERIE thought that, such being the opinion
of the Right Honourable Gentleman, he ought to
con'
sent to the second reading of the Bill—(Hear, hear)--
and fix a late day for its going into Committee.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the second reading 29
Against it
of
Majority against.ii
The Bill was aer ••• •.•

!cording!), lust.
(LEFT SITTING.)

BIRTHS.
On the 15th inst., at Framfield-house, near Inverness, 14•13''
the lady of G. W. Denys, Esq , of a son. -
On the 16th inst., at Upper Harley-street, Lady Laura
Palmer, of a daughter.
___......

DIED.
On the 16th inst., John Orth Waldener, Esq., of Stuaß.'
.
street, Pall-mall East, aged 75.
At Uxbridge, on the 113th inst., aged 43, Hanr3r ?lull;
son of the late W. Hull, of that place.

London: Printed and Poltlishf'd he MURDO YOU la, 01.
No. 112, Strand, PrittLer, at TI; Sun Office, No:
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in tha t.wunty'ol
Middlesex, Wednesday, March 21, 1849.