The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-10 00:00:00

them. The Noble and Learned Lord had objected to the
present Bill on two grounds—first, on principle; and,
secondly, on authority. He (Lord Plunkett) would first
address himself to the authorities quoted by the Noble and
Learned Lord. He bad founded his argument on Mr.
Justice Blackstone and Lord Hale. The Noble and
Learned Lord would excuse him (Lord Plunkett) if he
said that he had not treated this part of his case with his
usual fairness, or with the candour with which he bad
treated the rest of the case. The objections of both
Blackstone and Hale were rot applicable to local jurisdic-
tions as established by this Bill, for they spoke of local
jurisdictions as contrasted with the legal jurisdiction of
the Courts of Westminster—and they gave the jurisdiction
of the Courts of Westminster the preference to that of
local courts. But neither Blackstone nor Lord Hale was
opposed to local jurisdictions in small debts. The main
objection brought by Blackstone to such a system, was
that he did not approve of the permanent local residence
of the Judges—(Hear, hear)—and he (Lord Plunkett)
conceived that some improvement might be made in
the present measure in that respect.—(Hear, Lear.)
He was anxious to support this Bill, not from any
personal object of his own, but merely from a sense of duty.
He considered it as highly advantageous to that class which
ought to be peculiarly the object of their Lordships' pro-
tection.—(Hear.) It was intended that the effect of this
system should be tried is two or three places at first. He
(Lord P.) could conceive that it might be advantageous
that the Judges to be appointed to the Courts should not
be stationary in the same place, but should occasionally
change from one Court to another. That, however, was
no objection to the Bill ; it was merely a matter of detail.
He would apply the principle of this Bill to the present
system in Ireland, and he begged the Noble and Learned
Lord's attention to it. The object of the Bill was not
merely to afford the poor man cheap relief, but to take
away the jurisdiction of the Courts of Westminster in cer-
tain cases, and establish a jurisdiction free from the delays
and expense to which litigants were at present exposed ;
so that the plan embraced not only cheap but expeditious
justice. Now what was the case in Ireland 2 The esta-
blishment of local jurisdictions in that country was much
older than seemed to be supposed by some of their Lord.
ships. The first Bill which introduced local jurisdictions
into Ireland, was the Qd George 1., which passed in the
year 1717. By that Bill the jurisdiction was taken from
the Superior Courts and given to the Courts of Assize ;
and the Courts of Assize were not bound by any of the
forms followed in the Superior Courts. It continued in
force, with very trifling variation, from the time it passed
till the year 1796. In 1796 a change took place. It
was stated in the preamble of the Bill of that year, that
the jurisdiction of the Courts of Assize had been
found burdensome, and that it was, therefore, to be
taken from the Judges of the Court of Assize
and given to the assistant barristers. But from 1796 till
the year of the Reform Bill, no change had been made
in the jurisdiction of the assistant barristers ; nor had
there been a single complaint made on account of their
being locally settled in the same place. At the time of
the passing of the Reform Bill, however, it was said,
that from the political excitement then existing, it might
be desirable that the assistant barristers should be changed,
and on that occasion a change took place. But that
change had been made not on account of the failure of
local jurisdictions, as stated by the Noble and Learned
Lord, but on account of political excitement in the
country. So far from the system failing i❑ Ireland, it
had succeeded as far as experience in that country could
go to establish a principle. The Noble and Learned Lord
objected to the Bill, because it did not do justice to the
poor man, and tended to degrade the character of the
Bar. He (Lord Plunkett), could not think that the
character of the Bar would be degraded by the quantity
of business withdrao n, and he thought the Noble and
Learned Lord's fears unfounded. In his (Lord Plunkett's)
opinion, the Noble and Learned Lord appeared to labour
under two errors. lie underrated the mischief of the
present system, and he overrated the danger and extent of
the plan by which it was proposed that those remedies
should be got rid of. Had the Noble and Learned Lord
read the Report of the Learned Commissioners on the
state of the Common Law upon this head ? They stated,
" The mischief arising from delay is particul irly felt in
the great commercial districts at a distance from the
metropolis. Where a cause of action arises previously
to the Summer Assizes, but not at such an interval as_to
admit of the cause being tried at those Assizes, a defendant
is often able, at a small expense, to set his creditors at
defiance for nine or ten months; the plaintiff cannot go
to trial till the next Spring Assizes, nor obtain execution
in the ordinary course before the following April. In
other cases, the delay may amount to nine, eight, or seven
months; and it may be stated, that on the average, judg-
ment cannot be obtained, through the medium of a trial
at the Assizes in less than six months." He (Lord P.)
would say that this was an unreasonable delay.—(Hear.)
The Noble and Learned Lord had s iid that this was not
the poor man's Bill. He (Lord Pluukett) said it was
decidedly for the benefit of the poor man. By it, the
poor man, who was a creditor, would not only be enabled
to get his debt readily, and at little cost, but (as perhaps
some of their Lordships were not aware) the poor man,
who was a debtor, while his property was made available
to the payment of his debts, his person could only be
touched in the event of his proving contumacious. The
report of the Commissioners showed the immense expense
to which the poor man was exposed to obtain payment
of his debt. They stated, " The average expense incurred
by a plaintiff in prosecuting a suit to judgment and ex-
ecutio❑ cannot be estimated at less than 30/. ; that of the
defendant at not less tha❑ 20/., independently of the costs
of conveying and maintaining witnesses, which in a country
cause constitute, with the expense of passing the record and
of entering the cause for trial, the most considerable part of
the costs. These are the more serious where the place where
the assizes are held is situated at a considerable distance
from the populous parts of the county. When a witness
from Manchester or Liverpool is taken to the assizes at
Lancaster, the costs of conveyance and maintenance do

not average less than from 71. to 81. ; it therefore fre
quently happens that the costs of a plaintiff, when three

or four witnesses are necessary to make out his case,
amount to at least 50/. or 601., but often, we believe, to
a much larger sum." They went on to say--" The corn-
hined effects of delay and expense are necessarily very
injurious to the interests of the creditor who sues for a
debt to the amount of 201. or 30/., or even to a much
larger amount. If he sue in the county court, the de-
fendant may remove the cause as of course, without entix-
:__ • .

ing into a recognizance, into a superior court, where the
plaintiff has to encounter as great an expense and greater
delay than if he had suet: at first in the higher court. If
he sue in the higher court, he cannot proceed to try the
cause at the assizes without incurring the risk of extra
costs to the amount of from 101. to 201. ; to these he is
liable, even though he should succeed not only in obtain-
ing a verdict, but in levying execution. But the defen-
dant may, pending a litigatio❑ cf several months, have
become bankrupt, insolvent, or have removed himself
and his property beyond the reach of legal process ;
other more pressing creditors, by successive arrests,
may have swept away the whole of the property. In
any of these cases, the creditor would not only lose his
debt, but a much larger sum in costs. The very proba-
bility that a creditor will be debarred by the apprehension
of trouble aad expense from prosecuting an acticn at law,
affords an additional inducement to a fraudulent debtor to

set his creditor at defiance; and thus, whilst the law
offers to the creditor a mode of remedy which is often
only delusive, it, in effect, encourages the debtor to make
a vexatious and fraudulent resistance." And they said—
" We think it probable that nearly one half of the causes
tried at the assizes are for causes of action not exceeding
201. each, and that the expense of litigating them is equal
to at least four times the aggregate amount actually reco-
vered." And they concluded that part of the report by
saying—" Upo❑ the whole, it is our duty to represent to
your Alajes:y that the inadequacy of the present Courts,
in causes of action from 403. to at least 201. amounts al-

most to a denial of justice; and that we believe the coni-

. ...
plaints made by numbers whose evidence is stated in the
appendix to this report to be just, that creditors are, from
want of sufficient means to obtain redress, obliged to
abandon their just demands ; that debtors are, from the

saute cause, tempted to a dishonest resistance, and that
the result is great injury to public morals and to private
rights." Was it to be said, then, that this Bill was not
the poor man's friend ?—(Hear, hear.) They said in re-
ference to the amount to which the jurisdictions of the
Courts should be limited—" We have been induced by se-
veral considerations (some of which have been already no-
ticed) to fix upon the sum of 201. as the limit to the ju-
risdiction of the Local Courts. That sum, taking into
account the change in the value of money, is much less
than 40s. was, when it was made the limit to the juris-
diction of the County Cour, the Hundred Court, and
other inferior Courts in Engl siad.—(llear.) It is also
the amount which has been fixed by the superior Courts
as the limit below which a new trial will not usually be
granted, when the costs are to be paid by the applicant;
such cause of action being considered so trifling as not to
war:ant the increased expenditure consequent upon a new
trial. It is aloe the lowest sum for which a defendant can
now be arrested. We have before observed, that it was
the opinion of Lord Hale that the jurisdiction of the County
Court should be raised to 101. ; a sum which, at that time,
was equivalent to at least 201. of present money." But
they bun also the opinion of Lord Hale himself. He said
--" By the true and wise constitution of this kingdom,